Prof Anderson I love your physics poetries .....you have amazing words of physics to write a beautiful and simple poetry of physics of complicated things.....I m Indian and hope that you can understand my language......
Anderson Sir has explained it very well. I am providing 2 alternative explanation for those who are not convinced. First is the Big-bang version: Starting from unity (at a time when only energy was present) the universe started expanding rapidly i.e in a direction we will call positive. This expansion can be seen as positive kinetic energy. But as gravitational force emerged, it started opposing this expansion and as particles started forming it started pulling them together. This is in a direction opp to the initial K.E. So, if K.E is positive then the gravitational energy should be negative Second version: From conservation of energy principle Consider a closed system of Earth and a mass M. Assume no other forces other than the all pervasive gravitational force acts between the. Now lift the mass to a significant height above the surface of earth (consider R to be the distance between the center of the 2 masses). It only has potential energy since its not moving. Assume the energy to be positive (just 4 now). Now let go off the mass. It falls picking up speed. Its kinetic energy increases. But this is normal positive energy. The rock would hurt you if it hit your head. Since the system is isolated the total energy should not change. So, if the kinetic energy gets more positive the gravitational energy should get more negative to keep the total unchanged. But with R in the denominator decreasing (GMm/R), the P.E will also increase. This will be a violation of the law of conservation of energy and hence ........
Zeeshan, And to you. Thanks for the comment, and keep up with the physics! You might also like my new website: www.universityphysics.education Cheers, Dr. A
Asoona Aljumaily, Thanks for the comment, and keep up with the physics! You might also like my new website: www.universityphysics.education Cheers, Dr. A
Just kind of got lost midway,Why did you/he multiply both sides by 1/2 and came up with a solution that was plugged to the original equation for the total E?what was the idea and reason behind it?Thanks in advance
You can get mv square from second eqn and plug it back in the first. Or u can multiply by half so u get half mv square Either way its the same thing Hope that helped clear ur doubt
Atharv Gupta, Yes. Thanks for the comment, and keep up with the physics! You might also like my new website: www.universityphysics.education Cheers, Dr. A
Great lecture but this might be something completely unrelated it's more of a group discussion. I am trying to understand at this moment the virtual energy that we manifest with vibration frequency. Over the past 20 or so years a change that has been occurring I know it's called waking up, but we can see orbiting energy around our bodies. Lately, it's becoming way more visible with the eyes open and just in lower light levels not only from the corner of the eyes but looking directly at it. How many of you have seen this. I know the concept is real and on the metaphysics way of thinking, how many of you have adjusted your eyes to be able to detect multidimensional energy?... This is kinda interesting and yes no I am not on any drugs I am completely against that, I don't even drink it's always been with me. As I see it everything is a planet in a way all things have their own gravitational pull but it's not as big as things with larger mass. I just guess I have blown my mind on that I just thought I would share and see if others can see it too. The description as follows is blue-white wire framed energy with little clouds like objects that are in the same pattern as the symbol of Atomic energy. It changed from the corner of the eyes to a direct line of sight.
An orbit is a constant state of falling but with enough horizontal velocity to miss the Earth. Within the ISS you are falling at the same rate as the ISS and also moving horizontal to the Earth at the same velocity. In essence, you and the ISS are both falling together so there is no perception of gravity or acceleration. It's no different than if you were inside a falling elevator. Since you are both falling together both you and the elevator would be weightless, until you hit the Earth that is.
I thought I heard that the KE = (1/2) PE for Circular Orbits ONLY... but not so for Elliptical Orbits... is that TRUE?... I guess in Either case the Eo = Ef .... or PEo. +KEo = PEf +KEf...
True. In an elliptical orbit, kinetic energy (horizontal velocity) is highest at closest approach and lowest at furthest away. Potential energy (distance) is lowest at closest approach and highest at furthest away. In summation (by integrating around the entire orbit), these should balance out just the same as for a circular orbit of the same orbital period.
Joe Gagliardi, Correct. Not writing backwards (I'm not that talented). The board is called Learning Glass. You can check it out at www.learning.glass Cheers, Dr. A
Ali Akçay, I hope so. Thanks for the comment, and keep up with the physics! You might also like my new website: www.universityphysics.education Cheers, Dr. A
"Negative Energy", Weird. Obviously it Needs Positive Energy to Rotate in it's Orbit?. Obviously it Needs Gravity to Remain in Orbit?. Unless it is Decelerating, but that's Negative Velocity?. Therefore Must be a Maths Necessity?.
By convention, the potential energy of an object in a gravitational well is negative. This represents its potential to fall deeper into the well. It's kinetic energy is positive. This represents its capacity to escape the well. When kinetic energy plus potential energy equals zero, then we have achieved what is called "escape velocity." This means the object will fly off to infinity where it will reach zero velocity. So, when KE + PE < 0 we have an orbit. When KE + PE = 0 we have escape velocity, and when KE + PE > 0 we have more than escape velocity.
@@sup2day You make some Fair Points. Obviously the Earths Satellites are Operating in Multiple Gravity Wells, The Sun, The Earth, The Moon, The Solar System, The Galaxy, The Universe....., but in this example Earth as the Strongest. However Theoretically Equilibrium must be Possible and It Should Orbit in Equilibrium ?. Therefore a Quality Control System combined with a Solar Motion Drive on the Satellite should be able to Keep it in Equilibrium. Therefore again Maybe the Earths GPS Satellites do have Equilibrium Control Systems for Accuracy.
Only 7:30 long video but explained so detailed about orbital mechanics.... Great work Prof Anderson.... 👍👍
u have helped me a lot in understanding the concept. u r wonderful sir.
Excellent, glad to be of help.
Cheers,
Dr. A
Yo, Is no-one gonna acknowledge that this man is casually writing backwards????
It's called a mirror.
AHHHHHH! gracias
This is how they're doing it:
ua-cam.com/video/CWHMtSNKxYA/v-deo.html
Yeah I was confused
exactly the explanation I was seeking thank you so much!
That opening is gold haha
Prof Anderson I love your physics poetries .....you have amazing words of physics to write a beautiful and simple poetry of physics of complicated things.....I m Indian and hope that you can understand my language......
Anderson Sir has explained it very well.
I am providing 2 alternative explanation for those who are not convinced.
First is the Big-bang version: Starting from unity (at a time when only energy was present) the universe started expanding rapidly i.e in a direction we will call positive. This expansion can be seen as positive kinetic energy. But as gravitational force emerged, it started opposing this expansion and as particles started forming it started pulling them together. This is in a direction opp to the initial K.E. So, if K.E is positive then the gravitational energy should be negative
Second version: From conservation of energy principle
Consider a closed system of Earth and a mass M. Assume no other forces other than the all pervasive gravitational force acts between the. Now lift the mass to a significant height above the surface of earth (consider R to be the distance between the center of the 2 masses). It only has potential energy since its not moving. Assume the energy to be positive (just 4 now). Now let go off the mass. It falls picking up speed. Its kinetic energy increases. But this is normal positive energy. The rock would hurt you if it hit your head. Since the system is isolated the total energy should not change. So, if the kinetic energy gets more positive the gravitational energy should get more negative to keep the total unchanged. But with R in the denominator decreasing (GMm/R), the P.E will also increase. This will be a violation of the law of conservation of energy and hence ........
sir,thank u so much u cleared my doubts......thanks from india
Thnks ,,,,,,sir, from Indian village
Greetings from Turkey Sir. You are the best.
BEST PHYSICS LECTURES EVER !!!
It's very impressive that he can write backwards... I wish I had that kind of skill.
Nice explanation
Very clear explanation. Thank you professor!
Hannah Nithilla,
You're very welcome. Glad you're enjoying the videos.
You might also like my new site: www.universityphysics.education
Cheers,
Dr. A
Thank you so much!
Excellent explanation sir. Stay blessed always
Zeeshan,
And to you.
Thanks for the comment, and keep up with the physics!
You might also like my new website: www.universityphysics.education
Cheers,
Dr. A
tysm sir ur the GOAT
Very nice sir
Why are all Andersons so good at explaining stuff...
No words for your explanation sir , keep going sir
Will do.
Cheers,
Dr. A
Sir
My question is related to velocity of satellite 🛰.
What is the difference between critical velocity and orbital velocity?
“Mr. Anderson”
Amazing
Asoona Aljumaily,
Thanks for the comment, and keep up with the physics!
You might also like my new website: www.universityphysics.education
Cheers,
Dr. A
You are my hero ❣️
Thanks, but I'm no hero. I'm just trying to do my job as a teacher.
Cheers,
Dr. A
Just kind of got lost midway,Why did you/he multiply both sides by 1/2 and came up with a solution that was plugged to the original equation for the total E?what was the idea and reason behind it?Thanks in advance
@ 3:48 i mean.
You can get mv square from second eqn and plug it back in the first.
Or u can multiply by half so u get half mv square
Either way its the same thing
Hope that helped clear ur doubt
So , if a satellite has 0 energy, will it have reached escape velocity (just like when an electron reaches its outermost energy level)?
Atharv Gupta,
Yes.
Thanks for the comment, and keep up with the physics!
You might also like my new website: www.universityphysics.education
Cheers,
Dr. A
Great lecture but this might be something completely unrelated it's more of a group discussion. I am trying to understand at this moment the virtual energy that we manifest with vibration frequency. Over the past 20 or so years a change that has been occurring I know it's called waking up, but we can see orbiting energy around our bodies. Lately, it's becoming way more visible with the eyes open and just in lower light levels not only from the corner of the eyes but looking directly at it. How many of you have seen this. I know the concept is real and on the metaphysics way of thinking, how many of you have adjusted your eyes to be able to detect multidimensional energy?... This is kinda interesting and yes no I am not on any drugs I am completely against that, I don't even drink it's always been with me. As I see it everything is a planet in a way all things have their own gravitational pull but it's not as big as things with larger mass. I just guess I have blown my mind on that I just thought I would share and see if others can see it too. The description as follows is blue-white wire framed energy with little clouds like objects that are in the same pattern as the symbol of Atomic energy. It changed from the corner of the eyes to a direct line of sight.
how is there zero G inside the ISS but gravity holds it in orbit while it travels 17000mph which is velocity?
An orbit is a constant state of falling but with enough horizontal velocity to miss the Earth. Within the ISS you are falling at the same rate as the ISS and also moving horizontal to the Earth at the same velocity. In essence, you and the ISS are both falling together so there is no perception of gravity or acceleration. It's no different than if you were inside a falling elevator. Since you are both falling together both you and the elevator would be weightless, until you hit the Earth that is.
I thought I heard that the KE = (1/2) PE for Circular Orbits ONLY... but not so for Elliptical Orbits... is that TRUE?... I guess in Either case the Eo = Ef .... or PEo. +KEo = PEf +KEf...
True. In an elliptical orbit, kinetic energy (horizontal velocity) is highest at closest approach and lowest at furthest away. Potential energy (distance) is lowest at closest approach and highest at furthest away. In summation (by integrating around the entire orbit), these should balance out just the same as for a circular orbit of the same orbital period.
Sir can we replace r with (R+h). Then the equation becomes GM/2(R+h)
Prasanna Venkat ya you can do that
He's essentially doing that. You want to use the radius plus the height off the ground :P You want to treat the mass as a point particle for gravity.
why is the potential energy written in a negative term?
Think of it as a binding energy. The object in orbit is "bound" to the planet. The only way to remove it is to add energy.
Cheers,
Dr. A
@@yoprofmatt thank you sir. I am grateful.
He's not writing backwards! The studio screen flips the image!
Joe Gagliardi,
Correct. Not writing backwards (I'm not that talented). The board is called Learning Glass. You can check it out at www.learning.glass
Cheers,
Dr. A
Whaaatt? After 4 5 videos, now i realize that the man's writing backwards!!!
He is not writing backwards, it's the board itself is doing it for him
The video is mirrored after shooting it.
it's a mirror.
Correct! Check it out here: ua-cam.com/video/CWHMtSNKxYA/v-deo.html
Cheers,
Dr. A
Is it me or prof. Anderson looks a lot like Benedict Cumberbatch in Sherlock Holmes
Not just you. Seen some other comments along those lines. Usually. more like Dr. Strange though.
Cheers,
Dr. A
@@yoprofmatt multiverse is real 😂
Acaba bunu yks ye hazirlanirken izleyen var mı benden başka
Ali Akçay,
I hope so.
Thanks for the comment, and keep up with the physics!
You might also like my new website: www.universityphysics.education
Cheers,
Dr. A
"Negative Energy", Weird.
Obviously it Needs Positive Energy to Rotate in it's Orbit?.
Obviously it Needs Gravity to Remain in Orbit?.
Unless it is Decelerating, but that's Negative Velocity?.
Therefore Must be a Maths Necessity?.
By convention, the potential energy of an object in a gravitational well is negative. This represents its potential to fall deeper into the well. It's kinetic energy is positive. This represents its capacity to escape the well. When kinetic energy plus potential energy equals zero, then we have achieved what is called "escape velocity." This means the object will fly off to infinity where it will reach zero velocity. So, when KE + PE < 0 we have an orbit. When KE + PE = 0 we have escape velocity, and when KE + PE > 0 we have more than escape velocity.
@@sup2day You make some Fair Points.
Obviously the Earths Satellites are Operating in Multiple Gravity Wells, The Sun, The Earth, The Moon, The Solar System, The Galaxy, The Universe....., but in this example Earth as the Strongest.
However Theoretically Equilibrium must be Possible and It Should Orbit in Equilibrium ?.
Therefore a Quality Control System combined with a Solar Motion Drive on the Satellite should be able to Keep it in Equilibrium.
Therefore again Maybe the Earths GPS Satellites do have Equilibrium Control Systems for Accuracy.
Who r u🙄😫😟😕😩😖😓😞