Rigid Body Rotation With Translation Physics
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 ต.ค. 2024
- 3. Rigid body rotation with translation Physics.
A hidden physics, you will not find a simple example of this physics, Other than a wheel rolling without slipping.
The difference for a mass or point on just a rotation, and a rotation moving is dramatic.
No point or mass on rotation that is moving is ever at a constant velocity, other than the center.
To come:
4. Relative motion and inertial reference frames.
A not seen before look at this physics, it challenges relative motion.
This is the Physics they will not talk about, ever, its Kryptonite for the globe.
I seriously hope this is not biased, like all the science behind the Globe-Earth theory is 🙌
@@doubledocable Each small video gives you enough knowledge to work it out for yourself.
@@KryptonitePhysics This is the most important thing...thank you, Sir.
Except it's not. It's kind of a hilarious shtick you have going on. You just give a reasonably correct description of a basic physics concept - with a few small errors. And then you say "mainstream physics disagrees with this." But... it doesn't.
@@crazedvidmaker Its not a concept or theory, its proven physics.
Rigid body rotation with translation physics.
Makes perfect sense to me. Thank you sir!
You need to define assumptions for this I think. For example, a rigid wheel zero mass with a fixed point with mass. Cos the model you describe would not roll without other external forces acting on it. If we sped up the wheel you describe in a jig and released it, the whole thing would go the tangential velocity of the mass at the moment of release. Its the exact same principle behind getting car wheels balanced. Cos if wheels are not balanced, you get a bumpy ride as the point mass needs a centeipital force from the axle 👍. In a spinning wheel, the point masses at opposite sides of the disk balance one another.
As others have pointed out, the magnitude of the two velocity vectors when the point is at the top or bottom will be equal if the wheel is not slipping.
The other problem is you are adding two velocity vectors. The translation vector is constant in magnitude and direction, so there is no acceleration from that vector.
The only acceleration in the system is the constant change in direction of the point's velocity vector.
Which is interesting food for thought. When observing velocity vectors, acceleration is revealed by change in magnitude or direction. Any velocity vector constant in magnitude and direction represents zero acceleration and zero net force. The translation velocity vector shows no acceleration. For analyzing acceleration in the system, translation has no effect. The centripetal acceleration in the wheel is unchanged by translation.
Here's an easy example. Get a windup metronome. Carry it with you on a plane or a smooth train. Place it on a level surface so it runs evenly.
If you orient the metronome's pendulum so it swings 90 degrees to the train's motion, the pendulum's weights are moving at a constant translation velocity over the ground.
Now turn the metronome so its pendulum is swinging in line with the train's motion. Now the weights are varying their velocity relative to the ground, faster as they swing forward, slower as they swing back.
The metronome still runs evenly because constant translation adds no acceleration to the mass of the metronome's pendulum weights. Force is mass time acceleration, acceleration is zero, hence no force from translation on the pendulum, regardless of orientation.
You have no understanding of this physics, this is not my special physics, Its known and tested physics,
Have a look at this video on the physics above, or dont. th-cam.com/video/suaJz-zWt3A/w-d-xo.html
You made the tangential and translation velocity magnitudes different - which is fine if the wheel isn't rolling without slipping. But your animation shows a wheel rolling without slipping. When a wheel rolls along the ground, the tangential and translation velocity have the same magnitude. They are not arbitrary.
A point on the wheels velocity is the sum of both velocities.
If the angle changes between them (Vectors) the Resultant velocity changes
You make ZERO sense. Prove yourself!
1. "which is fine if the wheel isn't rolling without slipping"
2. "your animation shows a wheel rolling without slipping"
2:50 - NO. It’s NOT a “constantly changing rate of acceleration” as you claim, it’s a constantly changing VELOCITY.
The ACCELERATION is constant and always towards the centre of rotation.
You are looking at a static rotation,
Try again, the rotation center is moving.
Not the same for a point on a rotation.
@@KryptonitePhysics - acceleration is CHANGE in velocity.
Introducing a CONSTANT velocity to the system doesn’t cause a CHANGE in velocity (acceleration) to the system.
Constants don’t cause change. Constants are unchanging, that’s why they are called constants.
@@kennethbowley8704
If two constant velocity's in two directions are happening at the same time to one point, you add the vectors to get the resultant value for that point.
What is rigid body rotation with translation physics? You don't seem to know. ophysics.com/r1a.html
Point on a rotation not moving is as you say at a constant rate of acceleration towards the center.
Point on rotation moving/ above physics.
The velocity at any point on the rotation is the sum of both vectors, (Translation and tangential velocity vectors added) Above physics again.
The resultant value of adding the 2 vectors changes, from point to point, from point in time to point in time, (Acceleration as above physics RBRWT)
The rate of acceleration constantly changes, as you have centripetal acceleration, (A constant) and the acceleration along X,Y the translation line.(Not constant) both for the same point in time.
You want to deny known Physics????
@@KryptonitePhysics - Yes,Yes,Yes... known Physics. Rigid body rotation with translation - it’s pretty basic stuff.
You seem to be struggling with the concepts of “constant velocity”, “changing velocity”, “constant acceleration” and “changing acceleration”.
Maybe you should do some worked examples with actual numbers to support (or disprove) your conclusions.
@@kennethbowley8704 Lol.
Go look at the physics not from me. th-cam.com/video/suaJz-zWt3A/w-d-xo.html
Have a play with this sim, what is the resultant vector doing? ophysics.com/r1a.html
Your wrong..... Have a nice day.