This is indicated from the un-optimal performance of IPPT, which conducted by local. Atas anugerah dan hidayah-Nya penulis bisa menyelesaikan tugas Tesis ini. Broto Sunaryo, SE, MSP selaku penguji di Ujian Pratesis, Pembahasan. Pemahamannya dan persepsinya tentang IPPT dan rencana tata ruang serta. Blog tentang rangkuman materi fisika, praktikum, contoh soal dan pembahasan fisika, olimpiade, UN, USBN dan SBMPTN.
Source Wikipedia: 'The gal, sometimes called galileo, (symbol Gal ) is a unit of used extensively in the science of. The gal is defined as 1 centimeter per second squared (1 cm/s 2 ). The milligal (mGal) and microgal (µGal) refer respectively to one thousandth and one millionth of a gal. The gal is not part of the ( SI). However, in 1978 the decided that it was permissible to use the gal 'with the SI until the CIPM considers that its use is no longer necessary.' The gal is a derived unit, defined in terms of the (CGS) base unit of length, the, and the, which is the base unit of time in both the CGS as well as the modern SI system. In SI base units, 1 Gal is precisely equal to 0.01 m/s 2. The acceleration due to Earth’s gravity (see ) at its surface is 976 to 983 Gal, the variation being due mainly to differences in.
Mountains and masses of lesser density within the Earth's crust typically cause variations in of tens to hundreds of milligals (mGal). The gravity (variation with height) above Earth's surface is about 3.1 µGal per centimeter of height ( 3.1 ×10 −6 s –2 ), resulting in a maximum difference of about 2 Gal (0.02 m/s 2 ) from the top of to sea level. A gravimeter is an instrument used for measuring the local of the Earth. 'A gravimeter is a type of, specialized for measuring the constant downward, which varies by about 0.5% over the surface of the Earth. Though the essential principle of design is the same as in other accelerometers, gravimeters are typically designed to be much more sensitive in order to measure very tiny fractional changes within the 's of 1, caused by nearby geologic structures or the shape of the Earth and by temporal variations. This sensitivity means that gravimeters are susceptible to extraneous including that tend to cause oscillatory accelerations. In practice this is counteracted by integral vibration isolation.
The constraints on are usually less for gravimeters, so that resolution can be increased by processing the output with a longer 'time constant'. Gravimeters display their measurements in units of, instead of ordinary units of acceleration. Gravimeters are used for petroleum and mineral, and other research, and for.' 'The geoid, simply stated, is the shape that the surface of the oceans would take under the influence of gravity alone. All points on that surface have the same scalar potential - there is no difference in potential energy between any two.
In that idealized situation, other influences such as winds due to solar heating, and tides have no effect. The surface of the geoid is farther away from the center of the earth where the gravity is weaker, and nearer where it is stronger.
The differences in gravity, and hence the scalar potential field, arise from the uneven distribution of the density of matter in the earth.Specifically, the geoid is the that would coincide with the mean ocean surface of the Earth if the oceans and atmosphere were in equilibrium, at rest relative to the rotating Earth, and extended through the continents (such as with very narrow canals). According to, who first described it, it is the 'mathematical figure of the Earth', a smooth but highly irregular surface that corresponds not to the actual surface of the Earth's crust, but to a surface which can only be known through extensive measurements and calculations. Despite being an important concept for almost two hundred years in the history of and, it has only been defined to high precision in recent decades, for instance by works of, and others. It is often described as the true physical, in contrast to the idealized geometrical figure of a.' More at Wikipedia. UPDATE BELOW. I've just about finished Gary Gorton's excellent book.
I think it's the most convincing book I've read so far that links the mechanisms of the recent crisis to crises in the past. In effect, he argues that the crisis was the direct result of the uncontrolled creation of money by the shadow banking sector, and ultimately took place as a classic bank run, no different from runs in the past, except that this run took place mostly out of public view because it didn't involve ordinary bank deposits. The new kind of money in this bank run was stuff such as repo agreements and commercial paper which played the role of money for financial institutions.
In 2007-2008, when lenders lost confidence (for good reason) in the mortgage-backed collateral backing this money, they demanded that money back, and the financial system seized up. The explanation is convincing and wholly natural.
The argument is most convincing because Gorton does a masterful job of placing this bank run in the context of the long history of past runs. And also because Gorton, as an economist, places blame squarely on the economics profession (himself included) for being asleep at the wheel: Think of economists and bank regulators looking out at the financial landscape prior to the financial crisis. What did they see? They did not see the possibility of a systemic crisis. Nor did they see how capital markets and the banking system had evolved in the last thirty years. They did not know of the existence of new financial instruments or the size of certain money markets. They did not know what 'money' had become.
They looked from a certain point of view, from a certain paradigm, and missed everything that was important. The blindness is astounding. That economists did not think such a crisis could happen in the United States was an intellectual failure. It seems to me that there is a certain amount of denial among economists.
I have noticed, in talking about the ideas in this book with my economist colleagues, that there is a fairly clear generational divide on this. To younger economists and graduate students, it is obvious that there was an intellectual failure. Some older economists are inclined to hem and haw, resorting to farfetched rebuttals. It is clear that this is a sensitive issue, as like banks no one wants to have to write down the value of their capital. The book gets rather technical in places talking about the details of day to day financing on Wall St., but all in a way that adds credibility to the main argument.
One other thing of interest. Gorton in a late chapter, when discussing the spectacular failure of the rational expectations paradigm, quotes University of Chicago economist James Heckman, winner of the economics' Nobel Prize (yes, that's not its actual name) in 2000, from an he did with John Cassidy in 2010. I hadn't come across the interview before. It's a fascinating read and gives some interesting perspective on varied views held by economists within the Chicago department (Cassidy's words in italics): What about the rational-expectations hypothesis, the other big theory associated with modern Chicago? How does that stack up now? I could tell you a story about my friend and colleague Milton Friedman. In the nineteen-seventies, we were sitting in the Ph.D.
Oral examination of a Chicago economist who has gone on to make his mark in the world. His thesis was on rational expectations. After he’d left, Friedman turned to me and said, “Look, I think it is a good idea, but these guys have taken it way too far.” It became a kind of tautology that had enormously powerful policy implications, in theory. But the fact is, it didn’t have any empirical content. When Tom Sargent, Lard Hansen, and others tried to test it using cross equation restrictions, and so on, the data rejected the theories. There were a certain section of people that really got carried away. It became quite stifling.
What about Robert Lucas? He came up with a lot of these theories. Does he bear responsibility? Well, Lucas is a very subtle person, and he is mainly concerned with theory.
He doesn’t make a lot of empirical statements. I don’t think Bob got carried away, but some of his disciples did. It often happens. The further down the food chain you go, the more the zealots take over. What about you? When rational expectations was sweeping economics, what was your reaction to it? I know you are primarily a micro guy, but what did you think?
What struck me was that we knew Keynesian theory was still alive in the banks and on Wall Street. Economists in those areas relied on Keynesian models to make short-run forecasts. It seemed strange to me that they would continue to do this if it had been theoretically proven that these models didn’t work. What about the efficient-markets hypothesis? Did Chicago economists go too far in promoting that theory, too? But there is a lot of diversity here.
You can go office to office and get a different view. Heckman brought up the memoir of the late Fischer Black, one of the founders of the Black-Scholes option-pricing model, in which he says that financial markets tend to wander around, and don’t stick closely to economics fundamentals. Black was very close to the markets, and he had a feel for them, and he was very skeptical.
And he was a Chicago economist. But there was an element of dogma in support of the efficient-market hypothesis. People like Raghu Rajan and Ned Gramlich a former governor of the Federal Reserve, who died in 2007 were warning something was wrong, and they were ignored. There was sort of a culture of efficient markets—on Wall Street, in Washington, and in parts of academia, including Chicago. What was the reaction here when the crisis struck?
Everybody was blindsided by the magnitude of what happened. But it wasn’t just here. The whole profession was blindsided. I don’t think Joe Stiglitz was forecasting a collapse in the mortgage market and large-scale banking collapses. So, today, what survives of the Chicago School? What is left?
I think the tradition of incorporating theory into your economic thinking and confronting it with data—that is still very much alive. It might be in the study of wage inequality, or labor supply responses to taxes, or whatever. And the idea that people respond rationally to incentives is also still central. Nothing has invalidated that—on the contrary. So, I think the underlying ideas of the Chicago School are still very powerful. The basis of the rocket is still intact.
It is what I see as the booster stage—the rational-expectation hypothesis and the vulgar versions of the efficient-markets hypothesis that have run into trouble. They have taken a beating—no doubt about that.
I think that what happened is that people got too far away from the data, and confronting ideas with data. That part of the Chicago tradition was neglected, and it was a strong part of the tradition.
When Bob Lucas was writing that the Great Depression was people taking extended vacations—refusing to take available jobs at low wages—there was another Chicago economist, Albert Rees, who was writing in the Chicago Journal saying, No, wait a minute. There is a lot of evidence that this is not true. Milton Friedman—he was a macro theorist, but he was less driven by theory and by the desire to construct a single overarching theory than by attempting to answer empirical questions. Again, if you read his empirical books they are full of empirical data.
That side of his legacy was neglected, I think. When Friedman died, a couple of years ago, we had a symposium for the alumni devoted to the Friedman legacy. I was talking about the permanent income hypothesis; Lucas was talking about rational expectations. We have some bright alums.
One woman got up and said, “Look at the evidence on 401k plans and how people misuse them, or don’t use them. Are you really saying that people look ahead and plan ahead rationally?” And Lucas said, “Yes, that’s what the theory of rational expectations says, and that’s part of Friedman’s legacy.” I said, “No, it isn’t. He was much more empirically minded than that.” People took one part of his legacy and forgot the rest. They moved too far away from the data. UPDATE. On a closely related note, check out between 18:00 and about 20:25 of on debt and its primary role in the crisis, link courtesy of Lars Syll.
Robert Lucas asserts (around 19:40) that debt just doesn't matter because the level of debt and credit always 'cancels out.' He seems to think it is strange that anyone could even think that debt should matter, as if he's completely blind to the massive agony and social upheaval ensuing from foreclosures and failed businesses around the US and the world. Lars suggests this is 'unbelievable stupidity' and it is certainly unbelievable, but I think maybe it is less stupidity and reflects more a kind of borderline autistic inability to make a distinction between some extremely abstract mathematical model and actual economic reality. In Lucas's models, I suspect that debt and credit do always cancel out. Which is one aspect of what makes those models quite useless for many purposes, and dangerous in the hands of anyone who takes them too seriously. I'll be presenting ' once again at the.
(It's.) We'll go through this gem and plenty more of a similar nature. A seven year old boy in Serbia is shown to possess magnetic characteristics. Not to be outdone, Croatians show off a magnet boy of their own. And he's only six!
Half a world away, an 11 year old Brazilian boy mystifies a doctor with a similarly attractive body. But on an amusing Korean television program, James 'The Amazing' Randi puts real-life Magnetos to the test. You know how this will end. coming soon!.
See that equation abovet? It's the equation governing the period of a mass-on-a-spring. At least, in conceptual physics, it is. Heresy, you shout.
You just ignored the 2π term! You can't do that!
![Soal Un Fisika 2018 Tentang Besaran Dan Pengukuran Beaerta Pembahasan Ny Soal Un Fisika 2018 Tentang Besaran Dan Pengukuran Beaerta Pembahasan Ny](/uploads/1/2/5/5/125529148/566762471.png)
I remember being utterly shocked by my sophomore quantum physics professor exclaiming wildly that 'factors of 2 don't matter!' We were a bit miffed that some homework problem predicted an answer that was off from a book value by about a factor of 2. What we, silly newbies that we were, didn't understand was that the homework problem was showing an alternate means of approximating a well-known value. We should have been amazed that we were that close; instead, we complained of inaccuracy. It took a couple more years before the 'order of magnitude estimate' became a part of our collective soul. I want to begin the incorcism process a bit earlier.
In a laboratory in which we are trying to measure to a precision of 5 or 10 percent, a factor of 6 does indeed matter. So why do I write the period of a mass on a spring like this? I'm teaching CONCEPTUAL physics to 9th graders. Most are finishing their first year of algebra. The idea of a square root is still new to them. And they react to π about as well as a. Most of the questions I ask in conceptual physics are of the form, 'The mass attached to the spring is doubled.
Does the period increase or decrease? By a factor of 2? Greater than a factor of 2?
Well, the heretical equation above demonstrates the dependence of the period on mass and spring constant just fine. I've eliminated the 2π and I've broken up the square root signs above and below the fraction bar for clarity's sake. I'm not in the business of teaching mathematical notation. I'm pleased if my students can recognize that doubling the mass increases the period, but doesn't double the period.
And if they can sketch a graph of period vs. Mass for a constant k. My hope is that when these students attempt AP Physics 1 in their senior year, they have a head start toward the necessary conceptual understanding. They can learn how to linearize graphs, to tease out the 2π factor, in future courses.
For now, my class is understanding well the RELATIONSHIPS among period, mass, and spring constant. That's my goal, here in 9th grade, even if I burn at the stake the next time I see professional physicists. I haven't had time to read this paper in its entirety, but that should not prevent me from highlighting it here. You should be able to for free. Abstract: The underrepresentation of women in physics doctorate programs and in tenured academic positions indicates a need to evaluate what may influence their career choice and persistence. This qualitative paper examines eleven females in physics doctoral programs and professional science positions in order to provide a more thorough understanding of why and how women make career choices based on aspects both inside and outside of school and their subsequent interaction. Results indicate that female physicists experience conflict in achieving balance within their graduate school experiences and personal lives and that this then influences their view of their future careers and possible career choices.
Female physicists report both early and long-term support outside of school by family, and later departmental support, as being essential to their persistence within the field. A greater focus on informal and out-of-school science activities for females, especially those that involve family members, early in life may help influence their entrance into a physics career later in life. Departmental support, through advisers, mentors, peers, and women’s support groups, with a focus on work-life balance can help females to complete graduate school and persist into an academic career. I'll post the synopsis to this video, which you can also read on YouTube: An astonishing 99.6% of our Universe is dark. Observations indicate that the Universe consists of 70% of a mysterious dark energy and 25% of a yet-unidentified dark matter component, and only 0.4% of the remaining ordinary matter is visible. Understanding the physics of this dark sector is the foremost challenge in cosmology today.
Sophisticated simulations of the evolution of the Universe play a crucial task in this endeavor. This movie shows an intermediate stage in a large simulation of the distribution of matter in the Universe, the so-called cosmic web, accounting for the influence of dark energy. The simulation is evolving 1.1 trillion particles. The movie shows a snapshot of the Universe when it was 1.6 billion years old. While this video may be obvious to people in the field, it would be nice if they had some narration to accompany each scene so that we know what we are looking at! After all, they went to all this trouble to make a visual representation of the simulation and posting it on YouTube for the public to see.
Might as well put a little bit more effort in telling us what each of those different scenes are. Otherwise, all we see are cool images without learning anything much. Of course, the physicist in me would like to know what kind of parameters were used, what are the assumptions, where was this/will this be published, etc. Y'know, the mundane stuff!:) Zz.
Quest Online Homework due 5/2, 5/9 and 5/16 Resistance of a Light Bulb lab due 5/14 Unit Test 5/21 Current Electricity Unit Goals. Know meanings of potential difference (voltage), current, resistance, power.
Be able to use appropriate relationships between them with correct abbreviations and units. Properly use the terms series, parallel and circuit. Draw and decipher circuit diagrams. Determine current, resistance, potential difference and power output for any part of a circuit, including. Simple circuits, series circuits, parallel circuits and complex circuits with both series and parallel elements. Describe what affects an object’s resistance and categorize resistors as ohmic or nonohmic.
Interpret graphs about resistance I vs. Know how to include ammeters and voltmeters in a circuit and what this says about their resistances. Describe the structure of a capacitor. Use transient currents to describe how steady state voltages and currents are established. Describe how houses are wired and the role of circuit breakers. Determine loss of energy to heat in wires and describe how it can be reduced.
Trace the conducting path through light bulbs. Describe the souce of internal resistance. Use the pressure metaphor for voltage and interpret color-coded voltage diagrams. Despite high-level assurances that the California Department of Education (CDE) would update its published physics reference sheet.
It has yet to happen, and much of California is deep into the 2013 STAR-testing administration season. We will quietly hope California's physics CST-takers won't find the changes too surprising, confusing, or off-putting. The problem was detailed in a The Physics Reference Sheet as used on the operational form of the STAR Physics CST is different from the Physics Reference Sheet included on the most recently published document.
And it's different from the Physics Reference Sheet offered as a stand-alone PDF on the CDE's:. As of this posting, the carries a 2005 copyright date.
The sheet used on last year's operational form seems to have been changed in 2012. I must presume it's being used in 2013 as well.
But to see it, you'll have to refer to the. The state of California has not made this document public. But not entirely surprising. I hope, at some point, to learn why CDE and ETS moved (with neither review by nor approval of its own Assessment Review Panel) to alter the document that had been used from 2004 through 2011. They chose to then compound this error by updating neither the RTQ document nor the stand-alone reference sheet. It makes them appear completely out of touch and unconcerned. Or as if they're trying to keep the new reference sheet a secret.
I can only hope this is not how they wish to be seen. Anda mungkin salah satu penggemar permainan adrenalin yang satu ini, roller coaster. Siapa yang tak kenal dengan pemainan yang satu ini. Roller coaster merupakan wahana permainan berupa kereta yang dipacu dengan kecepatan tinggi pada rel khusus.
Rel ini ditopang oleh rangka baja yang disusun sedemikian rupa. Wahana ini pertama kali ada di Disney Land Amerika Serikat. Tapi tahukah Anda, roller coaster tidak hany bisa memacu adrenalin Anda, tapi juga ada hukum fisika dibaliknya? Yuks baca selanjutnya. 3.Dinamika Roller Coster Gerak roller coaster mengalami percepatan. Yakni perubahan kecepatan terhadap waktu. Kecepatan bertambah terhadap waktu ketika bergerak menurun.
Roller coaster mengalami perlambatan (percepatan negatif). Yakni kecepatan berkurang terhadap waktu ketika bergerak naik. Perubahan kecepatan ini juga terjadi saat roller coaster berubah arah.
Pada roller coaster Anda juga tentu mengalami gaya gravitasi. Gaya ini disebabkan oleh tarikan massa bumi terhadap massa tubuh. Bumi memiliki massa yang lebih besar dibandingkan dengan massa tubuh manusia. Pada Januari lalu, peneliti dari Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Aldo Antognini mengumumkan hasil pengukuran proton. Partikel bermuatan positif yang menjadi penyusun inti atom ini diketahui berjari-jari 0,84087 femtometer -femtometer sama dengan seperseribu triliun meter.
Angka ini 4 persen lebih kecil ketimbang radius yang dipakai para ahli fisika yaitu 0,8768 femtometer. Pohl mengatakan, diperlukan lebih banyak data pengukuran untuk memastikan penyusutan proton. Sebab, proton merupakan partikel tak kasat mata sehingga sangat mungkin peneliti melakukan kesalahan pengukuran. Proton biasanya diukur menggunakan dua metode. Cara pertama dilakukan dengan menembakkan elektron ke proton. Ukuran proton bisa diketahui dari pembelokan lintasan elektron.
Cara kedua dilakukan dengan melihat kelakuan elektron. Partikel bermuatan negatif ini mengelilingi proton yang bermuatan positif pada tangga-tangga energi. Elektron bisa melompat dari satu tangga ke tangga lainnya sambil melepaskan atau menangkap energi. Jumlah energi lompatan ini dipakai untuk mengetahui kekuatan tarikan proton.
Ukuran proton sendiri bisa dihitung dari kekuatan tarikan ini. Pohl mengembangkan metode pengukuran lain. Ia tak lagi menggunakan elektron sebagai 'mistar'.
Kali ini mereka menggunakan partikel bermuatan negatif lain yang disebut muon. Partikel ini 200 kali lebih berat ketimbang elektron sehingga memutar proton pada jarak 200 kali lebih dekat.
Jarak yang lebih dekat ini menjadikan muon sebagai 'mistar' yang lebih akurat dalam mengukur radius proton. 'Jarak yang lebih dekat memberikan gambaran lebih baik,' ujar dia. I wrote a while back on one of the most frequent question that I get asked once people find out that I'm a physicist. ' is one of them. The one other most common question: do you read science fiction books? They think that since I deal with a lot of science, then reading science fiction would be almost second nature.
Simple answer: I don't! First of all, I seldom read fiction books. I seldom read books anymore, actually. I just can't have any long-term relationship with a book of any kind.
I do so much reading in a day, the last thing I want to do when I wind down is read some more. So putting in a lot of time to read and finish a novel is not my idea of a good time. Secondly, while I know of many scientists who enjoy reading science fiction novels, and many find them 'stimulating', I don't. This is because I often find it a bit annoying that that some parts of logic, reality, and even some aspects of physics is 'bastardized' to such extent.
I suppose it is my problem that I simply can't let go of reality when I try to read such novels. While I do enjoy watching sci-fi movies, I find them to be more of an entertainment for a couple of hours, view them more for the story than for the accuracy. The exception being some of the more awful sci-fi movies that simply makes no sense and force you to suspend logic and reality way too many times. Lastly, many of the sci-fi novels tend to use the more 'sexy' aspects of physics, but they miss many more fascination parts that do not get wide press coverage. This is where I find stuff in physics a lot more imaginative and a lot more fascinating than even some of the most outlandish imagination in sci-fi. The concept of 'phase coherence' is a conerstone in quantum mechanics.
But has it been used and depicted in sci-fi novels? Or what about the fact that in 1D conductors, the many-body effect of spin-charge separation would cause a 'particle's spin and charge to move separately? These are details that those who are not in physics would not have understood, and thus, unable to exploit. Yet, to me, they are extremely fascinating.
If I were a sci-fi writer, I could make one heck of a story using those principles alone. As imaginative as sci-fi stories are, I find actual physics to be significantly more fascinating. So kids, that is why I don't really read science fiction books.