To have an object accelerate there must be a force acting on it, sure, unless it's a fictitious force. Think like coriolis when the object is actually going in a straight line but looks like its curving. Or think like when you are driving down the road and you turn right but feel your body going to the left, nothing is actually pushing you left. I would look into into coordinate acceleration vs proper acceleration. An accelerometer measures proper acceleration. You standing on the Earth are not in free fall because the ground is pushing up against your feet, preventing you from following a geodesic. The Earth’s surface is exerting an upward force on you, which is why you feel your weight. In fact, this upward force is interpreted as proper acceleration-even though you’re not moving, you are constantly being accelerated away from the geodesic you would follow if you were in free fall. We are not actually accelerating upward in the way you might imagine an object gaining speed. However, in Einstein’s General Relativity, the sensation of weight you feel while standing on Earth can be thought of as the surface of the Earth providing an upward proper acceleration that resists your natural geodesic (free fall) path through spacetime. So while the Earth’s surface exerts a force upward on you, it does not mean that Earth itself is physically moving or accelerating upward through space. It’s just how it's interpreted in relativity-objects in free fall aren’t accelerating, but the surface of the Earth prevents you from free fall, creating the sensation of upward acceleration (proper acceleration). Also if you carry on that sabine hossenfelder clip she does say about how its the pressure of the earth stopping you from falling/following a geodesic. Hope that helps and hope you are well 🙏 🙂
@@loasisapokalyptik2043, the ground COULD be rising to you in order to create the illusion of you falling to the ground, if you and the ground were the only things in the universe, but you're not! If the ground were actually rising at 9.8m/s² and the Sun were rising substantially faster, we would have collided with the Sun long ago. To avoid this, the Earth would have had to rise much faster on one side than the other, and this acceleration would have to change as we rotate. Then, what about the other planets, stars, asteroids, comets, etc? It's simply insane! A downward force fits the observational data far more easily. Think about it.
@@Rachie-nj3oi I know all about coordinate and proper acceleration. Also when you're falling straight down you're not following a geodesic weird how you're making excuses in your own mind for something so obvious pseudo forces are also measured. That's why I gave an example of the centripetal force on the fair ride.I didn't think anybody would try to use that excuse right after seeing the ride end my video
@@Rachie-nj3oi to have proper acceleration, there has to be a force. Coordinate acceleration, is just another word for apparent celebration, it's not real so it's not worth being discussed
Its odd that you know all about coordinate and proper acceleration but you still argue the earth is speeding upwards at 9.8 m/s^2 . You would have to believe that earth was speeding upwards faster than the speed of light in the first year of its existence! In the 4.5 billion years since then we should be moving upwards at approximately 1.4 x 10^18 m/s now. Only the ignorant can take this seriously
I jumped directly to 3:50 to get to your point, so I may have missed something, but I think I see your confusion, Brian. You don't seem to be able to d8fferentiate between mass and weight. This isn't hard in physics, but it does seem counterintuitive to neophytes. Objects have mass, not weight. Acceleration does not cause weight by itself. Thus, gravity doesn't give mass a weight. Weight is the result of a difference between acceleration and and the velocity change it should cause. So, when you jump off a cliff, your acceleration is mostly unimpeded and your weight goes toward zero....until you reach the ground! At that point you gain all that weight back at once. So, a Halloween pumpkin does not break under its own weight sitting on a table, but it smashes apart under its own weight when it falls even a short distance. In both reference frames, however, the mass of the pumpkin does not change. I hope this allegory helps to clear up the confusion for you and your devoted followers.
Thank you for admitting gas does not have weight. You said that here, "Thus, gravity doesn't give mass a weight. Weight is the result of a difference between acceleration and and the velocity change it should cause. So, when you jump off a cliff, your acceleration is mostly unimpeded and your weight goes toward zero....until you reach the ground! " - Gas is physical matter that does not obey any idea of "gravity" - It shows as well as my Newton letter above that the claim that all physical matter attracts all other physical matter due to mass is Wrong.
@@DivergentDroid , you're welcome, of course, however, I did NOT "[admit that] gas does not have weight". Perhaps you didn't understand what I actually did say. I said that an object has mass doesn't inherently have weight. Weight is the result of impeded acceleration. Gas is no exception to this law. Gas is accelerated by gravity, just like every other mass does. When the velocity does not increase due to the acceleration the mass of gas gains weight. If the gas in the atmosphere did not have weight, we would not have air pressure. Think about that... if you can.
@@tomfromamerica8042 You claim in freefall or Not at rest and Not in equilibrium weight disappears. "when you jump off a cliff - weight goes to zero" you said. That's exactly what happens when gas diffuses to fill an available volume. No way you can put it on a scale - it will Never stay there. Gas has atomic weight but that's not the same as the weight a scale registers. You cannot weight a gas on a scale without jumping through some hoops to calculate not actually weigh a gas. Gas is captured, compressed and stuffed into a container then that container is weighed. It is incorrectly assumed that the difference in weight of the empty container compared to the weight of the filled with gas container is the weight of the gas. This is Not correct because the gas in that container is still trying to expand in all directions equally pressing on the walls of the container trying to escape. Because Most of the gas is actually in a suspended state in the container, not Only pressing Down, you get a false reading. You are Not accounting for much of that gas. It does not matter that this happens because as a convention it works because this always happens and does not change. I understand gas behavior. I'm a retired air-conditioning refrigeration and heating technician of 30 years. That's not actually weighing the gas, but as a trick it works to arrive at an amount you can charge for a perceived amount of gas used. Individual gas particles essentially have zero weight any scale can measure.
@@DivergentDroid, that's silly! Your argument about weighing gas is similar to saying that a bobcat has no weigh because he won't stay on the scale. And yet, if you weigh the cat in a cage, then remove the cat and weigh the cage alone, the difference will be the weight of the cat. Of course, without acceleration, neither the cat nor the cage nor the air surrounding them would have any weight at all. They would only have mass. The weight of any of these elements depends on the acceleration affecting them and the degree to which that acceleration is impeded. You would always be measuring weight relative to something else. Have you ever tried to weight yourself on a scale while falling from a cliff? If your scale is accurate, it will measure the impedance of air resistance as weight. It would not measure the fact that you're "expanding" away from your initial location or the speed at which you're doing so, and fact that it would be falling at the same acceleration as you are would tend to cancel out the acceleration. Only the gaseous air would be "at rest". Your weight would just be a calculation under such extreme conditions. Look, if you weight a container at rest with a gas in it, then compare it to the weight of the container at rest with a vacuum in place of the gas, the difference will be the weight of the gas. What else could could account for the difference? Gas "at rest" under the influence of gravity has weight. It doesn't making any difference that the gas expands to fill its container. While gas molecules expand in all directions, under acceleration there is a bias in that expansion in the direction of the acceleration. This can be observed in a CO² tank where, when left at rest, the heaviest concentration of molecules accumulate into a semi liquid AT THE BOTTOM of the tank! The gas does expand to fill its container, but it does NOT do so evenly when the gas has weight. Why do you suppose that gas centrifuges can separate gas amalgmates by weight?
@@tomfromamerica8042 Gas in a tank does NOT accumulate into a semi liquid. Compression changes the state of the matter. It's called condensation. Liquids do have weight as they are intermolecularly bonded. Gasses are Not intermolecularly bonded. You cannot compare the two they are totally different states of matter with totally different properties. You can Easily stuff some gas into a container that is Not compressed enough to condense. That is how my example is used.
6:00 There’s no “building up to 9.8m/s^2”. If the structure that is supporting you (eg a trap door) gives way you instantly begin to accelerate at 9.8m/s^2.
6:35 no, what you said at all doesn't stand in conflict with an apparent force. Since apparent forces vanish in inertial reference frames they are not bound to a communication path. Since there's no build up or anything required to swtich reference frames there is not issue with the instantaneous effect. 7:39 neither is it accurate that the use of accelerometers is 'mainly used' between 0 and 1 g nor does calibrating an accelerometer as 0 when it's resting on the ground of earth make it useless between 0 and 1 g. The accelerometer will still register a change of acceleration in any direction starting from that calibration. The main difference being that it will show a downward acceleration of 1g when it is in free fall since the delta it reads is from being accelerated upwards with equal and opposite force to its weight. You're 0 for 4 with regards to supposed backfires. How many more times will you feel compelled to show case your cluelessness publicly?
Er.. can you be more specific about that.... 😆 Just a joke and.. I agree! both a claim of Newtonian gravity and Einsteinian gravity have never been validated via the scientific method - Newton never made that claim, his work was hijacked as my letter above shows and Einstein's gravitational accretion is a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. - So folks know, Specific gravity is defined as (Oxford) "the ratio of the density of a substance to the density of a standard, usually water for a liquid or solid, and air for a gas." Tech Target tells us, "Specific gravity, more formally known as relative density, is a measure of the density of a substance in comparison to the density of water. " Essentially it's a buoyancy and density comparison. This is all "gravity" really is. In modern times many people call it RDD - Relative Density Disequlibrium.
@@DivergentDroid Thank you for spelling it out for people, it isn't very well known, come to think of it I don't even think I remember learning of it in school. Only gravity they fed us was Newton and Einstein, density and buoyancy was treated separately but never labeled specific gravity.
To have an object accelerate there must be a force acting on it, sure, unless it's a fictitious force.
Think like coriolis when the object is actually going in a straight line but looks like its curving.
Or think like when you are driving down the road and you turn right but feel your body going to the left, nothing is actually pushing you left.
I would look into into coordinate acceleration vs proper acceleration.
An accelerometer measures proper acceleration.
You standing on the Earth are not in free fall because the ground is pushing up against your feet, preventing you from following a geodesic. The Earth’s surface is exerting an upward force on you, which is why you feel your weight. In fact, this upward force is interpreted as proper acceleration-even though you’re not moving, you are constantly being accelerated away from the geodesic you would follow if you were in free fall.
We are not actually accelerating upward in the way you might imagine an object gaining speed. However, in Einstein’s General Relativity, the sensation of weight you feel while standing on Earth can be thought of as the surface of the Earth providing an upward proper acceleration that resists your natural geodesic (free fall) path through spacetime.
So while the Earth’s surface exerts a force upward on you, it does not mean that Earth itself is physically moving or accelerating upward through space. It’s just how it's interpreted in relativity-objects in free fall aren’t accelerating, but the surface of the Earth prevents you from free fall, creating the sensation of upward acceleration (proper acceleration).
Also if you carry on that sabine hossenfelder clip she does say about how its the pressure of the earth stopping you from falling/following a geodesic.
Hope that helps and hope you are well 🙏 🙂
Le sol pousse sous vos pieds ‼️ 🤡🤪😂 N'importe quoi...la seule Gravité c'est d'y croire
Stop smoke their shit, you loose your brain
@@loasisapokalyptik2043, the ground COULD be rising to you in order to create the illusion of you falling to the ground, if you and the ground were the only things in the universe, but you're not! If the ground were actually rising at 9.8m/s² and the Sun were rising substantially faster, we would have collided with the Sun long ago. To avoid this, the Earth would have had to rise much faster on one side than the other, and this acceleration would have to change as we rotate. Then, what about the other planets, stars, asteroids, comets, etc? It's simply insane! A downward force fits the observational data far more easily. Think about it.
@@Rachie-nj3oi I know all about coordinate and proper acceleration. Also when you're falling straight down you're not following a geodesic weird how you're making excuses in your own mind for something so obvious pseudo forces are also measured. That's why I gave an example of the centripetal force on the fair ride.I didn't think anybody would try to use that excuse right after seeing the ride end my video
@@Rachie-nj3oi to have proper acceleration, there has to be a force. Coordinate acceleration, is just another word for apparent celebration, it's not real so it's not worth being discussed
Nice work further exposing these fools and their contradictions. Keep up the great work, Brian
Thank you
What contradiction did you find?
Its odd that you know all about coordinate and proper acceleration but you still argue the earth is speeding upwards at 9.8 m/s^2 . You would have to believe that earth was speeding upwards faster than the speed of light in the first year of its existence! In the 4.5 billion years since then we should be moving upwards at approximately 1.4 x 10^18 m/s now. Only the ignorant can take this seriously
Thats not how relativity works
@@rrrick2129 tell that to Brian.
@@phredro1731 telling you. Nothing prevents you from having a constant acceleration for as long as you want, speed of light will never be an issue
I jumped directly to 3:50 to get to your point, so I may have missed something, but I think I see your confusion, Brian. You don't seem to be able to d8fferentiate between mass and weight. This isn't hard in physics, but it does seem counterintuitive to neophytes. Objects have mass, not weight. Acceleration does not cause weight by itself. Thus, gravity doesn't give mass a weight. Weight is the result of a difference between acceleration and and the velocity change it should cause. So, when you jump off a cliff, your acceleration is mostly unimpeded and your weight goes toward zero....until you reach the ground! At that point you gain all that weight back at once. So, a Halloween pumpkin does not break under its own weight sitting on a table, but it smashes apart under its own weight when it falls even a short distance. In both reference frames, however, the mass of the pumpkin does not change. I hope this allegory helps to clear up the confusion for you and your devoted followers.
Thank you for admitting gas does not have weight. You said that here, "Thus, gravity doesn't give mass a weight. Weight is the result of a difference between acceleration and and the velocity change it should cause. So, when you jump off a cliff, your acceleration is mostly unimpeded and your weight goes toward zero....until you reach the ground! " - Gas is physical matter that does not obey any idea of "gravity" - It shows as well as my Newton letter above that the claim that all physical matter attracts all other physical matter due to mass is Wrong.
@@DivergentDroid , you're welcome, of course, however, I did NOT "[admit that] gas does not have weight". Perhaps you didn't understand what I actually did say. I said that an object has mass doesn't inherently have weight. Weight is the result of impeded acceleration. Gas is no exception to this law. Gas is accelerated by gravity, just like every other mass does. When the velocity does not increase due to the acceleration the mass of gas gains weight. If the gas in the atmosphere did not have weight, we would not have air pressure. Think about that... if you can.
@@tomfromamerica8042 You claim in freefall or Not at rest and Not in equilibrium weight disappears. "when you jump off a cliff - weight goes to zero" you said. That's exactly what happens when gas diffuses to fill an available volume. No way you can put it on a scale - it will Never stay there. Gas has atomic weight but that's not the same as the weight a scale registers. You cannot weight a gas on a scale without jumping through some hoops to calculate not actually weigh a gas. Gas is captured, compressed and stuffed into a container then that container is weighed. It is incorrectly assumed that the difference in weight of the empty container compared to the weight of the filled with gas container is the weight of the gas. This is Not correct because the gas in that container is still trying to expand in all directions equally pressing on the walls of the container trying to escape. Because Most of the gas is actually in a suspended state in the container, not Only pressing Down, you get a false reading. You are Not accounting for much of that gas. It does not matter that this happens because as a convention it works because this always happens and does not change. I understand gas behavior. I'm a retired air-conditioning refrigeration and heating technician of 30 years. That's not actually weighing the gas, but as a trick it works to arrive at an amount you can charge for a perceived amount of gas used. Individual gas particles essentially have zero weight any scale can measure.
@@DivergentDroid, that's silly! Your argument about weighing gas is similar to saying that a bobcat has no weigh because he won't stay on the scale. And yet, if you weigh the cat in a cage, then remove the cat and weigh the cage alone, the difference will be the weight of the cat. Of course, without acceleration, neither the cat nor the cage nor the air surrounding them would have any weight at all. They would only have mass. The weight of any of these elements depends on the acceleration affecting them and the degree to which that acceleration is impeded. You would always be measuring weight relative to something else. Have you ever tried to weight yourself on a scale while falling from a cliff? If your scale is accurate, it will measure the impedance of air resistance as weight. It would not measure the fact that you're "expanding" away from your initial location or the speed at which you're doing so, and fact that it would be falling at the same acceleration as you are would tend to cancel out the acceleration. Only the gaseous air would be "at rest". Your weight would just be a calculation under such extreme conditions. Look, if you weight a container at rest with a gas in it, then compare it to the weight of the container at rest with a vacuum in place of the gas, the difference will be the weight of the gas. What else could could account for the difference? Gas "at rest" under the influence of gravity has weight. It doesn't making any difference that the gas expands to fill its container. While gas molecules expand in all directions, under acceleration there is a bias in that expansion in the direction of the acceleration. This can be observed in a CO² tank where, when left at rest, the heaviest concentration of molecules accumulate into a semi liquid AT THE BOTTOM of the tank! The gas does expand to fill its container, but it does NOT do so evenly when the gas has weight. Why do you suppose that gas centrifuges can separate gas amalgmates by weight?
@@tomfromamerica8042 Gas in a tank does NOT accumulate into a semi liquid. Compression changes the state of the matter. It's called condensation. Liquids do have weight as they are intermolecularly bonded. Gasses are Not intermolecularly bonded. You cannot compare the two they are totally different states of matter with totally different properties. You can Easily stuff some gas into a container that is Not compressed enough to condense. That is how my example is used.
6:00 There’s no “building up to 9.8m/s^2”. If the structure that is supporting you (eg a trap door) gives way you instantly begin to accelerate at 9.8m/s^2.
When an object is released / dropped it is already travelling at 9.8m /s, the "building up to" Is the object losing it's upwards momentum to friction,
if that cant be mass attracting mass then how gravimeter works?
😂😂😂 Gravimeter ❓ really ❓ 🤪🤡😂
@@loasisapokalyptik2043 🤡🤡🤡
@@loasisapokalyptik2043, yes, a gravimeter, like the one in your cellphone. You know a gravimeter, like a plumb bob. (This is too easy!) 😂😂😂😂
That would be an affirming the consequent formal logical fallacy. Gravimeters work, therefore mass attracting mass - it does not work.
@@DivergentDroid that's not an argument for it to be fallacious. That's a question and you are avoiding it
6:35 no, what you said at all doesn't stand in conflict with an apparent force. Since apparent forces vanish in inertial reference frames they are not bound to a communication path. Since there's no build up or anything required to swtich reference frames there is not issue with the instantaneous effect.
7:39 neither is it accurate that the use of accelerometers is 'mainly used' between 0 and 1 g nor does calibrating an accelerometer as 0 when it's resting on the ground of earth make it useless between 0 and 1 g. The accelerometer will still register a change of acceleration in any direction starting from that calibration. The main difference being that it will show a downward acceleration of 1g when it is in free fall since the delta it reads is from being accelerated upwards with equal and opposite force to its weight.
You're 0 for 4 with regards to supposed backfires. How many more times will you feel compelled to show case your cluelessness publicly?
There exist only one type of gravity and that is specific gravity.
Er.. can you be more specific about that.... 😆 Just a joke and.. I agree! both a claim of Newtonian gravity and Einsteinian gravity have never been validated via the scientific method - Newton never made that claim, his work was hijacked as my letter above shows and Einstein's gravitational accretion is a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. - So folks know, Specific gravity is defined as (Oxford) "the ratio of the density of a substance to the density of a standard, usually water for a liquid or solid, and air for a gas." Tech Target tells us, "Specific gravity, more formally known as relative density, is a measure of the density of a substance in comparison to the density of water. " Essentially it's a buoyancy and density comparison. This is all "gravity" really is. In modern times many people call it RDD - Relative Density Disequlibrium.
@@DivergentDroid Thank you for spelling it out for people, it isn't very well known, come to think of it I don't even think I remember learning of it in school. Only gravity they fed us was Newton and Einstein, density and buoyancy was treated separately but never labeled specific gravity.
Any reason why you stole the thumbnail from Crash Course?
Wow, that's your comment Andre is that their actual thumbnail?
@@brianleake7762 Yes that’s my question. And yes that’s their actual thumbnail, though it has been cropped slightly.
You didn’t answer my question.