>>8039095
Draw more diagrams
Specifically free body diagrams

>>8039095
Very easily. Sum of forces on body gives the resultant force. It accelerates that way. That's literally all there is.

Later on in physics you don't use forces at all - it's a very old method.

If you get confused by forces, you might want to consider learning physics from Euler/Lagrange/Hamilton's point of view:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_action

>>8039133
>Later on in physics you don't use forces at all - it's a very old method.
You mean later on in your pure physics curriculum.
There's plenty of reasons people still use forces. You miss out on a lot of fluids and solid mechanics without forces

>>8039164
>Not using nambu mechanics.
Kek.

Hamiltonians are the superior way to do everything. Engineers are just too chumpy to learn how to use them.

>>8039169
Did you mean Lagrange or did you really think you can get the stress in a dynamically loaded axle from Hamiltons symmetry dynamics?
If so...Id read that book.

And I use Kane

>>8039095
Just draw.

>>8039201
Yes, you can use the hamiltonian with the SET, and perturbations.

Kane is a shite. You might as well use finite difference for all the time it'll save you.

>>8039218
Book?
I started working through Marsden.
Also does it handle nonholonomic constraints?

>>8039095
Two things: Be confident that what you've read and understood is right. Focus on what is rather than what isn't.

>>8039169
Try deriving energy without the concept of force. Your lagragian's and hamiltonian's are dependent on our based god newton.

>>8039101
/thread

>>8039218
Momentum is all I use and I'm in eng

>>8039101
Literally this, Every physics 1 problem can be solved through judicious use of FBD, even advanced statics, which really isn't my thing (EE) was a piece of cake once you can make everything into FBD's.

>>8039095
It should be easy. If you cant keep track then you just have to force it.