THANK YOU! So much easier to understand than text book chapters even after reading them several times.
@stepbystepscience
5 жыл бұрын
Textbooks can be very confusing. You are very welcome, thanks for watching and commenting.
@frankdimeglio8216
Жыл бұрын
@@stepbystepscience Einstein never nearly understood the mechanism of gravity. Einstein never nearly understood what is gravity. Einstein never nearly understood TIME. Einstein never nearly understood what is E=MC2. I have surpassed Einstein and Newton. FACTS. The coronal heating problem in solar physics relates to the question of why the temperature of the Sun's corona is millions of kelvins versus the thousands of kelvins of the surface. I have solved the problem. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). Inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). This CLEARLY explains what is E=MC2 AND F=MA ON BALANCE. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE) !! What is E=MC2 IS dimensionally consistent. What is GRAVITY IS, ON BALANCE, AN INTERACTION that cannot be shielded or blocked. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE (ON BALANCE). Accordingly, ON BALANCE, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution. “Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent WITH/AS what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE) !!!! Magnificent. Consider WHAT IS THE SUN ON BALANCE !!!! THINK. Consider why and how that there is something instead of nothing ON BALANCE. Consider what is THE EYE ON BALANCE. The first, second, AND third dimensions in/of/AS SPACE are BALANCED !!! (Consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE !!!) The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE !!!! TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). I have CLEARLY explained, ON BALANCE, how and why a given PLANET (including what is THE EARTH) sweeps out equal area in equal TIME. Great. By Frank Martin DiMeglio
@vinaypamm1
5 жыл бұрын
One of the best explanations that I have ever come across is your sir! Extremely lucid and clear. Looking forward to learning more concepts from you ! I am a physics Teacher.
@stepbystepscience
5 жыл бұрын
Thank for the great comment, coming from another teacher it means a lot to me.
@shilajitc.25D15
3 жыл бұрын
Thanks a lot! The concept got more clear to me now, this was a lot better than my textbook explanation...thanks a lot sir🙂🙏
@stepbystepscience
3 жыл бұрын
You are most welcome, glad it was helpful!
@GideonBoateng-sg8fm
2 ай бұрын
thank u sir for saving me
@stepbystepscience
2 ай бұрын
It's my pleasure, thanks for watching!
@Theunknown9977
6 жыл бұрын
And so as the object getting nearer to Earth decreases in potential energy, it converts into kinetic energy right? which is why it speeds up?
@ellielyndon1645
6 жыл бұрын
Yes. The potensial energy getting more positive as the object nearer to the earth. More far from earth the PE getting more negative
@yashasvijhala5620
3 жыл бұрын
Thank you sir
@stepbystepscience
3 жыл бұрын
You're very welcome
@MrsCAt-vt7iw
6 жыл бұрын
You have to take sometimes to relax.Nice video
@atheerkhalaf6987
4 жыл бұрын
good explanation
@stepbystepscience
4 жыл бұрын
Thanks for watching and commenting
@shahbazmughal3911
4 жыл бұрын
At 7:15 you can start to hear his computer gears heating up, that's how my brain feels doing physics
@rajendraprajapati6423
10 күн бұрын
The author is requested to explain the graph after mirroring along x axis... positive...you will be surprised 😲
@stepbystepscience
9 күн бұрын
Thanks for the comment.
@dariocline
5 жыл бұрын
makes so much sense now, thanks
@stepbystepscience
5 жыл бұрын
Great and thanks for letting me know
@atheerarrak80
4 жыл бұрын
Thanks so much , it helped a lot
@stepbystepscience
4 жыл бұрын
You are very welcome.
@rogerparker3422
3 жыл бұрын
A brilliant explanation - thank you!
@stepbystepscience
3 жыл бұрын
You're very welcome and thanks for the comment.
@aramish3037
Жыл бұрын
would you do a video on escape velocity?
@stepbystepscience
Жыл бұрын
Yes, and here is the link: kzitem.info/news/bejne/p66o0p-Xk4xpqYI
@m1ndsoul
4 жыл бұрын
great explanation
@stepbystepscience
4 жыл бұрын
Great, thanks for the comment.
@kellygotell1179
5 ай бұрын
So is potential energy of gravity similar in theory to voltage, potential energy of electricity or electrons?
@stepbystepscience
5 ай бұрын
Yes it is. Electric potential energy vs gravitational potential energy.
@Elitea20
4 жыл бұрын
My book talks about gravitational potential instead I’m so confused is it the same?
@stepbystepscience
4 жыл бұрын
Same thing.
@iandsouza519
5 жыл бұрын
Say that you have an object of 200kg on the surface of the earth and you find it’s GPE (-1.25x10^10J). But when you have a 400kg object on the surface of the earth, it’s GPE is -2.5x10^10J. Wouldn’t the bigger negative value of GPE mean it has less GPE? But it should have more GPE as it has an increased mass. I get the radius part, an increase in distance increases GPE meaning it becomes more positive (closer to zero) and a smaller distance becomes less positive (larger negative value). I also understand that the negative values are an indication of how much positive work that needs to be done to move it to infinity. But I don’t understand how increasing the mass increases GPE while the value becoming more negative, this contradicts the concept that a more negative number has less GPE.
@mrhatman675
4 жыл бұрын
Actually the exact opposite when it comes to r
@jyotsnasingh608
3 жыл бұрын
Sir thanks you very for such a nice 👌 explanation , sir kindly tell little bit about how do we get formula Gm1m2/r Please sir oblige
@thegamerfrominside
4 жыл бұрын
Hi I have a question that has been bugging me for almost a year. Is it possible to use a planets gravitional pull while in it's orbit to create a infinite resource. Don't know if my question is clear enough or maybe there is already an answer but this video is the closest to my question. It's driving me crazy. Pls help
@stepbystepscience
4 жыл бұрын
Good question...you could in theory convert energy from the motion of a planet but when you did that the planet would slow down or have to lose some of its energy some how.
@rameshthota5728
6 жыл бұрын
Superb sir tq
@stepbystepscience
6 жыл бұрын
You are very welcome.
@lekshmykanthgs8009
4 жыл бұрын
Thank you so much
@stepbystepscience
4 жыл бұрын
You're most welcome
@jubtech
3 жыл бұрын
Made my concept clear after several years of 'successful graduation', 😃
@stepbystepscience
3 жыл бұрын
Haha, glad it's clear now!
@AhmedSaeed99
2 жыл бұрын
what is the real relation between mass and gravitational potential energy
@stephanmasikini5999
6 жыл бұрын
This is so cool
@yh1565
3 жыл бұрын
But you did not answer why the negative sign exists. I can memorize the law and work with it. I just can't figure out why is there a negative sign?
@legendary_chicken
7 жыл бұрын
What if the object is beneath sea level and it will float up. Is the height the displacement between the initial point and and the sea surface
@glennmeeker1289
7 жыл бұрын
Legendary Chicken , Archimedes' Principle would be needed. Whereas, the magnitude of the buoyant force is set equal to the weight of the displaced fluid.
@legendary_chicken
7 жыл бұрын
Glenn Meeker How are you supposed to use buoyant law to find the energy? Is there no direct way of finding the potential energy?
@athulvinayak3328
6 жыл бұрын
good video
@saidur_abir
6 жыл бұрын
please try to reply my question. potential energy converts into work while decreasing the hight. but a negative work means work throw an external force. where the angle between the force and displacement is π rad. but here the work is done by the gravitational force. so the force and displacement is at same direction. so, why it is negative?
@ellielyndon1645
6 жыл бұрын
The force and displacement direction is opposite. The force is from center of earth. It do works on the object so the object engaged gravitational force to center of earth.
@nandagopaliyengar1258
2 жыл бұрын
I still cannot find reason for negative sign
@stepbystepscience
2 жыл бұрын
because the we define the potential energy to be zero when an object is infinitely far away.
@davehumphreys1725
6 жыл бұрын
Sadly, I'm still stuck on the statement you made when you said that the GPE is zero when 'the distance from the surface' is infinite. The bit I just can't get my head around is if you put h=infinity in PE=mgh, the PE appears to me to become infinite!! Why does this equation fail when h=infinity? How can this equation still be correct based on that fact? Another problem for me is why do the two equations have opposite algebraic signs for what is supposed to be the same quantity? The two equations seem, at least to my eye, to be completely contradictory!
@davehumphreys1725
6 жыл бұрын
Thanks for you reply Jeff, but, I seem to have a total mental block on this! [ sorry about that] The general equation is GPE = - (GMm)/r, where r= distance between the centres of M and m. From the maths, I can see that when r= infinity, GPE = 0. OK. Now, as m approaches M, at some point, r will become equal to h. But the algebraic sign of GPE is still negative. So, when r = h, how can the PE and the GPE be equal to each other if they have different signs?
@nicholasdsilva1832
4 жыл бұрын
@@davehumphreys1725 I might be late, but if you think of the PE = -G . m1 . m2 / r equation, if we think of r as an infinity, then no values of m1 or m2 can be big enough - so that PE does not exist, and increases as u move towards the other mass.
@nicholasdsilva1832
4 жыл бұрын
@Dave Humphreys Also, the equations have opposite signage, as in the PE = mgh equation, g is usually considered to be negative - making both negative equations :)
@lamimkader8823
6 жыл бұрын
is pe inversely proportional to r?
@stepbystepscience
6 жыл бұрын
Saifa Kader No, Directly proportional
@frankdimeglio8216
Жыл бұрын
Consistent WITH WHAT IS E=MC2 (AND TIME), “mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent WITH/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY. By Frank Martin DiMeglio
@mrhatman675
4 жыл бұрын
That diagram at 3.25 is wrong actually if you increase the height negative gravitational potentional energy increases because ΔGPE=GPEfinal-GPEinitial ΔGPE=G×M×m/r-G×M×m/r We can clearly see that GPEfinal is smaller than it s initial due to the r beeing bigger for that rason GPE actually increases negatively when you raise the r
@dragoscoco2173
5 ай бұрын
Energy is a conserved quantity. It is asinine to ever consider it negative.
@stepbystepscience
5 ай бұрын
With comments like that you should become a physics teacher.
@dragoscoco2173
4 ай бұрын
@@stepbystepscience True, but that would imply me teaching absurd theories.
@stepbystepscience
4 ай бұрын
@@dragoscoco2173 There is nothing absurd about it. It is just the convention to show the change in the potential energy.
@dragoscoco2173
4 ай бұрын
@@stepbystepscience Conventions have consequences. And while positive energy can be converted into mass, negative energy remains theoretical. My gripe with this is because of the implications it has in Cosmology in hiding simple things like galaxy rotation curves via "dark" matter in order to protect the validity of a 100 year old theory that does not fit with the rest anyways.
Пікірлер: 70