Science desk | ||
---|---|---|
< March 28 | << Feb | March | Apr >> | March 30 > |
Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives |
---|
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
What bird is this? The file id's it as a Javan hawk-eagle but I think it looks more like a black eagle. Said to be photographed in Mount Halimun Salak National Park on Java where 10 Javan hawk-eagles are said to have been found. Rmhermen ( talk) 01:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
According to the article on Wikipedia, do exist real uni-polar neuron ans this is in contrast (apparently) to what I saw in the books that I read that there are three is only pseoudo-unipolar neuron. So in fact indeed do exist a real uni-polar neuron? 93.126.95.68 ( talk) 02:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Question | Remark |
---|---|
As
BenRG (
talk) 17:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC) said here
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science&action=edit&oldid=711808143, digital displays cannot lie. But as we know from Special relativity , clocks in moving reference frame are not synchronized. E.g. our clock shows from Big Bang (or from any other moment). Another frame passing us with speed has 3 clocks: front-end, hind-end and middle clock. When middle clock passing our clock , our clock and middle clock are synchronized manually. Man in moving frame synchronizes front-end and hind-end clocks with middle manually. Then we see from our frame:
our clock shows ; middle clock shows ; front-end clock shows ; hind-end clock shows . When moving reference frame will stop instantly (), what will we see on front-end and hind-end clocks and why? |
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science&action=edit&oldid=711808143
Null result of Michelson–Morley experiment extrapolation
https://archive.org/download/PhysicsForTheEnquiringMind/Rogers-PhysicsForTheEnquiringMind.djvu , page 492 |
37.53.235.112 ( talk) 05:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Could someone clearly and simply state what's being asked here? I can't figure it out...but find the topic interesting so would like to understand what's being discussed... 68.48.241.158 ( talk) 15:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Question | Remark |
---|---|
Another question. Suppose we have 2 observers ε (at rest) and ε' (moving) in 2 coaches as on Fig. 31-39 :
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/160329155625UTC.png Observer ε has 1 clock, it shows time in frame ε:
Also observer ε can see ε' clocks (ε' has 3 clocks hind, middle, front) from frame ε:
First let us find and : . Then , suppose . We have: , , so
. First , why do we suppose ? These times do match only in ε' frame as observer ε' sinchronized all his clocks. . When light reaches walls in frame ε': . https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/160329181132UTC.PNG Second. and are not used, but are next eq. correct , ? Should we not make correction for coordinate term ? Third. What actually is from Lorentz transformations ? Time interval or moment time or what?
If then . So , as and so . But we know that time goes slower in moving frame, so we always have . |
https://archive.org/download/PhysicsForTheEnquiringMind/Rogers-PhysicsForTheEnquiringMind.djvu , page 493, Fig. 31-39. |
37.53.235.112 ( talk) 16:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Question | Quote |
---|---|
So are space-time coordinates of 1st clock in rest frame seen from moving frame, right?
At time 1st clock will show , seen from moving ε' frame. Is it correct? Thank you. But I will study Special relativity as rotatings next month. Now I must understand all without coordinates, angles, etc. I follow Feynman Lectures and chapters 15-1...15-6 don't use rotatings. |
In your problem, say the light is emitted at (0,0) (in either coordinate system). It reaches the walls at , or equivalently . Your first clock has the parametric equation (x,t)(τ) = (0,τ), which you can plug into the Lorentz transformation to find (x',t')(τ). To find the digital reading of that clock at a particular (x,t) or (x',t'), you just solve for τ. |
37.53.235.112 ( talk) 09:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
So are space-time coordinates of 1st clock in rest frame seen from moving frame, right?– is where the clock actually is, and is also where the clock actually is, just expressed in a different way. To figure out what people see, you need to trace light from the clock to someone's eye (and you can use either coordinate system to do that, and get the same result, since they describe the same world).
At time 1st clock will show , seen from moving ε' frame. Is it correct?– I think the algebra is right, but the description is sort of backwards. The clock shows on its face when it's at . -- BenRG ( talk) 17:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
What is the expression of the kinetic energy of moving charged particles?-- 5.2.200.163 ( talk) 15:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
[1] and [2] makes the following claims:
(Cracked is not a reliable source for anything but bad jokes, but they are right surprisingly often.)
Has anyone made an educated guess as to the most abundant species by number of individuals or by total weight? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Science desk | ||
---|---|---|
< March 28 | << Feb | March | Apr >> | March 30 > |
Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives |
---|
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
What bird is this? The file id's it as a Javan hawk-eagle but I think it looks more like a black eagle. Said to be photographed in Mount Halimun Salak National Park on Java where 10 Javan hawk-eagles are said to have been found. Rmhermen ( talk) 01:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
According to the article on Wikipedia, do exist real uni-polar neuron ans this is in contrast (apparently) to what I saw in the books that I read that there are three is only pseoudo-unipolar neuron. So in fact indeed do exist a real uni-polar neuron? 93.126.95.68 ( talk) 02:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Question | Remark |
---|---|
As
BenRG (
talk) 17:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC) said here
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science&action=edit&oldid=711808143, digital displays cannot lie. But as we know from Special relativity , clocks in moving reference frame are not synchronized. E.g. our clock shows from Big Bang (or from any other moment). Another frame passing us with speed has 3 clocks: front-end, hind-end and middle clock. When middle clock passing our clock , our clock and middle clock are synchronized manually. Man in moving frame synchronizes front-end and hind-end clocks with middle manually. Then we see from our frame:
our clock shows ; middle clock shows ; front-end clock shows ; hind-end clock shows . When moving reference frame will stop instantly (), what will we see on front-end and hind-end clocks and why? |
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science&action=edit&oldid=711808143
Null result of Michelson–Morley experiment extrapolation
https://archive.org/download/PhysicsForTheEnquiringMind/Rogers-PhysicsForTheEnquiringMind.djvu , page 492 |
37.53.235.112 ( talk) 05:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Could someone clearly and simply state what's being asked here? I can't figure it out...but find the topic interesting so would like to understand what's being discussed... 68.48.241.158 ( talk) 15:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Question | Remark |
---|---|
Another question. Suppose we have 2 observers ε (at rest) and ε' (moving) in 2 coaches as on Fig. 31-39 :
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/160329155625UTC.png Observer ε has 1 clock, it shows time in frame ε:
Also observer ε can see ε' clocks (ε' has 3 clocks hind, middle, front) from frame ε:
First let us find and : . Then , suppose . We have: , , so
. First , why do we suppose ? These times do match only in ε' frame as observer ε' sinchronized all his clocks. . When light reaches walls in frame ε': . https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/160329181132UTC.PNG Second. and are not used, but are next eq. correct , ? Should we not make correction for coordinate term ? Third. What actually is from Lorentz transformations ? Time interval or moment time or what?
If then . So , as and so . But we know that time goes slower in moving frame, so we always have . |
https://archive.org/download/PhysicsForTheEnquiringMind/Rogers-PhysicsForTheEnquiringMind.djvu , page 493, Fig. 31-39. |
37.53.235.112 ( talk) 16:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Question | Quote |
---|---|
So are space-time coordinates of 1st clock in rest frame seen from moving frame, right?
At time 1st clock will show , seen from moving ε' frame. Is it correct? Thank you. But I will study Special relativity as rotatings next month. Now I must understand all without coordinates, angles, etc. I follow Feynman Lectures and chapters 15-1...15-6 don't use rotatings. |
In your problem, say the light is emitted at (0,0) (in either coordinate system). It reaches the walls at , or equivalently . Your first clock has the parametric equation (x,t)(τ) = (0,τ), which you can plug into the Lorentz transformation to find (x',t')(τ). To find the digital reading of that clock at a particular (x,t) or (x',t'), you just solve for τ. |
37.53.235.112 ( talk) 09:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
So are space-time coordinates of 1st clock in rest frame seen from moving frame, right?– is where the clock actually is, and is also where the clock actually is, just expressed in a different way. To figure out what people see, you need to trace light from the clock to someone's eye (and you can use either coordinate system to do that, and get the same result, since they describe the same world).
At time 1st clock will show , seen from moving ε' frame. Is it correct?– I think the algebra is right, but the description is sort of backwards. The clock shows on its face when it's at . -- BenRG ( talk) 17:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
What is the expression of the kinetic energy of moving charged particles?-- 5.2.200.163 ( talk) 15:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
[1] and [2] makes the following claims:
(Cracked is not a reliable source for anything but bad jokes, but they are right surprisingly often.)
Has anyone made an educated guess as to the most abundant species by number of individuals or by total weight? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)