4:49 excellent, thank you for calling back to the microscope

The positive charge is supposed to move down wards

Yess this works..i know.. because im doing this for a while..and yah..i got Full A+ though

You are CREATING an absolute frame for a velocity by CHANGING your numbers with a number between 0 and 1 (transforms). No velocity has any real definition at all, ever. Each one is INFINITELY relative, so acting like any velocity does ANYTHING in physics is a joke. There is NO MECHANISM to your theory. Dimensions don't exist, show me dimension 1 or 2 without math. Send a pendulum into space and tell me how time is relative. Just the concept of light speed being constant to EACH observer is goofy, because that would mean that the Universe somehow knows if you change your infinitely relative speed. It should not be so easily accepted, but math is a procedural path into physics, so rote memory fools can thrive. This all means that there is CERTAINLY a NON-transformed reality left behind all this time that works just fine without your analogous transformed numbers painted over it. Math can lie to you. Look at my causal explanation for the gyroscopic effect. Angular momentum was taught to everyone, but this completely misses the true cause. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ic-gkpyW3Ji2mnU.html

thank you professor !

Relativity is WRONG , THE PROOF : how do you know that the two events occur at the same time or not even before both signals arrive at the two observers. That means you AGREE that a former " non relativistic" or " classical" frame of reference is needed to validate the simultaneity or not of events. Relativity is under many contradictions and over the history these errors are not discussed because of two main reasons: 1- the overwhelming of Quantum mechanics more rich experimentaly and its applications are several from the molecular level to atomic then to sub-atomic, and the diversity of phenomenological surprises. 2- the force of the new ideology : EINSTEINISM , which means : you are only rediculous if you try to prove Einstein wrong.

Thanks for giving me some confidence in the world of electricity.

he writes backwards?!

Finally I understand ! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

Amazing

Love your videos

Professor, light after two bounces returns parallel. In a cube it bounces thrice . Can you please clarify how three bounces gives parallel instead of two bounces as you explained here.

Love it 😍😍 amazing!!😘💖

Why this equation 1/2mv^2 = 1/2 K x^2 turn into this v^2= k/m . X^2

Pressure requires a container, especially if it stops at any point without mixing becoming more evident as time goes on THEN you relearn most of what this guy has taught you

Very helpful!

Such a wonderful revision of school time. Very nicely explained .

all I can think ab is whether he's writing backwards or if the camera is flipped but if the camera was flipped then his class wouldn't be able to see the words so... he's writing backwards......????

Clearest explanation I have seen yet!

he is underrated ngl

thx, very helpful

How do we determine the amount magnetic field lines in an area. I know we used the example 3 here, but how would you determine how much they are really

Why not we never tried to convert this pressure to energy?

sir, i really love your explanation (love from india)😄

thanks sir

Is it possible to go inside the center of earth as there is no gravitational acceleration?

Wrong! The water level goes down! Your theoretical ice doesn't work because you have too much ice out of the water, that's not how it works in real life, there is always more ice under the water, than above. So your "pen, paper" math you have going on here has no real world mechanics working, FALSE INFORMATION just because your math says so doesn't mean it's fact.... I wonder how much this has happened for so many other things that we think of as "fact"....

Prof, we can use the kinematics equation when its un-uniform motion? No right? I mean the a isnt constant. So why you said we can get the at from kinematics equations?

sir, i"ve really love the way you explain and more over i can really understand it😄

Thank you sir, you made the topic easy to me😁😆

Thanks for another awesome video! Love from Bharat

I wonder where that fucking sound is coming from in the background.

a ver, lo voy a simplificar i=x2+y0 \ o=x1+y1, hacen mucho quilombo al pedo, usen equivalencias es mas simple

Anyone else blown away about how he's writing backwards so legibly?

I can produce E = mc² using any physics. Newtonian derivation of E = mc² *In Newton’s law:* Force = mass x acceleration (Areal velocity = constant is included in Newton’s law) Newton’s gravity law F = - (G m M /r2) **r1** Acceleration in mathematical form is: (rʹʹ - r θʹ2) **r1** + (2 rʹ θʹ + r θʹʹ) **θ1** Force = mass x acceleration = m x [(rʹʹ - r θʹ2) **r1** + (2 rʹ θʹ + r θʹʹ) **θ1];** Force = F = mass x acceleration = - (G m M /r2) **r1** And m (rʹʹ - r θʹ2) = -G m M /r2 ---Newton’s gravitational force law. And (2 rʹ θʹ + r θʹʹ) = 0 -------------- Kepler’s constant areal velocity law. Divide Kepler’s law by r θʹ Visual distance: r = (distance) r₀ x e± i ω t Visual angular speed θʹ = (angular speed) θʹ ₀ x e± 2 i ω t = r₀ e± i ω t And θʹ = θʹ₀ e± 2 i ω t And (2 rʹ / r + θʹʹ/θʹ) = 0; rearrange: (2 rʹ/r) = - (θʹʹ/θʹ) = ± 2 i ω *In Kepler law*: Areal velocity = (r2θʹ) = constant Or (r2θʹ) = k; r = distance; θʹ = angular speed Take the derivative: d (r2θʹ)/ d t = 0 And (2 r rʹ θʹ + r2θʹʹ) = 0; divide by r2θʹ And (2 rʹ / r + θʹʹ/θʹ) = 0; rearrange (2 rʹ/r) = - (θʹʹ/θʹ) = ± 2 i ω And (rʹ/r) = ± i ω And d r/r = ± i ω d t And ∫ d r/r = ∫± i ω d t L n (r/r₀) = ± i ω t L n e = L n e± i ω t And r = r₀ e± i ω t And - (θʹʹ/θʹ) = ± 2 i ω And θʹʹ/θʹ = ± 2 i ω The solution is: θʹ = θʹ ₀ e± 2 i ω t If r₀ e i ω t; θʹ = θʹ₀ e- 2 i ω t If r₀ e - i ω t; θʹ = θʹ₀ e 2 i ω t E = mc² S = r ℮ ỉ ω t P = [v + ỉ ω r] ℮ ỉ ω t (P. P) = [v² - ω² r² + 2 ỉ ω r v] ℮ 2 ỉ ω t E = m (P. P)/2 = (m/2) [v² - ω² r² + 2 ỉ ω r v] ℮ 2 ỉ ω t E = (m/2) [c² - c² + 2 ỉ c²] ℮ 2 ỉ ω t With ω r = v = c E = (m/2) [2 ỉ c² ℮ 2 ỉ ω t] E = (m/2) │2 ỉ c² ││℮ 2 ỉ ω t│ E = (m/2) (2 c²) E = mc²

Wow I like it your expression methods God bless you

The rocket example everyone gives when explaining escape velocity is very misleading, since rockets are usually percieved as having their own means of acceleration, so they can escape the Earth at basically any speed as long as said acceleration is greater than or equal to 1g (assuming its moving directly away from the planet) . Escape velocity, however, is about initial speed of a body without any forces applied to it other than gravity, just like you said in the video

How does this work that he is writing on glass or is he really? Is he writing on a mirror?

9 years before and still understandable. Greate Teaching sir 🗣️🔥

Climate change folks say the ocean rises because of melting ice. 🥴 but common sense and this math says that’s not the case.

11 years ago damn

Pr Ayache made made me watch this for the catch-up exam 🥲

Thank you for sharing these videos! They're easy to follow and are interesting.

Very useful information

in certain problems, we assume the normal force to be equal to the weight, like in friction problems,are we neglecting centripetal force here?

In case it is not clear, Solution(2), we use the theta= 30 and plug it into V_bR*costheta to find the vertical component/component crossing the river.

An awesome EE prof! Really appreciate it. Thank you.

Kinda nuts this college kids think about everything so mathematically. I haven’t finished the video but I’m pretty sure the answer is basically zero. If you are in the dead center of the earth you’d be so close to the core gravity would not be pulling you anywhere. You’d be essentially weightless. Maybe I’m wrong

initial velocity would be changed at the last part right ?

Full video please