Recent content by Zimm

Oh, well that's for the best since what I said is not only wrong but incredibly stupid :) I don't know what made me think the ruler would seem contracted in your frame...

russ is right. But for the sake of argument let's say you are traveling much faster than the hot dog and can manage to measure it (or that you are traveling a bit faster and have a crazy accurate ruler) by length contraction your ruler would get smaller so the shrinking ruler would display a...

Well, did you ever see the movie Swordfish, with John Travolta and Hugh Jackman and Halle Berry? You should...for insight into the universe no less :) Well, in case you didn't, at the beginning they had what John called the world's largest walking Claymore mines. Claymores have shrapnel you...

Well, there are superfluids which are considered frictionless unto themselves, see http://www.aip.org/physnews/graphics/html/helium3.htm http://www.egglescliffe.org.uk/physics/supercond/supfluid/superfluids.html...

Sure, Newton's first law says that an object in motion will stay in motion in a straight line (or an object at rest will stay at rest) unless acted upon an outside force. So for the rest part, go outside and find a rock, watch the rock...just kidding, but pick up the rock and you are the...

Actually, I believe it is related to the topic because no one had yet stated masses for the quarks...you see if the quarks had masses less than the electrons all that would be required is greater binding energy to still make the masses of the proton and neutron. So while you could assume that...

Loren makes a good point, the binding energy of the quarks can give the resulting particle a greater mass "then the sum of its parts" From Physical Review D by APS the up quark has a mass of 1.5 to 4.5 MeV and the down quark has a mass of 5 to 8.5 MeV (in the mass-independent subtraction...

Loren, isn't that just a violation of energy conservation? I mean, on a short timescale there is energy that "appears" for virtual interactions as you say, but that is a violation of energy conservation. E=mc^2 more appropriately is interpreted as energy and mass have the same effect on...

I think you're making this harder than it has to be. One thing I see is that you lost a unit, when you divided s by w (lowercase omega, the angular velocity) you lost the meters, where'd the meters go? s is a distance along the curve, in meters and dividing it by the angular velocity, well I'm...

Yes, the spin direction is right on, black side would lead if a radiometer worked off photon-momentum transfer, but if you look on the internet there are a couple places you can find a movie of a radiometer, plus I just took Thermal Physics last semester and the professor had one so I've seen...

Well, looking at your conservation of energy equation I think you're on the right track. You got MgH+mgh which is the final energy for both objects at their apex. And the one-half term is close, I think you simplified when you couldn't, see the velocities should be different so you can't factor...

Well, we have a problem when you get a u (I'm going to use a "u" for the coefficient of friction because it's similar to the greek letter mu) greater than 1. If you think about that it means that friction (remember force-friction Ff=u*Fn force normal for either static or kinetic) is exerting...

Well you don't have to convert anything if you don't want, using english units can be fun! You just need to understand that pounds is a weight or force the way Newtons is and that slugs are the english unit of mass, which when multiplied by the acceleration of gravity in english units, 32...

Ok, here I see it, I needed the time, but my main differential F=ma -> m*g=m*a -> g=a -> g=dv/dt gives me time versus velocity, which is why I did the swith to g=(dv/dx)*(dx/dt) -> g=v*dv/dx to give me velocity versus distance, see I knew the distance so I was able to get the velocity. So the...

Yeah, I had a typo and an error there...the "a=vt^2/r=(35.82m/2)^2/1.4m=916.36m/s^2" had the typo, I meant 35.82m/s Now for the error, I know it's where I set vz=dz/t You see, the vz I calculated is the speed of the stone when it hit the ground, but that is not the speed throughout the fall...