how it works?

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by ethernos, Sep 8, 2017.

1. ethernosRegistered Member

Messages:
87
integral a to 0 accelartion x volume
x time dx

3. originIn a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
10,676
Acceleration x volume x time? That leaves you with $\frac{m^4}{s}$, what is that suppose to be?

Are you just trolling here or is there something you want to discuss?

ethernos likes this.

5. ethernosRegistered Member

Messages:
87
i also would like to know what it is.

7. originIn a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
10,676
What is 'it'?

Messages:
87
m^4

9. originIn a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
10,676
$m^4$ is nonsense in a physical sense. Mathematically you can take 1 m and raise it to the 4th power and it would give $1 m^4$

10. ethernosRegistered Member

Messages:
87
in non physical sense does it make sense?

11. originIn a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
10,676
I have no idea how to respond to that.
Try this, write out 3 - 5 complete sentences that describe what it is you are trying to discover.

12. exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,649
Thread reported with request for it to go to the cesspool.

Nothing Ethernos has posted makes any sense whatsoever.

13. KittamaruAshes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
13,938
Lets give this one last chance:

Ethernos - what, exactly, are you trying to do? Is this a math problem from your homework?

14. exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,649
Good to see you are on the case. Thanks.

15. ethernosRegistered Member

Messages:
87
no! sorry. what i actually tried to ask was "could volume be reduced or increased due to acceleration and time?"

16. KittamaruAshes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
13,938
The only way I can think of off the top of my head for acceleration/deceleration to affect volume would be through resistance causing an increase in temperature in a substance resulting in a state change from liquid to gas (which would result in an increase in volume for a given mass).

Beyond that, I don't believe it does - someone with a deeper physics background could probably explain better.

As for time - again, I don't believe the passing of time itself affects volume. It could indirectly, via decomposition and the like.

ethernos likes this.

Messages:
87
thank you...

18. hansdaValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,424
If this object is accelerated to a relativistic speed, its volume will decrease as per Lorentz length reduction.

ethernos likes this.
19. originIn a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
10,676
That depends on which frame you are in.

20. hansdaValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,424
See the Lorentz equation for length reduction.

ethernos likes this.
21. KittamaruAshes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
13,938
I was under the impression that Lorentz Length Reduction was only based on the stationary outside observer, not the "actual" length? Eg, a co-moving object within the vessels rest frame will not notice a reduction in length, and thus would not note a reduction in volume. As a result, the "actual" volume of the vessel would not decrease (ergo, if you have a vessel of one cubic meter full of water, and accelerate it to 90% the speed of light, water would not "spill out" due to Lorentz Reduction).

ethernos likes this.

Messages:
10,676