Search results for query: *

Worked great, I thought I'd share the source in case anyone else stumbles across this. It should be pretty easy to work out the calculations from it. function TSpriteBehaviorMoveTo.GetFullyEasedOffset( Original: Single; Target: Single; DurationSecs: Single; TotalDeltaTime: Single...

I will give this a try, thank you!

Let me see if I can clarify. At an acceleration rate of 1pixel/second^2 I would expect my object to have the following Y locations over 6 seconds. 0,1,3,6,10,15,21 What I need to do is the opposite. I wanted to understand an equation that when given the acceleration rate (-1 pixels/s^2)...

Hi everyone. I am a programmer and I think some basic physics will help me to achieve something I wanted to do. I want to move an object on the screen a fixed distance in a fixed time, but rather than moving with a uniformed velocity I want it to slow down at a constant rate so that it...

Thanks very much. If I recall correctly we don't really see massive time shifts until we are traveling very close to the speed of light, so even with time dilation it seems that everything we see would look like gamma rays, would this still be the case for light that had passed us and then...

jtbell I'm sorry but even the input on that form is beyond me at this stage. It's not that I want to learn how to calculate the answer (yet) it's just that I want to get an idea of the basic "plain English" principles.

So our perception of time would slow down, but not sufficiently to stop us seeing all light as gamma rays?

The maths is beyond my current level.

I'm hoping someone can clear something up for me. I was recently asked if someone traveling close to the speed of light toward a star would see that star's light as gamma rays. I argued that they would not due to their perception of time slowing down, whereas someone else argued that...

Some of the temperature radiates into the air and heats things around the fire (such as me, watching it) so the amount of heat energy within the fire is decreasing. Where does the extra heat energy come from?

When you introduce enough energy which causes a particle collision and a bonding between carbon and two oxygen atoms we essentially have fire. The energy released from the bonding then applies a force to another atom causing that to fire off and collide, and so we have a chain reaction...

Thanks very much for your answers. In that case where the source is a photon do we see absorption lines in the spectrum because A: The photon that was previously heading towards us is temporarily absorbed by the atom and then emitted in a random direction, causing a drop in the average number...

So if all energy is always transferred via photons why do we see a distinct emission spectrum for hydrogen and not photons in all the other frequencies?

When oxygen and carbon bond they release energy, which part of the atom loses this energy and is it lost in the form of heat?

Hi all I'm unsure about something and so would like to pose the following question. When an electron moves to a lower state it emits energy in the form of a photon. But in order to get excited into this higher state it must first receive a minimum amount of energy. Is the energy received...

Sorry, 1: "Energy" makes the atoms jiggle more.

Thanks alxm My aim is to first understand the process and then create an animation, which is why I want to understand how it looks at an atomic level. So now if I understand correct it goes like this 1: Heat makes the atoms jiggle more. 2: Once they have enough energy they jiggle so much that...

Does anyone else have any feedback on this? I really would like to understand it at an atomic level. Thanks

I'm trying to understand what fire is at an atomic level. I'd appreciate it if you guys could correct me where I am wrong and fill in any gaps. 1: When you heat an object it introduces energy. 2: This energy causes the atoms in the object to jiggle around. 3: At some point introducing the...

That's an avenue you really don't want to go down :) I just wanted to know if objects without mass will always be traveling at the speed of light.

I thought nuclear weapons worked by firing a neutron into Uranium in order to split the nuclae and cause a chain reaction, so that's fission isn't it?

Ah yes, it was, I watched it on replay :)

Light has very little mass and always travels at the same speed. If I could adjust a body so that it had no mass would it remain stationary as the planet Earth flew off on its orbit around the Sun, or would it spread out evenly in all directions at the speed of light? Let's put aside the...

Elements tend to try to obtain a stable state. Iron appears (for some reason) to be the most stable state, the more protons an element has in its nucleus above the number in Iron the less stable it is. It is therefore more "willing" to give up its protons/electrons, i.e. it uses less energy to...

Hi all Note the figure I use for tons of Tnt (907.18474) because it is "Tons" and not "Tonnes". decimal speedOfLight = 299792458m; decimal hiroshimaBombEnergyInKiloTons = 13m; decimal initialMassInKG = 60m; decimal initialMassEnergyInJoules = initialMassInKG * speedOfLight * speedOfLight...

I think I see my error. There are 4,184 KJ in 1KG of TNT, not 1KT of TNT. I'm glad I asked, I'd have looked pretty stupid :) Is the general concept correct though, converting 60KG of mass into "light" would result in an explosion of this size?

1290 megatonnes? I worked it out like so... E=60 * 299792458^2 which is 5,392,531,072,420,905,840 joules or 5,392,531,072,421 megajoules There are 4.184 megajoules in 1 kilotonne of TNT 5,392,531,072,421 / 4.184 = 1,288,845,858,609 Kilotonnes = 1,288,845,858 Megatonnes

Thanks for the reply! If I converted those photos back into 60KG of lead then that would not cause an explosion because I am converting them into a stable state. What I am trying to establish is what equivalent of kilotonnes of TNT degree of explosion I could expect if I were able to convert...

Is light "pure" energy? I've been working out how much energy 60KG of material is equivalent to. However it strikes me as a possibility that I should not be using E=MC^2 because what I actually want to calculate is 60KG equivalent in light. Is there a factor I need to incorporate? I am...