Correction at 0:18 - The first scientist in human history was actually Abu Ali al-Hasan ibn al-Hasan ibn al-Haytham, who lived from about 960 to 1040 CE in the Middle East. I learned about him a year or so after making this video, so that explains his absence from this video. Education in the U.S. is extremely Eurocentric, so many don't know about him. Since learning, I make an effort to mention him every chance I get. If you want to learn more, the channel Be Smart made a video all about him: ruclips.net/video/5cPzNmtoZDU/видео.html
We still do not know what Inertia and motion are in the physical sense or at the atomic level we just know how to predict their effect. This is what this video is doing and hundreds of thousands like it.
Here is what this video described. Inertia is what remains of/in/at/on a mass that is at rest or at a constant straight motion when one takes all the forces away acting on it. Good luck. Thanks for nothing !
So one day, my mom was driving me home from school and my big calculus textbook was on the floor of the van between our seats. She accelerated a bit hard into a left turn from an intersection and the book slid back and to the side, ending up at the side door. I tried to use this as an opportunity to explain inertia to her by explaining that the book didn't move, the van moved while the book stayed stationary. That was when I was 16. I'm 32 now, and to this day "the book didn't move" still triggers her.
Inertia is the tendency of an object to resist changes in its motion. In other words, an object at rest will remain at rest, and an object in motion will continue to move with a constant velocity, unless acted upon by an external force. In your scenario, the calculus textbook on the floor of the van is the object in question. Initially, the book is at rest with respect to the van, meaning it's not moving relative to the van. When your mom accelerates the van into a left turn, the van changes its direction and velocity. However, the book, due to its inertia, wants to maintain its original state of motion, which is to continue moving in a straight line. Since the book is not attached to the van, it doesn't follow the van's new direction and velocity. Instead, it keeps moving in its original direction, which is now opposite to the van's new direction. This is why the book appears to slide backward and to the side, ending up at the side door. Your explanation to your mom is spot on: the book didn't move; the van moved while the book stayed stationary relative to its original motion. The book's inertia caused it to resist the change in motion imposed by the van's acceleration. To illustrate this concept further, imagine you're sitting in a car that's moving at a constant velocity on a straight road. You're not wearing a seatbelt, and you're holding a cup of coffee. If the driver suddenly slams on the brakes, what happens to the coffee? It will keep moving forward, spilling all over the place, because it wants to maintain its original velocity. This is inertia in action! In your scenario, the book's inertia caused it to maintain its original motion, while the van changed its motion. This resulted in the book sliding backward and to the side, creating a great opportunity for you to explain inertia to your mom!
@@Ligductions try and think about einsteins general relativity, if the book did not resist motion it would have moved along relative to the van, hence look like it stayed in the same place, but since the van moved, but the book stayed, ultimately now the books position seems to have changed, rather the points that we determined motion relative to the point of the van has changed. idk it seems as though ive made it sound more complicated lol. ok remember how some celebs shot driving scenes in music videos, buy moving the scene outside but not the car, but it seems as though the car is moving, this has nothing to do with inertia, but rather the illusion of an object moving
You're a star sir. Don't stop. You make advance whatever it is, enjoyable, edifying and entertaining as all hell. Etothe3rdpower aka ecubed Don't stop the world needs you!
"THE BALLS ARE INERT." "Does that mean they don't work?" "No, Gohan. It means the Dragonballs have no energy as we observe them from our inertial frame of reference." "Well, what does THAT mean, Piccolo?" "Shut up and watch Science Asylum!"
I remember finding your channel through this video, while I was studying on an online school. I discovered you several years back when you had like 10,000 subs. It's nice to see that several years later, you now have over 600,000.
Now I'm starting to realize the importance of, in a straight line, in alot of these readings, because apparently, things start to change the moment you begin to curve "Inertia is not a force, I repeat, Inertia is not a force... when you take all the forces away, inertia is what remains" Craziest mic drop statement I've seen in all physics videos
Hi there, thank you for making science and physics more explainable in layman’s terms for the not so nerdy / Einstein minded people who are to embarrassed to ask without some lame ass mocking them. Thank you again and definitely subscribing to your channel and on a mini binge watching session. Cheers from down under Sydney Australia 🇦🇺
I would just like to say that in some reference frames it might make sense to interpret inertia as a force, mainly accelerating reference frames and rotating reference frames.
So, Aristotle wasn't _entirely_ wrong, then. He was just only _half_ right. Not bad for someone living around two millennia before Newton, I think. Another point. Modern mechanics may be said to have got really underway with Galilieo and Newton, but there was certainly scientific investigation and experimentation going on before then, including the appliance of mathematics to nature, both in the ancient pagan world and later in Latin Christendom and the Muslim world - and I do not refer to alchemy or astrology and the like. 'The Science Asylum' is a brilliant channel. Of all the popular science channels on RUclips, it has clarified best a number of things that I, as a non-physicist, did not quite grasp. Thank you. That is its strength. However, I might suggest that it leaves history to the historians.
Yes, there was a lot of scientific work going on in the Middle East and India while Europe was still in the dark ages. Just not enough of it to really take hold and grow. We needed more of the world involved.
"Dark Ages" is another term that historians just don't use any more because it is realised that ancient pagan learning was kept alive during this period. In any case, lots of scientific work (it was called 'natural philosophy') went on in Latin Christendom, too. I don't think it was lack of wider world involvement that delayed what is often called the 'scientific revolution' of the 17th century. It had been recognised throughout earlier Christian periods that the natural world behaved in regular ways and had its laws. The trick was to find them - by no means easy, as I am sure you will agree. The genius of Galileo and Newton is that they _did_ find them. (At least to some decent degree of approximation given the size, relative speeds and masses of the things they could observe.) I do not think it sound, though, to denigrate earlier attempts. Both of these men stood on the shoulders of others. In general, that's how one gets to see further. Then it's time for one's own hard work, of course.
Actually Newton was wrong that uniform motion is the natural state of mass. it's actually motion along the spacetime curvature of a gravitational field. This is why Gravity itself is an inertia damper. When you free fall gravity is accelerating you towards the center of mass, but you don't feel the acceleration. So acceleration caused by gravity is the natural state of mass.
"..taking all the forces away, what's left is inertia". But inertia also appears to be directly related to the sum of all the previous forces acted upon an object. Inertia is an artifact of previous forces.
@@ScienceAsylum But your video didn't answer the question. At least not from the video here. You only defined it, and said that it is not a force. We still do not know what inertia is, or why it is. Trying to make a mass move, and it's inertia resists the addition of kinetic energy and or increase of velocity. Why? What is the source of the resistance? Inertia? that's a circular argument. Is it because we are adding energy to the mass, and causing the object to now have a larger displacement that the object makes to space time? Does this change in energy cause the effect known as inertia? if so, why? Why would adding energy have a resistance to it? Where does this resistance come from? what is it bound by? Is it because asking an object to move, causes increased frame dragging of space time? Is it because asking an object to move, causes it to experience time differently via time dilation? in the same way a larger mass makes gravity? I propose a new video please
Also the vice versa of that question. Two bodies with same kinetic energy but with different momentum. Please explain their impact also. (m1=9, v1=3) & (m2=3, v2=3√3)
Applying linear force causes rise in pressure due to inertia of the body.➕Inert shell, nu shell, orbital shell. Added: Reason thus: Light moves without resistance in free space. Why does a body with mass offer a reluctance to accelerate? What is the reason for inertia. ?
Science isn't about "right" or "wrong", it's about creating models to explain reality. I could easily create a model of Aristotlean motion in which 1) classical relativity is assumed to be false, 2) The natural state of an object is at rest, and 3) the absence of what we know as "friction" or "air resistance" is modelled as a force that accelerates an object in the direction of its current state of motion. Galileo's laws of motion are a lot simpler to adapt to reality than Aristotles, and so Occam's Razor awards him a gold medal. But let's not forget that "right" and "wrong" exist along a spectrum.
Well, it's not just about "simple" vs "complex" either. There may not be a such thing as "perfectly correct" because there's always more to learn, but there is most certainly a such thing as "wrong." I'll address this in more detail in the comment responses of the next video.
***** *gasp* I'm gonna be mentioned in the next video??!?! Yay!! Before you do, please read Isaac Asimov's essay "The Relativity of Wrong", in which he defends the flat Earth theory: chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm
Aristotle's legacy is as the father of logic - that contradiction is forbidden. It is the single most important idea any human has ever had. It is the basis for mathematics which in turn gives the basis for science. But Aristotle himself had trouble following his own law and so had a lot of junk ideas.
An object in motion will remain in motion until another force acts upon it. Inertia is potential friction that would cause resistance, using up the kinectic energy of an object until the object is put at rest. Inertia remains in the form of potential energy, and is used to measure energy lost by an object in motion.
I have a weird question that comes from my experience with cars and bikes. The faster a vehicle is moving, the more resistant it is to changes in motion perpendicular to its direction of travel. That's why a vehicle will move more smoothly over the same bumps when it's going faster instead of when it's going slowly. That's also why hitting large bumps does a lot more damage at speed than it does when the vehicle is moving slowly. If inertia isn't a force, why does this happen? Why does increased forward speed make a vehicle more resistant to changes in vertical speed?
I've had him since I was a kid. I've had My Pet Monster since I was 3... and he's in surprisingly good condition considering everything he's been through.
This video provides a definition of inertia but never get's near an explanation. The deeper question would be "why does a mass resist a change in it's motion, but then when the change is effected, carries on with that change as if it's not being resisted."
It also seems to me that the concept of "resistance" is kind of extraneous regarding inertia. In other words, it would simply be incoherent for the velocity of a passive body to change in the absence of any external contact or force. No resistance is needed to explain it's constant velocity, because anything else obviously wouldn't make sense from a physics perspective.
Assume that we keep a book on a table.It is not moving and staying in its own rest state.gravity is acting on the book.so a force is acting on the book.will you say inertia exists in this condition?
Is inertia constant or does it increase with velocity 2.do objects at rest have 0 inertia due to zero rest mass(a little crazy question) 3.if an objects intera wants a force equal to it to get it moving....what would happen if the force is slightly less than its inertia. ..
An object in stillness, remains in stillness, unless acted upon. This is Potential Inertia. And object in motion, remains in motion, unless acted upon. This is Kinetic Inertia. I don't need "Relativity" now that understand that the two kinds of energy, Potential Energy and Kinetic Energy, have at their roots, Potential and Kinetic Inertia (an object in stillness and an object in motion). Relativity pretends that Potential Inertia and Kinetic inertia are the same thing. This is a kludge. Potential and Kinetic (whether it be inertia or energy) are incommensurate principles. This does not make them "interchangeable".
Science really begins in Ionia in the sixth century B.C.E. with Thales. The Ionian philosophers were the first to rely on observation and eschewing mythology to fill in the gaps in their knowledge. Aristotle was a setback to the progress of scientific method, which was well under way by his time. Galileo can be considered to mark the beginning of modern scientific method.
It is a radical idea that uniform motion in straight line is also a natural state of the object, no wonder why it took 2300 or more to arrive at this conclusion.
It's actually a very good (very deep) question. I already plan to make a video on it, but there's a small hole in my understanding I need to fill first.
Sir, you said (about moving car) that without friction the car would just keep moving. But isn’t the friction the reason the car moves forward? Without it the tyres would just keep rotating at one point.Am i wrong?
Yes, you are correct. Cars normally move forward because of friction. Imagine the car was already moving forward, but then the friction disappeared (maybe the road changed to ice or something). Without the friction, the car would keep moving at a steady speed forever.
Want a 1950's definition of "inertia"? Just watch the 1950's movie: "The Day the Earth Stood Still". At Netflix go to time 34:20 at the movie (not here) for the answer given in the movie. To set the stage you must know that "little Bobby" doesn't yet know that "Mr. Carpenter" is Klaatu, the spaceman who landed the flying saucer on the park in Washington D.C. At 34:20 the script goes something almost verbatim as follows: Bobby to Mr. Carpenter (Klaatu): "Mr. Carpenter, what does inertia mean"? Mr. Carpenter (Klaatu): Inertia is the property of matter by which it remains in uniform motion unless acted upon by external forces".
Aristotle wasn't a fool. He was just blinded by friction. When we picture him as naive, we undermine the greatness of Galilei. Aristotles view was also based on experiments. What he lacked was vision!
But Aristotle lived two centuries after the first Ionian natural philosophers who mark the beginning of scientific method. He was an impediment to scientific progress.
Although most if not all of Aristotelian physics were wrong we shouldn't be to to quick to judge him about it. We should give him some credit for trying to explain rationally some of the most fundamental natural phenomena like gravity and movement, yes he was wrong but hey at least he tried to explain nature without recurring to magic spells and wizardry.
Aristotle was clearly an amazing thinker. I think the lesson to learn from him is that methods of thinking can, themselves, be inventions that can be improved and built upon. 11 year olds in science classes today can do more sophisticated analyses of physical phenomena than Aristotle, all because of the tools that have been developed.
![Inertia & Newton's First Law of Motion - [1-5-4]](/img/1.gif)
Correction at 0:18 - The first scientist in human history was actually Abu Ali al-Hasan ibn al-Hasan ibn al-Haytham, who lived from about 960 to 1040 CE in the Middle East. I learned about him a year or so after making this video, so that explains his absence from this video. Education in the U.S. is extremely Eurocentric, so many don't know about him. Since learning, I make an effort to mention him every chance I get. If you want to learn more, the channel Be Smart made a video all about him: ruclips.net/video/5cPzNmtoZDU/видео.html
what first scientist abu bla bla 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 Sanatan dharmik people pls leave this video
@@amansinghgod9733shut up
@@amansinghgod9733 Your religion isn't credible either.
We still do not know what Inertia and motion are in the physical sense or at the atomic level we just know how to predict their effect. This is what this video is doing and hundreds of thousands like it.
Here is what this video described. Inertia is what remains of/in/at/on a mass that is at rest or at a constant straight motion when one takes all the forces away acting on it. Good luck. Thanks for nothing !
I like how your main point is that inertia is what remains when all forces are removed. Nicely done.
I'm not lazy, I'm just addicted to inertia.
get friction
Lol
LMAO, thank you!
I didn't slap you, my hand was just obeying the laws of inertia all the way to your face.
@@reymichaelsungazornosa4040 add in contact force.
So one day, my mom was driving me home from school and my big calculus textbook was on the floor of the van between our seats. She accelerated a bit hard into a left turn from an intersection and the book slid back and to the side, ending up at the side door. I tried to use this as an opportunity to explain inertia to her by explaining that the book didn't move, the van moved while the book stayed stationary.
That was when I was 16. I'm 32 now, and to this day "the book didn't move" still triggers her.
Pleaseeee explain inertia in this scenario
Inertia is the tendency of an object to resist changes in its motion. In other words, an object at rest will remain at rest, and an object in motion will continue to move with a constant velocity, unless acted upon by an external force.
In your scenario, the calculus textbook on the floor of the van is the object in question. Initially, the book is at rest with respect to the van, meaning it's not moving relative to the van. When your mom accelerates the van into a left turn, the van changes its direction and velocity. However, the book, due to its inertia, wants to maintain its original state of motion, which is to continue moving in a straight line.
Since the book is not attached to the van, it doesn't follow the van's new direction and velocity. Instead, it keeps moving in its original direction, which is now opposite to the van's new direction. This is why the book appears to slide backward and to the side, ending up at the side door.
Your explanation to your mom is spot on: the book didn't move; the van moved while the book stayed stationary relative to its original motion. The book's inertia caused it to resist the change in motion imposed by the van's acceleration.
To illustrate this concept further, imagine you're sitting in a car that's moving at a constant velocity on a straight road. You're not wearing a seatbelt, and you're holding a cup of coffee. If the driver suddenly slams on the brakes, what happens to the coffee? It will keep moving forward, spilling all over the place, because it wants to maintain its original velocity. This is inertia in action!
In your scenario, the book's inertia caused it to maintain its original motion, while the van changed its motion. This resulted in the book sliding backward and to the side, creating a great opportunity for you to explain inertia to your mom!
@@Ligductions try and think about einsteins general relativity, if the book did not resist motion it would have moved along relative to the van, hence look like it stayed in the same place, but since the van moved, but the book stayed, ultimately now the books position seems to have changed, rather the points that we determined motion relative to the point of the van has changed. idk it seems as though ive made it sound more complicated lol. ok remember how some celebs shot driving scenes in music videos, buy moving the scene outside but not the car, but it seems as though the car is moving, this has nothing to do with inertia, but rather the illusion of an object moving
Never thought physics would be entertaining, this really needs more subs.
My man’s never seen any of “THE SCIENCE” episodes on game theory.
@@micklepickle4744 You sir are correct.
with out friction the car couldn't have got going either...
your point is?
Touche
@@neosabien6998 His point is that without friction the car wouldn't have got going either!
Like an episode of The Magic School Bus
@@ScienceAsylum Unless it was going down hill.
Just wait, this channel will have 100K+ subs in 1-2 years. Keep it up, your content is great!
This channel totally will!
4-6 months
1 year to go
Shykiyrm Nope. Didn't happen mate
RobosergTV nope
You're a star sir. Don't stop. You make advance whatever it is, enjoyable, edifying and entertaining as all hell. Etothe3rdpower aka ecubed
Don't stop the world needs you!
"THE BALLS ARE INERT."
"Does that mean they don't work?"
"No, Gohan. It means the Dragonballs have no energy as we observe them from our inertial frame of reference."
"Well, what does THAT mean, Piccolo?"
"Shut up and watch Science Asylum!"
Great channel! Thank you for all the hard work :)
Thanks! Glad you like it 🤓
I remember finding your channel through this video, while I was studying on an online school. I discovered you several years back when you had like 10,000 subs. It's nice to see that several years later, you now have over 600,000.
Welcome back! Yeah, the channel has grown and changed over the years.
Now I'm starting to realize the importance of, in a straight line, in alot of these readings, because apparently, things start to change the moment you begin to curve
"Inertia is not a force, I repeat, Inertia is not a force... when you take all the forces away, inertia is what remains"
Craziest mic drop statement I've seen in all physics videos
Dope last name Mr Nick Lucid. Your vids are great! Hope to see this channel accelerating into greatness.
Hi there, thank you for making science and physics more explainable in layman’s terms for the not so nerdy / Einstein minded people who are to embarrassed to ask without some lame ass mocking them. Thank you again and definitely subscribing to your channel and on a mini binge watching session. Cheers from down under Sydney Australia 🇦🇺
best science channel ever...................
Anish Tiwari LOL
Well done for explaining neither what it meant and extending your vid for 3mins without actual reason
Thank you for making the topic of physics approachable for a non-science minded person (spoiler alert: I'm talking about myself)
You're welcome :-)
Michelle Valdez mostly agree
I would just like to say that in some reference frames it might make sense to interpret inertia as a force, mainly accelerating reference frames and rotating reference frames.
why can't school teachers be like this?
I don't know
Brilliant as always. Love the comment responses at the end!
Awesome! You're not the only one who has said they like the comment responses, so I plan on keeping it up.
I just had to say this. Aristotle has the emphasis on the TOT syllable.
I love your videos mr lucid ❤️
At a deep level, inertia is actually very mysterious. Even Richard Feynman said it was a mystery.
Awesome channel, I enjoy al your videos. You deserve many more subscribers!
Thanks!
So, Aristotle wasn't _entirely_ wrong, then. He was just only _half_ right. Not bad for someone living around two millennia before Newton, I think.
Another point. Modern mechanics may be said to have got really underway with Galilieo and Newton, but there was certainly scientific investigation and experimentation going on before then, including the appliance of mathematics to nature, both in the ancient pagan world and later in Latin Christendom and the Muslim world - and I do not refer to alchemy or astrology and the like.
'The Science Asylum' is a brilliant channel. Of all the popular science channels on RUclips, it has clarified best a number of things that I, as a non-physicist, did not quite grasp. Thank you. That is its strength. However, I might suggest that it leaves history to the historians.
Yes, there was a lot of scientific work going on in the Middle East and India while Europe was still in the dark ages. Just not enough of it to really take hold and grow. We needed more of the world involved.
"Dark Ages" is another term that historians just don't use any more because it is realised that ancient pagan learning was kept alive during this period. In any case, lots of scientific work (it was called 'natural philosophy') went on in Latin Christendom, too.
I don't think it was lack of wider world involvement that delayed what is often called the 'scientific revolution' of the 17th century. It had been recognised throughout earlier Christian periods that the natural world behaved in regular ways and had its laws. The trick was to find them - by no means easy, as I am sure you will agree. The genius of Galileo and Newton is that they _did_ find them. (At least to some decent degree of approximation given the size, relative speeds and masses of the things they could observe.) I do not think it sound, though, to denigrate earlier attempts. Both of these men stood on the shoulders of others. In general, that's how one gets to see further. Then it's time for one's own hard work, of course.
Aristotle
Actually Newton was wrong that uniform motion is the natural state of mass. it's actually motion along the spacetime curvature of a gravitational field. This is why Gravity itself is an inertia damper. When you free fall gravity is accelerating you towards the center of mass, but you don't feel the acceleration. So acceleration caused by gravity is the natural state of mass.
@@joegeorge5940 Hahaha
loved your differential explanation at the end, Nick.
Thank you so much!! love people like you who make learning fun
0:51 Why's I laugh so hard at this bit?!🤣
Thank you so much! I'll be able to do my test confidently now ^,^
You're welcome :-)
I am a 62 year old lawyer who has no reason to watch this stuff but I love it. Amazingly understandable.
Glad you enjoy the show :-)
The idea of relativity adds a beauty to inertia. So mind blowing!
I like ur editing. It gives unique quality to ur videos
This is one of the best channels on youtube on popular physics! And please, what is the music playing in the end of each video?
"Hot Heat" by Topher Mohr and Alex Elena
Love it!
thanks I always enjoy your videos
I subscribed for you cause you deserve it
"..taking all the forces away, what's left is inertia". But inertia also appears to be directly related to the sum of all the previous forces acted upon an object. Inertia is an artifact of previous forces.
you should definitely have 100,000 subscribers
I mean finally someone understands that humor is the answer to everything!!!!!!!!!!!😂😂🤣🤣
Wonderful video! I'm going to let my physics class know about it
I will now remember it’s ok to be crazy. Thank you 😊
Great videos Nick. Always really informative and entertaining. Could someone please explain to me the difference between inertia and momentum?
Short Version:
Momentum = Mass x Velocity
Inertia = Mass ...that's it. Just mass.
+The Science Asylum Thank you so much. keep up the good work
@@ScienceAsylum But your video didn't answer the question. At least not from the video here.
You only defined it, and said that it is not a force.
We still do not know what inertia is, or why it is.
Trying to make a mass move, and it's inertia resists the addition of kinetic energy and or increase of velocity. Why? What is the source of the resistance? Inertia? that's a circular argument.
Is it because we are adding energy to the mass, and causing the object to now have a larger displacement that the object makes to space time?
Does this change in energy cause the effect known as inertia? if so, why?
Why would adding energy have a resistance to it?
Where does this resistance come from? what is it bound by?
Is it because asking an object to move, causes increased frame dragging of space time?
Is it because asking an object to move, causes it to experience time differently via time dilation? in the same way a larger mass makes gravity?
I propose a new video please
good job dude, you will have 200k+ subs in 2 years!
I love that I found your channel! You are hilarious and make learning a blast.
Also the vice versa of that question. Two bodies with same kinetic energy but with different momentum. Please explain their impact also. (m1=9, v1=3) & (m2=3, v2=3√3)
Applying linear force causes rise in pressure due to inertia of the body.➕Inert shell, nu shell, orbital shell.
Added: Reason thus: Light moves without resistance in free space. Why does a body with mass offer a reluctance to accelerate? What is the reason for inertia. ?
liked that little last bit
Yo bro you the real MVP.
Thank You so much!!!! This helped for my Rube Goldberg project for school!!!!!!
You're welcome! Rube Goldberg machines are fun!
The Science Asylum OMG IM AM THE LUCKIEST GIRL IN THE WORLD I LOVE UR CHANNEL!!!!! CAN I PLZ HAVE A SHOUTOUT???????? I'm a new subscriber
Science isn't about "right" or "wrong", it's about creating models to explain reality.
I could easily create a model of Aristotlean motion in which 1) classical relativity is assumed to be false, 2) The natural state of an object is at rest, and 3) the absence of what we know as "friction" or "air resistance" is modelled as a force that accelerates an object in the direction of its current state of motion.
Galileo's laws of motion are a lot simpler to adapt to reality than Aristotles, and so Occam's Razor awards him a gold medal. But let's not forget that "right" and "wrong" exist along a spectrum.
Well, it's not just about "simple" vs "complex" either. There may not be a such thing as "perfectly correct" because there's always more to learn, but there is most certainly a such thing as "wrong." I'll address this in more detail in the comment responses of the next video.
***** *gasp* I'm gonna be mentioned in the next video??!?! Yay!!
Before you do, please read Isaac Asimov's essay "The Relativity of Wrong", in which he defends the flat Earth theory: chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm
Yeah you definitely got a new subscriber keep up the good work
Aristotle's legacy is as the father of logic - that contradiction is forbidden. It is the single most important idea any human has ever had. It is the basis for mathematics which in turn gives the basis for science. But Aristotle himself had trouble following his own law and so had a lot of junk ideas.
An object in motion will remain in motion until another force acts upon it. Inertia is potential friction that would cause resistance, using up the kinectic energy of an object until the object is put at rest. Inertia remains in the form of potential energy, and is used to measure energy lost by an object in motion.
0:39 Kurt Russell made a guest appearance? 🤣
You are very nice sir...
I never get what you try to teach me but its very entertaining none the less
you help me with my homework
I love the new set! :)
Thanks!
THANK YOU now I'm ready for my Quizz :D Thx
I like this video I'm subscribing sorry if I write something wrong ;;-;;
I have a weird question that comes from my experience with cars and bikes.
The faster a vehicle is moving, the more resistant it is to changes in motion perpendicular to its direction of travel. That's why a vehicle will move more smoothly over the same bumps when it's going faster instead of when it's going slowly. That's also why hitting large bumps does a lot more damage at speed than it does when the vehicle is moving slowly.
If inertia isn't a force, why does this happen? Why does increased forward speed make a vehicle more resistant to changes in vertical speed?
Ah-ha! This is when the book shelves appeared!
OMG!!! It's Figment from Disney World! I had that!!!!! Oh yeah, and SCIENCE!!!!
I've had him since I was a kid. I've had My Pet Monster since I was 3... and he's in surprisingly good condition considering everything he's been through.
My mind went numb
Where's a mind explosion clone when you need one.
I really need to make more of those mind explosion clones.
Duuuude your videos are awesome, keep up the excellent work. Salutations from Mexico :)
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it.
This video provides a definition of inertia but never get's near an explanation. The deeper question would be "why does a mass resist a change in it's motion, but then when the change is effected, carries on with that change as if it's not being resisted."
It also seems to me that the concept of "resistance" is kind of extraneous regarding inertia.
In other words, it would simply be incoherent for the velocity of a passive body to change in the absence of any external contact or force. No resistance is needed to explain it's constant velocity, because anything else obviously wouldn't make sense from a physics perspective.
Great video, but again just like the Veritasium's video on inertia, you don't explain how it works. Does anybody even know?
Assume that we keep a book on a table.It is not moving and staying in its own rest state.gravity is acting on the book.so a force is acting on the book.will you say inertia exists in this condition?
Is inertia constant or does it increase with velocity
2.do objects at rest have 0 inertia due to zero rest mass(a little crazy question)
3.if an objects intera wants a force equal to it to get it moving....what would happen if the force is slightly less than its inertia. ..
When the outro starts and you're half way through the video :P Otherwise this video helped a lot, thanks.
Hey! Awesome work ot there
this is fun to watch! 😂
How many people came here just for school
⬇️
My physics exam is in 2 hours...
Emkirs teins lmao im having it rn
I wanted to know why things don’t get shoved to the side inside the ISS and everything just simply seems to float around, moving with it.
This person reminds me of Beakmans show..
Nice :)
Love it
Thanks
Winner by consensus. Nice. Very scientific.
Inertia can also be described as the force required to shear the mass electrical point potential along a lateral axis, thus overcoming gravity.
it was great . all the best
Nice video😁👍🏼
"When he said thanks for liking and sharing this video..." I thought he was joking like always🤦🏾
Inertia is a property of matter.
*BILL BILL BILL BILL*
😂
An object in stillness, remains in stillness, unless acted upon. This is Potential Inertia.
And object in motion, remains in motion, unless acted upon. This is Kinetic Inertia.
I don't need "Relativity" now that understand that the two kinds of energy, Potential Energy and Kinetic Energy, have at their roots, Potential and Kinetic Inertia (an object in stillness and an object in motion). Relativity pretends that Potential Inertia and Kinetic inertia are the same thing. This is a kludge. Potential and Kinetic (whether it be inertia or energy) are incommensurate principles. This does not make them "interchangeable".
Science really begins in Ionia in the sixth century B.C.E. with Thales. The Ionian philosophers were the first to rely on observation and eschewing mythology to fill in the gaps in their knowledge. Aristotle was a setback to the progress of scientific method, which was well under way by his time.
Galileo can be considered to mark the beginning of modern scientific method.
It is a radical idea that uniform motion in straight line is also a natural state of the object, no wonder why it took 2300 or more to arrive at this conclusion.
Thanks , Sant Kumar hooda
Thanks. From Bangladesh.
Inertia is not what you think the actual meaning is I’m jacked emotion. I lost all the motion. My two legs are broken, but look at me dance.
Sorry if it's a dumb question, but I have never understood what causes inertia. Like, mass is it's measure, but what does it measure?
It's actually a very good (very deep) question. I already plan to make a video on it, but there's a small hole in my understanding I need to fill first.
Oh, I am looking forward to it. Thanks for taking the time to respond.
@@ScienceAsylum That answer will leads you to Noble prize because looks like all you need is the answer.
This guy must have really pissed off someone at RUclips HQ to still be under 10k subs
The new bill nye the science guy
Only difference is that this one really has credentials above bachelors
Have you bought a new camera or you unproved lighting?Your shots look much better.
Nope! I've just gotten a lot better at using the camera I have. Thanks for noticing :-)
awsome content
I'm more confused than when I started. thx
Please make a video to clarify the difference between inertia and momentum.😫🙏🙏💓
you just shewed aristotle man XD
Sir, you said (about moving car) that without friction the car would just keep moving. But isn’t the friction the reason the car moves forward? Without it the tyres would just keep rotating at one point.Am i wrong?
Yes, you are correct. Cars normally move forward because of friction. Imagine the car was already moving forward, but then the friction disappeared (maybe the road changed to ice or something). Without the friction, the car would keep moving at a steady speed forever.
Want a 1950's definition of "inertia"? Just watch the 1950's movie: "The Day the Earth Stood Still".
At Netflix go to time 34:20 at the movie (not here) for the answer given in the movie. To set the stage you must know that "little Bobby" doesn't yet know that "Mr. Carpenter" is Klaatu, the spaceman who landed the flying saucer on the park in Washington D.C. At 34:20 the script goes something almost verbatim as follows:
Bobby to Mr. Carpenter (Klaatu): "Mr. Carpenter, what does inertia mean"?
Mr. Carpenter (Klaatu): Inertia is the property of matter by which it remains in uniform motion unless acted upon by external forces".
Aristotle wasn't a fool. He was just blinded by friction. When we picture him as naive, we undermine the greatness of Galilei. Aristotles view was also based on experiments. What he lacked was vision!
But Aristotle lived two centuries after the first Ionian natural philosophers who mark the beginning of scientific method. He was an impediment to scientific progress.
Although most if not all of Aristotelian physics were wrong we shouldn't be to to quick to judge him about it. We should give him some credit for trying to explain rationally some of the most fundamental natural phenomena like gravity and movement, yes he was wrong but hey at least he tried to explain nature without recurring to magic spells and wizardry.
"A" for effort?
Aristotle was clearly an amazing thinker. I think the lesson to learn from him is that methods of thinking can, themselves, be inventions that can be improved and built upon. 11 year olds in science classes today can do more sophisticated analyses of physical phenomena than Aristotle, all because of the tools that have been developed.
Aristotle may have been a bad physicist, but he was a good philosopher.
YOU EARNED A SUB! :)
Welcome!
The set's pretty cool. Always propose something to read please