| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Comments:
<0> thanks
<1> hey guys
<0> its for a physics homework so il just stay here
<0> whats a unit circle ?
<0> i draw a circle up to the maximum value i have ?
<2> http://www.hsu.edu/uploadedImages/Faculty/lloydm/cl***es/pt/UnitCircle.GIF
<2> that is a unit circle
<3> Hihi Superkuh, impeachgod
<1> hi suicine
<1> what are we talking about here? or doing here?
<3> :D
<1> but I was too addicted to the internet + lazy to do anything real
<1> so I decided to fix myself
<4> microacg its very grainy and umm... its more than a pixel in radius
<2> what?
<2> that was just an example
<2> you don't need it
<0> nice picture
<0> ill like my upper left vector is 20degrees relative to the -x axis ?
<0> so 180 + 20
<0> fomr sin point of view and -cos 20
<5> Well, I'm bored now, so I'll be off
<5> Cy'all
<1> hey ihope, kcbanner
<6> Ello.
<7> hi
<8> yo
<9> sup my niggas
<6> Now, do heat pumps always waste energy unless you can manage to keep the hot separated from the cold?
<9> they always waste energy
<9> well, better said, they always fail in converting a certian percentage
<10> anybody home
<2> no
<11> hello
<10> hello
<12> hello
<13> HELLO
<12> hay
<10> whereabouts
<11> how do you calculate the pulsation of a signal from discrete values ?
<14> madprog: Fourier transforms, perhaps?
<11> Madsy: perhaps, but i don't know how to use it
<14> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_transform
<11> the idea is, in fact, to recompose a saturated signal
<14> I use FFTs to decompose audio data into frequencies.
<14> B*** detection really.
<11> and so, to find the original parameters from the not saturated parts of the wave
<14> So you basically want to "repair" a wave?
<11> yes
<14> How is the signal saturated? By noise, clamping, precision loss or some other factor?
<11> i would say, by clamping
<11> there are some plates in the waves
<14> I.e too high amplitude.
<11> yes
<11> that's it
<14> Find the frequency at the neighbouring points, I guess. Then based on that frequency, alter the points which do not fit in.
<14> Which can be done with Fourier transforms.
<11> ok, so i apply a Fourier transform to a part of the wave where i know the values are not saturated by clamping, and then it will give me the amplitude and the phase, right ?
<14> Another way could be to first scale down the singal, look for flat bands and just add some random noise ;)
<14> signal*
<15> Hello everyone!
<14> madprog: Hold on, I'll see if I can find a nice article for you
<11> Madsy: thank you very much :) i've been looking around for a week, but my knowledge is a bit limited :/
<14> madprog: http://www.relisoft.com/science/Physics/sound.html
<14> I've yet to find a better article.
<14> You should take a read on complex numbers, if you are unfamiliar with them.
<11> i've studied them some years ago
<14> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_number
<11> i'll try to understand, thank you :)
<2> wikipedia entries on math are usually confusing in my experience
<14> You owe me one :)
<2> they try to be broad enough to cover all levels, yet that makes them somewhat inaccessible to the lower end people
<2> but the 'experts' who write or review the articles find them to be very good
<14> microacg: They beat mathworld, in my opinion.
<2> Madsy: could be
<14> But that's probably because I **** ;)
<14> I still struggle with simple derivation.
<11> Madsy: thanks for the article, it seems to be very complete :)
<11> (for my needs)
<14> :)
<16> re
<2> damn I'm getting out my cl***ical mechanics textbook to prepare lol
<0> is this a good time to be in physics ?
<2> the field?
<17> The channel?
<18> Physics, North Dakota?
<17> Actually, I'm interested in the answer to the question if you mean the field :P
<0> ya
<0> studying, working in
<0> exciting time i meant
<0> more then..
<0> ah thsis ****s
<0> nvm
<0> boring question
<18> http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-doyle27jan27,0,7816047.story?coll=la-opinion-center
<19> hello
<19> i have a small question regarding the relativity theory of einstein
<19> is there someone who could help me?
<2> special or general relativity?
<19> there is no accelerating
<19> so only the special relativity theory
<2> what is your question
<19> well
<19> einstein explains that time, m*** length are relative
<19> time ticks slower when you move
<19> but
<19> he explains that if you travel real fast, away from earth
<19> time goes slower, so when he gets back, a large amount of time has been past
<19> for the earth observers
<2> sounds good so far
<19> thats not relative
<19> time has changed in an absolute way, so when the traveller stops travelling
<19> time for the traveller as well for the observer has changed!
<19> how is that possible?
<19> you could say that the traveller moves away from earth
<19> but you could also (relative) say that earth moves away from the traveller
<19> why this difference in time?
<19> can someone explain this toe me please
<19> ?
<2> I am not totally understanding how you are finding something that doesn't make sense in special relativity
<20> relik you couldnt ...
<2> it's entirely dependant on reference frame
<19> what do you mean?
<19> yes
<20> relik because the traveller isnt a inertial reference
<19> but at some time these references come together
<19> when both stop moving toward each other
<19> Pimentel-ES what do you mean by that?
<2> relik: I'm finding it hard to understand what your problem with SR is
<19> the time for the traveller should be exactly the same
<19> as the time for the earth observer
<9> relik: the people on earth don't change refrence frames, the travler does. Do the calculation in both frames, you will see it is consistant
<2> in whose reference frame?
<2> JabberWalkie: I'm deriving the solution to the potw on paper so I'm prepared to explain it lol... about halfway done
<20> relik well, you only can aply special relativity on a inertial reference, but the traveller is acelerated relative to the earth, which is (almost) a inertial reference
<19> so
<20> so, special relativy cant be applied to the traveller reference
<19> if the traveller would travel in a constant speed
<9> microacg: well i would avoid deriving the orbital equations....those can be looked up
<2> I'm deriving it anyway
<2> nice exercise
<2> I haven't done it since cl***ical mechanics
<19> you wouldn't notice the time differences?
<20> relik in a constant speed it wouldnt get back O.o
<9> ive done them before....so im confident in the fact that i can prefrom that nasty integral
<2> I haven't encountered a nasty integral yet
<9> Pimentel-ES: constant velocity
<9> the speed is constant for the trip, the velocity is not
<19> so
Return to
#physics
or
Go to some related
logs:
how does update-static-leases work
torrentflux Access denied for user
#perl
audigy4 lirc
$_sessions don't work
#math
gentoo snes gamepad parallel
#web
#lisp
shutdown.c tyler
|
|
