This guy and NileRed are my two favorite sciencey guys. . . I know NileRed is more chemistry while Action Lab is more physics, but as a lesser-nerd I group them together in the "sciencey" category. Found NR through making bismuth from antacid tablets and making transparent wood, and I found AL through the simulation of slowing down the speed of light to "walking speed" and have been hooked on them both ever since.
I just LOVE it when there is a concise and straight-forward mathematical answer for questions like this. I had no idea that force-distance scaling had such a deterministic effect on forming stable orbits, that's interesting as heck.
Small correction: centrifugal force is actually an apparent force. What's keeping a planet in orbit is the fact that the force of gravity is acting perpendicularly to the planet's inertial vector.
If we're going to make that correction, we should also point out that gravity is not a force either. It's an effect caused by acceleration, which can be produced by mass warping time-space, or by an or an object changing its speed.
@@RobinClaassen If you're going to say it's not a force, you should point out that all fundamental forces are emergent forces like gravity, and it's perfectly fine to call it a force - especially in a video aimed at an audience that requires an explanation of an orbit.
Thank you for your Action Lab shorts. Your work is enlightening and fun to watch. I am a musician who has always been interested in Science and I find your channel to be excellent.
Whenever James proposes a crazy experiment, my bet is that he's going to pull it off somehow. Besides this one, I can only remember the fixing plates with milk and that burning paper with a mangnifying glass by the moonlight as the ones he proved the trick to be impossible.
You could still potentially have some sort of orbit as long as they are "tidally locked." I'm not sure if it would be stable considering that the magnets are attracted by an inverse cube law but it should work.
Work smarter, not harder! If a magnet was spinning, than stable orbits could be possible, because from the perspective of the other magnet, the body it's orbiting is a monopole (of course it really isn't, but in this situation it's close enough).
Just a correction, a balance of force isn't needed for uniform circular motion ( the acceleration would be 0 then ), just an initial velocity. Do preamble that u were talking in the objects frame.
Exactly, it's the conservation of angular momentum what keeps things orbiting around a central body. Centripetal acceleration, caused by gravity, is what constantly bends the trajectory into an elliptical orbit.
That's right. Centrifugal force is not a real force, it's only a force we define for convenience when we want to set the frame of reference that follows the rotating/revolving object. Even in that case, drawing the centrifugal force together with the ball moving in the same picture (0:55) is incorrect.
@@sakshamk4009 radial acceleration doesn't always lead to change in magnitude of radial velocity, circular motion case in point. So rdot stays zero, r stays const, rhat dot non zero.
You know when ever your birthday is arrived you life shorter right? I mean birthday is just reminder that your life is getting shorter every year Anyway HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!!!!!
Making the force drop as 1/r^1.9 or 1/r^2.1 isn't actually making the orbits unstable, but it causes them to precess, like general relativity causes Mercury's orbit to precess. But if you go all the way to 1/r^3, then you won't have a stable orbit. The reason that the long magnet on a line worked for a while for orbiting the large long magnet is that since both magnets were long, the force dropoff was in between 1/r^2 and 1/r^3, so the orbit could last (even though not closed) until energy losses made it small enough for collision. (By the way, gravitationally bound orbits do eventually decay, again due to losses, as demonstrated by LIGO, but if you don't have losses from gas or magnetic drag, that takes a LONG time.)
For some reason, astroniners say that it's much less kujemy that Earth captured a passing Moon. It's far more likely that the Moon firned from an impact between Priti Eartg and Theia, which was a Mars sized planet. When Apollo missions gathered enough rocks on the Moon's surface, these proved that the Moon was made of Earth's crust, which was tossed into orbit during the collision with Theia And Theia's core went down into Earth's core. Or mantle. Geologists have found two humongous blobs in Earth's mantle that they suspect is Theia, after being torn in half.
Q: What if there was an exterior magnet the balanced the g force rotation around center magnet? 😁 Also my opinion on gravity is that exterior of planet earth is the condensed pressure on to earth pushing objects down that are not closest to its properties (likes attract) oil and water separate and decide position from great amount of mass of surround bring. Is this possible? Please explain. Thanks
As far as I know there is no centrifugal force acting on objects in orbit, otherwise they wouldn’t accelerate. Gravity is the only force involved in orbits.
@@dhanush5587 Don't be so sure m8. Force means acceleration, but acceleration doesn't mean a change in velocity. If an object went in a straight line and was accelerated in that direction, then it would speed up, BUT in the case of planetary orbits the acceleration is only the change in the velocities direction without affecting the magnitude of the velocity. Vectors and whatnot.
@@dhanush5587 this is false, what prevents the collision is the velocity perpendicular to the gravitational force - if this wasn’t present it would collide, but orbits will have this velocity.
if your in a rotating reference frame then there will be centrifugal forces, and that will cause a planet to appear to not accelerate or move at all given a circular orbit. But you have to remember that the reference frame is still rotating, which means in a stationary frame the planet will be rotating.
@TheActionLab, if you try to maintain the spinning/orbitting magnet in such a way that the magnet at rest is located at the focus of the elliptical orbit then it'll kinda orbit for much longer time. [Kepler's 1st law of planetary orbit].
Could you try an orbit with static electricity (on styrofoam balls) next? That should work, because they wouldn't have poles. Also in a cyclotron, electrons move in a circle in a magnetic field.
A cyclotron has an actively varying electric field. This is distinct from an orbit, in which each object's own force-field is static relative to itself.
Nice experiment. What if you used a vacuum chamber and a string? Although it would be very hard to control. Maybe a magnet and a piece of metal would also be fine. And there are induced currents in metals... Then I wonder if it would be better to have many smaller separate pieces in a lump.
The same concept was done years ago on the Space Shuttle. Instead of pure magnetism though, they used static electricity. I believe it was a water droplet orbiting around a statically charged plastic rod.
I also wonder how he manages to make those videos - good ideas, but then he does not understand the physics and explains them wrong, yet still manages to make good experinments. @@mayankkoli2300 Yes - his entire explanation of the physics behind it. For planets there is only 1 force acting - gravity - and even that only if we look at it with newtonian physics. If there was a centrifugal force like he claims then NO objects could orbit each other as they would just fly past each other in straight lines.
@@ABaumstumpf Lol, Newton is the one that explained it this way in Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica. In order for something to stay at the same radial distance, the object has to have an opposing force. Centrifugal force is the same way as saying that the object has to be moving quickly around in a circle. It is not wrong, it is a different reference frame.
In reality, to make two objects orbit each other you only need a centripetal force (centrifugal force is only the centripetal force observed from the point of view of the object that is orbiting). The reason why we only need one force (the centripetal one) is that in itself the object that is orbiting at any moment would like to travel in a uniform rectilinear motion (due to the principle of inertia), it is exactly the centripetal force that does not allow it, forcing it to follow a circular trajectory
Exactly, and if those 2 forces were balanced as he said in the video, it would travel in the linear path as you describe, which is clearly not an orbit!
@@rainbowevil yep, in reality centrifugal/centripetal force are just the same force observed (experienced in this case is better) by two different observers. Centrifugal is an apparent force. However I think he knows all of this but he used this (incorrect) example to describe in an easy and intuitive way the circular motion
You also introduced quite a few more forces with that magnetic orbiting setup. There is the spring force of the rod pulling the magnet back to center, plus the tension forces from gravity pulling on the mass. I honestly think you'd have had better luck passing the cylindrical magnet through a plane of plastic and rolling the original ball magnet around that. You'd still have the polarity of the ball magnet mess up the orbit, but I would think that would be less of a factor than the additional forces from the rod.
Yes I was thinking this once the magnet began slight orbit he didn't continue to wiggle his hand which was the initial causation of the magnets beginning motion. If you continually applied the same spinning motion even once the magnet began to grab then I think, should it not continue it's orbit as long as you applied that same outward force with the rod?
Centrifugal force doesn’t exist. There’s no force opposing the attractive force, otherwise the trajectory would be a straight line. You need a centripetal force to make an object move in a circle.
Neodymium magnets are very brittle, hitting them together is not good for them but it's all in the name of science! :) Thank you for another informative and entertaining video!
I thought that was samarium-cobalt magnets that were brittle; what I'd read of about neodymium magnets is that they corrode like crazy if not properly coated.
If you launch the thing at exactly right velocity + direction, you can achieve stable circular orbit with any attractional force. The R^-2 forces are only necessary for stable eccentrical orbits. Achieving that exactly right velocity is hard in practice, though.
Indeed, you can create an orbit with all kind of potentials, it doesn't need to be 1/r^2. As long as no energy is lost there is no reason for it to fall into the center, when the initial conditions are right.
This is true but they cannot be called stable orbits. They are unstable orbits where the slightest disturbance will cause the object to crash and burn or spin off into space. Stable orbits such as gravitational orbits can be disturbed ie have their kinetic energy changed and they will just adopt a slightly different orbit corresponding to their new energy.
@@petehiggins33 @number 33 this doesn't sound physically correct. You can calculate the escape velocity for any kind of potential by integrating the potential towards infinity. So you won't accidentally let it escape the orbit by giving it a small nudge. Similar with falling to the center: unless it hits the object in the middle, the sum of potential energy and kinetic energy will be constant. They may not be circular or elliptical orbits, but they will be definitely be stable in a two body system.
just to precise something the "centrifugal force" does not exist its just inertia that modified by the gravitationnal force of the planet in the exemple
@@hoboinspector absolutely it’s just by phrasing it that way it’s easier to understand it and you don’t want necessarily to introduce the theory of relativity just to talk about inertia
@@df3_legomocs Well... in relativity, the planets are just following straight lines through spacetime, known as geodesics. Most of the curve happens in the time dimension btw, not the space dimensions.
What if you wold have a force pushing the magnet equal to the force pulling the magnet towards the other magnet? Wold it just stop in place and keep it's distance or wold it actually orbit around the other magnet? And if the magnet stops, what if you always had a force pushing the magnet from behind at all times? Wold you be able to create perpetual movement with such things?
Q: What if there was an exterior magnet the balanced the g force rotation around center magnet? 😁 Also my opinion on gravity is that exterior of planet earth is the condensed pressure on to earth pushing objects down that are not closest to its properties (likes attract) oil and water separate and decide position from great amount of mass of surround bring. Is this possible? Please explain. Thanks
Very interesting! And I would really appreciate if you elaborate (perhaps in another video) on how Gravity results in stable orbits. It intuitively seems that the orbit of a body around another body (like a planet around its star) is unstable equilibrium state (it's not just a point obviously as it requires correct position and momentum). But I mean that even the slight offset of the perfect balance (and we know that very few things are perfect in reality) would potentially (even if in a very long time) set the body either no a collision course, or would eject it away of the other body (losing energy usually results in the first scenario). So it seems there is a phenomenon or mechanism that ensures a balanced state (at least for some part of the matter), but intuitive thinking of separate bodies doesn't work as this balance of the whole system in my opinion is result of all the bodies (no matter how big or small or many) works by simultaneous interactions between all of them. I know Lagrangian mechanics is good for describing such complex systems, but I'm not familiar with it or its maths. And also while I definitely support the role of Math in all the branches of sciences, I think it doesn't help with actually understanding or communicating how a given phenomenon works (except between mathematicians)
Because his explanation is wrong... The centrifugal force is not real, it's not a thing in orbits. Let's ignore relativity for a second and assume that gravity is a force. The force points radially inward, which moves the velocity vector around its parent body. It's just the inertia of the object that keeps it from falling straight down. It's like swinging an object using a rope, the only force is the centripetal force from the rope... the centrifugal force doesn't exist... it's a fictional force.
@@silience4095 Thank you. I also said something similar above. There is no centrifugal force here. An orbit is a body that is being pulled by a force but is free falling at an arc greater than the force. With no friction (no atmosphere), the object wont slow down and will maintain the same trajectory in a free fall around the object. Pretty shocked that this channel got it so wrong. Im usually really impressed with the other content.
All known elliptical orbits decay due to influences from the rest of the system. It's just a matter of time. But there are just so many orbits that last a "long time" in human terms, that short-term stability (on the order of millions of years) is highly likely. The orbits themselves are neither stable nor unstable in the sense you are talking about, there are just an infinite amount of them. If you perturb an object in a particular orbit, the satellite will just assume another orbit according to the observed mechanics governed by mass, velocity, and gravity.
Nice, but there is no centrifucal force. Put more clearly: centrifugal force is not a force. For example when the moon orbits the earth, the only Newtonian force acting is the gravitational force between the two podies.
Centrifugal force is exactly as fictitious as centripetal force. It's just a name for a group of other forces that behave similarly, like pressure, lift, or the normal force.
@@TlalocTemporal No, that is not true. There is a specific reason why the centrifugal effect is called a pseudoforce, and those other examples of forces are not. The centrifugal effect is called a pseudoforce, because there isn't an interacting pair of objects that cause it. It is caused by one object as a consequence to being in a rotating reference frame, and attempting to travel in the inertial straight line, but having another force constrain it against doing so.
There's a channel that highlights interesting toys. One of them I saw recently was a setup where a large center magnet attracted a second magnet, but a series of smaller magnets retracted the second magnet. The result was that second magnet would pull the contraption towards it, but would push it away if it got too close. If you did this same experiment with that contraption, it might create a long lasting stable orbit. Im gonna try to track down the video and update this comment with a link. Edit: found it! ruclips.net/video/LyvfDzRLsiU/видео.html Edit2: I should have said a MORE stable orbit. I can imagine there are still issues that will cause the second magnet to slow to a stop.
I think I have an idea for a way to "cheat" a magnetic orbit. You align the magnetic fields the opposite way so that the magnetic force becomes the centrifugal force while the smaller magnet is hanging on a rope so that now gravity acts like a centripetal force and you give it a spin. It will spin in orbit on its equilibrium radius until it settles due to friction.
Where was this PERFECT explanation with visuals when I was trying to explain this to a flat earther. I think you should do a video explaining to flat earthers why the water doesn't fly off with centrifugal force.
Hang on, in the final simulation you had, you were showing the stable orbit, but then the two oscillating orbits which were inevitably going to repeat themselves as they continued circling and then eventually returned to their original position. They trace an outer circle with their many different orbits, so they can still orbit, it would just be repeating or oscillating in a set pattern, rather than a single constant loop in each of their revolutions around their point of orbit. This should mean that they can orbit, just not in the traditional sense, and so long as their orbits don't get changed by external forces, right?
Scribblenauts Unlimited: “hold my notebook” (If you give a magnetic ball the “throwable” adjective, and another, larger one the immovable adjective, and throw the smaller one towards the bigger one at the right angle, it can go around it a few times, and possibly more)
Have you looked up inverter magnets? They're a combination of a ring of small neodymium magnets surrounding a large neodymium disc magnet. They prevent a magnet from escaping or getting too close. It's a quite expensive toy, but imagine a whole stack of them, with a magnet orbiting them. Just an idea.
Pretty much what I think this is. :P The only real balance is entropy, or at least dissonant transduction i/e modulation of energy. I think without it... matter and all forces on it would resonate without interference, become a giant polarized mess, transductive media would become energetically resonant, and all matter would break down into energy - or at least some resonant balance I/e orbit between the two. My real question is, what is entropy? It seems to be what causes matter to transduce energy into forces that affect and are affected by it. So there must be a transducer of energy and matter, because matter would otherwise just polarize itself into a sort of energy-matter semiconductor consisting of the very base of what matter is. Some say hydrogen, some say quarks, some say strings of causal entanglement, and others say pure energy meaning nothing at all but space with or without potential I don't really know. But what is entropy? It turns energy into matter and can therefore turn matter into energy or is sisters with something that can. But how? Why? What even is it, which is a thing that creates matter out of pure space / energy / potential? And it or them that turn matter back into potential? How and why can it have the same rules at both the level of space and nothingness? I'm gonna short a fuse just thinking of this stuff huh?
But there is no such thing as a centrifugal force. If there is a centrifugal force that is causing the gravitational force then there is no net force then the velocity of the thing orbiting should not change. If the velocity is constant then there is no circular orbit.
It’s important to note that the “centrifugal force” isn’t a real force. It’s just an effect caused by the forward inertia of the orbiting object. When an object is in orbit, there is only one force acting on it, the *centripetal* force, which points inward towards the object it is orbiting around.
I truly believe with the right experimentation all anti-gravity and other amazing propulsion and levitation possibilities would be discovered with magnetics as the center of the theory.
@@jaikumar848 And so are the magnets. In an orbital, I mean. Except that they are macroscopic and constantly interacting with other stuff, so classical theory doesn't break down quite so much as for a Hydrogen atom. But apart from that, these orbiting systems are not different in any way. So if you insist that electrons are in an orbital, not an orbit, then so is everything else, in principle. If you don't insist, then an electron in orbit around a proton is a somewhat fair classical model (ignoring radiation losses etc.).
a vaccuum just gets rid of friction through air resistance, but there would still be earths gravity which will produce a force pulling the magnets toward the ground. so actually in this situation, air resistance would probably be less of a problem because the magnets have low surface area and are pretty dense, and because of their weight friction from gravity would be a bigger issue. so him getting a platform that makes less friction from gravity was probably a smarter move
@@climatechangedoesntbargain9140 but as he mentioned magnets have 2 poles. so unless he adds some kind of stabilization rig, which would then add resistance. and because the ones he was using were spherical itd be really hard to keep them from aligning to the magnets that would make them "float" and attract to them, creating friction no matter what.
I always wonder what’s gonna b in the new video and you always surprises me with a good video packed with knowledge and information 👍🏻keep bringing new videos
I think you CAN make them orbit, if you stretch the word "orbit" a bit. Make a big flat surface with a strong magnet mounted in the center. Now build a small robot vehicle- it has 3 "legs" with un-powered bearings for feet, so it can roll in any direction. Then mount a rotary servo on top and to that, attach another magnet. You'll need a sensor that detects the direction of the magnetic flux of the big magnet, so the bot can rotate it's little magnet accordingly to counterattack the sum magnetic forces.
@@prykris You gonna be screeching when your (future) pickup truck gets taxed heavily like it should, and when you have to upgrade your licence to something not inappropriate for the mass and size.
A magnet on a string would've worked better than a magnet on a rod. Since the rod has to bend, it's imparting its own kind of pseudo-attractive force, pushing the attached smaller magnet toward the stationary large magnet, but this is still an awesome demonstration that proved the idea you set out to investigate. Orbiting magnetron! How awesome! I wonder if there are any organic examples of this sort of phenomenon in space. I wouldn't think the magnets would be anywhere near as pure, but these same materials and other magnetic materials obviously exist in nature, so it's at least theoretically possible that a natural example exists. If the universe is truly infinite then it's essentially a certainty that many organic versions of the phenomenon this experiment shows, exist in space somewhere.
You should have made experiment where you cut the rope at certain times to see if it would stay in orbit because the Rope is drawing it to Ground Zero which is making it connect but without the friction of the Rope it could achieve an orbit...
I would like to use three magnetic points. One static at the center of the orbit, one moving around the center, and one outside the orbit that regularly changes in pull strength. If the outside magnet could sharply rise and fall in pull as the moving magnet approaches and departs then I would hypothesize a semi stable orbit could be maintained magnetically. But this would require an input of energy which is not how gravitational orbits work.
I feel like the magnets sticking together and spinning super fast is similar to how black holes work but black holes spin so fast they create a vacuum effect
I have a simple idea Attach a big magnet on a string, then attach a smaller magnet on the same string. Making a string that has 2 ends, both the magnet has the north pointing up The attractive force is the gravity and the centrifugal force is just the magnets propelling each other. Then give it a spin
Wait, this ending made me think... If a meteor or something similar were ever to hit the moon with enough force, would this be as bad as hitting the Earth? I mean, depending on the direction, it might slow down the moon and the moon could fall towards the planet, or it could speed up the moon and eventually yeet it out of the orbit, which would be less bad, but there are many natural systems in our planet that depend on the moon's gravity
Your idea is a real example but it totally depends on the mass and velocity of that meteor as in the equation of collision and momentum M1V1 + M2V2 = (M1+M2)V`
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
For the people wondering which software he used to simulate the orbits: it's called Universe Sandbox
Oh I used to watch videos of this guy playing around in with that software, he called it a game tho.
Already knew
Glad to hear that 🤝
Thanks
@@saims.2402 Universe Sandbox is a game. Space Engine is the superior simulation engine. It's also on steam though lol
You know that things are really interesting when he says "Holy cow" 😂
I read "Holy cow" in his voice 😂😂😂😂
@@somewhatacat7526 true😂😂
That's how we talk in Utah 🤣
Agreed😂
Lmaoo
Action Lab: "centrifugal"
Me: makes popcorn and scrolls down
@@395leandro It's funny when people claim something doesn't exist and then go on to describe what it is.
@@395leandro Gravity emerges from objects following geodesics in spacetime. That doesn't mean gravity doesn't exist.
*[popcorn intensifies]*
@@glarynth Any extra popcorn left?
@@glarynth can I have some?
well actually........
This guy and NileRed are my two favorite sciencey guys. . .
I know NileRed is more chemistry while Action Lab is more physics, but as a lesser-nerd I group them together in the "sciencey" category. Found NR through making bismuth from antacid tablets and making transparent wood, and I found AL through the simulation of slowing down the speed of light to "walking speed" and have been hooked on them both ever since.
🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓
now we need to find a biology channel and the trinity of science channels is complete
@@carstenanand3115 yay
@@shebahammy no way you just went on a science channel and commented the nerd emoji
@@carstenanand3115maybe trey the explainer?
I just LOVE it when there is a concise and straight-forward mathematical answer for questions like this. I had no idea that force-distance scaling had such a deterministic effect on forming stable orbits, that's interesting as heck.
Yes very hecky
Just say "hell" or "fuck" :)
@@eleSDSU or they won’t? lmao you still understood them
@@eleSDSU Not everyone is vulgar.
@@eleSDSU shut up
Centrifugal force
Vsauce : or is it ? Centripetal in different frame of reference
Dunnnn
Vsause is... Kinda... Vsause.
Yeah his opening talk about forces was pretty subpar.
No, it's inertia, or the tendency to stay in motion at the same velocity until an external force is applied.
@@pronounjow yeah exactly, no centrifugal force
Small correction: centrifugal force is actually an apparent force.
What's keeping a planet in orbit is the fact that the force of gravity is acting perpendicularly to the planet's inertial vector.
If we're going to make that correction, we should also point out that gravity is not a force either. It's an effect caused by acceleration, which can be produced by mass warping time-space, or by an or an object changing its speed.
Smart people out here
@@yourfellowhomosapien5448 I love your username!
THANKYOU.gif
@@RobinClaassen If you're going to say it's not a force, you should point out that all fundamental forces are emergent forces like gravity, and it's perfectly fine to call it a force - especially in a video aimed at an audience that requires an explanation of an orbit.
Action lab, “balls in space”- sequel.
😂😂😂
Grow up
Ah, a woman of culture I see..
@@ArthurMorganReborn tiktok generation.
Lol 😆 your too cute and funny
You need zero gravity to make two magnets orbit each other.
Thank you for your Action Lab shorts. Your work is enlightening and fun to watch. I am a musician who has always been interested in Science and I find your channel to be excellent.
This guy is amazingly amazing
Agree!
Amazingly amazing at being amazingly amazed.
Yesssss sirrrrr
Yes
He can create a solar system without vacuum
Whenever James proposes a crazy experiment, my bet is that he's going to pull it off somehow. Besides this one, I can only remember the fixing plates with milk and that burning paper with a mangnifying glass by the moonlight as the ones he proved the trick to be impossible.
Making a white hole in his kitchen didn't really work out either
@@StefanReich He didn't really make it though, his intention was to demonstrate it through the analogy of water
I didn't even know that was his name haha 😅
@@suprith-science1441 lmfao dude was disappointed that he didnt get to see an actual white hole
LOOK AT THESE TWO MAGNETS ORBITING EACH OTHER. NEW DISCOVERY !
ruclips.net/video/LyvfDzRLsiU/видео.html
You could still potentially have some sort of orbit as long as they are "tidally locked." I'm not sure if it would be stable considering that the magnets are attracted by an inverse cube law but it should work.
Work smarter, not harder! If a magnet was spinning, than stable orbits could be possible, because from the perspective of the other magnet, the body it's orbiting is a monopole (of course it really isn't, but in this situation it's close enough).
You’re a genius and you make science interesting. Like Bill Nye used to when I was a kid
Just a correction, a balance of force isn't needed for uniform circular motion ( the acceleration would be 0 then ), just an initial velocity. Do preamble that u were talking in the objects frame.
Exactly, it's the conservation of angular momentum what keeps things orbiting around a central body. Centripetal acceleration, caused by gravity, is what constantly bends the trajectory into an elliptical orbit.
@@mario_dc I guess u meant angular, linear isn't conserved - force acting
That's right. Centrifugal force is not a real force, it's only a force we define for convenience when we want to set the frame of reference that follows the rotating/revolving object. Even in that case, drawing the centrifugal force together with the ball moving in the same picture (0:55) is incorrect.
@@sakshamk4009 radial acceleration doesn't always lead to change in magnitude of radial velocity, circular motion case in point. So rdot stays zero, r stays const, rhat dot non zero.
**screams in confusion in 7th grader**
Yes a video of the action lab on my birthday lol!
happy birthday!
Happy birthday!!!
Thx!
You know when ever your birthday is arrived you life shorter right? I mean birthday is just reminder that your life is getting shorter every year
Anyway HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!!!!!
Happy Birthday🎊🎉🎂
I'm amazed that two golf balls turn into a larger golf ball when they touch. 😅
That's a well known of effect, and is the reason space-golf isn't very interesting.
That's in Universe Sandbox.
@@tonyennis1787 space-golf is a real thing. Alan Shepard played golf on the moon and Mikhail Tyurin on the outside of the ISS.
@@karlkastor yeah but they go no corporate sponsorship
@@tonyennis1787 Actually Mikhail Tyurin was sponsored by the golf company Element 21
Making the force drop as 1/r^1.9 or 1/r^2.1 isn't actually making the orbits unstable, but it causes them to precess, like general relativity causes Mercury's orbit to precess. But if you go all the way to 1/r^3, then you won't have a stable orbit. The reason that the long magnet on a line worked for a while for orbiting the large long magnet is that since both magnets were long, the force dropoff was in between 1/r^2 and 1/r^3, so the orbit could last (even though not closed) until energy losses made it small enough for collision. (By the way, gravitationally bound orbits do eventually decay, again due to losses, as demonstrated by LIGO, but if you don't have losses from gas or magnetic drag, that takes a LONG time.)
This video is going to make me fail my physics final, I was just curious if its possible to send a magnet into orbit
Yo i finally understood how the Moon started orbiting the Earth, the 50 golf ball was a perfect example!
@@gregoryford2532 it was a small planet that collided with earth and made a bunch of debris that all clumped up and eventually formed the moon
For some reason, astroniners say that it's much less kujemy that Earth captured a passing Moon. It's far more likely that the Moon firned from an impact between Priti Eartg and Theia, which was a Mars sized planet.
When Apollo missions gathered enough rocks on the Moon's surface, these proved that the Moon was made of Earth's crust, which was tossed into orbit during the collision with Theia
And Theia's core went down into Earth's core. Or mantle. Geologists have found two humongous blobs in Earth's mantle that they suspect is Theia, after being torn in half.
Does this work for the earth orbiting the Sun too?
I wonder how difficult it would be to set this up inside a vacuum chamber
Q: What if there was an exterior magnet the balanced the g force rotation around center magnet? 😁 Also my opinion on gravity is that exterior of planet earth is the condensed pressure on to earth pushing objects down that are not closest to its properties (likes attract) oil and water separate and decide position from great amount of mass of surround bring. Is this possible? Please explain. Thanks
@@LARRYSEIPRODUCTSLLC I like your funny words, magic man
@@synical4 Don’t feel stupid, I have no idea what he tried to ask or tell us either, but it’s not because of the technicalities 🤔
@@LARRYSEIPRODUCTSLLC dude for the first it would form a eclipse and the second one no
@@LARRYSEIPRODUCTSLLC Earth is flat start there
As far as I know there is no centrifugal force acting on objects in orbit, otherwise they wouldn’t accelerate. Gravity is the only force involved in orbits.
If gravity only involved then moon will collide earth. If it is not centrifugal force it may be other force. I'm dame sure that 2 forces are involved
@@dhanush5587 Don't be so sure m8. Force means acceleration, but acceleration doesn't mean a change in velocity. If an object went in a straight line and was accelerated in that direction, then it would speed up, BUT in the case of planetary orbits the acceleration is only the change in the velocities direction without affecting the magnitude of the velocity. Vectors and whatnot.
centrifugal is kinda of a misnomer. what actually is happening is the moment of inertia is constantly changing from angular to circular.
@@dhanush5587 this is false, what prevents the collision is the velocity perpendicular to the gravitational force - if this wasn’t present it would collide, but orbits will have this velocity.
if your in a rotating reference frame then there will be centrifugal forces, and that will cause a planet to appear to not accelerate or move at all given a circular orbit. But you have to remember that the reference frame is still rotating, which means in a stationary frame the planet will be rotating.
I love how quickly the question was answered
If two magnets can orbit each other then we can provide infinite energy from them obviously. Btw that's my idea plz don't steal.
@TheActionLab, if you try to maintain the spinning/orbitting magnet in such a way that the magnet at rest is located at the focus of the elliptical orbit then it'll kinda orbit for much longer time. [Kepler's 1st law of planetary orbit].
Your comment should have gotten more comments! 👍👍
Thank you!!! I was getting frustrated 😵
Could you try an orbit with static electricity (on styrofoam balls) next? That should work, because they wouldn't have poles. Also in a cyclotron, electrons move in a circle in a magnetic field.
That might work, he has a vacuum chamber too which should account for air friction too
That is actually a super smart idea. I would love to check out this experiment
A cyclotron has an actively varying electric field. This is distinct from an orbit, in which each object's own force-field is static relative to itself.
Nice experiment. What if you used a vacuum chamber and a string? Although it would be very hard to control. Maybe a magnet and a piece of metal would also be fine. And there are induced currents in metals... Then I wonder if it would be better to have many smaller separate pieces in a lump.
The same concept was done years ago on the Space Shuttle. Instead of pure magnetism though, they used static electricity. I believe it was a water droplet orbiting around a statically charged plastic rod.
I think that would probably keep children more entertained than any toy out on the market right now!
That's really cool!
How are you able to come up with so many great ideas. You are truly a genius.
Ikr!
Genius?
@@JustangGT500 anything wrong in it?
I also wonder how he manages to make those videos - good ideas, but then he does not understand the physics and explains them wrong, yet still manages to make good experinments.
@@mayankkoli2300 Yes - his entire explanation of the physics behind it. For planets there is only 1 force acting - gravity - and even that only if we look at it with newtonian physics. If there was a centrifugal force like he claims then NO objects could orbit each other as they would just fly past each other in straight lines.
@@ABaumstumpf Lol, Newton is the one that explained it this way in Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica. In order for something to stay at the same radial distance, the object has to have an opposing force. Centrifugal force is the same way as saying that the object has to be moving quickly around in a circle. It is not wrong, it is a different reference frame.
In reality, to make two objects orbit each other you only need a centripetal force (centrifugal force is only the centripetal force observed from the point of view of the object that is orbiting). The reason why we only need one force (the centripetal one) is that in itself the object that is orbiting at any moment would like to travel in a uniform rectilinear motion (due to the principle of inertia), it is exactly the centripetal force that does not allow it, forcing it to follow a circular trajectory
Exactly, and if those 2 forces were balanced as he said in the video, it would travel in the linear path as you describe, which is clearly not an orbit!
@@rainbowevil yep, in reality centrifugal/centripetal force are just the same force observed (experienced in this case is better) by two different observers. Centrifugal is an apparent force.
However I think he knows all of this but he used this (incorrect) example to describe in an easy and intuitive way the circular motion
You also introduced quite a few more forces with that magnetic orbiting setup. There is the spring force of the rod pulling the magnet back to center, plus the tension forces from gravity pulling on the mass. I honestly think you'd have had better luck passing the cylindrical magnet through a plane of plastic and rolling the original ball magnet around that. You'd still have the polarity of the ball magnet mess up the orbit, but I would think that would be less of a factor than the additional forces from the rod.
The same thing I though: constrain the magnets with 2 frictionless planes
Yes I was thinking this once the magnet began slight orbit he didn't continue to wiggle his hand which was the initial causation of the magnets beginning motion. If you continually applied the same spinning motion even once the magnet began to grab then I think, should it not continue it's orbit as long as you applied that same outward force with the rod?
Centrifugal force doesn’t exist. There’s no force opposing the attractive force, otherwise the trajectory would be a straight line. You need a centripetal force to make an object move in a circle.
As soon as I saw the word "Orbit" the planet nerd inside me took over and made me click this video. XD
Neodymium magnets are very brittle, hitting them together is not good for them but it's all in the name of science! :) Thank you for another informative and entertaining video!
I thought that was samarium-cobalt magnets that were brittle; what I'd read of about neodymium magnets is that they corrode like crazy if not properly coated.
If you launch the thing at exactly right velocity + direction, you can achieve stable circular orbit with any attractional force. The R^-2 forces are only necessary for stable eccentrical orbits. Achieving that exactly right velocity is hard in practice, though.
Indeed, you can create an orbit with all kind of potentials, it doesn't need to be 1/r^2. As long as no energy is lost there is no reason for it to fall into the center, when the initial conditions are right.
This is true but they cannot be called stable orbits. They are unstable orbits where the slightest disturbance will cause the object to crash and burn or spin off into space. Stable orbits such as gravitational orbits can be disturbed ie have their kinetic energy changed and they will just adopt a slightly different orbit corresponding to their new energy.
@@petehiggins33 @number 33 this doesn't sound physically correct. You can calculate the escape velocity for any kind of potential by integrating the potential towards infinity. So you won't accidentally let it escape the orbit by giving it a small nudge. Similar with falling to the center: unless it hits the object in the middle, the sum of potential energy and kinetic energy will be constant. They may not be circular or elliptical orbits, but they will be definitely be stable in a two body system.
just to precise something the "centrifugal force" does not exist its just inertia that modified by the gravitationnal force of the planet in the exemple
agreed, except according to relativity gravity isnt a force either
@@hoboinspector absolutely it’s just by phrasing it that way it’s easier to understand it and you don’t want necessarily to introduce the theory of relativity just to talk about inertia
@@df3_legomocs Well... in relativity, the planets are just following straight lines through spacetime, known as geodesics.
Most of the curve happens in the time dimension btw, not the space dimensions.
Inaccurate explanation of orbits in space
This man just casually made the best simple explanation for why photons are both seen as waves and particles I've ever heard
colliding magnet spheres - "I'll try spinning, that's a good trick"
I've not watched it but i'm pretty sure it'll be an amazing video as always!
These videos are very informative for students taking A Level Physics! Great videos
Fringe scientist proves that gravity is just a guy in a garage wiggling a rod
What if you wold have a force pushing the magnet equal to the force pulling the magnet towards the other magnet? Wold it just stop in place and keep it's distance or wold it actually orbit around the other magnet? And if the magnet stops, what if you always had a force pushing the magnet from behind at all times? Wold you be able to create perpetual movement with such things?
the slow-mo and piano music was so well matched:
Edit: thanks for 15 likes. (my highest ever in a comment)
Q: What if there was an exterior magnet the balanced the g force rotation around center magnet? 😁 Also my opinion on gravity is that exterior of planet earth is the condensed pressure on to earth pushing objects down that are not closest to its properties (likes attract) oil and water separate and decide position from great amount of mass of surround bring. Is this possible? Please explain. Thanks
Very interesting!
And I would really appreciate if you elaborate (perhaps in another video) on how Gravity results in stable orbits.
It intuitively seems that the orbit of a body around another body (like a planet around its star) is unstable equilibrium state (it's not just a point obviously as it requires correct position and momentum). But I mean that even the slight offset of the perfect balance (and we know that very few things are perfect in reality) would potentially (even if in a very long time) set the body either no a collision course, or would eject it away of the other body (losing energy usually results in the first scenario).
So it seems there is a phenomenon or mechanism that ensures a balanced state (at least for some part of the matter), but intuitive thinking of separate bodies doesn't work as this balance of the whole system in my opinion is result of all the bodies (no matter how big or small or many) works by simultaneous interactions between all of them.
I know Lagrangian mechanics is good for describing such complex systems, but I'm not familiar with it or its maths.
And also while I definitely support the role of Math in all the branches of sciences, I think it doesn't help with actually understanding or communicating how a given phenomenon works (except between mathematicians)
Because his explanation is wrong...
The centrifugal force is not real, it's not a thing in orbits.
Let's ignore relativity for a second and assume that gravity is a force. The force points radially inward, which moves the velocity vector around its parent body. It's just the inertia of the object that keeps it from falling straight down.
It's like swinging an object using a rope, the only force is the centripetal force from the rope... the centrifugal force doesn't exist... it's a fictional force.
@@silience4095 Thank you. I also said something similar above. There is no centrifugal force here. An orbit is a body that is being pulled by a force but is free falling at an arc greater than the force. With no friction (no atmosphere), the object wont slow down and will maintain the same trajectory in a free fall around the object.
Pretty shocked that this channel got it so wrong. Im usually really impressed with the other content.
All known elliptical orbits decay due to influences from the rest of the system. It's just a matter of time. But there are just so many orbits that last a "long time" in human terms, that short-term stability (on the order of millions of years) is highly likely. The orbits themselves are neither stable nor unstable in the sense you are talking about, there are just an infinite amount of them. If you perturb an object in a particular orbit, the satellite will just assume another orbit according to the observed mechanics governed by mass, velocity, and gravity.
You read my mind, action lab
02:33 "since we can't go out to space to do this" 🥺 We want The Action Lab in space! Let's go! 😁
Nice, but there is no centrifucal force. Put more clearly: centrifugal force is not a force. For example when the moon orbits the earth, the only Newtonian force acting is the gravitational force between the two podies.
Isn't centrifugal force a pseudo force?
It is
There's just the ever change vector of gravity as the object goes around, and very fast 'sideways' velocity.
Centrifugal force is exactly as fictitious as centripetal force. It's just a name for a group of other forces that behave similarly, like pressure, lift, or the normal force.
@@TlalocTemporal No, that is not true. There is a specific reason why the centrifugal effect is called a pseudoforce, and those other examples of forces are not.
The centrifugal effect is called a pseudoforce, because there isn't an interacting pair of objects that cause it. It is caused by one object as a consequence to being in a rotating reference frame, and attempting to travel in the inertial straight line, but having another force constrain it against doing so.
@@carultch -- Your explanation doesn't disagree with mine.
There's a channel that highlights interesting toys. One of them I saw recently was a setup where a large center magnet attracted a second magnet, but a series of smaller magnets retracted the second magnet. The result was that second magnet would pull the contraption towards it, but would push it away if it got too close.
If you did this same experiment with that contraption, it might create a long lasting stable orbit.
Im gonna try to track down the video and update this comment with a link.
Edit: found it! ruclips.net/video/LyvfDzRLsiU/видео.html
Edit2: I should have said a MORE stable orbit. I can imagine there are still issues that will cause the second magnet to slow to a stop.
Cool but basically cheating at that point
Ha, knew it would be Tim. Very cool and fascinating setup. Thanks for sharing.
Man! Discovering the physical world all over again, like being kids again
Like being in school listening to lies about evolution, spinning globes, big bangs. Thank goodness we grew up and learned the truth
I think I have an idea for a way to "cheat" a magnetic orbit.
You align the magnetic fields the opposite way so that the magnetic force becomes the centrifugal force while the smaller magnet is hanging on a rope so that now gravity acts like a centripetal force and you give it a spin. It will spin in orbit on its equilibrium radius until it settles due to friction.
Where was this PERFECT explanation with visuals when I was trying to explain this to a flat earther. I think you should do a video explaining to flat earthers why the water doesn't fly off with centrifugal force.
Wow, this is amazing, fascinating, and cool! 👍🏻😀
I am going to use little magnets to make a new game to play with my mom, and likely others, too.
Action Lab, use GPT-3 to generate some video titles based on your channel, like Tom Scott did
Love the fact your using one of my favorite games to explain this one 07
You could also say that in case of gravity all bodies are just moving forward, just in a curved spacetime.
This channel’s gotten a lot more interesting since I first found it. I like it a lot 👍🏻
seeing something actually cool for once-
What do you haven’t seen any of his videos?
Almost all of his videos are as cool as this. Check them out!
IKRRRR
Ending a sentence with a dash-
@@tu_matthew771 oh I've been subbed since 2018 but most ppl dont post really amazing content like him
Hang on, in the final simulation you had, you were showing the stable orbit, but then the two oscillating orbits which were inevitably going to repeat themselves as they continued circling and then eventually returned to their original position. They trace an outer circle with their many different orbits, so they can still orbit, it would just be repeating or oscillating in a set pattern, rather than a single constant loop in each of their revolutions around their point of orbit. This should mean that they can orbit, just not in the traditional sense, and so long as their orbits don't get changed by external forces, right?
Magnets have always fascinated me, also what is the name of that simulation program?
It's Universe Sandbox 2 enjoy!
@@bhuvaneshwaranm5798 It’s not Universe Sandbox 2, it’s just Universe Sandbox and Universe Sandbox Legacy.
@@lyly_lei_lei it used to be Universe Sandbox 2, but they renamed it
@@norb3695 Correct.
Scribblenauts Unlimited: “hold my notebook”
(If you give a magnetic ball the “throwable” adjective, and another, larger one the immovable adjective, and throw the smaller one towards the bigger one at the right angle, it can go around it a few times, and possibly more)
the fact that this man demonstrates it with universe sandbox is so cute
Have you looked up inverter magnets? They're a combination of a ring of small neodymium magnets surrounding a large neodymium disc magnet. They prevent a magnet from escaping or getting too close. It's a quite expensive toy, but imagine a whole stack of them, with a magnet orbiting them. Just an idea.
Pretty much what I think this is. :P
The only real balance is entropy, or at least dissonant transduction i/e modulation of energy. I think without it... matter and all forces on it would resonate without interference, become a giant polarized mess, transductive media would become energetically resonant, and all matter would break down into energy - or at least some resonant balance I/e orbit between the two.
My real question is, what is entropy? It seems to be what causes matter to transduce energy into forces that affect and are affected by it.
So there must be a transducer of energy and matter, because matter would otherwise just polarize itself into a sort of energy-matter semiconductor consisting of the very base of what matter is. Some say hydrogen, some say quarks, some say strings of causal entanglement, and others say pure energy meaning nothing at all but space with or without potential I don't really know.
But what is entropy? It turns energy into matter and can therefore turn matter into energy or is sisters with something that can.
But how? Why? What even is it, which is a thing that creates matter out of pure space / energy / potential? And it or them that turn matter back into potential? How and why can it have the same rules at both the level of space and nothingness?
I'm gonna short a fuse just thinking of this stuff huh?
@@FDroid01 This just sounds like a bunch of buzzwords with no real understanding behind them.
@@danielsieker9927 I did say I was gonna sblow a fuse just thinking about it xD
@@danielsieker9927 how much dose it cost?
Technically you're just making a motor at this point 5:58
Sir, why is your 'Fly Power' video age restricted?😂
But there is no such thing as a centrifugal force. If there is a centrifugal force that is causing the gravitational force then there is no net force then the velocity of the thing orbiting should not change. If the velocity is constant then there is no circular orbit.
It’s important to note that the “centrifugal force” isn’t a real force. It’s just an effect caused by the forward inertia of the orbiting object. When an object is in orbit, there is only one force acting on it, the *centripetal* force, which points inward towards the object it is orbiting around.
I truly believe with the right experimentation all anti-gravity and other amazing propulsion and levitation possibilities would be discovered with magnetics as the center of the theory.
Hi action lab ! Similarly can you make 2 electric charge orbit each other?
Well yes. Atoms literally have Protons (Positive Charge) & Electrons (Negative Charge) , with electrons orbiting the Nucleus containing Protons.
@@jeevananand4810 correction. Electron are in orbital not in orbit
@@jaikumar848 Well you just answered yourself
@@jaikumar848 And so are the magnets. In an orbital, I mean.
Except that they are macroscopic and constantly interacting with other stuff, so classical theory doesn't break down quite so much as for a Hydrogen atom. But apart from that, these orbiting systems are not different in any way. So if you insist that electrons are in an orbital, not an orbit, then so is everything else, in principle. If you don't insist, then an electron in orbit around a proton is a somewhat fair classical model (ignoring radiation losses etc.).
"Since We can't go out to space to do this"
-ActionLab
Then, how about doing this experiment in the vaccuum to simulate space.
The earths gravity would prevent any experiment from being done. We would need to be further away from planetary influence
a vaccuum just gets rid of friction through air resistance, but there would still be earths gravity which will produce a force pulling the magnets toward the ground. so actually in this situation, air resistance would probably be less of a problem because the magnets have low surface area and are pretty dense, and because of their weight friction from gravity would be a bigger issue. so him getting a platform that makes less friction from gravity was probably a smarter move
@@cowmaster9180 he can do both by using more magnets
@@climatechangedoesntbargain9140 but as he mentioned magnets have 2 poles. so unless he adds some kind of stabilization rig, which would then add resistance. and because the ones he was using were spherical itd be really hard to keep them from aligning to the magnets that would make them "float" and attract to them, creating friction no matter what.
This low-key my favorite channel on RUclips
This chanel always answers my questions before i even question them
0:17 ayo
I always wonder what’s gonna b in the new video and you always surprises me with a good video packed with knowledge and information 👍🏻keep bringing new videos
07:46 God did his math.
God made the Earth flat, the One true God who was manifest in the flesh as Jesus Christ
@@sumthinfreshI feel bad for u
@@TrioLive0 feel bad for yourself. It’s easy AF to see it but you types think you’re smart. I’d insult you more but it’s time to eat. Doofy
As an old physics major, I truly enjoy your videos and interesting selection of topcs.
Wait, if electromagnetic orbits are inherently unstable due to the r^3 law, does that mean the orbitals of atoms are inherently unstable as well?
my jaw was on the floor watching that in slow motion. mesmerizing
I think you CAN make them orbit, if you stretch the word "orbit" a bit.
Make a big flat surface with a strong magnet mounted in the center. Now build a small robot vehicle- it has 3 "legs" with un-powered bearings for feet, so it can roll in any direction. Then mount a rotary servo on top and to that, attach another magnet. You'll need a sensor that detects the direction of the magnetic flux of the big magnet, so the bot can rotate it's little magnet accordingly to counterattack the sum magnetic forces.
Lol it's like gravitation, keplers law and stuff kind off, this something I'm studying rn
The very last part was interesting, if gravity were slightly different it would change how the entire universe looks
This video made me feel really tiny and insignificant. We are literally just dust on a giant golfball spinning and flying through the void of space.
Gravity is the only force trying to pull your pants down like a pervert
don't let feminist see this, they will def cancel gravity with all their might
@@prykris You gonna be screeching when your (future) pickup truck gets taxed heavily like it should, and when you have to upgrade your licence to something not inappropriate for the mass and size.
@@C0deH0wler there is no point in this short discussion that I disagree with :D
I wish I could dislike this video twice, once for the fictitious centrifugal force and once again for the handwaving explanation of unstable orbits.
Look at his comment
@@rogg0224, no shit. I still wish I could dislike it twice.
First
Nice
A magnet on a string would've worked better than a magnet on a rod. Since the rod has to bend, it's imparting its own kind of pseudo-attractive force, pushing the attached smaller magnet toward the stationary large magnet, but this is still an awesome demonstration that proved the idea you set out to investigate. Orbiting magnetron! How awesome!
I wonder if there are any organic examples of this sort of phenomenon in space. I wouldn't think the magnets would be anywhere near as pure, but these same materials and other magnetic materials obviously exist in nature, so it's at least theoretically possible that a natural example exists. If the universe is truly infinite then it's essentially a certainty that many organic versions of the phenomenon this experiment shows, exist in space somewhere.
You should have made experiment where you cut the rope at certain times to see if it would stay in orbit because the Rope is drawing it to Ground Zero which is making it connect but without the friction of the Rope it could achieve an orbit...
first to comment
Alt F4 to have 999 billion subs
I didn’t expect it to not orbit but I wasn’t disappointed
Never seen somone make the word "no" last over 8 minutes before! You are a genius sir🧐
Atleast you got some knowledge and it was fun
@@RavinderSingh-tn7zi you never played with magnets as kid? This was one of the first things you tried🤣
4:10 So earth is a Mono POLE? then why do we have a North & South pole? Please explain...thanks
I would like to use three magnetic points. One static at the center of the orbit, one moving around the center, and one outside the orbit that regularly changes in pull strength. If the outside magnet could sharply rise and fall in pull as the moving magnet approaches and departs then I would hypothesize a semi stable orbit could be maintained magnetically. But this would require an input of energy which is not how gravitational orbits work.
I feel like the magnets sticking together and spinning super fast is similar to how black holes work but black holes spin so fast they create a vacuum effect
I just notice I was not subscribed but I watched almost all of his videos
I have a simple idea
Attach a big magnet on a string, then attach a smaller magnet on the same string. Making a string that has 2 ends, both the magnet has the north pointing up
The attractive force is the gravity and the centrifugal force is just the magnets propelling each other.
Then give it a spin
Wait, this ending made me think... If a meteor or something similar were ever to hit the moon with enough force, would this be as bad as hitting the Earth? I mean, depending on the direction, it might slow down the moon and the moon could fall towards the planet, or it could speed up the moon and eventually yeet it out of the orbit, which would be less bad, but there are many natural systems in our planet that depend on the moon's gravity
Your idea is a real example but it totally depends on the mass and velocity of that meteor as in the equation of collision and momentum
M1V1 + M2V2 = (M1+M2)V`