#newtons law of motion

[odinsblog]

[davidaugust]

3rd law joke

[bumblebeebat22]

flying or high jumping is a common discussion with the jedi but i fully believe jedi have the capability to fly and also stick to walls like spiderman

let me explain

to fly a jedi would stand with their palms facing the ground, iron man style, and push the planet away from themselves as hard as they can

the planet would be WAY too heavy to move but there's still force pushing so they would go flying upwards

i guess it wouldn't be flying as much as it is keeping themselves from falling by continuously pushing the planet away but they'd probably move pretty fast if they pushed at an angle and basically jumped mid air

double jump but with the force

now, sticking to walls

the only way for it to work the wall, or any big object, would have to be very sturdy and heavier than the jedi can move. the jedi would stand in front of the wall and pull the wall towards themselves

again, it would be too heavy for themselves to actually move it so they would get pulled towards it

and as long as they continue to pull the wall towards themselves, they'd be able to scale it

and i guess this wouldn't be sticking as much as... suctioning(?) themselves to the wall

i know that's already kind of done in jedi fallen order and jedi survivor when cal does the wall run so it's not a far stretch

and it could even work the other way, they could get away from a dangerous situation by jumping out a window or something and push the entire building away from them so they shoot far away and then push against the planet less and less until they get down to the ground slowly and relatively safely

[tenth-sentence]

With a handful of mathematical equations, he synthesized everything known about motion on earth and in the heavens, and in so doing, composed the score for what has come to be known as classical physics.

"The Fabric of the Cosmos" - Brian Greene

[forzafinally]

Maybe these drivers should stay in school for longer periods of time.....

[caramelmochacrow]

finished test 2..... now I can write (kind of)

[dark-night-of-the-clownfish]

[old-anime-refs]

Macross (1982)

Ichijou Hikaru throwing a weight to catch a tuna in space.

[therealdostoevsky]

real MFS don't know the second law of motion

[thebirdandhersong]

You wouldn't think a professor could make comparing Plato, Aristotle, and Craig's cosmological arguments (with a bit of thermodynamics and metaphysics in there for some spice) interesting to me just by standing there and talking but this madman (read: the Best Philosophy Prof Ever) has managed it. He's such a good teacher 😭😭 I had a brief moment of insanity where I actually CONSIDERED taking physics next year because he made it sound so fun

[allaboutyoupostnthings]

Overcoming Fear: Unlocking Your True Potential

I saw this poem somewhere, and its words resonated within me, making me realize that often what holds us back is not our skill set or many other self-limiting beliefs or thoughts that we impose on ourselves but our own fear. Often I can not help but to think of the passage in the Bible about the size of a mustard seed and the ability to move mountains (Matthew 17:20). I realize that I surely need…

[whats-in-a-sentence]

Although there are a few subtleties I've relegated to the endnotes, this conclusion is general.² All the known and accepted laws relating to motion – from Newton's mechanics just discussed, to Maxwell's electromagnetic theory, to Einstein's special and general theories of relativity (remember, we are putting off quantum mechanics until the next chapter) – embody time-reversal symmetry: motion that can occur in the usual forward-time direction can equally well occur in reverse.

2. For the mathematically inclined reader, let me note more precisely what is meant by time-reversal symmetry and point out one intriguing exception whose significance for the issues we're discussing in this chapter has yet to be fully settled. The simplest notion of time-reversal symmetry is the statement that a set of laws of physics is time-reversal symmetric if any given solution to the equations, say S(t), then S(-t) is also a solution to the equations. For instance, in Newtonian mechanics, with forces that depend on particle positions, if x(t) = (x1(t), x2(t), . . . , x3n(t)) are the positions of n-particles in three space dimensions, turn the fact that x(t) solves d²x(t)/dt² = F(x(t)) implies that x(-t) is also a solution to Newton's equations, i.e. d²x(-t)/dt² = F(x(-t)). Notice that x(-t) represents particle motion that passes through the same positions as x(t), but in reverse order, with reverse velocities.

More generally, a set of physical laws provides us with an algorithm for evolving an initial state of a physical system at time t0 to some other time t + t0. Concretely, this algorithm can be viewed as a map U(t) which takes as input S(t0) and produces S(t + t0), that is: S(t + t0) = U(t)S(t0). We say that the laws giving rise to U(t) are time-reversal symmetric if there is a map T satisfying U(-t) = T^-¹·U(t)T. In English, this equation says that by a suitable manipulation of the state of the physical system at one moment (accomplished by T), evolution by an amount t forward in time according to the laws of theory (accomplished by U(t)) is equivalent to having evolved the system t units of time backward in time (denoted by U(-t)). For instance, if we supervise the state of a system of particles at one moment by their positions and velocities, then T would keep all particle positions fixed and reverse all velocities. Evolving such a configuration of particles forward in time by an amount t is equivalent to having evolved the original configuration of particles backward in time by an amount t. (The factor of T^-1 undoes the velocity reversal so that, at the end, not only are the particle positions what they would have been t units of time previously, but so are their velocities.)

For certain sets of laws, the T operation is more complicated than it is for Newtonian mechanics. For example, if we study the motion of charged particles in the presence of an electromagnetic field, the reversal of particle velocities would be inadequate for the equations to yield an evolution in which the particles retrace their steps. Instead, the direction of the magnetic field must also be reversed. (This is required so that the v × B term in the Lorentz force law equation remains unchanged.) Thus, in this case, the T operation encompasses both of these transformations. The fact that we have to do more than just reverse all particle velocities has no impact on any of the discussion that follows in the text. All that matters is that particle motion in one direction is just as consistent with the physical laws as particle motion in the reverse direction. That we have to reverse any magnetic fields that happen to be present to accomplish this is of no particular relevance.

Where things get more subtle is the weak nuclear interactions. The weak interactions are described by a particular quantum field theory (discussed briefly in Chapter 9), and a general theorem shows that quantum field theories (so long as they are local, unitary, and Lorentz invariant – which are the ones of interest) are always symmetric under the combined operations of charge conjugation C (which replaces particles by their antiparticles), parity P (which inverts positions through the origin), and a bare-bones time-reversal operation T (which replaces t by -t). So, we could define a T operation to be the product CPT, but if T invariance absolutely requires the CP operation to be included, T would be no longer simply interpreted as particles retracing their steps (since, for example, particle identities would be changed by such T – particles would be replaced by their antiparticles – and hence it would not be the original particles retracing their steps). As it turns out, there are some exotic experimental situations in which we are forced into this corner. There are certain particle species (K-mesons, B-mesons) whose repertoire of behaviors is CPT invariant but is not invariant under T alone. This was established indirectly in 1964 by James Cronin, Val Fitch, and their collaborators (for which Cronin and Fitch received the 1980 Nobel Prize) by showing that the K-mesons violated CP symmetry (ensuring that they must violate T symmetry in order not to violate CPT). More recently, T symmetry violation has been directly established by the CPLEAR experiment at CERN and the KTEV experiment at Fermilab. Roughly speaking, these experiments show that if you were presented with a film of the recorded processes involving these meson particles, you'd be able to determine whether the film was being projected in the correct forward time direction, or in reverse. In other words, these particular particles can distinguish between past and future. What remains unclear, though, is whether this has any relevance for the arrow of time we experience in everyday contexts. After all, these are exotic particles that can be produced for fleeting moments in high-energy collisions, but they are not a constituent of familiar material objects. To name physicists, including me, it seems unlikely that the time nonreversal invariance evidenced by these particles plays a role in answering the puzzle of time's arrow, so we shall not discuss this exceptional example fuller. But the truth is that no one knows for sure.

"The Fabric of the Cosmos" - Brian Greene

[tenth-sentence]

The differences in the observations between one accelerating observer and another are therefore no more surprising and provide no greater evidence of a change in nature's laws than do the differences you find when performing your gymnastics routine on earth or the moon.²

2. Newton's laws of motion are usually described as being relevant for "inertial observers," but turn one looks closely at how such observers are specified, it sounds circular: inertial observers are those observers for whom Newton's laws hold. A good way to think about what's really going on is that Newton's laws draw our attention to a large and particularly useful class of observers: those whose description of motion fits completely and quantitatively within Newton's framework. By definition, these are inertial observers. Operationally, inertial observers are those on whom no forces of any kind are acting – observers, that is, who experience no accelerations. Einstein's general relatively, by contrast, applies to all observers, regardless of their state of motion.

"The Fabric of the Cosmos" - Brian Greene

[edusupports]

Dynamic Track

Dynamic Track is designed for students to investigate or experimentally determine the relationships between force, mass, and acceleration . It provides an economical and convincing method to discover Newtons Second Law. Dynamic Track also can be used to carry investigations into momentum, elastic collisions, transfer of energy, straightforward periodic movement and etc. The results produced by this Dynamic Track is repeatable, collect and reliable on every occasion due to its distinctive style and prime quality. The smooth guide of the track ensures that the trolley runs straight with a minimum of friction.

Dynamic Track Investigating Newton’s Second Law by Dragging Paper Tape

Dynamic Track with Support Rod Investigating Force, Mass and Acceleration by Dragging Pape

Dynamic Track Investigating Force, Mass and Acceleration by Embedding Paper Tape

Upper Track and Lower Track Demonstrating Newton’s Second Law

[starkissedspirit]

Newton's Laws of Motion

1) "An object will not change its motion unless acted on by an unbalanced force."

A body remains at rest, or in motion at a constant speed in a straight line, except insofar as it is acted upon by a force.

2) "Force equals mass multiplied by acceleration."

The net force on a body is equal to the body's acceleration multiplied by its mass or, equivalently, the rate at which the body's momentum changes with time.

3) "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction"

If two bodies exert forces on each other, these forces have the same magnitude but opposite directions.

[irbcallmefynn]

Youre hug

^w^ You're hug too!!!