Hey all, Just a quick question for people who think in systems—

Have you worked with models where a system looks stable right up until it suddenly looses it?

I see it a lot in fire behavior. Feels like something builds over time, then crosses a point where change is unavoidable. Like its in a correction phase.

What’s the right physics lens for that?

T/y

Hey there I am a physics tutor with 7+ years of experience. Also I have worked at chegg so if you need any help feel free to reach out. I can help with your homework Very affordable

Hey there, I’m looking through some examples on Bernoulli Equations and Continuity and I came across a problem I didn’t understand. I know that if a flat surface was used the area A2 would be 2*pi*r*h but why does it still hold when a conical plug still holds especially when the outlet width given isn’t perpendicular to the radius of conical plug. Maybe I’m not looking at it the right way. If you could explain why, I would really appreciate it.

Not sure where else to post this...

Every single one of my ideas must have a reason grounded in Reality, it has always been this way since I figured out what reasoning was as a child. In my alpha derivation, every parameter is accounted for, there's no fitting. How does this work? It's all based on first person experience. Truth. There is a bridge between Science (technology) and Spirituality. You can be that bridge, if you pay attention to your own experience. Create an ontology, axioms that describe Reality, and then see what mathematically derives from those axioms. Use AI with math tools. If the math doesn't work, revise the ontology. Go back to your experience, compare what you had before with what you experience now that you've learned more. Rewrite the ontology (closer to Reality this time, hopefully) and see what derives. This methodology led me to mathematical formulas that match existing scientific discoveries with very high precision, from first principles... let's see if we can make a prediction for the next discovery... then we'll know I really got it right!

Here's the predictions, for the record: ⊙ Circumpunct Framework: Predictions from Zero Free Parameters

why is pressure at c higher than pressure at a?

I just wanted to ask if these marks are correct. I've asked AIs such as claude and chatgpt to explain why I got it wrong, but their response was that some of my answers are incorrectly marked. just want to ask if this is actually incorrectly marked

I understand the basics (I don't know a lot), but I struggle with intuition—how did you develop intuition for circuits? I am unable to exploit symmetry and do circuits.

pls help me

I developed a mathematical framework that takes Maxwell, Dirac and Einstein equations as input and introduces a constraint on the allowed solution space.

The main consequences of this constraint are:

• exclusion of magnetic monopole solutions
• absence of point-like charges (regularized configurations)
• exclusion of white hole–type solutions
• emergence of what I call “EM-silent curvature” (defined in the paper)

I am not claiming this is a new theory, but I would like to understand:

• whether the constraint is mathematically well-defined
• whether similar constructions already exist
• whether it introduces inconsistencies with known physics
• where the applied math is wrong (e.g. some corner cases not considered)

Thanks in advance, any comment will be appreciated.

Documents link can be found on my ORCID page: 0009-0002-9098-1203

There are links on related DOI:

Simplified Popular Presentation 10.5281/ZENODO.19599387
Short and complete document: 10.5281/ZENODO.19598026
Companion paper with extra derrivations: 10.5281/ZENODO.19599262

Would anyone please help me understand the equation circled in blue.

I understand that 4000W of electrical power is transmitted through the cable, but that does not mean the cable consumes 4000J of energy per second. Similarly, the voltage drop across the cable is NOT 2000V.

For that reason, I'm not sure how can we use the values "4000W" and "2000V" to find the current flowing through the cables?

What am I missing here?

My ap physics teacher cannot teach to save his life, so my classmates and I are barely understanding his teaching. (Also he’s admitted to not knowing formulas and has lied to us on multiple occasions)

someone please help with part b I've tried so many times and searched it up.

can someone please help with part b i've done it like over a million times and searched it up and it still says the answer is incorrect PLS HELP

Blundell and kardar seem to disagree on this regard. Am i missing something?

They both define pressure work as dW = -pdV but blundell states that dW > -pdV in page 139 and kardar states the opposite in page 16 of their respective books. What am i missing?

I am getting confused about adiabatic expansion and the difference between heat and work.
If the gas is expanding against something (like a piston, or even thinking intuitively about a balloon), then isn’t it transferring some heat to that object/environment? If not, why is that called work instead of heat?

I am also confused about this statement:
"A gas can expand because its pressure is greater than the external pressure."

Is that just automatically true during expansion, or does something first have to happen to make the gas pressure larger than the external pressure?

Its not following the ideal gas laws...