@@ashwiniyadav2766 ofcourse we can't. Sometimes we need a part of our day to sit back and recharge , to get back with new energy and happiness. Simple Ambivert characteristic.
Update: Whooooo! Thank you so much - I am covering free fall this week in class and was thrilled to see this video pop up in my list of options with real captions! As a physics teacher, I love these videos and would love to use them in my classes, but the auto-captions that they currently have do not meet ADA standards for my Deaf and Hard of Hearing students. RUclips makes it pretty easy to go through and edit the captions for grammar and accuracy (ie adding punctuation and correcting any words that did not transcribe properly). I know many of your videos are on DCMP (described and captioned media program) with full and proper captions, would love to see that for this series of physics videos as well!
Love what you're doing... just one request - please carry the units through the calculations! It's really important, and helps catch errors. It's also really hard to train young engineers to carry units if they didn't get into the habit early!
@Peter Mortensen Physicist here: carrying the units is crucial. It's called dimensional analysis, and it quickly shows if you completely screwed up your calculations or if you're at least within the ballpark.
I do not recall any of my teachers explaining these phenomena so clearly when I was still a school student. But there may be other factors at play - like my attention span back then.
This sort of "rounding analysis" is what one of my physics professors taught us to do. Before punching an equation into the calculator and just blindly trusting what you get, he wanted us to "ball park" the answer in our heads or with paper and pencil. Use simple close roundings that are easy to quickly calculate. So pi^2 is about 10, as you say, g is about 10, pi is about 3, etc. So you have a rough order of magnitude for your answer. You come up with, say, 100 for your rough answer. If you put it in the calculator and get 35.77, you might want to double check the calculation. If the calculator says 97.42, then you have pretty good faith that it's the right answer.
Really love these. Just wish you'd solve your equations for the unknown and then put in the values with units. I could really see using these videos as review, especially for students who are struggling. Like your conceptual approach.
The thing which I love the most about her is that she explains every topic after explaining the basics of it and with excitement which makes it more interesting.
At 62 years old (and having failed maths many years ago) my ability to remember details is sadly diminished however videos like this allow me to get a grasp on the basics behind things which I enjoy. Add in that Dianna puts so much enthusiasm into them that I just feel mch more motivated in general afterward.
this is such a refresher course since we will be having our physics 1 midterm exam next week. and your enthusiasm to the topic is so contagious. cant wait for other lessons
This helped me so much, teachers who are enthusiastic and interested in what their talking about helps me learn so much easier. It’s insane how I understood everything you said, but just couldn’t grasp the concept out of the mouth of my school teacher. Thank you so much, I will continue to be watching your explanations, I’m so happy I get this! Keep doing what you do I bet it helps a lot of kids who are stuck with teachers who could care less if we know what’s going on! Sad to say there are some people like that out there 😔 once again, THANK YOU SO MUCH
Yep, that was great. I teach my 8th grade science classes, that it's not mistakes but "unexpected outcomes", and we learn from those too. Now click this link to see a video about it (virtual learning)... and they get stick bugged or the classic Rick Roll.
I’m a Scottish 13 year old, but I love these videos. Although I can’t understand all the content I try and pick up a fair amount. I don’t normally comment on videos but this series has been very good so I felt obliged to
I am so excited this video is here- I just complained today to my physics students who are remote learning that we would probably have to come back to this video or skip it because we were ready to move on and it wasn't posted yet. Did I miss the upload schedule, because I feel like it has been a while since the first one, and if the goal is to follow AP Physics content before the test they will hopefully be coming more often.
Extremely helpful! For the first time I actually understood acceleration a=m/s×s when you said "at the rate of 10 m by s EVERY SECOND. Such a basic thing but the first time it was so clearly pointed out! The lesson was too good!
15:43 - For anyone else confused that "2.5" is "two times five" not "two point five". The 2 is from multiplying both sides by 2 to get rid of the 1/2 on the right hand side. The 5 is the 'd'.
Wow! Dianna, I knew you were an impressive young woman, but throwing a bottle 45 meters into the air takes that to a whole new level. Also, great explanation.
I was once teaching physics to a transgender class for a social project. I was trying to teach something about elasticity to a 40yr old that dropped out of school quite early. I tried my best using my most accessible words, and all my acting, and failed. A transgirl, feeling a bit frustrated I guess, tried to explain after me. She used exactly the same words and mimicked exactly my every gesture, and the 40 yr old did understood when she explained. I remember being a bit offended at the time (that's why I remember that the gestures and words were exactly the same, i remember being offended by that reason, not her words and gestures), but I do understand that sometimes being a good messenger is not enough, and you have to have, or create, emotional ties to does who are hearing you, so they can be open minded about what you're saying. Sadly schools are somewhat violent environments (teachers often need to tell students what and what not to do, you are in public affraid of being judged, by what you might perceive as ignorance) and people do not feel like being open minded to authority figures. I don't know your case specifically, and is quite common for teachers to sometimes drop the ball, and be confusing more than elucidating, but do try to be open minded as possible in school.
16:20 When she use d=at²/2, she is thinking about the phenomenon backwards in time. That's why she get a positive acceleration. Which doesn't make sense at first because you're decelerating. If we take the other way in time we get: right before entering the pool, she had Vo=10 m/s. Therefore ∆y= Vo•t+a•t²/2, meaning 2.5 = 10•t+a•t²/2. The time it takes is 0.5s so 2.5=5+a/8, a= - 20 m/s². Which is equal in magnitude but opposite in direction.
My goodness these are so great. The maths is so far beyond my comprehension but i love to listen. My 9yo daughter wants to be an astronaut for NASA so i put these on for her. The guests at the end are a great idea. Telling us how they use it in there jobs. 👍
This is a really great course. It is hard to explain maths and physics together. You cleared a huge misconception. Thanks for teaching something no one else does. Please keep it up 👍
Wonderful as always! Title suggestion: "It's only physics! Get over yourself! Don't be afraid!" Copyrighted? Nope. Go ahead and use it if you like... Thanks again, MS Cowern.
Edit: great intro to free-falling calculations. Love it. When you said, jumping in a pool and calculating the decceleration was easy, I immediately loudly opposed that idea. With the typical oversimplification of most physics BASE lessons, yes, it seems easy at the basic level. Here we ignore so many real-life factors that even a failed physics student like me can see the problems for an exact measurement cropping up right, left, and center. For a basic ball-park figure, yes, the base calculations will give a very good approximation to several decimals exactness, possibly. But once you start figuring in some truely significant variables this problem immediately jumps from trivial to doctorate level of difficulty. Due to the change of resistance of air to water, the effect of buoyancy of air in your body in comparisson to the water changes at non-trivial levels. Ask any SCUBA diver to take down an empty balloon and fill it underwater at a specific depth, then carry it upwards during surfacing. The buoyancy of the expanding air is enormous. The same applies to your lungs depending on where you take your last gasp of breath before submerging. I know that air is simply a very very dry liquid when it comes to fluid dynamics. Buuuut: the air in your lungs get's compressed when you dive into water. Thus the depth of the water you reach changes your decceleration due to increased compression of air, thus lowered buoyancy. I'd wager a bet that calculating the EXACT time for your decceleration in the water, plus the EXACT distance you SHOULD reach below the surface level of the water becomes INSANELY complicated when you factor in all relevant and significant variables. I'd definitely assume that this is not trivial, but truely worthy of a dissertation level problem.
Wonder if I could have a teacher like you, then my Physics concepts would have been much more stronger Anyways your way of teaching is really amazing and I truly appreciate that. Love from India❤️❤️❤️
well theoretically if we consider the air friction that is always against the direction of motion, it will take longer to fall. Because on your way up friction is downward which adds to the gravity and on your way down friction is upward which is opposing the gravity and hance acceleration on the way down is smaller.
DIANA, you rock! This is EXACTLY like what you learn in a college level into to Physics, or AP Physics (of course you also learn electricity, kinetic and potential energy, momentum and inertia, trigonometry...)
Air resistance varies with the square of velocity. So when we launch the object up the resistance will be high, specially at high speed. The resisteance will be lower when the object is starting to fall. And then we have the terminal velocity. Sum up, and the effect is even higher than tolde here.
Re: "I still don't have a decent name for this class." Maybe with your wonderful energy, you could go with something like: ~Dianna-mix of Physics~ Love what you are doing on RUclips; and I especially love the way in which you are doing it. I am pretty sure you would have made me forget all about the crush I had on my 7th grade Art Teacher, had I been lucky enough to have you teaching me Physics when I was in school. Stay Wonderful, and life will be wonderful for you. Peace.
Love from India 😍😍, after watching ur channel i have real urge to become scientist full time i watch veritasium physics girl vsauce n all will become real scientist one day keep loving🙏🏼🙏🏼🤗🤗🤗
When you really think about it, a particle is merely a kink in a zipper, a spot where there is one too many left clips per right clip. And an anti particle to this one is a kink in the zipper such that there is one too many right clips per left clip. And if somehow you were able to move these particles together, they vanish. Which likely means that the quark anti quark pairs that form in a vacuum are just kinks in the fabric of the universe.
13:44 1) I love how you just ignore the units till the end. 2) I also love how you bring 9.8 but then you approximate it immediately so it does not really matter:p
Thank you so much for making this series! I was in grade 11 physics from February to March (semestered) and now I can catch up for grade 12! (maybe April, maybe next year)
Excellent fun learning channel ....please keep going. I took Physics in 1988 in University a good refreshing review! Many young people want to learn but often tedious boring classes. 80% dropped out changed major in second year of Physics. You are like Feynman s granddaughter 😎
It’s cool to think that once the object has reached it’s highest point and hasn’t begun to fall, (it’s neither going up or down) For a nano second, it’s absolutely still just waiting for gravity to do its thing. BTW the wrecking dropped from 35 meters is 114.83 feet. For older generation people like me, we weren’t taught the metric system in school.
At 4.18 Why average velocity is 5 As Vav= Aav×∆T or av.Displacement/∆T ... It means it is also 10 because ∆T=1 here.. Also from v-t graph its slope is acceleration so Aav=∆v|∆T here Aav=10 and ∆T=1 so Vav =10m/s Dianna be careful in calculations u have a huge viewers Regards,respect
Actually Diana, if you wanna use the acceleration of gravity, instead of using *a* with arrow down, you can simply use *g*. It's universally known to be a vector pointing to the centre of mass, or in this case pointing downward.
At 20:19, I would not expect any mass bearing particle to do anything except fall towards other mass bearing particles. Newton's laws seem pretty reliable in regions where there are heavy concentrations of mass bearing particles, like at the local level of solar a system, and even the inner portions of galaxies.
It might be interesting to mention that the mass of the falling object does not intervene anywhere in the equation, because it is so counter intuitive for people who think heavier objects will fall faster. Cue in some footage from Apollo 15 when David Scott dropped a hammer and a feather on the moon. And it will help you make a segue the F=ma later to show that mass does play a part in how much force your object will have at the bottom. I feel like it’s always important to show how our intuition can deceive us and how science helps us see what’s really happening.
Antimatter will fall just like normal matter due to the makeup of the gravitational field is comprised of a resultant of plus and minus components of matter. (or spacetime curvature if that is accepted). Light will also react the same. However electromagnetic radiation (radio waves, infrared, electromagnetic fields) will react differently resulting in light and destabilization of the antimatter.
Free fall calcs really really ask for the example of the booster free fall back to the drone ship. After the entry burn it free falls for quite some time while braking immensely due to air resistance, gravity is there but has no chance. Only at a very low height it starts speeding up again and the boosters have to bring the speed to almost zero.
I really like your channel and the idea of making a physics 101 course on RUclips. Thank you very much. I wanted to point out that when calculating the distance that the ball reached after bounceing of the trampoline, it's not too correct to start mesureing time from the moment the ball changed direction and then saying the initial velocity is not zero. I know that you know that and it won't make any noticeable difference, but I think it's fundamental to point out that in linear motion it's impossible to the moving object to change to the opposite direction immediately with a non-zero velocity. Again I really like your channel, and I think your efforts are amazing.
Apologies if I misunderstood you, but she’s correct. There is no assumption here that the ball changes direction at a point with a nonzero velocity. This is taken into consideration by the fact that the v₀t is already out of the equation. There also weren’t any assumptions about instantaneous changes in direction from a nonzero velocity. She defined v₀=0 because she took the point where the ball changed direction so it could again throw that term out from the original equation. In order to calculate the height of the ball after the bounce from a time before the bounce, you would need to know other factors (such as the mass of the ball, the spring constant of the trampoline, the height of the drop, maybe the mass of the trampoline, and probably some others that I’m forgetting - and that’s all ignoring air resistance) to do an energy calculation instead that would lead to a very similar (if not identical) answer to the one found here. Simple kinematics won’t cut it for any starting time before the bounce.
@@Chris-fx7zq Yes, you are completely right. I just misunderstood something. I thought she said that initial velocity (v0) is whatever the number is, but she clarified that is the velocity when the ball left the trampoline, which is totally correct. It's really my fault for assuming otherwise. 😅😅
i'm about to take my very first physics class, as a 33 year old. but it is engineering physics, or calculus based physics. i am quite nervous about it, but excited too, because physics is super interesting.
I remember when I first learned about this on high school and felt so contra intuitive. I decorated the formulas for the exams but only truly learned the subject a few years later. Amazing explanation Diana! Congrats :)
When I throw a bottle, it takes me longer to accelerate it to full speed than it takes the table to stop it at the end. It's hard to ignore the asymmetric non-free-fall parts. If you watch someone juggling, it's a lot more symmetric in the throw and catch, and the peak is more intuitively in the middle.
Okay first of all did not expect a How Ridiculous clip at the beginning of this, collab when available please. Also this series reminds me why even though I went down a different academic route I still have a soft spot for how amazingly fun physics can be.
If there is negligible air resistance and object moving under gravity then it's come to be uniform velocity in your example that's in it can we conclude that time of asent is equal to time of the desent 🧐🤔, that's good u clear my all doubts thanks
Takes longer to come down then go up. So next question would be can shapes change this? How would a shape like an upside down cone or a more pointy umbrella work where air resistance going up is high and air resistance going down is low? (Let us say the object is spinning and held to it's vertical access by that spinning.)
Free fall, falling freely... Where's the parachute! I am on a free fall so I take my time on my ride😎 Almost got I trouble watching this episode at work😌
Removing all other variables there is no way it would take longer to go up or down. The speed you are using to go up, naturally come to a stop then go down will equal out when you reach the bottom. The only way that would not be true is if you added variables like air resistance or added thrust on the way down. Equal and opposite reactions.
@@physicsgirl Hi mam🌺 I'm a boy Zayed from India I'm request to you❤😊🌺 I want to join in your physics and your adventure activities plz and I want to tell you❤😊🌺 you can add to me plz I hope I will very helpful for your all activities really🌺❤🌼 plz rply me plz🙏💖🌺
The average velocity trick only works for constant acceleration. the water slowing you down should be considered as friction, which if I remember correctly acts like a dampening force, so it is proportional to your velocity, which means it will decelerate you faster when you enter the water than when you almost stop, which is not a constant acceleration. but I guess, close enough.
At 13:25 you calculate how high the ball goes using d=0.5at^2 . I totally understand how you can use this. However the formulate you're pulling out of your pocket is insisting the initial velocity is zero which it isn't. In fact you are calculating how far is it falling from that height back down 1.7 seconds.And then knowing the distance up is equal to the distance down. A- LOL. Can't wait to get back into my classroom and start teaching. ♥️♥️ I appreciate Dianna and her love to explain physics! ♥️♥️
@@michaelsommers2356 Precisely! Just as I said. However, if you don't mention this as part of your solution, you would be wrong. Diana said she was calculating how high it went using the 1.7 seconds. But in fact she was calculating how far it fell in 1.7 seconds. And if you don't say that they're equal and mention why, it isn't a complete solution.
Have a question, isn't the air resistance proportional to the square of the speed? I don't think this would affect the overall results in that it would fall slower. Considering the time to fall through the water at the bottom, when you hit the water, the drag would be proportional to to 30 meters per second but as it slows, the resistance force would drop off dramatically. This would result in a different calculation for how long it would take to pass through the water at the bottom.
I got really confused about the air resistance problem and why the bottle / balloon would take longer to come back down than it would to go up. If I understood, Dianna is saying that the deceleration (at, say, the halfway point) on the way up has a greater magnitude than the acceleration (at the halfway point) on the way down? Not sure though
As a former sky diver I can verify the trip up is definitely longer than the trip down. We also had a pilot that would bet us he could land before we did. He usually won.
Some of the aircraft used for jumping these days are usually long down... the PAC750 for one. I read somewhere they can turn 4 complete fully loaded wheel stopped to wheel stopped 12.5 loads an hour! Back in the c.70's DC-3 era when I was jumping... 45 plus min a load was probably average.
It's hard to talk about motion and most physics in general and have it be intuitive and pretty without calculus. My love for physics only started after calculus and the formulas not only started making sense, but i could actually derive them from only the fact that acceleration is constant. That's a nice try though.
In United States all accredited University Physics programs for engineering degree require Calculus simultaneously matched to physics modules . This channel is for beginners who want to learn and go to university or review basics. Differential equations made my head go on fire long ago...
Throwing a bottle 45m (about 150 feet) straight up in the air is quite an accomplishment! I know good baseball pitchers can throw a ball faster than that, but I think it'd be a lot harder to throw one straight up at that velocity. It'd be even *harder* than that since they'd have to be in an astronaut suit on account of her removing all the air from the region so she wouldn't have to account for air resistance. The only thing I could throw 45 meters would be a cooperative live bird.
Woah I'm so happy she's talking about AP Physics 1, since it's such a new course. I remember taking AP Physics 1 and only getting two tests taken from the previous years as resources LOL
This was a great installment - thanks for creating and posting. I was a little lost in the 1st episode (probably just me), but I really followed this one nicely. Thumbs up!
16:49 - I have to admit, that I don't have intuition about how to obtaining 0.5s deceleration time, from entering water with 10m/s and 2.5m travelled. Yes, maths (about average speed) checks, but something feels sketchy. Is this coming from believing that there will not be a constant force while undergoing declaration under water?
Doesn’t the velocity up depend on how hard you pushed it. The balloons speed going up depends on how hard you push or whack it. What am I not understanding?
She's always excited. That's the kind of life we need to live.
its called cocaine
bro its just in front of camera in life u cant always be happy
@@ashwiniyadav2766 ofcourse we can't. Sometimes we need a part of our day to sit back and recharge , to get back with new energy and happiness.
Simple Ambivert characteristic.
She has been enlightened by the power of science! :)
All it takes is passion for what you do.
Update: Whooooo! Thank you so much - I am covering free fall this week in class and was thrilled to see this video pop up in my list of options with real captions!
As a physics teacher, I love these videos and would love to use them in my classes, but the auto-captions that they currently have do not meet ADA standards for my Deaf and Hard of Hearing students. RUclips makes it pretty easy to go through and edit the captions for grammar and accuracy (ie adding punctuation and correcting any words that did not transcribe properly). I know many of your videos are on DCMP (described and captioned media program) with full and proper captions, would love to see that for this series of physics videos as well!
She's just my English and Science teacher at the same time
She forgot the apostrophe in "we've". (8:37) Good thing she's not your grammar teacher also.😂
@@TheRuko15 She had written were, not we've.😅
she is your teacher at school/ :P
she's my science and math teacher
Love what you're doing... just one request - please carry the units through the calculations! It's really important, and helps catch errors. It's also really hard to train young engineers to carry units if they didn't get into the habit early!
satellites appreciate units
If Age of Empires taught me one thing, it is: "be careful with your units!"
@Peter Mortensen Physicist here: carrying the units is crucial. It's called dimensional analysis, and it quickly shows if you completely screwed up your calculations or if you're at least within the ballpark.
Diana made a big deal about agreeing with you in the first video.
@@Pangui008
Wollolo ollolo wollolo!
This is my favourite types of videos .
I can learn anything if Diana's teaching !.❤️❤️
Wow that's nice 😊
I do not recall any of my teachers explaining these phenomena so clearly when I was still a school student.
But there may be other factors at play - like my attention span back then.
Sing along:
🎼🎵She's a good girl, loves her mamma
Loves Physics and Science, too...
And she teach... Free fallin'🎵🎼
Disagree man. I say Physics Girl is a bad b*tch
Came to the comments to write my version of this. Glad I found yours, beacause mine was way worse 😂
But she neglect air resistance :(
@@connorbecz3036 I don't think so and even if u don't like someone don't insult them.
@@tomatosplants20 Tomato Plants, you rock man!
Round gravity to 10ms*¹ ;
Physics students shout of joy
Yeah lol😆😆😆😆
Yeah, I cry every time I have to type 9,81 into my calculator instead of 10. It's so much harder.
g = 10
pi = 3 = e
@@nicolashabak7299 and world is much easier 😉
This sort of "rounding analysis" is what one of my physics professors taught us to do. Before punching an equation into the calculator and just blindly trusting what you get, he wanted us to "ball park" the answer in our heads or with paper and pencil. Use simple close roundings that are easy to quickly calculate. So pi^2 is about 10, as you say, g is about 10, pi is about 3, etc. So you have a rough order of magnitude for your answer. You come up with, say, 100 for your rough answer. If you put it in the calculator and get 35.77, you might want to double check the calculation. If the calculator says 97.42, then you have pretty good faith that it's the right answer.
Really love these. Just wish you'd solve your equations for the unknown and then put in the values with units.
I could really see using these videos as review, especially for students who are struggling. Like your conceptual approach.
The thing which I love the most about her is that she explains every topic after explaining the basics of it and with excitement which makes it more interesting.
Mesmerized by the world's largest Sharpie.
Great video!
At 62 years old (and having failed maths many years ago) my ability to remember details is sadly diminished however videos like this allow me to get a grasp on the basics behind things which I enjoy. Add in that Dianna puts so much enthusiasm into them that I just feel mch more motivated in general afterward.
this is such a refresher course since we will be having our physics 1 midterm exam next week. and your enthusiasm to the topic is so contagious. cant wait for other lessons
This helped me so much, teachers who are enthusiastic and interested in what their talking about helps me learn so much easier. It’s insane how I understood everything you said, but just couldn’t grasp the concept out of the mouth of my school teacher. Thank you so much, I will continue to be watching your explanations, I’m so happy I get this! Keep doing what you do I bet it helps a lot of kids who are stuck with teachers who could care less if we know what’s going on! Sad to say there are some people like that out there 😔 once again, THANK YOU SO MUCH
“Oops,.... mistakes were made...” lol 😂
Yep, that was great. I teach my 8th grade science classes, that it's not mistakes but "unexpected outcomes", and we learn from those too. Now click this link to see a video about it (virtual learning)... and they get stick bugged or the classic Rick Roll.
I’m a Scottish 13 year old, but I love these videos. Although I can’t understand all the content I try and pick up a fair amount. I don’t normally comment on videos but this series has been very good so I felt obliged to
This series reminds me of my school days. Nice work Dianna. Get well soon!
There is just something extremely satisfying about watching you draw science. You have a very peaceful and soothing voice as well.
Just love your style of teaching
You've become my fav RUclips channel also one of my fav teachers!!☺️☺️
I am so excited this video is here- I just complained today to my physics students who are remote learning that we would probably have to come back to this video or skip it because we were ready to move on and it wasn't posted yet. Did I miss the upload schedule, because I feel like it has been a while since the first one, and if the goal is to follow AP Physics content before the test they will hopefully be coming more often.
Wow. This dredged up some memories of physics in high school from 1996.
I love it!
Extremely helpful! For the first time I actually understood acceleration a=m/s×s when you said "at the rate of 10 m by s EVERY SECOND.
Such a basic thing but the first time it was so clearly pointed out! The lesson was too good!
15:43 - For anyone else confused that "2.5" is "two times five" not "two point five". The 2 is from multiplying both sides by 2 to get rid of the 1/2 on the right hand side. The 5 is the 'd'.
This was SHAMAZING! You have done this so easy and well. Congrats!
Wow! Dianna, I knew you were an impressive young woman, but throwing a bottle 45 meters into the air takes that to a whole new level.
Also, great explanation.
We are learning these in school now
My school explanation: I did not understand anything thing
These video: no questions I understand everything
I was once teaching physics to a transgender class for a social project. I was trying to teach something about elasticity to a 40yr old that dropped out of school quite early. I tried my best using my most accessible words, and all my acting, and failed. A transgirl, feeling a bit frustrated I guess, tried to explain after me. She used exactly the same words and mimicked exactly my every gesture, and the 40 yr old did understood when she explained. I remember being a bit offended at the time (that's why I remember that the gestures and words were exactly the same, i remember being offended by that reason, not her words and gestures), but I do understand that sometimes being a good messenger is not enough, and you have to have, or create, emotional ties to does who are hearing you, so they can be open minded about what you're saying. Sadly schools are somewhat violent environments (teachers often need to tell students what and what not to do, you are in public affraid of being judged, by what you might perceive as ignorance) and people do not feel like being open minded to authority figures.
I don't know your case specifically, and is quite common for teachers to sometimes drop the ball, and be confusing more than elucidating, but do try to be open minded as possible in school.
16:20 When she use d=at²/2, she is thinking about the phenomenon backwards in time. That's why she get a positive acceleration. Which doesn't make sense at first because you're decelerating.
If we take the other way in time we get: right before entering the pool, she had Vo=10 m/s. Therefore ∆y= Vo•t+a•t²/2, meaning 2.5 = 10•t+a•t²/2.
The time it takes is 0.5s so 2.5=5+a/8,
a= - 20 m/s². Which is equal in magnitude but opposite in direction.
My goodness these are so great. The maths is so far beyond my comprehension but i love to listen. My 9yo daughter wants to be an astronaut for NASA so i put these on for her. The guests at the end are a great idea. Telling us how they use it in there jobs. 👍
This is a really great course.
It is hard to explain maths and physics together.
You cleared a huge misconception.
Thanks for teaching something no one else does.
Please keep it up 👍
6:53
Mr. Googly Egg: CURSEEEE UUUUU DIANNNAAAAAAAA !!!!!!
6:59
Mr. Googly Eyes: Who likes Sunny Side Up???
That was an epic and dramatic moment.
Wonderful as always!
Title suggestion: "It's only physics! Get over yourself! Don't be afraid!"
Copyrighted? Nope. Go ahead and use it if you like...
Thanks again, MS Cowern.
Edit: great intro to free-falling calculations. Love it.
When you said, jumping in a pool and calculating the decceleration was easy, I immediately loudly opposed that idea.
With the typical oversimplification of most physics BASE lessons, yes, it seems easy at the basic level.
Here we ignore so many real-life factors that even a failed physics student like me can see the problems for an exact measurement cropping up right, left, and center.
For a basic ball-park figure, yes, the base calculations will give a very good approximation to several decimals exactness, possibly.
But once you start figuring in some truely significant variables this problem immediately jumps from trivial to doctorate level of difficulty.
Due to the change of resistance of air to water, the effect of buoyancy of air in your body in comparisson to the water changes at non-trivial levels.
Ask any SCUBA diver to take down an empty balloon and fill it underwater at a specific depth, then carry it upwards during surfacing. The buoyancy of the expanding air is enormous.
The same applies to your lungs depending on where you take your last gasp of breath before submerging.
I know that air is simply a very very dry liquid when it comes to fluid dynamics.
Buuuut: the air in your lungs get's compressed when you dive into water.
Thus the depth of the water you reach changes your decceleration due to increased compression of air, thus lowered buoyancy.
I'd wager a bet that calculating the EXACT time for your decceleration in the water, plus the EXACT distance you SHOULD reach below the surface level of the water becomes INSANELY complicated when you factor in all relevant and significant variables. I'd definitely assume that this is not trivial, but truely worthy of a dissertation level problem.
Wonder if I could have a teacher like you, then my Physics concepts would have been much more stronger
Anyways your way of teaching is really amazing and I truly appreciate that. Love from India❤️❤️❤️
The trip up & the trip down is only equal if you consider the upwards push will be equal to the downward pull of the gravity (which is a constant)
well theoretically if we consider the air friction that is always against the direction of motion, it will take longer to fall. Because on your way up friction is downward which adds to the gravity and on your way down friction is upward which is opposing the gravity and hance acceleration on the way down is smaller.
DIANA, you rock! This is EXACTLY like what you learn in a college level into to Physics, or AP Physics (of course you also learn electricity, kinetic and potential energy, momentum and inertia, trigonometry...)
You just explained freefall better then the 5 edpuzzles my teacher assigned us thank you for my tomorrow class
Air resistance varies with the square of velocity. So when we launch the object up the resistance will be high, specially at high speed. The resisteance will be lower when the object is starting to fall. And then we have the terminal velocity. Sum up, and the effect is even higher than tolde here.
Re: "I still don't have a decent name for this class." Maybe with your wonderful energy, you could go with something like: ~Dianna-mix of Physics~ Love what you are doing on RUclips; and I especially love the way in which you are doing it. I am pretty sure you would have made me forget all about the crush I had on my 7th grade Art Teacher, had I been lucky enough to have you teaching me Physics when I was in school. Stay Wonderful, and life will be wonderful for you. Peace.
Love from India 😍😍, after watching ur channel i have real urge to become scientist full time i watch veritasium physics girl vsauce n all will become real scientist one day keep loving🙏🏼🙏🏼🤗🤗🤗
Wtf same dudeeeeeee❤️😀😀
@@sitaaguptaa3407 yeah
@@sitaaguptaa3407 I'm just in 11th class..u?
When you really think about it, a particle is merely a kink in a zipper, a spot where there is one too many left clips per right clip. And an anti particle to this one is a kink in the zipper such that there is one too many right clips per left clip. And if somehow you were able to move these particles together, they vanish.
Which likely means that the quark anti quark pairs that form in a vacuum are just kinks in the fabric of the universe.
@the real nikita khrushchev particles are the asset through which energy moves
13:44
1) I love how you just ignore the units till the end.
2) I also love how you bring 9.8 but then you approximate it immediately so it does not really matter:p
She is the best 💯🔥🔥
She is more than my expectations.
The best teacher I could ever ask for.
Love from India ❤️💚💛💜🖤
I'm amazed..!!! You just taught me what I've been learning for months in minutes and very easily and simple... Wish I saw the video earlier.
thanks for the Tom Petty ref! haven't listened to him in awhile and that changes today. Also, your channel is one of the absolute best!
Thank you so much for making this series! I was in grade 11 physics from February to March (semestered) and now I can catch up for grade 12! (maybe April, maybe next year)
Excellent fun learning channel ....please keep going.
I took Physics in 1988 in University a good refreshing review!
Many young people want to learn but often tedious boring classes.
80% dropped out changed major in second year of Physics.
You are like Feynman s granddaughter 😎
It’s cool to think that once the object has reached it’s highest point and hasn’t begun to fall, (it’s neither going up or down) For a nano second, it’s absolutely still just waiting for gravity to do its thing. BTW the wrecking dropped from 35 meters is 114.83 feet. For older generation people like me, we weren’t taught the metric system in school.
At 4.18 Why average velocity is 5
As Vav= Aav×∆T or av.Displacement/∆T ... It means it is also 10 because ∆T=1 here..
Also from v-t graph its slope is acceleration so Aav=∆v|∆T here Aav=10 and ∆T=1 so Vav =10m/s
Dianna be careful in calculations u have a huge viewers
Regards,respect
I have the same confusion...
Actually Diana, if you wanna use the acceleration of gravity, instead of using *a* with arrow down, you can simply use *g*. It's universally known to be a vector pointing to the centre of mass, or in this case pointing downward.
At 20:19, I would not expect any mass bearing particle to do anything except fall towards other mass bearing particles. Newton's laws seem pretty reliable in regions where there are heavy concentrations of mass bearing particles, like at the local level of solar a system, and even the inner portions of galaxies.
It might be interesting to mention that the mass of the falling object does not intervene anywhere in the equation, because it is so counter intuitive for people who think heavier objects will fall faster. Cue in some footage from Apollo 15 when David Scott dropped a hammer and a feather on the moon. And it will help you make a segue the F=ma later to show that mass does play a part in how much force your object will have at the bottom. I feel like it’s always important to show how our intuition can deceive us and how science helps us see what’s really happening.
Antimatter will fall just like normal matter due to the makeup of the gravitational field is comprised of a resultant of plus and minus components of matter. (or spacetime curvature if that is accepted). Light will also react the same. However electromagnetic radiation (radio waves, infrared, electromagnetic fields) will react differently resulting in light and destabilization of the antimatter.
Free fall calcs really really ask for the example of the booster free fall back to the drone ship. After the entry burn it free falls for quite some time while braking immensely due to air resistance, gravity is there but has no chance. Only at a very low height it starts speeding up again and the boosters have to bring the speed to almost zero.
I really like your channel and the idea of making a physics 101 course on RUclips. Thank you very much.
I wanted to point out that when calculating the distance that the ball reached after bounceing of the trampoline, it's not too correct to start mesureing time from the moment the ball changed direction and then saying the initial velocity is not zero. I know that you know that and it won't make any noticeable difference, but I think it's fundamental to point out that in linear motion it's impossible to the moving object to change to the opposite direction immediately with a non-zero velocity.
Again I really like your channel, and I think your efforts are amazing.
Apologies if I misunderstood you, but she’s correct. There is no assumption here that the ball changes direction at a point with a nonzero velocity. This is taken into consideration by the fact that the v₀t is already out of the equation. There also weren’t any assumptions about instantaneous changes in direction from a nonzero velocity. She defined v₀=0 because she took the point where the ball changed direction so it could again throw that term out from the original equation.
In order to calculate the height of the ball after the bounce from a time before the bounce, you would need to know other factors (such as the mass of the ball, the spring constant of the trampoline, the height of the drop, maybe the mass of the trampoline, and probably some others that I’m forgetting - and that’s all ignoring air resistance) to do an energy calculation instead that would lead to a very similar (if not identical) answer to the one found here. Simple kinematics won’t cut it for any starting time before the bounce.
@@Chris-fx7zq Yes, you are completely right. I just misunderstood something. I thought she said that initial velocity (v0) is whatever the number is, but she clarified that is the velocity when the ball left the trampoline, which is totally correct. It's really my fault for assuming otherwise. 😅😅
i'm about to take my very first physics class, as a 33 year old. but it is engineering physics, or calculus based physics. i am quite nervous about it, but excited too, because physics is super interesting.
I remember when I first learned about this on high school and felt so contra intuitive. I decorated the formulas for the exams but only truly learned the subject a few years later.
Amazing explanation Diana! Congrats :)
Leaving your mistakes in is a brilliant choice.
10:48 question
15:00 question
Air resistance concept 18:30
When I throw a bottle, it takes me longer to accelerate it to full speed than it takes the table to stop it at the end. It's hard to ignore the asymmetric non-free-fall parts. If you watch someone juggling, it's a lot more symmetric in the throw and catch, and the peak is more intuitively in the middle.
Okay first of all did not expect a How Ridiculous clip at the beginning of this, collab when available please. Also this series reminds me why even though I went down a different academic route I still have a soft spot for how amazingly fun physics can be.
If there is negligible air resistance and object moving under gravity then it's come to be uniform velocity in your example that's in it can we conclude that time of asent is equal to time of the desent 🧐🤔, that's good u clear my all doubts thanks
We literally covered free fall motion in my physics class today! This is awesome!!
Another successful day of learning about physics. Thanks Dianna
Takes longer to come down then go up. So next question would be can shapes change this?
How would a shape like an upside down cone or a more pointy umbrella work where air resistance going up is high and air resistance going down is low?
(Let us say the object is spinning and held to it's vertical access by that spinning.)
Final exam. Last year at Lourdes Secondary school. Calculate the weight of a mouse running up a curtain. Love it physics lady.. xx
Free fall, falling freely...
Where's the parachute!
I am on a free fall so I take my time on my ride😎
Almost got I trouble watching this episode at work😌
Not me trying to brainwash myself to love my Physics class 😭
Removing all other variables there is no way it would take longer to go up or down. The speed you are using to go up, naturally come to a stop then go down will equal out when you reach the bottom. The only way that would not be true is if you added variables like air resistance or added thrust on the way down. Equal and opposite reactions.
OMG we went over this in my physics class, and this seriously helped a lot!!!!! Thank you for being awesome!!!!!
YES! This is the goal.
@@physicsgirl OMG!!!!! HI!! Aaaaa! love your work, and I am really glad about this course on your channel! Can't wait to see more! They help a lot!
@@physicsgirl Hi mam🌺 I'm a boy Zayed from India I'm request to you❤😊🌺 I want to join in your physics and your adventure activities plz and I want to tell you❤😊🌺 you can add to me plz I hope I will very helpful for your all activities really🌺❤🌼 plz rply me plz🙏💖🌺
Watching you draw this out, I finally understand why the area of a triangle is 1/2BH. Because it's half of a rectangle!
Hi Diana
Another lesson learned..
Can't miss your videos..
Awaiting for more physics...
Thanks diana..🙏
The average velocity trick only works for constant acceleration. the water slowing you down should be considered as friction, which if I remember correctly acts like a dampening force, so it is proportional to your velocity, which means it will decelerate you faster when you enter the water than when you almost stop, which is not a constant acceleration. but I guess, close enough.
At 13:25 you calculate how high the ball goes using d=0.5at^2 . I totally understand how you can use this. However the formulate you're pulling out of your pocket is insisting the initial velocity is zero which it isn't. In fact you are calculating how far is it falling from that height back down 1.7 seconds.And then knowing the distance up is equal to the distance down. A- LOL. Can't wait to get back into my classroom and start teaching. ♥️♥️ I appreciate Dianna and her love to explain physics! ♥️♥️
The velocity at the top is zero, and since the trip up is just the reverse of the trip down, you can still set v_0 equal to zero.
@@michaelsommers2356 Precisely! Just as I said. However, if you don't mention this as part of your solution, you would be wrong. Diana said she was calculating how high it went using the 1.7 seconds. But in fact she was calculating how far it fell in 1.7 seconds. And if you don't say that they're equal and mention why, it isn't a complete solution.
@@BruceCurrell She did say that, several times.
@@michaelsommers2356 could you give us the times when she did?
@@BruceCurrell Just watch the video again. That is probably not the only thing you missed.
I am from india
Follow ur video also
Like ur work for fall in interset with physics
Keep continue ur class
Have a question, isn't the air resistance proportional to the square of the speed? I don't think this would affect the overall results in that it would fall slower. Considering the time to fall through the water at the bottom, when you hit the water, the drag would be proportional to to 30 meters per second but as it slows, the resistance force would drop off dramatically. This would result in a different calculation for how long it would take to pass through the water at the bottom.
"so free fall objects falling down objects falling up"
me: Wait what
Dianna, what a great video, perfect timing with the start of the school terms. Thank you so much. X
I got really confused about the air resistance problem and why the bottle / balloon would take longer to come back down than it would to go up. If I understood, Dianna is saying that the deceleration (at, say, the halfway point) on the way up has a greater magnitude than the acceleration (at the halfway point) on the way down? Not sure though
its a parabola toss so both way up and down are or are supposed to be equal of length....(neglecting air resistance for a moment.)
Loved the moment when Diana holds the guitar wearing sunglasses 😎😎😎
I thought she would singout today's lecture😂😂
Anyways great lesson mam❤️❤️
Nice shoes! Also, thanks for the physics lesson!
As a former sky diver I can verify the trip up is definitely longer than the trip down. We also had a pilot that would bet us he could land before we did. He usually won.
Some of the aircraft used for jumping these days are usually long down... the PAC750 for one. I read somewhere they can turn 4 complete fully loaded wheel stopped to wheel stopped 12.5 loads an hour! Back in the c.70's DC-3 era when I was jumping... 45 plus min a load was probably average.
I love using meters in per second terms!
Thanks for making physics equations easy!
It's hard to talk about motion and most physics in general and have it be intuitive and pretty without calculus. My love for physics only started after calculus and the formulas not only started making sense, but i could actually derive them from only the fact that acceleration is constant. That's a nice try though.
In United States all accredited University Physics programs for engineering degree require Calculus simultaneously matched to physics modules .
This channel is for beginners who want to learn and go to university or review basics.
Differential equations made my head go on fire long ago...
You are my one of the favourite teacher!!😃
This really helps me since Im further studying in physics(right now in kinematics chapter) to become an astrophysicist or an aerospace engineer.
Throwing a bottle 45m (about 150 feet) straight up in the air is quite an accomplishment! I know good baseball pitchers can throw a ball faster than that, but I think it'd be a lot harder to throw one straight up at that velocity. It'd be even *harder* than that since they'd have to be in an astronaut suit on account of her removing all the air from the region so she wouldn't have to account for air resistance. The only thing I could throw 45 meters would be a cooperative live bird.
Woah I'm so happy she's talking about AP Physics 1, since it's such a new course. I remember taking AP Physics 1 and only getting two tests taken from the previous years as resources LOL
we can do it by just
s=ut+(1/2)at^2
@Peter Mortensen what?
In 4:18 how did you conclude 5 m/s from the equation ?
I have the same confusion...
This is 100% how young children should be introduced to physics
I thought this is about Diana falling in love. 😜
great content
I'm in master on hydraulics and hydrology, with geology background, and I still need those videos. Thanks alot !
This was a great installment - thanks for creating and posting. I was a little lost in the 1st episode (probably just me), but I really followed this one nicely. Thumbs up!
16:49 - I have to admit, that I don't have intuition about how to obtaining 0.5s deceleration time, from entering water with 10m/s and 2.5m travelled. Yes, maths (about average speed) checks, but something feels sketchy. Is this coming from believing that there will not be a constant force while undergoing declaration under water?
Doesn’t the velocity up depend on how hard you pushed it. The balloons speed going up depends on how hard you push or whack it. What am I not understanding?
You teach in a great way, I'd love to watch the entire course!!!
i'm not even studying physics but she makes learning so fun
Wow! Another great lesson from Physics girl! Thank you so much ❤️ oh, may I ask when will the third lesson be? Thank you Physics Girl! 💗