Recent content by SlowProgress

Thank you for the response. Pardon my asking again, but this sort of reminds me of the intuition I was speaking about. We all understand it. Isn't this now intuitive for all of us? What component makes the second law not intuitive? I just explained how intuitive it is for all of us, yet somehow...

It just seems odd, anyone who wants to injure another through a flying projectile knows to exert enough force so that it travels faster than the force required to make it move relatively slower. This acceleration component is already covered. He knows that the heavier the ball, with the same...

That was all I needed to know. Something is so clear to me that I cannot believe anyone else cannot arrive at the same idea. Thank you for covering up a lot of what I was waiting for after all of the implicit accusations of egotism.

Also, what other mechanisms were considered? Looking at a collision, only a few things are considered: the weight of the vehicle and the speed at which it was moving.

I fail to reach the point you are trying to make. That has no relevance to what this thread is about. I say it is intuitive because I see it as intuitive. I've stopped to think about it and cannot think about it and break it down any further. I am coming to this forum for clarification, but all...

By the way, I love that "experts" are arguing over interpretations of something already established. Gives me and my scatterbrained mind some confidence.

"Why is it intuitive?" I think of it as intuitive because a push of any object is a lot easier than the same force applied to something heavier. One might readily deduce that the mass and acceleration produced are proportional. Maybe not the m1/m2 = a2/a1 part (which implies that the magnitudes...

What kind of "testing"? It's difficult to "test against reality" if you'll get a different outcome every time! Thanks for the responses. I'm happy to get some insight. Also, I think I have misdefined "directly proportional" and "proportional". I always thought of directly proportional to be...

Right, that cleared up a lot of my confusion. But the question still remains. How did Newton go about proving its validity? I imagine it can really only be done by empirical experimentation, which alone is difficult to do because it's difficult to determine if you are applying an equal force...

Oh, so you mean it's not intuitive in that it was previously unknown if it was directly proportional over mere proportionality (alternatively, and respectively, an equal growth in magnitude for both factors over a mere increase by an unknown ratio)? In that respect, I understand, it really...

Hi, question here. Newton's second law is so intuitively obvious to anyone not even hearing or reading his law in words that it makes me wonder: how was it such a great revelation that many years ago? Pardon my ignorance, but I'm very curious.

Wait does x_0 apply to all radii within the circle? Did he just indicate that the radius, not at the specific spot along the x axis, is x_0? If this is the case, I understand my confusion. And the formula just happens to work now.

But how is the projection of the maximal amplitude on the the x-axis xocosθ? I thought you use cosine when you want to determine vector components that make up the position of a point along the circle. He says in the video that to determine the position of the particle along the x axis, you...

Homework Statement At 16:30 he writes (x sub 0)(cosine theta). Is x sub 0 the vertical component length of the position vector of the particle? When he labels x sub 0 a little while before, it looks as though x sub 0 is at the radial point along the x axis. How can you use x sub 0 cosine theta...