Episode 44: Energy, Momentum And Mass - The Mechanical Universe

Episode 44. Mass, Momentum, Energy: The new meaning of space and time make it necessary to formulate a new mechanics.
“The Mechanical Universe,” is a critically-acclaimed series of 52 thirty-minute videos covering the basic topics of an introductory university physics course.
Each program in the series opens and closes with Caltech Professor David Goodstein providing philosophical, historical and often humorous insight into the subject at hand while lecturing to his freshman physics class. The series contains hundreds of computer animation segments, created by Dr. James F. Blinn, as the primary tool of instruction. Dynamic location footage and historical re-creations are also used to stress the fact that science is a human endeavor.
The series was originally produced as a broadcast telecourse in 1985 by Caltech and Intelecom, Inc. with program funding from the Annenberg/CPB Project.
The online version of the series is sponsored by the Information Science and Technology initiative at Caltech. ist.caltech.edu
©1985 California Institute of Technology, The Corporation for Community College Television, and The Annenberg/CPB Project

[@whirledpeas3477]

The world owes Cal-Tec a Thank you

[@abcdef2069]

at 21:40, it says kinetic energy may be expressed as changing speed until the force stops pushing ... this was the best explanation i heard.

[@powerdriller4124]

Kinetic Energy of an object may be expressed as the integral of a function of the changing speed of it being impelled by a force, a speed that goes from rest V=0, till the time when the force stops pushing at a final speed V=Vf. The "function" takes into account the increase of mass due to the increase of speed.

[@Mayank-mf7xr]

"thanks" is all i can find to utter .

[@brainstormingsharing1309]

Absolutely well done and definitely keep it up!!! 👍👍👍👍👍

[@HuyTran-ny7mg]

Wow. Just wow.

[@casedup]

...and there it is, E=MC² bravo!!! braaavo!!!!

[@mkzout]

This just makes me feel good in away I dont understand

[@Moon___man]

these videos are very soothing. the voice, the music, the pacing. it all works together. i set a timer on my tv and put this playlist pretty often if i have trouble sleeping lol

[@sam08090]

Gold ❤️

[@zachpalmer2836]

Go off king

[@lyraelyra]

the movie is interesting

[@douglasstrother6584]

The other tune played at "Chalky's" kzbin.info/www/bejne/d5LJo5ynl92Amdk

[@stanleycates1972]

So equations are evolutionary. The simple E=MCsq fell out of much more complex maths dealing with speed, mass and energy. The understanding of that evolution by Einstein was his genius. Maxwell did the same, bringing electricity and magnetism.together.

[@aliengrey1708]

The part starting at 11:45 is not at all what would really happen. Suppose in the part right before that, when they were both traveling at say 50 m/s toward each other, that they had started 100 m apart horizontally and 20 m apart vertically when they released the objects at 10 m/s velocity. Each object traveled 10 m vertically and 50 m horizontally before colliding after 1 s. The rockets each took 2 s to reach the other end of the 100 m distance and the two objects took 2 s to launch and return. The two rockets were 100 m apart at the time of the return of the objects. The total distance traveled by both rockets combined was 200 m, each had traveled 100 m in opposite directions, which is the same as one remaining stationary and the other traveling 200 m relative to it, 100 m before they were directly vertical from each other and a further 100 when the objects had returned to each rocket.. Now if we consider the lower rocket to be stationary and the upper rocket to be traveling toward it at 100 m/s, we would imagine the lower rocket staying at the right end of the 100 m distance between them and they both release their objects at that time. The lower rocket's object goes straight up at 10 m/s and the upper rocket's object goes down at 10 m/s and simultaneously rightward at 100 m/s. Thus, they would collide directly above the lower rocket at the right end of the 100 m distance after 1 s. The object from the lower rocket would bounce straight back down to it in 1 s and the object from the upper rocket would bounce back to it in 1 s, traveling the same path length as on its way down but angled upward instead of downward, and it would return to the upper rocket 100 m to the right of the lower rocket, after having traveled a total of 200 m. Both objects would return to their rockets after 2 seconds of total travel time when the two rockets were 100 m apart, just as they were at the end in the first case, in which they were both moving at 100 m/s in opposite directions. So everything was exactly the same as in the first case, 200 m had been traveled in relation to each other, it took 2 s and each object had taken 2 s to complete its round trip. No mass had to be altered nor the shape of any of the objects. Both objects had been launched simultaneously and took the same amount of time to collide and to return to their respective rockets, nothing complicated about it at all. What was shown in the video is a completely different and not even slightly realistic scenario. Why was it easy for me to explain what would happen if one was considered stationary and the other moving at twice the velocity, but the makers of the video used such bizarre logic that they felt it appropriate to alter several attributes of reality? They'll probably say "the diagonal path of the upper rocket's object was longer in the second case than in the first case". Yeah, so what? The object traveled the same vertical distance and the same horizontal distance in both cases, it did not travel a diagonal distance because there had never been a diagonal force applied. It traveled a total of 200 m horizontally and 20 m vertically at the same time, exactly the same as it did in the first case. The upper rocket's object did not travel the hypotenuse of a right triangle of sides 50 m and 20 m in the first case and of 100 m and 20 m in the second case. Those are the triangle shapes the paths made, yeah, but they weren't traveling along those different length paths at the same velocity, meaning 53,85 m and 101.98 m, thus taking almost twice as long in the second case, that's not at all what happened. Traveling say 100 m vertically and 100 m horizontally at 100 m/s in each direction at the same time does not take 1.4142 s, it takes 1 s. Adding velocity in one direction does not take velocity away from the other direction. If that were the case, you could easily tell if you were moving in uniform motion or stationary, because in uniform motion it would take longer to move things in a direction perpendicular to the direction of travel than parallel to it, which anyone who has ever traveled on an airliner can attest is not the case.

[@tovahkaplan9222]

aladdin 26:56

[@ryanpollat9565]

Who racked that? 5:50

[@421sap]

In Jesus' Name, Amen. God bless you ✨✝️

[@nottsork]

Why the hell do we need to know about disnet and cbs to understand physics

[@tovahkaplan9222]

oliver and company vhs march 3rd 1999 18:04 UPN 22 17:07 aladdin 26:56

[@tovahkaplan9222]

red robin opens in downtown spokane and spokane valley mall 04 06 00

[@tovahkaplan9222]

be our guest song 14:25

[@geronimamarr8529]

The beauty contradiction....l love...scientists....but...we have big make mistakes....and the is the results...the consequence of...play like God......1955...Arco ldaho...the first contaminated radio activity plant...in the world 🌎...but we no have choice...l guess...is sad 😢😞😔..for my...we need new source of energy...whit out..contaminated..the sick 🌎....72..years of potential...mass...contamination and disaster...sorry but ..for..myself...E=mc2..is..=zero....is older...so l have some contradiction because l don't have the answer of that 😥😔😟🙁😞😿...sad...and sad...and sad.........

[@geronimamarr8529]

Sorry is no..72..is..67...jijijijije...every one have good day...

[@geronimamarr8529]

By. ......3034...are...planet is 🌎...is contaminated...74...percent...and...84..

[@tovahkaplan9222]

john roberts 2:52 pulp fiction 2:22

[@tovahkaplan9222]

the road to el dorado chicken run and the emperors new groove who best picture inlander 25 the year in 2000

[@tovahkaplan9222]

after school basketball practice november 28 2018 february 28 2019 26:46 allison ryan wendy wilson samantha turner jenny eisenhower flamin hot cheetos sprite bottles and everything 2:22

[@matthoward8546]

pillow fight?

[@qualquan]

Pretty superficial by a guy who in his book predicted in 2004 that we will run out of gas within 10 years.

[@hardlyconfused3541]

Actually it is absolutely wrong. As the speed increases, the mass won't change. Because the speed is relative, i.e. for the same object, each different frame will see different speeds. An object can not have different mass. As mass is also related to gravity, an object can not have different gravities. It will be absolutely ridiculous that I see the Earth become a black hole as I travel near speed of light passing it.

[@powerdriller4124]

Let´s say a Linear Accelerator accelerates a proton from 0 to 99.9999% the speed of light (typical experiment in a LHS); a proton is 1.67E-27 kgms at rest; but then, at 99.9999% of C, Mo is multiplied by 1/sqrt(1- 0.999999^2) = 707 ; just 707... mmmmh ... hardly a Black Hole. The accelerated proton is just 1.67x10^(-27) x 707 kgms = 1.18 x 10^(-24) kgms. Hardly a Black Hole.

[@hardlyconfused3541]

@@powerdriller4124 You missed the point.

[@sphakamisozondi]

@@hardlyconfused3541 there is a flaw in your logic though. You forgot to use reference frame transformation for the observers in queation. For special relativity, the reference frame is usually inertial, therefore a simple Lorentz transformation may be used to reconcile the problem you have mentioned.

[@sphakamisozondi]

@@hardlyconfused3541 Now to answer you: 1. Velocity is relative, yes. However, measured against light in one inertial reference frame. The speed of an object can be detected. And then reconciled by using the Lorentz transformation for other observers' inertial frames. Therefore, Different observers from different reference frames will detect an increase in mass of an object in accordance to their "measured" velocity that increased. 2. For Hyper velocity Earth. That problem is better explained using General Relativity, because this video was merely explaining Special Relativity basics. So, to create a blackhole you need enough momentum, energy and Mass to bend spacetime to make an escape velocity of the surface celestial body to be >= c. So if there is enough energy to push the earth to hyper speeds without violating General Relativity issues. You can make it become a blackhole. Funfact,A Kugelblitz is a blackhole made from radiation rather. So if you concentrate light to required energies and momenta. You'll get a blackhole.

[@hardlyconfused3541]

@@sphakamisozondi You still missed the point. Simply put, observer A finds an object X has gravity XA, observer B in a different frame finds the object X has gravity XB, observer C in a different frame finds the object X has gravity XC.... Do you get it?