I've read that the Alcubierre Drive depends on the existence of negative mass, but I've seen that physicists say it could violate the conservation of energy. Their reasoning is that basically a negative mass and positive mass would interact in a perpetual motion sort of way that eternally...
I was browsing through old threads and a user named universal_101 kept asking about why we can use muons as a direct measurement of time dilation but only an indirect measurement of length contraction. It was pointed out that the two go together and cannot be separated, but it got me thinking...
Thanks for the response Simon.
Anyway, the set up was, we rolled the ball down the ramp to give it some velocity, and then at the bottom it collided with a box, and the two slide together along a flat surface. What we were trying to measure was the coefficient of friction of the flat surface.I...
Just an update on what we did (and thanks again for the suggestions) since you all gave great suggestions:
(1) Instead of measuring g, we decided to measure the coefficient of friction at the end of the ramp, using a completely inelastic collision at the end of the ramp (using a tennis ball...
That makes a lot of sense. In fact that pretty much seems to be a perfect explanation.
But it makes me wonder about the stepping through water example brought up by Hertz. Are you then sort of breaking some sort of bond when you step through water? (the one analogous to tension?)In any case...
Obviously it makes sense when considering the force of weight and the fact that the object is not moving up or down, but what is it composed of?
What I mean is, the ground you are standing on is made of molecules bonded through the electromagnetic force, right? But those bonds are parallel to...
Thanks for the input. How about this: We are trying to determine if the rate of acceleration of an object falling down an incline near the surface of the Earth (around 1000 feet above see level) depends upon the mass of the falling object in question (I believe that is a clearer way of putting...
Homework Statement
I am designing an experiment where I will measure a value proportional to g, and determining if g then depends on the mass of the object falling. The particular problem explored is my choice, but I really like this one.
I plan on using a long ramp and either some...
This was ultimately my reason for choosing algebra: my choice was either spend almost all the second semester discussing Maxwell's equations, or spend a lot of time on quantum mechanics. As much as I love E&M for all it's worth, somehow QM seems a lot more interesting to me. ;)
But my text specifically says that the above argument is insufficient to show reflexivity (namely, Symmetry implies xRy and yRx, then transitivity implies xRx, hence reflexivity). Or is that not reflexivity? What more is required to show it?
No wait. I think I might be getting it. Any...
*I meant to put NOT reflexive there, but I realized that that relation would make it not necessarily be transitive. Just because a≠b and b≠c, it does not follow that a≠c.
But what about my new condition, if you don't mind?
O = {(x,y)∈ Z2: xy > |x + y| and x ≠ y}
(I'm trying to make a...
Wait. No no no no no. Disregard my answer/question to you at the end of that.
First, if the relation is x ≠ y, then I won't necessarily have a transitive relation, because just because a ≠ b and b ≠ c, it does not follow that a ≠ c (choose a = 1, b = 2, and c = 3, for example).
Second, x...
Okay, but wouldn't that mean that every relation that is symmetric and transitive is also reflexive? Because I know that is actually false.
EDIT:
I'm thinking here that a, b, and c have to be distinct. Is that not the case?
It has to be in Z x Z. Other than that, no.
I understand that...