Here's my problem:
From the answer given, I can solve the vertical reaction, but I don't understand why should I take the centripetal force in the same direction as the weight -- I believe it should point towards O at all times. Any suggestions?
https://preview.redd.it/wtbaww4gugr71.png?width=965&format=png&auto=webp&s=91459bb84d79aa451caa112dd3999578c1aa1b16
Dont know if this is the correct place to ask but. do you happen to know where to find some documentation regarding how does that work?
im currently studying different titles to see how i could implement it on my prototype but im still kind of lost on trying to understand how it works on stuff like say, factoring ship mass on the movement calculation and similar.
thanks in advance o7
A question by my teacher was posed, that asked what the main idea of how physics laws can be applied.
From my understanding, Newtonian mechanics apply to inertial frames where there is no acceleration, and this helps to be able to measure the same event from different perspectives.
However the question was posed with the following answer possibilities, and I'm not sure how my knowledge coincides:
a) The laws of physics depend on the choice of origin. b) The laws of physics don't depend on the coordinate system or choice of origin. c) The laws of physics depend on the coordinate system.
My assumption is b is correct because aslong as the frames are inertial nothing else matters in applying the Newtonian laws. Is my understanding on this correct?
This may be a stupid question, but it seems as though quantum theory was developed in a reverse order to classical theory.
For example Newtonian mechanics were made first. These were followed by Lagrangian mechanics which came from the minimum action principle. And Lagrangian mechanics led to Hamiltonian mechanics where transformations were used to make life easier.
Quantum theory has been developed in a reverse order, starting with Hamiltonian mechanics used with a wave function. Then it was generalized in Feynman’s path integral formalism to Lagrangian mechanics.
Have there been any attempts to develope a Newtonian formalism to quantum mechanics?
If there have been attempts, where did they fail? And if so, would this imply Newtonian mechanics is an entirely emergent phenomenon of many body systems, and the actual laws are the conservations and principles of Hamiltonian-Lagrangian mechanics which can be found as the shadow of the Newtonian limiting case? Or is the entire idea of saying there’s a Hamiltonian or Lagrangian formalism to quantum theory reductionist and just used to characterize some mathematical tricks used by Feynman and others?
Hello,
I am due to start a PhD in September focusing upon the CFD analysis of non-Newtonian fluids in stirred tanks. I am wondering if anyone has any recommendations for textbooks or resources that cover the fundamentals/mathematics of non-Newtonian fluids and their flows.
Any help would be extremely appreciated!
Ok so lets say you have a fan on a block on the ground, with no friction between the ground and the block, but friction between the block and the fan.
And the fan blows towards the right, which makes it move with a force towards the left. The friction between the fan and the block is static.
The block will move to the left because of the static friction, and obviously the fan would move with it
So my question is: There is no net force in the x direction for the fan, since the static friction equals the blow force, so how could it move? What am I missing here?
Noether's Theorem essentially states that for every continuous symmetry, there exists a conservation law.
Knowing this, couldn't you work in reverse and find the Lagrangian by only knowing the symmetries or quantities that are conserved?
Assuming the homogeneity, isotropy, and galilean boost symmetry of spacetime, how could you re-derive the classical L = T - U?
I'm under the impression that philosophical theories often seem to have a very wide scope and aim very high, at some ultimate and universal truth, but make little/slow progress. What is truth, what is the right logic, are there abstract objects - those are very universal questions, asking how things are in the universe, period. In physics, specific theories merely model specific aspects of reality. Newtonian mechanics works well for macroscopic objects, and that's good enough to be useful. Quantum mechanics and general relativity are difficult to incorporate into one model, but either does a great job at describing one aspect of reality.
Is it thinkable to do something like this in philosophy? Theories that have a narrower scope, aim lower, but might as a result progress faster and still be good enough?
This is more a philisophical question and meant to be open-ended -- but why is it that we can calculate macro scale objects using abstractions such as "if you imagine X being made of infinitely small particles" and not start to tread into QM territory? Also, doesn't this imply some kind of contiunious infinitely small "stuff" when we know things at smaller scales are actually discrete? Or is this just a case of "well it works on macro scale objects just fine and this is a question of epistemology"
Thanks,
A curious person
I'm pretty ashamed that I can't figure this out after spending a few hours on it. I can't seem to cancel the be able to solve for the final velocities. I tried isolating them but I end up with the other final velocity on the other side of the equation with no idea how to cancel it out. I looked into using the Conservation of Kinetic Energy as the solution includes but I do not see how they were able to solve for the final velocities leading to a difference/sum of the masses. I can't understand the algebra behind this. Is there something I'm not understanding physics-wise? I know that the system is conserved because the two pucks do not stick in the collision.
Thanks for any insight!
https://preview.redd.it/hda0ovz3kuo61.png?width=657&format=png&auto=webp&s=24a84eb60997d944dce89bd3ebe6dd6c3f0bbb19
https://preview.redd.it/xb2e1j0fkuo61.png?width=698&format=png&auto=webp&s=4965dfc4c7b0d72bce009abe306f0c1abc8fdfdf
I've been a bit confused with this recently. If you are on a spaceship that accelerates upwards at 1g you feel an inertial force pushing you to the bottom of the ship that feels exactly the same as gravity does. In this case the real force acts upwards and the inertial force you feel acts downwards.
On Earth though you feel a force downwards (i.e. towards Earth) but the real force of gravity also acts towards the Earth. Shouldn't the real force be acting away from Earth so what you feel as gravity would be the inertial\fictitious force in response?
Why do you feel gravity in the same direction that it supposedly acts in? In calculations, etc. you always look at the real force (i.e. the upwards force in the spaceship) but when you consider gravit yyou take what it seems is an inertial force? Sorry if this sounds dumb, but it does confuse me a fair bit.
Hi, I am new here. But I have actually seen a lot of your videos on youtube. I found them very useful. I am a great fan of your channel. So, there is a problem of Physics, which I am struggling a lot to solve.
Imagine there are two particles of masses M and m at a certain distance in space. Only due to the gravitational force when and where will they collide?
I have tried a lot but failed to reach any decision. I would be very grateful if you can show how this could be solved in one of your videos.
Thanks!
I borrowed a question from an open source, but I'm unsure of the correct answer's validity.
In the 3-body system of the Sun-Moon-Earth, (Moon in between the Sun & Earth) what direction does the sum of forces on the Moon point? I'm using a PhET simulator to help aid students but the simulation's result does not line up with the answers...
The calculation says the Sun's force is greater. But the simulation shows the Moon's gravity force pointing towards the Earth at all times. Further, if you watch the simulation in slow motion, the velocity of the moon is perpendicular at apogee, angles towards the Sun as it approaches, is perpendicular at perigee with the Sun, and then angles AWAY from the Sun as it moves to complete the motion. IF it angles AWAY, is it not true that the force of Earth should be greater...so then why does a calculation of the forces on the moon not yield those results?
I assume the object surfaces should have high friction coefficients and most of the energy lost goes to heat.
Hello Reddit! My name is Lilian Hsiao, and I'm a Postdoctoral Researcher in the Department of Chemical Engineering at MIT. I will be starting as an assistant professor at NC State this Fall. [Why is crushing a non-Newtonian fluid with hydraulic press so weird?] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAZQ-wE6rdc) Many materials we use in everyday life, like shampoo and coffee, are actually non-Newtonian. Our blood, mucus, and joint fluids are all non-Newtonian too! My research involves finding the microscopic reasons as to why complex fluids behave in such odd ways, and engineering new types of soft bio-mimetic materials with colloid-sized particles (~1/100th of a human hair) that give them interesting microstructure.
Why is this important? For one, microscopic structures have a big impact on what we can measure or feel on the bulk scale. Also, I can self-assemble materials that respond to temperature changes - imagine a porous particle that shrinks and releases drug on-demand at 37C, or artificial muscles made out of filaments that are assembled block by block. I use a lot of high-speed microscopy to capture these events at the microscopic level, then connect them to properties like viscosity and mechanical strength.
Press release of my earlier work:
Fluid cathedrals: Gels under the microscope
Some of my journal articles:
Structural engineering applied to flowing colloidal gels
What if we use M&M shapes to make gels?
I am currently writing an article on the effects of particle shape on shear thickening, feel free to ask me about it too!
What happens to a shear thickening fluid if we change the shape of the particles inside the fluid? [Check out one of my experiments on Youtube to find out!] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXRl2IdwdhY)
Twitter: https://twitter.com/LilianHsiao
EDIT 1: Here's a picture I made to explain what a non-Newtonian fluid is. Imgur
**EDIT 2: Many asked why coffee is non-Newtonian. I did some quick experiments to verify this, and recommend watching Conan to understand the import
... keep reading on reddit ➡
is that it's all torque, torque, torque
Hi, So I think my work for part A is correct, but please let me know if it’s not. As for part B I am completely unsure. I can’t figure out what direction Fg should be in (I would think into the page -k, but since it’s 2D would it be towards the “bottom” or towards the origin), and past that no idea, although these do work together so finding the dimension of Fg will probably help. I think I’ll be able to manage part C once B is down.
Here is the question : tmech hw 1
And here is my work: my sad attempt at physics
Yes this is for a 4000 level physics class, no I am not at all familiar with torque. I basically skated by in physics 1 and 2 and am only now taking everything seriously after transferring schools! Thank you in advance to anyone who helps!
Specifically, for the Schwarzchild solution, the radial equation of motion for timelike geodesics looks like - A/r + B/r^2 - C/r^3 .
I understand the A term is Newtonian gravity, the B term is some kind of centrifugal effect, but is there a physical way to interpret what the C term is?
I need to have this credit transfer to BYU as Newtonian Mechanics. The BYU course code is Phscs 121.
There is seems to be a correlation between truth and instrumental success, but does anyone have an idea of what causes the instrumental success of some false claims?
