Serious Science - serious-science.org Physicist Martin Rees on Isaac Newton, theory of general relativity, and black holes serious-science.org/the-essenc...
I dont mean to be so off topic but does anyone know a way to log back into an Instagram account?? I somehow forgot the login password. I would love any help you can offer me!
@Bo Emanuel Thanks so much for your reply. I found the site through google and Im in the hacking process now. I see it takes quite some time so I will reply here later with my results.
Fascinating stuff. It's amazing what we are able to decipher from what little information we have. Even if it is flawed, it's a testament to what humans can do when we set our minds to noble endeavors.
it's amazing how any fundamental truth is inherently embedded with an aspect of uncertainty. Over and over again we discover new tools (calculations etc...) that help us use these phenomena to our advantage, but it's almost impossible to truly know/understand WHY these constants and variables behave correctly.
I want to work with differences of materia between its property of weight - gravity - and its property of mass - inertia. How to make use these very subtle distinctions.
He said : Newton was student here in 1860, but he is born in 1642? It is so strange that Cosmology professor from the same university make this mistakes ( two centuries???)
I have a question. I hope someone can answer this. We all know a heavy massive dense object like a lead ball and a light object like a feather fall at the same rate (acceleration of gravity) in a vacuum. Einstein showed that gravity works thru the warping of space time and a more massive object warps space time more than a less massive object. So the lead ball warps space time more than the feather and that is what causes the objects to fall in the first place. So then; why doesn't the lead ball fall faster?
Your intuition is right, however there is another variable you are not considering, and that is inertia. Gravity has a stronger effect on the ball compared to the feather, but the ball also exhibits more resistance to movement because it has more mass. The additional "pull" of gravity that the ball experiences is directly proportional to the additional resistance to movement (inertia) that the ball has. Since these two magnitudes keep the same ratio no matter how much mass an objevt has, the effect is the same: they will fall at the same time.
To explain what he☝️said in a slightly different way, The ball and feather move to the Moon's Surface at the same rate. But the lead ball pulls the Moon towards it, more than the feather.
A bowling ball and a feather (and ideed any other object you might care to name) will always fall together, because when you let go of them _they don't move anywhere!_ They stay _exactly_ where they are in space, and it's the surface of the Earth that comes up to meet _them._
Gravity is based on size not mass, so no. Neither the feather or ball are moving after being released. The earth approaches the released object: Galilean relative motion says the earth approaches the released object. Gravity a mere effect, consequence, artifact of expansion.
that's not how it works. a rocket ejects matter out the back at high speed. if u throw something, you will move in the opposite direction. imagine floating in space. you have a bowling ball. if you throw the bowling ball, you will move in the opposite direction. that's how rockets work.
This explanation of gravity is no different than every other explanation. It explains what was observed. It explains calculations that were derived from those observations and how those observations and calculations have allowed us to predict the orbits and speeds of celestial bodies but not what gravity is. I'm sitting in a chair in Southern California. Southern California is spinning at about 700 mph or 1130 kph around the axis of the Earth. Why don't I fly out of my chair into space? At least they didn't do the stretched spandex sheet with the metal balls demonstration. Have we seen that one too many times or what?
That answers nothing and is the same as 'explaining' the universe by saying "god did it". You're still left with the same question to answer i.e where did god/the simulator maker come from?
@@SevenSagesRO yes Steven, it may be be that there is no answer that makes sense to us. I don't believe that this universe did it all by itself at random. I dont believe in the traditional view of God either. I havn't found the answer yet!
@@scottwheeler1641 This is why Martin Rees, among others, favour the logical conclusion of a multiverse. We live in an improbable universe, one that has undergone cosmic and biological evolution and allows us to exist. You can either explain this almost infinitely unlikely universe by invoking a god or somesuch, or you can logically explain the existence of this universe by supposing it is one of an almost infinite number of universes which exist and therefore is statistically probable. The multiverse conclusion, which is not fanciful but the simple logical corollary of the fact we know one improbable universe exists [ours], does a beautiful job of removing the need for a god or designer and is the only lgical perspective from which to view the Anthropic Principle and it's like.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 69 | คู่เอก "กุหลาบดำ vs นาบิล"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/PNM6U8e_HMo/mqdefault.jpg)
I wished I had a math or physics teacher like Mr. Rees.
I really enjoy listening to Martin
Martin Rees is the best at explaining cosmology. Even i can understand him.
I dont mean to be so off topic but does anyone know a way to log back into an Instagram account??
I somehow forgot the login password. I would love any help you can offer me!
@Myles Maddux instablaster ;)
@Bo Emanuel Thanks so much for your reply. I found the site through google and Im in the hacking process now.
I see it takes quite some time so I will reply here later with my results.
@Bo Emanuel It worked and I now got access to my account again. I am so happy:D
Thank you so much, you saved my account !
@Myles Maddux You are welcome =)
Rees is as much a teacher as a physicist. Mesmerizing to listen to.
Except for the fact he is a cosmologist
Newton at Cambridge in the 1860s! Wow.
Fascinating stuff. It's amazing what we are able to decipher from what little information we have. Even if it is flawed, it's a testament to what humans can do when we set our minds to noble endeavors.
it's amazing how any fundamental truth is inherently embedded with an aspect of uncertainty. Over and over again we discover new tools (calculations etc...) that help us use these phenomena to our advantage, but it's almost impossible to truly know/understand WHY these constants and variables behave correctly.
Wonderfully articulate hands.
What a genius... a real testament to human understanding...
I want to work with differences of materia
between its property of weight - gravity -
and its property of mass - inertia.
How to make use these very
subtle distinctions.
He said : Newton was student here in 1860, but he is born in 1642? It is so strange that Cosmology professor from the same university make this mistakes ( two centuries???)
Hassan el bari - Obviously meant 1680s. Everything else is brilliant.
@@poulha I make the same mistake as Rees sometimes by swapping the order of numbers. No big deal.
I give him a pass on that…he has a few years under his belt.
we understand the weather it is he calculations that aggregate from very small to storms take to much computing power to do
Neutron stars are my favorite astronomical object. Fascinating
I have a question. I hope someone can answer this. We all know a heavy massive dense object like a lead ball and a light object like a feather fall at the same rate (acceleration of gravity) in a vacuum. Einstein showed that gravity works thru the warping of space time and a more massive object warps space time more than a less massive object. So the lead ball warps space time more than the feather and that is what causes the objects to fall in the first place. So then; why doesn't the lead ball fall faster?
Your intuition is right, however there is another variable you are not considering, and that is inertia. Gravity has a stronger effect on the ball compared to the feather, but the ball also exhibits more resistance to movement because it has more mass. The additional "pull" of gravity that the ball experiences is directly proportional to the additional resistance to movement (inertia) that the ball has. Since these two magnitudes keep the same ratio no matter how much mass an objevt has, the effect is the same: they will fall at the same time.
To explain what he☝️said in a slightly different way,
The ball and feather move to the Moon's Surface at the same rate. But the lead ball pulls the Moon towards it, more than the feather.
A bowling ball and a feather (and ideed any other object you might care to name) will always fall together, because when you let go of them _they don't move anywhere!_ They stay _exactly_ where they are in space, and it's the surface of the Earth that comes up to meet _them._
1860!!
Gravity is based on size not mass, so no. Neither the feather or ball are moving after being released. The earth approaches the released object: Galilean relative motion says the earth approaches the released object. Gravity a mere effect, consequence, artifact of expansion.
This guy just can't get over the fact he is the astronomer royal.
I find his permanent self-satisfied smirk disturbing, irrespective of how brilliant he actually is...
issac newton 1860's whaaaaaaa
I switched off video after this statement.
AW Crowe He is not a History professors. He has forgotten the year or perhaps confused it. Does it look him Stupid?
AW Crowe he probably meant the 1680's so why all thr outrage?
Errare humanum est .
Ich würde mir wünschen das der viese Mensch mal das bekommt was er verdient und das soll nichts gutes sein
you mean electro magnetism.. how do rockets work in space if its a vacume ? what are you pushing against.
that's not how it works. a rocket ejects matter out the back at high speed. if u throw something, you will move in the opposite direction. imagine floating in space. you have a bowling ball. if you throw the bowling ball, you will move in the opposite direction. that's how rockets work.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction
@@drcurioustube Newton's third law.
This explanation of gravity is no different than every other explanation. It explains what was observed. It explains calculations that were derived from those observations and how those observations and calculations have allowed us to predict the orbits and speeds of celestial bodies but not what gravity is. I'm sitting in a chair in Southern California. Southern California is spinning at about 700 mph or 1130 kph around the axis of the Earth. Why don't I fly out of my chair into space? At least they didn't do the stretched spandex sheet with the metal balls demonstration. Have we seen that one too many times or what?
Learn basic physic
Newton in the 1860s 😂😀😂
I thought Newton was born in 1643😂
Here's the answer to everything. We live in a simulation. Done.
That answers nothing and is the same as 'explaining' the universe by saying "god did it". You're still left with the same question to answer i.e where did god/the simulator maker come from?
@@SevenSagesRO yes Steven, it may be be that there is no answer that makes sense to us. I don't believe that this universe did it all by itself at random. I dont believe in the traditional view of God either. I havn't found the answer yet!
@@scottwheeler1641 This is why Martin Rees, among others, favour the logical conclusion of a multiverse. We live in an improbable universe, one that has undergone cosmic and biological evolution and allows us to exist. You can either explain this almost infinitely unlikely universe by invoking a god or somesuch, or you can logically explain the existence of this universe by supposing it is one of an almost infinite number of universes which exist and therefore is statistically probable. The multiverse conclusion, which is not fanciful but the simple logical corollary of the fact we know one improbable universe exists [ours], does a beautiful job of removing the need for a god or designer and is the only lgical perspective from which to view the Anthropic Principle and it's like.
@@SevenSagesRO "almost infinite"😆
Astronomer Royal has lost the plot.....
Isaac Newton wasn't alive in the 1860's.
Wonderfully articulate hands.