Пікірлер

• 
  @Mosselle2 ай бұрын

  shouldnt it be left hand rule instead of right?

• 
  @azaac63954 ай бұрын

  I think your solution is not right as in replacing lamba you did a mistake of writing it as Q/R rather it should be Q/Rthetha

• 
  @aeronus7704 ай бұрын

  🙏

• 
  @LaKingLuck4 ай бұрын

  Our savior 😊

• 
  @mbaharkaragozoglu6 ай бұрын

  how can potantial energy be larger than mechanic energy

• 
  @xibbit63223 ай бұрын

  take a ball sitting at the top of a hill, it has some PE depending on your zero point, but no KE. it really depends on your zero reference choice

• 
  @shors5841Ай бұрын

  @@xibbit6322 sure but in the video the PE is above the mechanical energy line initially, implying that there is negative KE. sure we can have no KE like in the example you gave but how is there negative KE

• 
  @rdhealthcare64267 ай бұрын

  I got a high B on the final and an A in the class.

• 
  @physlord2able6 ай бұрын

  well done!

• 
  @rdhealthcare64266 ай бұрын

  @@physlord2able And to you as well, in regards to the video.

• 
  @rdhealthcare64267 ай бұрын

  Used this to study for my Physics finals. I'll let you know how it goes.

• 
  @sake_777 ай бұрын

  shouldn't I be 1/3 ML^2 and not 1/12 ML^2 because it's pivoted at the end of the rod?

• 
  @darinsawah28498 ай бұрын

  Thank you so much the video was so informative :) 😊

• 
  @rudysantayana42529 ай бұрын

  Thank you! This was a great addition to my notes and clarified so much :)

• 
  @ndnfnams Жыл бұрын

  thank you so much I am against all religion

• 
  @quinnivison751 Жыл бұрын

  W mans fr. Thank you so much

• 
  @Abstractless Жыл бұрын

  it's not about this video but some of your old videos were really helpful for me. I got the answer i was looking for. Thank you. I'm glad to find your channel.

• 
  @quadriogunyemi3980 Жыл бұрын

  Thanks mahn😊

• 
  @spacemanmcdon9902 Жыл бұрын

  cooking something good in the microwave at 3:30?

• 
  @Romo2055 Жыл бұрын

  a year later....you're video helped somebody out on the otherside of the world, thanks mate!

• 
  @alexanderkim1365 Жыл бұрын

  Absolutely loved this

• 
  @NickNackPattyWack69 Жыл бұрын

  This was shocking. The whole time I was like "Watt? this is amazing." Get it? 😉

• 
  @mathiosgillett7067 Жыл бұрын

  Thank you for this tutorial!

• 
  @physlord2able Жыл бұрын

  Glad it was helpful!

• 
  @driell6544 Жыл бұрын

  Thank you so much!

• 
  @physlord2able Жыл бұрын

  Glad it helped!

• 
  @spacemanmcdon9902 Жыл бұрын

  Fantastic video, I know a lot more about the first law of thermodynamics now

• 
  @physlord2able Жыл бұрын

  Glad it was helpful!

• 
  @SoulmongerV2 Жыл бұрын

  Really nice explanation and shockingly nice handwriting.

• 
  @physlord2able Жыл бұрын

  Thanks a lot 😊

• 
  @johnpatrickmoore5505 Жыл бұрын

  power through a resistor rotational acceleration 🤝 v^2/r

• 
  @physlord2able Жыл бұрын

  haha! "Caution: due to the limited number of letters, some equations may appear the same"

• 
  @arunavdikshit19052 жыл бұрын

  Thanks man...I was having a tough time understanding this...now it's clear 👌

• 
  @EugeneKhutoryansky2 жыл бұрын

  Are you sure about the claim that two gases at the same temperature have different entropies due to the mass per molecule? If this were true, and you had these two gases in separate containers in thermal contact with each other, then the state with the highest entropy would be one where the lighter gas would have a higher temperature. But we know that this is not the case, because the two gases must be at the same temperature in thermal equilibrium. I think the issue is how you are counting microstates. If the X axis were to show energy instead of speed, then the two gases could be said to have the same number of microstates for a given temperature.

• 
  @alexdangelo88852 жыл бұрын

  Very Nice!

• 
  @DuboholicAnono2 жыл бұрын

  No part 8? The playlist has this video as your last video?

• 
  @blackman672 жыл бұрын

  Audio is a bit painful to ears

• 
  @dustin1462 жыл бұрын

  Great explanation, thanks! :)

• 
  @johnpatrickmoore55053 жыл бұрын

  Hi Mr. Von!

• 
  @gendbend99333 жыл бұрын

  Thank you!

• 
  @dlwatib3 жыл бұрын

  Interesting. KZread has suddenly been recommending videos talking about Donald Hoffman's theory that we're living in a simulation, nothing we can sense is actually real, it's all just virtual, like a Windows desktop full of icons, or a very good video game. We can't see behind the facade to the underlying code... the computer programs that make the icons behave as they should. Well, here's another place where the simulation gets dicey. The code can't make up its mind to simulate a wave or a particle, so it gives us some of each and lets us make up our own story.

• 
  @joserylcordero64293 жыл бұрын

  Thank you for this I cant find much tutorial about this topic so thank you very much

• 
  @physlord2able2 жыл бұрын

  You're very welcome!

• 
  @blockyboy8883 жыл бұрын

  I have been enjoying your presentation's .

• 
  @physlord2able2 жыл бұрын

  Glad you like them!

• 
  @harrisonpope66033 жыл бұрын

  Best physics teacher ever

• 
  @TheAnimammal3 жыл бұрын

  The ice skater is an excellent example of conservation of angular energy and direct proof that angular momentum is not conserved. How do academics behave when faced with this information? They refuse to acknowledge any measurement of an ice skater or prof on a turntable and refuse to measure it themselves because as long as we ignore the evidence, the evidence doesn't count. It is far better to be stupid than it is to be right against the academic grain.

• 
  @TheAnimammal3 жыл бұрын

  Angular momentum is originally defined as L = r x p, so L cannot be an "analog" of p because it is defined by it. Since r can change without torque, the claim that angular momentum cannot change without torque is nonsense. Angular momentum is defined to depend upon r. r can change without torque, so angular momentum can change without torque. Kepler used the eyeball measurements of Brahe despite the fact that the telescope was invented two years before he published. This is because those were the only measurements inaccurate enough to "confirm" his pet theory. Modern more accurate measurements do not confirm Kepler's laws. The problem is that angular energy is conserved, not angular momentum. Just look at the moon. Measurements of the angular velocity of the moon confirm that the orbital velocity of the moon does not change. What you teach is generally accepted, but it is directly false. Please do not hate me because Kepler screwed up. Check your evidence because you have no evidence supporting this nonsense that you teach. Everything that 'confirms' COAM does so because "it spins faster". "It spins faster" is not a grown up scientific prediction. This is not personal so please don't treat it as a personal offence.

• 
  @physlord2able3 жыл бұрын

  No personal offense taken. This is a classical mechanics perspective - thus it relies on classical assumptions - many of which have shown to fall short of our modern abilities to measure more closely. I often feel frustrated that I am teaching students some outdated material but it is what is required for them to pass national exams. With that said, I think that the approximations made are not incorrect, when you take into account the premises upon which they are based. We still teach gravitation from the perspective of fields and accelerations when Einstein's theories of relativity have shown that to be a poor reflection of the truth - at least from his theoretical vantage point. Students must start somewhere. My biggest frustration with early physics education is teaching that Bernoulli's Equation supports why airplanes can fly. It's in tons of books yet it's a poor approximation. In defense of the COAM theories, there are experiments you can do in a lab setting where you can account for external forces and show very easily that AM is in fact conserved. This is why I love and teach physics. We will never run out of the need to explain the same idea over and over again

• 
  @TheAnimammal3 жыл бұрын

  @@physlord2able It is not "outdated" is is completely wrong. ANGULAR MOMENTUM IS NOT CONSERVED AT ALL. IF YOU LOVE PHYSICS THEN THAT SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE TO YOU. THAT IS WHY YOU CANNOT SHOW IT IN A LAB. IMAGINARY EVIDENCE DOES NOT COUNT.

• 
  @jaymccown17853 жыл бұрын

  @@TheAnimammal hey keyboard warrior, let's hop off the caps lock, it's high school physics not your imaginary world you live in down in your mom's basement. Let's do something productive in life with all your "knowledge" instead of falsely attempting to correct educators providing a service to students.

• 
  @dereknicolaszhang3 жыл бұрын

  4k subscribers... can we have a face reveal?

• 
  @slowhand94053 жыл бұрын

  0:43 vom.monster

• 
  @Venator743 жыл бұрын

  Great work enjoying your videos

• 
  @Manthis3 жыл бұрын

  Thank you for making this video Mr. Von it helped a lot!

• 
  @dereknicolaszhang3 жыл бұрын

  Hello :-)

• 
  @physlord2able3 жыл бұрын

  Hello!

• 
  @ikepawsat42922 жыл бұрын

  yo

• 
  @ajaybhavan21962 жыл бұрын

  Zerek Dhang

• 
  @josipakmacic78473 жыл бұрын

  Hello, nice videos! Why elastic energy when talking the charges, shouldn't be electrical potential energy, Uel. P. S.

• 
  @physlord2able3 жыл бұрын

  Thanks! I might have said elastic instead of electric accidentally! My apologies. Should be electric

• 
  @josipakmacic78473 жыл бұрын

  @@physlord2able There is no need for apologies, very useful videos once again!

• 
  @walterstagaman60314 жыл бұрын

  Uhhhh this got cut off

• 
  @josipakmacic78474 жыл бұрын

  Hello, there is no video thermo5 , it goes from 4 to 6. Videos are great. Can you maybe post the video about calculating the boltzman constant Kb matematicly , I cant find the link