shouldnt it be left hand rule instead of right?

I think your solution is not right as in replacing lamba you did a mistake of writing it as Q/R rather it should be Q/Rthetha

🙏

Our savior 😊

how can potantial energy be larger than mechanic energy

I got a high B on the final and an A in the class.

Used this to study for my Physics finals. I'll let you know how it goes.

shouldn't I be 1/3 ML^2 and not 1/12 ML^2 because it's pivoted at the end of the rod?

Thank you so much the video was so informative :) 😊

Thank you! This was a great addition to my notes and clarified so much :)

thank you so much I am against all religion

W mans fr. Thank you so much

it's not about this video but some of your old videos were really helpful for me. I got the answer i was looking for. Thank you. I'm glad to find your channel.

Thanks mahn😊

cooking something good in the microwave at 3:30?

a year later....you're video helped somebody out on the otherside of the world, thanks mate!

Absolutely loved this

This was shocking. The whole time I was like "Watt? this is amazing." Get it? 😉

Thank you for this tutorial!

Thank you so much!

Fantastic video, I know a lot more about the first law of thermodynamics now

Really nice explanation and shockingly nice handwriting.

power through a resistor rotational acceleration 🤝 v^2/r

Thanks man...I was having a tough time understanding this...now it's clear 👌

Are you sure about the claim that two gases at the same temperature have different entropies due to the mass per molecule? If this were true, and you had these two gases in separate containers in thermal contact with each other, then the state with the highest entropy would be one where the lighter gas would have a higher temperature. But we know that this is not the case, because the two gases must be at the same temperature in thermal equilibrium. I think the issue is how you are counting microstates. If the X axis were to show energy instead of speed, then the two gases could be said to have the same number of microstates for a given temperature.

Very Nice!

No part 8? The playlist has this video as your last video?

Audio is a bit painful to ears

Great explanation, thanks! :)

Hi Mr. Von!

Thank you!

Interesting. KZbin has suddenly been recommending videos talking about Donald Hoffman's theory that we're living in a simulation, nothing we can sense is actually real, it's all just virtual, like a Windows desktop full of icons, or a very good video game. We can't see behind the facade to the underlying code... the computer programs that make the icons behave as they should. Well, here's another place where the simulation gets dicey. The code can't make up its mind to simulate a wave or a particle, so it gives us some of each and lets us make up our own story.

Thank you for this I cant find much tutorial about this topic so thank you very much

I have been enjoying your presentation's .

Best physics teacher ever

The ice skater is an excellent example of conservation of angular energy and direct proof that angular momentum is not conserved. How do academics behave when faced with this information? They refuse to acknowledge any measurement of an ice skater or prof on a turntable and refuse to measure it themselves because as long as we ignore the evidence, the evidence doesn't count. It is far better to be stupid than it is to be right against the academic grain.

Angular momentum is originally defined as L = r x p, so L cannot be an "analog" of p because it is defined by it. Since r can change without torque, the claim that angular momentum cannot change without torque is nonsense. Angular momentum is defined to depend upon r. r can change without torque, so angular momentum can change without torque. Kepler used the eyeball measurements of Brahe despite the fact that the telescope was invented two years before he published. This is because those were the only measurements inaccurate enough to "confirm" his pet theory. Modern more accurate measurements do not confirm Kepler's laws. The problem is that angular energy is conserved, not angular momentum. Just look at the moon. Measurements of the angular velocity of the moon confirm that the orbital velocity of the moon does not change. What you teach is generally accepted, but it is directly false. Please do not hate me because Kepler screwed up. Check your evidence because you have no evidence supporting this nonsense that you teach. Everything that 'confirms' COAM does so because "it spins faster". "It spins faster" is not a grown up scientific prediction. This is not personal so please don't treat it as a personal offence.

4k subscribers... can we have a face reveal?

0:43 vom.monster

Great work enjoying your videos

Thank you for making this video Mr. Von it helped a lot!

Hello :-)

Hello, nice videos! Why elastic energy when talking the charges, shouldn't be electrical potential energy, Uel. P. S.

Uhhhh this got cut off

Hello, there is no video thermo5 , it goes from 4 to 6. Videos are great. Can you maybe post the video about calculating the boltzman constant Kb matematicly , I cant find the link