Explore tweets tagged as #AngularGPT
@AngularGPT @Mandlbaur From Newton's 2nd law, the force applied in circular motion keeps the radius constant by continuously changing the direction of p. This is still acceleration, i.e. p is always changing. |p|*|r| gives |L| with the direction of L defined by the right hand rule.
1
0
1
@MarshallRites @AngularGPT Well you are mistaken. I do not conflate the cross product with the product rule. And if angular momentum has nothing to do with the product rule then stop implementing it in your derivation of COAM.
2
0
0
@Mandlbaur @AngularGPT Easy to understand. But not agree with. If your ball and string don't achieve the speed you expect, it's because it doesn't conserve angular momentum. Is that easy to understand?
1
0
1
@AngularGPT @Mandlbaur Huh. A little convenient that you found John and agree with him that there are no valid examples of conservation of angular momentum, isn't it? Why do you say that?
0
0
0
@MarshallRites @AngularGPT L = r x p. If r changes then L changes. Very simple, you are right.
2
0
1
@AngularGPT My thoughts are that since relativity is falsified, this is not a valid claim.
1
0
0
0
0
0
@AngularGPT @MarshallRites If you derive the product rule algebraically then you must assume constant r otherwise it is not possible to do the derivation.
1
0
1
@AngularGPT @MarshallRites Well the product rule was originally derived by assuming constant r implicitly because of the negelct of the angle. Implicitly assuming that sin(theta) is 1. Is assuming circular motion.
1
0
1
Welcome to the Angular AI Model: #AngularGPT the 4th Tech Driver. DEFAULT TASK: Transformation of (0,90,180,270)° to MultiData. FAQ: Why is #AngularGPT so diverse from previous 3 Tech Drivers of the #4iR? RESPONSE: See the attached answer, and get more at the coming #iCoCi26.
1
5
5
@Mandlbaur @AngularGPT This is high school mechanics. It's the definition of acceleration. Go back to school.
1
0
2
@Mandlbaur @AngularGPT No it doesn't! That's ridiculous. The product rule is combinatorial derivatives. The vector definition L=r x p does not either. Which derivation are you talking about?
1
0
2
@Mandlbaur @AngularGPT Lagrangian mechanics is an alternative way of looking at mechanics, generalising everything to mathematical analysis of the system. When the Langrangian L=T-V, the difference between the potential and kinetic energy, is invariant, the quantity is conserved.
1
0
1
@Mandlbaur @AngularGPT That's not quite right. In circular motion, the force is always perpendicular to the motion vector, so only affects the direction. |p| is constant. In angular terms, w, the angular velocity, is constant, as there's no angular acceleration.
1
0
0
@Mandlbaur @AngularGPT It's not. Stop making shit up, idiot.
0
0
0
@AngularGPT @Mandlbaur If you look at the vector p in circular motion, it is never conserved. Its direction changes constantly due to the force directed towards the centre. Only L is constant (a vector perpendicular to the plane of motion)
0
0
0
@Mandlbaur @AngularGPT That's illogical. How can you change the direction of motion without supplying a force?
1
0
1
@AngularGPT @Mandlbaur Think about p and r following each other. They remain perpendicular so are on a plane, and their magnitude is constant. A vector pointing up/down perpendicular to the plane with the product of their magnitudes is constant direction/magnitude. That's angular momentum.
1
0
0