Recent content by TiBaal89

El Hombre you are absolutely correct that the simple answer to my first post is to point out the fact that it is a non-inertial frame of reference. However I do appreciate everyone's input! There are, as we see, many arguments that off-shoot from this simple example. Interesting stuff...

As El Hombre points out, the system and frame were specifically designated with the intention of creating a "problem." The earth+book system is inertial. The problem lies in the fact that the frame of reference (attached to the earth) is not. Whats interesting, and I think this is something...

Well if there's a load on the beam and A and B are labeled but no forces are shown... there better be forces at A and B or this isn't statics my friend!

Since our understanding of friction is still very incomplete its hard for me to say why... but I don't think that's possible. I'm interested to see what someone else might chime in with.

Of course it does. We never speak in these terms becuase obviously there is absolutely no purpose to do so. But I'm not aware of a "cut off" where e=mc^2 ceases to be true. If that's the case then there is a change in mass in these situations, despite the fact that it is radically small and...

I wonder how Derive goes about that...

I'll admit I was mistaken in my last post. I suppose if my fingers are adding energy to the keyboard by striking it, I'm actually CREATING mass! :smile: The silliness of these concepts in practical matters gets the best of me, but truly if we are to buy into these concepts of mass-energy...

Yes, Indeed. As I type, the tremendous energy with which my fingers are striking the keys is destroying mass... how many billions of decimal places out that would be in kg or lbm I don't really know, but hey its happening. :-p

Oh but its not just those pesky nuke plants... what about coal plants! Wait... what about all combustion?? we're doooomed :smile:

That's a very interesting question - sure its defined that way, but why? I suppose this isn't truly a satisfatory answer, but we could use dimensional analysis to show that it indeed must be squared: In SI, we're looking for energy in kg*m^2/s^2 Potentional energy: m*g*h so...

I’ve experienced that engineering (mechanical, for me) is the most engaging balance between “pure” and “applied” math. If you don’t like math, you won’t enjoy pure math and the fact of the matter is that applied math is utterly drab! Engineering is the cool middle ground, I believe. It...

Thank you for the welcome and response El Hombre. It is very interesting to consider. When this debate first came up, I offered that I could change the kinetic energy of my friend by moving my head around! :smile: Which, while silly, does raise some interesting questions as well - just...

I’m currently involved in a debate with a few folks regarding the validity of the Conservation of Momentum principle. One demonstration of its failure was dropping a book. The book begins with no momentum, gains momentum, then looses it and again has none (when it hits the floor). Of...