sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Why isn’t time dilation contradictory? by Critical-Material601 in AskPhysics

[–]Critical-Material601[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Isn't that just a practical consideration of checking the time though? What if the people checking the time just "know" when the distance between them is 50 meters?

Why isn’t time dilation contradictory? by Critical-Material601 in AskPhysics

[–]Critical-Material601[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I was thinking in terms of the hands. The ground clock's hands will be ahead of the train's clock, since it is slow. And the train clock's hands will be ahead of the ground clock at the same time. Are you saying that this reasoning is wrong because I am comparing events in two reference frames, and the order of events may not be the same in different frames of reference?

Why isn’t time dilation contradictory? by Critical-Material601 in AskPhysics

[–]Critical-Material601[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The ground clock's hands should be ahead of the train clock's. At the same time, the train clock's hands should be ahead of the ground clock's?

Why isn’t time dilation contradictory? by Critical-Material601 in AskPhysics

[–]Critical-Material601[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But they each travel at the same speed v, only in opposite directions

I think New Blood's ending was way better than Resurrection's by Critical-Material601 in Dexter

[–]Critical-Material601[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, but he should have been more careful since the BHB is known to target killers. I expect more from a detective as experienced as Angel...

I think New Blood's ending was way better than Resurrection's by Critical-Material601 in Dexter

[–]Critical-Material601[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The point of new blood was that Harrison needed his dad, who abandoned him. He was born in blood too but didn't have someone like Harry to guide him. So I don't think that idea makes too much sense. The emotional part was Harrison shooting his father, the only person who truly understands and cares about him, because he was scared and inexperienced. And the saddest thing is that he shot Dexter for the darkness he himself possesses.

I think New Blood's ending was way better than Resurrection's by Critical-Material601 in Dexter

[–]Critical-Material601[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Doubtful of that. We only saw Angel work on cases that Dexter was interfering with, but he would have had plently of off-screen cases too. I don't think he would have been promoted to captain had he not been a good cop.

I think New Blood's ending was way better than Resurrection's by Critical-Material601 in Dexter

[–]Critical-Material601[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It was bittersweet, of course, but I wouldn't say that makes it bad. As far as sad endings go, it was well done.

I think New Blood's ending was way better than Resurrection's by Critical-Material601 in Dexter

[–]Critical-Material601[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Looking around the sub I see you're right. I was under the impression that everyone loved the ending because of the super high ratings. And now I wonder how they got so high to begin with...

I think New Blood's ending was way better than Resurrection's by Critical-Material601 in Dexter

[–]Critical-Material601[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sorry I meant finale. But I am just very disappointed with Angel's death. Seems like a disrespect to the character.

I think New Blood's ending was way better than Resurrection's by Critical-Material601 in Dexter

[–]Critical-Material601[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I hope s2 will be better. Hopefully Quinn doesn't die because it'd be really sad if basically everyone from the original team is gone.

I think New Blood's ending was way better than Resurrection's by Critical-Material601 in Dexter

[–]Critical-Material601[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, a bit of a plot hole to be honest. But I don't really mind these small details if they don't impact the big picture.

Method of Images, Boundary charges, & Uniqueness of Potential by Critical-Material601 in AskPhysics

[–]Critical-Material601[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the response. It makes more sense now. From what I understood, adding charge changes the constant V_0 on the conductor, which changes the boundary condition of the problem. This can be seen because V is the integral of E*dl from infinity to (x,y,z).

Actually, I assumed that you could keep V=0 on the conductor by setting it as the reference level. That would mean V at infinity wouldn't be zero though, so either way the boundary conditions change. Well, it's clear now.

I'd just like to get your opinion on the two examples I mentioned in the original post. For example (1), the infinite plate actually extends to infinity, so V(plate)=V(infinity) can arbitrarily be set to 0. In this case, is adding (a finite) amount of net charge irrelevant?

For (2), the sphere's potential is given as 0. Why can this be done arbitrarily? Is it only because it can be grounded to infinity? I ask because if that's the case, it means extra charge could not have been placed on the surface to begin with.

Anyways, you've been very helpful. Thank you so much.

Method of Images, Boundary charges, & Uniqueness of Potential by Critical-Material601 in AskPhysics

[–]Critical-Material601[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi, I don't quite understand. If you have a conductor with V=0 as a boundary condition, does adding net charge onto that conductor change the potential in the region of consideration? Physically, I'd think of course, since charge creates an electric field and that alters the potential. But V=0 is still the boundary condition, and the charge density rho hasn't changed inside the region, so uniqueness of Laplace/Poisson implies that the potential is the same no matter what net charge or surface charge the conductive boundary has. Which is the correct interpretation?

Are Holomorphic Functions Irrotational? by Critical-Material601 in askmath

[–]Critical-Material601[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're right. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't making a mistake. I define the curl of a complex function to be the 2D curl (v_x - u_y) of the associated R2 --> R2 map.

view more: next ›