doing a great service for humanity, the curious, and the ones who never get time to understand but have the potential, your a great help. Prof can i get some way of contacting you and asking questions from time to time
Been retired from engineering for 10 years and I just love this guys approach; my high school classes were so "bland", "matter of fact", Math and science depts didn't talk to each other.. WOW I watch these all the time and tie into MIT's Open Course Ware classes free online actual classes; they should hire him.. THANKS
Thank you for the explanation. Will make my notes a lot easier to understand when i come back to them in the future, covered a lot of parts that my teacher glossed over 👌🏻
Very good explanation sir. There is also another way to visualize the distance function from calculus, which is; Since the velocity is the derivative of distance in respect to time, then that means if we take the integration of velocity in an interval of time, we can get the distance traveled (in that interval). This integration is equal to the area under that graph 15:56 from V0 to V and from 0 to t, which is a traingle So the area of that traingle is ofc 1/2 (delta V)*(t) = 1/2(at)(t) = 1/2(at^2), this is ofc the distance traveled in that interval of time only If you want the total distance, ofcourse, you should include the distance of the rectangle down there too, with width V0 and length t So Total d = V0t + 1/2(at^2). That is only another way to visualize the distance function that i prefer.
wow, your work is truly incredible. im buying your courses, i can't want im actually excited to learn physics for the first time, i cannot thank you enough.
Thank you, again. You're definitely underpaid. I'm 43, taking Environmental Engineering and managed to avoid physics in school - ever - up until now. You are saving my sanity...and my marks. I love math, but I'm horrible at second guessing what these riddles are asking sometimes. Turns out, you've now provided the cipher I've needed to unlock most of it. 🤯
@@MathAndScience WHY THE THEORETICAL, CLEAR, AND BALANCED MATHEMATICAL PROOF THAT E=MC2 IS F=MA ESTABLISHES GRAVITY AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY: TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. E=MC2 IS F=ma. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy !!! ("Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. E=MC2 IS F=ma.) TIME DILATION ultimately proves ON BALANCE that E=MC2 IS F=ma (ON BALANCE), AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. (Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE.) The sky is blue, AND THE EARTH is ALSO BLUE. Again, the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. The ultimate mathematical unification (AND UNDERSTANDING) of physics/physical experience combines, BALANCES, AND INCLUDES opposites. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. ("Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity ON BALANCE. E=MC2 IS F=MA ON BALANCE !!!) Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity ON BALANCE; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE !!! "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent WITH/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS E=MC2 IS F=MA ON BALANCE !!!; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. It all CLEARLY makes perfect sense. By Frank DiMeglio
Mr. Jason, I would like to ask why do we need average velocity, not final velocity in second equation of motion? Or we could have left the 1/2 part once and for all?
Because the 1/2 term ends up accounting for that. We only get to do that when acceleration is constant. If acceleration isn't constant, this would be a calculus problem to find the total displacement given the velocity vs time function. Ultimately, we want the area under the v vs t plot, in order to get the displacement. When acceleration is constant, this plot takes the shape of a straight line, and the area under the plot is either a trapezoid with heights v1 and v2, and base equal to t, or in the special case of starting at rest, it is a triangle with height equal to v2 (since v1=0). Area of the trapezoid is 1/2*(v1+v2)*t, and area of the triangle is the special case that v1=0, which gives us 1/2*v2*t. And since v2 = v1+a*t, this gives us 1/2*a*t^2 + v1*t in the general case, or 1/2*a*t^2 in the special case of starting from rest.
Because a median ignores the distribution of data on each side. For concepts in kinematics involving averages, you need to account for the full distribution of what you are averaging, because otherwise crucial information will be ignored. Technically, the median of two numbers is identical to the average of two numbers, but that is just because we define medians by averaging the middle two numbers in the case of an even number of items in the list. We care about the average speed along the entire interval, when we want to get the corresponding total distance travelled.
We are damn lucky to have thi program ni absolutely nthank you I am working mon a you. I am working on a degree in particle physics I i am in fact Einstein third cousin. My great grandmother on my dads side was hi aunt
@@edwardkann978 Wow what a megalomaniac Being Einstein's cousin does not instantly make you smart nor does the concept of being smart mean your better as a person because all brains are at the same constant critical thinking so all accumulated logic is the only factor thus ITS ALL LUCK BULLSHIT
@@greggaygayakutami1402 WHY THE THEORETICAL, CLEAR, AND BALANCED MATHEMATICAL PROOF THAT E=MC2 IS F=MA ESTABLISHES GRAVITY AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY: TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. E=MC2 IS F=ma. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy !!! ("Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. E=MC2 IS F=ma.) TIME DILATION ultimately proves ON BALANCE that E=MC2 IS F=ma (ON BALANCE), AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. (Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE.) The sky is blue, AND THE EARTH is ALSO BLUE. Again, the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. The ultimate mathematical unification (AND UNDERSTANDING) of physics/physical experience combines, BALANCES, AND INCLUDES opposites. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. ("Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity ON BALANCE. E=MC2 IS F=MA ON BALANCE !!!) Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity ON BALANCE; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE !!! "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent WITH/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS E=MC2 IS F=MA ON BALANCE !!!; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. It all CLEARLY makes perfect sense. By Frank DiMeglio
The squared on the seconds downstairs in the units, means that you have two copies of the seconds unit in the denominator. Multiplying by another term with units of seconds upstairs, will only cancel one of these seconds. We end up being left with a single copy of seconds in the denominator. You can cancel the squared, when you multiply 1/x^2 * x. Because what you really are doing, is rewriting 1/x^2 as 1/(x*x), from which we cancel one of the x's with the x by which we are multiplying. But if you cancelled the x and left the squared upon simplifying 1/x^2 * x, you'll end up with 1/^2, which doesn't mean anything, since there's no base of the power term.
I still do not understand :( so, if I have a car going at constant acceleration, lets say 1 meter per second, and is accelerating for 4 second: d = v *1 + v*2 + v*3 + v*3 = 10 but I dont understand the equation, 1/2at² I mean sure, acceleration times time is velocity, times time we get distance, but we were accelerating and our velocity was changing the whole time, so I know that, but I couldnt understand why 1/2, know its average does not help. Lets say object got to 5 meter per second, in 1 second, distance would be 2.5 meters per second.
Math and Science and other channels like it: hello people of the internet I uploaded a video about really interesting stuff that you can learn from Nearly everyone else: QUicK LiFe hAckS HoW smArT Are YoU tEST cUte CaT VIdeOs
