To see subtitles in other languages: Click on the gear symbol under the video, then click on "subtitles." Then select the language (You may need to scroll up and down to see all the languages available). --To change subtitle appearance: Scroll to the top of the language selection window and click "options." In the options window you can, for example, choose a different font color and background color, and set the "background opacity" to 100% to help make the subtitles more readable. --To turn the subtitles "on" or "off" altogether: Click the "CC" button under the video. --If you believe that the translation in the subtitles can be improved, please send me an email.
I enjoy your videos on the whole, but this recent slant of the past few videos, explaining emergent phenomena through intuitive mechanical physics, has been particularly interesting. . Have you considered doing a video on non-polar intermolecular bonds? I think it fits in a similar category (although it must [I assume] specifically invoke electromagnetism). Polar bonds are easy to understand. They're like magnets, but with electric charge. But non-polar cohesion is more complicated. Or at least I assume it is, because I currently do not understand it. :-D
I just love this channel. After watching a video you really feel like you finally understand things a bit better compared to what they teach in schools.
You can help translate this video by adding subtitles in other languages. To add a translation, click on the following link: ruclips.net/user/timedtext_video?v=SRaDpDT_znY&ref=share You will then be able to add translations for all the subtitles. You will also be able to provide a translation for the title of the video. Please remember to hit the submit buttons for both the title and for the subtitles, as they are submitted separately. Details about adding translations is available at support.google.com/youtube/answer/6054623?hl=en Thanks.
Sir I will be very happy if you added the topic of bohr's model of hydrogen atom in your list of future videos . The main confusing fact is that according to classical mechanics how and why an electron continuously emitting electromagnetic waves should ultimately fall into the nucleus . Does classical physicists put this wrong postulate forward without considering that nucleus is positively charged? This (1:30 seconds) animation illustrates electromagnetic waves produced by an accelerating charged particle in terms of electric field only. I wonder if you represent this in terms of vector field of lorentz force (electrc force + magnetic force) . ruclips.net/video/oH7WRKglKNk/видео.html Larmour formula tells us how an accelerating charged particles emit electromagnetic waves. Abraham-Lorentz force is a recoil force on an accelerating charged particle causes by the partile emitting electromagnetic radiation. It is also called the radiation reaction force , radiation damping force or the self-force. Actually what is the reason behind moving of electrons in circular orbits without radiating energy continuously as light. Is there an electric potential space time analogous to gravitational potential space time . Please clear this confusion with intuitive visual and logical reasoning. Is it the proton in the centre which doesn't allow the electron to emit electromagnetic waves continuously. The orbital velocity of the innermost electons is maximun then why is it in lower energy state. Is there some kind of mysteries energy boxes attached to electrons which we can't see. I am still confused after I studied classical electrodynamics . Does the increase in energy of the electrons by absorbing a photon means an increase in tangential orbital velocity ? Now when the electrons fall into lower energy orbit then which acceleration here is the reason for production of electromagnetic wave (photon) ? What about larmour assumption and Abraham-Lorentz force ? I am super confused .
Amazing!! My thermodynamics teacher struggled a lot explaining us this effect, it would have helped so much to watch this video as an introduction 👍👍 Thank you for this greatly well made video!!
I do love your videos, unfortunately this one fails to provide the central insight. The key moment occurs at 6:32 where the container shape changes but the pressure remains the same... unfortunately your arrows don't explain why this is true. Where are the vertical forces coming from on the right side, given that the container is a single rigid body and is thus not being pushed down onto the liquid molecules by gravity?
I didn't explain this with words, but I explained it with the pictures and animations, such as the animation of the spheres bouncing around inside three containers of three different shapes.
I also feel like there wasn't a good explanation. The visual example earlier in the video showed the phenomen in action but didn't 100% explain the intuition. The best explanation I have is Pascal's Law (IOW go watch more Physics Videos). For containers of the same height: If we assume the upper section behaves the same irrespective of shape, then it always exerts the same pressure on the bottommost slice. By Pascal's Law the pressure is equal across the bottommost slice. Because of this, if you extend the container by adding a new bottommost slice below the old one, then the pressure exerted on this new slice is the same regardless of where you connect it. Also note that any perceived gain in downward force (like the molecules in the "cave" at 6:37) come from the sides/ceilings of the container, and any perceived loss of downward force (like in a funnel shaped container) comes from the sides/floors of the container.
@@enriquegonzalez2802 (and iestyn) : Yeah, I got confused by that, too. Here's how I try to explain it to myself: Molecules are *_really_* tiny, and in a fluid, they have complete and unlimited freedom of movement. Up, down, sideways, slantways, etc. So any pressure applied to them from any direction will be spread out in all directions. Up, down, sideways, etc. So even in the "cave" part of the diagram, the fluid pressure is pressing on the walls -- and ceiling -- of the cave. (And of course, the cave walls are pushing back with equal pressure, or else they would burst outward.) Does that help?
I love your videos. It makes me more curious about physics. Thank you so much for all videos. We support you. Keep it up. Since my professor presented your video in physics class, i visited your channel and watched many videos. I Love your channel
Every time I learn something new in a video by Eugene, somehow it always shows up later in my life in a meaningful way. Weirdly, it's not always related to physics. It's really interesting how that nearly always happens.
That's because of the normal reaction from the wall ...It is a scenario in a fluid so one layer of molecules are always in random motion.But here those set of molecules inside the small space are restricted to move upward,hence when they try to move up they can't because of the normal reaction of the wall,which is equivalent to having molecules occupy the place of the part of the wall
I think were missing some fundamental point of this video. I also don't get the boat one, i always thought it's because of surface area and not because of the athmosphere, does this mean a ship will not work on a planet with no athmosphere then?
@@JarutheDamaja The ship can displace a large amount of water because of its great surface area at the bottom. And no, a ship can still work in vacuum because the ship overall is less dense, as its hollow inside.
6:30- if you’re wondering why the balls experience a downward pressure, I think it’s because the vibrations of the nearby balls knock them in all directions which forces them against the ceiling box which is pushing them downward.
When I clicked I thought this was about the Archimedean Principle: That for all real numbers x and y with x > 0, there is a natural number n such that nx > y. The physics principle makes more sense, especially in the context of molecules and your channel name. Great video as always!
Your videos have done wonders for me while studying for the MCAT, but it's amazing how many concepts obey action-reaction as demonstrated by Newton's third law
Physics makes so much sense but it's often difficult to get the concept out, these videos are like a Rosetta stone. Thanks Eugene, keep up the good work.
There was an old trick in the 1800s that used this principle. A barrel would be filled to the brim with water, and would hold its shape just fine. Then they would insert a long tube at the top, and fill it with only a small amount of water, which greatly increases the pressure (as the height of the water has gone up drastically) and the barrel would burst.
Does the density of elements vary depending on the primary magnetic sphere that they are located in, like would hydrogen and oxygen have the same relative densities on Mars even though they would be lighter would there weight be less by the same ratio or might one be 50% lighter and the other 52% lighter? Asking for a friend.
I think you meant to say "gravitational" rather than "magnetic." The reply to your question is that the density is the mass per unit volume, and this does not change depending on which planet you are on. What does change is the force of gravity on each mass.
There's a special type of pleasure when at the end of the video the object with twice the density finally sinks to the bottom and no other molecule is underneath it
OK so there is still an upward bouoyancy force on the object that sinks to the bottom. But, where does this force come from if there is nothing but the ground below it?there are no molecules to push it up
Best video amoung all the videos about Archimedes principle on RUclips . That's how a good teacher should teach us. Eugene can you please manage to make a video on scalar triple product and vector triple product whose duration is 3-7 minutes . Well the reason for my request is the property and theorem of vector triple product which is somewhat like this a×b×c = (a.c)b -(a.b)c . This theorem is very important because it is also a step involved in deriving Kepler Laws of planatery motion. We are finding a lot of difficulty and can't visualize this theorem. You once made a very fantastic short duration video on dot product and cross product . So please make a video on scalar triple product and specially VECTOR TRIPLE PRODUCT in future. But please try to make this video faster as we are struck in our vector textbooks struggling to visualize this theorem.
Fantastic video! 2 critiques: 1. You don't explain why the change in the shape of container (6:32) doesn't change the pressure in this model. You do later show the lateral forces, but it is not explained in a video by this particular model. 2. At 9:10 you don't explain that the weight (I hope I am using the correct term) of an object with twice the density will be decreased by the same amount as the weight of the fluid it displaces. It would be cool if you did, especially using this model. Thanks for the video. If I have time later, I will translate to Polish. Very busy day today.
Thanks for the compliment. Regarding your first point, I don't explain it with words, but I explain it with the pictures and animations, such as the animation of the spheres bouncing around inside three containers of three different shapes. Regarding the second point, I don't state this, but it can be inferred from the statement made earlier about the net upward pressure on an object. Thanks again.
Actually the horizontal vectors were representing thermal vibrations. Did you see that the spheres on top were trying to evaporate and undergoing less collisions per second. But they were again pulled back by gravity . If these were air molecules of atomic gases present above the surface they would have evaporated the liquid with the passage of time .Some of the air (atmospheric gas) spheres would also have been entrapped in the empty spaces between liquid spheres . It tells us that if there was no air present on the surface of liquid the liqiud molecules will never go farther away from the surface of the liquid. In reply to your question in a video by Eugene titled " thermodynamics and the end of the universe " you can see that objects at higher elevations have hight gravitational potential energy and therefore create more motion as they fall and I loved the way sir Eugene presented this fact in this video by dropping totally static fluid into different containers. As these spheres will fall the energy boxes will be distributed evenly amoung all the spheres and all spheres gradually gain same mechanical energy (kinetic + potential energy content) (No energy boxes will be dissipated as heat and thereby there will be no sensation of heat in this animation). To understand the concept of kinetic energy see the video of sir Eugene on Bernoulli principle . Now i want to tell you that the fluid is not static as the molecules of the bottom are constantly colliding with each other in the horizontal direction and the walls of the container are balancing these forces. As the energy boxes are evenly distributed amoung all shperes the shperes at high attitude will have more gravitational potential energy boxes than kinetic energy boxes and the spheres at the bottom have more kinetic energy boxes than gravitational potential energy boxes and the pressure (from collisions of molecules with one another and with the walls of the container) is determined by kinetic energy boxes and has nothing to do with gravitational potential energy boxes. So the molecules at bottom (having more kinetic energy) have greater velocity (greater "horizontal" and vertical components of velocity) than the molecules at the top. It is actually kinetic molecular theory with the exception of including gravity in this case without including heat transfer. If there is no gravity and the container is closed then the pressure of the fluid will be same throughout. I hope if sir Eugene liked my reply. I am very happy that sir Eugene is making videos on fluid mechanics on my and many other people's request .
Can you explain why pressure stays the same even if the shape of the container changes like you said at 6:25 . I’m confused on why pressure would be the same if there are less molecules of the fluid pushing down.
Also I noticed how at 6:46 you have an image of pressure being sideways, could you also explain to me why pressure would act sideways if gravity pulls down and the molecules push each other up to balance this.
I didn't explain this with words, but I explained it with the pictures and animations, such as the animation of the spheres bouncing around inside three containers of three different shapes. It is because each sphere is undergoing thermal vibrations, and hitting all of its neighbors.
@@EugeneKhutoryansky Does the sideways pressure between the spheres increase with depth like the vertical pressure? I have to admit that I am confused on why the pressure from thermal vibrations would be the same as the pressure from depth and having to support the weight of spheres above.
Each vibrating sphere will exert approximately the same force on all its neighbors in all directions. The only difference is that it will exert a slightly larger pressure on the molecules below due to gravity.
Face reveal videos and behind the scenes videos are sometimes popular with channels like these. It gives the channel a personal touch and helps people see all the time and effort that goes into making these videos.
@@EugeneKhutoryansky Cool. Thx for the reply. Maybe I’ll check it out. It was just a random thought. I think whenever people watch videos that don’t show any faces, human nature is inherently curious about who the people behind the vids. I figure I’m not the only one that’s curious about the genius that creates these things. At any rate, total respect. Oh, also, the reason I was thinking a face reveal or a behind the scenes vid may help is because when people see the person behind these creations, it creates a level of empathy and humanity for your hard work and may lead to more patreon supporters. Dunno, just a thought.
6:33 I don't get how the molecules on the right are at the same pressure, you can clearly see that there is nothing on top of them falling down and exerting pressure. The part of the container that is on top of them is not falling due to gravity. Can you clarify?
I didn't explain this with words, but I explained it with the pictures and animations, such as the animation of the spheres bouncing around inside three containers of three different shapes.
Here is an explanation in words from the apperentice of Eugene khutoryansky. Actually the horizontal vectors were representing thermal vibrations. Did you see that the spheres on top were trying to evaporate and undergoing less collisions per second. But they were again pulled back by gravity . If these were air molecules of atomic gases present above the surface they would have evaporated the liquid with the passage of time .Some of the air (atmospheric gas) spheres would also have been entrapped in the empty spaces between liquid spheres . It tells us that if there was no air present on the surface of liquid the liqiud molecules will never go farther away from the surface of the liquid. In reply to your question in a video by Eugene titled " thermodynamics and the end of the universe " you can see that objects at higher elevations have hight gravitational potential energy and therefore create more motion as they fall and I loved the way sir Eugene presented this fact in this video by dropping totally static fluid into different containers. As these spheres will fall the energy boxes will be distributed evenly amoung all the spheres and all spheres gradually gain same mechanical energy (kinetic + potential energy content) (No energy boxes will be dissipated as heat and thereby there will be no sensation of heat in this animation). To understand the concept of kinetic energy see the video of sir Eugene on Bernoulli principle . Now i want to tell you that the fluid is not static as the molecules of the bottom are constantly colliding with each other .
Good video. I believe it should have a quick mention that the level of the liquid raises by the amount corresponding to the objects submerged (totally or in part) - the liquid is only displaced, not compressed, so it goes somewhere else, raising the level, even if only so slightly. Also, showing the liquid at molecular or atomic level and the objects at a much larger scale, with molecules / atoms not visible, is somewhat incorrect, although it does help to convey the image of what is going on. The most important part of the concept starts at 4:43 - the balance of forces determines floatability.
Jose Silveira Actually the horizontal vectors were representing thermal vibrations. Did you see that the spheres on top were trying to evaporate and undergoing less collisions per second. But they were again pulled back by gravity . If these were air molecules of atomic gases present above the surface they would have evaporated the liquid with the passage of time .Some of the air (atmospheric gas) spheres would also have been entrapped in the empty spaces between liquid spheres . It tells us that if there was no air present on the surface of liquid the liqiud molecules will never go farther away from the surface of the liquid. In reply to your question in a video by Eugene titled " thermodynamics and the end of the universe " you can see that objects at higher elevations have hight gravitational potential energy and therefore create more motion as they fall and I loved the way sir Eugene presented this fact in this video by dropping totally static fluid into different containers. As these spheres will fall the energy boxes will be distributed evenly amoung all the spheres and all spheres gradually gain same mechanical energy (kinetic + potential energy content) (No energy boxes will be dissipated as heat and thereby there will be no sensation of heat in this animation). To understand the concept of kinetic energy see the video of sir Eugene on Bernoulli principle . Now i want to tell you that the fluid is not static as the molecules of the bottom are constantly colliding with each other .
I think a connection can be drawn between Archimedes' principle and convection. In a container that contains just one type of fluid molecules (helium, for fun) a clump of molecules within that region that has a higher temperature will have a lower density than the the surrounding molecules. So convection is just an extension of buoyancy. If we really want to stretch an analogy to its limits, we could probably draw a connection between convection and the Brazil nut effect. If you take a can of mixed nuts and shake it for a while, without changing the orientation of the can, the larger nuts will tend to collect at the top while the smaller nuts find their way to the bottom, regardless of the density of those nuts. Of course, there are a lot more factors involved. Even when shaken to simulate Brownian motion, a bunch of solid objects packed loosely in a container does not behave quite like a liquid or a gas. We can easily picture, for example, how bits of sand would bias toward the bottom of a container of gravel, simply because there are spaces between the gravel where it can fit. So the collisions are more complex to describe, but it's an interesting principle.
@@EugeneKhutoryansky like is an euphemism. You have no idea how much you helped me through high school and still helps at university. thank you, my brother.
Anything related to "ELECTROMAGNETIC THEORY" would be helpful. As an electronics engineering student this is one of the most difficult topics. Would be really helpful if this topic videos are possible
I already have many videos on that topic. For example, you may want to watch my video "Electromagnetism - Maxwell's Laws" at ruclips.net/video/9Tm2c6NJH4Y/видео.html
Well done sir. Sir I wana say something . You are my mentor and when people post negative comments about your videos I take their words to my heart. I don't wana say that your video is unsatisfying but it is rather incomplete most people are still confused about horizontal force vectors and how liquid spheres can exert still the same pressure (as the layer of identical height) even if there is no liquid or solid box exerting pressure on its top . Sir I suggest you to make another video on this but now by attaching energy boxes to all spheres . I loved your simulation technique to first show static fluid ( in which all shperes were initially at rest) and then you threw the static fluid in all containers . According to the simulation of energy boxes the top spheres of fluid have more gravitational potential energy boxes attached to them as compared to the lower spheres . As you will make the static fluid to fall into the container the gravitational potential energy boxes start converting into kinetic energy boxes. It is up to you whether you distinguish between the gravitational potential energy boxes and the kinetic energy boxes with colour or something else. When all the liquid spheres will fall into the container all the energy boxes will be distributed evenly amoung all spheres ( the total number of energy boxes per sphere will be equal but the gravitational potential energy boxex per sphere will be less at the bottom layers of the fluid and more at the top layers of the fluid and kinetic energy boxes per sphere will be more at bottom layers of the fluid and less at the top layers of the fluid but the total energy boxes (potential + kinetic) per shpere is same throughout the fluid after all the fluid has been poured into a tank . The pressure in both horizontal and vertical direction of the fluid is determined by the amount of kinetic energy boxes present and it has nothing to do with the amount of gravitational potential energy boxes. It is actually kinetic molecular theory including gravitational field effect. Sir I hope you will clear the misconceptions and doubts of your viewers by this technique in our simulation. I hope you are safe and sound in Houston . Please clear the doubts of your viewers and subscribers it will be your great contribution. I will bevery happy if you make a video on kinetic molecular theory for liquids and gases (sensation of heat and origin of temperature ) and then simulate it with and without gravitational field effect. May you be in peace. Take care of yourself.
Thanks for the suggestion. I will need to think about how to animate that. With so many things happening in the animation at once, it may be hard for the viewers to distinguish the two different types of energy boxes. Perhaps if I zoomed in and showed just a few particles in slow motion this might be possible. Thanks.
Physics Videos by Eugene Khutoryansky (my mentor) I am sure that you will find a much better way to aminate it but some of your audience had a long debate with me regarding the violation of second of thermodynamics . So I suggest you to animate the particles of the fluid with (gravitational potential) energy boxes attached to them before throwing the fluid into the container. You not need to show the conversion of gravitational potential energy into kinetic energy. Just do the same as you did with an object falling from high elevations distributing its energy boxes evenly throughout the static particles creating motion in them on collision with the static particles present in the container below in your video of "second law of thermodynamics and the end of the universe" . So just at the instant when the particles of the fluid will hit the bottom surface of the container you can distribute the evergy boxes evenly throughout the particles . After that you can say that the particles of the fluid with are highter have more energy boxes of gravitational potential energy than the kinetic energy boxes. The you need no more to say about energy boxes and simulate according to your own point of view. Sir I will humbly request you to attach thermometers with different points along the walls of the container as many of my friends are saying that the layers of fluid below must have more temperature as temperature is directly proportional to pressure and pressure is depending upon kinetic energy . Sir even I can't answer their question as the second law of thermodynamics state that all objects will eventually reach the same temperature and doesn't temperature means energy boxes per particle ? My question here is if the temperature is same throughout the container does it mean that the gravitational potential energy boxes also account for temperature or only kinetic energy boxes account for temperature ? Here a contradiction is taking place this means that even after the collsion of all the particles of the fluid with the surface of the liquid there will be no distribution of energy boxes 😕😕☹️☹️😟 . Sir I am getting hopelessly confused with this question asked by my friends and you (my mentor) are the last hope for me. 😭😭😭
Sir I think that the only possible solution now is to make a video on kinetic molecular theory of fluids (both gases and liquid) and explain it in detail first (you not need to derive it) that the pressure and temperature is same throughout the fluid (I think the fluid is not a liquid when no gravity is present anyway I am not sure) but as soon as gravity is introduced in the case the pressure in the fluid is not same throughout . Does it also mean that the temperature is also not same throughout and it increases like pressure as we go deeper ?
The biggest reason I can give for the increase in temperature with depth is conventional currents in fluids. Ask yourself for a minute what is the phenomenon which doesn't let liquids to become static...... It is the continuous conventional currents which occur due to the fact that lower layers of fluid have high temperature due to more pressure . The lower layers of fluid due to high temperature tend to come to the surface in the form of conventional currents. If I am wrong then why the atmosphere above Earth's surface behaves in this way ? Why the magma inside the Earth also behaves in the same way that the lower layers of magma are at high temperature that the higher layers even though the gravitational acceleration decreases as we go to the centre of the earth ? What is the reason of conventional currents from the core of the earth towards the molten mantle of the Earth? Are conventional currents the reason of magnetic field of the earth ? Just think patiently. Sir you are my mentor so if I am wrong please correct me I will be very grateful to you.
Thanks for the compliment. I make all the animations for my videos myself. In many cases, it takes me several months of work to create the animations for a single video, so please be patient. Thanks.
To see subtitles in other languages: Click on the gear symbol under the video, then click on "subtitles." Then select the language (You may need to scroll up and down to see all the languages available).
--To change subtitle appearance: Scroll to the top of the language selection window and click "options." In the options window you can, for example, choose a different font color and background color, and set the "background opacity" to 100% to help make the subtitles more readable.
--To turn the subtitles "on" or "off" altogether: Click the "CC" button under the video.
--If you believe that the translation in the subtitles can be improved, please send me an email.
I make my 3D animations with "Poser." The simulations were made with an add-on purchased separately called "Poser Physics."
Thanks a lot
👍👌👏
I enjoy your videos on the whole, but this recent slant of the past few videos, explaining emergent phenomena through intuitive mechanical physics, has been particularly interesting.
.
Have you considered doing a video on non-polar intermolecular bonds? I think it fits in a similar category (although it must [I assume] specifically invoke electromagnetism). Polar bonds are easy to understand. They're like magnets, but with electric charge. But non-polar cohesion is more complicated. Or at least I assume it is, because I currently do not understand it. :-D
@Michael Bishop I have a molecular explanation of the Carnot cycle in my video on Thermodynamics at ruclips.net/video/GOrWy_yNBvY/видео.html
These videos are so great!
Thanks. Glad you like them.
@Cody'sLab good to see you here as well! 😂👍
I just love this channel.
After watching a video you really feel like you finally understand things a bit better compared to what they teach in schools.
Thanks. I am glad to hear that.
When you see Eugene Khutoryansky
uploaded a new video:
𝙄 𝙖𝙢 𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙚𝙙
This channel is so underestimated...
Thank you, Eugene!
Thanks.
@@EugeneKhutoryansky what simulatore Is It plz
* underrated
@@kevinbissinger you may be wrong.there are physics channels with millions of subscribers
Love you Eugene!
You can help translate this video by adding subtitles in other languages. To add a translation, click on the following link:
ruclips.net/user/timedtext_video?v=SRaDpDT_znY&ref=share
You will then be able to add translations for all the subtitles. You will also be able to provide a translation for the title of the video. Please remember to hit the submit buttons for both the title and for the subtitles, as they are submitted separately.
Details about adding translations is available at
support.google.com/youtube/answer/6054623?hl=en
Thanks.
Sir please dont add juanez's music because it is somehow not feeling that soothing . It will ruin the beautiful sound effect of your videos.
French translation is done ! Thanks for making it so easy !
Turkish translation is done! Teşekküler.
Awesome video! Thank You for your work!
Sir I will be very happy if you added the topic of bohr's model of hydrogen atom in your list of future videos . The main confusing fact is that according to classical mechanics how and why an electron continuously emitting electromagnetic waves should ultimately fall into the nucleus . Does classical physicists put this wrong postulate forward without considering that nucleus is positively charged? This (1:30 seconds) animation illustrates electromagnetic waves produced by an accelerating charged particle in terms of electric field only. I wonder if you represent this in terms of vector field of lorentz force (electrc force + magnetic force) .
ruclips.net/video/oH7WRKglKNk/видео.html
Larmour formula tells us how an accelerating charged particles emit electromagnetic waves.
Abraham-Lorentz force is a recoil force on an accelerating charged particle causes by the partile emitting electromagnetic radiation. It is also called the radiation reaction force , radiation damping force or the self-force.
Actually what is the reason behind moving of electrons in circular orbits without radiating energy continuously as light. Is there an electric potential space time analogous to gravitational potential space time . Please clear this confusion with intuitive visual and logical reasoning. Is it the proton in the centre which doesn't allow the electron to emit electromagnetic waves continuously. The orbital velocity of the innermost electons is maximun then why is it in lower energy state. Is there some kind of mysteries energy boxes attached to electrons which we can't see. I am still confused after I studied classical electrodynamics . Does the increase in energy of the electrons by absorbing a photon means an increase in tangential orbital velocity ? Now when the electrons fall into lower energy orbit then which acceleration here is the reason for production of electromagnetic wave (photon) ? What about larmour assumption and Abraham-Lorentz force ? I am super confused .
Amazing!!
My thermodynamics teacher struggled a lot explaining us this effect, it would have helped so much to watch this video as an introduction 👍👍
Thank you for this greatly well made video!!
Thanks.
My brain: let's watch this video
My brain 10 min later: I am knowledge
Channel helped make calculus look much clearer.
@@farenhite4329 yup
I’ve been looking for a video like this for so long. I honestly think you are the first. Thx.
Glad you liked my video.
Eugene, you keep pumping out such high quality videos, i love it. Im so glad i found this channel several years ago!
Thanks. I am glad you like my videos.
Eugene's videos are the greatest .
I do love your videos, unfortunately this one fails to provide the central insight.
The key moment occurs at 6:32 where the container shape changes but the pressure remains the same... unfortunately your arrows don't explain why this is true.
Where are the vertical forces coming from on the right side, given that the container is a single rigid body and is thus not being pushed down onto the liquid molecules by gravity?
I didn't explain this with words, but I explained it with the pictures and animations, such as the animation of the spheres bouncing around inside three containers of three different shapes.
I also feel like there wasn't a good explanation. The visual example earlier in the video showed the phenomen in action but didn't 100% explain the intuition.
The best explanation I have is Pascal's Law (IOW go watch more Physics Videos). For containers of the same height: If we assume the upper section behaves the same irrespective of shape, then it always exerts the same pressure on the bottommost slice. By Pascal's Law the pressure is equal across the bottommost slice. Because of this, if you extend the container by adding a new bottommost slice below the old one, then the pressure exerted on this new slice is the same regardless of where you connect it.
Also note that any perceived gain in downward force (like the molecules in the "cave" at 6:37) come from the sides/ceilings of the container, and any perceived loss of downward force (like in a funnel shaped container) comes from the sides/floors of the container.
I got confused the same. I 'm lost in that part :(
@@enriquegonzalez2802 (and iestyn) : Yeah, I got confused by that, too.
Here's how I try to explain it to myself: Molecules are *_really_* tiny, and in a fluid, they have complete and unlimited freedom of movement. Up, down, sideways, slantways, etc. So any pressure applied to them from any direction will be spread out in all directions. Up, down, sideways, etc. So even in the "cave" part of the diagram, the fluid pressure is pressing on the walls -- and ceiling -- of the cave. (And of course, the cave walls are pushing back with equal pressure, or else they would burst outward.)
Does that help?
@@Milesco yes but how does forces spread out
I love your videos. It makes me more curious about physics.
Thank you so much for all videos. We support you. Keep it up. Since my professor presented your video in physics class, i visited your channel and watched many videos. I Love your channel
Thanks. I am glad you like my videos.
Отличный ролик! Даже не задумывался до таких подробностей!
Ah fluid mechanics. I wish we had this video when i was studying engineering. Great video!
Glad you liked it.
amazind video and graphics, I'm a physics teacher myself and after so many years I understood this in a more intuitive and visual way, thanks.
Thanks for the compliments. I am glad you liked my video.
Eugene, you should win awards for your wonderful teaching method and clear explanations. Thanks for sharing!
Thanks for the compliment.
Students are really fortunate to have these videos.
This channel has the best videos on physics with excellent visuals, this channel is a masterpiece and a work of a genius!
Thanks for that really great compliment.
With all the craziness going around in the world right now, I really needed a new video from you lol 😆
Every time I learn something new in a video by Eugene, somehow it always shows up later in my life in a meaningful way. Weirdly, it's not always related to physics. It's really interesting how that nearly always happens.
Glad my videos are helpful. Thanks.
6:26 why is that? Since there are less spheres above the ones on the right, why do the spheres feel the same downwards force?
paused at the same exact moment
That's because of the normal reaction from the wall ...It is a scenario in a fluid so one layer of molecules are always in random motion.But here those set of molecules inside the small space are restricted to move upward,hence when they try to move up they can't because of the normal reaction of the wall,which is equivalent to having molecules occupy the place of the part of the wall
I think were missing some fundamental point of this video. I also don't get the boat one, i always thought it's because of surface area and not because of the athmosphere, does this mean a ship will not work on a planet with no athmosphere then?
@@JarutheDamaja The ship can displace a large amount of water because of its great surface area at the bottom. And no, a ship can still work in vacuum because the ship overall is less dense, as its hollow inside.
Yes it would be nice to give a clear answer there
When you're about to sleep but Eugene uploads a video:
I am *notgonnasleepbeforethisshit*
Physics is beautiful,And Your videos makes learning it even more better.Thank u :)
Thanks. I am glad you like my videos.
It is sir Eugene who has exposed the beauty of physics to all of us.
Physics lover.U should say mam ;)
Be Conceptual , Eugene is male not female the female voice behind his videos is by Ma'm Kira. 😉
Physics lover,oh thanks.I didn't know 😅
Eugene thank you for making such amazing videos; it is these videos which actually clear doubts
Thanks for the compliment about my videos.
Never thought that anyone can understand Archimedes principle like this.... Thankyou sir
Thanks.
6:30- if you’re wondering why the balls experience a downward pressure, I think it’s because the vibrations of the nearby balls knock them in all directions which forces them against the ceiling box which is pushing them downward.
But it should feel less force, I don't understand how diagonal colisions would cause the same force as if the balls were above it
When I clicked I thought this was about the Archimedean Principle: That for all real numbers x and y with x > 0, there is a natural number n such that nx > y. The physics principle makes more sense, especially in the context of molecules and your channel name. Great video as always!
I am glad you liked my video. Thanks.
Your videos have done wonders for me while studying for the MCAT, but it's amazing how many concepts obey action-reaction as demonstrated by Newton's third law
Yeah, everything does.
@Captain Quirk Thanks for confirming that, any other insight you can offer or do you just go around acting like a pretentious asshole for fun?
Nice video explaining the Principle that all ship Engineers need to know before building ships and is especially necessary in submarine design...
Thanks.
superb as always
these "simple" animations are on point
Thanks for the compliment.
Loving the fluid physics videos! Keep it going, great stuff!
Thanks.
Physics makes so much sense but it's often difficult to get the concept out, these videos are like a Rosetta stone.
Thanks Eugene, keep up the good work.
Thanks for the compliment about my videos. I appreciate it.
Sir Eugene is your first and last hope to get the different concepts out of physics.
*This is the most Underrated channel on RUclips*
Thanks.
You make learning a pleasure great work
I have less pressure exerted on my brain now. It feels buoyant. Thank you.
Glad my video helped relieve pressure.
Really i love this channel.I come to know all my lovable physics concepts with very easiest way.Thanks for your all videos.
Thanks. I am glad you like my videos.
Oh my god, this channel deserves a Nobel in Education
Thanks for the compliment.
One of the Best RUclips content
Thanks.
Best animation ever in physics!!!
Thank You
Thanks for the compliment.
شكرا جزيلا على هذا العمل الرائق . مفيد جدا بالنسبة لي ❤
Much more love and peace from Orakzai area in Pakistan....Thanks for such useful vedio...Proudly I'm the first ti view and comment
Thanks.
The best intuitive physics channel in history.....Who is behind the channel I want to know you
Thanks for that really great compliment.
Amazing simulations. The molecular approach is fantastic, i haver never seen. Thanks
Thanks for the compliments.
More health and strength to you EUGENE! 😘
Thanks. I appreciate it.
@@EugeneKhutoryansky 👍
With your videos learning has become what is flying to bird's.
please, more math's videos.
Great video as always Eugene
Thanks. Glad you enjoyed it.
I always liked your videos.. Your videos makes Physics just mind-blowing
Thanks. I am glad you like my videos.
Really appreciate your videos, Eugene. Thank you.
Thanks. I am glad you like my videos.
Ótimo vídeo!!! Parabéns !!! 🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷
Всё наглядно получилось. Как всегда выше всяких похвал!
There was an old trick in the 1800s that used this principle. A barrel would be filled to the brim with water, and would hold its shape just fine. Then they would insert a long tube at the top, and fill it with only a small amount of water, which greatly increases the pressure (as the height of the water has gone up drastically) and the barrel would burst.
Thanks for the video, Eugene! Great as always.
Thanks. Glad you liked it.
Thank you for making these amazing and easy to understand videos. You definitely satisfy my wandering mind!! Keep it up!!
Thanks. I am glad you like my videos.
Your work is *most appreciated.*
Thanks!
Appreciate your efforts
Thanks.
Great visuals and explanation 👏 as always.
Thanks.
Great work by Eugene
Thanks.
Does the density of elements vary depending on the primary magnetic sphere that they are located in, like would hydrogen and oxygen have the same relative densities on Mars even though they would be lighter would there weight be less by the same ratio or might one be 50% lighter and the other 52% lighter? Asking for a friend.
I think you meant to say "gravitational" rather than "magnetic." The reply to your question is that the density is the mass per unit volume, and this does not change depending on which planet you are on. What does change is the force of gravity on each mass.
This channel is so informative,,Thank you Eugene
Thanks.
@@EugeneKhutoryansky Welcome,,,
@@EugeneKhutoryansky plz can you tell me about the spin of electrons??? It's very complicated to understand,,
There's a special type of pleasure when at the end of the video the object with twice the density finally sinks to the bottom and no other molecule is underneath it
rigidly a perfect explanation!
OK so there is still an upward bouoyancy force on the object that sinks to the bottom. But, where does this force come from if there is nothing but the ground below it?there are no molecules to push it up
Flexing with that raytracing :D
Best video amoung all the videos about Archimedes principle on RUclips . That's how a good teacher should teach us. Eugene can you please manage to make a video on scalar triple product and vector triple product whose duration is 3-7 minutes .
Well the reason for my request is the property and theorem of vector triple product which is somewhat like this
a×b×c = (a.c)b -(a.b)c .
This theorem is very important because it is also a step involved in deriving Kepler Laws of planatery motion. We are finding a lot of difficulty and can't visualize this theorem. You once made a very fantastic short duration video on dot product and cross product . So please make a video on scalar triple product and specially VECTOR TRIPLE PRODUCT in future. But please try to make this video faster as we are struck in our vector textbooks struggling to visualize this theorem.
Yes do this fast.
Thanks, Qaseem. I will add that to my list of topics for future videos.
Best explanation of archimedes principle
Thanks for the compliment about my explanation.
This channel is my addiction
Thank you so much prof Eugene.
Fantastic video! 2 critiques:
1. You don't explain why the change in the shape of container (6:32) doesn't change the pressure in this model. You do later show the lateral forces, but it is not explained in a video by this particular model.
2. At 9:10 you don't explain that the weight (I hope I am using the correct term) of an object with twice the density will be decreased by the same amount as the weight of the fluid it displaces. It would be cool if you did, especially using this model.
Thanks for the video. If I have time later, I will translate to Polish. Very busy day today.
Thanks for the compliment. Regarding your first point, I don't explain it with words, but I explain it with the pictures and animations, such as the animation of the spheres bouncing around inside three containers of three different shapes. Regarding the second point, I don't state this, but it can be inferred from the statement made earlier about the net upward pressure on an object. Thanks again.
Actually the horizontal vectors were representing thermal vibrations. Did you see that the spheres on top were trying to evaporate and undergoing less collisions per second. But they were again pulled back by gravity . If these were air molecules of atomic gases present above the surface they would have evaporated the liquid with the passage of time .Some of the air (atmospheric gas) spheres would also have been entrapped in the empty spaces between liquid spheres . It tells us that if there was no air present on the surface of liquid the liqiud molecules will never go farther away from the surface of the liquid. In reply to your question in a video by Eugene titled " thermodynamics and the end of the universe " you can see that objects at higher elevations have hight gravitational potential energy and therefore create more motion as they fall and I loved the way sir Eugene presented this fact in this video by dropping totally static fluid into different containers. As these spheres will fall the energy boxes will be distributed evenly amoung all the spheres and all spheres gradually gain same mechanical energy (kinetic + potential energy content) (No energy boxes will be dissipated as heat and thereby there will be no sensation of heat in this animation). To understand the concept of kinetic energy see the video of sir Eugene on Bernoulli principle . Now i want to tell you that the fluid is not static as the molecules of the bottom are constantly colliding with each other in the horizontal direction and the walls of the container are balancing these forces. As the energy boxes are evenly distributed amoung all shperes the shperes at high attitude will have more gravitational potential energy boxes than kinetic energy boxes and the spheres at the bottom have more kinetic energy boxes than gravitational potential energy boxes and the pressure (from collisions of molecules with one another and with the walls of the container) is determined by kinetic energy boxes and has nothing to do with gravitational potential energy boxes. So the molecules at bottom (having more kinetic energy) have greater velocity (greater "horizontal" and vertical components of velocity) than the molecules at the top. It is actually kinetic molecular theory with the exception of including gravity in this case without including heat transfer. If there is no gravity and the container is closed then the pressure of the fluid will be same throughout. I hope if sir Eugene liked my reply. I am very happy that sir Eugene is making videos on fluid mechanics on my and many other people's request .
Can you explain why pressure stays the same even if the shape of the container changes like you said at 6:25 . I’m confused on why pressure would be the same if there are less molecules of the fluid pushing down.
Also I noticed how at 6:46 you have an image of pressure being sideways, could you also explain to me why pressure would act sideways if gravity pulls down and the molecules push each other up to balance this.
I didn't explain this with words, but I explained it with the pictures and animations, such as the animation of the spheres bouncing around inside three containers of three different shapes. It is because each sphere is undergoing thermal vibrations, and hitting all of its neighbors.
@@EugeneKhutoryansky Does the sideways pressure between the spheres increase with depth like the vertical pressure? I have to admit that I am confused on why the pressure from thermal vibrations would be the same as the pressure from depth and having to support the weight of spheres above.
Each vibrating sphere will exert approximately the same force on all its neighbors in all directions. The only difference is that it will exert a slightly larger pressure on the molecules below due to gravity.
I have nothing to comment, but I want more people to see this channel, so here I am :D
6:32 where is extra upward forces came from for 3 columns on right side? 2 molecules = 2 forces
its probably due to bouncing here
Face reveal videos and behind the scenes videos are sometimes popular with channels like these. It gives the channel a personal touch and helps people see all the time and effort that goes into making these videos.
I don't think I will ever appear in person in any of the videos on this channel, but there is a video of me on my Facebook page. Thanks.
@@EugeneKhutoryansky
Cool. Thx for the reply. Maybe I’ll check it out. It was just a random thought. I think whenever people watch videos that don’t show any faces, human nature is inherently curious about who the people behind the vids. I figure I’m not the only one that’s curious about the genius that creates these things. At any rate, total respect. Oh, also, the reason I was thinking a face reveal or a behind the scenes vid may help is because when people see the person behind these creations, it creates a level of empathy and humanity for your hard work and may lead to more patreon supporters. Dunno, just a thought.
Friendly to non-English-native speakers who want to learn more about physics, thx :)
Perfect explanation of Archimedes Principle. 👌👌#LoveofPhysics.
Thanks. Glad you liked my explanation.
This stuff is amazing! great science with legit explanations and graphics
Thanks.
Can you make a video of your process preparing these lectures one day? Like a vlog? Love your channel
Maybe one day. Thanks.
Great video, keep up the great work!
The video say all about makers hardwork.
Great work To clear concept.
Thanks for the compliment.
6:33 I don't get how the molecules on the right are at the same pressure, you can clearly see that there is nothing on top of them falling down and exerting pressure. The part of the container that is on top of them is not falling due to gravity. Can you clarify?
I didn't explain this with words, but I explained it with the pictures and animations, such as the animation of the spheres bouncing around inside three containers of three different shapes.
Here is an explanation in words from the apperentice of Eugene khutoryansky. Actually the horizontal vectors were representing thermal vibrations. Did you see that the spheres on top were trying to evaporate and undergoing less collisions per second. But they were again pulled back by gravity . If these were air molecules of atomic gases present above the surface they would have evaporated the liquid with the passage of time .Some of the air (atmospheric gas) spheres would also have been entrapped in the empty spaces between liquid spheres . It tells us that if there was no air present on the surface of liquid the liqiud molecules will never go farther away from the surface of the liquid. In reply to your question in a video by Eugene titled " thermodynamics and the end of the universe " you can see that objects at higher elevations have hight gravitational potential energy and therefore create more motion as they fall and I loved the way sir Eugene presented this fact in this video by dropping totally static fluid into different containers. As these spheres will fall the energy boxes will be distributed evenly amoung all the spheres and all spheres gradually gain same mechanical energy (kinetic + potential energy content) (No energy boxes will be dissipated as heat and thereby there will be no sensation of heat in this animation). To understand the concept of kinetic energy see the video of sir Eugene on Bernoulli principle . Now i want to tell you that the fluid is not static as the molecules of the bottom are constantly colliding with each other .
Good video. I believe it should have a quick mention that the level of the liquid raises by the amount corresponding to the objects submerged (totally or in part) - the liquid is only displaced, not compressed, so it goes somewhere else, raising the level, even if only so slightly. Also, showing the liquid at molecular or atomic level and the objects at a much larger scale, with molecules / atoms not visible, is somewhat incorrect, although it does help to convey the image of what is going on. The most important part of the concept starts at 4:43 - the balance of forces determines floatability.
Jose Silveira Actually the horizontal vectors were representing thermal vibrations. Did you see that the spheres on top were trying to evaporate and undergoing less collisions per second. But they were again pulled back by gravity . If these were air molecules of atomic gases present above the surface they would have evaporated the liquid with the passage of time .Some of the air (atmospheric gas) spheres would also have been entrapped in the empty spaces between liquid spheres . It tells us that if there was no air present on the surface of liquid the liqiud molecules will never go farther away from the surface of the liquid. In reply to your question in a video by Eugene titled " thermodynamics and the end of the universe " you can see that objects at higher elevations have hight gravitational potential energy and therefore create more motion as they fall and I loved the way sir Eugene presented this fact in this video by dropping totally static fluid into different containers. As these spheres will fall the energy boxes will be distributed evenly amoung all the spheres and all spheres gradually gain same mechanical energy (kinetic + potential energy content) (No energy boxes will be dissipated as heat and thereby there will be no sensation of heat in this animation). To understand the concept of kinetic energy see the video of sir Eugene on Bernoulli principle . Now i want to tell you that the fluid is not static as the molecules of the bottom are constantly colliding with each other .
Nicely explained.
Thanks.
@@EugeneKhutoryansky does upthrust depend upon density of object ??And if then how.??
Hugs from Brazil.
I think a connection can be drawn between Archimedes' principle and convection. In a container that contains just one type of fluid molecules (helium, for fun) a clump of molecules within that region that has a higher temperature will have a lower density than the the surrounding molecules. So convection is just an extension of buoyancy.
If we really want to stretch an analogy to its limits, we could probably draw a connection between convection and the Brazil nut effect. If you take a can of mixed nuts and shake it for a while, without changing the orientation of the can, the larger nuts will tend to collect at the top while the smaller nuts find their way to the bottom, regardless of the density of those nuts. Of course, there are a lot more factors involved. Even when shaken to simulate Brownian motion, a bunch of solid objects packed loosely in a container does not behave quite like a liquid or a gas. We can easily picture, for example, how bits of sand would bias toward the bottom of a container of gravel, simply because there are spaces between the gravel where it can fit. So the collisions are more complex to describe, but it's an interesting principle.
Great as always. Thank You
Thanks.
Here i am again. Basically studying fluid mechanics with you. Thnks.
ps:just to be clear, i fell again for a physics video.
I am glad you like my videos. Thanks.
@@EugeneKhutoryansky like is an euphemism. You have no idea how much you helped me through high school and still helps at university. thank you, my brother.
Thanks for a great view of physics with your eyes.
Thanks.
Anything related to "ELECTROMAGNETIC THEORY" would be helpful. As an electronics engineering student this is one of the most difficult topics.
Would be really helpful if this topic videos are possible
I already have many videos on that topic. For example, you may want to watch my video "Electromagnetism - Maxwell's Laws" at ruclips.net/video/9Tm2c6NJH4Y/видео.html
I love how the confusion of years hot cleared up in really just some seconds
Wow you are back Eugene with your out of the world videos. Stay blessed man. Love you.
Excellent Eugene
Thanks. Glad you liked it.
This simulation is amazing, thank you!
Glad you liked it. Thanks.
Well done sir. Sir I wana say something . You are my mentor and when people post negative comments about your videos I take their words to my heart. I don't wana say that your video is unsatisfying but it is rather incomplete most people are still confused about horizontal force vectors and how liquid spheres can exert still the same pressure (as the layer of identical height) even if there is no liquid or solid box exerting pressure on its top . Sir I suggest you to make another video on this but now by attaching energy boxes to all spheres . I loved your simulation technique to first show static fluid ( in which all shperes were initially at rest) and then you threw the static fluid in all containers . According to the simulation of energy boxes the top spheres of fluid have more gravitational potential energy boxes attached to them as compared to the lower spheres . As you will make the static fluid to fall into the container the gravitational potential energy boxes start converting into kinetic energy boxes. It is up to you whether you distinguish between the gravitational potential energy boxes and the kinetic energy boxes with colour or something else. When all the liquid spheres will fall into the container all the energy boxes will be distributed evenly amoung all spheres ( the total number of energy boxes per sphere will be equal but the gravitational potential energy boxex per sphere will be less at the bottom layers of the fluid and more at the top layers of the fluid and kinetic energy boxes per sphere will be more at bottom layers of the fluid and less at the top layers of the fluid but the total energy boxes (potential + kinetic) per shpere is same throughout the fluid after all the fluid has been poured into a tank . The pressure in both horizontal and vertical direction of the fluid is determined by the amount of kinetic energy boxes present and it has nothing to do with the amount of gravitational potential energy boxes. It is actually kinetic molecular theory including gravitational field effect. Sir I hope you will clear the misconceptions and doubts of your viewers by this technique in our simulation. I hope you are safe and sound in Houston . Please clear the doubts of your viewers and subscribers it will be your great contribution. I will bevery happy if you make a video on kinetic molecular theory for liquids and gases (sensation of heat and origin of temperature ) and then simulate it with and without gravitational field effect. May you be in peace. Take care of yourself.
Thanks for the suggestion. I will need to think about how to animate that. With so many things happening in the animation at once, it may be hard for the viewers to distinguish the two different types of energy boxes. Perhaps if I zoomed in and showed just a few particles in slow motion this might be possible. Thanks.
Physics Videos by Eugene Khutoryansky (my mentor) I am sure that you will find a much better way to aminate it but some of your audience had a long debate with me regarding the violation of second of thermodynamics . So I suggest you to animate the particles of the fluid with (gravitational potential) energy boxes attached to them before throwing the fluid into the container. You not need to show the conversion of gravitational potential energy into kinetic energy. Just do the same as you did with an object falling from high elevations distributing its energy boxes evenly throughout the static particles creating motion in them on collision with the static particles present in the container below in your video of "second law of thermodynamics and the end of the universe" . So just at the instant when the particles of the fluid will hit the bottom surface of the container you can distribute the evergy boxes evenly throughout the particles . After that you can say that the particles of the fluid with are highter have more energy boxes of gravitational potential energy than the kinetic energy boxes. The you need no more to say about energy boxes and simulate according to your own point of view. Sir I will humbly request you to attach thermometers with different points along the walls of the container as many of my friends are saying that the layers of fluid below must have more temperature as temperature is directly proportional to pressure and pressure is depending upon kinetic energy . Sir even I can't answer their question as the second law of thermodynamics state that all objects will eventually reach the same temperature and doesn't temperature means energy boxes per particle ? My question here is if the temperature is same throughout the container does it mean that the gravitational potential energy boxes also account for temperature or only kinetic energy boxes account for temperature ? Here a contradiction is taking place this means that even after the collsion of all the particles of the fluid with the surface of the liquid there will be no distribution of energy boxes 😕😕☹️☹️😟 . Sir I am getting hopelessly confused with this question asked by my friends and you (my mentor) are the last hope for me. 😭😭😭
Sir I think that the only possible solution now is to make a video on kinetic molecular theory of fluids (both gases and liquid) and explain it in detail first (you not need to derive it) that the pressure and temperature is same throughout the fluid (I think the fluid is not a liquid when no gravity is present anyway I am not sure) but as soon as gravity is introduced in the case the pressure in the fluid is not same throughout . Does it also mean that the temperature is also not same throughout and it increases like pressure as we go deeper ?
The biggest reason I can give for the increase in temperature with depth is conventional currents in fluids. Ask yourself for a minute what is the phenomenon which doesn't let liquids to become static...... It is the continuous conventional currents which occur due to the fact that lower layers of fluid have high temperature due to more pressure . The lower layers of fluid due to high temperature tend to come to the surface in the form of conventional currents. If I am wrong then why the atmosphere above Earth's surface behaves in this way ? Why the magma inside the Earth also behaves in the same way that the lower layers of magma are at high temperature that the higher layers even though the gravitational acceleration decreases as we go to the centre of the earth ? What is the reason of conventional currents from the core of the earth towards the molten mantle of the Earth? Are conventional currents the reason of magnetic field of the earth ? Just think patiently. Sir you are my mentor so if I am wrong please correct me I will be very grateful to you.
Good explanation
Thanks.
Eugene , great work
Thanks for the compliment.
Love these as always.
Thanks.
Your channel is amazing. The only bad thing is that it takes too long for a video to come out
Thanks for the compliment. I make all the animations for my videos myself. In many cases, it takes me several months of work to create the animations for a single video, so please be patient. Thanks.
If you ever doubted that 1% of the population provides 99% of the wisdom and inspiration to the world, behold Eugene !
Unbelievably cool video!!
Thanks.
Always wonderful work :)
Thanks.
gosh I love you guys so much!
Thanks.