Recent content by ergonomics

dealing with non-inertial rotating reference frames, real forces such as the centripetal force need to be taken into account,or only the forces that can be really observed within the frame? because from the perspective of the rotating frame, objects should be at rest. it only appears logical...

i am not sure if my question fits in this place. if i have certain amounts of water and oil, 3kg and 4kg. i mix them together, and i want to find the specific heat capacity of the mixture, according to my book the specific heat capacity of such a mixture is the sum of the two specific heat...

yes i think i understand where i got it wrong now. i went through my physics book, and if i understand it right, the lower object is dragging the upper object along with it due to electromagnetism, and reasons which supposedly will be explained later referring to other units of the course...

i tried conducting a little experiment testing this phenomenas. i took a paper clip and placed it on my notebook, and as i pushed the notebook to the right, from my frame of reference, which is the chair or the floor, the paper clip seemed to move backwards am i getting something wrong here...

yes but what happens if you push it a little bit stronger? intuitively it seems very right to me, that if you put an object on another object and you push the one on the bottom to the right, the upper object seems to be pushed to the left, and then the friction gets in motion, and attempts...

i have a question regarding friction and fictitious forces. if two crates are lying on a flat surface, while the smaller one is on top of the bigger one, and a force of 10N is acted upon the bigger one will the smaller one be pushed backwards because of fictitous forces? and because...

Thank you.

if a function f is not integrable does it imply, that there exists such an epsilon that whichever partition P i choose it will follow this condition Uf,p-Lf,p>=Epsilon?

yes akg unfortunately that is what i was thinking, that if the two were isomorphic to each other, then the map would necessairly be an isormophism. just a few minutes before hurkyl put his post up, i was about to say that i went over the theorems in my book again, and that my line of thought...

According to my book two vector spaces of the same dimension are isomorphic to each other. and the proof also apparently seems to be pretty simple. If B is a basis for A, then we can easily show that ImD=A and that T is injective and if T is injective then KerD={0}

If i am given a linear transformation D:A->A,that is followed by A=ImD(+)kerD and i am asked to prove that kerD^2=kerD and imD=imD^2. instead of trying to work it out the hard way by showing that every element of KerD is an element of kerD^2 , both directions. would it not be easier to...

You are right we are talking about speeds which barely approach any noticeable speed But still is a very interesting thing that weight is gained by subatomic movements as well

Thank my you friend I could prove it mathematically as well but it really puzzled me if the movement of the subatomic particles would add to the net mass If you are supporting this claim as well then i guess i got another witness

There is something that has been puzzling me for a while, For its irrational reason. Would a hot fork weigh more than it would cold? I know that when particles move fast they accumlate mass. But there is something that i am not sure about, if they can add to the forks net mass