Recent content by SophiaSimon

I see, so we can't just assume the acceleration will be constant as it's stopping, because it depends on the stopping surface. But if we are given a stopping time, which is fairly small, would it not be a good approximation to assume this?

OK, I think I see your problem. You know the acceleration the object can withstand is 1500G. You also know the object will go from some initial velocity to zero in the time t=0.5ms. You can relate the acceleration of the object to the initial and final velocities and the stopping time of the...

No, I suppose a step up in a dimension isn't just larger. I mistakenly put myself in place of the 3D observer looking down on the 2D, but even then I guess 3D isn't just larger than 2D. I don't intuitively pick up on this. Do you mean that mathematically some 4D object may be easier to...

Imagine there is a thin disk of water. The area of this disk is A=4.5x10^{-2}m^2. A force is going to be exerted on it, so that it moves in a straight line through the water around it. Because a net force was exerted on the disk of water, it changed its momentum and gained a velocity of...

:) Just slow. First, how much distance does any cross-sectional area of water cover in 1s if it is traveling at 3.5\frac{m}{s}?

What is the context of the problem?

If you solve your above equation for velocity, then you get a function that doesn't change with time. How can you have an acceleration if your velocity is constant with respect to time?

Looks like this thread may help you out. https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/g-force-equivalencies-help-and-idiot-out.205824/

I can imagine the difference between 3D and 4D the same way that I can imagine the difference between 2D and 3D. I would think that 4D systems would just be those that are, to me, so incredibly large that there is a need for another dimension to measure them. I'm not sure if this is correct...

Yes, I should've said the mass will move with a constant velocity in the inertial frame, and a changing velocity in the non-inertial frame. OK, I seem to have a much better understanding of some of these concepts now. Thanks for you help.

OK, let me try to put these concepts in my own words to see if I understand them. I'll take the example of a mass on a string traveling around in a circle at constant velocity. In an inertial reference frame that is at rest with respect to the mass, there is a real net force on the mass from...

Right, it takes a lot less time to heal everybody if you can just get a cure from the future out to the mass public instead of having to go around touching everybody. This is taking for granted I can find a cure somewhere in the future...I see in the future that the only cure to a future...

You will be able to heal anybody with a single touch. You will be able to teleport to anywhere in the universe instantly With You will know and understand the knowledge of any book you touch. You will be able to control water. Or Your eyes and brain will be able to visualize more than 3...

Ahh, if it's rational then your done. If its irrational than you can use it as r or s. For the case of r=\sqrt{2}^\sqrt{2} and s=\sqrt{2} we get a rational number. Either way it works. It's all coming together now. But then micromass comes along with Schrodinger and cats, and it all seems...