Uniform Circular Motion

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 1 жов 2024

КОМЕНТАРІ • 265

  • @siame9250
    @siame9250 4 роки тому +186

    I spent half of the tutorial time amazed how you were writing

    • @reemabansal9594
      @reemabansal9594 4 роки тому +9

      he wasn't writing in the opposite way but he was writing on the glass board w/ a camera which was recording the text laterally opposite

    • @reemabansal9594
      @reemabansal9594 4 роки тому +4

      see 1:50 for proof about the board

    • @partharora5057
      @partharora5057 3 роки тому

      Me to

    • @partharora5057
      @partharora5057 3 роки тому +1

      @@reemabansal9594 ohhhhhh

    • @mypilihouse1415
      @mypilihouse1415 3 роки тому

      I agree

  • @Ender.wigginn
    @Ender.wigginn 10 років тому +171

    Dr. Anderson, firstly I would like to say how impressed I am with the setup of your online lectures. Most instructors wouldn't think of using a mirror and camera, illuminated glass and a small audience for the creation of online lectures. This setup of yours is extremely engaging and interesting. I almost feel like I'm in the classroom.
    Moreover, I've found these lectures extremely helpful. Sometimes my instructors are not always clear with their explanations, it's always great to have another instructor, with a different explanation, to illustrate the concepts in a way that may help me make sense of the material.

    • @sherryvoss1566
      @sherryvoss1566 7 років тому +2

      Dr. Anderson, your presentations are the reasons why I am passing physics now. Please make more!

    • @shrinivasyadav1798
      @shrinivasyadav1798 5 років тому

      Mirror?

    • @mehekahmed3152
      @mehekahmed3152 5 років тому +2

      I couldnt agree more. My professor speaks faster than the speed of light; this professor explains every little step and writes out things and goes slowly too

    • @EmpyreanLightASMR
      @EmpyreanLightASMR Рік тому

      I mean, I feel bad that the kids don't have a surface to write on except their knees. But I'm guessing this is an extracurricular lecture, not an actual classroom lecture

  • @QianBing
    @QianBing 7 років тому +37

    How do you write backwards??

    • @yoprofmatt
      @yoprofmatt  7 років тому +14

      Answer revealed here: www.learning.glass
      Cheers,
      Dr. A

    • @QianBing
      @QianBing 6 років тому

      thanks

    • @timjay6279
      @timjay6279 4 роки тому +2

      The video image is flipped horizontally

  • @jittususanmathew468
    @jittususanmathew468 5 років тому +12

    Thanks a lot professor....
    I had a two page derivation which made no sense but ultimately by watching your video i was able to solve the derivation within half a page....
    Great job... Keep going😇

  • @SurinderSingh-gl1dj
    @SurinderSingh-gl1dj 7 років тому +110

    Any Indian here who is watching this and got amazed by seeing how he is writing😉😉😉😱😱😱😱.

  • @abbydl6545
    @abbydl6545 7 років тому +11

    You've done such a really really great job, thanks so much sir.

  • @yoprofmatt
    @yoprofmatt  10 років тому +19

    Daniel, thanks very much for the feedback. That was indeed the goal, to make students feel like I was talking directly to them. Glad you're enjoying it.
    Here's a nice little story about the Learning Glass: newscenter.sdsu.edu/sdsu_newscenter/news.aspx?s=75004
    Cheers,
    Dr. A

  • @jameserayburn
    @jameserayburn 7 років тому +38

    Dr. Anderson, your presentation is exactly what I needed. Thank you sir.

    • @yoprofmatt
      @yoprofmatt  7 років тому +11

      Great to hear. Keep up with the physics.
      Cheers,
      Dr. A

    • @frankdimeglio8216
      @frankdimeglio8216 3 роки тому

      @@yoprofmatt THE CLEAR, TOP DOWN, SIMPLE, AND BALANCED MATHEMATICAL PROOF OF THE FACT THAT E=MC2 IS F=MA:
      E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM ENERGY IS GRAVITY !!! Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity !!! INSTANTANEITY is thus fundamental to what is the FULL and proper UNDERSTANDING of physics/physical experience, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma IN BALANCE; AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. THE SUN AND what is THE EARTH/ground are E=MC2 AND F=ma IN BALANCE. TIME DILATION ultimately proves ON BALANCE that E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. (The sky is blue, AND THE EARTH is ALSO BLUE. CAREFULLY consider what is THE EYE.) Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity !!! (THEREFORE, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution.) "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity !!! Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. ("Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. E=MC2 IS F=ma. Carefully consider what is THE EYE.) Objects (AND what is the FALLING MAN) fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course), AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Again, carefully consider that the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky !!! (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.) It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. SO, carefully consider what are the ORANGE SUN AND the fully illuminated and setting MOON ! Both are the size of THE EYE. Think LAVA !!! The Moon is ALSO BLUE on balance. Therefore, E=MC2 IS F=ma IN BALANCE !! It all CLEARLY makes perfect sense !!! Carefully consider THE MAN who IS standing on what is THE EARTH/ground !!! Great !!! E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE !!!!
      By Frank DiMeglio

  • @rajkr7j
    @rajkr7j 4 роки тому +1

    His voice is like COOPER in INTERSTELLER .
    Am I correct?

    • @sbsanni
      @sbsanni 4 роки тому

      Understanding the threshold of the most important knowledge ua-cam.com/video/j89sJGy3S5U/v-deo.html

    • @yoprofmatt
      @yoprofmatt  4 роки тому

      raj kumar,
      No idea. but thanks for the comment, and keep up with the physics!
      You might also like my new website: www.universityphysics.education
      Cheers,
      Dr. A

  • @mariela2462
    @mariela2462 4 роки тому +6

    You're my favorite physics teacher, thank you so much !!!.

  • @bayarjavkhlanlhagvadorj4937
    @bayarjavkhlanlhagvadorj4937 Рік тому +2

    How are you writing backward

  • @akifmertturk3657
    @akifmertturk3657 8 років тому +6

    Waov. You are excellent.
    Thanks for sharing your knowledge with us in such a great way.
    We keep following you and your lectures
    Thanks,
    Miraç Akif

    • @yoprofmatt
      @yoprofmatt  8 років тому +1

      Mirac,
      Thanks for the feedback, I really appreciate it. And keep following, I'll try to add more.
      Cheers,
      Dr. A

    • @frankdimeglio8216
      @frankdimeglio8216 2 роки тому

      @@yoprofmatt The ultimate unification and understanding of physics/physical experience combines, BALANCES, AND INCLUDES opposites, AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY manifest as F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Here's the proof. This also explains why objects (including WHAT IS THE FALLING MAN) fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course), AS E=MC2 IS CLEARLY F=MA ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. TIME dilation ULTIMATELY proves (ON BALANCE) that E=MC2 IS clearly and necessarily F=ma ON BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity is ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy ON BALANCE.
      ON THE CLEAR, EXTENSIVE, SENSIBLE, BALANCED, THEORETICAL, AND UNIVERSAL PROOF THAT ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity, AS E=MC2 IS clearly PROVEN TO BE F=MA ON BALANCE:
      Balanced inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is fundamental, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; AS gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY proven to be F=ma ON BALANCE. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Indeed, A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is THE SUN (as A POINT, of course); AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light (c); AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity ON BALANCE; AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma IN BALANCE !!! Gravity is ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy ON BALANCE, AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY proven to be F=ma IN BALANCE. TIME dilation ULTIMATELY proves (ON BALANCE) that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity, AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE; AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Accordingly, ON BALANCE, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Accordingly, ON BALANCE, it makes perfect sense that THE PLANETS (including WHAT IS THE EARTH) will move away very, very, very slightly in relation to what is THE SUN !!! ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity, AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE. Inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY, as this balances gravity AND inertia; AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. GREAT. I have explained the cosmological redshift AND the supergiant stars. Stellar clustering ALSO proves ON BALANCE that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity, AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma IN BALANCE !!!
      By Frank DiMeglio

  • @steffenleo5997
    @steffenleo5997 Рік тому +1

    Thanks for this great explained Video Prof Anderson... 👍👍...have a nice weekend

  • @dentistrystudent2225
    @dentistrystudent2225 4 роки тому +1

    I understood everything, but why are the 2 thetas the same??

  • @p-brane8358
    @p-brane8358 2 роки тому

    What makes the Earth's oceans, that are moving at hundreds of mph, turn with the sphere Earth, staying put at their latitudes and not moving in a straight line, (as water wants to do), to the sphere-Earth's equator? What "tethers" the waters to the axis at any given latitude and what causes the water to make a left turn, (for instance, in the northern hemisphere)?

  • @frankdimeglio8216
    @frankdimeglio8216 2 роки тому

    BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is fundamental. c squared CLEARLY and necessarily represents balanced acceleration---a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE in relation to what are E AND "m" (ON BALANCE !!). Consider TIME (AND time dilation) ON BALANCE. Hence, what is a TWO dimensional surface OR SPACE ON BALANCE is (CLEARLY) invisible AND VISIBLE SPACE in fundamental equilibrium AND BALANCE. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE, AND consider what is the speed of light (c) ON BALANCE. Consider what is THE EYE AND what is the translucent BLUE SKY (ON BALANCE). Great. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). E=mc2 is taken directly from F=ma. Accordingly, ON BALANCE, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. GREAT !!!
    By Frank DiMeglio
    Boris Stoyanov is a super bright and an HONEST physicist. He has agreed that the following writing (and I quote) is "crystal clear":
    "ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. This is proven by F=ma AND E=mc2. Accordingly, gravity/acceleration involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. "Mass"/energy involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance consistent with/as what is balanced ELECTROMAGNETIC/GRAVITATIONAL force/energy, as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. Gravity IS electromagnetism/energy. That objects fall at the same rate (neglecting air resistance, of course) PROVES that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Think about it.
    By Frank DiMeglio”
    THE MATHEMATICAL AND PHYSICAL PROOF THAT E=MC2 IS DIMENSIONALLY CONSISTENT WITH ONE AND WHAT IS A TWO DIMENSIONAL SURFACE OR SPACE ON BALANCE, THEREBY PROVING THAT ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY PROVEN TO BE GRAVITY (ON/IN BALANCE):
    This also clearly proves ON balance that E=mc2 is directly taken from F=ma. Magnificent.
    Gravity is a property of SPACE ON BALANCE. It involves adherence or cohesion. So, BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is fundamental ON BALANCE. Accordingly, ON BALANCE, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. Consider what is the man who IS standing on what is THE EARTH/ground (ON BALANCE). What is the blue sky ON BALANCE? This IS the blue EARTH AS this is expressed on balance WITH (or equivalently by) what is the eye. The translucent AND blue sky is consistent with what is BALANCED BODILY/VISUAL (AND electromagnetic/gravitational) EXPERIENCE ON BALANCE, as touch AND feeling BLEND; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY (AND necessarily) proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). GREAT. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE, AND consider what is the speed of light (c) ON BALANCE !! Consider TIME (AND time dilation) ON BALANCE. E=mc2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE, AS the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY (AND necessarily) proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). The tides are CLEARLY and necessarily proven to be electroMAGNETIC/gravitational ON BALANCE. I have also CLEARLY explained (ON BALANCE) why THE PLANETS move away very, very, very, very slightly in relation to WHAT IS THE SUN !! I have explained why WHAT IS THE EYE beholds what is then (ON BALANCE) WHAT IS THE BLUE EARTH. Notice the associated black “space” AND DOME regarding what is the eye. Again, the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). Very carefully consider what is THE SUN ON BALANCE !! E=mc2 IS F=ma. Again, I have proven AND explained why the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution.
    Gravity cannot be shielded (or blocked) ON BALANCE. What is quantum gravity is CLEARLY fundamental ON BALANCE. Gravity is CLEARLY fundamental ON BALANCE. BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is fundamental ON BALANCE.
    Define “mass". You cannot. BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is fundamental.
    E=mc2 is taken directly from F=ma. CLEARLY, gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites (ON BALANCE); as the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky !! Consider TIME (AND time dilation) ON BALANCE. GREAT.
    You have to CLEARLY AND fully understand what E=mc2 means and represents ON BALANCE.
    We want to understand the dimensions in a seamless (or balanced) fashion in relation to gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy (including what is E=mc2). Consider one AND three dimensional SPACE ON BALANCE. Consider what is the fourth dimension ON BALANCE. NOW, consider all of the following.
    Consider what is E=mc2. CLEARLY, you have to understand what is a TWO dimensional surface OR SPACE ON BALANCE. c squared CLEARLY represents BALANCED acceleration in conjunction WITH what is NECESSARILY a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE, AND consider what is the speed of light (c) ON BALANCE. This CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. Carefully consider what is THE EYE ON BALANCE. Great. Consider what is gravity AND E=mc2 ON BALANCE.
    TIME dilation ULTIMATELY proves (ON BALANCE) that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity, AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE; AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Accordingly, ON BALANCE, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Accordingly, ON BALANCE, it makes perfect sense that THE PLANETS (including WHAT IS THE EARTH) will move away very, very, very slightly in relation to what is THE SUN !!! ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity, AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE. Inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY, as this balances gravity AND inertia; AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. GREAT.
    By Frank DiMeglio
    The cosmological redshift, the "black hole(s)", AND time dilation are CLEARLY ELECTROMAGNETIC/gravitational (ON/IN BALANCE). This is CLEARLY consistent with F=ma AND E=mc2. Here's the proof:
    My answer to Why is it that only Dongfang can perfectly realize the unity of macro and micro quantum theory and prove that LIGO's gravitational waves are lies (orcid.org/0000-0002-3644-5170)? historicalphysics.quora.com/Why-is-it-that-only-Dongfang-can-perfectly-realize-the-unity-of-macro-and-micro-quantum-theory-and-prove-that-LIGOs-gra-2?ch=15&oid=348200670&share=59169188&srid=uIk6ye&target_type=answer
    BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is fundamental ON BALANCE.
    Consider what is the FOURTH dimension (AND the term c4) from Einstein's field equations.
    c4 CLEARLY represents a TWO dimensional surface OR SPACE ON BALANCE. (Carefully consider what is THE EYE ON BALANCE.)
    Given E=mc2, c squared CLEARLY represents a one dimensional SPACE ON BALANCE.
    ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE, AND consider what is the speed of light (c) ON BALANCE.
    By Frank DiMeglio

  • @JasonHannah-jf6ry
    @JasonHannah-jf6ry 2 місяці тому

    AWESOME 🎉🎉🎉🎉
    Naw I understand a question thats been driving me mad for YEARS ❤

  • @smedusri5138
    @smedusri5138 6 місяців тому

    Shakespear or napoleon who set this mathematical proof dx=r=radius !!!!!!

  • @gauravkamath9569
    @gauravkamath9569 6 років тому +1

    Im in 9th grade, in Alg 2 this year is it possible for me to take Ap physics 1 outside school. Is there any way I can do it to get thorough. I really love physics, and enjoy your videos. what can I do?

  • @WritersDigest-b8f
    @WritersDigest-b8f Рік тому

    One equal angle between the two triangles.
    Angle between r1 r2 is theta where r1 =r2 = r
    is the same as angle between v1 & v2, where v1 = v2.
    One Side equal between the two triangles.
    v2-v1 is equal to r
    Two sides of one triangle are at 90 degree to the corresponding side of the other triangle.
    One side and one angle of the two triangles are equal, how does it prove the two triangles are similar

  • @FakeAccount
    @FakeAccount 4 роки тому +1

    doesn't the first question depends on the adopted referential? We're moving relative to the sun, but we're still relative to your wall, for example.

    • @carultch
      @carultch 3 роки тому +1

      Velocity is relative, but acceleration is not relative. There is such a thing as absolute acceleration. You can infer that the Earth is rotating by tracking the passage of stars and other celestial bodies, and determine Earth rotates once every 23 hrs & 56 minutes as measured to the distatant stars.
      You can also measure Earth's rotation, without referencing any outside body, by constructing Newton's laws in our rotating reference frame, and keeping track of the drift that results from our rotation. The Focault pendulum was the first experimental evidence of Earth's rotation, that did not reference any external body. You can also measure this with a ring laser gyroscope, that tracks the directional drift of our planet, relative to the inertial reference frame in which light travels.

  • @SaritaKumari-16
    @SaritaKumari-16 6 років тому +1

    Well, sir before starting each video, why don't ya just tell everyone bout' the board! In that way, You don't have to Reply 90% of the comments

    • @yoprofmatt
      @yoprofmatt  6 років тому +4

      But I like replying. Makes me feel in touch with other humans.
      Cheers,
      Dr. A

  • @victorrono9158
    @victorrono9158 7 років тому +3

    Your lectures are quite amazing...

  • @alexdilling8778
    @alexdilling8778 7 років тому +3

    Yo that opened my eyes so damn wide

    • @yoprofmatt
      @yoprofmatt  7 років тому +5

      Excellent. Now put on some shades.
      Cheers,
      Dr. A

  • @nurlatifahmohdnor8939
    @nurlatifahmohdnor8939 2 роки тому

    7|13.1.'98
    M
    I
    N
    T
    '92
    '93 1
    '94 2
    '95 3
    '96 4
    '97 5
    '98 6
    My sibling number 6 was 6 years old. I was at that time Form 5. 18.

    • @yoprofmatt
      @yoprofmatt  2 роки тому

      I kind of love it. Might be at least one typo.
      Cheers,
      Dr. A

  • @Naimka2002
    @Naimka2002 6 років тому +2

    Well, I was searching the internet for an explanation, and till now I didn't find a proper video, anyone tell me why these two triangles are similar, why do we use this method from the start, it doesn't seem logical to me.

    • @behnamasid
      @behnamasid 6 років тому

      If the angle between two triangles is the same, then the triangles are similar. To see why the vector difference angles are the same, then imagine if r_i and r_f form a 90 degree angle. In that case the vectors v_i and V_f also form90 degrees angle. Try 180 degrees and the vectors for both r and v will be opposite, etc...

    • @evam2351
      @evam2351 4 роки тому

      Similar triangles: if two triangles share the same two angles, then their third is the same. That means that they are proportional to each other.

  • @davesflights6256
    @davesflights6256 4 роки тому +1

    Hi. For someone revisiting Physics 40 years after school (to help my daughter..!) I am enjoying these immensely. Could I ask one thing though....this lecture starts with asking the students if they are accelerating at that moment, and returns to ask the same question at the end, but doesn't answer or make any statement to summarise it... Is that on another video ?

    • @yoprofmatt
      @yoprofmatt  4 роки тому +1

      Daves,
      Not sure, exactly. Didn't mean to leave you hanging.
      Thanks for the comment, and keep up with the physics!
      You might also like my new website: www.universityphysics.education
      Cheers,
      Dr. A

  • @PrashantKumar-nz6ih
    @PrashantKumar-nz6ih 8 місяців тому

    Professor I'm still confused, if we're really facing centripetal acceleration shouldn't we be moving towards sun. Isn't it being cancelled out by centrifugal acceleration and probably that's why we're stable. Please do reply.

    • @ihavenoenemis
      @ihavenoenemis 4 місяці тому

      Depends on the frame of reference right if we are looking from outer space and need to analyse the force on our body we should put centrifugal force

  • @uzairahmed706
    @uzairahmed706 2 місяці тому

    7:00 hiw are the triangles similar. By which test of similarity ?

  • @ชาคริตสกุลคง-ร1ม

    Truly one of the moment of all time

    • @yoprofmatt
      @yoprofmatt  Рік тому

      What kind of moment? Moment of inertia?
      Thanks, appreciate it.
      Cheers,
      Dr. A

  • @joshuadilao1496
    @joshuadilao1496 Рік тому

    Distracted by how he;s writting in mirrored?

  • @zhefanfei4660
    @zhefanfei4660 2 роки тому

    am I the only one who wants to know how he writes from the other side of the board???

  • @frankdimeglio8216
    @frankdimeglio8216 2 роки тому

    The ultimate unification and understanding of physics/physical experience combines, BALANCES, AND INCLUDES opposites, AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY manifest as F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Here's the proof. This also explains why objects (including WHAT IS THE FALLING MAN) fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course), AS E=MC2 IS CLEARLY F=MA ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. TIME dilation ULTIMATELY proves (ON BALANCE) that E=MC2 IS clearly and necessarily F=ma ON BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity is ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy ON BALANCE.
    ON THE CLEAR, EXTENSIVE, SENSIBLE, BALANCED, THEORETICAL, AND UNIVERSAL PROOF THAT ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity, AS E=MC2 IS clearly PROVEN TO BE F=MA ON BALANCE:
    Balanced inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is fundamental, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; AS gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY proven to be F=ma ON BALANCE. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Indeed, A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is THE SUN (as A POINT, of course); AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light (c); AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity ON BALANCE; AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma IN BALANCE !!! Gravity is ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy ON BALANCE, AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY proven to be F=ma IN BALANCE. TIME dilation ULTIMATELY proves (ON BALANCE) that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity, AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE; AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Accordingly, ON BALANCE, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Accordingly, ON BALANCE, it makes perfect sense that THE PLANETS (including WHAT IS THE EARTH) will move away very, very, very slightly in relation to what is THE SUN !!! ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity, AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE. Inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY, as this balances gravity AND inertia; AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. GREAT. I have explained the cosmological redshift AND the supergiant stars. Stellar clustering ALSO proves ON BALANCE that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity, AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma IN BALANCE !!!
    By Frank DiMeglio

    • @yoprofmatt
      @yoprofmatt  2 роки тому +1

      Thanks Frank! I know some very smart people who agree that intertia is everything.
      Cheers,
      Dr. A

    • @frankdimeglio8216
      @frankdimeglio8216 2 роки тому

      @@yoprofmatt BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is fundamental. c squared CLEARLY and necessarily represents balanced acceleration---a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE in relation to what are E AND "m" (ON BALANCE !!). Consider TIME (AND time dilation) ON BALANCE. Hence, what is a TWO dimensional surface OR SPACE ON BALANCE is (CLEARLY) invisible AND VISIBLE SPACE in fundamental equilibrium AND BALANCE. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE, AND consider what is the speed of light (c) ON BALANCE. Consider what is THE EYE AND what is the translucent BLUE SKY (ON BALANCE). Great. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). E=mc2 is taken directly from F=ma. Accordingly, ON BALANCE, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. GREAT !!!
      By Frank DiMeglio
      Boris Stoyanov is a super bright and an HONEST physicist. He has agreed that the following writing (and I quote) is "crystal clear":
      "ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. This is proven by F=ma AND E=mc2. Accordingly, gravity/acceleration involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. "Mass"/energy involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance consistent with/as what is balanced ELECTROMAGNETIC/GRAVITATIONAL force/energy, as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. Gravity IS electromagnetism/energy. That objects fall at the same rate (neglecting air resistance, of course) PROVES that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Think about it.
      By Frank DiMeglio”
      THE MATHEMATICAL AND PHYSICAL PROOF THAT E=MC2 IS DIMENSIONALLY CONSISTENT WITH ONE AND WHAT IS A TWO DIMENSIONAL SURFACE OR SPACE ON BALANCE, THEREBY PROVING THAT ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY PROVEN TO BE GRAVITY (ON/IN BALANCE):
      This also clearly proves ON balance that E=mc2 is directly taken from F=ma. Magnificent.
      Gravity is a property of SPACE ON BALANCE. It involves adherence or cohesion. So, BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is fundamental ON BALANCE. Accordingly, ON BALANCE, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. Consider what is the man who IS standing on what is THE EARTH/ground (ON BALANCE). What is the blue sky ON BALANCE? This IS the blue EARTH AS this is expressed on balance WITH (or equivalently by) what is the eye. The translucent AND blue sky is consistent with what is BALANCED BODILY/VISUAL (AND electromagnetic/gravitational) EXPERIENCE ON BALANCE, as touch AND feeling BLEND; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY (AND necessarily) proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). GREAT. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE, AND consider what is the speed of light (c) ON BALANCE !! Consider TIME (AND time dilation) ON BALANCE. E=mc2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE, AS the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY (AND necessarily) proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). The tides are CLEARLY and necessarily proven to be electroMAGNETIC/gravitational ON BALANCE. I have also CLEARLY explained (ON BALANCE) why THE PLANETS move away very, very, very, very slightly in relation to WHAT IS THE SUN !! I have explained why WHAT IS THE EYE beholds what is then (ON BALANCE) WHAT IS THE BLUE EARTH. Notice the associated black “space” AND DOME regarding what is the eye. Again, the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). Very carefully consider what is THE SUN ON BALANCE !! E=mc2 IS F=ma. Again, I have proven AND explained why the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution.
      Gravity cannot be shielded (or blocked) ON BALANCE. What is quantum gravity is CLEARLY fundamental ON BALANCE. Gravity is CLEARLY fundamental ON BALANCE. BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is fundamental ON BALANCE.
      Define “mass". You cannot. BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is fundamental.
      E=mc2 is taken directly from F=ma. CLEARLY, gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites (ON BALANCE); as the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky !! Consider TIME (AND time dilation) ON BALANCE. GREAT.
      You have to CLEARLY AND fully understand what E=mc2 means and represents ON BALANCE.
      We want to understand the dimensions in a seamless (or balanced) fashion in relation to gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy (including what is E=mc2). Consider one AND three dimensional SPACE ON BALANCE. Consider what is the fourth dimension ON BALANCE. NOW, consider all of the following.
      Consider what is E=mc2. CLEARLY, you have to understand what is a TWO dimensional surface OR SPACE ON BALANCE. c squared CLEARLY represents BALANCED acceleration in conjunction WITH what is NECESSARILY a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE, AND consider what is the speed of light (c) ON BALANCE. This CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. Carefully consider what is THE EYE ON BALANCE. Great. Consider what is gravity AND E=mc2 ON BALANCE.
      TIME dilation ULTIMATELY proves (ON BALANCE) that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity, AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE; AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Accordingly, ON BALANCE, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Accordingly, ON BALANCE, it makes perfect sense that THE PLANETS (including WHAT IS THE EARTH) will move away very, very, very slightly in relation to what is THE SUN !!! ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity, AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE. Inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY, as this balances gravity AND inertia; AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. GREAT.
      By Frank DiMeglio
      The cosmological redshift, the "black hole(s)", AND time dilation are CLEARLY ELECTROMAGNETIC/gravitational (ON/IN BALANCE). This is CLEARLY consistent with F=ma AND E=mc2. Here's the proof:
      My answer to Why is it that only Dongfang can perfectly realize the unity of macro and micro quantum theory and prove that LIGO's gravitational waves are lies (orcid.org/0000-0002-3644-5170)? historicalphysics.quora.com/Why-is-it-that-only-Dongfang-can-perfectly-realize-the-unity-of-macro-and-micro-quantum-theory-and-prove-that-LIGOs-gra-2?ch=15&oid=348200670&share=59169188&srid=uIk6ye&target_type=answer
      BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is fundamental ON BALANCE.
      Consider what is the FOURTH dimension (AND the term c4) from Einstein's field equations.
      c4 CLEARLY represents a TWO dimensional surface OR SPACE ON BALANCE. (Carefully consider what is THE EYE ON BALANCE.)
      Given E=mc2, c squared CLEARLY represents a one dimensional SPACE ON BALANCE.
      ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE, AND consider what is the speed of light (c) ON BALANCE.
      By Frank DiMeglio

  • @yogeshwarsingh7975
    @yogeshwarsingh7975 3 роки тому

    doubt : at 7.30; when you removed the vector sign and wrote in magnitude form, to write that (delta)a = (delta)v/(delta)t; how can that make sense? Instead it should be = | ( delta of vector)v/(delta)t |, and the modulus can not go "inside" the delta, because if (delta)a = (delta)v/(delta)t were to be true; then in a case where change in speed were 0, then it should imply that the magnitude of acceleration is also zero, which is obviously not true.

  • @SurinderSingh-gl1dj
    @SurinderSingh-gl1dj 7 років тому +1

    Great video😊😊😊😊😊😣😣😣😣😅😄😄😄😄😰😮😮

  • @GeorgetteOforiNuamah-jy6ge
    @GeorgetteOforiNuamah-jy6ge Рік тому

    Shit, amazing,how does he do that?

  • @rajnirawat7310
    @rajnirawat7310 7 років тому +2

    professor, were you actually writing the other way? and yes, i love your explanation. thank you sir : )

    • @reemabansal9594
      @reemabansal9594 4 роки тому

      no he wasn't

    • @carultch
      @carultch 2 роки тому +1

      He uses a mirror between his transparent board and the video camera. You can tell this by which hand has his wedding ring, which is traditionally worn on the left hand. The figure in the video appears to be left-handed and has a wedding ring on the right hand, but it is really mirrored footage.

  • @therealnannygoat1071
    @therealnannygoat1071 Рік тому

    Is it just me or is this guy writing in reverse

  • @andrewgonzales1359
    @andrewgonzales1359 2 роки тому

    He seems corrupt and crazy.

  • @manuboker1
    @manuboker1 3 роки тому +1

    GREAT PHYSICS LECTURES !!! :))

  • @justinyi8766
    @justinyi8766 3 роки тому

    i cant with the marker sound

  • @VSShiva
    @VSShiva 5 років тому +2

    Simple and to the point,Thank you so much!

    • @yoprofmatt
      @yoprofmatt  5 років тому +1

      The power of editing!
      Cheers,
      Dr. A

  • @vanessaokoth
    @vanessaokoth Рік тому

    is he writing backwards

  • @thomasashish9782
    @thomasashish9782 7 років тому +2

    very greatful to ur vedio it amazing explanation

    • @yoprofmatt
      @yoprofmatt  7 років тому +1

      Thomala,
      Thanks for the comment. I've had a lot of fun making these videos. More on the way.
      Cheers,
      Dr. A

  • @sairahul3934
    @sairahul3934 8 років тому +1

    really pleased by the way you explained this topic. thank you sir.....

    • @yoprofmatt
      @yoprofmatt  8 років тому +1

      Rahul,
      Excellent, this is music to my ears. Keep on learning!
      Cheers,
      Dr. A

  • @glyphiclive15
    @glyphiclive15 3 роки тому

    "Trapped on Earth" story of my life...

  • @idrisjalal7887
    @idrisjalal7887 2 роки тому

    Hi dear professor Anderson.. Your lecture was so amazing it was a very quite lesson and I understood more than my prediction.. Well done and keep your best doing
    Regards. Edris from Kurdistan region of Iraq

  • @danawitephrem6272
    @danawitephrem6272 2 роки тому

    thank you

  • @gheoffricare4520
    @gheoffricare4520 3 роки тому

    I... clap!

  • @salamdraidi5915
    @salamdraidi5915 8 років тому +1

    great explanation dr, thank you :)

  • @neetnootneetnoot
    @neetnootneetnoot 4 роки тому

    is he.. writing backwards?

  • @aschalewnigussie-m2i
    @aschalewnigussie-m2i 9 місяців тому

    You are my dream teacher.thank you

  • @muhammetkurkcu4756
    @muhammetkurkcu4756 2 роки тому

    cool

  • @m.muthupalaniyappan.7842
    @m.muthupalaniyappan.7842 4 роки тому

    Hi Anderson thanks for simple Math for centripetal acceleration, can you please explain this math in most simple intuitive way of physical motion....thought experiments via imagination....for long i am searching...still missing & chasing for some thing

  • @bradenmartin1382
    @bradenmartin1382 4 роки тому

    Why oh why have I not been watching these videos

  • @ptyptypty3
    @ptyptypty3 7 років тому

    how do we know that the acceleration always points to the Center of the Circle?... I can see that the Magnitude of the Acceleration is (V^2)/R ... but how do we know that the Direction of the acceleration Points to the Center? ... in lieu of my question.. YOUR VIDEO WAS VERY GOOD!! THANK YOU!! :)

    • @yoprofmatt
      @yoprofmatt  7 років тому +1

      The vector drawing at 5:43 illustrates this. Since Δv is pointing towards the circle's center, this is the direction of the acceleration. As a follow-up, you might ask "where do we draw this on the circle?" And the answer is, halfway in between the vi and vf vectors. As you let Δθ get smaller and smaller, the two vectors vi and vf approach each other, and you can quickly convince yourself that the Δv indeed points towards the circle's center.
      Important note: This only happens when we have constant speed (the magnitude of vi and vf are the same). If we are increasing our speed (or decreasing), the total acceleration no longer points towards circle center.
      Hope this helps. And thanks for the question.
      Cheers,
      Dr. A

  • @lifethrownoutofthewindow
    @lifethrownoutofthewindow 7 років тому +1

    godtier

    • @yoprofmatt
      @yoprofmatt  7 років тому

      Don't know what that means but it's hopefully good?
      Cheers,
      Dr. A

  • @ericportillo8277
    @ericportillo8277 3 роки тому

    You should've used ucm to erase the board!

  • @mohammadhousseini3470
    @mohammadhousseini3470 6 років тому +1

    why the speed constant while there is acceleration (it become UARM)

    • @zachbarry1992
      @zachbarry1992 4 роки тому +1

      2 years late, but, its because the acceleration is inwards, not in the direction the object is traveling

    • @carultch
      @carultch 2 роки тому

      Because the net force on the object is perpendicular to its velocity. The net work being done on the object is zero.

  • @nileshrathod3153
    @nileshrathod3153 4 роки тому

    I think centripetal force is a necessary condition just to sustain the circular motion. But to start the circular motion, we need to provide torque. Only centripetal force can't start a circular motion. Could you please comment on it?

    • @yoprofmatt
      @yoprofmatt  4 роки тому

      nilesh,
      You are absolutely correct. Which is why rockets don't just go straight up.
      Thanks for the comment, and keep up with the physics!
      You might also like my new website: www.universityphysics.education
      Cheers,
      Dr. A

  • @jeyjey-ft5zy
    @jeyjey-ft5zy Рік тому

    I enjoyed session and i wanna see mor3

    • @yoprofmatt
      @yoprofmatt  Рік тому

      There's plenty more:
      ua-cam.com/users/yoprofmatt
      Cheers,
      Dr. A

  • @nileshrathod3153
    @nileshrathod3153 4 роки тому

    Hello Prof! I wanted to know exactly why we don't feel the earth's rotation on its own axis? I watched many videos about it, but I didn't find any convincing answer. All videos explain it is because earth is rotating at constant speed ( but accelerating,right!) and because our relative velocity w.r.t earth is zero. But why then we can feel the circular motion on a merry-go-round horizontal or vertical one?

    • @yoprofmatt
      @yoprofmatt  4 роки тому

      nilesh,
      It's because the earth is big and the rotation is (relatively) slow.
      That makes the centripetal acceleration very small.
      Thanks for the comment, and keep up with the physics!
      You might also like my new website: www.universityphysics.education
      Cheers,
      Dr. A

  • @deepakaggarwal333
    @deepakaggarwal333 8 років тому +2

    awsome video , really i like it.

    • @yoprofmatt
      @yoprofmatt  8 років тому +2

      +Deepak Aggarwal Thanks Deepak, the sound was a bit wonky on this one, but otherwise it was okay. Thanks for watching!
      Cheers,
      Dr. A

  • @aytunc5662
    @aytunc5662 6 років тому

    Yeah we are accelerating right now because of rotating Earth.

  • @stoian1743
    @stoian1743 7 років тому

    Can you please sir make a video about special and general relativity... if i watch it, it will be my happiest experience i've ever had
    ! Thank you Sir in advance! :)

  • @chadholdaway2089
    @chadholdaway2089 3 роки тому

    That dethklok shirt though

  • @mrsatafrika3109
    @mrsatafrika3109 4 роки тому

    like the way you erase

    • @yoprofmatt
      @yoprofmatt  4 роки тому

      mr satafrika,
      Thanks for the comment, and keep up with the physics!
      You might also like my new website: www.universityphysics.education
      Cheers,
      Dr. A

  • @qualquan
    @qualquan 6 років тому

    v = angular velocity = delta arc/delta t and not delta chord/delta t.
    your delta r is a chord and not an arc.
    So one has to use angle d theta or limit of angle theta to equate arc with chord.
    Only then dr/dt = v
    One cannot use angle delta theta and make delta r/delta t = v

    • @yoprofmatt
      @yoprofmatt  6 років тому

      Thanks for the comment. This derivation was slightly hand-wavy. Maybe next time I'll be more explicit.
      Cheers,
      Dr. A

  • @saikrishnabiswas8627
    @saikrishnabiswas8627 4 роки тому

    I have a doubt that how can a body travelling in an uniform circular motion have both same speed throughout and a centripetal acceleration having a MAGNITUDE(ie v^2/r)

    • @yoprofmatt
      @yoprofmatt  4 роки тому

      Saikrishna Biswas,
      Acceleration is a change in velocity. But velocity has both magnitude (what we call speed) and direction. By changing the direction, you have an acceleration.
      Thanks for the comment, and keep up with the physics!
      You might also like my new website: www.universityphysics.education
      Cheers,
      Dr. A

    • @saikrishnabiswas8627
      @saikrishnabiswas8627 4 роки тому

      @@yoprofmatt but sir then how can the centripetal acceleration be calculated by formula v^2/r. So what does this formula for centrietal acceleration give us, does it give us the rate in which the DIRECTION is changing?

  • @videoupload6898
    @videoupload6898 3 роки тому

    What does the professor mean about adding the 90 degrees? at 6:29?

    • @carultch
      @carultch 3 роки тому

      He's demonstrating that the change in angle between the two velocity vectors, is no different than the change in angle between the two radius vectors.

  • @kelvinreyes5587
    @kelvinreyes5587 4 роки тому

    the guy w the dethklok shirt \m/ XD

  • @onspot361
    @onspot361 3 роки тому

    You explain in a good way.

  • @userrr703
    @userrr703 Рік тому

    so beneficial

    • @yoprofmatt
      @yoprofmatt  Рік тому

      Appreciate that. Glad to be of help.
      Cheers,
      Dr. A

  • @AK-di4rv
    @AK-di4rv 7 років тому

    deducing uniform circular motion! Made it simple.

  • @ThehouseofcricketVNR24
    @ThehouseofcricketVNR24 5 років тому

    Your explanation is excellent.....

  • @neilmcbain411
    @neilmcbain411 6 років тому

    sorry Prof Matt Anderson I typed your name incorrectly below as Armstrong below

    • @yoprofmatt
      @yoprofmatt  6 років тому

      No problem. Response below.
      Cheers,
      Dr. A

  • @ssss855167
    @ssss855167 2 роки тому

    Dear sir,
    I have one question. We know the value of acceleration is V^2/r, but how do we know its direction is towards the center?

    • @yoprofmatt
      @yoprofmatt  2 роки тому

      That's what we're showing with the triangle at 5:43. But also, you know that the acceleration has to be at a right angle to the velocity vector, otherwise the speed would be changing (and since we're assuming uniform circular motion, that means no change in speed).
      Cheers,
      Dr. A

    • @ssss855167
      @ssss855167 2 роки тому

      Thank you very much for the clear explanation sir.

  • @neilmcbain411
    @neilmcbain411 6 років тому

    The question here I need to ask Dr Armstrong ? suppose in gravity free space in a free vacuum in a free vacuum ,we have two masses M1 and m2 that are attracted to each other by a centripetal force so tat they spin around their centre of mass.
    when the force disappears m2 leaves the circle at a tangent,then M1 must also leave the the circle at a a tangent but in the opposite direction.
    Suppose that the mass M1 is much greater than m2 that is M2>>>>m2 so that the centre of mass of the system almost coincides with M1 's centre of mass
    if the centripetal force suddenly disappears the smaller mass leaves the circle away from the centre of mass but the larger mass and its centre of mass leaves the circle in the opposite direction away from the common centre of mass of the system
    AM I CORRECT IN ASSUMING THIS?
    the larger mass M1 FEELS NO FORCE ACTING ON IT AS IT LEAVES THE SYSTEM NOR DOES THE MASS m2 IS THIS CORRECT??
    The problem with lectures on circular motion and centripetal force is that you take into account the situation in a gravity free vacuum of space involving two bodies.

    • @yoprofmatt
      @yoprofmatt  6 років тому

      Neil,
      Good question. I think you're right in a gravity-free space.
      Here's my analysis:
      Pretend the two objects are tied together by a string and orbiting about the center of mass. If you suddenly cut the string, then both bodies will leave in a straight line tangent to their particular orbit and in opposite directions. This is also at a right angle to the line that joined both bodies and the center of mass when the string was cut.
      After the string is cut, there is no force acting on either body (since we assumed no gravitational force either), and they will move with constant velocity.
      (Put gravity back in and that of course changes the situation.)
      Cheers,
      Dr. A

    • @carultch
      @carultch 3 роки тому

      Objects in orbit do not feel the force that keeps them in orbit. The sensation of the gravitational force is nullified, when the object is free to accelerate according to the gravitational force. This is due to the fact that gravity acts uniformly on every kilogram of an object, such that there are no constraint forces necessary to keep an occupant of an orbiting spacecraft at rest within their immediate environment.

  • @shubhamguptashubhamgupta7880
    @shubhamguptashubhamgupta7880 3 роки тому

    You are great sir amazing

  • @aka3673
    @aka3673 Рік тому

    Tnx man

  • @jamesadriantan5272
    @jamesadriantan5272 5 років тому

    is this a serway reference?

  • @VamsiKrishna-no5fx
    @VamsiKrishna-no5fx 6 років тому

    Why is the velocity always perpendicular to the radius?

    • @yoprofmatt
      @yoprofmatt  6 років тому

      Because otherwise it is not moving in a circle.
      Cheers,
      Dr. A

  • @srinivasanp4018
    @srinivasanp4018 4 роки тому

    Thank you sir

  • @nileshrathod3153
    @nileshrathod3153 4 роки тому

    If the centripetal force direction is radially inwards, then why the mass leaves tangentially when the centripetal force becomes zero?

    • @yoprofmatt
      @yoprofmatt  4 роки тому +1

      nilesh,
      Newtons' first says "Objects in motion tend to stay in motion." If you remove the force, the projectile follows it's last known velocity in a straight line.
      Thanks for the comment, and keep up with the physics!
      You might also like my new website: www.universityphysics.education
      Cheers,
      Dr. A

    • @nileshrathod3153
      @nileshrathod3153 4 роки тому

      @@yoprofmatt Thank you ! Dr. A. I have one more question regarding centrifugal force. Even if centrifugal force is not real, then why do we need to design systems taking into consideration the amount of centrifugal force it will experience to avoid failure?

    • @carultch
      @carultch 2 роки тому

      @@nileshrathod3153 Centrifugal (pseudo)-force is an apparent force that you experience as an occupant of a rotating reference frame. It is a function of your immediate environment accelerating radially inward as it moves in a circular path.
      It is a shortcut to account for -m*a (the pseudoforce or the D'Alembert force term) as if it were a force acting upon a structure you were designing for use in an accelerating reference frame, but this really isn't a force because there is no agent object that causes this force upon you. What is really happening, is that the net force needs to add up to the acceleration, and if your environment is accelerating, then so are you. The acceleration isn't immediately obvious to you, without observing your surroundings, and your immediate instinct is to assume an outward force acts upon you, as you experience the inward constraint forces that keep you moving with your reference frame.

  • @fathimafarah767
    @fathimafarah767 4 роки тому

    Thank u Dr. Anderson

  • @roohinkukreja1136
    @roohinkukreja1136 2 роки тому

    Thanks a lot, was quite helpful:)

    • @yoprofmatt
      @yoprofmatt  2 роки тому

      Good to hear. Have a great day.
      Cheers,
      Dr. A

  • @harshitagrawal-3970
    @harshitagrawal-3970 6 років тому

    Anyone wonder how fast he rub the board 🙄🙄

    • @yoprofmatt
      @yoprofmatt  6 років тому +1

      Coffee kicked in.
      Cheers,
      Dr. A

  • @pranjalverma3501
    @pranjalverma3501 6 років тому

    Nice one, anderson sir really know how to teach, but ∆r/∆t isn't it ∆v instead of v?

    • @yoprofmatt
      @yoprofmatt  6 років тому

      I simplified this discussion a bit. I think it's okay, but really we should be using derivatives, where v = dx/dt
      Cheers,
      Dr. A

  • @Vivek-cw3zu
    @Vivek-cw3zu 5 років тому

    Thank you sir for making it so simple to understand. 💗

  • @animeandstuff5377
    @animeandstuff5377 6 років тому

    Nice lecture bro but dang y’all can’t afford a classroom these guys don’t even have tables rofl I think u spent to much money on that tech back writing board

    • @yoprofmatt
      @yoprofmatt  6 років тому

      Awesome, that made me laugh. We have a new design now that includes tables for the students!
      Cheers,
      Dr. A

    • @animeandstuff5377
      @animeandstuff5377 6 років тому

      @@yoprofmatt WOOWOWOOOWOWOWOW UPGRADE lmao got a 92 on my midterm also u lowkey helped

    • @yoprofmatt
      @yoprofmatt  6 років тому

      Excellent! Congratulations.
      Cheers,
      Dr. A

  • @harshrajsinhgohil998
    @harshrajsinhgohil998 5 років тому

    Thanks

  • @frootloop1879
    @frootloop1879 5 років тому

    i dont get the angle thing

  • @zeynaviegas
    @zeynaviegas 5 років тому

    ooooohhhhj so thats where this formula came from :o

  • @valeriedou2206
    @valeriedou2206 6 років тому

    I’m confused on how he is writing backward

    • @yoprofmatt
      @yoprofmatt  6 років тому

      Not, actually. Check out the secret here: www.learning.glass
      Cheers,
      Dr. A

  • @cristianmartinez9049
    @cristianmartinez9049 6 років тому

    what does Δv/v mean? i didn't understand why he did that. what triangle property it is?

  • @shahrahman7337
    @shahrahman7337 2 роки тому

    This was the most interesting presentation on centripetal acceleration I’ve ever seen. Never seen it taught this way

    • @yoprofmatt
      @yoprofmatt  2 роки тому +3

      Great to hear. I'm definitely not the first, though. Many textbooks treat it this way.
      Cheers,
      Dr. A

  • @butternnut
    @butternnut 7 років тому

    do you fast forward when you wipe off the marker or do u wipe that fast

    • @yoprofmatt
      @yoprofmatt  7 років тому +3

      Busted! Yep, that would be the miracle of editing.
      Thanks for noticing.
      Cheers,
      Dr. A

  • @krasimirronkov17
    @krasimirronkov17 5 років тому

    Why is velocity tangent to the circular path

    • @krasimirronkov17
      @krasimirronkov17 5 років тому

      Pls help professor

    • @justadreamerforgood69
      @justadreamerforgood69 4 роки тому

      @@krasimirronkov17
      Because if velocity is dr/dt so imagine ri and rf very close to each other(as shown in this example) then they will be tangent to the circle
      When you divide by dt( where dt tends to zero but not zero) the vector dr is the same except it's magnified because we're dividing by a number less than one and greater than 0

  • @anjanakathuria4194
    @anjanakathuria4194 6 років тому

    How are you able to Wright in reverse, On the other side.

    • @carultch
      @carultch 3 роки тому

      He's using a mirror in between the camera and his glass panel. He writes normal, the class who sees him teach in person, will see him writing backward on this board. He shows a live video feed on another monitor, so the class can see normal writing.

  • @Z78798
    @Z78798 5 років тому

    Preety good. He can taught without hesitation after practice.