[Archive!] Pure mathematics, physics, chemistry, etc.: brain-training problems not related to trade in any way - page 70
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
I couldn't help myself. Question 1 What is it for . Question 2 Why doesn't it work .
2 Yurixx Are you familiar with theoretical mechanics?
I do. Do you think theormech is a fiction, a false concept? Do you disagree with this theory? By the way, it does not deny the existence of inertial systems in any part of it. And it makes full use of the concept of "force", which you also consider (!) a fiction.
Question 1: How do you distinguish between inertial and non-inertial systems?
Question 2: Do you believe that the problem of inertiality is the main problem of mechanics?
Sorry, but that is not correct. This is beyond the scope of the Statics section .
The force of inertia, is part of the equilibrium of forces applied to a material point and is due to the presence of acceleration - in diphires describing dynamics it is a coefficient representing mass multiplied by the 2nd derivative. If you compose an equation of the balance of forces of a moving system without considering it, then zero will not be obtained, so the system of equations will have no solution - or rather they will be infinitely many.
You have diphires describing dynamics, but the sum of forces must (why all of a sudden ?) be equal to zero. Isn't this a condition for statics?
The approach you take seems to have the right to exist too, but try to explain its advantages. There is not a single effect that this approach could explain that classical mechanics could not. Not a single one ! Moreover, what you call explanation, i.e. artificial insertion of -ma term in the equation of force blance, in fact is not an explanation at all. Just an artificial mathematical technique (it is not for nothing that you called it all a mathematical model).
Newton's version, imho, looks much more constructive - the law of nature. It allows you to solve many questions in a formalized way. And in your variant even transition from one coordinate system to another becomes a problem.
The most important difference of Newtonian mechanics from the sub-code which you prefer, is that it allows to connect each force with its source. You get a normal causal relationship. And it is the equilibrium of these comprehensible forces that determines the dynamics of the system, with the help of diphurs, which have the force of the natural law. And in your approach, there is always a summand which derives the force from the motion, not vice versa.
However, the mathematical equivalence of these approaches is obvious. And it also begs the question of the reasons for such extraordinariness.
If it was an attempt to explain dynamical phenomena by curvature of space (in spirit of GR) on a classical level, for beauty and integrity of the general picture, then it would be OK. But what for?
The centripetal force arises as an equilibrating force to the centrifugal force - it does not exist by itself - otherwise the body would tend towards the point around which the instantaneous rotation occurs.
So these two forces only exist in tandem and are always equal to each other ? At the same time they are applied to the same body, i.e. their equipotential force is zero. Always.
Then why introduce such superfluous entities at all? Yeah ... ridiculous.
Elementary - why does a car in a turn tilt to the side opposite to the turn ? Explain ;) ? And also under what conditions does side slip occur ? And why ?
I can explain it (thanks to and with the help of classical mechanics) at a glance. As well as answering the other questions.
I'm more interested in how you can explain where the "centrifugal force" that tilts the car in your approach comes from. Because while the car was going straight there was no force. And then all of a sudden, out of nowhere... Yeah, and where does it go when the car pulls out in a straight line.
>> good luck.
You wanted a physics problem, well, here it is:
>> curious as to the nature of this phenomenonFlying saucer. Just above the clouds.
Man, I couldn't resist, either. Question 1 What's it for? Question 2 Why doesn't it work.
1. The washing machine.
2. You have to call a handyman.
Equality to zero of the balance equation is not a condition of statics - this is classical mechanics. This equation is therefore called the balance equation. In classical terms, it is written as the sum of all forces acting on a body being equal to zero.
The equality of centrifugal and centripetal forces is zero as long as the body is not moving in the direction normal to the trajectory. It's a classic theorem.
So all the same - your explanation - why does the car tilt in the opposite direction to the turn ? And the reasons for sliding ?
Good luck.
1. Стиральная машина.
2. Надо вызвать мастера.
It's not a question of what it is, it's a question of what it's forEquality to zero of the balance equation is not a condition of statics - this is classical mechanics. This equation is therefore called the balance equation. In classical form, it is written as the sum of all forces acting on a body being equal to zero.
First of all, you are contrasting statics and classical mechanics. Why would I do that?
Secondly, explain where the requirement came from: the sum of all forces acting on the body is equal to zero - that is where the equation of balance came from. Why does this sum have to be zero ? Are there cases where it is not equal to zero and what are those cases ?
It turns out that there are two basic statements in your approach: the presence of a force of -ma value and the requirement of zero balance of forces. And in Newtonian mechanics there are only one>> equation of the second law.
The equality of the centrifugal and centripetal forces is zero as long as the body is not moving in the direction normal to the trajectory. This is a classical theorem.
Give an example of a body moving in the direction normal to the trajectory. What are the centrifugal and centripetal forces equal in this case ? How is the trajectory formed in general? Why sometimes with equality of the resultant force to zero the body moves uniformly and linearly, and sometimes uniformly on a circle?
To make it clear why I ask.
A body never moves in a direction perpendicular to the trajectory. In the language of mathematics: the velocity vector of a body always points along a tangent. If it were not so, the body would simply not be moving along that line which you call a trajectory. It would move along another line - in the direction of velocity, i.e. along that line which we call a trajectory.
So all the same - your explanation - why is the car leaning in the opposite direction to the turn ? And the reasons for sliding?
Although you did not answer my question about the origin of centrifugal force and the following, I am answering yours.
The car tilts because when the wheels turn at an angle to the direction of speed there is a pair of forces that create torque. Under the action of this torque, the car tilts until the torque of the car's weight, directed in the opposite direction, compensates for it.
The reason for sliding is that the friction force of the wheels against the asphalt is insufficient to bend the trajectory of the car in line with the curvature of the road. The car moves along the curvature that the resulting frictional force is able to create. And this can be calculated and predicted even before it goes into the yaw.
And how is that in your approach?
>> Good luck.
Mischek, I did solve the 2nd and 3rd tasks in 5 seconds.
Mischek, 2-е и 3-е задание я все-таки решил, уложившись в 5 секунд.
Jealous
I came across one with the answers.
Well, I certainly wouldn't fit in for five.
I have a hypothesis...
A series of sequences of any seven digits can be turned into an equality by using signs: "+", "-", "/", "*", "=", "(", ")".
Prove that it is not true.
An example of the validity of the hypothesis:
1 + (2 - 3) = (4 - 5) - (6 - 7)