Newton's Laws Of Motion (3): Action And Reaction
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 июн 2010
- ESA Science - Newton In Space (Part 3/3): Newton's Third Law of Motion - Action and Reaction.
---
Please subscribe to Science & Reason:
• / best0fscience
• / sciencemagazine
• / ffreethinker
.
this video is one of the reasons I had a long ass night for homework
Ben Dover wow a recent comment
same bro
same here -.-
same :/
im doing it rn :(
is that girl in the blue jacket giving anyone else hella creppy robot vibes
Yaa I got kinda shook for a moment
A little but I found it more humorous than creepy, like she was very aware of being on camera and was just goofing around in what I call "seriously joking"
ok this is literally the best homework video ever. the faces...the gestures...the arrangement of the pool balls...I can NOT.
lol 3:17
LMAO
Wow bro that’s so funny 😐
i didn't notice that until you said to go there :)
Dillon Vlogs same
Hahahah i see your that one guy in class
The first two Newton's laws videos in this series are great. This one is a disaster for trying to teach the third law.
AT 1:30: "Alexander pushes against Pedro - action. This causes Pedro to move. Reaction" That's wrong. That's an example of Newton's second law, not the third law. The 3rd law reaction to Alexander pushing against Pedro is that Pedro pushes just as hard against Alexander, in the opposite direction. When their masses are roughly equal, they accelerate at about the same rate, in opposite directions. When one of them holds the heavy mass, the same force results in less acceleration.
At 2:17: "We add another girl, and they don't travel as far". Again, Newton's second law, not 3rd.
At 2:20: "The force of throwing the ball makes her move backwards". Close, but not right. The force of throwing the ball makes the ball move forwards. The ball pushes back on her just as hard. That force is what makes her move backwards.
At 2:44 again the same mistake is made as at 1:30.
At 2:58, with the Newton's cradle, and again at 3:25 with the billiards, we have a nice demonstration of conservation of momentum, but a difficult situation in which to see the third law. The third law application is not that "only" the last kid moves. That happens because the kids are not holding onto each other and because energy and momentum both have to be conserved. The third law application is that the force the first kid exerts on the last kid is equal to the force that was exerted on the first kid to make her stop.
At 3:40 we have a correct description but a missed opportunity to emphasize that the reason the rocket is moving is because the gas is pushing on the rocket just as hard as the rocket is pushing on the gas. There really is not a good reason to mention the air. The same effect happens in space, with no air.
@Matthew Triem
My teacher too :D
@@The_Haxe Patriku? :DD
Well said! My problems with the video as well. I often use it in class to see if the kids can spot the errors! I do love the weightless examples though.
Bruh you smarter then my teacher 💀
@ Andrew M
You can easily come up with experiments that you need an external pressure system for a rocket to work. Math can hide a lot of bullshit.
AKSHKAAKHS SHE'S A ROBOT 5:05 - 5:16 LMAOOOO
LMAOAOAOOAOA
so thats why theres no error in what she is reading and movements are still as an unhuman being
The three laws were well demonstrated and valuable for our 8th grade group.
School sucks
Don't give up.....NEVER GIVE UP! I did until I was 25 and nearly starved to death until I finished my high school and later college. I have taught for 40 years.
sorry that was my little cousin who said that
did you film this with a potato?
7 years ago geez
bro this was 8 years ago
@@mrpulovski4476 oh i commented when this was 7 years ago
@@vigzz9569 I know am just saying
Which devices bace on principle of Newton laws of motion?
I only came here for 2:33 .
thanx m8
Webs unite it’s todoroki
e que assim seja pra tudo !!
what if one of theme causes the force and the other have no force like an apple an ground
uhm am i the only one who's here for assignment ._.
nope
nah
Nope
Nooo!!
Nope I'm here to write down some damn science notes that were due 2 days ago🧍🏻♀️
What sound track is in the start ?
Thank you for this tutorial
Awesome
3:13 mmmm, yes
Well this video was real UPLIFTING!!!!!
yes. I was excited to use the videos in my classroom, but this one is just wrong. The action and reaction are both forces, not motion.
Another way to think of it is that "if you do good to someone, they will do good back to you" - the descriptive version of the Golden Rule.
The visuals on this video are great, but the narration unfortunately reinforces several misconceptions. As paddygilbert said, the "action" and "reaction" in Newton's 3rd Law refer to 2 equal and opposite forces (the ones the astronauts exert on each other), not one force and the resulting motion. Many of my physics students come in with this idea about the motion being the reaction, and this video is confirming their incorrect conception. Then, when the line of students on roller skates is shown, she again incorrectly identifies the action adn reaction as a force and a motion. She also says that the first student can't move because the next student is "in the way." It would be more clear to say that as each student exerts a force on the student in front, an equal amount of force is exerted back on them, so with equal forces from both front and back, they do not accelerate. The impact force of the first skater is essentially transmitted all the way through the line to the last skater. A newton's cradle is more easily understood using momentum concepts, but that's another thing entirely...
School sucks
p
will the force between every person is the same???
'
great video.
Don't wanna poop the party, but their conceptualisation is amiss. Pedro moving is NOT the opposite reaction to Alexander pushing against Pedro, just as Alexander moving is NOT the opposite reaction to being pushed against by Pedro. When Pedro moves, it is the RESULT of being pushed by Alexander, just as when Alex moves it is the result of being pushed by Pedro. However, the opposite reaction to Pedro pushing Alexander is Alexander pushing back on Pedro.
song?
The mass of the rocket's exhaust gases boosts off on the rocket's mass and the latter boosts off on the mass of the exhaust gases. Compare with a loaded spring between two bodies, then released to expand - wouldn't the two bodies acelerate away from each other, also in space? Your bird in space is hillarious! In fact, I think you are pulling my leg! Thanks for not replying.
super
Thats what my class said!!
nice very nice I liike it relly
@TwisTeRShoTz we all noticed in our freshman science class
@Edgrs
Sounds like the remix of Elvis Presley's "A Little Less Conversation" that hit the charts last year or so. You can find it here v=o39ehwTzsjs.
Caralho o Pedro é foda
@PhattyMo yeah she is a bit creepy
3:19
teleporting then the moving thing soo creepy
i saw this in class today!
And here 8 years later I have to watch this as homework.
Who knew 8 years later there would be a deadly pandemic?
Also noticed how this comment was made in Obama era, and Trump era is coming to a close and Biden is becoming new US President. 8 years ago, that's when Xi Jingping recently became Chinese leader. Kim Jong Un was a fairly new leader. Crimea was still fully Ukraine, and so much more.
Times have changed.
You probably completed University by now. I hope you doing good.
Don't know why, but I am liking me talking aimlessly at an 8 year old comment.
@@nuzayerov This is 7 seven months later and who knew that the deadly pandemic would still be around? Hope you're are well lmao
ZŠ Kavčí Hory like! :D
@Tholomaios Thanks for the info.
But there evidently IS space flight since decades - I can't follow your reasoning. Besides, how can you have any motion when two equal and opposing forces cancel each other out?
There is NO spaceflight.
It is a LIE easily proven.
Wake up and think!
I mean the action with no reaction New Space Engine.
3rd law*
mucho texto
proofs there is not enough mass for a rocket to push against.
Dude she just shadow clone jitsu us at the end
but there you go again, small rockets on the side, so what are these rocks pushing against ( in space) its a vacuum no opposing force to gain thrust or momentum, think about in, no atmosphere or mass in the vacuum of space, your going on, and on, forever in a straight line, off to some distant galaxy...
helpful
Newton's third law did not have a natural science reason, no hypothesis was given, only observations. It had only a metaphysical reason -- which was common at the time.
You're misunderstanding what a scientific law is. A law isn't a theory. It's not an explanation. A law is a relationship, based on observations, that allows for predictions. It's a description, not an explanation. That it is "only observations" is exactly the point. (Which, by the way, makes it empirical or even phenomenological, and quite the opposite of metaphysical.)
A scientific law can often be expressed as a mathematical formula. That formula is derived from observation, not theory. Because it describes what is, not why it is, it can be used to make predictions of behaviors you can observe without needing to know why.
Newton's First Law can be stated as ΣF = 0 ⇔ dv / dt = 0. In other words, the sum of all forces on an object is 0 if and only if the change in velocity over time (acceleration) is 0. If the sum of all forces is not 0, there will be a non-zero value for the change in velocity.
Newton's Second Law is most often expressed as the equation F= ma. If you want to put that into words, most often it's said as "The acceleration an object experiences is directly proportional to the net force on the object." There are two other relationships going on in that equation, but this statement is the main thrust of the law.
Newton's Third Law can be written along the lines of Fa-b = - Fb-a. The force that object A exerts on object B is equal to (the = sign) the force that B exerts on A but opposite (the - sign) in direction.
Those are all mathematical descriptions of reality based on observation after observation after observation. There is no why to it. They are just very accurate, precise, generalizable descriptions. There's nothing metaphysical at all about that.
@@robertboyle4768 how does that work in zero gravity?
@@Sneakycat1971 Zero gravity -- in human experience, at least -- does not exist. You will always experience the gravitational force of the Earth, the Moon, the Sun, the keyboard you're typing on, etc, and the feeling will be mutual. Weightlessness, on the other hand, is what people often mean by "zero g" (which is a bit more descriptive of how you experience it). You don't feel weight because the Earth is pulling you down; you feel weight because something gets in the way and pushes you up. If there's nothing in the way, you do not feel weight. For instance, like being in the ISS in orbit around the Earth where you are falling "sideways" around the Earth as quickly as you are falling down towards the Earth. There's still gravity; otherwise you would go flying out of orbit the moment gravity disappeared in a straight line and at a constant speed.
A scientific law is a scientific law. Newton's Laws don't stand up well for the extremely small (quantum level), the extremely fast (special relativity), or the extremely massive (general relativity) but outside of those contexts it really does not matter. Newton's Laws of Motion talk about objects that have mass and a state of motion (velocity) that can be observed. If that state of motion changes, then there must be an external, unbalanced force acting on the object. Those laws work regardless of the force (or lack of force).
A good example of this "I don't care which force you use" nature of Newton's Laws is in something called a Watt or Kibble Balance. It's a device that is currently being used to set a standard for what a kilogram is that is independent of having a hunk of metal stored away in a vault. A Kibble Balance winds up using gravity, magnetic fields, electric fields, and mechanical forces (pushes and pulls) to do this. It does involve some quantum mechanics as well so I'm assuming that there must be adjustments being made to the calculations, but the objects experiencing the forces are macroscopic. I'm linking a video from Veritasium on redefining the kilogram standard. The info on the Kibble Balance starts about 3:15 in. ruclips.net/video/Oo0jm1PPRuo/видео.html
@@robertboyle4768 well what about the absolute vacuum of space?
@@Sneakycat1971 Forces like gravity, electricity, and magnetism are field forces. There is no need for contact and there is no need for matter to carry the force between two objects, like sound needs to move through matter and cannot travel through a vacuum. For gravity, the strength of the force depends on the mass of both objects -- the more mass, the bigger the force. It also depends on the distance between them (squared). The bigger the distance, the smaller the force, and if you do something like move an object two times further away, the force drops by a factor of four (two squared).
Being in a vacuum does not matter. Anything in orbit around the Earth orbits because it is getting tugged by the Earth. The Moon orbits the Earth -- think about how much vacuum is between us and the Moon. The Earth orbits the Sun. Our whole solar system orbits around the center of the galaxy. There's huge amounts of vacuum in-between any of those. It does not make a difference.
*3rd law
Do see the reaction with no reaction New Space Engine.
uou... she scared me. It's like somebody pressed the On button.
PARA SA MODULE LABAN!!!!!
Mr. Rice Sent Me Here :/
ahhh iam here from physics
ahh i see u r a man of culture as well
Ok want to prove to me rockets work in space do this same experiment but instead of 2 ppl just have 1. Through your arms forward and propel yourself across the room. Because that's what your saying a rocket in space does.
@@rrrick2129 A free body diagram shows you are incorrect as the exhaust is a force exerted by the rocket so cannot be included. Very simple.
@@rrrick2129 literal gibberish. You're a chatbot, 100% certain.
@@rrrick2129 you say the exhaust is not a force, then you say it pushes the rocket. Gibberish.
@@rrrick2129 Newton disagrees with you, plus you're contradicting yourself again, but you are clearly utterly insane so I'll just mute you eh?
Those stick figures show how little you care.
Very creepy
she looks and acts like a cyborg
hi
Hi
@ESOcast this is s great video, but the explanation of the reactions are totally incorrect. Action and reaction are both forces. The video describes one action as Pedro pushing Charlie, and the reaction as Charlie floating away. But that's not the reaction! The reaction is Charlie pushes Pedro. The whole concept is that forces occur in pairs. If you punch a wall the wall punches you back. If you push on an object, the object pushes back on you.
The things that are equal but opposite are the actual forces involved, equal magnitude but opposite directions.
I see s bunch of students on here for an assignment, and that kind of freaks me out. This is nice footage, but really incorrect explanations.
every heard of a simplified explaination?
A wall is not pushing you back. That is ridiculous. The combined strength of Van der Waals forces in the wall either are stronger that the force applied or not. Deformation of the object going into the wall of of of the wall itself might cause a counterforce, but it won’t equal the original force since it won’t be a 100% efficient.
not helpful to my science project
no one asked
@@cole7942 So why you gotta say som
Halima Muse cause why not 👍😀😀
Why she have to look at you like that though lol
Usually I am polite, but in this case I must say you are a nut, or you must think I am one. I would be, if I would go on with this ridiculous disussion - over and out!
Ummm well that slanderous scientific detailed description explains everything to all those skeptical people out there! In summary, you’re saying NOTHING. Well done!!!!!
These explanations are dangerously terrible. The visuals are worthwhile, but the action reaction stuff is horribly misleading and wrong. Newton's third law is that forces occur between two objects always and are the same on both objects but opposite directions. The action and reaction stuff you're stating is just wrong. Have some pride in knowledge in science if you're going to present it. Nothing is weightless for the record either, it's just falling so it "appears" weightless.
there is also more forces at play too though...fine we have newtons law...but your post causes my post... "action and reaction" and if i called you a peice of garbage, it definatly sets things in motion just as much as newtons law...perhaps it is better to leave many things at "rest" and just accept that someone is at least making the effort to make a vid you douche
It's a law of physics, not some philosophical jargon. And aren't you in the space program? If you're some kid who doesn't know better fine, but if you're an astronaut and you have no appreciation for physics then shame on you.
You are absolutely right.. the concept of action and reaction is HORRIBLY WRONG..
But i disagree when you say nothing is weightless . It depends on WHAT YOU DEFINE AS WEIGHT.. and we physicists define weight as the force with which the ground you are standing on is pushing on you (because that is the same force with which you are pushing on the ground) .. And this may be equal to gravitational force (when you are not accelerating).. maybe more than it (when u are accelerating upwards) may be LESS than it.. (when u accelerate downwards) and CAN BE ZERO AND IS therefore WEIGHTLESS (when you are in freefall.. note that m not saying there is no gravitational force) and can also be negative (when u are accelerate downwards faster than g) .. when u are in rollercoster loop the loop or when u the cup and ball trick .. !
Cheers!
mahesh vag Agree, although I checked into this once to find out if you would be "weightless" while hanging from a bar or rope and the definition of weight I found was simply the scalar quantity of gravity force. So according to that you would never be weightless, if you look into it you'll find that most people have started ditching weightless for "feeling weightless" to account for it. I've found nothing that defines weight as normal force and that's what I thought it was originally so that's what I was looking for.
Scott Milam look up wikipedia :D.. we like to define weight that way cause that makes more sense.. if you take ur weighing machine with you and do all the things i mentioned, then your weighing machine would confirm all the changes in the weights accordingly including weightlessness.. (where it would read zero) .. seeing is believing right? :P
Are you a scientist? Do you have a physics degree? If not, stop talking. There are so many factors, calculations, and processes that make space travel possible that I'm just going to let a man smarter than me explain it to you. But hear this. Actual scientists who have studied all of their lives, who have trained and actually HAVE BEEN in space, know more about physics than you ever will. So don't decry all of their hard work and proven facts because you either don't know or can't comprehend it
I’m only here for homework this was boring as freakkk 👁👄👁
same
True.
Pushing against each other hanging from wires 😆😂😂😂🤡
how are you a scientist and you don't even know the difference between Newton's 2nd and 3rd laws smh
Hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
Consuelo Charloux hi
Who else is on here because of there stupid ass science class
You're amiss.
Newton 2nd law contradicts Karma, lol. If you do good, evil will happen. For every action, there is equal and opposite reaction. Haha. Just kidding.
Science is cool.
CLICK BAIT
@@irishpancakes7734 chill
@@Ronin_444x no.
Is it just me,or is that chick kinda...creepy?
i hate it
sore my bad
High quality insults but very low quality rational argument, you loose!
Boring only watching for class project