Recent content by robert135

This is the simple concept to understand really... since you know you do not move, something is keeping you stationary. What is bizarre is when you are NOT on earth, or in a freefall scenario like the vomet comet airplane. If you toss that same pound ball now... you move backward at a slower...

The normal force for the block is different then the normal force for you. Lets say your weight is 100 pounds, and you push on a 1 pound block with 2 pounds of force. 2 pounds of force is exerted on you as well, but since you are 100 pounds and friction for a heavier object is much...

What this guy said. In logic, there are direct proofs (if a goes to b and b goes to c then a goes to c), proofs by contradiction (you assume the opposite of what you want to prove, then work to find the contradiction in that), and proofs by induction (Tricky to explain in a single...

Actually what I realized is that you speak one language. To describe a concept, you have to use that one language or everything gets confusing. I have seen this countless times when 2 computer guys describe the same concept but cannot come to agreements. I am having trouble understanding...

Of course you have seen the shape of a force. The wall does not deform, it heats up... and the shape of the heating up would be related to your force but to the naked eye... you would see nothing... You want to see a shape... push on the side of your car door... it deforms as a response to...

Wow, I am not going to answer your question about time at this time. After seeing how what I thought a simple concept can be made incredibly difficult without super detailed explanations and adherence to terminology, I will wait until I have a much clearer picture before I step into the land of...

My background is in CS, not physics, but I dabble a bit. I am hoping to confirm a few things I have read and think that I understand. I am hoping these are easy questions. I will try to make them yes or no questions. 1) If one travels close to the speed of light, then time slows down...

How do you describe a sphere in 2 numbers? Obviously I am not explaining this well... the first number is the radius... along the xy plane... the other is the radius along the xz plane. whala... you have all you need to create a sphere. If the sphere was solid, it would be a volumetric object...

Actually your question about time gave me an insight that is pretty amazing actually. I am in the process of doing a power point presentation and a you tube video of that insight. As soon as I am finished (hopefully tonight) I will link them here. I am not side stepping it at all really, but...

The visualization of this problem is this. An expanding hollow sphere (a 2 dimensional object) with some mass distributed over the area of the surface of the sphere... intersecting with a line on that sphere... so the distribution of the mass would be over that line. Which if you visualize it...

I think you again are misunderstanding the concept. Physics is not only about understanding the value of some answer... that is a desireable aim. But to do so, you have to understand what is going on. To quote John Von Neumann... "There's no sense in being precise when you don't even...

I do not have the background you do to highlight the math... but I came to this exact same conclusion today... independently and was going to ask for help with it, but your abstract seems to describe what I was about to say perfectly. Basically what I believe and what seems to have been...

I don't have this worked completely out, but here is an idea... Since we know what it is supposed to look like already from what I have described above. a planar surface over a circle or sphere. couldn't you do this instead... kg * m^2 * s^-2 using the identity r^2s = x^2s + y^2s...

I am in a bar ATM and on an I phone I will think of how to make time's relationship clearer when I get home. Btw I misspoke earlier when I said Vanesh was "utterly wrong" that was me getting caught up in the discussion. His arguments are valid and appreciated.

Vanesch, I understand your point. But there is a huge amount of physical evidence that can prove you utterly wrong when you think kinetic energy is not a parabolic trough through space. While it is foreign to think of it that way I grant, that is exactly what happens when you fire anything...