Mathematical equations, physics buffs.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Work Horse

Oldie but a goodie

a = 1, b = 1

a = b
a^2 = b^2
a^2 - b^2 = 0
(a-b)(a+b) = 0
(a-b)(a+b)/(a-b) = 0/(a-b)
1(a+b) = 0
(a+b) = 0
1 + 1 = 0
2 = 0
1 = 0
1 + 1 = 1

In case anyone hadn't worked out what is wrong here, cant divide by a-b, as a-b=0 in this problem.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Work Horse

Oldie but a goodie

a = 1, b = 1............

this one from 1983, old...maybe not so good;

How much force does it take to stop an aeroplane propellor?




about half a Newton.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Bud Bud

Ha ha classic!

Why do people have so much trouble with this??? Is a plane that is already rolling down a runway under its own steam i.e.: propulsion by means of pulling air past the craft through the use of propellers or jet or pushing against air by means of rockets,.

Bud Bud, just a tiny wincy point - fundamental operating procedure of rockets is that they eject small fast moving particles in the opposite direction to which they want to move, the rocket moves by the principle of the conservation of momentum, not by pushing against the air

[LTDHO]

Ah, Time travel.
Should you build a time machine, you will be able to travel back in time, the time machine doesn't need to pre-exist as you will take it there.

If I was from the year 3011 after building my time machine, regardless of what I was wearing or doing, I'd be locked up for what I was saying. I'd have to bring back many articles of proof (sports almanac) to prove when I was from.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by flappist

OR

The people from the future are here to prevent the second dark age where mankind would be devolved into tree hugging parasites by debunking the poisonous manifest of the Church of Carbon Tax and the latter day ecomentalists.

The title of the thread suggests its for people that want to talk maths or physics, if you have something relevant to the physics of agw, perhaps that would be relevant.

[AndrewR_AUII]

Algaebra

What you get when ladies don't wash their undergarments

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by gtfpv

why do we exist?

The human race seems to have a fascination of why. I've contemplated it myself - though, the best answer I can come up with is - why does there have to be a why? A suitable answer for me is, because.

[ch33z1l]

Stephen Hawking has a good show on Discovery channel which talks about time travel, wormholes, etc. Similar to what xtremerus posted.

Was pretty interesting. Apparently wormholes do exist, but only as tiny tiny existances, and only for a few milliseconds. If these could be enlarged, you could in theory travel forward in time....or back

[Silversurfer]

Originally Posted by In Focus

If you're starship is travelling at the speed of light, what happens when you turn on the headlights?

why would you bother turning on the head lights, is not as if there is no Stars in the Universe that do not expel light anyway.Unless you are headed for a big blackhole.LOL
Anyway always take a dolphin torch if the headlights screw up.

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by Rodp

The human race seems to have a fascination of why. I've contemplated it myself - though, the best answer I can come up with is - why does there have to be a why? A suitable answer for me is, because.

thats only because it is impossible at this stage to get 100% accurately and correct answer .
the very thought that anything exists at all ( which it does ) . sometimes just think about that only . this is a marvel . one thought from anything living is an inexplicable marvel, impossible comes to mind .
sorry to be philosophical . but based on evidence we are here , and we cant explain it . that is miraculous and shows we aren't at the top of the tree .
i'm just stating fact . i'm not offering any belief

[ford man xf]

Originally Posted by Rodp

The human race seems to have a fascination of why. I've contemplated it myself - though, the best answer I can come up with is - why does there have to be a why? A suitable answer for me is, because.

Enquiring minds I guess. The problem with "because" is that you need to find the cause of the because, which means you need to demonstrate how and where our existence comes from, that's where it gets very complicated.
Also, we like to think humans/life has a purpose, that everything around us isn't some big impossible random accident that has occurred against every unimaginable odds that you could ever think of.

[ford man xf]

Seem as though the thread is also on physics, what are peoples thoughts on the large hadron collider, will some of physics biggest questions finally be answered, or will new discoveries by the collider only create more questions than answers? Personally I think it will only complicate things further and create more questions than answers. It may eliminate a few of the theories though.

[ford man xf]

Originally Posted by gtfpv

thats only because it is impossible at this stage to get 100% accurately and correct answer .
the very thought that anything exists at all ( which it does ) . sometimes just think about that only . this is a marvel . one thought from anything living is an inexplicable marvel, impossible comes to mind .
sorry to be philosophical . but based on evidence we are here , and we cant explain it . that is miraculous and shows we aren't at the top of the tree .
i'm just stating fact . i'm not offering any belief

It's like trying to explain the definition of "nothing". It's hard for the human mind to equate the term "nothing" (at least for me) when someone says that nothing is something beyond the universe I can't fathom this, as its still something? The big bang was once nothing, therefore something (we, universe etc.) came from nothing, or the big bang which is something, came from nothing.
I think it can only be described as a time event, once time existed.

[burnz]

and supposidly the universe expanded into nothing..
to bad if somthing was there and now squashed..

[Iggypoppin']

Originally Posted by ford man xf

Seem as though the thread is also on physics, what are peoples thoughts on the large hadron collider, will some of physics biggest questions finally be answered, or will new discoveries by the collider only create more questions than answers? Personally I think it will only complicate things further and create more questions than answers. It may eliminate a few of the theories though.

I hope it does create more questions. I love pondering stuff! Life would be boring if we had all the answers.

[ford man xf]

Originally Posted by Iggypoppin'

I hope it does create more questions. I love pondering stuff! Life would be boring if we had all the answers.

Doesn't it do your head in though? I can think about similar topics but eventually you have to take a break from thinking. It's like the conundrum I was saying earlier, if you built a time machine, could you go back in time before you were born and kill your parents. Obviously not, because how could you have ever existed in the first place to carry out the deed. But then what's stopping you from doing it (obviously apart from building a time machine).

[The Outsider]

if two people jump off a bridge at the same time, one weighs 50kg and the other 200kg, will the 200kg one hit the ground first?

this had some interesting explanations at work

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by The Outsider

if two people jump off a bridge at the same time, one weighs 50kg and the other 200kg, will the 200kg one hit the ground first?

this had some interesting explanations at work

Perhaps if they created more drag through the air due to more surface area, possibly.. remove air resistance, then no.

[flappist]

The large hadron collider did actually destroy earth about 50,000,000 years ago but as we are trapped inside the event time for us has slowed down and while the rest of the universe does not even remember us we are still just plodding along......

[In Focus]

Originally Posted by The Outsider

if two people jump off a bridge at the same time, one weighs 50kg and the other 200kg, will the 200kg one hit the ground first?

this had some interesting explanations at work

In a vacuum, they would hit the ground at the same time. On earth, there may be a difference, depending on a few factors, including air resistance, height of the bridge etc.

My suggestion is that you get a couple of people to do the experiment.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by The Outsider

if two people jump off a bridge at the same time, one weighs 50kg and the other 200kg, will the 200kg one hit the ground first?

this had some interesting explanations at work

Id say 200kg person first

The volume of a 200kg person is going to be about 4 times that of a 50kg person, but since volume is area x depth, the SA of a 50kg person would be about half of that of a 200kg person(very very roughly), we have to assume the person is randomly spinning through the air rather than in a swan dive or prone position as this can change outcomes considerably

Bottom line the Weight/SA ratio is larger for the bigger person, they will accelerate at a greater rate. From a small height and to the naked eye the difference will be indetectable, but even galileos leaning tower exp would have shown this with high speed cameras.

[MAD]

Originally Posted by ford man xf

Seem as though the thread is also on physics, what are peoples thoughts on the large hadron collider, will some of physics biggest questions finally be answered, or will new discoveries by the collider only create more questions than answers? Personally I think it will only complicate things further and create more questions than answers. It may eliminate a few of the theories though.

I think this thing is great and will likely help answer a lot of questions but will also create more along the way.

I loved one of the recent experiments where they got very different results to what they were expecting. So on one hand they said to the worryists, when they were building the thing, that "nothing will go wrong", then on the other hand they "didnt expect that". That's the thing about accidents....

Above all else, I want to see it used to make a replication of Princess Leia's message to Obe Wan. From there the only logical step is interactive adult entertainment.

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by ford man xf

It's like trying to explain the definition of "nothing". It's hard for the human mind to equate the term "nothing" (at least for me) when someone says that nothing is something beyond the universe I can't fathom this, as its still something? The big bang was once nothing, therefore something (we, universe etc.) came from nothing, or the big bang which is something, came from nothing.
I think it can only be described as a time event, once time existed.

a definition of nothing is easy , an infinite void with no substance or light , or deviation , reaction, consciousness, nothing to define it .
i guess that still could be regarded of an area. but if no one was there to recognize or react to it, it wouldn't matter .
anything different to this state , is what is inexplicable .yet here we are , we can record history and watch it, we can study and learn from whats there , and that's it . trying to explain it , well that's something else .
as far as time travel . it's beyond our concept . i can only believe that time is linear, even if you can bend light . this thing about people coming back from a rocket ship a different age, is a hypothetical theory , if it could be measured in years and not milliseconds i bet they would be the same physical age as if no difference , because of a linear time concept .
we are proving to be technical people, yet we dont know where it ends if at all . or where it began , imagine the different forms of life earth has had in its history , maybe similar beings many times over . maybe thats the way it is , one thing about the earth is that it is here to provide life , the air we breathe wouldn't be there otherwise, an interesting thing is life eats life on this planet , think about how much you enjoy a meal when your hungry , now think about a lion eating a zebra it just killed , it does not give a flying fook of empathy when its gulping down the zebras warm guts .
physics

[Scott]

The more I age, the more I ponder the potential of our significance. For all I know, we are germs in a blue blood cell of a giant being who is probably sitting at the pub with his mates right now pondering the same thing.

I just hope he doesn't fall over and spill some blood in the toilet..

[Iggypoppin']

Originally Posted by ford man xf

Doesn't it do your head in though? I can think about similar topics but eventually you have to take a break from thinking. It's like the conundrum I was saying earlier, if you built a time machine, could you go back in time before you were born and kill your parents. Obviously not, because how could you have ever existed in the first place to carry out the deed. But then what's stopping you from doing it (obviously apart from building a time machine).

It doesn't frustrate me like cars or other stuff, thinking about it all (physics) helps me relax and helps me forget about everything else, so many things I don't understand about space and time, and it only makes me want to learn more. It's inexhaustive how much I can read/learn about, so it's perfect for me.

[EgoFG]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Id say 200kg person first

The volume of a 200kg person is going to be about 4 times that of a 50kg person, but since volume is area x depth, the SA of a 50kg person would be about half of that of a 200kg person(very very roughly), we have to assume the person is randomly spinning through the air rather than in a swan dive or prone position as this can change outcomes considerably

Bottom line the Weight/SA ratio is larger for the bigger person, they will accelerate at a greater rate. From a small height and to the naked eye the difference will be indetectable, but even galileos leaning tower exp would have shown this with high speed cameras.

And to add a little - the small fellow reaches his terminal velocity first (terminal velocity - does not mean death, but rather the speed at which you will reach the ground), the bigger guy reaches his later and it is faster.

[LXL15]

Originally Posted by ch33z1l

Stephen Hawking has a good show on Discovery channel which talks about time travel, wormholes, etc. Similar to what xtremerus posted.

Was pretty interesting. Apparently wormholes do exist, but only as tiny tiny existances, and only for a few milliseconds. If these could be enlarged, you could in theory travel forward in time....or back

They require a negative energy field to be setup inside of them to effectively 'hold' the neck open, otherwise its a single point, and so nothing can fit through. Apparently negative energy can actually be achieved by setting the "zero" level of energy as a positive number, then just removing energy from the system to make it "negative" relative to its original state. Although they haven't figured out how to do that yet, as far as I know...everything's always relative haha.

[GreenR]

Originally Posted by The Outsider

if two people jump off a bridge at the same time, one weighs 50kg and the other 200kg, will the 200kg one hit the ground first?

this had some interesting explanations at work

This question is a little flawed due the surface area of the 200kg person being more than the 50kg. Therefore air resistance, drag etc are different. If lets say you are talking about 2 blocks that are the same size but one weighs 200kg and the other 50kg well then they would land at the same time. The heavier one however will have a lot more force at impact

[Scott]

Originally Posted by plarazza

If lets say you are talking about 2 blocks that are the same size but one weighs 200kg and the other 50kg well then they would land at the same time. The heavier one however will have a lot more force at impact

Only in a vacuum. Gravity pulls on each part equally so it alone cannot discriminate based on weight but in atmosphere, the speed at which two like objects can descend is materially affected by resistance (air in this case) and how quickly weight can be neutralised by drag. It stands to reason that from a reasonable height, the heavier of two like objects will descend faster and faster until the drag is sufficient to stop its acceleration. The further it has to travel to reach that terminal velocity (which would be different for each) the more exaggerated the result.

If we put two bowling balls on one of those skydiving fans and one had been hollowed out, which would take flight first? The one that has less weight to counteract the drag.

[AndrewR_AUII]

Depends if the big guy stops for a cheeseburger or three on the way...

Read up on Stokes law BTW