I heard that there was a man who told a women that she should leash her dog. She called the police and said that he threatened here. The police came and be\eat the man to death. Does anybody knw where I can find news of tis online?
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Interesting. Does this mean that the speed of light is affected by gravity? Or, alternatively, could it be interpreted that the building is measured to be a different height by the two different observers?Yes. See; http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_gravity.htm
What might be an example of a uniform gravitational field?Consider a sphere of uniform mass density. Now cut out a sphere inside whose center is offset from the sphere's center. The gravitational field inside will be uiniforrm.
[That is interesting.Could you expand on that at all?There is no spacetime curvature in a uniform gravitational field. It's a myth that all gravity is a curvature in spacetime. Curved spacetime is the same thing as tidal forces and a uniform gravitational field has no tidal forces.
How would a uniform gravitational field manifest its quality of producing no spacetime curvature?
Did you also buy a dictionary, by any chance?It's responses like this that make me block your posts.. I thought that this time you might have something constructive to say but I see I was wrong, you're merely sarcastic, which is the lowest form of humor.
"New test books"
Is there a minimum limit for photon's frequency? Can it be 0?No. It can't be zero.
The em wave/photon is caused by the acceleration of the electrons, if there is no frequency there is no acceleration, hence no energy (E=hf).An atom can emit photons and in QM there is no such thing as an electron acceleration
Is it possible to produce 1 microHertz photon? What about 1 nanoHertz? Is there any lower limit?Sure its possible. What is a gigahertz in one frame can be a microhertz in another frame.
Acceleration may be represented in different forms;Only 4-acceleration is a 4-vector. 3-acceleration is a 3-vectgor. And acceleration is a rank-1 vector, not a scalar or a tensor of higher rank.
as a scalar
as a vector
as a tensor
A vector is four dimensional. The tensor is rank two.
Various forms of acceleration may be related as ratios.Those statements are wrong. You didn't justify any of your claims here.
A change of basis may also include a ratio of unit vectors.
Can ratios of form and basis give the Reissner-Nordström metric?No.
Physicists like Brian Greene (Until the End of Time etc.) in lectures, discussions online . frequently 'explain' concepts like string theory that have no experimental evidence by saying it's all there in 'the math'.I hate it when people say those things.
For example, a battery is grounded on its negative terminal.That is merely a matter of convention. On American cars the negative terminal is "grounded" by attaching the negative terminal of the battery to the cars frame. In some European cars its the opposite, i.e. positive terminal is set to ground. There is nothing sacred about either convention.
Does gravity attract masses in an existing space, or does it curve the space between them?It can do both. BTW you're referring to spacetime curvature, not space curvature. You can have a gravitational field without spacetime curvature. An example is a uniform gravitational field. Spacetime curvature is the same thing as gravitational tidal forces. A uniform gravitational field has zero spacetime curvature,
The answer to this question is much more complex than meets the eye?
Yes. Kinetic energy is 1/2 pv for a particle when v << c. otherwise it's K = E - E_0Quote from: PeteI was wrong when I said Bill was right when he said "Energy is momentum."
What I said was:Quote from: BillEnergy is momentum times velocity; so, with velocity = c, energy = pc.
Is this wrong?
Hold on there pardner!That only applies to particles which move at speeds less than the speed of light.QuoteIn relativity kinetic energy = (gamma - 1)m_0 c^2
Dang me if it ain't the fact that γ = 1/√(1-v2/c2)
I'm a-mindin' that y'all said E = K + E0 but ain't it the case that E0 = 0 'cause the photon bronco can't never stand still?That's the reason I don't like to use the term "rest mass' do many relativists. I prefer the term proper mass defined as the magnitude of the 4-momentum of he particle divided by c^2, which is zero for photons.
Energy is momentumBy the way, I was wrong when I said Bill was right when he said "Energy is momentum." . The E = pc for EM radiation is a derived quantity from electrodynamics. Only in In classical mechanics does kinetic energy = pv/2 = (1/2) mv^2. In relativity kinetic energy = (gamma - 1)m_0 c^2. Kinetic energy + rest energy = E = total inertial energy. When v << c -> E = mv^2/2 where m is rest mass.
So why is E = pv for photons but ½pv for everything else?
Im still juggling these equations in my head and wondering if there is something Ive missed.Seems okay to me.
E = K + E0, solve for K to get: K = E E0.
E = K + E0, therefore, K = E E0
For a photon, E0 = 0, so K = E 0. I.e. K = E.
We established earlier that Energy is momentum times velocity; given by the equation p = hf/c.
We also said that, because the velocity of a photon is c, hf/c times c = hf. Thus; E=hf.
If K = E, then K must = hf, in this scenario.