You are not logged in.
hi paulb203
Good to hear from you.
Your answer is correct. The working obviouly works but there are one thing not quite right about what you've written.
Back to basics:
So 11.9 isn't in Newtons as it's an impulse not a force. What are the units for impulse? Ns ie Newton seconds. So you are not subtracting Newtons from Ns. The equation underlying this calculation is
I had
That gives V = 47 m/s
Bob
If you draw a velocity-time graph it goes from (0,0) to (1,10)
The distance travelled is the area under the graph; 0.5 x 1 x 10 = 5m.
The average velocity is total distance travelled / time taken = 5/1 = 5.
So that's the correct answer.
From 0 sec to 1/10 sec the area under is
0.5 x 1/10 x 1 = 0.05 m = distance travelled
so the velocity over that interval is 0.05 / 0.1 = 0.5 m
You are using 1m ... that value is too big. The correct value for each interval is the half way one not the endpoint one.
This happens for every interval from 0.1s to 1s.
So the correct average by this method is
(0.5 + 1.5 + 2.5 + 3.5 + 4.5 + 5.5 + 6.5 + 7.5 + 8.5 + 9.5)/10 =(5 + 45)/10 = 5 m/s
Bob
I learnt it as conservation of momentum. Your calculation is correct. But should need to add emphasis concerning direction.
So start by declaring you are taking East as the positive direction and end by stating the combined object travels East at 2/3 m/s.
Bob
A frame of reference is just a way to formulate the model of a problem by placing one object at rest. eg. If I'm on a train (speed T) looking at a cyclist (speed C) alongside the track, I can make my frame of reference the train, in which case the cyclist appears to be going at
speed T-C.
As no acceleration is involved the frame is said to be inertial.
If you wish to analyse the rotational properties of the Earth, the oceans and the winds, then acceleration is involved because a rotating object needs a central acceleration in order to follow a circular path. The frame of reference in non inertial.
So u mean gravity is relative?
Not sure how to answer this. If you mean that the gravity I measure could be different from someone else's measurement of the same gravity, the best I can come up with is maybe.
When scientists measure the gravitational pull of the Earth they get the same answer if they measure at the same place (it does vary around the surface of the Earth) but if you tried to measure gravity in a moving lift you would get a different result from a static lift.
Bob
What you call it isn't important. The calculation is
Decide on a positive direction (either will do but then use it throughout).
As the objects are travelling towards each other one v will be + and the other - .
Bob
Sorry I used 'embed'. I just mean consider the situation from the ball's viewpoint. So what if you're an ant on the ball. Then yes that means the Earth is now moving.
We do this all the time. If you're in a car or train, the world seems to be moving past. Just standing on the Earth we see the Sun, Moon and stars rotating above our head.
Thanks for the calculation. I think we can safely ignore the Earth's movement here.
Bob
hi again.
I've partly answered your other number base question. But this one ??? Did you just throw together some numbers to ask this?
In any number case the column headings are n^3 n^2 n and units.
The only digits that are allowed are those smaller than n.
So
2538 base five
would never occur. 5 and 8 don't exist as digits in base 5.
Bob
If you want more help on number bases you could look here:
https://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/bases.html
or post again, but not in this area of the forum, but rather in the help me section.
Bob
hi Barrie
Welcome to the forum.
It's usual to work in base ten, column headings 'hundreds', tens, and 'units'.
But it's perfectly possible to do 'sums' in other bases.
124n=232 base five. Now find the value of n
The column headings for base 5 are twenty fives, fives and units so we can convert this number to base ten like this:
2 x 25 + 3 x 5 + 2 x 1 = 50 + 15 + 2 = 67.
So, apparently 124n = 67. I don't think the setter of this question meant 124 times n = 67 which would make n = 67/124
Rather I think the setter meant in what base (n) would 67 be written 124.
It only makes sense if n is 5 or 6 or 7 because there's no such number as 4 in bases lower than 5, and in base 8 that 1 is worth 64 which rules out n=8 or higher.
To sort out n you have to try n= 5, n=6, and n=7
ie try 1 x 25 + 2 x 5 + 4
1 x 36 + 2 x 6 + 4
1 x 49 + 2 x 7 + 4
I'll leave the working to you. One of the above does work; the other two don't.
Bob
hi meanshape101
Welcome to the forum.
Bob
Bring the ball to rest by embedding it in the frame of reference and it's now the Earth that moves and at the same (but sign reversed) magnitude. Should we worry about this? Well people have been dropping things for many years without any problem. The crust is flexible* so maybe it just bends a bit.
*We're used to the Earth's tides ie water moving about, but actually I read somewhere that the crust moves too.
Bob
Sundial theory:
Imagine you are at the North Pole. Make a disc with 24 sectors, 15° apart. As the Earth rotates, the Sun appears to revolve around the polar axis at a rate of 15° per hour. As you're at the pole it's not clear which time zone you're in so you'd have to decide which sector line represents zero hour but that need not concern us here. A vertical stick along the polar axis will make a shadow and we can use that shadow to tell the time.
Now take your stick and disc to latitude alpha. If you move so that the stick is still parallel to the polar axis you can continue to use the dial to tell the time. But sometimes the Sun is lower than the disc so no shadow. What lots of sundial makers do is convert the disc to a horizontal one. You have to keep the stick pointing along the polar axis so only the dial is changed.
This diagram is a side view of the situation. The polar axis is the line FA at angle alpha to the horizontal. The side view of the circular sundial is the line BAC with A at the centre and radius r. The dial is projected down onto a horizontal at EFD. The circle becomes an ellipse with major axis ED, half length a. The minor axis will retain the width of the circular dial so half width r. The equation of this ellipse is
You could have an elliptical sundial face but it's more common to make it circular once more. But, what needs to change are the hour angles. Because the face is stretched along the ED axis all the hour angles change. What follows shows how to work out the new angles.
I'll use theta for the angle between the 12 noon sector line and the secor line for any other hour (eg one o'clock theta = 15, two o'clock theta = 30 and so on)
So on the circular dial
........(1)where x1 is a measurement on the circular dial.
I'll use phi for angles on the elliptical dial
..........(2)y is unchanged by the projection but x2 is stretched by the equation
.........(3)Dividing (1) by (2) and using (3)
So we get the equation
I used that formula to make the hours angles for my dial. I also checked it by an on-line source. And my dial gives the right time so I'm fairly happy that's the correct equation and I think you can use it for azimuth.
If FG is a vertical dial up to the middle (G) of the dial then a similar calculation will give the new hours angles. This time the x coordinates stay constant and the y's are stretched so the equations are
so
I haven't got independent confirmation of that formula but I think it works. You can use it for the altitude angles.
Bob
It could be found empirally. But I think I've got two formulas, one for the alttiude and one for the azimuth.
I'm helping a neighbour with their garden at the moment.
I've post what I have later today.
Bob
I was, of course, hoping you'd ask that.
Bob
There's enough here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_number to keep you busy for a few weeks. The applications are about 3/4 of the way down the article with links if you want more details.
What I particularly like is the completeness of the complex numbers. Any algebraic equation has a solution in complex numbers. It also leads to my favourite equation.
Bob
There's enough here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_number to keep you busy for a few weeks. The applications are about 3/4 of the way down the article with links if you want more details.
What I particularly like is the completeness of the complex numbers. Any algebraic equation has a solution in complex numbers. It also leads to my favourite equation.
Bob
hi AtotehZ
Welcome to the forum.
I'm not yet fully understanding the problem.
I'm not seeing area D at all. Would you show, on a new picture, a D area alongside the other squares?
Are shapes allowed to overlap?
Are 'holes' allowed where the grid shows through with no squares?
Bob
Did you mean this:
https://www.mathisfunforum.com/viewtopi … 62#p442362
I'm glad to get onto sundial theory because I think it is going to be needed here.
The Sun appears to track along a great circle at 15° /hour. But the shadow on my sundial does not track at that rate. Only the horizontal movement affects the shadow so it is necessary to calculate each hour angle. The angle between 12 and 1 is about 12° and between 6 and 7 is about 16°. I've got the theory for this written down somewhere ... I'll dig it out.
And if you want a dial on a vertical face that too is possible but needs a different set of angles. Your tracker will need both the altitude (vertical) and azimuth (horizontal) calculations I think.
Bob
Well yes, sort of correct. But 'only' here does not do justice to all the applications that stem from that.
Bob
You can mark all real numbers on a horizontal line extending left and right to - ∞ and + ∞
Jean-Robert Argand extended this idea to include the imaginary numbers on an axis at right angles to the real axis.
I heard recently that Decartes ridiculed the idea of such numbers, calling them imaginary as an insult. That's not what I believe however. The imaginary axis is a perfect reflection of the real axis in the line y=x, so I prefer the name to be because it's an image of the real axis.
A complex number can be represented by a point somewhere in the plane of the diagram, having its real part as its x coordinate and its imaginary part as its y coordinate.
I've marked a typical point a + ib with coordinates [rcos(theta), rsin(theta)]
It's modulus (distance from the origin) is r where r^2 = x^2 + y^2 and its argument (angle the line makes with the + x axis) theta.
So far all that is true whatever the scales marked on the axes.
But now look at the scale I've chosen. The picture now shows a circle radius 1, centred on the origin. The cube roots of 1 are three points at angle theta = 0°, 120° and 240°.
Bob
hi KerimF
I've begun to research this with more understanding. The formula for declination that I gave in post 5 is not correct! My apologies.
I've looked elsewhere and found a formula that does give sensible values so I'm happy with it.
I couldn't understand where the number 284 came from. That date is 11th October which has no significance over any other date. If Jan 1st is 1 then adding 10 takes us back to the Winter solstice. I've changed to radians (hence the 2pi rather than 360) . Here are the results of that formula for the 4 key dates in the year.
Spring day 79 delta = -0.90804
Summer day 172 delta = 23.44913
Autumn day 265 delta = -0.50455
Winter day 355 delta = - 23.45
Strictly those equinox values should be zero but there will always be a small difference unless you take account of leap years. The solstice values are very close to the correct values.
More later.
Bob
Ok; using what I have just proved:
and if I multiply that result by another of the same:
and so on. de Moivre's theorem is the general result:
It might not seem like much but it is really useful when dealing with complex number on the Argand Diagram.
eg. Let's say I want to find all three cube roots of 1.
Mod(1) is 1 so all three must have mod 1 too. So, on an Argand Diagram, draw a circle radius 1 around (0,0).
We know that a cube root is 1 but complex theory says there must be two more. They must lie on the circle or their mod will be wrong. And their arguments must add up to zero (or a multiple of 360. So 120 and 240 will work. That gives
I'll multiply out the first to prove it and leave the other as an exercise for you.
The i terms here cancel leaving
Wow! Getting all the LaTex right here was very tricky.
Bob
Can you please explain the De Moivre's theorem?
Yes, but now I come to do so I've realised that I was using something related but not de Moivre's theorem itself.
I'll do my formula* first. * I'm not claiming it's named for me, but just that it's what I was using.
Suppose you have a complex number a + ib.
r is called the modulus of the complex number and theta its argument. You can move between the a + ib version of the complex number and the modulus argument version using
Now suppose you have a second complex number with modulus s and argument phi and multiply them together
Thus, for any two complex numbers the modulus of the product is the product of the moduli and the argument of the product is the sum of the arguments.
Bob
Would you like to see the real de moivre also?
I've now tried it and it is very 'messy'.
a = 13i b = 1 c = -101
Is that sufficient for an answer? I checked with Wolfram alpha and that's the answer it gave.
If you've got another hour or so to spare, it is possible to find the complex square root of any number using De Moivre's theorem.
First find the modulus and argument of the complex number.
A square root will have a modulus that is the square root of the above mod. and an argument that is half the argument of the above.
That's where it gets messy. I had hoped it would come out to a 'nice, easy' number but it doesn't.
Bob
I looked it up. I'll think about why it works later.
First calculate the Sun's declination:
The declination of the sun is:
δ = 23.45° * sin( (360° / 365) * (n + 284) )
where "δ" represents the declination angle, and "n" is the day of the year with January 1st being day 1 (where we are in the leap year cycle has a negligible effect on this).
Next calculate the Sun's maximum altitude:
A=90−(φ−δ)
where
A is the altitude of the sun (degrees)
φ is the latitude of the observer (degrees)
δ is the declination of the sun (degrees)
Use a clock set to your local time rather than the Country time across the time zone. You can calculate this using your longitude. The Earth rotates 15° per hour. I live East of Greenwich so, for me, the Sun is 'ahead' of GMT by about 3 minutes. The altitude value occurs when the Sun is due South of the observer (for the Northern hemisphere).
There is another factor that will alter the local noon value because of small inaccuracies due to the elliptical nature and tilt of the Earth's orbit. This shifts local noon by some minutes but is only about 15 minutes at worst so you can probably skip this factor. (ref: the equation of time)
I think that's all you need.
Bob
I've been thinking some more about this.
Keen astronomers get an 'equatorial mount' for their telescope. The mount can rotate in two ways. One of the axes is set to point at the pole star. The other allows the astronomer to point at a star and then follow it as the Earth rotates. The polar axis rotation can automatically rotate at the right speed using a suitable motor.
Following the Sun would need a similar arrangement. The reason the Sun moves across the sky is totally due to the rotation of the Earth so, once you are pointing at the Sun, you'll need to rotate your device around the polar axis. The angle between the polar axis and the horizontal is the latitude.
There must be a reasonably simple formula for fixing the angle between the polar axis and a line pointing towards the Sun. Don't know what it is yet but I'm hopeful I can work it out or look it up if the former fails. It will depend on the date.
Bob