💀

What????

¿¿¿¿tahW

🧗💨✔️

Nah, he’s the Science jesus

@Ashay Playz he said sorry. And what do u expect the world is full of hate

w: why you have to be mad at me?

Noble prize is for you

Wario's and Waluigi's origin story...

See W= F.d So now, F=ma That's why m.a.d

😠

I did it the same way as you @cartoon stories. I don't completely understand Dave's way of working this out. Would be good if he could add an explanation to his calculations.

robert stewart yes you're he should add more explanation/information about equations or calculation specially in physics

I'll... just watch the video, thanks. but great explanation. :)

yep i also did it this way

Can I ask how we got the 7.99 at the end

I looked at your post date and it said "7 months ago" I was like are you sure it's 2020?!?! WTF it's been a loooong year :'(

Me too

Hey from the future haha can’t believe you wrote this a year ago

hey from the further future, I don't know why I am doing this.

Hey from further further future, i am doing this to ignore the work in front of me

2023 and still helpful

@@nafyssacisse 2024 and still helpful

True

As far as I'm concerned it's a lot easier to understand the truth of 9/11 when you realize Einstein's gravity, which Neil deGrasse Tyson says superseded Newton's gravity, does not accelerate objects down to the ground, and does not push objects down with a force. And when you do, you'll also realize objects need a support from below, where the one and only force that comes from below to give objects their weight, then you'll realize that nothing comes down unless that support underneath the object is first removed or weakened. And if that support below is weakened to the point where the object will become lighter, the object will then descend with the illusion of apparent acceleration. There are many, at least a dozen KZfaq videos on Einstein. They all talk about Inertial Frames of reference, which both Newton and Einstein agree on, which it is when an object is not accelerating. They're both totally opposite as to when you would say an object, influenced by just gravity alone, is being accelerated. But we know it is a force of acceleration in ONE direction that is the explanation of why mass has weight in the OPPOSITE direction, like how you fall backwards when the bus takes off forwards...then you've figured it out who makes more sense about inertial frames of reference...Einstein was right, free fall is not acceleration, free fall is not kinetic energy, because free fall is weightless and is standing still. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/e5pjYKaX2tGpl6c.html

Remember this

Samee

you're luckyyyyy

not very good

1) that's what joules are, N-m, and N are kg m/s^2 2) by squaring it

Wow I can’t believe I didn’t catch these simple things. Thank you so much, and also, thanks for answering so quickly. You’re a fricking legend

Ur kid's in the wrong school if he learning potential energy in middle school

In which standard you are ?🤔

He sticks to rigor and he's fun yet which is rather a rare combination. Only someone gifted can do something similar. Saludos desde la República Domincana!

same question

I want to know why as well:(

5 years late but its negative because the question states "1539J of energy is transferred" implying that its work done BY the system which is always negative like professor dave said earlier in the video

On microscopic level all energies are either Kinetic or potential as they are either created due to motion or particle interaction.

I have the same question as well. I cannot understand why it is a negative W

Grades follow

@@sayandkr4333 grades relegates. It's just a number after-all

Imagine being upset about a B.

@@FieldMarshalYT imagine being super relieved cuz you passed the subject with a D XD.

@@hunzalashahid4000 I can relate

FR BRO

"transfers" 1539 J energy to another object as work, so work is done "by" the system. Therefore, work has a negative value.

Can someone provide a more in depth explanation? I made the same mistake, I input the value for W as a positive integer. Please explain?

A ball sitting on the ground has zero macroscopic kinetic energy in the reference frame of the ground. If you look at it from a different reference frame, like the center of Earth, it will have kinetic energy as a consequence of moving with its immediate environment. It also has internal kinetic energy at the molecular level, as this is how objects store their thermal energy. Every object that isn't at absolute zero has internal kinetic energy.

"after some simplification" lol, still seems hard to me

oh my, how did it go. I’m in 8th having to take notes.

"Increase in potential energy will increase kinetic energy" The opposite is true. Energy comes out of the potential form and converts to the kinetic form. Or vice-versa. This is what happens when no non-conservative forces come in to play. It is a trading of kinetic and potential energy. Human forces are not conservative forces, so the concept of potential energy doesn't apply to them. There may be parts of the concept that will apply.

When net work is negative, this means work is leaving the kinetic energy of the object we are studying, and the object decreases its speed. This could mean energy is being stored in the form of potential energy, or it could mean a non-conservative force such as kinetic friction is converting the energy into heat and taking energy out of the mechanical domain. Potential energy is a shortcut to calculate the work done by conservative forces, because it is a state function instead of a path function. It only depends on initial and final states, rather than the details of the path. When we exclude forces associated with a potential energy, and only study the non-conservative forces, the work-energy theorem changes from "KEfinal = W + KEinitial" to "KEfinal + PEfinal = KEinitial + PEinitial + Wnc". The sum total of PE+KE is what we call the mechanical energy; i.e. the energy we can exchange reversibly through the mechanical actions of the system. Wnc is the work of non-conservative forces. Such as work done by human forces to initiate the energy of the system, or work dissipated as heat by frictional forces, or work done on a human as human forces guide the system to rest. Any force that can add or subtract energy to an object in motion, for which we don't track a potential energy.

@@carultch Great explanation. I know you're responding to someone else but that's still very helpful for me, thanks xD!

@@ryankuykendall8303 Always happy to help.

@@carultch so does that explain why 1539 is negative because it is leaving the Kinetic Energy of the object?

@@michdawnespera9578 Yes. If kinetic energy is decreasing, that means the net work being done on the object is negative. Is there a specific issue I could help clarify, that I'm not seeing in your question?

What the skibidi

because a negative amount of work is always done to bring an object closer to earth!

Professor Dave Explains But if we lift a rock up then how does that - sign cancels out

Potential energy can be both positive and negative. It is arbitrary where we define potential energy to equal zero, although there usually is a convention for each type of force for where we define it to equal zero. For gravity in the uniform field approximation, we define a datum where elevation is zero, and GPE is measured relative to being zero at that datum. Negative GPE would just mean GPE that is less than the datum amount of GPE that is defined as zero. For universal gravitation, the convention is to define GPE to be zero, infinitely far away. In this convention, GPE will always be negative.

Energy is the ability to perfum,work or change an object.

i guess if we get super technical, the latter sounds more rigorous of a definition to me, but sometimes it's easiest to just speak colloquially and bestow objects with potential energy and things like that. a physicist would probably offer better insight!

Yes, because we assign the ground as having zero potential energy. We set the axes ourselves.