anonymous asked:

Newsflash: Dan and Phil masturbate and probably reach for the sky, remember that

i love it when things I’ve already learned in physics come up in m1 and m2 mechanics, a little less to learn and revise

The exponential, sine and cosine functions in physics

Inspired from a math lecture…

From the point of view of a physicist, the exponential, sine and cosine functions are interesting only because they are the solutions to differential equations. To us, they are defined to be the solution to ODEs, akin to how the Hermite, Legendre, Laguerre etc. polynomials are defined to be solutions to PDEs.

**P.S. **If you ONLY knew about the geometric definition of the sine function, you’d have to be very smart to see that it’s the solution to d^x/dx^2=-(constant)x geometrically.

Think about it this way: let’s say you want to describe some natural phenomena you see, for example radioactive decay and simple harmonic motion. If you go about trying to solve the equations describing these phenomena, you would have discovered / invented the exponential and sine functions. Wow. The exponential and trig functions indeed are deep rooted in nature.

**P.S.S. **You can derive the sine and cosine functions yourself! Substitute a series solution into the simple harmonic motion equation and what you’ll find is the sum of the taylor expansions of sine and cosine.

What IS the canonical momentum?

This post is going to try and explain the concepts of Lagrangian mechanics, with minimal derivations and mathematical notation. By the end of it, hopefully you will know what my URL is all about.

In 1687, Isaac Newton became the famousest scientist jerk in Europe by writing a book called *Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica*. The book gave a framework of describing motion of objects that worked just as well for stuff in space as objects on the ground. Physicists spent the next couple of hundred years figuring out all the different things it could be applied to.

(Newton’s mechanics eventually got downgraded to ‘merely a very good approximation’ when quantum mechanics and relativity came along to complicate things in the 1900s.)

In 1788, Joseph-Louise Lagrange found a different way to put Newton’s mechanics together, using some mathematical machinery called Calculus of Variations. This turned out to be a very useful way to look at mechanics, almost always much easier to operate, and also, like, the basis for all theoretical physics today.

We call this **Lagrangian mechanics**.

The way we think of it these days is, whatever we’re trying to describe is a **physical system**. For example, this cool double pendulum.

The physical system has a **state** - “the pieces of the system are arranged this way”. We can describe the state with a list of numbers. The double pendulum might use the angles of the two pendulums. The name for these numbers, in Lagrangian mechanics, is **generalised coordinates**.

(Why are they “generalised”? When Newton did his mechanics to begin with, everything was thought of as ‘particles’ with a position in 3D space. The *coordinates* are each particle’s \(x\), \(y\) and \(z\) position. Lagrangian mechanics, on the other hand is cool with *any* list of numbers can be used to distinguish the different states of the system, so its coordinates are “generalised”.)

Now, we want to know what the system does as time advances. This amounts to knowing the state of the system for every single point in time.

There are lots of possibilities for what a system might do. The double pendulum might swing up and hold itself horizontal forever, for example, or spin wildly. We call each one a **path**.

Because the generalised coordinates tell apart all the different states of the system, a path amounts to a value of each generalised coordinate at every point in time.

OK. The point of mechanics is to find out *which* of the many *imaginable* paths the system/each coordinate *actually* takes.

To achieve this, Lagrangian mechanics says the system has a mathematical object associated with it called the **action**. It’s almost always written as \(S\).

OK, so here’s what you do with the action: you take one of the paths that the system might take, and feed it in; the action then spits out a number. (It’s an object called a functional, to mathematicans: a function from functions to numbers).

So every path the system takes gets a number associated with it by the action.

The actual numbers associated with each path are not actually that useful. Rather, we want to compare ‘nearby’ paths.

We’re looking for a path with a special property: **if you add any tiny little extra wiggle to the path, and feed the new path through the action, you get the same number out**. We say that the path with this special property is the one the system actually takes.

This is called the **principle of stationary action**. (It’s sometimes called the “principle of least action”, but since the path we’re interested in is not necessarily the path for which the action is lowest, you shouldn’t call it that.)

The answer is sort of, because we pick out an action which produces a stationary path corresponding to our system. Which might sound rather circular and pointless.

If you study quantum field theory, you find out the principle of stationary action falls out rather neatly from a calculation called the Path Integral. So you could say that’s “why”, but then you have the question of “why quantum field theory”.

A clearer question is why is it *useful* to invent an object called the action that does this thing. A couple of reasons:

- the general properties actions frequently make it possible to work out the action of a system just by looking at it, and it’s easier to calculate things this way than the Newtonian way.
- the action gives us a mathematical object that can be thought of as a ‘complete description of the behaviour of the system’, and conclusions you draw about this object - to do with things like symmetries and conserved quantities, say - are applicable to the system as well.

So, OK, let’s crack the action open and look at how it’s made up.

So “inside the action” there’s another object called the Lagrangian, usually written \(L\). (As far as I know it got called that by Hamilton, who was a big fan of Lagrange.) The Lagrangian takes a state of the system and a measure of how quickly its changing, and gives you back a number.

The action crawls along the path of the system, applying the Lagrangian at every point in time, and adding up all the numbers.

Mathematically, the action is the integral of the Lagrangian with respect to time. We write that like $$S[q]=\int_{q(t)} L(q,\dot{q},t)\dif t$$

Lots and lots of things.

The main thing is that you use the Lagrangian to figure out what the stationary path is.

Using a field of maths called *calculus of variations*, you can show that the path that stationaryises the action can be found from the Lagrangian by solving a set of differential equations called the Euler-Langrange equations. If you’re curious, they look like $$\frac{\dif}{\dif t}\left(\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}_i}\right) = \frac{\partial L}{\partial q_i}$$but we won’t go into the details of how they’re derived in this post.

The Euler-Lagrange equations give you the **equations of motion** of the system. (Newtonian mechanics would also give you the same equations of motion, eventually. From that point on - *solving* the equations of motion - everything is the same in all your mechanicses).

The Lagrangian has some useful properties. Constraints can be handled easily using the method of Lagrange multipliers, and you can add Lagrangians for components together to get the Lagrangian of a system with multiple parts.

These properties (and probably some others that I’m forgetting) tell us what a Lagrangian made of multiple Newtonian particles looks like, if we know the Lagrangian for a single particle.

In the old, Newtonian mechanics, the world is made up of *particles*, which have a position in space, a number called a mass, and not much else. To determine the particles’ motion, we apply things called *forces*, which we add up and divide by the mass to give the acceleration of the particle.

Forces have a direction (they’re objects called *vectors*), and can depend on any number of things, but very commonly they depend on the particle’s position in space. You can have a *field* which associates a force (number and direction) with every single point in space.

Sometimes, forces have a special property of being *conservative*. A conservative force has the special property that

- depends on where the particle is, but not how fast its going
- if you move the particle in a loop, and add up the force times the distance moved at every point around the loop, you get zero

This is great, because now your force can be found from a **potential**. Instead of associating a *vector* with every point, the potential is a *scalar field* which just has a *number* (no direction) at each point.

This is great for lots of reasons (you can’t get very far in orbital mechanics or electromagnetism without potentials) but for our purposes, it’s handy because we might be able to use it in the Lagrangian.

So, suppose our particle can travel along a line. The state of the system can be described with only one generalised coordinate - let’s call it \(q(t)\). It’s being acted on by a conservative force, with a potential defined along the line which gives the force on the particle.

With this super simple system, the Lagrangian splits into two parts. One of them is $$T=\frac{1}{2}m\dot{q}^2$$which is a quantity which Newtonian mechanics calls the kinetic energy (but we’ll get to energy in a bit!), and the other is just the potential \(V(q)\). With these, the Lagrangian looks like $$L=T-V$$and the equations of motion you get are $$m\ddot{q}=-\frac{\dif V}{\dif q}$$exactly the same as Newtonian mechanics.

As it turns out, you can use that idea really generally. When things get relativistic (such as in electromagnetism), it gets squirlier, but if you’re just dealing with rigid bodies acting under gravity and similar situations? \(L=T-V\) is all you need.

This is useful because it’s usually a lot easier to work out the kinetic and potential energy of the objects in a situation, then do some differentiation, than to work out the forces on each one. Plus, constraints.

The canonical momentum in of itself isn’t all that interesting, actually! Though you use it to make Hamiltonian mechanics, and it hints towards Noether’s theorem, so let’s talk about it.

So the Lagrangian depends on the state of the system, and how quickly its changing. To be more specific, for each generalised coordinate \(q_i\), you have a ‘generalised velocity’ \(\dot{q}_i\) measuring how quickly it is changing in time at this instant. So for example at one particular instant in the double pendulum, one of the angles might be 30 degrees, and the corresponding velocity might be 10 radians per second.

The **canonical momenta** \(p_i\) can be thought of as a measure of how responsive the Lagrangian is to changes in the generalised velocity. Mathematically, it’s the partial differential (keeping time and all the other generalised coordinates and momenta stationary): $$p_i=\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}_i}$$They’re called momenta by analogy with the quantities *linear momentum* and *angular momentum *in Newtonian mechanics. For the example of the particle travelling in a conservative force, the canonical momentum is exactly the same as the linear momentum: \(p=m\dot{q}\). And for a rotating body, the canonical momentum is the same as the angular momentum. For a system of particles, the canonical momentum is the sum of the linear momenta.

But be careful! In situations like motion in a magnetic field, the canonical momentum and the linear momentum are different. Which has apparently led to no end of confusion for Actual Physicists with a problem involving a lattice and an electron and somethingorother I can no long remember…

OK a little maths; let’s grab the Euler-Lagrange equations again: $$\frac{\dif}{\dif t} \left(\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}}\right) = \frac{\partial L}{\partial q_i}$$Hold on. That’s the canonical momentum on the left. So we can write this as $$\frac{\dif p_i}{\dif t} = \frac{\partial L}{\partial q_i}$$Which has an interesting implication: suppose \(L\) does not depend on a coordinate directly, but only its velocity. In that case, the equation becomes $$\frac{\dif p_i}{\dif t}=0$$so the canonical momentum corresponding to this coordinate does not change ever, no matter what.

Which is known in Newtonian mechanics as *conservation of momentum*. So Lagrangian mechanics shows that momentum being conserved is equivalent to the Lagrangian not depending on the absolute positions of the particles…

That’s a special case of a **very very important theorem **invented by Emmy Noether.

The canonical momenta (or in general, the *canonical coordinates*) are central to a closely related form of mechanics called **Hamiltonian mechanics**. Hamiltonian mechanics is interesting because it treats the ‘position’ coordinates and ‘momentum’ coordinates almost exactly the same, and because it has features like the ‘Poisson bracket’ which work almost exactly like quantum mechanics. But that can wait for another post.

Lagrangian mechanics may be a useful calculation tool, but the reason it’s *important* is mainly down to something that Emmy Noether figured out in 1915. This is what I’m talking about when I refer to Lagrangian mechanics forming the basis for all the modern theoretical physics.

[OK, I am a total Noether fangirl. I think I have that it common with most vaguely theoretical physicists (the fan part, not the girl one, sadly). To mathematicians, she’s known for her work in abstract algebra on things like “rings”, but to physicists, it’s all about Noether’s Theorem.]

Noether’s theorem shows that there is a very fundamental relationship between **conserved quantities** and **symmetries** of a physical system. I’ll explain what that means in lots more detail in the next post I do, but for the time being, you can read this summary by quasi-normalcy.

The use of numerical simulations in fluid dynamics has exploded over the past half century with new computational techniques being developed constantly. Most methods involve solving the equations of motion (or an approximation thereof) on a grid of points known as a mesh. To accurately capture the physics, meshes must often be quite closely packed in areas where detail is needed, but they can be more widely spaced in areas where the flow is not changing quickly. An increasingly common technique is adaptive meshing in which the mesh of grid points shifts between time steps; this places more grid points where the flow requires them and removes them from less important areas in order to reduce computational time.

An example of adaptive meshing is shown above. On the left particles are falling into salt water. The colors show the concentration of particles. The right side shows the solid particles and the fluid mesh around them. Notice how the grid shifts as the particles fall. (Image credit: C. Jacobs et al., source)

Silence

I am not a good thing

Or a right thing

Or anything that you think I could be

I am a house fire

on the first day of summer

lightning strike

from a clear blue sky

or a car accident

on your way to cash in

a winning lottery ticket,

My intent my actions my hope

have no influence on fate

I am belladonna

I am nightshade

deception inherent

but never personal

I’ll try to control

the dosage

but the skeletons

scattered around me

are the waypoint markers

of my benevolent lethality,

I foreswore dreaming

alienated hope til it fled

but it doesn’t stop the damage

It’s not self pity

to know the truth

observation annotation

cause and effect

I am disappointment

with a friendly almost desperate smile

my dissipated potential

wanders off tired of being ignored

I try but every attempt

is founded

in long refuted theories

that the world and I

are far far better

and much less damaged

than facts dictate

because wishes

are for nine year olds

blowing out candles on birthday cakes

not those

who don’t believe in them anyway,

My judgement is suspect

I suspect my judgement

because I have faith

that my faith is gone

Even my memories

which gather randomly

to chatter incessantly

in the dusty storeroom

of my attempted life

remember what I am,

they speak of verisimilitude

with sneering disdain

and bitterly mock

my delusions of accomplishment

they know as I know

I’ve spent too many decades

waiting for signs

that never were or will be

almost starting

over and over and over

almost starting

but only almost

because the door was heavy

and it was easier and safer

to stay inside circles

pretending that motion

equates to progress,

If I was doomed all along

I didn’t mean to be

I’m sorry if I believed enough

to make you believe too

I’ve been to the place

I think I might belong

repeatedly

a gray rusted wasteland

that might just be my soul

and if that’s true it’s alright,

whatever I am is what I am

but in that place you have no place,

none of you,

I can’t help

but I can protect

all who deserve more..

better..

turn off these words

so you won’t see

what you needn’t,

turn off these words

so you won’t know

about the unimportant,

insignificance

of things that only are

because I am not

anonymous asked:

Newsflash: Dan and Phil masturbate and probably reach for the sky, remember that

wow of all the things i could only remember. if only i could remember what the odyssey was about, how to pay bills, any event from history, 4 equations of motion in physics, how the ever fuck the government works, where babies come from, literally anything from math, how old i am, what i even did yesterday. but i am here to remember that dnp grab their squidward’s nose and start doing the shake weight motion and the squidward’s nose sneezes, and they try to sneeze towards the ceiling,,,thank you, this is important information

anonymous asked:

Is there an equation to describe the speed of a mass falling into a black hole and another equation to describe the time dilation that mass experiences at certain speeds?

The equation for time dilation as a function of velocity is fairly straightforward:

Where t’ is the time an observer experiences, and t is the time the moving object experiences. The equation that describes the motion of an object near a black hole, on the other hand, is a bit more tricky:

Where
r is the distance from the black hole, and
τ
is the proper time of the falling object. Knowing that an object will
take the path that maximizes the proper time, you can use this to
describe the motion of an object around any point mass. Although, if you
were to assume that something was falling radially from infinitely far
away, the velocity works out to be simply

V( τ ) = -(M τ ^2 )/(2 r τ )

Which is nearly identical to the solution for regular Newtonian gravity, except τ is the proper time, and r is the Schwarzschild radial coordinate. If you would rather have this in coordinate time, well, things start getting messy. For those who want to go deeper into this, I’ll just leave this. Thanks for asking!

Glaciers are kind of bizarre. Despite being very solid, they still flow, sometimes on the order of a meter a day. This flow is driven by gravity and the incredible weight of the dense ice. Near the base of the glacier, the pressure is great enough to cause some localized melting. (Very high pressures actually decrease the melting point of water.) Glaciers also move through plastic deformation – this is the internal slippage Joe refers to in the video when he compares glaciers to a deck of cards. Despite their vast differences from typical fluid flows, glacial flows are often still described by the same equations of motion used in the rest of fluid dynamics! (Video credit: It’s Okay to Be Smart; via PBS Digital Studios)

1. Lab Partners - Dave/Jade College AU

First finished work for my self-imposed AU list challenge! Based on the prompt “Wait, I actually have a competent lab partner?” from this college AU post.

Introductory physics.

It was every Biology major’s worst nightmare - a hard as hell science class (with an equally difficult lab component) that was a requirement in order to major in any science class, no matter how tangentially related. Dave knew there was a purpose for it - the pre-meds would need to know this stuff for their MCAT, which they’d need to get into a good medical school.

But Dave just wanted to be a paleontologist. He wanted to find cool dead things. He sincerely doubted that knowing the equations for the laws of motion would help him discover and name his very own dinosaur species.

(He had a name ready and picked out and everything. Hella jeffinius would be the next T. rex.)

Hamiltonian Mechanics

*See more posts about Hamiltonian mechanics*

For a Hamiltonian *H*, given by

where *T* and *U* are the total kinetic energy and total potential energy of the system, respectively; *q*
is a generalised position (such as *x*, *y*, or *r*), and; *p* is a generalised momentum. Using this notation, Hamilton’s equations of motion are

Notice that *q* with a ‘dot’ represents a generalised velocity and *p* with a ‘dot’ represents a generalised force.

We know that the kinetic energy is classically expressed as

where

is the velocity. Recalling that *p* = *mv*, we find that

Let’s now consider the partial derivative of the Hamiltonian (in equation 1) with respect to this generalised
momentum *p*:

Clearly, *U* doesn’t depend on *p* so does not factor into this equation. Now we may evaluate the
partial derivative of the kinetic energy to find

recalling that

we have

Finally,

which we recognise as the Hamiltonian equation of motion for generalised velocity!

Now, we have a potential energy, given by

where *W* is the work done. Given that

*i.e*. Newton’s Second Law of Motion, we find that

Thus, our Hamiltonian is

which has an infinitesimal change

In the following steps we divide through by the d*q* element, keeping in mind that the two are linearly
independent and therefore do not depend on one-another:

We recognise this as the Hamiltonian equation of motion for generalised force!

anonymous asked:

What exactly is inertia? Why objects in motion will keep on moving if there are no forces acting on them??? what if we let go into space an object, and give it some acceleration, will its velocity increase till it's near speed of light?

For the second part, no, or else space travel would be much easier. Once you let go of an object, as long as no other forces are acting on it, it will continue moving at a constant velocity.

But, as to why this is the case, I can’t give you a solid answer. I can argue from the point of conservation of energy, or the principle of least action, but you can ask the same thing about those. Ultimately, we say F=ma because that’s how we observe the world to work. It’s a mathematical model that accurately predicts how objects move through space. The equations of motion get a bit more complicated in relativity and quantum, but the point still holds.

So, why are the laws of physics the way they are? I don’t know. Perhaps they have to be that way for some reason. Maybe there are other universes with different laws of physics, and we ended up here. Maybe there isn’t a real reason. Or, what I think is most likely, maybe we’re just not asking the right question yet.

leo(+ n) singing love equation 150524

For those of us who are Earthbound, it’s easy to think of liquids and gases as being the most common fluids. But plasma–the fourth state of matter–is a fluid as well. Plasmas are essentially ionized gases, which, thanks to their freely flowing electrons, are electrically conductive and sensitive to magnetic fields. Their motions are described by a combination of the Navier-Stokes equations–the usual equations of motion for a fluid–and Maxwell’s equations–the equations governing electricity and magnetism. Studies of plasma motion often fall under the subject of magnetohydrodynamics and can include topics like planetary auroras, sunspots, and solar flares. (Video credit: SciShow)

*WHAT IS CHARGE & WHY IS IT IMPORTANT?*

One of [if not THE] most fundamental properties of physics, it remains elusive to description and explanation in modern physics today.

Often described simply as the attractive [or repulsive] vector force experienced at a distance between two or more particles of Matter and mathematically formulated in 1785 a complete and satisfactory explanation of the quantum source of and role of Charge in physics remains stubbornly elusive to all who have sought it , until now…

Tetryonic theory’s equilateral Planck quanta reveals charge to be an inherent geometric property of electromagnetic energy arising from their quantum field geometries, and while electrical energies themselves are inherently non-polarised the magnetic moments of each side of a Planck quantum quoin each possess a distinct magnetic vector that in turn determines the weak force interactions of fields and particles on all scales of physics.

Ie it is the magnetic vector, not the electric field that determines whether a quantum field of EM energy [a boson or photon] is ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ and in turn the equilateral asymmetry of many combined quantum quoins of EM energy momenta that in turn creates fields of electrostatic and electromagnetic energies that go on to create the charged 3D Matter topologies of the particles of the Standard Model

**CHARGE is a measure of the inherent geometric magnetic dipole moments of all equilateral Planck energy momenta that comprise all the 2d fields, 3D particles and 1d forces of our Universe….**.

Tetryonic theory’s new geometric model of electromagnetic charge quanta advances our understanding of the quantum source and role of charge in the physics of our Universe in new and exciting ways.

While the Standard Model posits spherical sub-atomic particles Tetryonics reveals quantum charge to be an inherent and essential geometric property of the elementary Platonic topologies of all particles with each particle [charged or neutral] having a distinct number of charged fascia [Higgs bosons] comprising the final topology that makes each and every elementary particle unique…

Special Relativity, developed and advanced as an explanation for the constant velocity of light irrespective of the motion of the source posited that Lorentz corrections applied equally to mass & Matter alike through Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence formula and that the contraction of spherical Matter in motion was the source of magnetic moments and observed emfs in magnet-conductor experiments…..

*Tetryonics shows that all particles have rigid 3D Matter topologies and that their magnetic moments are the result of the asymmetric distribution of Planck mass-energy quanta [E=hv] in their 2d kEM fields of motion… [Mv^2/c^2] not any physical distortion in their material topologies thus undermining a central and foundational assumption of relativity theory.*

This simple and elegant explanation of charge wrt material particle topologies and the associated velocity related magnetic moments of their kEM fields of motion also does away with the virtual particles and infinities of QED that have so long plagued its formulation and reconciliation with experimental results to date… totally removing renormalisation and inherent quantum indeterminacy from its equations and thus restoring deterministic motion and mechanics to physics.

With SR & QED having been corrected from this foundational geometric understanding of EM charge geometries attention can turn back to reconciling the mathematical similarity of Newton’s formula of Gravitation and Coulomb’s formula of Charge interaction – at which point Tetryonic field geometries come to the rescue yet again and show that between any two charged particles two equilateral fields of EM energy momenta exist, reaching out from each particle to create a field of interaction irrespective of time and proportional to the charge topology and motion of each particle respectively…. [Instantaneous interaction-at-a-distance]

Likewise the mass-Matter content of celestial bodies and their GRaviational attraction to each other can be similarly modelled but in this case the extended fields of EM energy and resultant force vectors are based on the strictly attractive vectors forces between the bodies firstly and mathematically formulated from this field geometry secondly…

The end result is an identical mathematical formulation [save the force constants k & G] where one produces an interactive vector force while the other produces a strictly attractive force only…. Irrespective of time.

Einstein, with his concepts of relativistic motion and no differentiation between charge, mass or Matter and a time limited speed of propagation [c] required a different explanation and formulation of gravity in order to account for the observed perihelion of Mercury in its motion about the SUN.

His failure to differentiate 2d mass and 3D Matter from an understanding of the source and role of charge at the quantum level of physics is understandable as quantum theory had yet to be invented at the time he formulated his ideas of relativistic uniform motion [SR] & accelerated motion [GR] leading to his much vaunted formula of mass-energy equivalence [E=mc^2] which completely neglects to define and equate 3D Matter in its formulation [m/c^2=E/c^4=?]. It stands in obvious disagreement with both Newton and Coulomb as to the possibility let alone mechanics of the observed instantaneous action of Gravity over cosmological distances irrespective of time, leading to an exhaustive search for ‘gravity waves’ since GR was released publically.

Many other well know ‘proofs’ of GR exist such as the ‘bending’ of light near bodies of massive Gravity such as stars and the ‘time dilation’ of photons of EM mass-energy in GPS satellite communications etc. – but all of these ‘tests’ also suffer from the same foundational problem that beset Einstein in the first place – there is no differentiation of and between planar 2d fields of mass-energy momenta and material bodies of 3D Matter.

If science cannot [or will not] define and differentiate between 2d mass & 3D Matter and provide a understanding of the source and mechanics of charged energy over space and time in physics then any explanation developed from such a limited understanding may at best mirror reality but offer no real explanation as to the real mechanics at work in Nature – at least Sir Isaac Newton was honest at his failings in this respect in terms of his mathematical solution.

As always there exists a ‘kernel of truth’ in both formulations but only Tetryonic theory with its charged quantum geometries offers a complete ‘picture’ of the mechanics at work and why the maths formulates the way it does and how two wildly different formulations of universal gravitation can both mirror reality despite the inclusion or exclusion of time as a factor…..

**NATURE AT HEART IS GEOMETRIC IN FORM – mathematics is simply our human attempt to describe the geometric properties of EM energies at work, energy forms we could never hope to see, until now.**

In short Tetryonic theory both explains and unites the maths of classical, quantum and relativistic mechanics through the power of equilateral quantum energy momenta geometries & Matter topologies.

The image is not mine. It is a fantastic creation by* bigblueboo* that has caught some attention outside of the usual math tumblverse. You should definitely check out eir blog and if you like this post you should (also?) reblog the original. With that out of the way:

**Linear Algebra. Linear algebra is the study of vector spaces, which are “flat” structures that have a notion of addition and dimension. **

**L^2(S^1) is the space of “square integrable functions on the circle”. Every continuous function from the closed interval [-π,π] is in L^2(S^1), but the space also includes some functions which have discontinuities, so long as they are not too extreme.**

bigblueboo’s image happens to be an excellent source of mathematical content: this post is final post in a series in which I discover some of its secrets. In the first post you can see a derivation of its symbolic equations of motion, and part two contains a sweet characterization. The third post, which explains that the non-constant speed in the gif is not (entirely) a result of the viewing angle, and the fourth post quantifies the variation.

I have some more questions about HTPs; there are certainly natural questions to look at. Therefore, I am planning on doing an epilogue post which will lay out some of the questions I have. If you have any questions you’d like me to share, please reblog and I’ll (probably) include them! However, that post will not be written in fancy images like usual but I’ll just do the best I can in plaintext so that it can be a legitimate reblog of the OP (hopefully he’ll see some of the work that his wonderful piece inspired!)

So which is real, the Ptolemaic or the Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of our normal view versus that of the goldfish, one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest. Despite its role in philosophical debates over the nature of our universe, the real advantage of the Copernican system is simply that the equations of motion are much simpler in the frame of reference in which the sun is at rest.

—
Stephen Hawking (The Grand Design, 2010, pp. 41, 42)

*7.05.15*physics notes on equations of projectile motion from today’s revision lesson.

Standing in the shower, water running down my face, pretending to be in a music video n shit. Every movement you make has to be slow to equate to being in slow motion. Next level shit.