This part I don't understand. We are very clear that 1 is a finite number, and since we are clear on that, that's the only reason that we can say that 1= 0/0 is a false statement. Likewise, mass m is a finite number, but the formula m = F/a gives it as undefined. Would it be correct to say that...
Yes, I agree and I was already clear on that point. But I'm not able to work through as to how is it applicable in indentifying the error in saying that m is finite and undefined at the same time.
If F = 0 then a = 0. When the equation is written in the form F = m*a, it appears ok, that whatever the mass be, LHS and RHS of the equation are equal so no problem. But when the same equation is written in the form m = F/a, then m becomes undefined when F = 0 and a = 0. It occurs to me that...
I went through the wikipedia link that you've posted above. However, i couldn't find the term alternating steering input that you've mentioned. Could you kindly let me know what the the term alternating steering input means in the context of the bike.[/B]
K.E would be sum of rotational and translational kinetic energy. Gravity is a conservative force, and if there's no air resistance and assuming that no energy dissipation happens due to heat and sound etc, then K.E of falling stick = Rotational K.E about it's Center of mass + Translational K.E...
Somehow, I already had the understanding of the concept just not in the terms of "line of action" as being distinct from a vector. Though, technically it is more comprehensive to write it that way..
This comment of haruspex had me wondering, that what is the reasoning behind him saying that the...
I am already aware of all you've written in this post. I had even posted a picture of the situation in post#41 detailing where all the forces are applying in the situation of bike on the vertical wall..
I'm assuming that you are bringing the situation of seesaw. If I know the point of application of force (i.e the center of mass of that human) sitting on the left side of the seesaw, and if I know the distance between him and the hinge, then one can calculate the torque due to his weight about...
ok.. but I'm not able to see how that is significant in the topic of well of death in which theta is 90 degrees..?
In the photo of post#41, torque due to weight mg can only be balanced by the torque to centrifugal force(working in non-inertial frame of reference), as Normal reaction from the...
So, in the situation of a seesaw, if two people (of same weight) are sitting on the two sides of the seesaw, then their weight will have same direction(towards negative z axis), therefore, their weight vectors will be same, but since these two weights are not acting from the same point in space...
Line of action of the weight will be towards negative z axis, if we consider positive z axis towards sky and origin of coordinate system being the hinge in the middle of the seesaw. However, torque will be towards positive or negative y axis( depending upon which side of the seesaw we sit on)...
I had the understanding that a vector has inherent property of showing direction and a magnitude in that direction. Why couldn't that direction be considered a line of action..? Could you kindly let me know how i could learn more about this conundrum.
I would like to understand this further...
The bike is definitely angled, as I've seen in the videos and pics available on internet. But, I'm still trying to figure out how to understand it. When an object is on an incline, the reaction force from the surface is Normal to the surface. However...
From the wikipedia page that I had posted in post#13, I'm posting the relevant part here below. The part which is bothering me now is the line written in the image below: "Sometimes these coordinate-system dependent terms (in the expression for acceleration in polar coordinates(inertial frame of...