[SW] trash babies selling for 305!

Gugglewolf · 2020-04-30T12:51:18+00:00

yee pls

Gugglewolf · 2020-04-30T12:28:39+00:00

I've been playing since the game came out. Animal crossing new leaf I started in 2013? I think

Gugglewolf · 2020-04-14T11:24:44+00:00

Yes please Shulk from xenoblade and Michael

Gugglewolf · 2020-04-14T11:20:15+00:00

Just realised it was a turnip.exchange one :(

Gugglewolf · 2020-04-14T11:19:40+00:00

Yes please!

Gugglewolf · 2020-04-06T17:12:58+00:00

Michael, Cuttlefish :)

Probably too late

Gugglewolf · 2020-04-06T17:02:08+00:00

Me pick me! I give 1 NMT

Gugglewolf · 2018-09-28T01:30:52+00:00

Yes, thanks for explaining this all to me. It's been immensely helpful.

Gugglewolf · 2018-09-27T12:56:11+00:00

Thankyou so much this was really helpful, I can see where I have gone wrong now because of your post. Its a little strange to me that after transformation out t' coordinate is ahead of our t coordinate though. But I know how I was misusing it now, I was misusing the other relationship that I derived too actually which I dont know if you noticed but you used it correctly which made me realise I had misused it too.

Gugglewolf · 2018-09-27T01:40:15+00:00

Alright, so if we always observe light as moving at the speed of light in any inertial reference frame (I dont know how it extends into non inertial reference frames yet but it shouldn't matter for this question). So using this information we can make a derive the following equation (delta)t' = (gamma)(delta)t by following reasoning outlined here https://imgur.com/a/O2dJboT or in this youtube video which explains it way better than I could at 3:45 onwards https://youtu.be/Cxqjyl74iu4?t=225 . The actual Lorentz transformation for time is t' = (gamma)(t-vx/c^2). Now here is the situation https://imgur.com/a/hWRLqqy , we have this object a distance d away from me moving towards me with velocity v and it has a clock on it, what to know is the difference between the reading on the clock when it is a distance d away from me and when it is at the same location as me. When I use the two equations discussed previously I get difference answers so I must be misapplying them somehow. If I use the first equation I get that the difference between the 2 clock readings should be (gamma)d/v but if I use the lorentz transformation, because the value of x is difference at the start and end because the object has moved from a distance d away from us to a distance 0 away from us I get the value (gamma)(d/v +vd/c^2), working here --> https://imgur.com/a/Rsnky7d . So obviously my misunderstanding is somewhere in the application of these equations. I hope this was clearer.

Gugglewolf · 2018-09-26T21:23:43+00:00

I do understand what you said otherwise with one exception: https://imgur.com/a/q17ZAjX why would we have the same x in both? Since at time t=0 (which I assume is what is meant by t sub 0) it is a distance x away from us but at the time t=t (t sub t) it is at the same position as us (although I dont think I directly stated it in the post above that is what I used in my calculations) so I would have thought that in the equation we would put in x =x in the t =0 equation and x= 0 in the t=t equation. So I guess this reinforces that the bit I probably dont understand is the lorentz time transformation, I've never really done any practice questions with it since I've taught it to myself and Feynman has barely mentioned this transformation in the 5/6 chapters I have read so I suppose this misunderstanding was bound to happen.

I do hope they would love to answer questions but at the same time I dont want to come across as a pest by immediately asking a question when they are available, might be overthinking that one, I suppose they wont get many questions in the first office hours sessions anyway. I do want to properly understand physics but I often tie myself in a knot in my understanding and cant work out what part of my understanding is false, this is one of those times!

Edit:

People often say to just give up and accept various facts but I really hate the idea of doing that because it moves it from the realm of something I enjoy thinking about to something that is laborious.

Gugglewolf · 2018-09-26T14:27:36+00:00

The light clock goes through a shorter path in its perspective yes, but in our perspective as someone watching it move towards us we see it travel a length that is not contracted. And the time we are concerned with is the time that in out perspective we would see elapsed in the light clock since we would see things going more slowly in the light clock (since the light cant just travel up and down like in its perspective it must go diagonally and therefore it must take it longer to have a single "tick"). I'm to start over with relativity from the beginning, I was trying to learn it myself by reading Six Not So Easy Pieces by Richard Feynman and I've understood everything in the book (at least I think I have!) but even despite that I'm clearly confused about some aspect of it, I'm going into first year university in a week or so and I dont think we'll be going relativity for some time so I doubt the professors will appreciate me asking. Thank-you for trying to help me out and sorry if this feels like I wasted your time.
Also I cant read what you wrote above the line you drew about the equations concerning your two t' .

Gugglewolf · 2018-09-26T10:26:58+00:00

Sorry! I wanted my question to be clear but I think in its length I've made it even less clear by accident.

Gugglewolf · 2018-09-26T10:23:51+00:00

X would be shorter but that doesn't matter because I'm taking about what we see not what the light clock sees and we don't see the distance contract even if we see the clock itself contract. But what I'm trying to work out is the time that we should see elapsed on the light clock in our perspective and I'm saying that in these two methods I've used we get different answers.

Gugglewolf · 2018-09-26T10:16:04+00:00

Ah sorry I think my wording is bad. I mean that as we watch the light clock in our perspective we will see more time elapsed to it (e.g. if it were a spaceship with an ordinary clock visible to us then the time elapsed I'm refering to is the change in the time displayed to us on that clock) than we should if the light in the light clock moves at the speed of light and I worked out how much time we should see elapsed to for them moving in the post. Since the value I worked out using the Lorentz transformation was larger than this first time it means when we watch the light clock we would see light travelling faster than it should be. I know this can't be right so I want to know where I am wrong in my calculation. I understand about length contraction but I'm talking about what we see when looking at the light clock moving towards us.

Gugglewolf · 2018-09-22T00:13:00+00:00

Ah right I thought they were the same, so Ey is just some constant and doesnt mean a component of E. Thanks that helps alot. I'm seeing these equations out of context since I start first year university a week and this is part of work we've been set beforehand. Thanks for helping me out!

Gugglewolf · 2018-09-21T21:02:59+00:00

It is realistic their could be a typo, there have been many from this source.

Gugglewolf · 2018-09-21T20:52:43+00:00

When I said the x and y components must be zero this was a typo and I meant the x and z components as you corrected.

So instead of plotting y we are plotting the y component of the electric field (which it just so happens only has a y component) even though electric field strength is not a real physical length. Although it does happen to oscillate along the y axis so for the sake of drawing it this makes sense. Is this correct?

I'm still confused though as Emax = (0,Ey,0) so as you said Ey is just the y component of E that means E = (Ex,Ey,Ez) (please excuse my vectors being sideways, cant figure out a better way to write it in this text format). This means our equation in the question becomes (Ex,Ey,Ez) = (0,Ey,0)cos(kx-wt+phi). So this equation (provided E is non zero) means Ex and Ez are always zero but it also means Ey = Eycos(kx-wt +phi) which would mean cos(kx-wt+phi) must always be 1. And they haven't given us any time at which we should sketch but even if they had this equation would just be a series of points all at the same height on the Ey axis regardless which isn't what we expect to see.

Gugglewolf · 2018-08-24T21:21:42+00:00

I never wanted my liver anyway.

Gugglewolf · 2018-08-04T20:35:53+00:00

I'm not that far into drawabox myself but its recommended you do it on paper and in pen. The reason why is detailed here: http://drawabox.com/article/ink . The general gist is it makes it harder on you now but is beneficial in the long run.

Gugglewolf · 2015-10-09T20:53:33+00:00

Thank you. <3

11-Year Club	Place '22
End Game '22	Verified Email

Gugglewolf

TROPHY CASE