Recent content by abrogard

A question, this. Something I would like to know. Practical physics I think. 'Applied physics' I believe. I wondered at the purpose and efficacy of 'steeling' knives and learned that the process is intended to repair damage to an edge rather than 'sharpen' in the sense of 'create a sharp...

I see. Thanks. I perhaps faintly begin to understand something about this basic aspect of physics. :)

Thanks again for that. I got a routine up and finished up with a line graph of the results. I was surprised to find the top edge so far in front.

Thank you for that. I think with a little help from chatgpt I can get a procedure out of that. I think we can work on either of the two options for where the force is applied. It will be interesting to see what differences. In practice we find in the physical environment we generally mainly...

as as best I can make out you're about on the same page as me. I seem to have failed to spell out some things: made assumptions. I want everything at its simplest. remember i'm simply wondering how much muscle we men would have to put in to tumble blocks over. a very 'low level' ordinary man...

the block I'm hypothesizing is a perfect cube. our blocks on the job are not. this is not homework. I'm not a child, far from it. just a rather mathematically illiterate adult. Re: your question to others - I would like sufficient detail to (1) give me a formula that one applies to this...

I just want to know how strong I have to be to move a large stone block by tumbling it over. A formula is what I'm looking for I guess. Assume a perfect cube. Begin with a raised edge making say 10 degree angle with the ground. I get my fingers in there and start lifting. I suppose when I get to...

I find this very interesting. But it is above my head. Is there a simpler explanation/volume perhaps that I could get, consult? https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/atomic-energy-levels

That's the kind of thing that I find so inexplicable and so depressing in these forums. That's an ad hominem response. Impertinent. Unnecessary. Unhelpful. And wrong. I'm was not asking anything in my last post - I was clarifying, I was explaining that I was purely asking about the maths. I...

No, his 'intro to relativity' provides the details of the first method at your link, which is a very good one, thank. Those are what I've been following. All the way to the second vid. Let me try and be clear for I feel I have not been. For me it is all about the math. My question is all...

sorry. didn't understand that. I meant those, equations coming up with the lorentz contraction that Shankar used. the exercise is presented to people such as I - raw beginner students - as some sort of clever demonstration of how a basic relativistic phenomenon can be 'discovered' or revealed...

I think I get it. Though Shankar does all this talking about this one and that one claiming distances are with and without ut in fact neither party is doing any of that. Our stationary view is that x is ct because we know that a beam of light was sent from the origin at time 0 and the event...

I have edited my post. It might be clearer now. Provided times, too.

I thought I had effectively provided a link when I quoted youtube video and the name of it. And I thought the actual math would be so widely known it would be familiar to all except perhaps beginners like me. I am sorry if I have inconvenienced you. It certainly was not my intention. Here...

On the Yale University Prof Shankar Youtube vid 'Lorentz Transformation' Prof Shankar writes up on the board that x = ct and then x prime = c t prime. It is the basis of all that follows. But i don't understand. at x = 0, t = 0 and x prime = 0 and t prime = 0. He's got that written up...