This is not actual "homework." I am building a POV globe and I want to get as accurate of a projection as possible. The images I will upload into the globe will be a simple 2 dimensional image projected onto a 3 dimensional plane. I have researched and it appears that a Mercator type map is the...
ok got it. So hypothetically, suppose we get the technology needed to travel to Proxima Centauri. It's about 4 light years away. We go there and travel from point A (being earth) to point B (being Proxima Centauri) at half the speed of light. Going off what Einstein said, me in the spaceship...
ok, so if I'm traveling at let's say minutely just under the speed of light. To me, from my perspective, nothing changes. Time and space go on as normal? Or is it actually possible to turn on a flashlight and watch the beam of light slowly extend outward in front of me? Wouldn't time...
With regard to what we can measure, yes, it's only the total distance divided by the total time that always comes out the same.
No, this has nothing to do with energy or amplitude, only velocity. Have you read Einstein's 1905 paper, especially the first couple of sections?
I have read it...
wait so the speed of the light going to the mirror is not the same as the speed of the light being reflected from the mirror? Only that the total distance over the total time is the same? That kinda makes sense since some energy is lost due to reflecting but I always thought that the amplitude...
Interesting. Thanks for the insight everyone. i didnt really think about the fact that the amount of mass in the asteroid belt was less than 1% of the Earth's mass.
Just curious but:
Suppose that in the future we begin mining asteroids and other rocky objects in the asteroid belt for resources.
#1 how much material would we be able to bring back to Earth before we start noticing increased gravitational effects (especially considering that recovered...
Yeah I learned about waveguides last quarter. Those things make a lot more sense now.
So if the field itself isn't spinning then what is causing the field to change?
or is that something we havnt figured out yet?
ohhhhhhh ok so that's what the left hand rule and this picture are about
http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/file.php/3922/!via/oucontent/course/469/s381_1_010i.small.jpg
(Electronic Engineering student)so what exactly causes these fields to oscillate, or is it not really oscillating but just appear...
so for question #1 does that mean Newton was wrong?
for question #2 "waves" require energy to oscillate ...
so i guess my question is:
what exactly is "Waving" in an electromagnetic wave?
or what is causing the photon itself to oscillate, if it is the photon that that is doing the waving...
This isn't homework. I just read another person's post and it jogged my head into having questions, so this is just for my curiosity.
Question 1:
Aside from the practical problem of finding a fuel source that travels the speed of light or faster...
Why is this a fundamental rule?
I really do...