Recent content by PhysicsKid703

BvU I have the same picture in mind. The vector sum of both the r*alpha acceleration and the acceleration of c.o.m, possessed by point of contact should give zero, assuming surface to be at rest. The terminology of tangential etc I presume is best used for pure rolling or circular motion, when...

I see. My bad, I wasn't trying to be cocky or anything, I just said it without thinking. You're right, a simple yes or no question is difficult to ask. So just to reiterate and confirm, The tangential acceleration of the point in contact should be equated to zero, and that is the vector sum of...

Haha I'm not sure, but in the end it's just terminology and personal preference I guess, switching up linear and tangential. I guess it would be best to say total(net) acceleration is the vector sum of its tangential and radial components.

Homework Statement Purely a conceptual/ terminology question, a simple yes or no will suffice :) In circular motion, will a point on its circumference will have a LINEAR acceleration which can be broken into two components- the RADIAL component which is v2/r and the TANGENTIAL component which...

That's what I had initially thought, that there must be some torque to move the sun, but I've completely understood it. Thanks!

Ohh wow, that is extremely interesting and something I never would have intuitively thought of. Thank you so much!

Homework Statement if the distance between the Earth and the sun were to be cut in half, what would be the number of days in the year? Homework EquationsThe Attempt at a Solution I can solve this question using simple centripetal force = gravitational force of attraction and then halving the...

Homework Statement Before anything, please address this first question: Angular momentum, at least for pure rotation, is defined about the axis of rotation only, correct? [/B] We are given a wooden ring of mass M, radius R. I place a small particle of mass M on its circumference. Now the wooden...

Gotcha. Thanks for everything man!

Like in this sum? How does it prove false?

I see. That diagram makes things quite clear. How will I know, in future questions, whether the boxes will accelerate?

But on a simple table top, if max friction is, let's say, 100N, and we exert a force of 10N on a body, isn't the force of static friction adjusted to 10N there?

Ohhhkay, so you're saying that a) 4N kinetic friction on 3kg block isn't enough to overcome the 18N, therefore b) static friction acts between 7kg and 3kg c) this static friction is something less than 18N. One last thing, why isn't the static friction exactly equal to the 4N acting in the...

Agh I'm confused. Could you explain the concept? If we have two blocks on top of each other, and we exert a force less than uN on the top block, won't the friction adjust itself the the value of the applied force and hence leave the top block at rest while the bottom accelerates? I find this...

The force due to the first block on the second block is 4N, so won't the friction between the second and the third try to oppose this, and be able to do so since the max it can give is 18? Won't it self adjust to give a 4N frictional force?