Відео

I can't believe that what taking us to space is high school calculus

Thanks

Hi from Bangladesh

thank u very much

Amazing!

wow 9 years ago! This is still one of the first algorithm we see when learning linear programming. You guys did such a great job explaining just like the conventional way good professors teach, truly deserves more likes. Before this I've seen so many other videos but understood in this one in one go

👎

Amazing explanation sir

Thank you for explanation👊

Thank you!

Thank you. Very helpful.

Hi, hopefully you can help me out. In the case where the net force on a body is zero, I understand mathematically that the net torque due to these forces is independent of the point around which the body rotates. I understand how that could be the case rotating around a point, but when it comes to axes, I can't seem to understand physically why torque (its direction in particular) would be the same around any axis: in particular, why would torque direction around the x axis be the same as torque direction around the y axis if a body was constrained to rotate around these axes. Wouldn't the torque direction be different in these cases. Can you comment on this. Thanks.

Thank you so much for this! You actually made is simple enough to comprehend :)

thanks

Would you be able to explain why in polar coordinates it is possible to have the situation where we have zero radial acceleration yet have increasing radial velocity. I never properly understood this. I have read that it relates to the fact that polar components do not behave like Cartesian components: so when e.g. you integrate the radial acceleration over time, counter intuitively you do not end up with the radial velocity as you would do with Cartesian components. Can you shed light on this difference in behaviour and this unexpected disconnect between acceleration and velocity (and I think, in turn, position) in polar coordinates. They seem to do their own thing irrespective of each other. It's something to do with r hat and theta hat being time dependent but I've never understood the explanation. You might be able to help. Thank you.

Hi, very nice video. Can you explain why the position vector can never be described as a linear combination of r hat and theta hat whereas the velocity and acceleration vectors derived from the position vector are described in terms of a linear combination of r hat and theta hat. It seems velocity and acceleration vectors at each position are uniquely suited to this coordinate system since they are true vectors unlike the position vector (which starts at the origin and therefore only has an r hat component). This difference (between position vectors and their velocity/acceleration counterparts) seems to extend to the ability to take dot products in this coordinate system as well: dot products don't work for position vectors. Can you shed light on what all this means. Is there a deeper physical significance associated with this difference in the treatment of vectors which doesn't happen for the Cartesian coordinate system. I heard reference to velocity and acceleration being true vectors in the tangent spaces of each point etc and this fits well with a changing basis at each point (as with this coordinate system). I hope you can shed light on this. Thank you.

Hi, can you explain why the position vector can never be described as a linear combination of r hat and theta hat whereas the velocity and acceleration vectors derived from the position vector are described in terms of a linear combination of r hat and theta hat. Indeed it seems velocity and acceleration vectors at each position are uniquely suited to this coordinate system since they are true vectors unlike the position vector (which starts at the origin and therefore only has an r hat component). This difference (between position vectors and their velocity/acceleration counterparts) seems to extend to the ability to take dot products in this coordinate system as well: dot products don't work for position vectors. Can you shed light on what all this means. Is there a deeper physical significance associated with this difference in the treatment of vectors which doesn't happen for the Cartesian coordinate system. I heard reference to velocity and acceleration being true vectors in the tangent spaces of each point etc and this fits well with a changing basis at each point (as with this coordinate system). I hope you can shed light on this.

Where is the 2nd part?

So well explained, thanks.

The authors have two wrong scientific approaches: researching the creation of Lift force and Low pressure at upper side of the wing, relative to the ground surface and Earth. I explain the aerodynamic cavitation and existence of Lee side aerocavern, and creation of Aerodynamic force.

there is no kinetic energy in a moving mass there is force Mv squared kinetic energy is the energy of a consistent work from a consistent force regards Graham Flowers

mass * joules = 1

Very helpful. Thank you!

Why is the friction Force pointing in the opposite direction for the trailer? Wouldnt the wheel on the trailer turn in the same direction as the wheel on the car?

This video has really widened my vision of applying mathematics to science. Though I’m studying biology in a university, it kinda helps me in being prepared

How fast do I have to poop to propel myself in the air and touch the ceiling with my head? I assume I poop 1kg and my weight is 80kg. All of this happens on the earth with a gravitational acceleration of 9.81 m/s/s.

That is a good explanation of this physical phenomenon

Great! I got what I needed! Thanks Mr Mark a lot.

This explanation really gave me a new way to look at what the centers of gravity and buoyancy are. Thank you so much.

And at what pressure should fuel be injected at liftoff of a 100-ton payload rocket?

Meshchersky equation

Thank you sir

thanks

Im 14 but decided to watch this anyways

My dms are dry

Best explanation of UA-cam

"So whyyyy am I doing this? Sometimes I wonder myself," HAHAHA Got me good. That's a question I'm always asking myself every day. LOL. Good video! Thank you! Actually EXTREMELY helpful!

Why is this bad ?

It's also interesting that basically, θ^ is the derivative of ř with respect to theta.

Thanks a lot for the unit vector part.

is there any proof that the line of byancy force resultant pass thorgh the centroid of the displace water ??

I would like to communicate with you, can you help me and give me your email to send you, please🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻😢

Oh this video is the best

Hi Mark. Thank you. This video is really good. At 2.45 you said "It may not be obvious from that equation but since you have already seen this in the reading" what reading are you talking about ?. Are there any previous videos ?. If yes, can you please post the link. I am still not able to understand the slack variable (y1,y2) concept and how the line corresponds to y1=0 and y2=0

3:25 if you are on headphones turn the volume down

Thank you for fill of my skill gap on lagrangian formulation

Couldn't you take the derivative of velocity at 10:03 and then multiply it by the mass giving you force?

THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU!

Thanks, I'm watching lectures from MIT on engineering dynamics and this is incredibly helpful for angular momentum.

Thanks for that informative video....sir👍