- #1
Hari Seldon
- 5
- 1
Is that possible to derive the Navier-Stokes equations with Lagrangian and Hamiltonian methods? If yes, how? and if it is not possible, why?
A Deriving Navier-Stokes: Lagrangian & Hamiltonian Methods
- A
- Thread starter Hari Seldon
- Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the possibility of deriving the Navier-Stokes equations using Lagrangian and Hamiltonian methods. Participants express that while there are resources available online, they seek a more structured approach involving generalized coordinates and kinetic energy calculations. It is noted that the Navier-Stokes equations involve energy dissipation, complicating their derivation through these methods. A reference to Peter Constantin's work suggests an Eulerian-Lagrangian approach may be viable. Ultimately, the conversation reflects a desire for clarity on the application of these mathematical frameworks to fluid dynamics.
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Hello!
I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below.
Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces:
$$
\begin{cases}
F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\
F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2}
\end{cases}.
$$
On the other hand...
Similar threads
Hot Threads
-
I Explain Bernoulli at the molecular level?
- Started by user079622
- Replies: 251
- Classical Physics
-
B Simple mass/scale puzzle
- Started by DaveC426913
- Replies: 206
- Classical Physics
-
I How deep does it need to go for a physics theory to be consistent?
- Started by Aleberto69
- Replies: 50
- Classical Physics
-
I Solving a momentum problem where masses change after the collision
- Started by rdemyan
- Replies: 35
- Classical Physics
-
B Torque Calculation - Not a basic application
- Started by TeeBeeCee
- Replies: 37
- Classical Physics
Recent Insights
-
Insights Quantum Entanglement is a Kinematic Fact, not a Dynamical Effect
- Started by Greg Bernhardt
- Replies: 7
- Quantum Physics
-
Insights What Exactly is Dirac’s Delta Function? - Insight
- Started by Greg Bernhardt
- Replies: 0
- General Math
-
Insights Relativator (Circular Slide-Rule): Simulated with Desmos - Insight
- Started by Greg Bernhardt
- Replies: 0
- Special and General Relativity
-
Insights Fixing Things Which Can Go Wrong With Complex Numbers
- Started by PAllen
- Replies: 7
- General Math
-
Insights Fermat's Last Theorem
- Started by fresh_42
- Replies: 78
- General Math
-
Insights Why Vector Spaces Explain The World: A Historical Perspective
- Started by fresh_42
- Replies: 0
- General Math