Archimedes, the famous ancient Greek physicist and mathematician, said that if I am given a fulcrum, I can pry up an earth.

In addition to the fulcrum, there are also particles in physics. Point charges and point stresses are also indispensable. Speaking of the starting point, there is a concept that can be described as famous.

It's the center of gravity. The center of gravity in mathematics is the intersection of the middle lines of a triangle, whereas in physics it is the point where gravity is concentrated on the object.

In general, the center of gravity of an object should be at its geometric center. However, this is not the case. The center of gravity depends on how the object is placed, and it's usually on the bottom side.

When riding a bicycle, the whole can only move forward if the center of gravity is kept in the geometric center of the whole.

And walking the tightrope is an extreme test of people's ability to find the position of the center of gravity. I have a question, in mathematics the center of gravity is a point, but in physics it is also a point?

You think that's all? No, I still have two questions. First, is the breaking of the object a silent explosion caused by the collision of two points?

Second, the essence of force transmission is to find a bearing point? When it comes to points, it is impossible not to say Archimedes.

In this regard, everyone is not surprised. Is the center of gravity a point? This needs to be seen in contrast.

First of all, particle points refer to the fact that mass and size have no obvious and large influence on the motion of objects in motion, so they are ignored.

However, they are still there in essence. Therefore, the particle is not a point in the mathematical sense.

Let's assume that the center of gravity is not a point in the mathematical sense, so what is the area of the center of gravity? To be sure, the area is small.

There is a situation where an object is placed on a stool so that part of the center of gravity is on the stool and the other part is not on the stool.

What happens? When the part on the stool is greater than the part that is not, then the object will be on the stool.

You say that the center of gravity is not a point, but doesn't that still need a point as a demarcation? So, the center of gravity is actually in the mathematical sense.

Why is there such a point? Because gravity has a microscopic process of convergence, there must eventually be a point where gravity is subjected.

How to understand? Think of it as a singularity. Liuzi Fenglai is full of confidence and confidence when describing.

There is a kind of victory in hand, and the momentum of swallowing mountains and rivers. Is the break a silent explosion? Just now Liuzifeng mentioned the singularity, and I thought of the Big Bang.

We know that a point that bears too much energy is unstable, and the singularity is the yin. Although ordinary force points cannot be compared to singularities, they have a lot of energy.

When two external forces act on an object together, two points of force are formed. And their trajectories coincide, and they are not entangled like quanta.

So, a collision is inevitable. The collision triggers a silent explosion that releases energy that causes the object to break.

Although Dueñas lost to the six sons of the wind in momentum, it was logically quite tight. The essence of the transmission of force is to find a bearing point?

We know that heat transfer is due to temperature differences, but the question is can heat transfer be infinite? The essence of force is energy, and it is understandable that energy seeks to carry the object.

But why should force look for a carrying point? Liuzifeng said that the center of gravity is a point in the mathematical sense, so the carrying point of the force should be a point in the mathematical sense.

Energy is a non-real being, and so are points. Perhaps it is precisely because the point is zero-dimensional, almost non-real, that the energy chooses it.

Margarita said little, but every sentence was to the point.