A little but I found it more humorous than creepy, like she was very aware of being on camera and was just goofing around in what I call "seriously joking"
The first two Newton's laws videos in this series are great. This one is a disaster for trying to teach the third law. AT 1:30: "Alexander pushes against Pedro - action. This causes Pedro to move. Reaction" That's wrong. That's an example of Newton's second law, not the third law. The 3rd law reaction to Alexander pushing against Pedro is that Pedro pushes just as hard against Alexander, in the opposite direction. When their masses are roughly equal, they accelerate at about the same rate, in opposite directions. When one of them holds the heavy mass, the same force results in less acceleration. At 2:17: "We add another girl, and they don't travel as far". Again, Newton's second law, not 3rd. At 2:20: "The force of throwing the ball makes her move backwards". Close, but not right. The force of throwing the ball makes the ball move forwards. The ball pushes back on her just as hard. That force is what makes her move backwards. At 2:44 again the same mistake is made as at 1:30. At 2:58, with the Newton's cradle, and again at 3:25 with the billiards, we have a nice demonstration of conservation of momentum, but a difficult situation in which to see the third law. The third law application is not that "only" the last kid moves. That happens because the kids are not holding onto each other and because energy and momentum both have to be conserved. The third law application is that the force the first kid exerts on the last kid is equal to the force that was exerted on the first kid to make her stop. At 3:40 we have a correct description but a missed opportunity to emphasize that the reason the rocket is moving is because the gas is pushing on the rocket just as hard as the rocket is pushing on the gas. There really is not a good reason to mention the air. The same effect happens in space, with no air.
Well said! My problems with the video as well. I often use it in class to see if the kids can spot the errors! I do love the weightless examples though.
Don't give up.....NEVER GIVE UP! I did until I was 25 and nearly starved to death until I finished my high school and later college. I have taught for 40 years.
Don't wanna poop the party, but their conceptualisation is amiss. Pedro moving is NOT the opposite reaction to Alexander pushing against Pedro, just as Alexander moving is NOT the opposite reaction to being pushed against by Pedro. When Pedro moves, it is the RESULT of being pushed by Alexander, just as when Alex moves it is the result of being pushed by Pedro. However, the opposite reaction to Pedro pushing Alexander is Alexander pushing back on Pedro.
The visuals on this video are great, but the narration unfortunately reinforces several misconceptions. As paddygilbert said, the "action" and "reaction" in Newton's 3rd Law refer to 2 equal and opposite forces (the ones the astronauts exert on each other), not one force and the resulting motion. Many of my physics students come in with this idea about the motion being the reaction, and this video is confirming their incorrect conception. Then, when the line of students on roller skates is shown, she again incorrectly identifies the action adn reaction as a force and a motion. She also says that the first student can't move because the next student is "in the way." It would be more clear to say that as each student exerts a force on the student in front, an equal amount of force is exerted back on them, so with equal forces from both front and back, they do not accelerate. The impact force of the first skater is essentially transmitted all the way through the line to the last skater. A newton's cradle is more easily understood using momentum concepts, but that's another thing entirely...
The mass of the rocket's exhaust gases boosts off on the rocket's mass and the latter boosts off on the mass of the exhaust gases. Compare with a loaded spring between two bodies, then released to expand - wouldn't the two bodies acelerate away from each other, also in space? Your bird in space is hillarious! In fact, I think you are pulling my leg! Thanks for not replying.
Newton's third law did not have a natural science reason, no hypothesis was given, only observations. It had only a metaphysical reason -- which was common at the time.
Exactly, as you said the third law is NOT science. Moreover it patently not true. Take rockets (or flies) in a vacuum. They don’t go anywhere. Research Eric Dubay, DITRH, etc. Wake up!
These explanations are dangerously terrible. The visuals are worthwhile, but the action reaction stuff is horribly misleading and wrong. Newton's third law is that forces occur between two objects always and are the same on both objects but opposite directions. The action and reaction stuff you're stating is just wrong. Have some pride in knowledge in science if you're going to present it. Nothing is weightless for the record either, it's just falling so it "appears" weightless.
there is also more forces at play too though...fine we have newtons law...but your post causes my post... "action and reaction" and if i called you a peice of garbage, it definatly sets things in motion just as much as newtons law...perhaps it is better to leave many things at "rest" and just accept that someone is at least making the effort to make a vid you douche
It's a law of physics, not some philosophical jargon. And aren't you in the space program? If you're some kid who doesn't know better fine, but if you're an astronaut and you have no appreciation for physics then shame on you.
You are absolutely right.. the concept of action and reaction is HORRIBLY WRONG.. But i disagree when you say nothing is weightless . It depends on WHAT YOU DEFINE AS WEIGHT.. and we physicists define weight as the force with which the ground you are standing on is pushing on you (because that is the same force with which you are pushing on the ground) .. And this may be equal to gravitational force (when you are not accelerating).. maybe more than it (when u are accelerating upwards) may be LESS than it.. (when u accelerate downwards) and CAN BE ZERO AND IS therefore WEIGHTLESS (when you are in freefall.. note that m not saying there is no gravitational force) and can also be negative (when u are accelerate downwards faster than g) .. when u are in rollercoster loop the loop or when u the cup and ball trick .. ! Cheers!
mahesh vag Agree, although I checked into this once to find out if you would be "weightless" while hanging from a bar or rope and the definition of weight I found was simply the scalar quantity of gravity force. So according to that you would never be weightless, if you look into it you'll find that most people have started ditching weightless for "feeling weightless" to account for it. I've found nothing that defines weight as normal force and that's what I thought it was originally so that's what I was looking for.
Scott Milam look up wikipedia :D.. we like to define weight that way cause that makes more sense.. if you take ur weighing machine with you and do all the things i mentioned, then your weighing machine would confirm all the changes in the weights accordingly including weightlessness.. (where it would read zero) .. seeing is believing right? :P
Ok want to prove to me rockets work in space do this same experiment but instead of 2 ppl just have 1. Through your arms forward and propel yourself across the room. Because that's what your saying a rocket in space does.
But there evidently IS space flight since decades - I can't follow your reasoning. Besides, how can you have any motion when two equal and opposing forces cancel each other out?
Also noticed how this comment was made in Obama era, and Trump era is coming to a close and Biden is becoming new US President. 8 years ago, that's when Xi Jingping recently became Chinese leader. Kim Jong Un was a fairly new leader. Crimea was still fully Ukraine, and so much more. Times have changed.
but there you go again, small rockets on the side, so what are these rocks pushing against ( in space) its a vacuum no opposing force to gain thrust or momentum, think about in, no atmosphere or mass in the vacuum of space, your going on, and on, forever in a straight line, off to some distant galaxy...
Are you a scientist? Do you have a physics degree? If not, stop talking. There are so many factors, calculations, and processes that make space travel possible that I'm just going to let a man smarter than me explain it to you. But hear this. Actual scientists who have studied all of their lives, who have trained and actually HAVE BEEN in space, know more about physics than you ever will. So don't decry all of their hard work and proven facts because you either don't know or can't comprehend it
@ESOcast this is s great video, but the explanation of the reactions are totally incorrect. Action and reaction are both forces. The video describes one action as Pedro pushing Charlie, and the reaction as Charlie floating away. But that's not the reaction! The reaction is Charlie pushes Pedro. The whole concept is that forces occur in pairs. If you punch a wall the wall punches you back. If you push on an object, the object pushes back on you. The things that are equal but opposite are the actual forces involved, equal magnitude but opposite directions. I see s bunch of students on here for an assignment, and that kind of freaks me out. This is nice footage, but really incorrect explanations.
A wall is not pushing you back. That is ridiculous. The combined strength of Van der Waals forces in the wall either are stronger that the force applied or not. Deformation of the object going into the wall of of of the wall itself might cause a counterforce, but it won’t equal the original force since it won’t be a 100% efficient.
Ummm well that slanderous scientific detailed description explains everything to all those skeptical people out there! In summary, you’re saying NOTHING. Well done!!!!!
Usually I am polite, but in this case I must say you are a nut, or you must think I am one. I would be, if I would go on with this ridiculous disussion - over and out!
Newton 2nd law contradicts Karma, lol. If you do good, evil will happen. For every action, there is equal and opposite reaction. Haha. Just kidding. Science is cool.
this video is one of the reasons I had a long ass night for homework
Ben Dover wow a recent comment
same bro
same here -.-
same :/
im doing it rn :(
is that girl in the blue jacket giving anyone else hella creppy robot vibes
Yaa I got kinda shook for a moment
A little but I found it more humorous than creepy, like she was very aware of being on camera and was just goofing around in what I call "seriously joking"
ok this is literally the best homework video ever. the faces...the gestures...the arrangement of the pool balls...I can NOT.
uhm am i the only one who's here for assignment ._.
nope
nah
Nope
Nooo!!
Nope I'm here to write down some damn science notes that were due 2 days ago🧍🏻♀️
The first two Newton's laws videos in this series are great. This one is a disaster for trying to teach the third law.
AT 1:30: "Alexander pushes against Pedro - action. This causes Pedro to move. Reaction" That's wrong. That's an example of Newton's second law, not the third law. The 3rd law reaction to Alexander pushing against Pedro is that Pedro pushes just as hard against Alexander, in the opposite direction. When their masses are roughly equal, they accelerate at about the same rate, in opposite directions. When one of them holds the heavy mass, the same force results in less acceleration.
At 2:17: "We add another girl, and they don't travel as far". Again, Newton's second law, not 3rd.
At 2:20: "The force of throwing the ball makes her move backwards". Close, but not right. The force of throwing the ball makes the ball move forwards. The ball pushes back on her just as hard. That force is what makes her move backwards.
At 2:44 again the same mistake is made as at 1:30.
At 2:58, with the Newton's cradle, and again at 3:25 with the billiards, we have a nice demonstration of conservation of momentum, but a difficult situation in which to see the third law. The third law application is not that "only" the last kid moves. That happens because the kids are not holding onto each other and because energy and momentum both have to be conserved. The third law application is that the force the first kid exerts on the last kid is equal to the force that was exerted on the first kid to make her stop.
At 3:40 we have a correct description but a missed opportunity to emphasize that the reason the rocket is moving is because the gas is pushing on the rocket just as hard as the rocket is pushing on the gas. There really is not a good reason to mention the air. The same effect happens in space, with no air.
@Matthew Triem
My teacher too :D
@@The_Haxe Patriku? :DD
Well said! My problems with the video as well. I often use it in class to see if the kids can spot the errors! I do love the weightless examples though.
Bruh you smarter then my teacher 💀
@ Andrew M
You can easily come up with experiments that you need an external pressure system for a rocket to work. Math can hide a lot of bullshit.
did you film this with a potato?
7 years ago geez
bro this was 8 years ago
@@mrpulovski4476 oh i commented when this was 7 years ago
@@vigzz9569 I know am just saying
AKSHKAAKHS SHE'S A ROBOT 5:05 - 5:16 LMAOOOO
LMAOAOAOOAOA
so thats why theres no error in what she is reading and movements are still as an unhuman being
lol 3:17
LMAO
Wow bro that’s so funny 😐
i didn't notice that until you said to go there :)
Dillon Vlogs same
Hahahah i see your that one guy in class
The three laws were well demonstrated and valuable for our 8th grade group.
School sucks
Don't give up.....NEVER GIVE UP! I did until I was 25 and nearly starved to death until I finished my high school and later college. I have taught for 40 years.
sorry that was my little cousin who said that
Don't wanna poop the party, but their conceptualisation is amiss. Pedro moving is NOT the opposite reaction to Alexander pushing against Pedro, just as Alexander moving is NOT the opposite reaction to being pushed against by Pedro. When Pedro moves, it is the RESULT of being pushed by Alexander, just as when Alex moves it is the result of being pushed by Pedro. However, the opposite reaction to Pedro pushing Alexander is Alexander pushing back on Pedro.
yes. I was excited to use the videos in my classroom, but this one is just wrong. The action and reaction are both forces, not motion.
The visuals on this video are great, but the narration unfortunately reinforces several misconceptions. As paddygilbert said, the "action" and "reaction" in Newton's 3rd Law refer to 2 equal and opposite forces (the ones the astronauts exert on each other), not one force and the resulting motion. Many of my physics students come in with this idea about the motion being the reaction, and this video is confirming their incorrect conception. Then, when the line of students on roller skates is shown, she again incorrectly identifies the action adn reaction as a force and a motion. She also says that the first student can't move because the next student is "in the way." It would be more clear to say that as each student exerts a force on the student in front, an equal amount of force is exerted back on them, so with equal forces from both front and back, they do not accelerate. The impact force of the first skater is essentially transmitted all the way through the line to the last skater. A newton's cradle is more easily understood using momentum concepts, but that's another thing entirely...
School sucks
p
I only came here for 2:33 .
thanx m8
Webs unite it’s todoroki
Another way to think of it is that "if you do good to someone, they will do good back to you" - the descriptive version of the Golden Rule.
The mass of the rocket's exhaust gases boosts off on the rocket's mass and the latter boosts off on the mass of the exhaust gases. Compare with a loaded spring between two bodies, then released to expand - wouldn't the two bodies acelerate away from each other, also in space? Your bird in space is hillarious! In fact, I think you are pulling my leg! Thanks for not replying.
3:13 mmmm, yes
@TwisTeRShoTz we all noticed in our freshman science class
@PhattyMo yeah she is a bit creepy
will the force between every person is the same???
'
Thank you for this tutorial
Newton's third law did not have a natural science reason, no hypothesis was given, only observations. It had only a metaphysical reason -- which was common at the time.
@Robert Boyle how does that work in zero gravity?
@Robert Boyle well what about the absolute vacuum of space?
Exactly, as you said the third law is NOT science. Moreover it patently not true. Take rockets (or flies) in a vacuum. They don’t go anywhere.
Research Eric Dubay, DITRH, etc.
Wake up!
These explanations are dangerously terrible. The visuals are worthwhile, but the action reaction stuff is horribly misleading and wrong. Newton's third law is that forces occur between two objects always and are the same on both objects but opposite directions. The action and reaction stuff you're stating is just wrong. Have some pride in knowledge in science if you're going to present it. Nothing is weightless for the record either, it's just falling so it "appears" weightless.
there is also more forces at play too though...fine we have newtons law...but your post causes my post... "action and reaction" and if i called you a peice of garbage, it definatly sets things in motion just as much as newtons law...perhaps it is better to leave many things at "rest" and just accept that someone is at least making the effort to make a vid you douche
It's a law of physics, not some philosophical jargon. And aren't you in the space program? If you're some kid who doesn't know better fine, but if you're an astronaut and you have no appreciation for physics then shame on you.
You are absolutely right.. the concept of action and reaction is HORRIBLY WRONG..
But i disagree when you say nothing is weightless . It depends on WHAT YOU DEFINE AS WEIGHT.. and we physicists define weight as the force with which the ground you are standing on is pushing on you (because that is the same force with which you are pushing on the ground) .. And this may be equal to gravitational force (when you are not accelerating).. maybe more than it (when u are accelerating upwards) may be LESS than it.. (when u accelerate downwards) and CAN BE ZERO AND IS therefore WEIGHTLESS (when you are in freefall.. note that m not saying there is no gravitational force) and can also be negative (when u are accelerate downwards faster than g) .. when u are in rollercoster loop the loop or when u the cup and ball trick .. !
Cheers!
mahesh vag Agree, although I checked into this once to find out if you would be "weightless" while hanging from a bar or rope and the definition of weight I found was simply the scalar quantity of gravity force. So according to that you would never be weightless, if you look into it you'll find that most people have started ditching weightless for "feeling weightless" to account for it. I've found nothing that defines weight as normal force and that's what I thought it was originally so that's what I was looking for.
Scott Milam look up wikipedia :D.. we like to define weight that way cause that makes more sense.. if you take ur weighing machine with you and do all the things i mentioned, then your weighing machine would confirm all the changes in the weights accordingly including weightlessness.. (where it would read zero) .. seeing is believing right? :P
Ok want to prove to me rockets work in space do this same experiment but instead of 2 ppl just have 1. Through your arms forward and propel yourself across the room. Because that's what your saying a rocket in space does.
@@rrrick2129 A free body diagram shows you are incorrect as the exhaust is a force exerted by the rocket so cannot be included. Very simple.
@@rrrick2129 literal gibberish. You're a chatbot, 100% certain.
@@rrrick2129 you say the exhaust is not a force, then you say it pushes the rocket. Gibberish.
@@rrrick2129 Newton disagrees with you, plus you're contradicting yourself again, but you are clearly utterly insane so I'll just mute you eh?
Which devices bace on principle of Newton laws of motion?
What sound track is in the start ?
@Edgrs
Sounds like the remix of Elvis Presley's "A Little Less Conversation" that hit the charts last year or so. You can find it here v=o39ehwTzsjs.
ZŠ Kavčí Hory like! :D
proofs there is not enough mass for a rocket to push against.
e que assim seja pra tudo !!
Well this video was real UPLIFTING!!!!!
But there evidently IS space flight since decades - I can't follow your reasoning. Besides, how can you have any motion when two equal and opposing forces cancel each other out?
There is NO spaceflight.
It is a LIE easily proven.
Wake up and think!
nice very nice I liike it relly
Awesome
what if one of theme causes the force and the other have no force like an apple an ground
great video.
3:19
i saw this in class today!
And here 8 years later I have to watch this as homework.
Who knew 8 years later there would be a deadly pandemic?
Also noticed how this comment was made in Obama era, and Trump era is coming to a close and Biden is becoming new US President. 8 years ago, that's when Xi Jingping recently became Chinese leader. Kim Jong Un was a fairly new leader. Crimea was still fully Ukraine, and so much more.
Times have changed.
You probably completed University by now. I hope you doing good.
Don't know why, but I am liking me talking aimlessly at an 8 year old comment.
@@nuzayerov This is 7 seven months later and who knew that the deadly pandemic would still be around? Hope you're are well lmao
song?
not helpful to my science project
no one asked
@@cole7942 So why you gotta say som
Halima Muse cause why not 👍😀😀
but there you go again, small rockets on the side, so what are these rocks pushing against ( in space) its a vacuum no opposing force to gain thrust or momentum, think about in, no atmosphere or mass in the vacuum of space, your going on, and on, forever in a straight line, off to some distant galaxy...
Are you a scientist? Do you have a physics degree? If not, stop talking. There are so many factors, calculations, and processes that make space travel possible that I'm just going to let a man smarter than me explain it to you. But hear this. Actual scientists who have studied all of their lives, who have trained and actually HAVE BEEN in space, know more about physics than you ever will. So don't decry all of their hard work and proven facts because you either don't know or can't comprehend it
super
teleporting then the moving thing soo creepy
@ESOcast this is s great video, but the explanation of the reactions are totally incorrect. Action and reaction are both forces. The video describes one action as Pedro pushing Charlie, and the reaction as Charlie floating away. But that's not the reaction! The reaction is Charlie pushes Pedro. The whole concept is that forces occur in pairs. If you punch a wall the wall punches you back. If you push on an object, the object pushes back on you.
The things that are equal but opposite are the actual forces involved, equal magnitude but opposite directions.
I see s bunch of students on here for an assignment, and that kind of freaks me out. This is nice footage, but really incorrect explanations.
every heard of a simplified explaination?
A wall is not pushing you back. That is ridiculous. The combined strength of Van der Waals forces in the wall either are stronger that the force applied or not. Deformation of the object going into the wall of of of the wall itself might cause a counterforce, but it won’t equal the original force since it won’t be a 100% efficient.
Those stick figures show how little you care.
Thats what my class said!!
Dude she just shadow clone jitsu us at the end
3rd law*
i will forever hate newton for making gravity exist and making me do long ass homework
@Tholomaios Thanks for the info.
uou... she scared me. It's like somebody pressed the On button.
*3rd law
I’m only here for homework this was boring as freakkk 👁👄👁
same
True.
ahhh iam here from physics
ahh i see u r a man of culture as well
Caralho o Pedro é foda
I mean the action with no reaction New Space Engine.
Mr. Rice Sent Me Here :/
Do see the reaction with no reaction New Space Engine.
how are you a scientist and you don't even know the difference between Newton's 2nd and 3rd laws smh
Hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
Consuelo Charloux hi
helpful
PARA SA MODULE LABAN!!!!!
mucho texto
Very creepy
hi
Hi
Ummm well that slanderous scientific detailed description explains everything to all those skeptical people out there! In summary, you’re saying NOTHING. Well done!!!!!
Who else is on here because of there stupid ass science class
CLICK BAIT
@@irishpancakes7734 chill
@@Ronin_444x no.
Usually I am polite, but in this case I must say you are a nut, or you must think I am one. I would be, if I would go on with this ridiculous disussion - over and out!
Why she have to look at you like that though lol
Newton 2nd law contradicts Karma, lol. If you do good, evil will happen. For every action, there is equal and opposite reaction. Haha. Just kidding.
Science is cool.
You're amiss.
Boring only watching for class project
Is it just me,or is that chick kinda...creepy?
High quality insults but very low quality rational argument, you loose!
i hate it
sore my bad