Newton’s Third Law of Motion Demonstrated in Space
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 мар 2018
- “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction,” according to the Newtonian law. Astronauts Mark Vande Hei and Joe Acaba demonstrate on the International Space Station. -- Watch the Second Law of Motion demonstrated: www.space.com/39946-randy-bre...
Credit: NASA Johnson Space Center 
Наука
That exit though
right?
yep. The best one ever
I can't wait until the 2050s when that's the normal exit for most RUclips videos!
Who else had to watch this for science class because of corona
Me
I watched just now...
Me 🖐
@@cloudysky9588 Did it help?
imagine reading this a year ago
Did he use the wii sports bowling noises in 2:09
Alex Porter he did
yes
Sir Newton's laws are so beautiful in free space and frictionless planes. He was much ahead of his time
Imagine if Newton came back to life today and watched this video......
He really was the main driver of the scientific revolution in the 17th century. Without it, there wouldn't be any industrial revolution about a century later.
rip Sir Robert Hooke
@@Michaelaidinboer
I wonder if it's true that Newton burned Hooke's portrait?
Newton's 3rd Law says small mass cannot apply a huge force to a big mass. How did the relatively small mass of the upper 15 floors of the WTC North Tower apply a huge force onto the relatively gigantic mass of the lower 95 floors on 9/11? NASA demonstration --> ruclips.net/video/ZkVU-bj9bDk/видео.html
0:52 Is that the Tie Fighter sound effect from Star Wars?! That is amazing!
This video was super helpful, it's great for studying for any motion related tests. Now I have a visualization in my mind!
Newton's 3rd Law says small mass cannot apply a huge force to a big mass. How did the relatively small mass of the upper 15 floors of the WTC North Tower apply a huge force onto the relatively gigantic mass of the lower 95 floors on 9/11? NASA demonstration --> ruclips.net/video/ZkVU-bj9bDk/видео.html
_"Now test it out on Earth."_ I see a lawsuit coming.
Great video, just showed it to my students and they loved it, thank you for the demonstration.
Newton's 3rd Law says small mass cannot apply a huge force to a big mass. How did the relatively small mass of the upper 15 floors of the WTC North Tower apply a huge force onto the relatively gigantic mass of the lower 95 floors on 9/11? NASA demonstration --> ruclips.net/video/ZkVU-bj9bDk/видео.html
Amazing demonstration
I love space
Ok 16 year old
And you will hate space if you dont know how to get back to eart
@@juanmiguel7460 Yeah, right? Dumb kids and their visions for the future. It's not like we'll count on them one day or anything. Oh wait...
@@thekappachrist9540 bruh i did not do anything past me did but present me didnt
@@juanmiguel7460 Hahaha
Great demonstration! Thanks for sharing :)
This is SO Coool, on space station and easily displayed. 11/10 for your school project son. 😀
brilliant video. thank you!
Very cool demonstration!!! A+++++++ Video! :)
great demo
More demonstration please
Nice demonstration
Where can I find more of these ? This is so cool !
Link at the end^^. There's a lot of lessons here : www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/stem-on-station/lessons
Sheykei in space
I'm going to test this theory out on a person I don't like, but instead of pushing him I'm going to focus all of my energy into my clinched fists and directly apply this force in a linear motion to an area on his face and my hypothesis is; the results of my action should leave the subject lying 180 degrees to the ground and me standing perpendicular to the ground.
I can verify that hypothesis, however Kinetic energy is turned into thermo energy due the friction of the subject on the ground.
My Science teacher made us watch this
Thanks for posting! I subbed 😁👌🏽
lol at that tie fighter sound
So cool!!
What happens if they were floating towards each other, and they collide. Would it hurt would they feel the same thing as if they were on earth? If they are weightless would they feel it?
Yes, of course. The force from each of them, coming from their kinetic force, would decelerate each of them, and that would be felt as some pressure for both of them, or hurt if it were quite big of kinetic force they would have...
Ty
THIS SO COOL
Confused.
Because of the mass differential , you propelled the ball forward without moving yourself. But how can the ball and you exert equal force on each other when the ball's motion did not move you?
Two men with equal mass can propel each other with equal force, causing you both to move out of place. To me that means each of you exerted equal force.
I don't get what is the opposite reaction in your examoles. . Does it mean that force propels an object from stationary to mobility? It must also mean causing an object in motion to become stationary, perhaps like a dam stops the motion of water? You could measure those forces I think.
But how do you measure the latent force of the basketball compared to the force you can exert to move it?
The basketball didn't move him backwards a noticeable amount, because the astronaut has a lot more inertia. Let's assume a 500 gram basketball and an 80 kg astronaut, and let's suppose he applied a 1 Newton force to the ball. 1 Newton will accelerate a 500 gram basketball at 2 m/s^2. But the equal and opposite reaction force, will only accelerate the 80 kg astronaut at a rate of 0.0125 m/s^2, which you could measure if you had a precise enough way of doing it, but will not be immediately obvious to us. The basketball would accelerate at 160 times the rate of the astronaut.
so cool!
2:34 Squadalah! We're off!
if someone could explain their findings on Newton's Third Law so I don't have to watch the video and can pass physics, it would be greatly appreciated...
fr
What are you even doing here, if you don't want to watch the video?
The TIE Fighter sound! LOL
0:57 Dam he got ankles
If you hold stationary two equal mass dice apart in space and release them, their mass will cause them to slowly attract each other until they ultimately touch and orbit each other.
A typical dice cube is 4.1 grams. We can calculate the force of attraction between two dice that are 5 cm apart, and it is less than a piconewton. It will be very difficult to conduct an experiment where you can get two dice cubes to noticeably attract each other.
You can do this experiment with bowling balls and get noticeable results. Look up the Cavendish experiment.
@@carultch Newton's 3rd Law says small mass cannot apply a huge force to a big mass. How did the relatively small mass of the upper 15 floors of the WTC North Tower apply a huge force onto the relatively gigantic mass of the lower 95 floors on 9/11? NASA demonstration --> ruclips.net/video/ZkVU-bj9bDk/видео.html
Thats fun
Cool!
finally i understand it
I had to watch it for science before the class tmw it’s Halloween in 2023
the way he savagely ran off
Anyone else notice the tie fighter sound effect at 0:51?
I know! I thought I was the only person.
Why do have a brand new basketball ball?? And what is the purpose od bringing ball to a space shuttle???
As he demonstrated (without really meaning to), a basketball can be used for exercise. Doing "the-moves-I-can't-do-on-earth" would help with overall fitness, cardio, plus coordination. Pushing the ball back and forth with another crew member provides low-impact resistance for arm muscles. Exercising using the ball provides a bit of variety. Even just holding/manipulating the ball during downtime can be soothing/stress relief (something to hold, psychological connection to home, etc). Lots of ways to use a ball! :)
Lol at 0:50 there's a tie fighter sound effect
Pew pew pew
Sir Issac Newton, if this man were here today the world would've been much advanced than we see it right now.
🤦🏾♂️
Newton was one of the giants that Einstein stood on the shoulders of.
Imagine pushing Nikocado Avocado in space and this noise just plays: 2:08
Oh, microgravity. How I love you
Equal force doesn't mean equal acceleration
Only if the two masses are the same.
Because of Newton’s second law. If you apply the same force to two objects, the one with less mass accelerates faster.
I'm I the only one watching this for an seventh grade assignment...
I mean 8th grade 7th grade not that big of a difference...
So I tested it out on earth and my buddy joe got really hurt
Interesting
He just backflipoes in space in outro
Hi
I don't mean to sound uneducated but isn't the cabin he is in pressurized here? He is not in the vacuum of space.
If he were to push the other astronaut in a vacuum the result would be the same.
Super
But when you demonstrated that, you failed to show pair being attached to the object, like a rocket. As well as, the vacuum in the room is absolutely neccesary to prove its abiltity to accelerate itself within an environment lacking elements
Not really.... What other forces would cause him to accelerate.... Atmosphere is wholly irrelevant
@@angadsingh9314 because elements are only able to move through other elements right? So if there is no elements in space, what will you propel into or off of?
NASA should create an engine that is capable to interact with gravitational fields and move to the High Orbit in order to make better observations.
I m in class rigth now watching this😂
Searched this after watching love death & robots
And so what is this mass you are pushing away from in space? You don't get basketballs in space.
Your own mass.
Rockets push away gas made from igniting the fuel. The gases are the basketballs.
0:57 LeBron James. :)
Cool video btw.
*_NOTHING_*_ flies or floats in a vacuum._
The dumbing-down of humanity - courtesy of NASA.
How do I explain this to my coworker who believes space is not real?
I asked her, where does the rocket go when it disappears beyond the clouds? Brazil?
whos joe
Fun fact:there is a lot of space out in space
skyler jepson It’s infinity it keeps going
MrTigerVFX Empty space in our observable universe (which I guess is what you are talking about) is not infinite.
I’m thoroughly disappointed that I went through every comment and never found any Hamilton fans (Daveed Diggs: “Every action has it’s equal opposite reaction”) 😔
LebRAaN jAemEs 0:57
Newton forgot to clarify the thing about the mass difference?
He did. Just in a different law of his.
Why does it look like they are hanging upside down 🤓
Question. You have oxygen inside wherever you are therefore you have molecules. What is the spaceship pushes off of in space? There isn’t another object and no air and no molecules.
The oxygen inside the space station had _nothing_ to do with this experiment, other than keeping the astronauts alive. If they had been in the vacuum outside wearing space suits, the result would have been the same. One of them acted as a rocket while the other acted as its exhaust gases.
A rocket does not push off of the atmosphere, it pushes off of its own exhaust gases.
Who's here because of RUclips's recommendation system?
I don’t see the American flag...
take me to the moon yo
ranger 2, detach
would throwing photons in the form of light have a similar equal reaction albeit unnoticeable cause photons vs you is huge difference in mass, but theoretically?
So could you propel yourself with a flashlight for example? The answer is yes... but also no. The effect would be there but it would be so slight it would never be able to overcome the other gravitational forces at work out there.
Yes. Solar sails use this principle. We’ve launched two of those so far, and proved that the principle works.
POV: you are here from ur science teacher.
@Briana Rivera got it last year
@Briana Rivera thx
I am here because of a physic class-
Joe is a big meme
But, but, but, I have no clue what this means!
It means that forces are a two way street. You can't push without being pushed, and you can't pull without being pulled. Any interaction between two objects will cause them both to respond to a pair of equal and opposite forces.
3rd
NASA loves them some Green screen.
But then it's not an equal opposite reaction?? The ball didn't push you back like you pushed it so it isn't equal???
Are you expecting the ball to have hands?
The reaction was equal, but its impact on the guy was hardly noticable because he had over 100 times more mass than the basketball. See what happened when he pushed another guy with comparable mass!
The reason the force exerted on Mark isn’t immediately obvious has to do with Newton’s 2nd law. If you recall, F=ma, when two forces are equal, the one with higher mass (Mark) will experience less acceleration than the object with less mass (the basketball), that’s how the algebra of the equation works out.
However when the 2 astronauts pushed each other, this equal and opposite force concept becomes more apparent because the difference in acceleration was less drastic as the difference in mass was less drastic as well.
@@AV4Life Thank you. SO MANY complete numpties.
whow
whow!!
All of that counter actions won't help. I live alone
The how rocket thrusters in space work when there's no atmosphere to push against?🤔
If the two astronauts had put on spacesuits and done this experiment in the vacuum outside the space station, the result would have been the same as what we saw here.
A rocket pushing on/being pushed by its exhaust gases follows the same principle and does in fact work better in a vacuum since there is no surrounding atmospheric pressure to constrain the ejection of the exhaust gases. As an example, the Space Shuttle's main engines (RS-25) produce 23.5 % more thrust per unit of fuel consumption in space compared to at sea level.
@@fromnorway643 That doesn't explain much. In vacuum, exhaust gases apply force on what exactly ?
@@mattmatt245
They apply a force on the inside of the engine's nozzle, including the injector plate.
You can't push tonnes of hot gases per second in one direction at 10-15 times the speed of sound without producing lots of recoil in the opposite direction.
@@mattmatt245 On the rocket. You can think of it like, much as in this example, the exhaust gasses are 'thrown' out of the back of the rocket, and this has the effect of the rocket getting 'thrown' forward.
Would this work in zero gravity ??
Or would the effect be lesser at least ? Surely
@@nathanmingle7 Watch the video. They are doing it in zero gravity.
@@carultch well no they're doing it freefall. Still very close to the earth
@@nathanmingle7 So what's the difference? Gravity is nullified by being in an environment that accelerates with it. The end result is the same on how it would affect this experiment.
What difference would you expect, if they had gone to intergalactic space where gravity truly adds up to zero, and did the same experiment? Of course, that's not practical to do in a human lifetime.
@@carultch I'm thinking maybe inertia is tethered to gravity. Like the guy's mass here is only a factor bc it has more of a connection to the Earth's mass. As if the guy was tied to earth with a stiff rope used for docking boats and the basketball tied with a fishing line.
How does the ISS move in space? Propulsion would not work because space is expanding so there is constantly zero pressure. There is no reaction since there is no pressure in space. Your propulsion would not work cause It's like sucking the air out of a plastic bottle and it would not deform (No pressure, no reaction)
You can imagine space as a vacuum constantly sucking all the gas out (Keeping zero pressure).
The ISS moves using two ways the first is using newtons first law of motion. Part of this law of motion is “an object in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.” So it uses the leftover motion from when it was launched into space in the first place. The second way is by occasionally using rockets to keep up its speed. This is propulsion and the reason why it works is because when a rocket shoots fuel out one end, this propels the rocket forward - no air is required.
You can tell he's wearing harness, and there's gravity on his face and glasses,..
I feel sorry for the failure you call your mother
then technology too have equal and opposite reaction we face today as a climate change
But how does a rocket propel itself in space? There is no "Joe" and not even any air molecules that it could apply force against...
Imagine you are on a boat without a paddle, but you have a pile of rocks on board the boat. Throw one rock backwards, and you will notice the boat will recoil forwards. Repeat, until you are out of rocks, and you will accelerate your boat fowards.
That is how rockets work, except instead of rocks, they have fuel that they burn to exhaust gasses and accelerate to high speeds out of their thruster nozzles. Rockets are inherently inefficient compared to other forms of transportation, because their fuel is not just an energy source, but also a momentum source. On Earth, we can push back against the world in some form or another, so it reflects the vast majority of our work onto us, so we can move forward. But in space, a rocket has to do most of the work on the exhaust gasses, and only a tiny fraction of that work will be reflected back onto the rocket.
@@carultch You're in contact with water and affected by gravitational force. Besides the motion you make when throwing the stones will have larger effect. There is also the air resistance which interacts with your and what you throw. I've seen this argument enough.
@@MetoFulcurm All of factors you mention are irrelevant to the fact that the rocks ultimately do propel you forward.
joe mama
joe mama
oe mam
e ma
m
M
ISS has an atmosphere and it is located in low orbit , such demonstrations does not explains on how The thirds newtons law applies to rockets in an empty space...
Simple, rocket engines are reaction engines, they push against the whole mass of the rocket. They basically drag the spacecraft with it.
It would exactly the same in empty space. The atmosphere inside the ISS has nothing to do with it. But what do you think would happen in a vacuum? When one man pushes the other man, what would happen? Can you describe it?
If they did this outside the ISS (obviously wearing spacesuits), the result would be the same.
Slebew
Means you can swim over there
In principle yes, but it's highly inefficient since air is much less dense than water, and nature hasn't given us wings.
There’s a video where an ISS astronaut tries this. It doesn’t work well, as you’d expect: the force produced by waving your hand through the air is tiny.
This video is cool but Joe needs a new barber or just a barber in general.
How did he spin Joe around, without spinning himself around in the opposite direction?
Nice CGI.
Yes that's how it works! Now try pushing yourself against nothing, just like the thrusters do in space, and see what happens...
the thrusters push against the fuel
@@njnjhjh8918 😆😆😆😂😂😂 your an Idiot
One of the astronauts acted as the rocket while the other acted as its exhaust gases, and you saw the result in this video.
Newton's third law _works!_
@@fromnorway643 are you saying that something could push against gasses in a vacuum? Not to mention that the fuel is already pressurized, so it would just escape and go on forever at it's first chance. There would be nothing to push against.
@@sethsavage3532
The exhaust gases push against the inside of the rocket engine while being ejected at high speed, just as a rifle firing a bullet produces a recoil. Firing a 10-gram rifle bullet at 800-1000 metres/sec produces a recoil or “kick” that is very noticeable for the person holding that rifle.
Imagine a large rocket firing _several tonnes_ of exhaust gases every second at 3-5 times the speed of that rifle bullet, and it should be obvious that the rocket must produce lots of continuous recoil, also known as _thrust._ The thrust is produced while the exhaust gases are being accelerated, but once the gases have left the rocket engine, they no longer have any impact on the rocket’s speed. That’s why new fuel is continuously supplied and burnt in order to maintain that thrust until the rocket runs out of fuel or the engine is deliberately shut down.
BTW, rockets work _better_ in space than in the atmosphere since there is no surrounding atmospheric pressure restricting the expansion/acceleration of the exhaust gases. That was noticed already with the German V2 rockets during WW2 as their thrust increased by 20 % as they climbed from near sea level to the very thin air at high altitudes.
I created an on-orbit project for the entire span of school curricula and disciplines in middle-, high- and trade schools - in 1997 which was rejected for being "too boring". They wanted to appeal to the sciences and ignored the needs and interests of the rest of the world. I created another project in 2009 called Project KIDSAT, with the same goals. Rejected. NASA has no idea how to relate to anyone other than people who enjoy math and physics. What about the trades - those who actually build your spacecraft? English Lit? Marketing? Biology? STEM is elitist - Maria Montessori created "shop class for kindergarteners" and she's a hero - but every "engineering parent" thinks machining is beneath their brilliant son and daughter. Don't tell Werner von Braun's mom and dad that...
it's all rubbish in my opinion! newton's third law should be stated - to every action there is an equal and opposite RESISTANCE to that action by means of a reaction!
The resistance, for example, from the floor when you sit on it, is the repelling force of the particles in it. You push on the particles with the force of grav-attraction, but the particles of the floor stop you with the repelling force, as your pushing brings them closer together, what tgey resist against (because of the repelling force). The object they're attached to, having greater mass, has more inertia, and the action you apply, with equal reaction, affects you more than the floor. If you were to change perspective from yours to the floor, it would be like the floor is pushing on you.
That "explanation" is probably quite shitty, but it has atleast some sence in it. The repelling and attractive forces in the floor are in some balance, I would assume, and caused by electro-static forces, if I'm not wrong. I don't think that helps a lot, but in easy words: We often think of it as if a force is something that reqires energy to push against your push. Force and energy, however, aren't the same. I need to study it more to understand fully though. The way of thinking described just a little higher above is what I struggle to go through.
@@fatitankeris6327 tks for commenting but I'm so glad you recognise the necessity to have RESISTANCE in order for any motion to occur! When one looks at the two astronots pushing against each other and moving apart clearly indicates the necessity to have RESISTANCE in order for motion to be observed. We can conlude without RESISTANCE there is NO MOTION!
Let's apply that understanding to a rocket's thrust. A rocket's thrust has to experience RESISTANCE for the rockt to MOVE! Therefore a rocket cannot propel itself in a pressureless environment like that of space!!
@@PeterPeteI thought you understood what I meant, but I see you didn't. A reactive rocket engine can propell a rocket without an air environment around it. That is because the rocket is not pushing against air of the environment for acceleration, it is a reactive engine. It is accelerating mass in the opposite direction from where it is needed to fly. The gas it pushes, with the action of it rapidly expanding into a direction the nosle is directed to, is the mass that with the reactive force can "push" the rocket, or, as you can imagine it, the rocket pushes off that mass because of that mass's inertia. The problem space deniers have, I see, is that they don't consider gas an element of such system with mass. However, they are able to imagine a basketball reaction force from action of throwing it. The rocket isn't flying just because of pushing off the atmosphere. It is of course happening at ground levels and in the atmosphere, probably even helps in the start, but it isn't the main working principle at all.
It was also shown in many videos, that an atmosphere with pressure of 1 atmosphere isn't needed for a reactive engine to push against. The videos were considered unworthy in any way, as the small chambers were filling up with the gasses from the solid fuel engines, so there was not an absolute vacuum, but the fact that there was a force milliseconds after the start, where the gasses from the engine didn't fill the thing at all, is not important to the space deniers. The claims and "observations" *for* their side they consider trustworthy, solid and undebunkable regardless of the claim's stupidity/absurdity, and the lack of actual science behind the claimer. But, even the clearest and easiest to understand scientific explanation and debunk of their claim is considered absurd by them... The same goes for the flat Earthers. Additionally, they don't think seriously of the explanations of phenomena and science in the debunk of their claim, so they think they're always "right". That's because they are watching and following mostly what "their side" says, what is not a correct way of discussing things to be right or wrong.
I hope you are not too deep in that rabbit hole, as it is just as much sucking in, as the vaccuum of space following their logic and "understanding" of pressure and vacuum...
@@fatitankeris6327 you shouldn't type too much because I've seen your kind of comment before and it's total rubbish!
You do realise for anything to combust or burn you need pressure and in a pressureless environment you haven't got that? You like countless other people have been hoodwinked into thinking something is true when it isn't!
@@PeterPete And you forgot the so often told thing: Rockets use liquid two-component fuel - Fuel (hydrogen) and Oxydizer (well, oxygen). The pressured environment isn't needed for a combustion or burning, it just needs the oxydation process of the fuel at high temperatures. But If I'm wrong, the engine has got liquid hydrogen and oxygen heated quickly into gas, what would supply the needed pressure anyways. That just shows what kind of research is done by the ones you gain the "knowledge" from. Or just that you forgot a little of how Rockets work when talking about how they work.
Um, you're not in space. Maybe "demostrated in freefall"? A bit more accurate.
Except in space there is no B for A to push on. This proves that space travel is not possible.
Nonsense!
One of the astronauts played the role of the rocket while the other was its exhaust gases (it doesn't matter who was who).
Wrong. The rocket is A, and the propellant it throws out the back is B.
It’s easy to prove that this works: we can see the ISS pass overhead, even with the naked eye. It’s in space, which means rockets work in space.
@RyanTaylor4real R U 4 real? You really don't understand this, do you? Read the other comments! WOW! My 85 year old dad didn't understand this. I explained it.
Problem with this demonstration is that its perfomed in an enclosed oxygen atmosphere and not a vacum of space.
What does that have to do with anything?
.@@kitcanyon658, well it's not an honest demonstration on the Newton's third law of motion is it? . if someone is going to show a "law" entitled "demonstrated in space", then the demonstration should be in space and not a earthlike artificial environment where there is air in a pressurized room.
@@religionisasnare : Are you claiming that Newton's laws don't apply in an environment that has gas pressure? Please show your proof of this claim.
How would the result be different if there was no gas pressure present? Please present your data or calculations to support your answer.
The word "space" is used for a variety of purposes. If something reaches a certain altitude there is a definition of "space" as being satisfied. Things in orbit also satisfy that definition. The other use of space is to define that part of the cosmos that doesn't have much mass per unit volume.
This video is using the former use of the word space, being that they are in orbit and thus in free fall. Thus, what they claim is true, they are in space, just not in the other definition, or use of the word "space".
By your claim you seem to imply that and vacuum chamber here on the earth is in "space". The word isn't used like that.
@@kitcanyon658 Haven't claimed anything., just to repeat again for you, when a video is entitled "demonstrated in space" then the demonstration should be in space. not in an enclosed environment with gas inside it, otherwise what's the purpose of the demonstration?
@@religionisasnare : So you didn't comprehend my response? What word didn't you understand?
They are in orbit - in space.
What's the purpose? Clearly you didn't comprehend my response. Please go back and be sincere about readying and understanding all of it. The answer to your question is there. I could answer it again here but why should it? All you'd do is ask the question again.