Non-uniform circular motion (2 Viewers)

[jchoi]

It's not in the syllabus. + it's covered in fitzpatrick on page 169~170.

Pages 66~67 in the ext 2 syllabus clearly shows examples of types of questions that a student should be prepared to answer. I just skimmed it and it doesn't have non uniform circular motion.

 

[shaon0]

Shut up jm01. No one gives a shit about your arrogant, condescending crap. Nor your teacher...Seems that you don't possess the capability to think for yourself, you just recite what your teacher says.

I would give you rep but i've repped you before. I have to agree with Khorne.

It's not in the syllabus. + it's covered in fitzpatrick on page 169~170.

Pages 66~67 in the ext 2 syllabus clearly shows examples of types of questions that a student should be prepared to answer. I just skimmed it and it doesn't have non uniform circular motion.

It's in the syllabus but won't be examined this year.

 

[jchoi]

28 years (not 30), and every 28 years the calendars are identical. So you never know.

I'm sorry but there's a logical fallacy there. That's like saying, my age is 28, and this random wallet I found had 28 dollars. So you never know if it's mine.

Non circular motion is again, not in the syllabus. You do not require to solve problems without constant w. If you do, all you'll be required to do is find the tangential and normal components of acceleration, which is not really solving anything, but showing your knowledge on product rule + forces.

But then again, for me, this isn't "counted" as being in the syllabus, because it's very minor, within 3 hours, and 10 questions, they have much more important things to test and etc. But i guess others might count this as a part of syllabus, but, you need not to know anything else pretty much, because it's no different from uniform circular motion besides the fact that you have to calculate the net force in the end.

I'm not sure about you guys, but I'm pretty confident that they won't put a question on this, but if they do, I doubt it will go over 2 marks, and 2 marks is negligible, if you can study other areas which are more prone to give marks. Well that's my opinion.

Either way, I don't understand jm01, as to why he cares so much. Like if other people say or think it's not a part of syllabus, isn't a more normal reaction is to go "ok, it's your loss"? Well I guess that's my point of view.

 

[cutemouse]

It's in the syllabus but won't be examined this year.

And if you actually do get a question on it, I guess my words will be haunting you for the rest of the 3 hour exam, muahahah.

 

[cutemouse]

I'm sorry but there's a logical fallacy there. That's like saying, my age is 28, and this random wallet I found had 28 dollars. So you never know if it's mine.

You didn't think I was actually serious did you? Ever heard of a mathematical joke? No wonder maths people are portrayed as boring, because of people like you who can't find humour in things.

I'm not sure about you guys, but I'm pretty confident that they won't put a question on this, but if they do, I doubt it will go over 2 marks

I've been told that it would be about 4 marks if it is asked. But clearly you haven't studied this aspect of the course properly so you wouldn't know how much working/steps would go into a proper proof, as you realise that such a proof would be worth more than 2 marks!

and 2 marks is negligible

There is quite a difference between 58 and 60, especially in the Ext 2 course.

 

[jchoi]

You didn't think I was actually serious did you? Ever heard of a mathematical joke? No wonder maths people are portrayed as boring, because of people like you who can't find humour in things.

So what's funny for you is meant to be funny for everyone else? That was just a poor attempt. You clearly had nothing else to say, so you pulled off a "joke" which was indeed very funny.

I've been told that it would be about 4 marks if it is asked. But clearly you haven't studied this aspect of the course properly so you wouldn't know how much working/steps would go into a proper proof, as you realise that such a proof would be worth more than 2 marks!

I've been told that you're an asshole. Does that literally make you an asshole? No. So what's your point that you've been told. You're under a logical fallacy that the person who "told" you can be WRONG.

There is quite a difference between 58 and 60, especially in the Ext 2 course.

This is called the strawman fallacy? My proposition was not "you can neglect 2 marks", but it was rather study something that will most likely come out which will probably get you more than 2 marks you doooosh.

You seem to be bored out of wits to rant. I'll play with you. Come, play with me.

 

[shaon0]

I'm sorry but there's a logical fallacy there. That's like saying, my age is 28, and this random wallet I found had 28 dollars. So you never know if it's mine.

Non circular motion is again, not in the syllabus. You do not require to solve problems without constant w. If you do, all you'll be required to do is find the tangential and normal components of acceleration, which is not really solving anything, but showing your knowledge on product rule + forces.

But then again, for me, this isn't "counted" as being in the syllabus, because it's very minor, within 3 hours, and 10 questions, they have much more important things to test and etc. But i guess others might count this as a part of syllabus, but, you need not to know anything else pretty much, because it's no different from uniform circular motion besides the fact that you have to calculate the net force in the end.

I'm not sure about you guys, but I'm pretty confident that they won't put a question on this, but if they do, I doubt it will go over 2 marks, and 2 marks is negligible, if you can study other areas which are more prone to give marks. Well that's my opinion.

Either way, I don't understand jm01, as to why he cares so much. Like if other people say or think it's not a part of syllabus, isn't a more normal reaction is to go "ok, it's your loss"? Well I guess that's my point of view.

lol. I'd still be able to do it, you on the other hand would fail even if you did know the "theory."

 

[hermand]

There is quite a difference between 58 and 60, especially in the Ext 2 course.

no, especially in the extension two course, there's not much difference between 58 and 60 because the course is so relatively difficult that all the marks get pushed up to have smaller margins.

quit being such a smart ass. you're pissing everyone off.

 

[khorne]

Btw guys, from my understanding, the difference between non-uniform circular motion is only minimal, and really only lies in the tangential acceleration.

 

[lolokay]

This is called the strawman fallacy? My proposition was not "you can neglect 2 marks", but it was rather study something that will most likely come out which will probably get you more than 2 marks you doooosh.

why does studying one thing mean you have to not study another thing?
you may as well learn to derive normal/tangential acceleration, even if only for interest

 

[cutemouse]

So what's funny for you is meant to be funny for everyone else? That was just a poor attempt. You clearly had nothing else to say, so you pulled off a "joke" which was indeed very funny.

If you could not see that it was a mathematical joke, then clearly you should not be doing Extension 2, let alone 2 unit maths.

I've been told that you're an asshole. Does that literally make you an asshole? No.

And did the person that told you have a Masters in Asshole probing and determination, who has worked in the industry for 30 years?

I'll play with you. Come, play with me.

I dunno what you do with men on a Friday night at King Cross, but I wouldn't like to be involved 'playing' that.

why does studying one thing mean you have to not study another thing?
you may as well learn to derive normal/tangential acceleration, even if only for interest

Ditto, finally someone who can see the forest, instead of only the shrub.

 

[MC Squidge]

jm01 is a faggot cunt

 

[hermand]

If you could not see that it was a mathematical joke, then clearly you should not be doing Extension 2, let alone 2 unit maths.

alright, learn how to use phrases before you go acting all arrogant and insulting someone else.

the correct wording should be, you should not even be doing two unit, let alone extension two.

and i love how you only reply to the posts that you can think of some 'witty', mediocre response to.

 

[kwabon]

look jm01

i think you are a faggot

who the fuck cares if another guy on the forum decides not to study non-uniform circular motion

i think you should stop posting

and get back to study some maths

so you can improve that 60/120

to a 61/120

eh?



my first "insulting someone post", i feel so happy.

 

[untouchablecuz]

mathematics

srs bzns

 

[The Nomad]

How about everyone just lays off, yes? Probably more time-productive if one studies non-uniform circular motion instead of arguing about whether one should study it or not.

 

[cutemouse]

alright, learn how to use phrases before you go acting all arrogant and insulting someone else.

the correct wording should be, you should not even be doing two unit, let alone extension two.

But he's not doing two unit math either. So your 'correction' is as good as mine

and i love how you only reply to the posts that you can think of some 'witty', mediocre response to.

You must "love" (ie. be entertained) by things that fascinate 3 year old children then.

 

[clintmyster]

anyways back to topic. My teacher said its in there and so he taught us to derive the equations again and what not because we did it after the trials which was a long time after we learnt motion. He also showed us cases where it came up other than 1981 but don't quote me on that because I sorta struggled with this stuff so gave up. Also, we did a patel exercise just on this. Does that ring any bells?

 

[MC Squidge]

im going to find where jm01 lives and kill him

 

[cutemouse]

im going to find where jm01 lives and kill him

Good luck (Y)