Always great movies here. I've got the impression energy does not move things. It merely changes the state of an object. When something seems to be at rest, energy can make it start moving. And when it's moving energy can make it slow down (in space planets rotate and move around the sun, but those objects don't need energy to keep going, but one would need a lot of energy to make them stop) or when an object is moving and gets slowed down energy can provide what's necessary to maintain the movement (overcoming friction, air resistance, etc...). I guess that's why the formula has acceleration in it. I'm not sure how to evaluate it, but potential energy is something weird, especially when it's referring to objects that are lifted up from the ground. In fact those objects don't have to do anything. They undergo another acceleration than when they were on the ground (because the time-place relation is different in those two points we feel an acceleration, often called gravitational force, but that's a misleading concept). It's the earth that needs the energy to go up to these objects. This may seem bizarre, but just imagine two objects hanging in a train car, one halfway the car, another one near the back of the car . Now when the train makes a fast start, the second object will stay more or less where it was, against the back of the car, but the one in the middle will seemingly move to the back of the car too. Seemingly ! In reality the back of the train (and the whole train as such) is moving towards the object which is merely staying where it was. I'm ofcourse explaining gravity , but the train example / analogy shows my point, namely that the object doesn't need to have the energy to move towards the back of the train, it's the train that needs to have (kinetic) energy to move so that the back of the car can move towards the object halfway in it. And this is confusing, isn't it. There is no potential energy encapsuled in that object halfway the car. Very disturbing...
Is taking in carbon energy capture for a plant? Since part of the process in respiration is attaching a carbon atom to O2 and expelling it as CO2, I would have thought that plants take in CO2 in order to get the carbon to grow themselves physically, not as an energy source.
Tamer, Here you go: ruclips.net/video/XLuY8YEzgdU/видео.html Thanks for the comment, and keep up with the physics! You might also like my new website: www.universityphysics.education Cheers, Dr. A
still watching your videos in 2021. you're a great teacher! thanks for making physics easier to understand
Amazing explanation thank u sir.
GREAT PHYSICS LECTURES !!! :))
You are great!!! Amazing videos thank u!
Thanks! Not so bad yourself.
Cheers,
Dr. A
sir pls make more videos u r awesome
Always great movies here. I've got the impression energy does not move things. It merely changes the state of an object. When something seems to be at rest, energy can make it start moving. And when it's moving energy can make it slow down (in space planets rotate and move around the sun, but those objects don't need energy to keep going, but one would need a lot of energy to make them stop) or when an object is moving and gets slowed down energy can provide what's necessary to maintain the movement (overcoming friction, air resistance, etc...). I guess that's why the formula has acceleration in it. I'm not sure how to evaluate it, but potential energy is something weird, especially when it's referring to objects that are lifted up from the ground.
In fact those objects don't have to do anything. They undergo another acceleration than when they were on the ground (because the time-place relation is different in those two points we feel an acceleration, often called gravitational force, but that's a misleading concept). It's the earth that needs the energy to go up to these objects.
This may seem bizarre, but just imagine two objects hanging in a train car, one halfway the car, another one near the back of the car . Now when the train makes a fast start, the second object will stay more or less where it was, against the back of the car, but the one in the middle will seemingly move to the back of the car too. Seemingly ! In reality the back of the train (and the whole train as such) is moving towards the object which is merely staying where it was. I'm ofcourse explaining gravity , but the train example / analogy shows my point, namely that the object doesn't need to have the energy to move towards the back of the train, it's the train that needs to have (kinetic) energy to move so that the back of the car can move towards the object halfway in it. And this is confusing, isn't it. There is no potential energy encapsuled in that object halfway the car.
Very disturbing...
Speechless
Sorry. It'll come back.
Cheers,
Dr. A
Is taking in carbon energy capture for a plant? Since part of the process in respiration is attaching a carbon atom to O2 and expelling it as CO2, I would have thought that plants take in CO2 in order to get the carbon to grow themselves physically, not as an energy source.
what about energy as E=mc2 ?
Tamer,
Here you go: ruclips.net/video/XLuY8YEzgdU/видео.html
Thanks for the comment, and keep up with the physics!
You might also like my new website: www.universityphysics.education
Cheers,
Dr. A
Red bull
it gives you wings
But what is energy?
Red Bull
Potential to do work can be thought of as energy