Recent content by DrBanana

Yes I suppose A.P. French's book is the one I'm looking for. I think I've also figured out the source of confusion regarding the scientific method part. I don't know what it's like in the book, but I must've come across the following review on Amazon a few months ago and forgot that it was in...

Sorry I wasn't clear. I would like to know the name of the book, because I can't remember.

I remember coming across a textbook (that is also mentioned somewhere here on this forum) that is old, out of print, and doesn't even use SI units (it uses CGS units as far as I remember). There are two points I remember: - It outlined the scientific process first. - Unlike modern textbooks...

Also, the change in potential energy is the negative of the work done by the gravitational force because potential energy is defined that way (and it can be defined that way because the gravitational force is a conservative force).

I also want to know why we can use the pressure of the atmosphere. Is it because of the following reasoning: If W, F and delta s are work, force (on the atmosphere) and displacement, respectively, then : ##W=F\Delta s## ##W=\frac{F}{A} A \Delta s##, ##A## is some cross sectional area ##W=P...

Thanks. Concerning the original problem, the correct answer is , right?

I'm not OP but I'm having trouble with this as well. Here are my attempts at answers to your questions: 1. Assuming the spring constant is ##k## and its length is changed by ##x##, then the tensile force is ##kx##. 2. The spring is said to be ideal (massless) so it's nonsensical to ask what...

Ok I think I understand what happened. My physics book doesn't touch on vector calculus and only mentions ##E=-\frac{dV}{dr}##, however most of the forces in the book only have radial components anyway so it didn't matter. But that broke down here.

##\vec{E}## on the line that perpendicularly bisects the segment that joins two equal and opposite charges is non-zero, as it should be. But the potential of any point along that line is zero. But we know know that ##E=-\frac{dV}{dr} ##, where V is approximately ##\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon}...

Can you mention some examples of these errors?

Isn't Morin's book like this?

So, even without this definition, it is possible to show that ##\int dy= \int f'(x)dx##, where dy and dx just tell you with respect to which variable we're integrating. My question is, is it possible to think of the ##dy## in the integral as a linear approximation along a tangent curve like you...

I know this is straying away from the topic of the thread, but don't there come times when you need to predict things that can't be tested beforehand but are mission critical?

Is this only true for spatial dimensions?

Both, I suppose, but more emphasis on the correct prediction of the physical aspect by the derived mathematical formula (well as far as you can go without resorting to experiment). I guess if you study more advanced physics of course you have to get experimental results but my main focus is on...