Common Physics Misconceptions

[@maxwelljiang4729]

0:59 "speaking of the moon, you probably also learned that if a sheep..." wait, what?

[@CHRISFISH103]

+Max Jiang The moon and sheep are both associated with night I guess

[@anissnoussi8991]

+Max Jiang just leaving a comment here, maybe someone will answer this, and I want to know it!

[@lereff1382]

+Max Jiang LOL I totally didn't notice.

[@hussainattai4638]

The moon is associated with the night, the night is associated with sleep, people tend to count sheep when they try to sleep.

[@hellow2allofu]

The moon is round > stones can be round > sone stones are in water > whales live in water > whales are mammals > you know whole else is mammal? That's right... DOGS! > dogs are owned by humans > and humans grow farms > cows live in farms > cows eat grass > grass has seeds > chickens eat seeds > chickens live in pens > and you know who lives in pens, sheep! You just have to apply a bit a logic and it all makes sense.

[@unwantedcracker1128]

*Talks about not using aproximations* *uses approximation for speed of light*

[@dezenove8449]

And also multiply the light of speed by a thousand

[@Filaxsan]

There is approximation and approximation! Approximate a constant it's not as misleading as approximating a concept!

[@eamonahern7495]

@@Filaxsan that makes sense

[@lambdalekter]

@@Filaxsan exactly. You know, when you approximate a number, you must follow the MATHEMATICAL rules of approximation. Things like significant digits...

[@nicholasheilig3694]

@@lambdalekter idk if you're sarcastic but he used the approximation rule properly. If you have 3 significant digets, wich is standard, the 8 after 299 is rounded up to 10 and the whole thing goes to 300.

[@subhrodeepsaha9245]

The best we can do is teach the kids the "wrong" stuff while mentioning that these are simplification, approximation, special case and/or subset of the actual formulas or concepts.

[@formerctgovernordannelmall1452]

Subhrodeep Saha I agree, and I think this video’s premise is a bit misled, because for as long as I can remember, early physics education has done just that: made it clear that, in the context of the situations analyzed, the approximations are virtually identical to the real number. It’s not like students *aren’t* told these things by their teachers and textbooks

[@TypoCM]

Pretty much what my math teachers (the actual good ones at least) told me. "Everything I taught you isn't the most pin-point, zeroed in, and a very 100% accurate; but this will definitely help you simplify things and you won't notice such a very big and major difference in your future" These 1000 IQ r/iamverysmart guys at other comments are seriously *not that wise* aren't they. You may have such a broad and large expanse of knowledge inside your head, but your worldview is so narrow if you think "if I could do it when I was a kid then EVERYONE else could", "if I was interested in Physics then every human in the entire planet should since that's just how it is". Intelligence does not equate to Wisdom.

[@subhrodeepsaha9245]

@@TypoCM Very true! I really didn't get the narrow mindedness down in the comments

[@daman7387]

Yeah there's no way to teaxh a completely accurate model right off the bat; kids can't comprehend that stuff

[@mireazma]

In fact the same applies to religion - we say God is angry, angels live in the sky etc.

[@deidara_8598]

You also probaly learn you can't take the square root of negative numbers, but there's a whole field of mathematics dedicated to just that.

[@DylanMcMullen]

i

[@schlickschlick]

@@DylanMcMullen That sounds a tad too self-centered, mate.

[@bradley3157]

everyone learns that

[@bradley3157]

everyone learns that

[@acasualescapedscp4418]

You're serious?

[@EmeraldMinotaur]

1:48 *Moves 12,750 km from cat" *Climbs a tree* Your move, MinutePhysics.

[@ihavenothumbs]

Nice

[@Koplerio]

How high is the tree?

[@EmeraldMinotaur]

Trence Grrawin Well, I haven't sold it any yet.

[@Koplerio]

Emerald Minotaur Okay then i say the tree is 1650 km inside the ground... so you moved only 10,000 km away ;)

[@EmeraldMinotaur]

Trence Grrawin The tree hasn't found a good dealer, so it ain't that high yet.

[@kcwidman]

you complain about people explain things incorrectly for the sake of simplicity, then you state the the speed of light is 300,000,000 m/s. LOGIC

[@gdorpw8871]

Lol yeah this is very remarkable

[@sonajero25]

good point

[@vwlz8637]

MAGIC

[@Phazon8058MS]

Because apparently significant figures aren't a thing.

[@kcwidman]

PhazonSpaceSystems the speed of light is a constant. We have the exact value of C with 0 error, as we have defined a meter to be the distance light travels in 1/299,792,458 of a second.

[@bretsheeley4034]

I still remember my first physics course in college. "Let's recap what you learned in high school. Here are four basic fundamentals we will build the classical understanding of the universe off of," he said pointing to some very basic laws he wrote on the board. "I'm telling you right now that three are wrong and one is misleading." Man, I wish I could remember exactly which four they were.

[@notthedroidsyourelookingfo4026]

Good approximations are exactly that: good. I teach fluid dynamics at a university, and I definitely have to start with strongly simplified and approximated examples and then add complexity bit by bit. I don’t think that’s the wrong approach.

[@shayanmoosavi9139]

Yes. But you should also tell your students that it's not completely true and we'll dig deeper into it later. Not stating them as facts which is exactly what schools do. That was the point of this video.

[@notthedroidsyourelookingfo4026]

@@shayanmoosavi9139 Not to the full extent. A lot of what I teach is based on Newtonian physics and I don't provide a disclaimer for its limitations. And I don't think I need to. Also, I have very limited time, and I need to use it as efficiently as possible. If I mention something that I can't delve into and that won't come up within one week, they'll have forgotten about it and I wasted precious time. So my point is that the point of the video is flawed.

[@shayanmoosavi9139]

@@notthedroidsyourelookingfo4026 yes I completely agree with you but the way of teaching should also improve. When we have an approach like this some of the students may think that you lie to them on purpose and trying to mislead them. They don't know the reason behind it. That's the exact reason why we have flat earthers today. When they found out things that contradicted what they have been taught at school they became paranoid and threw science out of the window altogether. In my opinion it's the elementary schools' fault. They should explain more throughly about the scientific methods and when they teach something they should mention that they might not have enough time to go more deeply into those subjects. When I found out that the bohr's atomic model is wrong and shrödinger's model is more accurate I said to myself :"WHAT? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!!? ELECTRONS DON'T ORBIT THE NUCLEUS?" I love science and I know the reason why schools first teach the incomplete models to make the students ready for more accurate models but not everyone know that. This was my point. If you don't agree with my point please explain why?

[@notthedroidsyourelookingfo4026]

@@shayanmoosavi9139 Maybe I was in fact taught that way. I don't know whether it was my school or my parents, but it was always clear to me that we're using models/approximations. I think that's one of the first things physics teachers say: 'we're gonna disregard friction and consider an idealised situation'. Not more was needed for me. That was in middle school, and I don't think I would have needed it before then. I can't think of any situation in elementary school where that would have applied. Please explain.

[@shayanmoosavi9139]

@@notthedroidsyourelookingfo4026 lucky you :( I didn't learn that this models was only approximations in school. I learned that myself by reading books and searching internet. In school they would only say : "well, the previous model is WRONG and this is the new model." (one or two of my teachers were an exception though) I only actually learned something more after I got a few private tutors and only then I learned that those were approximations. Also by asking questions in online forums like quora and reading books. (which I already mentioned) Well, also lucky me that I love science and I won't give up learning or else I would be a science denier(flat earther,moon landing denier, etc.)

[@ginkner]

Fact: You are never more than 12750 KM from a spider. Unless you are in space.

[@ashham9183]

Fuck you ;-;

[@DavisSgt]

But don't some spiders migrate through the sky?That is certainly more scary than the distance from the nopes

[@No-pm4ss]

What if I'm on Mars?

[@ginkner]

Mars is in space. Duuuuuuuuuuh.

[@jeighcalpito4335]

Earth is also in space. So automatically that means we can't be anywhere near a spider at all....

[@Jawooswoissnaiich]

Dunno, I never got lied to. Teachers always said "this is a simplification, you'll learn a more accurate representation of how it actually works next year, because it's too complicated for now" Because you can't just dump special relativity on a first year physics student who hasn't even learned the mathematic principles underlying it, you have to start slow...

[@zarag1621]

Same here. actually i bet he teachers didn't even know the true concepts.

[@dsadsa726]

No you don't. You can do exactly that,you just need more competent teachers and way more competent students. Japanese are capable of doing it purely out of mutual respect. Westerners are unable of doing it because all they're looking for is excuses and reasons to whine.

[@kylenetherwood8734]

Not everyone is told that

[@travissmith2848]

dsa dsa So..... eight year olds are expected to calculate allowing for every implication of special relativity? Newton is good enough to get you to the moon, probably even Pluto. First dedicated physics class I had I think was around the seventh grade (so most would be about 13 yo) rudimentary physics is often introduced before that. 8yo would be about second grade. The question is what "first year physics student" means: six years old (first year of proper school), twelve (just out of primary school), fifteen (first year of secondary/high school), or 18-19 entering collage in physics. In the first case, I doubt anyone would be expected to do all the calculations for relativity. In the last case...... most of the work will likely ignore relativity simply because most situations the difference is so small it is not worth worrying about. (literally. I went looking for graphs on the subject, all I could find is one on time dilation. But until somewhere around 0.4C the line looks flat and it takes the ISS six months to rack up 0.007 seconds worth of difference. speed and time experienced are not exactly the same, but likely follow a similar pattern) However, while usually ignoring it at a collage level it should be far more than being told it is too complicated

[@Owen_loves_Butters]

The problem is when teachers don't make that clear. It just leads to confusion later.

[@dublew8961]

When a child hears a new word and asks what it means you don't just dump the exact wikipedia definition of it along with its various other possible meaning. You just make him understand in simplest possible way. When he is big enough to understand you explain nuances of the word too.

[@kevingamache1512]

DUB LEW Or you could try a dictionary instead of wikipedia. Its a book and they are even on the net as well.

[@blacktimhoward4322]

But see that's how we got Trump

[@Dark_shadow4056]

Then you haven't met my dad. Anytime I asked what a word was he handed me the dictionary to look up myself.

[@kevinmould6979]

Wouldn't subject them to wikipedia.

[@ravenlord4]

What always got me was the "solar system" model for atoms that is taught to children. It's brutal when your college physics professor says "Yup, we totally lied to you. Forget all of it because it is completely wrong".

[@kiloperson5680]

Well, we just "divide" the orbits/shells into subshells and subshells into orbitals and a probability distribution for the electron in them in place of the electrons just revolving around the nucleus as in the "solar system model". Instead of orbits, the subshells' orbitals now are the fixed energy states in the atom which is used to explain electronic transition within the atom.The 'simple' properties of the atom and concepts like electricity can be explained to children using the Bohr's model and when we have to dive deep talking about quantum mechanical effects, then only we change / add details to the picture. PS: College? I'm learning this in highschool.

[@quinnm.3588]

@@kiloperson5680 and you will also learn it in college

[@MikehMike01]

At no point is it ever a lie but OOK DOOFUS

[@ravenlord4]

@@MikehMike01 Wow man, if you think that electrons orbit like planets, then don't quit your job at McDonald's, DOOFUS. Cheers, and have a better day.

[@welln0w]

@@ravenlord4ego on ya

[@blueschewsmith]

Idk, I've always loved this channel but the vast majority of high school students aren't going to be physicists. Therefore it makes the most sense to equip them with the tools they need to solve practical problems without confusing them with negligible distinctions. As an engineer none of this is actually helpful in getting anything done in a day to day sense. I don't think this is to say we need to exclude the wonders and beauty of physics, just that its perfectly reasonable for these topics to be saved for college.

[@markoproloscic4492]

Yes of course, the video was just joking about it, but it is still incredibly interesting!

[@-_-who314]

none of the practical stuff matters as long as it's interesting

[@DogBehaviorGuy]

+Sam Smith GPS doesn't work without taking this into account. General and special relativity are practical, not just technicalities.

[@blueschewsmith]

Yes, and you need more than a high school diploma to work on GPS.

[@ITSjustWOOL]

+Sam Smith Although not exactly important I think the misunderstanding of gravity is quite a significant thing to be taught wrong. if you are being taught about something like gravity in the first place you are better off being taught right than wrong since explaining what gravity really is doesn't really complicate the understanding

[@FilmmakerIQ]

the concept of the video was cute but the final message is just wrong. These aren't misconceptions. The distance on the Earth is a matter of frame of reference. Sure you aren't more than an Earth's diameter from anyone else on the planet but only from the reference of some one off planet. if you want to measure the distance between LA and Sydney, taking a shortcut through the Earths mantle isn't very useful. Next with Gallilean relativity... the improvement with the relativistic factor is impossibly negligible at 2 or 4 mph. We have no instruments capable of deriving that accuracy... saying that the simple Galilean equation is "wrong" when every instrument we have to measure that speed verifies Galileo (again at non relavistic speeds). The addition of relativism there is antithesis of science... it's an unprovable addition. The issue only stems from the tactic of saying Galileo is wrong. Galileo is right given the limitations of the scale and measurements accuracy. That theory just isn't as accurate when dealing with Mercury or GPS satellites. Which brings me to the final point. Why do we think our current understanding is "truth"... last I found physics is still trying to things a unifying theory. How do we know someone won't conne up with something even more precise than what we currently know?

[@jjnn2]

He has a check mark, he must be right

[@erickouhai9818]

Let me be your second reply.

[@erickouhai9818]

@@jjnn2 lol..

[@wangamanga2128]

What you had point out was not referenced in the video. Negligible =/= equal. Therefore accuracy is still important. This isn't a ToK(theory of knowledge) lesson, Plus he did not say that this is a truth that will be maintained for ever, science is ever changing through discoveries and he did not deny it. "Which brings me to my final point" You are putting what minute physics had pointed out in the wrong contexts for no more reason to object.

[@kruger6253]

@@jjnn2 Lmao

[@DaniPaunov]

If *I* walk 10,000km from my cat, and *YOU* countinue on walking... What is going on here?

[@06bob]

He's probably assuming that you're where he is

[@SunnyKimDev]

1:22 yes, we have discovered that the Universe is using floats to store speeds. Thankfully the floating point error is tiny when the floats are small.

[@yoyo12345]

double

[@christopherellis2663]

Yet, there are all of those KZbin videos which try to prove that the earth is flat! I propose to call this 'the terrestial intelligence limit'

[@haibtanlashari]

Christopher Ellis earth is flat.

[@maximo1590]

Christopher Ellis earth is flat

[@TheGoog1337]

xD

[@h0verman]

the earth is rotating dolphin with pizza.jpeg as its texture

[@robertclement1107]

juice actually I'm pretty certain that the Earth is an amoeba and that it constantly is changing shape.

[@Than211]

But ain't nobody got time to explain this to a 6 year old and get caught in the infinite loop of "Why?" and then finally settle with, "Because".

[@ymeynot0405]

+than211 I always told my kid that experts cost money and that anything after the 3rd why was a quarter off of his allowance.

[@ymeynot0405]

***** I should be clear a quarter $0.25 not 25%.

[@mikestoneadfjgs]

Never answer "because." Always answer "I don't know, I'll give you a dollar to figure it out." It makes them smarter and keeps them busier for longer.

[@Architector_4]

Im just telling people "just go google it", works all the time

[@calebkirschbaum8158]

I thought you would at least have time for your children.

[@sophieward7225]

c isn't 300,000,000 m/s, it's 299,792,458 m/s, which is almost equal to 300,000,000 m/s, but not quite. This argument should sound familiar. In a video about how teachers lie to make things simpler, Henry lies to make things simpler.

[@CatFace8885]

+M.W. Vaughn It's not anywhere close to being as much of a problem as the ones mentioned in the video

[@KalikiDoom]

+M.W. Vaughn Also, by the formula ((V1)+(V2))/(1+((V1)*(V2))/299792458^2) you get that 2 mph + 2 mph = 3.9999999999999998219759910314210587752825479354875791165... mph

[@CatFace8885]

Jason Ido Feldman sure but writing that would be a mouthful!

[@systempatcher]

+M.W. Vaughn You would think it would be, but even in quantum calculations for the uncertainty equation and atomic theory uses 3x10^8 m/s as c. (300,000,000 m/s as you would write it). The ONLY people would would EVER use the exact number for the speed of light in a vacuum practically would be rocket scientists, particle physicists, or chemists who actually measure the universal constants. So no, it absolutely does not matter in this.

[@Pnoexz]

+MrCatFace 8885 so you are saying that being off by 207,542 m/s is more forgivable than being off by 0,000000000000000036 mph? I don't really see your logic.

[@andrewb378]

I mean I'm reasonably intelligent, I'm in college learning physics, and general relativity is not exactly easy to understand. I couldn't possibly imagine trying to learn it as a freshman in high school, or even in middle school. And we aren't lying to students when you learn in physics class that 2 mph + 2mph = 4mph (Newtonian physics). I know I was taught that Newtonian physics are just a good approximation but not actually 100% correct. But try explaining to a 10-year old that 8 years for someone moving really really fast is actually just 6 years to you. There are all kinds of thought experiments that try to explain these things simply but it's like trying to teach literal rocket science to someone who just figured out geometry. It's just not going to work out. Speaking of geometry, the only way you would be able to teach younger students general relativity would be if you sped up mathematics in school significantly. The most basic parts of general relativity (time dilation and light contraction) rely almost entirely on geometry and trigonometry. There are students in middle school who can barely understand square roots and suddenly you're putting a square root on the bottom of a fraction with an infinite limit and taking the sine of it? You'll end up just turning a lot of students away from physics and math.

[@commenturthegreat2915]

I had a great science teacher when I was young, and he taught us the basics of general relativity at around 10 years old. It is not that hard to understand if it is explained carefully and simply. Explaining these things with a lot of drawings and less math is possible, and is especially useful with children.

[@pietrotettamanti7239]

@@commenturthegreat2915 In my experience when a teacher tries to explain something as complicated as general realtivity to young students with almost no physics background the students end up with A LOT of misconceptions even though the explaination was as simple as possible. This is because in the mind of the professor the drawings mean one precise thing, while in the mind of a student they can mean anything. It's not a matter of knowledge, but highschool (and advanced maths in particular) teach you (or should teach you) a way of approaching problems. Maybe the students can barely understand the general concept of general relativity, maybe the brighter ones can even understand something more, but when they are taught something that's completely separated from their competence and that requires a completely different way of thinking they will not be able to apply the new concept to reality and other problems and actually understand what it means.

[@commenturthegreat2915]

@@pietrotettamanti7239 I see what you mean. Yes, I agree that it can sometimes confuse the students - but I still think that they at least need to know it is there.

[@storystimmler]

You can understand the basic principles of relativity and . . . well, basically anything, at any age. Yes, you need more advanced math to actually apply it and understand it in-depth, but I understood the basics of relativity in middle school, and I'm no genius. You just need to have it explained to you well, and you need to be able to ask questions. You don't need to understand trigonometry to know that spacetime can bend and warp, and that that affects the passage of time. Of course, that doesn't mean you should try to teach sixth graders all of general relativity, but mentioning its existence and going over the basic principles briefly so they're more prepared for science in later life, and so they can understand just how AWESOME science is once you get past Newtonian physics, is something I wish science teachers did more.

[@АлексейСалихов-з4ч]

These aren't misconceptions. just necessary steps in education. General relativity does not make Newton's laws obsolete. They are perfectly valid for all everyday problems (Designing GPS satelltes and calculating orbit of Mercury are far from everyday life). They are intuitive, and math is simple enough for a middleshchooler to do. You can't teach a complex theory to an audience that has no basic knowledge in the area. You need to define key concepts, show how they work with some simple math, and then move on. A person that can't tell velocity from acceleration (which is an example of an actual common misconception) would have a hard time trying to understand principles of general relativity.

[@fcmilsweeper9]

Actually they aren't valid for GPS satellites

[@dt6692]

fcmilsweeper9 That's what he is saying. Newton is valid for everyday problems, designing GPS is NOT an everyday problem. Using it might be.

[@avisian8063]

I disagree. Most of what kids learn at that age is rote learned and child minds are more adaptive than adults. Why oh why teach children conventional flow instead of electron flow? For example. Mindless

[@АлексейСалихов-з4ч]

Dave Lynam Effects of electric current are independent from direction of flow. In order to introduce electron flow, you need to introduce electrons, which is more advanced concept than electric flow. You insist that we should teach bottom-up, do you think we should start with Quantum Mechanics?

[@F34r1355]

Dave Lynam Every concept needs a foundation, it doesn't matter how adaptive a child's mind is. If you fail to provide content in an understandable way, there will be no foundation on which to build, and more advanced concepts. If you try to build a house without first laying a foundation, you're in for a rude awakening. On another note, there is no real advantage to electron flow over conventional flow. As long as you maintain consistency in your circuit design, it will function as intended. Perhaps it is more correct than the hypothesis that was formed in the 1750s as to which direction power flowed, but it is functionally irrelevant.

[@Artheila]

If you walk halfway around the earth away from your cat, your cat may or may not be dead.

[@miss.sulfurm.36]

Schrodinger's Cat : The Traveling Version

[@tomascanevaro4292]

*your cat is dead and alive

[@mariannmariann2052]

*dead OR alive

[@Cubinator73]

Well, _Flat Earth Society_ still believes in a flat earth (obviously), *because* it looks flat. Taking this logic a step further would mean the moon stops existing as soon as I don't see it anymore and pops back into existence, when it becomes visible again :D

[@simonpage6362]

Does a bear shit in the woods? Oh hang on, maybe that was another theory :/

[@youteubakount4449]

can you prove beyond any doubt, that you didn't just pop into existence right now along with everything in the universe in its current state, with implanted memories? You can't. As far as I'm concerned, the earth is flat every time I look at it, so the earth is flat from my perspective. You can believe in what you want, but you can't claim something is intrinsically true.

[@Cubinator73]

+youteub akount I never claimed something being intrinsically true! In fact I neither claimed any correctness of a round earth nor any falseness of a flat earth in my comment. I just described one way flat earthers got to their conclusion of earth being flat. _"Flat Earth Society still believes in a flat earth (obviously), because it looks flat"_ clearly describes that Flat Earth Society believes in a flat earth and how they got to this conclusion. The next sentence just describes a consequence of their reasoning _"because it looks flat"_ followed by a _":D"_ indicating amusement on my side, because the idea that a physical body's essence or even existence depends on the observation by a human being (or a living thing) sounds pretty absurd to me, but I didn't claim any falsity on this way of reasoning. Another thing regarding _"you can't claim something is intrinsically true"_. This, my friend, is wrong, I can claim something is intrinsically true, I can also claim that a red car is blue, but that doesn't make it a blue car. What I can't do is provide a proof for such a claim (although I honestly tried to find an example, but every proof is based on logic and logic is made up by humen after all).

[@mattgibson6257]

+youteub akount I THINK YOU HAVE JUST BEEN CUBEX BYYYYY THE CUBENATOR!!! Seriously, he owned you.

[@youteubakount4449]

Matt Gibson owned me how? He didn't add any information. I think you have a brain the size of a pea and you struggle to use it.

[@pareshkumar9094]

You had also done same thing in this video, First you said that speed of sheep is 3.99999999 mph and not 4 mph but then you took the speed of light to be 300000000 m/s instead of 299792458 m/s

[@ganderjos1459]

Speaking of the moon, lets talk about sheep!

[@Akash-ue5uq]

Lol Ikr xD

[@deathhzrd]

Lol idk sleeping I guess XD

[@Pwells1]

It's called SIMPLIFYING things. We do this all the time with EVERYTHING. You teach a simpler concept till you grasp it well enough, then give you the next piece. And keep going and going. You can't give everything all at once or everyone will be confused beyond belief.

[@Reanchi]

you took the first 5 seconds of this video way too personally and ran with it, didn't you?

[@HarveyPostmaster]

Reanchi and last five .. so if opening and ending statement are the same, wouldn't you say it is important enough to be directly addressed? or is that simply something to skip until later on in life?

[@iteachvader]

Then why do you keep lying that Santa is real?

[@conlatoso]

+★iteachvader★ Marketing...

[@iteachvader]

conlatoso Ah, very true... very true.

[@alvarohernandez2764]

Nailed it! Stabbed it!

[@umnikos]

+conlatoso yeah, you want your child to believe in santa just in order to have to buy presents every christmas, buy chocolate figures of santa and bla bla balandjdjxjdjxjdjdkfjdnxxidjdjxscdvtbtnfvcsfksoap(omg soap :P)wqlsxcnxc

[@josuelugosarchive1864]

Me, an animator trying to learn: *"WRITE THAT DOWN WRITE THAT DOWN!"*

[@blauwbeer556]

boom: gave you 115 likes. what does that mean? well it is an inside joke.

[@Bizorke]

I was never mislead by these in high school. I was taught that light can be influenced by gravity and about the "cosmic speed limit" and even about the existence of time dilation, but was told that it's out of scope of the introductory courses I was enrolled in. I attended high school in Canada, so I'm not sure how things are done elsewhere. In any case, I believe a firm understanding of Newtonian physics is essential before being exposed to modern physics.

[@popcornrocks5208]

I was never mislead by the Earth id flat thing. They straight up told us like 5 or 6th grade. Im not entirely sure which, as i have a bad memory and it has been a while.

[@ignorasmus]

Alright, lets skip Newton's nonsense and start with Relativity directly in elementary school. Who cares about the drop out rate anyway...

[@jackw801]

Thank you. This vid is nonsense

[@BigPurpleCarrot]

@@jackw801 It's just a fun video. Lighten up

[@thehorseformerlywithoutana2522]

It's definitely a thought. I am also well versed in sarcasm. I mean if classical physics can't explain everything, and break down under specific conditions then one could argue that it would be better to learn the "real" physics first. Although I do agree with you. If a growing mind can't wrap their head around regular physics, how are they gonna understand the wild and wacky quantum world?

[@ophirwesley4424]

Lol you think students A. Learn physics in elementary schools? B. Can drop out of elementary schools? Unfortunately for humanity, both of those statements are false. Also, it's not particularly hard to teach these things as they truly are in an interesting and easy way, and it'll probably get students even more excited about physics.

[@blauwbeer556]

listen man, when i was a wee ladd in 6th or 5th grade, i was very interested in physics so i watched a lot of videos about it and LOW AND BEHOLD i learned the einstein stuff before the newton stuff. i-it took a couple of months before i truly grasped the idea but i made it. now i am in middle school (or is it now considered highschool...yeah it is highschool) and you know, i am having a blast in physics class but my class hasn't been taught about gravity yet (well that is a lie, we learned that the gravity on earth can pull you down at a rate of ~9,81 meters per second but that's about it) so you know, gotta wait for the day where i can just do nothing for an hour (or if i was smart about it, i could do homework for other classes so that i have some free time at home.)

[@andrewbowers8402]

I wasn't told that plasma was a state of matter. Then, everything changed when Game Theory educated me.

[@MakeNjoy]

+Andrew Bowers but hey... that's just a theory a -game- FILM theory thanks for reading

[@JontyLevine]

"Liquid. Solid. Plasma. Gas. Long ago, the four states of matter lived together in harmony. Then, everything changed when the Plasma Nation attacked."

[@BrainsZoinick]

yea, that shouldn'tbe somebody to educate you, when his science is flawed

[@MaeveFirstborn]

+Jonty Levine That should be a thing man!

[@JooJingleTHISISLEGIT]

+Matthew BPbuds It pretty much is.

[@djcowell91]

Yep. My whole journey as a physics major in college feels like it can be summed up with the phrase: "Well actually..."

[@kungaff]

That moment this guy complain over the misleadings and then says that the speed of light is 300 000 m/s. The double standard is real.

[@KiwiImpactSaint]

you lost a 'k' there, speed of light in vaccum is slightly less than 300 000 km/S

[@squeakybunny2776]

Derrick Liu but his point still stands though

[@dghdh97]

In this video you were talking about how accurate things should be. Like light not beeing affected by gravity, but it was. By 0,000000000000001 something and the sheep not moving in 4 mph, but 3.999999999999999964 mph. And then you said that the speed of light was 300 000 000 m/s when actually it is 299 792 458 m / s. Doesn't make much of a differnce. I just thougt it was funny. ;)

[@edga69]

Accurate concepts, not values.

[@dghdh97]

James How could it be a concept with accurate numbers? I found this to be one of the definitions of the word "concept". "Thought of or stated without reference to a specific instance." I feel that for example 299 792 458 m / s is a very accurate and specific number. I could be wrong, but that is how "I" understood it.

[@edga69]

raskemenn4444 Is English not your first language, and do you have Asperger's? Please do not take that as an insult, it is a legitimate question.

[@dghdh97]

James No, english is not my first langauge. And I've never heard about the Asperger's syndrom before. Why do you think that I have it? Was it because I noticed that small thing with the speed of light in the video?

[@edga69]

raskemenn4444 Because you seem to not understand what the video or I said, and some sentences you wrote don't make sense. I can't be bothered to explain though. Bye. Edit: For all those who wish to comment after seeing this - read the whole conversation first.

[@davidbaker8634]

I mean, that's great and everything, but you've just done the same thing in this video. Neither GR nor SR truly reflect the way in which things act without some large assumptions (at least in terms of the questions that kids ask). So unless you want to teach QFT or come up with a consistent theory of everything (or string theory if so inclined) then this really makes no sense. It isn't that what we're teaching is wrong, it's just that you disagree with the level of approximation. All physics is approximation, and whilst I agree that it is possibly not good to establish ideas that 'high school physics' is not just an assumption, I think trying to teach the actual mathematics of the above is pointless. I also find it hard to believe that teachers wouldn't (if they knew) suggest that there are more advanced corrections than why is taught at high school, and discuss them with students if they want (but true explanation really is non-trivial). You're just shifting the line from one level of misconception to another; I had assumed that you would be discussing e.g. force = constant speed, which is not a good theory under any useful set of approximations.

[@yrrgallerte354]

I just read his message as "Be aware, that you are approximating. Always." Consistent that he criticises some level of understanding where people say "It is this way. Period."

[@MartinBeerbom]

There are two schools of teaching physics (at university level): Either you follow history (first classical Newton, then Einstein). OR how it really is (so far we know), but there are special cases where you can simplify the math. Feynman and a very few others did the latter; most others do it the first way. The best way for a student is to get two books, one from each school of thought, and learn from both in parallel. That's the advice from one of my first semester profs, who then proceeded to do it historically, not because he wanted, but because the administration of a 4-semester course taught by six profs in turns with short-term deviations was organized that way.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

Why are you lying to us and saying that the speed of light is 300,000,000 m/s? The speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s Not a big enough difference to worry about? Wrong. You're claiming that saying 2mph + mph = 4mph is wrong - and a lie - because the actual value is 3.9999999999999999964 mph. A much smaller lie than one you are telling.

[@Diablokiller999]

Maybe he uses this fact for another video like this? ;)

[@elliottmcollins]

So very well said, thank you.

[@RandomDays906]

Weird, I thought it was 3.99999997614 mph,

[@FireSn00py]

Dominic Boggio wrong, you are saying 1.78815999 × 10^11 m / s and it's clearly not that...

[@RandomDays906]

FireSn00py True, but that's the point, I just entered in a bunch of 9s, and hit some numbers at the end.

[@barrankobama4840]

Is usually explained at school that models are a different thing than reality, and to measure phenomena you use the model that makes your computation easier and your results not "too" incorrect. If I remember correctly, in the first lecture in physics at high school they told us about approximation.

[@MassMoment]

I'm an engineer, and I rely on approximations and simplifying assumptions every day. Not everyone is going to grow up to be a physicist where the degree of accuracy you are so concerned about matters so much. Teaching overall concepts is more important to the everyday person than exacting accuracy few will remember or ever use.

[@FelixxFelixx-tt7sf]

1:54 Oh yeah? *Puts Cat on Empire state building and wals around the earth Guess whos laughing now

[@mayank1788]

*not the cat*

[@FelixxFelixx-tt7sf]

@@mayank1788 Nah chill bro, its napping

[@vincentfor2988]

put the cat on the burj kallifa (correct me if i spelled it wrong )

[@atanunath]

What is misleading ? It's an effective theory ! How reasonable is to apply quantum mechanics in solving a problem involving billiard balls ? We have to choose our theory according to the scales involved. Flat-earth is not wrong if the distances involved are

[@mandodnam]

Physics isn't about problem-solving. It's about understanding. Sure, if you want to calculate the velocity of some balls, you don't need to worry about the universal speed limit. But if you don't know what the universal speed limit is, you're deceiving yourself in thinking you understand physics.

[@atanunath]

MandO Marc How do you understand nature without solving problems ? They are the same thing ! We ask question and we seek answers and in that process we understand the nature a bit better. We can never understand the ultimate because such ultimate knowledge is the problem of religions and not of science ! In science we ask questions and we seek answers within the domain of available precision.. then we expand our domain and it continues. Nobody's deceiving nobody... this is the hard science.. not popular science where it's almost religion with no regards for experimental verification. And no.. I surely don't understand Physics.. because that would mean I am religious ! As Feynman said.. nobody understands Quantum mechanics.. we just do it.. we don't understand. Surely, for teenagers the popular science attracts them.. they think it's about strings and many universes and fun... sorry it's not a sci-fi ! Effective field theory is our only weapon unfortunately/fortunately.

[@andrewdeighton5926]

That's what I think - is there a yet a single unifying theory of everything? It's still alluding us isn't it? I agree the physics of particles, black holes & billiard balls are all different - if anyone has a set of equations that works for all of them, then great!

[@atanunath]

Andrew Deighton That will of course be great, I agree.

[@taake1989]

The physics is the same for all of them, its just that with billiard balls we can use simpler methods and still get pretty accurate results. This is because the difference between the correct answer and our aproximation with the simple methods are negliable.

[@Zanderstien27]

I love MinutePhysics because they are spreading knowledge. Nevertheless, I sometimes feel the narrator gains more gratitude to hear himself speak the knowledge he has, more than the gratitude of others understand the concept he is teaching.

[@masterkevkev]

Can I just point out that we're not "lying" to our kids about these?... It's easier to round it up a few hundred-thousanths of a decimal, so when it comes to questions, we won't get answers of 3.9999999992 For F Sake Minutephysics, 2+2 = 4 is the simple method. If they ENJOY physics to the point of wanting to study into it, then they can get technical. But telling them that it's not precisely 4, but 3.999999999999999964 - is an answer not needed to be precise :l ... Just think logically, jeez

[@isodoublet]

I would judge you for telling MinutePhysics to stop being wrong, but I just did that in another video. Sigh...

[@masterkevkev]

gogerychwyrndrobwll I'm not saying he's wrong, he Is correct in all the points he said. But i'm saying - we're not "lying" to our children. It's just POINTLESS to tell them that it's not "precisely" 4, but 3.999~4 :L ..

[@isodoublet]

He's wrong when he says these are misconceptions. They're very useful approximations, much in the same way that special relativity is also just a useful approximation. And also GR.

[@masterkevkev]

gogerychwyrndrobwll very reasonable* approximations. He is right when they are not accurate nor correct - but in terms of learning in school and grading papers - it's easier to approximate a couple hundreths of a decimal place. .w.

[@isodoublet]

I never said they're accurate, just useful. And they're useful because they're damn accurate for many situations. If I was leading a team responsible for designing a car engine I'd fire anyone who wanted to use relativistic formulae for forces and velocities. It's not just "a couple hundredths of a decimal place", it's _wrong_ to use them. It's misplaced precision. Relativistic corrections at typical velocities are way smaller than the experimental error.

[@agrofindastation]

"To make the math easy, I will represent this cow as a shpere"

[@GoranXII]

Actually, the speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s, claiming it's 300,000,000 is as bad as saying velocities add and light isn't affected by gravity.

[@DragonCharlz]

+Matthew Marden Clearly its an approximation...

[@GoranXII]

+DragonCharlz When you make a rounding error that is several orders of magnitude bigger than the error that you're trying to highlight, you're doing it wrong. Rounding c up, gives you an error at the 4th decimal place, while the error he's highlighting doesn't show up until the _16th_ decimal place. It's like bashing your way through a wall, then pointing out the hole where a picture-hook used to be and saying "you need to fix that hole". Sure it's true, but it doesn't excuse the fact that _you just bashed a hole in the wall_.

[@DragonCharlz]

Matthew Marden Um... its a quick video dude. No one gives a shit. If you're an actual scientist working with the speed of light, you need the more accurate number. But if you're some random guy on youtube looking out of curiousity, rounding the number isn't going cause all of science to stop working. Chill out.

[@GoranXII]

+DragonCharlz And you picked my comment to reply to because...?

[@GoranXII]

+Kkfm Harry Excuse me, but if you don't like me asking a simple question GTFO.

[@stealthysmirth]

LOL how he says that 2mph +2mph =3.9999...etc but he approximates the speed of light to 300,000,000m/s I love your videos, just sayin... XD

[@asbood112]

stealthysmirth 2 reasons for this I believe. 1) ask anyone what the speed of light is and they will say 300,000,000 m/s. 2) Using c=300,000,000 makes the maths simple. As the equation has a denominator which is 'usually small' there will be some error, not much error but some. It is usually close enough not to be considered too rogue a value.

[@bunimokjh]

but still that division was made by a calculator, not by hand. There was no need of simplification in the speed of light

[@RylanEdlin]

I agree, a teacher should say, "This is a good approximation that is crazy close on the scale of the demonstrations we're working with in this class (and on Earth)," when talking about Newtonian Mechanics. I don't however think that if you're going to exercise this level of pedanticism, it's reasonable to say Relativity is how things "really are." Anything taught in a Physics classroom is only a way of demonstrating how to model phenomena in our ability to observe them as elegantly as possible. This isn't "How things are," it's "how we see them, in as comprehensive, elegant, and predictable a manner as possible." For more information to anyone reading this, take a careful look at Francis Bacon, a careful look at Descartes, and combine their theories of natural philosophy. They counter each other beautifully, and provide an amazing view of the world.

[@temmorijken5762]

Honestly, i think it makes sense to first learn the more simple concept, especially since it isn't complete bs and there is usefulness behind a lot you learn at high school, often my teachers would say though that in reality it's a bit more complicated, with more complex formulas, but would just leave it at that and tell us to study physics, or biology, or whatever to know how it really works

[@wbeaty]

Here's a good one from Am. J. Physics on QFT: "There are no particles, there are only fields" see goo gl 4zqePK The author complains about the extremely misleading photon-centric presentations of light in grade school texts. Photons, as taught, don't exist. There are only exitations of a quantum field, and propagating waves, but no photon particles flying around like tiny bullets.

[@zikcify]

Doesn't the photoelectric effect prove that photons have particle-like attributes aswell? Or has this been confirmed not to be true?

[@NikosNisyros]

Daniel look here: Double Slit Experiment explained! by Jim Al-Khalili :)

[@wbeaty]

> Doesn't the photoelectric effect prove Daniel No, it just proves that "quantum jumps" exist. I strongly suggest looking at the first two or three pages of the above PDF paper goo.gl/4zqePK Another very good one is Willis Lamb's goo.gl/lEwv41 Energy-jumps are in the light, but they're not shaped like tiny little grains with size and location. That's what the above AJP "fields" paper is going on about: bad double-slit explanations which breed mistaken photon concepts, and don't correctly explain "quantized fields." One atom loses a step of energy, and later another distant atom gains the same step in energy. But in between, that "energy step" traveled as a wave-train, a wave possibly billions of miles wide and many meters thick. "Photon" wrongly suggests that EM waves don't exist, or that they're really just a hail of tiny bullets. Or ...ask yourself how a fluorescing atom can emit a long wavetrain including a huge number of cycles of EM fields, yet also have emitted "one particle?" It didn't emit one particle, instead it excited the vacuum with aquantized field which looks just like a spreading wavetrain, yet carries just one q=hv energy quantum. The Feynman QED path-integral version: one atom emits an infinite number of virtual photons. These photons take all possible paths. They're also emitted during a fairly long duration (since the light's wavetrain may contain hundreds of cycles or peaks.) To calculate the absorption probability at any spot, we add up the paths and square the result. But ...that's just an updated Huygens' Wavelet theory from 1800s! An infinite number of paths? That's like flux lines of Poynting flow, or like a radio wave. Feynman's infinite paths are nothing like "a particle" which flys from one atom to another. Yeah, the end result is a tiny dot on the film. But no tiny dot crashed into the film.

[@fierwall5]

The reason that things are taught the way that they are is that we want our kids to have an understanding that can be taught on latter. What they are doing is merely building a foundation on which for most people will never be built upon but for those that do deiced to go off in to real physics they are taught that this is not correct but it relates enough so that you can grasp the greater idea if and when you come upon it. A good example of this is a few semesters ago I was taking physics and we were talking about the aura lights and how they had to do with the sun and the earths magnetic field. But what we had been taught so far about magnetic fields and electrons (I think i forgot exactly what) completely contradicted what the teacher was telling us. The reason he said that they did that was 1) The math was way above our level. 2) It would have led to less of an initial understanding and delayed the learning of other material we need for the course.

[@NikosNisyros]

fierwall5 wow, i couldn't said it better myself. I like this idea/opinion. It looks so true. Now-days if someone wants to follow physics they need to learn and understand a huge amount of data*. Way bigger that what a few knew 100 years ago. And when someone successfully comprehends all the knowledge about physics they need to know, they have to use that knowledge and go even further, to make a breakthrough discovery! Discover new paths, create new equations and theories. So, they keep learning more and more. And the thing becomes even more complicated. Imagine explaining all of these to a 15 year old at school.

[@gorgolyt]

I'm not sure how serious you're being in this video. Your version of education would be extremely confusing to students. And your grounds for doing it are mistaken. All of physics is just building approximate models. What we learn in school are very accurate models of common experience, so it's objectively no different from learning more advanced theories. If we only accepted physics which was 100% accurate as suitable for teaching, then we actually wouldn't teach any physics, including quantum mechanics and relativity.

[@lemniskate_ayd]

“An electron is a very small particle which orbit around the nucleus like a very tiny planet” ;)

[@akoda8887]

*Quantum physics, sneaking on a 1st year college student :* "I'm about to end this man's whole career." ;)

[@cummydummy4438]

Wasnt bohr's model disproven?

[@akoda8887]

@@cummydummy4438 That's exactly why he wrote this.

[@Thematic2177]

The Bohr's model was disproven, but it's still very useful for teaching stuff like electron energy levels (in physics) or valence electrons (in chemistry).

[@yoshikagekira6166]

@@cummydummy4438 Quantum mechanical model: Allow me to introduce myself.

[@blacktimhoward4322]

"It's energy and momentum, which light certainly has" Ah yes, equations I don't recognize. Now I understand

[@jackschulte6185]

Also momentum is a product of mass anyways, so... it just has energy...

[@Owen_loves_Butters]

@@jackschulte6185 Again, that's only approximately true when v

[@govlog5986]

you talked so fast my brain is going to explode

[@rubikfan1]

the reason for these "lies" is because general relativity is way to hard for a 6 year old. you need a basic understand first before you can go into deeper science. try explaining electron orbits to a some1 that just learned what an atom is.

[@DaveGrean]

Yes but what reason is there not to MENTION it? It only creates confusion.

[@rubikfan1]

many teachers do mention. but that is of there own chooch not because the rules make then do it. you could say: the real thing is much more complex but to hard for you , so we going to explain it easyer. but that whould ruin there selfesteem. and everybody know that the selfesteem of some one in puberty isnt that high in the first place. and remember not everybody is going to be a rocket scientist. some people just need to learn a trade like plumming. and they might not care about things like space and quantum mechanics. some people just need a basic understanding of physics to work.

[@DaveGrean]

rubikfan1 You can also tell them it's because they don't NEED to know the advanced stuff in order to solve most real life physics problems, so their self-esteem is not an issue. Just because they're not interested in the subject doesn't mean they shouldn't at least be aware that Newtonian physics are technically incorrect.

[@rubikfan1]

also it whould make teaching alot harder. as you whould almost have to mention something every lesson.

[@DaveGrean]

***** No shit, Sherlock. But in my experience high school teachers don't bother to actually mention that, and give the impression that what they're teaching is an accurate description of reality. Which is confusing as fuck if you start reading about general relativity out of interest, and it appears to completely contradict what you're being taught in school. So yeah, it can be called a 'lie' in that regard. I'm a 100% positive that your average student who isn't interested in physics and won't read about it by him/herself, is convinced that the Newtonian physics he/she is taught in school accurately describe gravity and the such.

[@aaroncarmody8562]

I want a restraining order od 12,751 km as a prank

[@baltoflyer7503]

It wouldn't work well as a prank because no judge in their right mind would grant that and you can't really enforce a restraining order across so many national boarders.

[@ididafewthings]

I loved physics in school and then I started loving it even more the more I found out about things that we didn‘t learn in school - the things that seemed wrong at first blew my mind. It‘s that „mind-blowing“ that fueled my enthusiasm for physics. I was lucky to have a great teacher who taught us about these things at the end of high school.

[@easilyforgettableyoutubeco2149]

Everything you learn is a lie! The earth isnt round! Its a quantriplilogram! Light doesnt actually perceived, its relative to the perception of light itself! Im smart, a college professor at MIT! ~KZbin comments section

[@temporaneo617]

@@easilyforgettableyoutubeco2149 shit you're too accurate... you're scaring me😨

[@WarrenGarabrandt]

On my GOD! I remember in middle school when we were covering basic algebra, I asked my teacher "If a (really long) flatbed semi truck is driving down a highway at exactly 65 miles/hour , and you are in a car on that flatbed truck, and start driving in the same direction at exactly 65 miles/hour, does that mean you are traveling exactly 130 miles/hour?" At first, the teacher didn't understand the question. I had to explain it again, and then ask if you could simply add up relative speeds like this, or is it more complicated somehow. I got looked at like I was an idiot, and the answer of "Why in the world couldn't you?" prompted the entire class to laugh at me. :( Then later in high school in physics class, that my question was actually VALID! I was furious at that previous teacher for making me feel stupid when really I was ON TO SOMETHING! I wondered if this if how Einstein must have felt when he was pioneering this. At that moment, I told myself I would never just dismiss someone who had an idea that at first sounded crazy, and instead hear them out and give their idea a thorough examination.

[@Kahadi]

when I learned these misconceptions in school, we were actually told by our teacher that it isn't the full thing, just the main part. the added bits to the frame of reference speeds were only necessary with high speeds approaching the speed of light, so we most likely wouldn't learn about or use the proper equation. for the gravity part, we were always told that gravity affects light despite the lack of mass because light acts as both a wave and a particle, with the teacher often saying "in high school physics" to show that further study will show misconceptions. they weren't wrong, just not completely right, good enough for high school physics classes and that in depth would only be important for careers requiring further physics studies. this was true for almost every misconception, even some pointed out in the comments (the states of matter, for example, were taught as the 3 MAIN states of matter, with others appearing later as more extras, not really necessary for the basic understanding of chemistry or physics)

[@Narcissist86]

"...for the gravity part, we were always told that gravity affects light despite the lack of mass because light acts as both a wave and a particle..." That's not the reason gravity affects light though. It's because gravity is not a force acting on anything, but rather curvature of spacetime that affects trajectories through space. It literally does not matter if we're dealing with a wave or a particle - the same curvature is present regardless.

[@Kahadi]

the point was, though, that while we weren't told the details as to why, we were taught at least enough (and it was a good way to introduce the "light is a wave and a particle" topic and connect it all without confusing us too much) to know that light is affected by gravity. also, if light acted as neither a wave nor a particle, it would make even less sense for it to be affected by gravity, would it not? our teacher never said it was because it acted like a wave specifically, or like a particle specifically, but because it did both. even if that isn't the proper explanation, it's not fully wrong, and it was a good way to teach high school students that light is affected by gravity AND it acts as both a wave and a particle. the misconception pointed out in the video was that light wasn't affected by gravity, which we weren't led to believe, being given a correct, if not proper, explanation.

[@willoughbykrenzteinburg]

Narcissist86 This isn't entirely correct either. The curvature of space is a byproduct of the theory of general relativity. It is the RESULT of GR. It is not the CAUSE. The cause is energy and momentum. Light is affected by a gravitational field because energy (as well as mass) is affected by - and is the creator of such gravitational fields. Light CREATES gravity as well as reacts to it because gravity is created by energy, and light is energy. Light itself curves space - - albeit not by much AT ALL - but it still does.

[@MysterX79]

Honestly I don't think this is misleading. Adding and substracting speeds of trains or so in elementary school is simply the first step. Babies and children are used to absolutes and slowly but surely they need to learn, that in the world everything is relative. Instead of pushing hard formulas on elementary kids it is much more fun to discuss the first implications of relativity when you look with them up to the stars. That now on Earth is not the same now on Mars and little Jonny will have to deal with this, when he is grown and will travel as an astronaut to Mars.

[@callisoncaffrey]

Wow. That was like everything. Educational. Well done. Interesting. Entertaining. Thought provoking. All while critiquing societal norms. Not to mention it was accomplished in under three minutes. definitely gets a like.

[@EricFontaineJazz]

Maybe kids should be told that newton's law of gravity and linear addition of velocity is simply approximations. Emphasize approximation, but go ahead and teach it.

[@WaterMelonFan1]

Unnecessary, it just creates questions you really don't want to answer as a physics teacher with a class of 12 year olds ^^ They are right under normal circumstances here on earth, there is no need to go deeper and tell them the rest.

[@WaterMelonFan1]

And that is why we teach them more complex physics, but why do it when they won't understand the full truth at their age? Just wait till they are old enough. E.g. gravitation in general relativity is an extremely complex concept that you cannot explain to young students who simply don't have the mathematical and physical knowledge needed.

[@justinpieces3088]

***** That's just lazyness and you know it.

[@deathhzrd]

I've been fucking dealing with flatearthers for hours now

[@chrisk8208]

That'd never work. All good flat earthers know that we're surrounded by a massive ice wall the ruling elite will never let us see past. :)

[@chrisk8208]

Eli Reid I'd recommend Terry Pratchett Discworld novels for them. They're funny and have a world they can fall of the edge of to amuse their deluded minds. Obviously it would be pointless to inform them the novels are fiction. :)

[@bliffity2692]

+Chris K How would they read over 40 books?

[@chrisk8208]

Bliffity Just like everybody else, one word at a time.

[@bliffity2692]

Chris K Nononono. You see, it was a dig at their intelligence, the ability to read being the universal standard of the well learned.

[@jasonfan4701]

What the hell happened to the subtitles at the start? Pretty sure Henry didn't say "{ tf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\cocoartf1138\cocoasubrtf510{\fonttbl\f0\fswiss\fcharset0 ArialMT;\f1\fswiss\fcharset0".

[@talkalexis]

What are you talking about of course he did

[@JeffreySmith-e2u]

I teach high school chem and physics. I ALWAYS tell my students when something is a simplification, and that the reality is a bit more complex. We do cover the quantum model of the atom, but the Bohr model "works" for most high school level chemistry concepts, especially bonding type. And for physics I always teach students that Newtonian Mechanics works "good enough" on our scale of life, but Quantum Mechanics covers pretty much everything much better. When students ask for an explanation of something that involves concepts deeper than the curriculum covers, I will usually give them a simplified analogy, and then clearly tell them that it is a simplified analogy. My famous line is "If you eventually learn more about this topic I don't want you to think 'Mr. Smith didn't know what he was talking about'!" All that said, I absolutely LOVE this channel. This is some excellent content. My formal education was in chemical (BS) and biochemical (MS) engineering, so although I've done a bit of formal training in things like statistical thermodynamics and relativity, I have been learning much watching the videos and have been inspired to dig deeper into the concepts.

[@PineappleForScale]

I understood most of the things except one thing... Why MPH?

[@johnford5084]

Why not. Miles exist and so do hours. What's your problem?

[@PineappleForScale]

@@johnford5084 Welcome to the internet!

[@deivisony]

@@PineappleForScale These americans nowadays... Geez

[@muttley1956]

Deivison Carvalho Not just Americans. 9% of the World's countries still use MPH.

[@hairyputter5363]

@@muttley1956 why?

[@sophisticatedsarah1]

Some large features of the microwave sky at distances of over 13 billion light years appear to be aligned with both the motion and orientation of the solar system. Is this due to systematic errors in processing, contamination of results by local effects, or an unexplained violation of the Copernican principle? An answer would be appreciated.

[@yahya-s-ahmed]

We aren't going to any space on daily basis..... and I am not in any NASA or ISRO.... For me as an engineer velocity simply adds up to 2+2= 4kmph

[@Brindlebrother]

that's _quik maths_

[@killerstickkenobi6768]

If course you're right, but if you start mechanics in physics class it's a lot easier to just add the two velocity vectors or do it with cos(a) if not 90° angled. I come from Germany, and if you get to the higher physics classes, special relativity becomes a thing, but for other topics we always assume, we are in an inertial system, where those effects don't matter. It's like leaving airresistance out of the equation.

[@BarbarosaAlexander]

I think it's a matter of "Lies to Children." You need to give a clear, but ultimately false, first layer of understanding. Once the mind is primed, you can then tell the student, "Ok, well, that's not exactly correct, and here's why..." You delve through deeper and deeper layers of "lies" always getting closer to the truth. The only "wrongness" from it is when you stop. The shallower you stop, the bigger the misconception.

[@Steve0III]

But sometimes it hinders the understanding, and makes the truth a whole lot harder to understand. For example, how relativity when it comes to speed works. The "speed limit" of the universe makes a lot more sense now than it did before.

[@BarbarosaAlexander]

Steve0III It only hinders the understanding when you move beyond the zone of proximal development - the balance between giving new information that is challenging enough to interest and activate the learner, and giving either too little or too much information. That inevitably varies by learner. If you find the onion has been peeled too deeply, too quickly, the teacher must then help you find the right deeper layer to aid your education. You can, for instance, just jump into relativity until you understand certain things first. Those certain things may or may not be exactly "true." They'll be true enough for the time being, then, once taken in and understood, it becomes time for the next layer down to be revealed.

[@0xEmmy]

Not false or misconceived. Oversimplified. Yeah, unless you need crazy precision or are working with velocities near c, just add them. That said, I would at least mention the existence of the deeper relationship even if I were to omit the details.

[@dominic2916]

Anyone else surfing the comments to find a triggered flat earther?

[@XenophonSoulis]

Me

[@XenophonSoulis]

Does this mean that flat earthers' origin is Diskworld by Terry Pratchett?

[@gianmariarusso1118]

ilPrincipe 😂😂😂😂😂 Thanks I needed it😉

[@shayanmoosavi9139]

@@ilprincipe8094 LOL how does anyone read this😂😂😂😂

[@shayanmoosavi9139]

Me😂😂😂 Unfortunately I didn't find any🤣🤣🤣

[@Alexander-wq3mh]

So if the train keeps on going and the sheep keeps on walking, it'll eventually fall off?

[@meerkat1232]

yes, its moving 2mph faster than the train!

[@Alexander-wq3mh]

meerkat1232 Thats... weird O.o

[@Alexander-wq3mh]

***** yeah imagine an endless train where a sheep can walk infinitely forward, then we're on the same page.

[@newera478]

meerkat1232 It doesn't move 2mph faster than the train. The sheep moves as fast as the train but it moves 2mph relative to the train. Example: Train moves at the speed of light, sheep throws a ball in the direction where train is moving. Does the ball move faster than a light? No it doesn't.

[@Alexander-wq3mh]

Oscillator didnt say the sheep walked 2mph faster, hes walking 0.1 slower then the train. So he will eventually fall off if he has enough train to walk over.

[@saptarshimitra1444]

Actually teaching these concepts early on makes it more difficult for children to grasp the topic properly. If a student loses his interest on a topic, say physics, saying that it's too difficult to understand for him/her at this age, probably he will score bad marks in his semesters and will never find enthusiasm to read that subject again. Thus we assume things so as to make it easy for kids.

[@adelaidemcginnity5344]

Obvious not the work of a physicist. Otherwise, he would point out that this is how we do all of physics - that is, by working out effective theories and ignoring the corrections in regimes in which they are not relevant. Heck, the standard model itself (our most fundamental theory, if you will) is only an effective theory, one certain to break down at high enough energies. You have to start somewhere, after all. Galilean relativity and Newtonian mechanics are both extremely good approximations in the regime in which any high school student is working. And if you're so worried about corrections of any form, why don't you point out that Einstein's equations aren't perfect either and need to be modified to take quantum mechanics into account? Is it just because we don't have a theory of quantum gravity yet, or because quantum gravitational corrections are small for most regimes. If it's the latter, then you've got no legs to stand on when you criticize Galilean additions of human scale velocities.

[@willoughbykrenzteinburg]

While I'd agree with your sentiments, you have a fact-based assumption wrong. This video is indeed the work of a physicist. celebriki.com/wiki/Henry_Reich

[@ShivaramakrishnaReddy]

y are u so hurt by this? he is not criticizing anything.. just pointing out some truths!

[@isodoublet]

Willoughby Krenzteinburg Yeah, he's technically a physicist, just a very bad one. Shivaramakrishna Reddy No, this video is itself a misconception. The work of a physicist is not to discover the ultimate reality about nature. The "ultimate reality" isn't even an expression that means anything. The work of a physicist is to understand natural phenomena. To do that, it's *crucial* to know which effects are important and which effects may be neglected. It's also crucial to understand about emergent descriptions that are strictly speaking "not true" but which give useful insight. Calling anything that doesn't conform to our most fundamental understanding a "misconception" is a huge disservice to the physics praxis. And, as pointed out by the OP, he utterly ignored quantum mechanics. He can't do that, for one very simple reason: whenever relativistic corrections (of the order of v/c) start to become important, quantum mechanical corrections (of the order of Planck's constant) *also* become important because if the energy is high enough that you care about relativity, it's high enough that you care about particle creation. There's no two ways about it. If you adhere to this silly fundamentalist ethos where Newtonian approximations are "misconceptions" and yet you neglect to discuss quantum mechanics, there's no two ways about it: you're lying.

[@ShivaramakrishnaReddy]

gogerychwyrndrobwll too long.. didnt read

[@isodoublet]

Shivaramakrishna Reddy Your loss.

[@TheFairKnight]

"Mislead" = simplifying complex concepts so a child can understand, in a way that applies to most of what they'll do in practice.

[@yondie491]

I am glad that annoying sounds in your otherwise consistently calm and relaxing (and informative and awesome) videos didn't become a staple...

[@cheesebusiness]

2:12 Yes, because otherwise learning physics would be too hard. It’s ok to use simpler physical models that describe our world well enough.

[@RexGalilae]

All this ranting and complaining is pointless. Generations of Scientists and Engineers grow up with the wrong idea (only a slightly imperfect) about how the world works but find no issue in learning more accurate theories that describe it. Think about this. By bringing energy and momentum to the gravity question, aren't we risking confusing our high schoolers with the Newton's Gravitational Law? This confusion would cause most students to hate Physics as a result. (The main reason why i love Physics is because it's concrete and doesn't involve hand waving unlike chemistry, for example) Or wait, do you instead propose to teach them the Einstein Field Equations instead? Good luck with that XD

[@WildernesSam]

it should never be about trying to present physics in a way that is attractive to lots of people. His point is that show what physics is. The ones that love it will keep loving it and the ones that dont will never love it :) Just life bro

[@RexGalilae]

I don't think so. My love for Physics began with Newton's Laws. Seeing the math we learn in school form a real meaning is what makes physics so amazing. After that, I went on to try higher math on my own just because I loved Physics so much. If someone showed me the EFE and told me this is what Physics is, I'd honestly back out. On top of that, , Classical Physics is still used extensively in engineering today. The gravitational equations that took us to the moon were Newton's. So it's not "wrong", everything we know in Physics is to an extent. It's just a big scale approximation.

[@jibraniqbal9315]

Sorry to burst your bubble but *shows EFE for GR* *That's how physics works* if you do not think that it is necessary or important to understand exactly what is going on , becoming a physicist is not for you and you would make a good engineer

[@tfos993]

Hey stop that, chemistry isn't hand waving lol. There's an underlying connection between physics and chemistry, for example in thermodynamics. As a chemical engineering student it's my bread and beef for my sandwich

[@BudgiePanic]

I bet some people still think the earth is flat, even after this.

[@vitex198]

Simplifications: The necessary evil of knowledge

[@SqueamishNerd]

Reminds me of every time someone have tried to explain something about biology to me with the argument "it's 8th grade biology" and I'm like "What do you think I did for all those years studying biology at university?" Like, 8th grade biology is simplified to be easier to understand, and often it's not completely true or not the whole truth. Biology is basically statistics about living things, and y'all know how statistics work, you can generalise things on population level, but you can't apply statistics to individuals.

[@mac6na6na26]

And E=mc^2 is only for stationary objects.

[@sruto]

But what is stationary? *vsauce music starts playing*

[@Hans-gb4mv]

but without a reference, nothing is stationary. The earth rotates around it's own axis so it moves, and you are on the earth and move as well. The planet also orbits around the sun, and so and so forth. If you were to see your actual velocity, you'd be surprised.

[@lcbp2009]

Yep, after watching this and the PEMDAS video I think minutephysics had a problem with his elementary/high school teacher. He was probably very smart, but elementary and high school education unfortunately isn't made for smart people. College education however does. He forget about the fact that there are millions of kid out there who are nowhere as smart as him, and also there are millions of elementary/high school teacher that are better than his. The fact that he had a bad time doesn't mean the system is wrong. Sure you can talk relativity and how light is affected by it then you go "now let's use the formular with the mass of the object to calculate gravity".... The class will go (considering that they are immature) "great what's the point of telling us then?" Same about the velocity stuff. Of course a teacher can chose to tell it to his student, but at the same time they can chose to not do it, it's not a misconception, rather a educationnal choice.

[@topiliski1497]

Where do you get your amazing bassline tracks?

[@royalninja2823]

In roughly 6th grade i decided to share my _obviously genius_ advice about how you can't just add velocities to some upperclassmen (8th graders who were just as far off from physics as me) and needless to say they didn't buy it. That was the moment at which I realized the internet wasn't a good source of things that people will think I'm cool for talking about.

[@isaacnewton7424]

0:50 you dare oppose me mortal!

[@awesomedavid2012]

And even your explanation of relativity is dumbed down lmao ironic

[@CantForgetNow]

This video, while informative, comes across as incredibly arrogant. You're basically saying that we should be teaching general relativity and more complex theories of gravity to kids, most of whom won't be able understand them, and that anyone who does otherwise are intentionally "misleading" them. Children need workable approximations to understand the world around them before they can dive deeper and understand the subtleties. Your logic in this video is tantamount to saying we should teach babies how to run before they know how to crawl.

[@seifenspender]

But there are definitly differences between teaching babies approximations and teaching young adults current ideas of physics, rather than those that already have been disproven, while pretending, that humanity still believes in them.

[@zacgan1845]

@@seifenspender kids arent gonna take you seriously if you say shit is fake

[@studiousboy644]

Never once he said that these stuff should be taught to toddlers or even u14s. He just mentioned that these are misconceptions, which they find out later in academics.

[@seifenspender]

@@zacgan1845 Did you even read my comment?

[@sor3999]

This is also true with math. The way it’s taught early on is supposed to make things “easier” with all the silly shortcuts. It just serves to confuse later on. When I relearned my math fundamentals from the ground up it became trivially easy for me.

[@ultimate01]

At 2:04 , the speed of light is 299792000m/sec Which is not equal to 300000000m/sec

[@capella3368]

No That's 299792458m/s

[@maxpoppe]

you mean 299792458 m/s?

[@jasonlam8588]

1:48 Yes but instead of saying "20,000km on surface" how useful is it to say "12,750km through the earth's core"...

[@piingufps]

In physics it's important.

[@hairyputter5363]

@@piingufps but impractical in normal day to day life where people don't dig their way for reaching destination... usually(?)

[@alextaws6657]

I LOVE YOUR VIDEOS!!! I wish you could do entire physics courses, I'd pay for them too... with the math and the scientific articles and everything, in detail and depth. Thank you SO much for these amazing videos!

[@marcochimio]

Whenever I teach chemistry (and the physics involved), I always preface it by saying "everything I teach you is A LITTLE BIT WRONG."

[@GusCraft460]

I feel like this is in a similar category to the “where do babies come from” question. Maybe we should tell students that they aren’t getting the whole picture, but throwing 6th graders headlong into special relativity definitely seems like a bad idea.

[@Melan_B]

Earthly distance limit is 12750km. Me: travels to Mt Everest while friend is on exact opposite side. WE BROKE THE RULES!!! (You can do this with anything I just wanted to say it)

[@tpstrat14]

12750 km is measured from the top of Everest to the other side, actually. You friend would need to build a mound

[@Melan_B]

??? Really?

[@tpstrat14]

BLARE BEAR lol no. Got you though :) The bulge around the equator due to centrifugal force increases earth’s diameter more than any mountain. If Everest was closer to the equator, then it could be one endpoint of earths largest diameter. But it’s not close enough

[@TheMcSebi]

WTF they don't teach you the earth being flat in elementary..

[@brendanm5831]

they call it religion these days don't they? =P

[@TheMcSebi]

Nitro BMC I'm not sure about how the situation on american elementary schools is like, thankfully I'm german and I was tought everything without mincing matters..

[@SinnerDragoon]

Its called an example...

[@TheMcSebi]

Well, I might have taken him a little too serious..

[@dankmoo]

TheMcSebi If they did, I would ask my mum to home school me, because 2+2 would equal 22.22222222222222222 in their eyes

[@christopherg2347]

1:45 They mentioned that in Hitchhiker Guide to the Galaxy. Apparently during stress all being send out a psychic signal, that is stronger the farther they are from home. But with the distance on earth being capped, it is only noticed when Ford Perfect - a being from around Betegeuze - does this.

[@devastator5042]

Meh a lot of this is apples to oranges, the sheep won't be moving at 4 kph but it will be going 3.9999999 kph for a basic education that's more than enough. The point comes in yes that if you are a physics major in college you'll need it but the other 95% won't and thus it's explained simpler so they can spend on day on momentum instead of a week

[@Neophlegm]

Plus once you get into a Physics degree you're ALWAYS still simplifying things. Just... fewer things.

[@callanc3925]

what kind of accurate ass measurement devices was he using to know that the sheep and the train were both going 2.000000000000000000000kph anyways.

[@chasebrower7816]

Well, the problem is that other 5% is never dealt with, regardless of being full of smart people who can do great things, they get the least attention and learning. This is a major problem, and the school system is just not designed to handle anyone who is incredibly smart, presenting the problem of that person having trouble doing much, because they are limited by what the school system can do.

[@callanc3925]

all that they can really do is put them up by a year (or multiple) in which case they will be in a very socially awkward situation especially once they leave school and end up being able to go to uni at the age of 16

[@dark3031]

Saying gravity caused by Energy + Momentum is also kinda wrong. Einstein's model states that every object curves the space, and it's this curvature in space that causes objects to "fall" into each other, and of course light will appear to be attracted to black holes as it travels through this curved space.

[@jibraniqbal9315]

Yes but anything having energy and momentum will curve through space time

[@cilibiaoctavian9313]

If the light could not be affected by gravitation,I don't think the back holes would be called black holes anymore

[@WinterNox]

Man sounded actually frustrated.