วีดีโอ

I really appreciate this! 😊

Will pulley rotate in this case

Thank you so much

❤ from india Sir can u pls make a video to find electric field at edge(vertex) of a triangular sheet(equilateral) with surface charge density sigma and electric field at a point p at a distance above(at z axis) centroid of a equilateral triangular sheet of surface charge density sigma My sir solved this problem by flux method but i wanted a classical integration method

Amazing job! I wish your videos get the attention they deserve! Keep up the work. I'm excited for your next videos :)

You should've mentioned that this is one of several uniqueness theorems (this one is for Dirichlet problem). In particular, in Electrostatics there is another one for the case when the charges on the conductors are fixed . For example, if you place uncharged sphere in the electric field, the theorem you presented is not useful.

It's a very good video

Well made video but I suppose there is one inaccuracy the terms in the first equation should be mv + Fdt = (m - dm)(v + dv) - (dm)(w - v)

Good explanation of a tricky idea!

Is it a pure coincidence that the Y equation is basically the (tangential) velocity head if we use Bernoulli’s equation

Sir ur voice is so calming

Very clear in explaining this chain-scale problem 👍

great videos! These are really helpful please please keep posting!

Does each stage have the same amount of fuel? In real life, rockets stages have different amounts of fuel I think.

Notations are beautiful

woow i found an underrated teacher i mean you can really go to any famous private institute or university and become their main teacher sir thanks for this effort for teaching here

Solution seems pretty interesting. However I encountered some discrepancy in your solution and mine (I get proportionality 1/r⁴). I consider directly that pressure acting on a small element of a balloon is equal to four tensions projected onto vertical axis(which should give some solid angle ) divided by the surface dS. The rest is just like you did,and at the end I got different formula (dimensions are ok!!). Is my method correct or there's something I miss?

The result you have used for dipole is for a far away point, I dont see how it makes sense?

You should have shown us the point at which you have found the potential

It's interesting that conservation of energy was not involved in the calculation. I guess that a coeficient of restitution of e = 1 would have been the subrepticious way of introducing it, but this is not immediately apparent. Good video as always.

What is presented here is a very simple approximation. Setting the wave equation to zero is a boundary condition valid at infinity, which does not exist in reality. The correct way to analyse this problem is to set the wave equation to a source and then analyse the propagation of the resultant electromagnetic fields. When this is done a lot of detail overlooked here is revealed. The fields propagate instantaneously when they are created by the source in the nearfield, and they reduce to about the speed of light at about one wavelength from the source, and never becomes exactly c even at extreme astronomical distances from the source. This corresponds to the phase speed, group speed, and information speed. Another important detail that is revealed is that there is a circulation of the electric field in the nearfield. The longitudinal electric field that is launched from the source, curves toward the opposite pole and creates the transverse electric field at about 1/4 wavelength, and launches transverse electric fields back toward the source and also away from the source. These propagating fields in the nearfield completely violates Relativity, which says nothing goes faster than speed c. So the speed of light is not a constant as once thought. Inserting c=infinity into the Lorentz Transformation yields Galilean transformations, where time and space are absolute. These results indicate that if a moving body is observed with nearfield light, then no Relativistic effects will be observed, but if farfield light is used then Relativistic effects will be observed. Since time and space can not depend on the frequency of the light used to observe effects on time and space, then one must conclude the effects of Relativity are just an optical illusion. Any theory based on Relativity such as General Relativity, and Quantum electrodynamics are wrong. See the following short TH-cam presentation for details, as well as the paper it is based on: *TH-cam presentation of above arguments: th-cam.com/video/sePdJ7vSQvQ/w-d-xo.html *More extensive paper for the above arguments: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity,2023: vixra.org/abs/2309.0145 *Electromagnetic pulse experiment paper: www.techrxiv.org/doi/full/10.36227/techrxiv.170862178.82175798/v1

Thank you, sir!

❤❤❤❤amazing stuff.

Can you explain the equality at 7:17 resulting from an integration by parts? I can't quite put together what u, v, du, dv are in this case. Thank you!

I'm a little bit unsure. My intuition tells me that for the vertical major axis that if you smush the ellipse a lot then the top basically turns into a super tight corner. So I would think that there would need to be a lot of force needed to change the direction of velocity. Also in the same example of the super smushed ellipse, the sides will approach vertical walls so would the minimum velocity for not falling off at the top even get up the sides to get to the top(since the derived expression seems to say the min velocity just keeps decreasing. )

Hey thanks for this wonderful video ❤

Only someone who doesn't believe that balances measure mass instead of weight could ever believe in the validity of this experiment. The two sides of a balance incline as one. You can't treat the different sides as independent. More force is needed to incline one side because there is all the mass on the other side.

Except that it actually always rotates because of the rotation of the earth and so one has to calculate out any potential effects. You didn't show any of the data. It actually disproves the equivalence principle.

A really misguided experiment. It does not at all prove what it pretends to prove. It is pretending that the two masses are moving independent from each other.

Hi ben, I am a physical chemistry teacher. I tried to derived a function for the electric field lines for days and finally got it independently by a different method from yours. Then I find your video. I am curious if your method is you own discovery or you used a reference? Another questions is that I haven't figured out what values should A take. To draw a few lines in a figure, they should be reasonablely spaced. Do you have any idea?

Thanks for this, your explanation was very clear! I have two questions: 1. Does the graph imply that the balloon's pressure actually goes down as the balloon's radius increases past that tipping point? 2. If you were to tie off the balloon after filling it to a given pressure/radius, and then increase the external pressure (say, in a pressure chamber), the balloon should shrink, right? What equation governs the decrease in radius? How does it interact with the ideal gas law?

I have a doubt that u²=(y²+σ²)/y² then u =+ or - √(y²+σ²)/y so why you rejected -√(y²+σ²)/y ? and only taken +√(y²+σ²)/y in place of u in arccot(2zu/a) ?????

Sir at 03:13 it shouldn't be (u.t).t - (u.n).n due to the n towards the opposite ( not exactly but almost ) way ?

Please don't stop posting these videos i know these are gaining less views but believe you are actually clearing doubts of many people related to real physics.🎉

What a great explanation. This should go viral one day

Best proof of this I have ever seen.

Neat! I really liked it , it is such a nice observation and much faster than integration by parts

Great explanation

excellent, i finally understand

THANKU SIR 🙏

If you observe a electron, it becomes a particle, so if you observe a phonon, will it become a particle?

Thanks Ben, clear physics and clear mathematics,

Very nice! It is interesting you did not use the term "no slip condition" at the top surface but tried instead to emphasize its source which is fluid friction (viscosity).

Haven't learnt integration that well yet, however can't we integrate electric field due to line wires(finite) and then as we integrate wouldn't it give us E.F at general point?... If i knew integration that clearly i would definitely try every possibility ..but as i dont know it that well .. can you tell me if what im thinking is possible or not..

Plz provide the proof

I believe this problem is in lev landaus book it's funny all the other classical mechanics texts like morin and goldstein are 600 pages long but lev gets right into he's book is 200 or less

Thank you so much this was unbelievably helpful.

Unbelievably well-made! Thank you.

It would be nice if you solved an example question

Hello, for the value of x, why do we utilise both values of lambda? Sorry if its a bad question.