how would i find speed down an incline?
do u mean the speed of a object that was let go from the top of the incline and the speed wanted in the speed of the object at the bottom?the_d said:how would i find speed down an incline?
Depends on what is given.the_d said:how would i find speed down an incline?
In the mildest case,that could be considered an oxymoron.Conservation of energy is appliable for conservative forces,only...So your "nonconservative cases" sounds really dubious.marlon said:(...)conservation of total energy in both conservative and non-conservative cases.(...)
Maybe to you, but what the heck... who cares ?dextercioby said:In the mildest case,that could be considered an oxymoron.Conservation of energy is appliable for conservative forces,only...So your "nonconservative cases" sounds really dubious.
What a mature post dexter, it's getting better by the minute.dextercioby said:Thank God you're not doing a PhD in classical Newtonian mechanics...
:rofl: ohh, that's so sad...dextercioby said:You show many gaps for a PhD stud.,but i guess that's the rule in Belgium.
I don't believe you. Besides regurgitating posh sounding names does not qualify as real physics dexter. that's why YOU are not fit for a PhD anywhere :rofl:I've seen a PhD stud at KUL who had no idea about functional derivatives.He had never heard of Fréchet and Gâteaux derivatives,yet he was trying to explain to the students how to derive Euler-Lagrange eqns...That's sad.
This is a perfect example of what i am trying to say. I am convinced that you prefer to second name, yet it is completely worthless. Indeed Lagrange found out these equations but the 'method' in the second name is certainly NOT essential to these equations.I can assure you, one can derive the Euler Lagrange equations without whining about this Gâteaux rubbish. You see, don't complain if somebody does not know a concept in that specific formulation and don't complain about a concept that is NOT fundamental within a certain context. if you keep working like this, you will find yourself complaining about everything. You, yourself don't do anything, you just complain about others, yet it's 'the others' that do all the work. You are no physicist dexter, you are a bad historian,...That's not an insult, it's the truth...I really wonder what you do there at the KUL, though i have my doubts whether you are really following all these subjects of the fourth year.dextercioby said:If you were to discover something one day (by accident,or by work,or even by absurd),wouldn't u like to be remembered for that?
Why do we call them Lagrange eqns. and not "the ODE-s that come out when imposing Gâteaux derivative of the Lagrangian action equal to 0,under certain boundary conditions
No, no,no, again you got it all wrong. i'd be more then glad if someone points out the gaps in my preparation. It's just that your actual 'pointing out' is incorrect 95% of the times. THAT is the point, which you don't seem to get.dextercioby said:May i add,future professor Nikolaas,that i really hope u won't bump into a student like me one day,i student who'd show his teacher the gaps in his (professor's) preparation...?
Agreed, same goes for yourself plus the 'Galilei-formula' , plus vacuum fluctuations and we end by a marvellous syntaxis-capability...dextercioby said:In that eenie-weenie 5% i guess we can add setting acceleration equal to force,then?And those traceless SU(3) matrix?
Good point amigo. i was NOT referring to that...Do i need to provide you with a link ???dextercioby said:Mr.[itex] APXIMN\Delta N \Sigma [/itex],it's SYNTAX...
So i have noticed. Don't worry, i know that happens a lot to youdextercioby said:I'm running low on inspiration today.