Planetary physics ain't rocket science

Поделиться
HTML-код
  • Опубликовано: 6 авг 2024
  • ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Get a slice of pie for yourself:
    makit.wtf/charity/
    (In case the site don't work, use the direct link)
    www.gofundme.com/f/a-slice-of...
    In case you'd like to support me:
    patreon.com/sub2MAKiT
    my discord:
    / discord
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Once again I'd like to thank sodaguyz for allowing me to use their music in my video, here are the links:
    their main channel: / @sodaguyzmusic
    their second channel: / channel
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  • НаукаНаука

Комментарии • 7

  • @hmota1940
    @hmota1940 10 месяцев назад +2

    god i love physics

  • @elliotthedoge9456
    @elliotthedoge9456 10 месяцев назад +1

    Makit, where are my kepler's laws!!!!

  • @sewerynwilk1115
    @sewerynwilk1115 10 месяцев назад +1

    very good

  • @Daniel-yc2ur
    @Daniel-yc2ur 4 месяца назад +2

    1:56 that’s a completely VALID assumption to make, you are just saying motion is relative to the sun which is fine.
    What is not fine is using the suvat/kinematics equations in this situation. Firstly you are completely ignoring direction of the forces, only caring about magnitude which is incorrect. Secondly you assume they lie in 1D space which is false. Thirdly you said discount velocity? Why?
    The *correct* why to do this is to use the circular motion equations OR differential equations (better).
    The paths of planets are elliptical obviously not parabolic - this is the key mistake you are making

  • @elliotthedoge9456
    @elliotthedoge9456 10 месяцев назад +1

    Makit, you said no integration but tell me how the fuck did you get the equations!!!!!!

    • @MAKiTHappen
      @MAKiTHappen  10 месяцев назад +1

      We don't talk about 1/2 a t^2
      The fact that it goes x t^0 + 1/1 v t^1 + 1/2 a t^2 Is just a pure coincidence