Recent content by Daymare

What I meant to say was that the acceleration of block A is more than the acceleration of block B.What force makes B accelerate?Its the kinetic friction.The forces acting on block A are the kinetic friction between block A and the ground,the kinetic friction between block A and B and also the...

1)No,we will have to apply a force more than the kinetic friction between A and the ground.You need to consider the static friction between A and B too. 2)Now for this when both blocks are moving with constant velocity there is no force between them.You are imagining that if B has to move A...

1)No,we will have to apply a force more than the kinetic friction between A and the ground.You need to consider the static friction between A and B too. 2)Now for this when both blocks are moving with constant velocity there is no force between them.You are imagining that if B has to move A...

:),aerospace engineer and nuclear scientist! Both are my dream jobs,welcome to physicsforums

hey there Wei-Ting.Welcome to physicsforums

You seem to be confused into thinking that angles AOC and angle BOC are equal because the two triangles are congruent.But its actually the angles ACO and BOC;AOC and BCO that are equal.

You need to apply momentum conservation here.From the perspective of the ground both the bullet and the rifle were initially at rest.Now after firing the relative velocity of the bullet is 601m/s relative to the rifle which has a relative velocity of 1.95m/s with respect to the ground.So what is...

If you are looking to have a very good conceptual grasp I recommend Feynman Lectures on Physics.It doesn't involve too much maths and explains things in a way that really makes you want to know more about the subject.

Welcome to a community that's ready to help no matter what.Btw I am new too.

If you are beginning to learn thermodynamics you should go for Schroeder

I think the difficulty here lies in imagining anything accelerating greater than g without moving too much.Good way of looking at this would be to imagine that when you pull the string suddenly the bottom and lower string elongating a bit.The force causes the string A to elongate and break...

The main reason is its much easier to accelerate spacecraft by gravity thrust than by burning up fuel.Moreover just imagine the amount of fuel it would take if the voyager was propelled by fuel!Not very cost effective or practical either.

You could define it as 0

If your string A breaks it means,force on it was larger than that on B.This would imply a>g,hence I think your reasoning is correct.

Why is it that we don't define operations like 0*infinity and 0/infinity etc.They do occur in maths.Is it because defining these things causes inconsistencies?