Recent content by Fredster1765

I think it's just a matter of perspective. When some particle is accelerated at the LHC, the scientists who observe the particle will see time "slowing down" for that particle, whereas the particle (if it had a brain) would see time "contracting" for those scientists.

Thanks for your replies. I'd say all my questions have been answered, even the ones I was pondering and hadn't posed yet!

Ah ok, I'll go read about inertia on wiki. Thanks for your time!

About the first quote - I'm probably conceptualizing inertia in an entirely illogical way, but I see it as an object having some quantifiable measure of inertia, or a kind of "negative energy", so the object won't move until it's been influenced by an amount of energy equal to that deficit...

So until an amount of energy equal to the object's inertia has influenced that object, it's initial position will be maintained? For example, if the table on which the bottle is positioned in the train were entirely frictionless, the bottle's position would be completely fixed in space and the...

This question might seem strange or dumb.. At least it does in my mind, however I phrase it.. Anyway, I'm wondering about the reasons for acceleration being felt and constant velocity not being felt by a human body or other object. If you're sitting in a train or a car and it accelerates...

I'm probably not qualified to answer your question technically (I don't study physics), but I would think that the geometric size of the object is irrelevant to the curvature it causes. Using the rubber-membrane analogy, an inflated balloon would cause much less curvature than a small iron ball...

Of course, but my question was quite specific. If I want a more general sense of which force is greater given different velocities and distances from the gravitational center of an object, which I assume the math says something about (if not, then we're back to my lacking qualifications), I'd...

Yes, hence my question of which of the two influences would be more substantial. Although I see now that it's naive to ask that question and expect a concrete non-mathematical answer.. Guess I should've taken physics/math A levels instead! Oh well.

Perhaps I should have clarified that the answer I was looking for was more conceptual, like the two first responses :P I don't study physics (or math for that matter), so those calculations are entirely meaningless to me - I feel bad now, seeing as you went through all the trouble of laying it...

I've been wondering.. If a person (A) is, say, on top of Mt. Everest, he would be moving faster than a guy (B) at the foot of the mountain since A is further from the center of the earth, but he would also be experiencing a weaker gravitational force than B. So, for which of the invidividuals...

Ah I see! Thank you both, I believe that answers my questions, for the time being at least. I can tell these forums will be of great use to me in future!

Let me begin by saying I'm not a student of any kind of physics, I just have a general curiosity about the forces at work in the universe, so for most of the people reading this, my question will probably seem either stupid or strangely obvious! Anyway, my question is this: My understanding...

If 2. were correct I don't think atomic bombs would exist (at least not in the way they do in this universe!) since the energy as I understand it comes from the difference in mass of the nucleus and the constituents of the nucleus, so if they were proportional there wouldn't be any release of...