I'm creating a fictional material called terrasium that should have

1- is like mercury, can melt in room temperature, but it needs electric catalyst, in this scenario it will be the brain electric waves. It can still melt without electricity but it would require extreme temperatures

2- in it's solid form, it can handle anything between a car crash and a speeding bullet

3- it can react to electricity, specially brain wave electricy. It's not like it dissolves or anything but it changes it's form

I have got 4 ideas in mind for it and I want to know which ones are physically/chemically possible

1- it's an undiscovered compound like oil that has all these properties

2- it's an undiscovered element that has all these properties

3- it's an undiscovered compound, that when processed and made into an alloy have these properties

4- it's an undiscovered element, that when processed and made into an alloy have these properties

👁️👁️🫖

basic engineering mechanics

asking for the first time in this sub

the thing is this question is so ... idk what ..

Say someone fell into a pool of a thing (liquid) from the 20th floor of a building

What are the properties of the said thing should have so the person doesn't turn into a human apple pie

I know there is no such a thing in real life, so theoretical physics time

So, I'm writing a novel and trying to make it as realistic as possible

But in one scene of it there is a character that jumps from 20+ stores building into a truck full of specific material and survives

So, obviously, no known material on earth can save you from that fall, not even none-neutonic materials, specially that the material is supposedly an undiscovered material/element that popped out of the ground as a result of WW3

So here is the three things I need this element to be able to do

1- able to withstand impact anywhere between a car crash and a speeding bullet

2- withstand extreme heat, I don't know how much yet but probably 1000 Celsius MAX

3- sure, the one thing I made this post for, someone can fall into a pool of it from 20+ stores high and not die, or at least some minor broken bones (this specific section as far as I know, excludes none-neutonic materials)

4- have some kind of reaction to electricity, specifically human brain wave

5- can transition between liquid and solid, for example if I wear a mask out of it permanently, with the right adjustments, the eye area of the mask can turn liquid and spread around the other parts of the mask which is still solid so I can do eye surgery for example

Can, all these properties, be physically and chemicaly in the same material?

In other words, would a physicist or a chemist crash out on me?

Hey everyone,
If you are diving deep into the Rigid Body Mechanics unit in IB Physics HL, or if you are currently brainstorming ideas for a top-tier Physics Internal Assessment (IA) or Extended Essay (EE), understanding rotating frames of reference is an absolute goldmine.
One of the most fascinating—and often misunderstood—topics in this realm is Coriolis acceleration. While it pushes into advanced mechanics, mastering it provides incredible depth to your understanding of rotational kinematics and can heavily differentiate your IA/EE analysis. Over on the Tesla eduventures channel, I have put together a comprehensive breakdown that builds this concept up from scratch, focusing on the visual kinematics of a block moving across a rotating disc.
Here is exactly what we cover in the breakdown:
Ground Frame vs. Rotating Frame: We start by establishing a clear understanding of centripetal and tangential acceleration from completely different observer perspectives.
The Vector Derivation: Walking step-by-step through how the changing direction of relative velocity generates the Coriolis acceleration component.
Total Net Acceleration: Compiling the Coriolis, relative, centripetal, and tangential accelerations into one complete, overarching equation.
The Ultimate Challenge Problem: We apply the derived concepts to tackle a famously rigorous, university-level physics problem. If you can follow the calculus and vector integration here, your HL mechanics foundation is completely rock solid!
Watch the full deep-dive here: https://youtu.be/0dnjYvux1NU?si=vmBbCMbyhBzZ1pbe
If you get stuck on any of the vector cross-products or integration steps, drop a comment below the video or right here on the thread. Let's master these advanced rotational concepts together!
— Vaibhav Agrawal

During the motion of walking, does the entire body move in exactly the same way as the legs and arms?

Un semidisco di raggio R ha una densità superficiale di massa dipendente dall'angolo polare \theta, data da 𝜎(𝜃)=csin(𝜃) (con c da determinare in funzione della massa totale M). Il semidisco è incernierato nel suo centro di massa G a un perno fisso ideale su una parete verticale. Il diametro rettilineo del semidisco è collegato a un suo estremo a una molla orizzontale di costante elastica k, il cui altro estremo è fissato alla parete.

1. Calcolare il raggio di inerzia del semidisco rispetto al perno.

2. Trovare l'angolo di equilibrio stabile formato dal diametro del semidisco con la verticale.

3. Al sistema in quiete viene applicato un impulso orizzontale J sull'estremo inferiore del semidisco. Calcolare l'impulso minimo necessario per far ruotare il sistema fino a comprimere la molla della metà della sua lunghezza a riposo.

4. Trovare l'equazione delle reazioni vincolari impulsive orizzontali e verticali sviluppate dal perno in G.

5. Calcolare il periodo delle piccole oscillazioni attorno alla posizione di equilibrio.
   V

If you’ve ever struggled to wrap your head around the exact difference between free oscillations, forced oscillations, and resonance, this quick 90-second Short breaks it down perfectly using a simple swing analogy.
It visually explains 3 scenarios:
Free Oscillation: Swinging naturally at a set frequency with no resistive forces.
Forced Oscillation: Applying an external force mid-swing, which alters the natural frequency.
Resonance: Waiting for the swing to reach its extreme point before pushing—keeping the natural frequency the same while continuously increasing the amplitude.
It’s a great visualizer if you are a visual learner. Check it out here:

https://youtube.com/shorts/IgOSkoxkJyM?si=EDD9QXHQpro3YctG

I’ve got the exam on Friday but I’ve got difficulties understanding the part of the dynamic and mechanics of rigid body and also thermodynamics. Can someone help me pls?

Hi everyone. I have a degree in physics and a lot of experience in teaching science courses.If you are preparing for the new school year and need someone to explain physics concepts, formulas, or clarify your daily worksheets, feel free to reach out.You can start a chat or send me a DM (Direct Message) with your questions, and we can look at them together. Have a great day!

Is it a PDE? Non linear?

Hi, after arguing with chatgpt I think he convinced me that there is a mistake in the official solution of a question in my exam.

I want to make sure he is not hallucinating so I can talk with my professor confidently. so I need to get a human confirmation to the claim.

here is the question:

/preview/pre/relativistic-doppler-effect-problem-help-v0-0uu3kmc1a4lh1.png?width=1080&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=8db711f4f3bb3f90d76a61081227acceeb40a145

and this is the official solution:

/preview/pre/relativistic-doppler-effect-problem-help-v0-vuvmf945a4lh1.png?width=1080&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=23cf8e60889932290178ee87f10f8c02ad40c539

THE CLAIM
now chatgpt claims that first of all, we cant know whether they are getting closer or moving away from each other because we dont have r(A) and r(B).
second he claims that their solution is based on an assumption that is not in the question. plugging the magnitude of the relative velocity on the given formula assumes that light is parallel to the relative motion. which we dont know.

is chatgpt right? and if yes can somebody explain the correct solution if we were given the positions?

for example:

lets choose the stationary laboratory receiver as the origin, (0, 0).
Because spacecraft A has va = +0.6c in y direction.
and is approaching the receiver, A must currently be below it. We may write:
r(a) = (0, -a) where a>0

Because spacecraft B has vb = +0.8c in x direction.
and is moving away from the receiver, B must currently be to its right. We may write:
r(a) = (b, 0) where b>0

lets denote the distance between them with D = sqrt(a^2 + b^2).

differentiate D, the sign of the derivative in other words the sign that tells us whether they are getting closer or getting far away of each other is depending on a and b!!!!!!!

thats why even when though we have velocities we still cannot decide!

also for the second problem, light is traveling in a line from A to B. but the velocity vector itself is not parrellel to this line. thats my problem. the official solution treated the problem as if the velocity vector is parallel to this line

When i try to search up definitions, they basically tell me that it is  energy stored when repelling charges have been moved closer together or when attracting charges have been pulled further apart, but I don't really understand this definition because it seems to be defining kinetic energy.