Thanks everyone. I plan to invest more time in this channel, and hope to upload new videos really soon, in particular, some frequent requests and more. So see you soon.
@@udiprod Genuinely you have such quality content. I feel that, for me at least, animation provides a whole dimension of articulation that captures the attention in a way words can often fail to - and your's are of excellent quality. As the other said, quality over quantity any day. It makes the videos rewatchable and far more useful than excessive lower quality ones. Thank you sincerely for your time and effort, it assuredly does not go unnoticed
You create some of the best educational videos on the internet. I know I'll watch this video a lot, just like I did with the quantum physics video. Please never stop making them, once every other year is infinitely better than none.
It's the very best explanation of this topic that I ever heard. Thanks. It would bec even clearer if you change the term "fictious force" to something like "lagging force" because that lagging concept really tipped the scale for me from not understanding to understanding.
What an interesting comment, and I totally agree. Thanks. Whatever makes it easier for someone to gain an understanding of a particular topic in science, is a very useful tool to have in your possession, as long as it agrees with the observational data. However, why not save yourself the trouble of inventing more fictitious names, and just call it the "centrifugal force." A *real* force that only appears in an accelerated frame of reference, in exactly the same way that the so-called force of gravity does. Albeit for the one proviso, that it acts in the opposite direction to the aforementioned force. That's what Sir Isaac Newton would've done, and I wouldn't want to disagree with him, would you? All the best.
Thank you for your added explanation. (The “fictitious force” is difficult (for me) to understand.) So, according to your explanation, the centrifugal force is a force that is pulling opposite to gravity which causes a bulge on the opposite side of the Earth because the water on that side is being pulled outwards? Is that correct? Or what if we imagine a string (gravity) pulling on the earth which causes it to become elongated, with or without any orbit involved-we could be pulling the earth in a straight line through space. This would cause a bulge on either side of the earth due to the elongation, though we wouldn’t necessarily call it a centrifugal force since the elongation would happen even in the absence of an orbit. If all points on the Earth are pulling towards the center, and an outside force pulls on the Earth, it will become somewhat elongated, and this will cause the water on the other side to be “pushed” out. I like the word you used, “lagging,” as that helps me to imagine that gravity might just pulling less on the far side water since it is further away. If this is the case, then the tide is always higher on the side closer to the moon? Also, no matter how I imagine this, it always seems more egg shaped than elongated, like hanging a water balloon from a string, unlike the images that are usually shown in these videos, which look closer to ovals. I like your explanation because the centrifugal force is easier for me to envision, and just feels more satisfying. But please consider my example where the earth is being pulled straight through space without any orbit directly towards a massive object. In this case, if the (slightly elongated) Earth is still rotating, would we experience tides? And if so, then I don’t think we would be able to say that they are caused by centrifugal forces.
Hi Wavy, I see that Marcos said lagging, not you. At any rate thank you both for your comments. I will keep watching the original video to try and get a better grasp. Have a good day.
Hi Enrique, I did read through your comment, but wasn't notified of its existence unfortunately. Probably, because it included the word centrifugal and apparently we don't like to accept the effect it has in orbital motion. You would both be very welcome to comment on my cartoon and continue the discussion if you're interested. Thank you for replying here.
Thank you. This is hands down the best visual explanation of tidal forces I’ve ever seen. Though I did get a bit worried when you said, “… flat earth model…”
A udiprod video? Haley's comet must have come early. I remember watching these in middle school, and they're still making new ones now that I've graduated college and gotten a job. What legends.
this is hands down the best explanation of tidal forces, while also staying correct and not going to shorthand to just explain everything away due to centrifugal force. My Professor of planetary physics insisted on the centrifugal force being real and I was not convinced and now i know again why.
Great explanation, I had no idea there was so much to it! Love the new narrator. I hope you're back in the mood for more new videos because they're fantastic!
Hey udiprod! Welcome back. Your videos helped me pass Algorithm 101 back in college and your halting problem is simply amazing. Since you're back, I'd simply turn on the notification not to miss a single video. Thanks man!
This is one of the most entertaining, educational and underrated RUclips channels out there. Hope you grow to the likes of Captain Disillusion and Kurzgesagt soon.
I've been a space and physics nerd for years. I've never quite understood why there were two tidal bulges until seeing this video. It never really occurred to me that the earth would be accelerating towards the moon faster than the ocean on the opposite side of the earth from the moon.
I’ve realized that just with the title “Tidal Patterns”, its not easy to find they site I mentioned on my previous post. What I had posted on that site was: “Farther parts of the Earth are NOT SUFFICIENTLY attracted by the Moon in order to follow an orbit equal to the one of Earth´s C.M. (if they could move independently from the rest of the planet). Due to that, they try to get a farther orbit. They rest of they planet prevents that, exerting a "moonward" force. And those farther parts exert an opposite reaction force ... All those forces stretch farther solid Earth´s parts, and where water they so called hide tide bulge builds, trying to reach an equilibrium with own Earth´s attraction (not fully achievable due to they daily Earth´s quick rotation, what also is the cause of the some couple of hours gap between high tide meridian and Moon´s actual position). A "mirror" phenomenon happens at closer half of the Earth, because its parts are attracted by the Moon TOO MUCH for the average orbit, they try to get a closer orbit, but the rest of they planet prevents it ... “ And if anybody wants to see more about previous discussion, the link to mentioned RUclips site is: Tidal Patterns
Your non-inertial frame (1:33) is actually an inertial frame. To appear stationary amidst the uniform gravity field would actually require energy, and it would be the non-inertial frame. Great video nonetheless, thank you!
if you are saying that non inertial frame seems to not accelerating from the depiction, then yes. but it is one of the possible ways to show this phenomenon in a video. energy requirement thing you said sounds irrelevant, i think.
@@bewareofyikes Hi Sergio, seeing as you commented in a thread that's 4 years old, hoping someone would reply! 😂 The energy requirement is relevant. The unfortunate mistake that Udiprod made here, was with the definition of an *Inertial* frame. An inertial frame does *not* include any forces, be they real or unreal. Analysing the tidal forces in an inertial frame is what's irrelevant here, I think.
With Udiprod’s permission, I’d like to attempt an answer for you, and then you might be kind enough to view my own “daft” little video and I’ll attempt to explain further? The viewpoint of the “cameras” has no effect on the observed phenomenon. The earth-moon system is definitely “accelerating” so, therefore, it is a non-inertial reference frame and must include the “apparent” forces. Regardless of whatever camera you want to view it with. Does that help? The “apparent” forces do not disappear just because you choose to view it through an inertial reference frame camera, but of course you (personally!) won’t feel the “apparent” forces because you’re now holding a inertial reference frame camera. So, I agree it does get confusing when you start mentioning reference frames?
I logged in to subscribe, your videos are so promising! I'd compare how easily I comprehend the video with others, they're made just how I'd cognitively comprehend sth.
FAnTasTic Video!! Even if you may didn't make more vids, I want to say thanks to you. This is a really good explanation about tidal forces! Better than what my professors taught!
5:30 "The left side is somewhat bigger because of how the graph is curving...let's compute it's first and second derivatives" WHOA NOW baby, I'm just not ready for that kind of commitment
udiprod Still a bit confused. Why would the Earth not respond instantly to the tidal forces? I know gravitational waves propagate at the speed of light but how is that coming into play here?
Right, it's not gravitational waves. The beads feel the tidal forces instantly, like you say. But the effect of a force in an object is not immediate displacement, but gradual build-up of speed. Think for example about cars. When a driver steps on the gas, the car doesn't instantly jump to another location, but slowly gathers speed. The same thing happens with the beads: as they feel the tidal forces they start accelerating toward the direction they're pointing at, but it takes them about 0.5 a second until the are fully stretched out. By that time the Sun has already moved a little bit relative to the Earth, so they beads are no longer pointing directly at the Sun at this time.
udiprod So their inertia carries them forward for a bit after the appropriate force vector induces maximum stretching, and they settle back down? I think I get it a bit more now. Also not trying to bug you because I know I just asked this in a other comment, but why is the Earth rotating clockwise in the inertial FOV? I’m trying to compare this to a “Traditional” North view of the Sun/Earth system and my intuition is telling me that the tidal bulge would actually lag behind slightly. May just need to think about it more.
Hi Udiprod. Thanks for your video. There is one question which is still puzzling me. In the case of a full moon the tidal forces of the sun and moon exerted on the solid earth are in opposite direction. Because of that we should expect a reduce bulges sizes in a full moon state than in a new moon state? (for the same eart sun and earth moon distance in both cases). I think I miss something but I Don t know what?
You are basically right: when the moon and the sun align the two tides build up and we get a larger tide. But the moon by itself causes bulges on both sides, also the sun. So this alignment happens both in a full moon and in a new moon. It's called a "Spring tide". Read about it here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide#Range_variation:_springs_and_neaps
So, as for the two bulges, the bulge closer to the attractor is caused by its gravity, and the other bulge is an outward stretch from centrifugal force (i.e. inertia against circular movement)?
Came from the MIP*=RE video and i wish the algorithm led me to your channel 4 days earlief because i just had an exam qn on this hahaha.. what software do u use btw? Great animations and explanation
Unfortunately hardly anything you say here about the Earth’s tides is correct, and this certainly isn’t the way to visualise them. You perpetuate a widely held misconception that the vertical/axial gravitational component is responsible for raising the tides when it isn’t. This component is tiny, about one ten millionth of a ‘g’, and the oceans are too shallow for this to accumulate any effect. If it were the dominant force there would only be one high tide a day because there would only be one tidal bulge, in effect a Roche Lobe such as is found in accreting binary star systems. There is no way that the vertical/axial model can account for the second tidal bulge, and all attempts to force it to do so, such as your swapping of reference frames, are grotesque distortions of Physics. The true source of the Earth’s tides was discovered by Euler and mathematically modelled by Laplace in his eponymous Tidal Equations. The tides are raised by the horizontal components of the Moon’s gravitational pull which act as cumulative tractive forces in the horizontal plane of the oceans. Although these components are also tiny, they are crucially cumulative over the vast surface of Earth’s oceans, and sea water is fluid and incompressible. These tractive components are present on the far side of the Earth as well as that nearest the Moon, so this model correctly predicts two tidal bulges. It also correctly predicts the shape of the bulges, which are domed or flat-topped, because along the Earth-Moon axis the horizontal components are all tending to zero. The tractive forces peak at about 45 degrees from the Earth-Moon axis, so a better visualisation is that the tidal bulges are squeezed up from the sides rather than pulled from above. Laplace’s Tidal Equations take the vertical component to be zero, and are still used today as the basis for accurate modelling and to predict the tides.
Hello One Eleven, Good presentations about the ocean tides are few and far between. I have one which is called ‘Ocean Tides Making Sense’. But it isn’t getting much attention, amongst a multitude of like-minded popular stuff. Could I ask you to take a look at it and voice your opinion. It would be greatly appreciated, as you clearly know what you are talking about.
This video is not correct in it's explanation of tidal forces. The difference in forces between the rear of the Earth and the front facing the moon is negligible and does not cause the tidal effects we see. This can easily be seen because lakes do not experience tides yet according to this explanation they should. The reason for tidal forces, in general, is the difference in the direction of the force of the Moon. Along the line of the Moon and Earth center the direction of the force is aligned with that line. However on all other points, the direction of the force towards the moon's center of gravity is actually pointing at an angle. If you visualize the two points on Earth's surface that are perpendicular to the Earth-moon-center line, the part of the force pulls them down. This creates pressure from the top/bottom (on a 2d Earth at least) which causes water to flow closer to the middle. There is a wiki image here upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Field_tidal.svg The actual forces are tiny but the directions are exactly as depicted. The seemingly inward pull of water from the top/bottom of that diagram is what causes the tides. Lakes do not experience similar tides because they are not directly connected to oceans, which basically the pressure from the flowing water from the top/bottom of the earth doesn't reach them.
The video focuses on what generates tidal forces, and less on how tidal forces cause tides. The reason for tidal forces is not just differences in direction, but differences in gravity field in general. You can see in the diagram you included (and also in the video) that the tidal forces are stronest on the line connecting the Earth with the moon, i.e., it's actually the differences in magnitude and not difference in direction that explain the tidal forces at their strongest points. The lake you mentioned will, at some point, reach the top/bottom of the diagram and be subject to the inward pull, but this too will not cause tide effects in this lake. You need a vast body to see tide effects regardless of which point in the diagram they're in. One thing is true and I regret not mentioning more explicitly it in the video, is that bodies of water are mostly subject to tangential forces (e.g., like the one in the diagram between the top and the left side), though this is briefly implicitly mentioned at 8:06. As far as I know the solid parts of the Earth are actually more influenced by the radial parts (i.e., top/bottom and left/right).
RUclips's algorithms try to predicts which videos will be interesting based on how previous videos from the same uploader have worked, based on the videos you've seen, the video length etc.
The problem is that there is no such thing as centrifugal force. How then do you explain the effect that you attribute to it using something that is real?
The centrifugal force is a fictitious force added in a frame of reference where the viewer is accelerating, to compensate for this acceleration. So we can either explain things in an inertial frame where there are no fictitious forces, or in an accelerating one. The video shows both.
@@udiprod Hello Udiprod, How are you? It’s really good to see you’re still willing to engage with your audience, and correct there misconceptions. Well done. There is one thing however, that I’d like to bring to your attention, since someone just referenced your video to me, and asked for my humble opinion! And, this isn’t a criticism, because the reply you just gave was very accurate…but, here’s the thing: An inertial frame of reference is either at “rest” or is moving in a straight line at a constant velocity. It doesn’t include any “accelerations” or accelerated motion, so therefore shouldn’t include any “fictitious” forces, and not only does that include the centrifugal force, it unfortunately, means it shouldn’t include “gravity” either, because gravity is all about accelerated motion. The earth-moon system is, and always will be, a non-inertial reference frame. It would be nice to gain your approval for my endeavours, since I’ve been trying to explain the errors in most tidal explanations for sometime now. Take care.
@@wavydaveyparker You are right. But there's no need to introduce relativistic ideas into explaining tidal forces, because classical physics can explain them well enough. So it makes the explanation simpler to understand. I think it's common practice to use classical physics whenever it's enough to explain something.
@@udiprod Thanks, but I wasn’t really introducing any relativistic ideas, I’m just trying to counter the numerous foolish “videos” and comments like the one you’ve just received. They said it wasn’t “real” and you tried to explain that it’s “fictitious” …etc. Now, if they are as misinformed, as I suspect they are? Then, there next comment will be, “Ah, fictitious means fake, therefore it doesn’t exist!” … So, all I’m saying is, “Gravity is also a fictitious force.” And even Newton himself would tell us, that Inertia and Gravity are the exact same thing! Take care, I’ll have a look at your latest creation now, which appears to be introducing the idea of “tensors” in tidal forces, fascinating! Good luck.
I don’t think I understood the fictitious force at all :/ if the camera has the same acceleration as the earth, why do we apply a fictitious force on the earth?
That’s the exact situation which necessitates the introduction of a fictitious force. By switching to a reference system which is apparently standing still, there would be no reason for the masses in it to start moving. You can only make that work if you introduce said fictitious forces (which really are a measure for the mass effects you lost, switching to this reference frame).
Tides are caused by lateral gravitational forces.. the lateral forces act on 100s to 1000s of km of oceans. and it takes a while for these amounts of water to flow due to momentum and friction..
![Halting Problem & Quantum Entanglement 2020 Breakthrough result [MIP*=RE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/2H8629BCbkM/mqdefault.jpg)
![Halting Problem & Quantum Entanglement 2020 Breakthrough result [MIP*=RE]](/img/tr.png)
Thanks everyone. I plan to invest more time in this channel, and hope to upload new videos really soon, in particular, some frequent requests and more. So see you soon.
Please never give up quality for quantity. You're a unique channel and I can see you being there at the top of science channels!
Thanks a lot. Yes, I'll do my best to stay at the same level.
@@udiprod Genuinely you have such quality content. I feel that, for me at least, animation provides a whole dimension of articulation that captures the attention in a way words can often fail to - and your's are of excellent quality.
As the other said, quality over quantity any day. It makes the videos rewatchable and far more useful than excessive lower quality ones.
Thank you sincerely for your time and effort, it assuredly does not go unnoticed
@@Pokiwar Thanks!
Man, you always manage to explain such complex things in a way a five year old can comprehend. Keep up the great work!
A new video from udiprod?
A surprise to be sure, but a welcome one.
This video is a Christmas miracle!
You create some of the best educational videos on the internet. I know I'll watch this video a lot, just like I did with the quantum physics video. Please never stop making them, once every other year is infinitely better than none.
It's the very best explanation of this topic that I ever heard. Thanks. It would bec even clearer if you change the term "fictious force" to something like "lagging force" because that lagging concept really tipped the scale for me from not understanding to understanding.
What an interesting comment, and I totally agree. Thanks. Whatever makes it easier for someone to gain an understanding of a particular topic in science, is a very useful tool to have in your possession, as long as it agrees with the observational data.
However, why not save yourself the trouble of inventing more fictitious names, and just call it the "centrifugal force."
A *real* force that only appears in an accelerated frame of reference, in exactly the same way that the so-called force of gravity does. Albeit for the one proviso, that it acts in the opposite direction to the aforementioned force.
That's what Sir Isaac Newton would've done, and I wouldn't want to disagree with him, would you? All the best.
Thank you for your added explanation. (The “fictitious force” is difficult (for me) to understand.) So, according to your explanation, the centrifugal force is a force that is pulling opposite to gravity which causes a bulge on the opposite side of the Earth because the water on that side is being pulled outwards? Is that correct?
Or what if we imagine a string (gravity) pulling on the earth which causes it to become elongated, with or without any orbit involved-we could be pulling the earth in a straight line through space. This would cause a bulge on either side of the earth due to the elongation, though we wouldn’t necessarily call it a centrifugal force since the elongation would happen even in the absence of an orbit.
If all points on the Earth are pulling towards the center, and an outside force pulls on the Earth, it will become somewhat elongated, and this will cause the water on the other side to be “pushed” out.
I like the word you used, “lagging,” as that helps me to imagine that gravity might just pulling less on the far side water since it is further away. If this is the case, then the tide is always higher on the side closer to the moon?
Also, no matter how I imagine this, it always seems more egg shaped than elongated, like hanging a water balloon from a string, unlike the images that are usually shown in these videos, which look closer to ovals.
I like your explanation because the centrifugal force is easier for me to envision, and just feels more satisfying. But please consider my example where the earth is being pulled straight through space without any orbit directly towards a massive object. In this case, if the (slightly elongated) Earth is still rotating, would we experience tides? And if so, then I don’t think we would be able to say that they are caused by centrifugal forces.
Hi Wavy, I see that Marcos said lagging, not you. At any rate thank you both for your comments. I will keep watching the original video to try and get a better grasp. Have a good day.
Hi Enrique, I did read through your comment, but wasn't notified of its existence unfortunately. Probably, because it included the word centrifugal and apparently we don't like to accept the effect it has in orbital motion.
You would both be very welcome to comment on my cartoon and continue the discussion if you're interested. Thank you for replying here.
"...explain using a flat model of the Earth..."
Flat Earthers: Y E S
I have waited 2 years
Thank you. This is hands down the best visual explanation of tidal forces I’ve ever seen.
Though I did get a bit worried when you said, “… flat earth model…”
this channel is painfully underrated
For the first time in 2 years, udiprod uploaded a video.
A udiprod video? Haley's comet must have come early. I remember watching these in middle school, and they're still making new ones now that I've graduated college and gotten a job. What legends.
Moon and Earth rotate around their common center of gravity which is moving continuously inside the earth's surface.
Two years I’ve waited... and it was worth it after watching that amazing video
this is hands down the best explanation of tidal forces, while also staying correct and not going to shorthand to just explain everything away due to centrifugal force. My Professor of planetary physics insisted on the centrifugal force being real and I was not convinced and now i know again why.
I find oddly pleasant that the pause circle perfectly fits the earth figure when pressed (at least in touch devices). I'm really glad you're back :)
After 2 years, a new udiprod video has been given to us by the gods.
i love how u can just "add a camera" or "decrease the moons mass"
@SQ38 correct
I feel like it's 2007 and I'm a kid watching the Science Channel again. Thanks, man, this content is fantastic. Keep it up!
Perfect Christmas gift that I ever had ... !
this channel is so underrated omg
Welcome back to RUclips!!!
Yay new video!!!
See you again in 1-3 more years!
Great explanation, I had no idea there was so much to it! Love the new narrator. I hope you're back in the mood for more new videos because they're fantastic!
You are one of my favorite long term RUclipsrs. I'm a fan till I get old.
Oh, haven't seen this channel in a while. Welcome back.
i'm so glad you're coming back- the sorting videos were amazing! i'll definitely watch all the other ones after finishing those, this is awesome
This account is so unique in its presentations and so easy to follow the explanations!
Hey udiprod! Welcome back. Your videos helped me pass Algorithm 101 back in college and your halting problem is simply amazing. Since you're back, I'd simply turn on the notification not to miss a single video. Thanks man!
A udiprod video! This is a once in a decade experience!
What a christmas present, another Udiprod upload!
Petition for Bogo sorting video
⬇️
Eurovision Cyan
With full competition between bubble sort and Bogo sort!
I wonder how they would do it
Shadinpaw The Cat i think the robots would get one ball, replace it with another ball randomly
should’ve been an april fools vid
son of a- I was going to make a comment about this but you beat me to it. but srsly we need this to happen
The legend is back! It's great to see you again!
I study Aerospace Engineering and this video is INCREDIBLE!
But this doesn't deal with the centrifugal effect of the barycentric spin of the Earth, which adds to the far side tidal bulge ( significantly)
The channel's alive!!!!!
Just randomly ran into this channel and am loving it so far. Hope to see more videos!
Wow, I rewatched all of your videos... I totally forgot about you... Great video!! As always...
Return of the legend! Thank you for again uploading video it has been long time :)
This is one of the most entertaining, educational and underrated RUclips channels out there. Hope you grow to the likes of Captain Disillusion and Kurzgesagt soon.
Finally a new video!
One must wait for high quality content!
He has returned!
Huzzah, udiprod has returned!
so ... is this channel not dead?
It's cranking videos at the same rate it always has been, why would it be dead ?
Ori Exactly, at a rate about 0.00000003 Hz
@@thejbo777 At precisely 0.00000003171 Hz
schuelermine you right i kept only one sig fig tho
I've been a space and physics nerd for years. I've never quite understood why there were two tidal bulges until seeing this video. It never really occurred to me that the earth would be accelerating towards the moon faster than the ocean on the opposite side of the earth from the moon.
The return of the king
I’ve realized that just with the title “Tidal Patterns”, its not easy to find they site I mentioned on my previous post.
What I had posted on that site was:
“Farther parts of the Earth are NOT SUFFICIENTLY attracted by the Moon in order to follow an orbit equal to the one of Earth´s C.M. (if they could move independently from the rest of the planet).
Due to that, they try to get a farther orbit.
They rest of they planet prevents that, exerting a "moonward" force. And those farther parts exert an opposite reaction force ...
All those forces stretch farther solid Earth´s parts, and where water they so called hide tide bulge builds, trying to reach an equilibrium with own Earth´s attraction (not fully achievable due to they daily Earth´s quick rotation, what also is the cause of the some couple of hours gap between high tide meridian and Moon´s actual position).
A "mirror" phenomenon happens at closer half of the Earth, because its parts are attracted by the Moon TOO MUCH for the average orbit, they try to get a closer orbit, but the rest of they planet prevents it ... “
And if anybody wants to see more about previous discussion, the link to mentioned RUclips site is:
Tidal Patterns
The perfect explanation for tidal forces.
The return of the King
Man you gotta keep uploading!!!
The best explanation I've seen so far!!
Thanks a LOTTTT
this channel is still alive?! wow
Love your content btw
Finally a new video! If you are going to be active again, will you upload more sorting algorithms and other computer logic videos? I loved it.
The legend is back bois,
This video is pure GOLD!
Oh my God, he's back!
Welcome back!
Oh hey you're back
Your non-inertial frame (1:33) is actually an inertial frame. To appear stationary amidst the uniform gravity field would actually require energy, and it would be the non-inertial frame. Great video nonetheless, thank you!
Right, inert means still. The one on the left is still, the one on the right is moving (requires energy)
It confused me for a second, then I realized it was just a mistake.
if you are saying that non inertial frame seems to not accelerating from the depiction, then yes. but it is one of the possible ways to show this phenomenon in a video. energy requirement thing you said sounds irrelevant, i think.
@@bewareofyikes Hi Sergio, seeing as you commented in a thread that's 4 years old, hoping someone would reply! 😂 The energy requirement is relevant. The unfortunate mistake that Udiprod made here, was with the definition of an *Inertial* frame. An inertial frame does *not* include any forces, be they real or unreal. Analysing the tidal forces in an inertial frame is what's irrelevant here, I think.
They're back!
Nice video! Well done, entertaining, and informative.
TIL I never really knew how tidal forces worked, but now I do!
Oh my god I was rewatching this channel videos like two days ago! Niceeee
Finally after 2 years of silence.
Great video! I want to understand why we need those fictitious forces when switching to a non-inertial frame of reference with the cameras.
With Udiprod’s permission, I’d like to attempt an answer for you, and then you might be kind enough to view my own “daft” little video and I’ll attempt to explain further?
The viewpoint of the “cameras” has no effect on the observed phenomenon. The earth-moon system is definitely “accelerating” so, therefore, it is a non-inertial reference frame and must include the “apparent” forces. Regardless of whatever camera you want to view it with. Does that help? The “apparent” forces do not disappear just because you choose to view it through an inertial reference frame camera, but of course you (personally!) won’t feel the “apparent” forces because you’re now holding a inertial reference frame camera. So, I agree it does get confusing when you start mentioning reference frames?
Incredible. I finally understand how tides work.
*they're back*
this was a very entertaining visualisation
amazing video, best visualization ever!
Hats off to you man for this awesome explanation
Holy shit they uploaded, a Christmas miracle! Nice 👍
I logged in to subscribe, your videos are so promising! I'd compare how easily I comprehend the video with others, they're made just how I'd cognitively comprehend sth.
WOW! I never thought that the fictitious force cancels out the real force so that the objects does not accelerate in the non inertial frame
Thank you for this video! Great visuals and explanations!
I’m reading Incandescence by Greg Egan and this video helped my understanding of it so much.
FAnTasTic Video!! Even if you may didn't make more vids, I want to say thanks to you. This is a really good explanation about tidal forces! Better than what my professors taught!
Hi your videos are so good and what are the softwares used.
Thanks! I'm using Maya.
Thank you very much, this clip is the best of best !
To Achieve What Nobody Else Has over hundreds of years.
I don't know if Udiprod can continue the series with sorting algorithms. I don't understand how shell sort works.
Yes, the sorting series will continue soon. Shell sort is very interesting, and it's high on my list of things to do, so stay tuned.
@@udiprod Ok.
This channel is crazy cool
welcome back!
5:30 "The left side is somewhat bigger because of how the graph is curving...let's compute it's first and second derivatives"
WHOA NOW baby, I'm just not ready for that kind of commitment
I wonder what next year's video will be, hope is another sorting one, with bogus or maybe goblin.
Why are the force vectors around 3:40 not perfectly directed at the Sun? They look like they’re directed slightly ahead.
It's explained at 13:13
udiprod Still a bit confused. Why would the Earth not respond instantly to the tidal forces? I know gravitational waves propagate at the speed of light but how is that coming into play here?
udiprod Also, why is the Earth rotating clockwise in the final portion of the video?
Right, it's not gravitational waves. The beads feel the tidal forces instantly, like you say. But the effect of a force in an object is not immediate displacement, but gradual build-up of speed. Think for example about cars. When a driver steps on the gas, the car doesn't instantly jump to another location, but slowly gathers speed.
The same thing happens with the beads: as they feel the tidal forces they start accelerating toward the direction they're pointing at, but it takes them about 0.5 a second until the are fully stretched out. By that time the Sun has already moved a little bit relative to the Earth, so they beads are no longer pointing directly at the Sun at this time.
udiprod So their inertia carries them forward for a bit after the appropriate force vector induces maximum stretching, and they settle back down? I think I get it a bit more now. Also not trying to bug you because I know I just asked this in a other comment, but why is the Earth rotating clockwise in the inertial FOV? I’m trying to compare this to a “Traditional” North view of the Sun/Earth system and my intuition is telling me that the tidal bulge would actually lag behind slightly. May just need to think about it more.
Hi Udiprod. Thanks for your video. There is one question which is still puzzling me. In the case of a full moon the tidal forces of the sun and moon exerted on the solid earth are in opposite direction. Because of that we should expect a reduce bulges sizes in a full moon state than in a new moon state? (for the same eart sun and earth moon distance in both cases). I think I miss something but I Don t know what?
You are basically right: when the moon and the sun align the two tides build up and we get a larger tide.
But the moon by itself causes bulges on both sides, also the sun. So this alignment happens both in a full moon and in a new moon. It's called a "Spring tide".
Read about it here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide#Range_variation:_springs_and_neaps
So, as for the two bulges, the bulge closer to the attractor is caused by its gravity, and the other bulge is an outward stretch from centrifugal force (i.e. inertia against circular movement)?
sort of its more the earth moving away from the beads on the other side, the earth is moving away I think?
Came from the MIP*=RE video and i wish the algorithm led me to your channel 4 days earlief because i just had an exam qn on this hahaha.. what software do u use btw? Great animations and explanation
Thanks! I'm using Maya.
Unfortunately hardly anything you say here about the Earth’s tides is correct, and this certainly isn’t the way to visualise them. You perpetuate a widely held misconception that the vertical/axial gravitational component is responsible for raising the tides when it isn’t. This component is tiny, about one ten millionth of a ‘g’, and the oceans are too shallow for this to accumulate any effect. If it were the dominant force there would only be one high tide a day because there would only be one tidal bulge, in effect a Roche Lobe such as is found in accreting binary star systems. There is no way that the vertical/axial model can account for the second tidal bulge, and all attempts to force it to do so, such as your swapping of reference frames, are grotesque distortions of Physics.
The true source of the Earth’s tides was discovered by Euler and mathematically modelled by Laplace in his eponymous Tidal Equations. The tides are raised by the horizontal components of the Moon’s gravitational pull which act as cumulative tractive forces in the horizontal plane of the oceans. Although these components are also tiny, they are crucially cumulative over the vast surface of Earth’s oceans, and sea water is fluid and incompressible. These tractive components are present on the far side of the Earth as well as that nearest the Moon, so this model correctly predicts two tidal bulges. It also correctly predicts the shape of the bulges, which are domed or flat-topped, because along the Earth-Moon axis the horizontal components are all tending to zero. The tractive forces peak at about 45 degrees from the Earth-Moon axis, so a better visualisation is that the tidal bulges are squeezed up from the sides rather than pulled from above.
Laplace’s Tidal Equations take the vertical component to be zero, and are still used today as the basis for accurate modelling and to predict the tides.
Hello One Eleven,
Good presentations about the ocean tides are few and far between. I have one which is called ‘Ocean Tides Making Sense’. But it isn’t getting much attention, amongst a multitude of like-minded popular stuff. Could I ask you to take a look at it and voice your opinion. It would be greatly appreciated, as you clearly know what you are talking about.
so why it inst happening with our orbital probes? is cuz the structure?
Ohhh u're back on RUclips !!! Ohoaaaaa
This video is not correct in it's explanation of tidal forces. The difference in forces between the rear of the Earth and the front facing the moon is negligible and does not cause the tidal effects we see.
This can easily be seen because lakes do not experience tides yet according to this explanation they should.
The reason for tidal forces, in general, is the difference in the direction of the force of the Moon. Along the line of the Moon and Earth center the direction of the force is aligned with that line. However on all other points, the direction of the force towards the moon's center of gravity is actually pointing at an angle. If you visualize the two points on Earth's surface that are perpendicular to the Earth-moon-center line, the part of the force pulls them down. This creates pressure from the top/bottom (on a 2d Earth at least) which causes water to flow closer to the middle. There is a wiki image here upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Field_tidal.svg
The actual forces are tiny but the directions are exactly as depicted. The seemingly inward pull of water from the top/bottom of that diagram is what causes the tides.
Lakes do not experience similar tides because they are not directly connected to oceans, which basically the pressure from the flowing water from the top/bottom of the earth doesn't reach them.
The video focuses on what generates tidal forces, and less on how tidal forces cause tides.
The reason for tidal forces is not just differences in direction, but differences in gravity field in general. You can see in the diagram you included (and also in the video) that the tidal forces are stronest on the line connecting the Earth with the moon, i.e., it's actually the differences in magnitude and not difference in direction that explain the tidal forces at their strongest points.
The lake you mentioned will, at some point, reach the top/bottom of the diagram and be subject to the inward pull, but this too will not cause tide effects in this lake. You need a vast body to see tide effects regardless of which point in the diagram they're in.
One thing is true and I regret not mentioning more explicitly it in the video, is that bodies of water are mostly subject to tangential forces (e.g., like the one in the diagram between the top and the left side), though this is briefly implicitly mentioned at 8:06. As far as I know the solid parts of the Earth are actually more influenced by the radial parts (i.e., top/bottom and left/right).
This was great! When will you add the moon? I was hoping that it was added again near the end, but it just ended with the earth and sun.
Thanks! What do you mean? There's a segment about the moon at 7:30.
He predicted the _Worldwide_ Coronavirus with that Coronavirus looking Earth!
why was i recommended a video with 60 views?
I don't know, but aren't you glad?
probably because this channel posted very good content a few years ago and they stopped uploading for awhile
Because people love it
RUclips's algorithms try to predicts which videos will be interesting based on how previous videos from the same uploader have worked, based on the videos you've seen, the video length etc.
😂😂😂
Love your videos!
The problem is that there is no such thing as centrifugal force. How then do you explain the effect that you attribute to it using something that is real?
The centrifugal force is a fictitious force added in a frame of reference where the viewer is accelerating, to compensate for this acceleration. So we can either explain things in an inertial frame where there are no fictitious forces, or in an accelerating one. The video shows both.
@@udiprod Hello Udiprod, How are you? It’s really good to see you’re still willing to engage with your audience, and correct there misconceptions. Well done. There is one thing however, that I’d like to bring to your attention, since someone just referenced your video to me, and asked for my humble opinion! And, this isn’t a criticism, because the reply you just gave was very accurate…but, here’s the thing:
An inertial frame of reference is either at “rest” or is moving in a straight line at a constant velocity. It doesn’t include any “accelerations” or accelerated motion, so therefore shouldn’t include any “fictitious” forces, and not only does that include the centrifugal force, it unfortunately, means it shouldn’t include “gravity” either, because gravity is all about accelerated motion. The earth-moon system is, and always will be, a non-inertial reference frame. It would be nice to gain your approval for my endeavours, since I’ve been trying to explain the errors in most tidal explanations for sometime now. Take care.
@@wavydaveyparker You are right. But there's no need to introduce relativistic ideas into explaining tidal forces, because classical physics can explain them well enough. So it makes the explanation simpler to understand. I think it's common practice to use classical physics whenever it's enough to explain something.
@@udiprod Thanks, but I wasn’t really introducing any relativistic ideas, I’m just trying to counter the numerous foolish “videos” and comments like the one you’ve just received. They said it wasn’t “real” and you tried to explain that it’s “fictitious” …etc. Now, if they are as misinformed, as I suspect they are? Then, there next comment will be, “Ah, fictitious means fake, therefore it doesn’t exist!” … So, all I’m saying is, “Gravity is also a fictitious force.” And even Newton himself would tell us, that Inertia and Gravity are the exact same thing! Take care, I’ll have a look at your latest creation now, which appears to be introducing the idea of “tensors” in tidal forces, fascinating! Good luck.
Can you please tell how do you guys do your videos? Like, record yourselves making one video. It would be useful, at least, for me. =)
I don’t think I understood the fictitious force at all :/ if the camera has the same acceleration as the earth, why do we apply a fictitious force on the earth?
That’s the exact situation which necessitates the introduction of a fictitious force. By switching to a reference system which is apparently standing still, there would be no reason for the masses in it to start moving. You can only make that work if you introduce said fictitious forces (which really are a measure for the mass effects you lost, switching to this reference frame).
Tides are caused by lateral gravitational forces.. the lateral forces act on 100s to 1000s of km of oceans. and it takes a while for these amounts of water to flow due to momentum and friction..
Wow, they are back BOIS!
CGP Grey, Kurzgesagt, and udiprod
We need one of these:
Radix sort
Time sort
Gravity sort