| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3
Comments:
<0> newbie22: no, Curl(E)=i_0H
<1> JabberWalkie, ? E = x a e^(-jkz) H = x (a/n) e(-jkz)
<1> er H should be y not x
<1> n is the wave impedence
<2> heyo
<2> anyone knows if there is a time-integration scheme based on finite elements? obviously there are for 1D trusses but is not clear how to generalize it for 2/3D elements
<2> im not sure if i can make sense out of the idea; with 1D trusses (springs) its straightforward; you do x_{i](t + dt) = x_{i}( t ) + v_{i}( t )dt + e_{ij} (x_{j} - x_{i}) dt^2 / 2 + O(3), but not sure how generalize that for 2D/3D elements
<1> question: a wave traveling in a 50 ohm system encounter a 100 ohm impedence. i need the reflection coefficient so R = n2 - n1/ n1+ n2 => 100-50 / 150 = 50/150 = 1/3?
<3> JohnFlux: Hey.
<4> yo
<4> Capso:
<3> JohnFlux: Oh. Hey. How're things?
<3> JohnFlux: anubiss from #Math has some mathematical application to physics question for you.
<4> just watching a film
<3> Ah.
<3> Which?
<5> ohhhh
<5> hes theree
<5> oh
<5> nvm then
<3> :)
<5> is the film good ?
<3> anubiss: And this is #Physics
<5> because i need something
<5> JohnFLux
<4> anubiss: w***up
<5> doing math
<5> i need pointers
<5> i heard that you know where i can find some basic matrices applications to physics
<6> my god, i hate string theory and string theorists!!!!!
<7> string theory > simu00
<7> why the disliking?
<6> simple... IT"S NOT PHYSICS!!!
<6> it's a religion
<7> you don't follow the teachings?
<6> they should be banished to the mathematics departments
<6> i desire nothing less than to prove string theory wrong... but alas, the quest is as futile as proving the non-existence of God
<6> lol
<6> yes, i get bad vibes from strings
<7> and in the 10th dimension Yoichiro Nambu said 'some physics thing as this joke ****s anyway'
<6> Yoichiro Nambu can **** my fat energy fibre
<6> fibre-bundle
<6> **** IT!
<7> nice thing for you to say to Corpse...
<8> Corpses are people too, you know.
<7> were
<8> If you want to be technical.
<0> simu00: why is string theory not physics?
<9> people aren't as optimistic about string theory lately
<0> in any case, im sure we can all agree that we do need a new theory to fix up physics
<6> string theory is not falsifiable
<9> we 'want' a new theory
<6> since it makes no testable predictions
<0> or would like a new theory, rather
<6> string theory is pushing 20 years now
<9> to be honest, we aren't in that much of a pickle right now with current theories
<6> it aint' "new", buddy
<9> simu00 I know one of the main proponents of string theory if you want to relay a message
<6> 20 years is enough time to try out a theory
<0> simu00: i wasn't refering to string theory, just theories in general...
<6> microacg, tell him that simu00 hates him and his theories
<0> simu00: im not sure why it is so appealing, there must be somthing to it, if it is worth this much time
<9> ok I'll do that
<0> and if it is all bunk, at least we can some interesting mathematical systems out of the deal
<10> it takes 400 years to prove some mathematical statement and 20 years is 'much' in physics?
<0> heh....
<0> Defty: good point
<10> physics is too obsessed with its heritage though
<0> sup god
<10> i think i've heard newton's name like a thousand times when reading stuff about physics, ..
<10> any other science is much more quiet about the 'great ones', or at least they're not given so much weight per one being .p
<10> in math you mainly have gauss or something. in chemistry, you nearly don't care.
<10> etc.
<0> yeah, but newtonian mechanics was a great leap forward.....as opposed to nothing :S
<0> there was keppler's laws, but no decent laws of mechanics....
<0> if you stop pushing somthing it stops moving is a poor theory of mechanics :S
<9> newton single handedly un-noobified the world
<0> not single handedly, galileo did some neet stuff
<10> he just made the world obsessed with forces
<10> *as if* it wasn't self-evident anyway that if you pull, you're pulled etc.
<0> without galileo and Keppler, newton probably wouln't have been able to come up with mechanics
<9> I don't know about that
<10> I think Leibniz would have done just as good a job
<9> Leibniz is the man
<9> was*
<9> I'm trying to imagine calculus before him
<10> at least he appears cooler to me than newton
<9> but it kinda makes my head hurt
<10> heh
<9> Newton did many things he isn't as famous for
<9> besides his basic laws of mechanics
<10> yeah probably..
<10> but some guy called Arkhimedes already built catapults and stuff
<9> almost any task was performed before the guy that's famous for it
<9> hell, who 'proved' that the earth was round and not flat?
<0> i think galileo provided some evidence that the earth was round
<10> yeah well
<0> also lunar eclipses
<10> most older physics theories are based on everyday observations, so .. the proof was already there
<9> JabberWalkie: the earth was shown to be round well before galileo
<0> microacg: ahh ok, who did it?
<9> aritosthenes for one (check spelling)
<9> thousands of years ago
<9> he used a shadow and a well
<10> lol
<10> people must have laughed.
<9> and someone to walk really far
<9> and count his steps lol
<10> ok so..
<10> I don't get it
<9> you want to know the procedure?
<5> will there be any new fondamental theories in physics?
<10> yep
<9> ok he lived in a town where
<9> on a certain date, the shadow of the well was 0 since the sun was directly over it at noon
<5> like its been a while since QM was introduced
<9> so he told someone to go 100 miles south or something like that
<9> and measure the angle of the sun
<9> it was a few degrees
<9> then he multiplied around the circle to get the total circumference
<9> to amazing accuracy
<10> so it was larger
<10> somehow .p
<9> what was larger?
<10> the circle
<9> than what?
<10> than if earth were flat
<10> umm
<0> microacg: although that dosn't prove the earth is spherical, it does show it is curved over that local region
<10> actually i'm not sure anymore
<9> JabberWalkie: indeed
<10> i got confused...
<10> did he calculate the circumference like.. non-euclidically?
<0> no...
<9> it was a simple calculation
<0> he measured the lengths of shadows
<9> a proportion
<0> and used some trig....
<10> oh, right.
<9> 1 degree is to 500 miles as 360 degrees is to x miles
<9> something along those lines
<10> I get it, superficially.
<10> I don't get all the implications that it has, other than the simple curvedness conclusion
<9> the implication is that if the curvature of the earth is fairly similar all over the place, we know the size of the planet
<10> yeah but well..
<10> if you go 100 miles on a sphere, and calculate the circumference, it won't be like, 2*pi*100 miles .p
<10> it'll be smaller actually
<9> it's an easy calculation, do you want us to set it up exactly?
<9> I didn't think it was necessary
<10> nah i'm really tired
Return to
#physics
or
Go to some related
logs:
ubuntu mount ntfs you do not have the permissions necessary to view the contents
#php
#php
gentoo + unsupported scheme
eastneo
aralion linux ars106s
#gimp
multiple httpxmlrequest
foodhacking hope
armosfighter
|
|