Finally, I believe in understanding Kepler's 3rd law. Many have tried to deal with my stupidity, but your video gave me the best and most understandable derivation I ever saw. Thank you!
But Newton himself derived his law of gravitation through Kepler's third law so how can you use newton's law to prove something that proved newton's law?
i thought you were dead ...jus kidding....btw i was in high school when i had watched calculus videos or many more ...and now i am graduate ...derek i really missed u..
Hi Derek, question, but first you are an awesome teacher, what textbooks do you model your teachings from? I will love to follow your lectures and have the textbooks available, do you recommend some?
I believe that is correct. Kepler discovered his three laws empirically, from studying the data. He basically realized that this equation matched the observed data. Newton was able to arrive at the same results mathematically, based on his theory of gravity. This particular episode in the history of science, the discovery of the correct theory of planetary orbits, is a great example of how science should work. The theory (from Newton) matches the observations (from Kepler and Brahe). When those match, the theory is considered to be a good, or correct, theory.
this is confusing explanation. You take the Newton's law of gravity, which Newton declared 100 years after the death of Kepler and with the help of this law derives the third law of Kepler. It is not the derivation by Kepler.
Correct, but it is very significant. Kepler arrived at his conclusion empirically. He was able to find equations that simply fit the data (and this was no small accomplishment). His initial discovery of the elliptical orbits was basically just a guess, but it matched the observed locations of the planets perfectly. Newton then did the theoretical work, showing that these very equations of Kepler could be derived from the basic principles of physics, such as the equations of motion and gravity. The key point is that Newton's theoretical work matched Kepler's empirical work, and that is the essential aspect of science itself: the theory must fit the data.
Thanks, everyone! Very glad to be back posting some videos again.
This is one of the clearest most straight forward explanations I have seen. Great job!
Finally, I believe in understanding Kepler's 3rd law. Many have tried to deal with my stupidity, but your video gave me the best and most understandable derivation I ever saw. Thank you!
But Newton himself derived his law of gravitation through Kepler's third law so how can you use newton's law to prove something that proved newton's law?
WTF man
I've waited forever
welcome back
oh boy!! , keep going , still helpful in 2022
This constant that we've found, is it the same one we find in the 2nd law? The one that determines the ratio of Area swept over a given time?
Great explanation. Thank you a lot!
i thought you were dead ...jus kidding....btw i was in high school when i had watched calculus videos or many more ...and now i am graduate ...derek i really missed u..
Hi Derek, question, but first you are an awesome teacher, what textbooks do you model your teachings from? I will love to follow your lectures and have the textbooks available, do you recommend some?
sir if the sun on its one focus then how it is in the center
A circle is a type of ellipse
But when kepler gave the third law, gravitational law wasn't discovered. Then how kepler invented the third law...
I believe that is correct. Kepler discovered his three laws empirically, from studying the data. He basically realized that this equation matched the observed data. Newton was able to arrive at the same results mathematically, based on his theory of gravity. This particular episode in the history of science, the discovery of the correct theory of planetary orbits, is a great example of how science should work. The theory (from Newton) matches the observations (from Kepler and Brahe). When those match, the theory is considered to be a good, or correct, theory.
Beautiful explanation. Thanks a lot.
Brillient explanation sr thnx for this
Amazing explained!
Excellent
Thanks sir for this great explaination
love you, man
Thank u
Good! Thank you ❤️❤️
back on the scene .........cool
welcome back
Thank u sir
Thx
Thanks :-)
This is the one of the videos im able to watch higher than 144- 240p ...thanks
❤️ from Indian occupied Kashmir
this is confusing explanation. You take the Newton's law of gravity, which Newton declared 100 years after the death of Kepler and with the help of this law derives the third law of Kepler. It is not the derivation by Kepler.
Correct, but it is very significant. Kepler arrived at his conclusion empirically. He was able to find equations that simply fit the data (and this was no small accomplishment). His initial discovery of the elliptical orbits was basically just a guess, but it matched the observed locations of the planets perfectly. Newton then did the theoretical work, showing that these very equations of Kepler could be derived from the basic principles of physics, such as the equations of motion and gravity. The key point is that Newton's theoretical work matched Kepler's empirical work, and that is the essential aspect of science itself: the theory must fit the data.
This audio reminds me of an airplane ride!
lmao
the earth is flat!!!
...SIKE
F=mM/r² -- (1) newton derived this from r³/T²=k , you proved r³/T²=k by eq --(1) how this is a satisfied proof !!!
First
This not keplar law it was velocity of satellite
a planet = a satellite of the sun
Wrong equation ,👎😑
No such thing as a circular orbit🤨
Right. It's kind of like a Platonic Form of a circular orbit. We can think about it and analyze it, but nothing *exactly* like it actually exists.