Thank you so much for putting your effort to into making these videos. I wouldn't have had this much confidence for the upcoming AP physics exam without you!
@@verberaunt Genel olarak fizik ilgimi çektiği için izliyorum, AP ne oluyor tam olarak? Üniversitede gördüğümüz klasik mühendislik fiziğinden bir farkı var mı?
@@FlippingPhysicsNO WAY YOU RESPONDED! Ahhh...wait. Is this Mr. P, Billy, Bobby or Bo? Actually, doesn't matter, let me take this opportunity to poorly deliver a physics joke! "Two cats slide down the roof. Which one hits the ground first? The one with the smaller 'mu'".
Around 0:24, there seems to be an edited jump cut in which you say "Mome-[CUT]momentum," I believe this was in error? However, this is very minor and it is extremely easy to understand.
Actually, that is just me stumbling over a word. I decided a few months ago to be okay with mild stumbles over words like that. I think it makes me seem more human. Thanks for checking out the video!
Video looks great too! Newton's own words are super confusing, though (he seems to use "alteration of motion" and "motion" interchangeably!). I'd ask him for a rewrite, personally.
Quick question, so because of the water rocket example: water having negative momentum and the rocket having positive momentum. Is the reason for the mini explosion in the middle at the paused freeze frame time a result of both momentums being equal and opposite to each other? Like because of Newtons 3rd law F12 = -F21 the system of the objects overall forces are equal in magnitude but opposite in direction, does this result in the mini burst of water between the rocket and water system. I understand what was said in the video (TYSM your videos are godtier) but I am just curious what specifically caused that mini explosion if the Systems momentum is conserved.
Newton’s original second law of motion ΣF=dp/dt is only valid when ṁ=0, because if ṁ≠0, then ΣF=d(mv)/dt=ma+ṁv. Assuming momentum conservation (i.e. ΣF=0), that would imply ma=-ṁv. However, that equation does not respect Galilean relativity; for instance, in the example of a rocket, propellant/mass is continuously ejected from the rocket at some exit velocity relative to the rocket, thereby causing an acceleration in the opposite direction of mass ejection by Newton’s third law of motion. In such a system, ΣF=0. Applying the equation just derived, ma=-ṁv, further implying that a=-ṁv/m. Except, as mentioned, the acceleration is due to the propellant moving with a relative exit velocity, not the velocity of the rocket (as depicted in the equation). And so there is a contradiction. The problem is that generally, ΣF≠dp/dt. If ṁ≠0, then the correct formulation of Newton’s second law of motion is ΣF=ma+ṁc, where ‘c’ is the relative velocity between the ejected (or even absorbed) mass and the accelerating body. I learned this the hard way when attempting to derive the rocket equation the ‘easy way’ by using Newton’s (invalid) second law of motion, only to be puzzled when my result didn’t match up with the actual rocket equation.
Sir your video of polarisation was awesome but i have some doubts: 1)you said that wall doesn't get charged by induction it gets charged by polarisation but in induction polarisation happens so can't we say that it is charging by induction? 2)what should we say the can is charged by induction or polarisation or confuction?
Hey Mr. P wonderful video again. Some suggestions here: I think the reason more people don't gravitate to your channel is because of how you read from a script and it can sometimes come off as unnatural. Other TH-cam teachers also read from a script but I believe they make it seem natural more. After watching a recent casual video you posted about yourself, I realized how good your natural and spontaneous words are! We need more of that side of yours, Mr. P
Can you give me an example of an education channel (not edutainment) which is not a powerpoint or Khan Academy style where they seem more natural than I do?
@@FlippingPhysics Here's a few: Brian Mclogan, Tyler Dewitt, Michel van Biezen, Yay Math, Eddie Woo and Seema Dhawan Arora Chemistry. There is also Bozeman science but maybe he's more presentation style too I think you teach a bit more like Professor Dave Explains, whose videos are amazing but sometimes it can come off as unnatural. (check his older videos like this one th-cam.com/video/1GiZzCzmO5Q/w-d-xo.html) Maybe its because you look directly at the camera a lot? Idk Hope this helps Mr.P. Would love to see your channel grow. You completely deserve it:)
What I find funny about this comment is that I have also received a couple of comments recently suggesting I get a teleprompter and read from a script. (I actually do have a teleprompter and read from a script.) So, who knows. I'll just keep making great educational videos.
Thank you so much for putting your effort to into making these videos. I wouldn't have had this much confidence for the upcoming AP physics exam without you!
So glad to help give you confidence. Best of luck on the exam!
The parts with the derivation and changing-mass were the most mind blowing things ever! Thanks.
Thanks. I particularly enjoy that part myself!
Sen AP alıyor musun?
Haydaa
@@verberaunt Genel olarak fizik ilgimi çektiği için izliyorum, AP ne oluyor tam olarak? Üniversitede gördüğümüz klasik mühendislik fiziğinden bir farkı var mı?
@@tetraizor Abi sen üniversiteli misin?
As a rocket scientist I gotta say this was a well put together video!
Thanks?
OMG THANK YOU SO MUCH MR.P MY AP PHYSICS EXAM IS NEXT WEEK AND THIS WAS JUST A LIFE SAVER FOR CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING!!!!
YOU ARE WELCOME!!!!
@@FlippingPhysicsNO WAY YOU RESPONDED! Ahhh...wait. Is this Mr. P, Billy, Bobby or Bo? Actually, doesn't matter, let me take this opportunity to poorly deliver a physics joke! "Two cats slide down the roof. Which one hits the ground first? The one with the smaller 'mu'".
ha
Excellent water rocket and skates demostration!
Yet another brilliantly done video, great job!
Thanks for the feedback!
yo, here commenting to popularize this channel.
Nitin YT, I know I can always count on your support. Thanks!
Thank you for teaching me Physics this year!
Happy to help!
Me: OMG I have to study the Conservation of momentum and click youtube
Mr.P:Just a second!...
Glad to help!
These days I have doubt in this topic and finally today I am satisfied .💞thanku.
You are welcome.
A fabulous Video.... as Always!!
Thank you #FP😇
Though Not physically.. Its wonderful to join the class of you all...😄
It was lovely to have you in class!
U r channel deserve more than a million subscribers 😭✨🔥
Around 0:24, there seems to be an edited jump cut in which you say "Mome-[CUT]momentum," I believe this was in error? However, this is very minor and it is extremely easy to understand.
Looks good otherwise!
Actually, that is just me stumbling over a word. I decided a few months ago to be okay with mild stumbles over words like that. I think it makes me seem more human.
Thanks for checking out the video!
@@FlippingPhysics Absolutely, that makes sense, thank YOU!
Underrated tysm 😭
Rocket looks great!
Video looks great too! Newton's own words are super confusing, though (he seems to use "alteration of motion" and "motion" interchangeably!). I'd ask him for a rewrite, personally.
I'll see if I can contact him for you. Perchance do you know his Twitter handle?
Great video! Peace out
Quick question, so because of the water rocket example: water having negative momentum and the rocket having positive momentum. Is the reason for the mini explosion in the middle at the paused freeze frame time a result of both momentums being equal and opposite to each other? Like because of Newtons 3rd law F12 = -F21 the system of the objects overall forces are equal in magnitude but opposite in direction, does this result in the mini burst of water between the rocket and water system. I understand what was said in the video (TYSM your videos are godtier) but I am just curious what specifically caused that mini explosion if the Systems momentum is conserved.
Thanks so much
You are very welcome
Newton’s original second law of motion ΣF=dp/dt is only valid when ṁ=0, because if ṁ≠0, then ΣF=d(mv)/dt=ma+ṁv. Assuming momentum conservation (i.e. ΣF=0), that would imply ma=-ṁv. However, that equation does not respect Galilean relativity; for instance, in the example of a rocket, propellant/mass is continuously ejected from the rocket at some exit velocity relative to the rocket, thereby causing an acceleration in the opposite direction of mass ejection by Newton’s third law of motion. In such a system, ΣF=0. Applying the equation just derived, ma=-ṁv, further implying that a=-ṁv/m. Except, as mentioned, the acceleration is due to the propellant moving with a relative exit velocity, not the velocity of the rocket (as depicted in the equation). And so there is a contradiction. The problem is that generally, ΣF≠dp/dt. If ṁ≠0, then the correct formulation of Newton’s second law of motion is ΣF=ma+ṁc, where ‘c’ is the relative velocity between the ejected (or even absorbed) mass and the accelerating body. I learned this the hard way when attempting to derive the rocket equation the ‘easy way’ by using Newton’s (invalid) second law of motion, only to be puzzled when my result didn’t match up with the actual rocket equation.
Sir your video of polarisation was awesome but i have some doubts:
1)you said that wall doesn't get charged by induction it gets charged by polarisation but in induction polarisation happens so can't we say that it is charging by induction?
2)what should we say the can is charged by induction or polarisation or confuction?
Hey Mr. P wonderful video again. Some suggestions here: I think the reason more people don't gravitate to your channel is because of how you read from a script and it can sometimes come off as unnatural. Other TH-cam teachers also read from a script but I believe they make it seem natural more. After watching a recent casual video you posted about yourself, I realized how good your natural and spontaneous words are! We need more of that side of yours, Mr. P
Can you give me an example of an education channel (not edutainment) which is not a powerpoint or Khan Academy style where they seem more natural than I do?
@@FlippingPhysics Here's a few: Brian Mclogan, Tyler Dewitt, Michel van Biezen, Yay Math, Eddie Woo and Seema Dhawan Arora Chemistry. There is also Bozeman science but maybe he's more presentation style too
I think you teach a bit more like Professor Dave Explains, whose videos are amazing but sometimes it can come off as unnatural. (check his older videos like this one th-cam.com/video/1GiZzCzmO5Q/w-d-xo.html) Maybe its because you look directly at the camera a lot? Idk
Hope this helps Mr.P. Would love to see your channel grow. You completely deserve it:)
What I find funny about this comment is that I have also received a couple of comments recently suggesting I get a teleprompter and read from a script. (I actually do have a teleprompter and read from a script.) So, who knows. I'll just keep making great educational videos.
0:56 petition to rename Newton Seconds to "Uhhhh"
Ayyyy great video! What do you think of the ligma physics equation?
THANK YOU
Thankyou a load sir.
👍
😬
👍
😬