I'm completely lost with this problem and this explanation.
@swayamsevak7557
2 жыл бұрын
Thank you so much for an awesome explanation. I have a silly question however, probably because I am not able to grasp it intuitively. I am repeatedly using Pythagoras Theorem to equate curly r as √ [z^2 + (a/2)^2] given that we are "moving" the point from the top of linear segment to the top of the square's center. And that is causing me problems. I do understand that if the distance between P(original) and edge of linear element is z , then we are doing nothing except changing the orientation of the point (where it becomes curly r) so that the distance between P(new) and edge of linear element is unchanged at z! Can you please help me here, so that I can naturally and intuitively grasp it😣... (A way to essentially convince myself that it has nothing to do with Pyth Theorem could be that the "rotation" P has made from top of linear segment to top of square's center is not a "straight line distance" but a curved arc, so that it renders any such Pythagorean Theorem application as INVALID. Is this correct?)
@buddydiamond8736
11 ай бұрын
I think what you're missing is that he referenced the example in the book, which uses Coloumb's Law (essentially) to integrate along the x axis. He skipped this integration and used the answer of the solved integral to translate everything into this problem.
Пікірлер: 3