|
More site info...
General Physics | Forum profile
|
|
Forum profile page for General Physics on http://www.physicsforums.com.
This report page is the aggregated overview from a single forum: General Physics, located on the Message Board at http://www.physicsforums.com.
This forum profile page summarizes the general forum statistics such as: Users Activity, Forum Activity, and Top Authors, which are reported in either a table or graph below for a given reporting time period.
Additional forum profile information for "General Physics" on the Message Board at http://www.physicsforums.com is also shown in the following ways:
1) Latest Active Threads
2) Hot Threads for Last Week
Warning: These statistics are generated using 'best efforts' and can experience delays and reporting errors at times. Please note that such statistics do not constitute a forum's popularity and/or exact posting volumes at any given reporting period.
|
|
|
|
|
Posting activity on General Physics:
|
|
Week
|
Month
|
3 Months
|
|
Threads:
|
241
|
665
|
1,850
|
|
Post:
|
834
|
2,319
|
6,128
|
|
|
General Physics Posting activity graph:
|
Top authors during last week:
user's latest post:
thoughts on gravity and space time
Published (2009-11-26 22:43:00)
This would be correct if this object was an atom, you have to understand anything that has matter/energy has a coresponding mass. . . . I think this is correct because something that is hot weighs slightly more than the same object at a cooler temperature hence energy has in some form mass, and vice versa(E=mc 2 ). . . If you take a sphere, all the atoms in this sphere are bending spacetime individually, however the overall force makes them...
user's latest post:
large particles
Published (2009-11-27 02:46:00)
The above post says it all.
user's latest post:
Wave dispersion
Published (2009-11-28 23:48:00)
i don't think any radiated wave can be dispersive in a vacuum, because all wavelengths travel at the same velocity. To be non-dispersive, there can not be any (wavelength dependent) attenuation either, because dispersion and attenuation are coupled through the dispersion relations. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispersion_relation Bob S
user's latest post:
ideal gas equation
Published (2009-11-27 03:02:00)
aren't they the same?
user's latest post:
"in 4-D, the Earth orbits...
Published (2009-11-27 01:58:00)
I am getting more and more confused, I think we are talking about different things, To me it is interesting to think about the flat space and if you can project a straight line onto a curve, nobody has responded to this. I know a geodesic can be curved when projected, that's not what I am talking about. For me that point was resolved at post #7 which I agreed with.
user's latest post:
Re: The mass of Earth.
Published (2009-11-27 22:04:00)
Are tidal effects on the moons period significant - compared to the accuracy in 'G' ?
user's latest post:
Re: The mass of Earth.
Published (2009-11-28 21:46:00)
If you want high accuracy you cannot treat the Earth as a point mass. The Earth is not spherical.
user's latest post:
force on a lifted object
Published (2009-11-28 21:05:00)
Originally Posted by yyttr2 W=F.d So I want to know if F=mgh No, F = mg (the weight). (Assuming you are doing the minimum work to overcome gravity.) So W = Fd = mgh.
user's latest post:
Re: One-way mirror ball
Published (2009-11-28 23:42:00)
Originally Posted by Integral Dave, You can drop the skepticism, he is right on target. In essence all mirrors work that way, all that changes is the percent reflectance. This even holds true for a plain sheet of glass. At night when you look from a lit room to the outside, you see a reflection of the inside. Now step outside and look through the same window from the dark. You can easily see into the lit interior. That's why we have...
user's latest post:
Physics of Golf
Published (2009-11-23 12:16:00)
all of physics
|
|
|
|
Latest active threads on General Physics::
Started 3 days, 7 hours ago (2009-11-26 19:40:00)
by mathman
Since we could see what is happening inside, some light must be getting out.
Started 1 day, 3 hours ago (2009-11-28 23:48:00)
by Bob S
i don't think any radiated wave can be dispersive in a vacuum, because all wavelengths travel at the same velocity. To be non-dispersive, there can not be any (wavelength dependent) attenuation either, because dispersion and attenuation are coupled through the dispersion relations. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispersion_relation
Bob S
Started 1 day, 5 hours ago (2009-11-28 21:42:00)
by ideasrule
A charged van de graaff generator is very nearly in equilibrium: it has very little current. Why would the magnet push the electrons in any way?
Started 1 day, 11 hours ago (2009-11-28 15:28:00)
by wywong
After thinking through, I figured out (I think) why a meniscus can't propel a boat. The meniscus itself is stationary, so the horizontal forces acting on it, which include surface tension as well as water/air pressure, must be balanced. There is only one horizontal force - water surface tension - acting on the far side of the meniscus. That shows that the forces - surface tension and water/air...
Started 3 days, 8 hours ago (2009-11-26 18:19:00)
by mgb_phys
The speed that an object orbits a much larger object only depends on the mass of the larger object.
So if you have something orbiting the Earth, like the moon, and know its distance and how long it takes to go around - you can find the mass of the earth.
A physicist called Cavendish measured this in about 1800.
Started 1 day, 19 hours ago (2009-11-28 07:14:00)
by wywong
If I understand your configuration correctly, it should be d*g*11. As long as the water inside the pipe is not isolated from the outside, the pressure at any point inside the pipe is exactly the same as water pressure outside at the same level. I assume there is no air column inside the pipe. If there is, the above won't be the case.
Wai Wong
Started 1 day, 6 hours ago (2009-11-28 20:44:00)
by Doc Al
Originally Posted by yyttr2
Is the force done on a lifted object equal the weight of the object in newtons times the height lifted?
I suspect you meant work instead of force....
Started 2 days, 2 hours ago (2009-11-28 00:12:00)
by wywong
I am not sure if I fully understand your question which may be beyond my level. However I recalled something I read which might address your question. In one of his lectures, Richard Feynman explained why a particle always travel along a geodesic using the following argument (in my own wording):
The particle actually travels along different paths at the same time. When the times taken by ...
Started 1 day, 21 hours ago (2009-11-28 05:26:00)
by anthony78
hello amigo ... ))
i think he's insane... but there are very interesting statements.
honestly don't think it's possible at all.
have you found anything so far? )
|
|
Hot threads for last week on General Physics::
Started 1 week, 3 days ago (2009-11-19 08:40:00)
by Doc Al
Originally Posted by quietrain
hi, i don't really understand the meaning to GPE.
if we define a point at infinity to have 0 GPE, then any point before infinity would have -ve GPE.
so lets say an asteroid crashing to earth at the ...
Started 1 week, 3 days ago (2009-11-19 19:55:00)
by sylas
Originally Posted by FoxCommander
This quote that i found in the book Super Force by Paul Davies, once read, litterally summed up all the thoughts that I have had since I could remember about how the universe works. tell me if you also think ...
Started 1 day, 21 hours ago (2009-11-28 05:26:00)
by anthony78
hello amigo ... ))
i think he's insane... but there are very interesting statements.
honestly don't think it's possible at all.
have you found anything so far? )
Started 5 months, 2 weeks ago (2009-06-15 17:45:00)
by D H
A couple of points first.
1. Welcome to PF, anneb!
2. In general it is not a good idea to revive threads that have been inactive for a long time, and this thread has been inactive for nearly four years!
Originally Posted by anneb
hmm, ...
Started 3 days, 8 hours ago (2009-11-26 18:19:00)
by mgb_phys
The speed that an object orbits a much larger object only depends on the mass of the larger object.
So if you have something orbiting the Earth, like the moon, and know its distance and how long it takes to go around - you can find the mass of the earth.
A physicist called Cavendish measured this in about 1800.
Started 1 week ago (2009-11-22 17:26:00)
by fluidistic
Originally Posted by sophiecentaur
The voltage is, effectively, the energy.
Can someone confirm this? This would contradict the post #4. I'm starting to doubt.
Started 3 days, 7 hours ago (2009-11-26 19:40:00)
by mathman
Since we could see what is happening inside, some light must be getting out.
Started 1 week ago (2009-11-22 16:40:00)
by adsf
Thanks for the response, again!
I just have a question related to #3. I guess I didn't make my question too clear... :(
My question is: we know that we have air pressure pushing us upwards (result of number 2). But shouldn't the air pressure pushing us upwards be a little less than if you were to consider an object whose top is at the level where the bottom of this object is... ...
Started 2 weeks ago (2009-11-15 09:18:00)
by HallsofIvy
Originally Posted by blackbird86
So energy apparently equals mass times the speed of light squared. According to Einstein anyway. I was taking an objective look at this theory or whatever it's called just now and I got to wondering...what ...
Started 2 weeks ago (2009-11-15 22:16:00)
by cesiumfrog
Originally Posted by dan@judy-dan.net
According to the paper the rotor does not rotate until the voltage is applied. Also I don't see how evaporation would force the rotor to move in a
particular direction....
|
|
Size: 117 bytes
