Search results

william they don't both move to the left. while there is an emf induced in both, a current flows only in the second one. It is current, not emf, that makes them electromagnets, so only the second one moves.

I'm going to summarise, in very rigorous logic, the "B" argument, some "D" idiot tell me where you disagree... 1) We assume that we are ignoring acceleration 2) Therefore we approach the question with special relativity 3) Given that approach, both the spaceship and the Earth are...

Bannanafish i felt like an idiot when i first said you were wrong...but at least i could accept your explanation for b unlike some of these people (adam) who don't even understand relativity let's leave it be

buddy it wasn't a displacement against time it was a range against speed that we drew oh and the graph they showed us was not an accelerated object...it was the displacement of the ball before it left the ledge, so no acceleration (ignoring friction)

buddy it wasn't a displacement against time it was a range against speed

hey guys metal head is being anal....it doesn't swing "like a pendulum" but of course it bloody well swings

"i'm not arguing that 16.7 is the correct answer, i'm arguing that BOS fucked the question, and that 16.7 is the answer that they'll mark correct." the BOS won't give marks for something that is wrong, when it can be answered correctly using expected knowledge from the syllabus.

ok so you got d by using special relativity...but you claim that special relativity doesn't apply...how does that work?

umm that's exactly my point. ND is claiming that he got D by using general relativity

sorry iH, currents in different directions repel

ND - what "general relativity equations" did you use????

i'm not convinced that he is accelerating i mean no-one here even knows how to calculate things taking general relativity into account let alone it being in the syllabus so i dunno how you can say "hence D", because 16.7 was an answer you (and I) got by calculating according to special...

adam you don't even understand that inertial frames are dealt with by special, not general relativity, let alone that in this question we have to consider the spaceship stationary to answer it

probably better to go with smeyo than me but i would have thought higher than 95, there are no shocker marks there and some really good ones (eg english, history ext)

dunno, probably not :) i only have a vague recollection of that middle section edit: silly me this is the option!

"As for both seeing each other age more, this is only in special relativity. In general relativity (which we are talking about here, because there is no mention of any sort of acceleration, he is an inertial frame of reference)," i rest my case go and read a textbook or something

did anyone else mention how einstein used his influence to promote de broglie's work, meaning that it was considered seriously by other scientists (definitely a change in scientific thinking?)

although for the question i think it said compare so you probably had to point out similarities...like bohr kept rutherford's notion of a densely packed nucleus etc;

as far as i understand, yes

i doubt you would lose more than one, although possibly two if they don't think you understand lenz's law