F=ma is wrong?! | Newton's Second Law of Motion Explained in 1 MINUTE

Newton's Second Law of Motion is taught to most of us in high school as F=ma. But is it really that simple?
Hi guys, I'm back with the Second Law as promised. This time, we're discussing the common equation that we are often just told to memorise during school. F=ma is probably one of the most iconic equations in physics, but it isn't true in EVERY single scenario.
Let's not even consider relativity or quantum mechanics. Let's assume that the universe is purely classical, as Newton believed it to be all those years ago. EVEN THEN, F=ma is not correct in every situation. This is because Newton's Second Law of Motion ACTUALLY says that the net force on an object (F) is directly proportional to the rate of change of the object's momentum. This is discussed in more detail in the video, so what the hell are you doing reading this description?!
And yes, I know that halfway through the video I stop saying that F is proportional to the rate of change of momentum, and instead say that F is EQUAL to the rate of change of momentum. This is because when we use SI units, the proportionality constant is actually just 1. I didn't have time to explain this in the one minute that I'm limiting myself to for these videos.
Also, something I didn't have time to mention in the video is the fact that Newton's Second Law only applies to constant-mass systems. So why the whole tirade about an object which changes mass? Well, an OBJECT such as a rocket can change mass. When we apply Newton's Second Law to it, we also have to consider the exhaust gases from the rocket, so that we consider the entire SYSTEM, which has a constant mass. However, each component separately does have varying mass, so we need to ensure we don't assume that each bit of the system has a constant mass.
I hope you've seen my previous video where I talked about Newton's First Law of Motion in 1 minute as well. If you haven't already, check out this link • Newton's First Law of ...
Thanks for watching guys! Follow me on Instagram and Twitter @parthvlogs

[@swagatambanerjee4102]

Also, I would want a very intuitive explanation of Lagrangian and Hamiltonian basic equations.

[@MrMas9]

Can you make a possibly longer video about Maxwell's equations? :p

[@numericalmethodsguy]

Should the delta be on time as well!

[@omniyambot9876]

Wtf I'm always confused by the simple force formula lol. If you mind making longer video for fundamentals of physics intuitively.

[@swagatambanerjee4102]

An intuitive explanation to the basics of Wave equation.......uptill the Schrodinger wave function.

[@swagatambanerjee4102]

Really loved your vector field explanation.

[@111asel]

Hey Parth! I'm sorry if this sounds really creepy, but was it you that I walked past at roughly 5:30pm yesterday at the pathway leading to the entrance of the building we live in? I've watched your videos for quite some time and since I'm gunning for a place at Cambridge in two years time, I'd love to ask advice from you, given I know what questions to ask. Edit: Finally bumped into you! It was great meeting you and getting advice! I hope to bump into you again some other time :)

[@FrankCoffman]

F= ma is wrong because a mass can be accelerated the same amount with different levels of force depending on where the mass is. A mass is much easier to accelerate on the moon than on Earth. On the space station in orbit, heavy objects can be easily moved with a light touch of an astronaut's fingers. A mass is easier or harder to accelerate depending on where the mass is located. The same amount of force will produce different accelerations of a given mass under different circumstances. So, F doesn't = ma.

[@Crunkboy415]

Mass and weight aren't the same though. A bucket full of feathers may have as much mass as a bucket of water, but the bucket of water is a lot harder to move. Because the water bucket weighs more, more gravitational force is acting upon it. Less so in space, but a bucket of feathers is still easier to push relative to the bucket of water.

[@PremSePhysics-]

Please differentiate curl, divergence , gradient .......

[@swagatambanerjee4102]

Can you please explain the constant of proportionality being 1 in F~ma, F=k.ma and k being arbitrarily taken as 1 ?

[@PasajeroDelToro]

The constant is unitless and this factor is absorbed into the unit system of m or a.

[@frankdimeglio8216]

Moscow Aviation Institute - MAI - International Student's Page has given the following the thumbs up. It's all clearly correct. The Institute of Physics, Patna has now given the following writing the thumbs up. Excellent.♥️ THE MATHEMATICAL PROOF THAT ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY IN A BALANCED FASHION IS SUCCESSFULLY DEMONSTRATED: "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. THE SUN AND THE EARTH are F=ma AND E=mc2, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=mc2 is DIRECTLY AND FUNDAMENTALLY DERIVED FROM F=ma. F=ma AND E=mc2 PROVE that ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS ALL of SPACE is NECESSARILY ELECTROMAGNETIC/GRAVITATIONAL (IN BALANCE); AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. This explains F=ma AND E=mc2, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. SO, GRAVITATIONAL FORCE/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ACCORDINGLY, ALL of SPACE is NECESSARILY ELECTROMAGNETIC/GRAVITATIONAL (IN BALANCE); AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent WITH/AS what is BALANCED ELECTROMAGNETIC/GRAVITATIONAL FORCE/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT !!! Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. INDEED, A PHOTON may be placed at the center of THE SUN (as A POINT, of course); as the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the SPEED OF LIGHT; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ALL of SPACE is NECESSARILY ELECTROMAGNETIC/GRAVITATIONAL (IN BALANCE), AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Great. The ability of thought to DESCRIBE OR RECONFIGURE sensory experience is ULTIMATELY dependent upon the extent to which THOUGHT IS SIMILAR TO sensory experience. (THOUGHTS ARE INVISIBLE.) Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is FULLY INVISIBLE AND black. The perpetual motion of WHAT IS THE EARTH is NOW explained. GREAT !!! The idea that THE PLANETS are "falling" in what is "curved space" in RELATION to what is THE SUN is PROVEN to be NONSENSE. So, the falling objects must be considered in RELATION to WHAT IS THEN THE ORBITING EARTH. GREAT !!!!!!!!!! By Frank DiMeglio

[@ShonMardani]

In the formula F=ma, a has a time variable which means F = 0 when time = 0 and Force can not be calculated unless you provide time duration. The parameter a Acceleration is due to the Gravity and Gravity has a set vector / direction, 0 to 180 degree, in other words there is NO Acceleration if there is NO Gravity, and in Gravity direction and Time needed. Force is 0 (zero) unless you give a non zero time.This is what scientists have been hiding and the space time scam is to explain a flawed formula using the gang leader einstein. E=mc2 is also False since you can change the constant 2 to 3 or any other number, it has no effect because E has no Unit. Also all the formulas mentioned as the successor to E=mc2, has the Time variable with the value 0 (zero) which makes all the calculated Forces, Energies and Vectors Zero. Additionally einstein never wrote and published any of these formulas and no other scientist wanted to claim Fallacy.

[@ericr4b]

I think a quick explanation of the various units we use to help in these equations would be useful. E.g. Why is a Newton called a Newton? Or the difference (similarities) between weight and mass; speed and velocity. Or even why do things bounce? Good series with good drawings. Well done. Can we award stars?

[@santrammaurya1787]

Do you not use the constant of proportionality? Is it okay I mean

[@blaaascience]

can you explain me how equation of max height of projectile works,

[@ramanunnikrishnan7354]

Isn't that the reason why in higher classes we write F= dp/dt. Can you make a video explaining the second law of Thermodynamics and on Carnot cycle separately?

[@angelmendez-rivera351]

Yes.

[@KRATOS-dq6sd]

Yes, that is the reason why we write it as F=dp/dt as we can write it as F=mdv/dt +vdm/dt which would work for an object with changing mass and for objects with a constant mass it would just become mdv/dt.

[@frankdimeglio8216]

@@KRATOS-dq6sd WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma, as c squared CLEARLY represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE; as the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky; as the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution; as TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). Consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE. Note: Consider what is the fully illuminated (AND/setting WHITE) MOON ON BALANCE. By Frank DiMeglio

[@PasajeroDelToro]

0:59 WRONG. That's a different phenomena. It's a different dm/dt. Look on wiki and they say it's wrong. You can have mass enter the system while it's being lost AT THE SAME TIME!!! Rockets are a specific example, where there are two mass flows: the rocket itself and the propellant. Now the dm/dt in dp/dt is relative the mass m, so it's an indication of an object that is changing it's shape, aka "vibration". The rocket is vibrating ALOT... There is a dm/dt for the vibration AND dm'/dt for the thrust.

[@head4shot]

Hey Parth! I had kind of a weird question. What are the admission requirements for Cambridge? Like is their an entrance exam of sorts?

[@head4shot]

Parth G Thanks!

[@TreespeakerOfTheLand]

When it comes to the interview, try watching this video :) It is specifically abour Computer Science at Cambridge's Queens College, but the advice should be applicable amongst Oxbridge interviews kzbin.info/www/bejne/l2i7qH6MeKeDnK8

[@mnada72]

It's better stated as acceleration of an object is directly proportional with the net force acting on it and inversely proportional to its mass

[@swagatambanerjee4102]

In a small problem with a Bit of math, the singularities in Einstein GR equations at the Planck level.

[@ananyasaras9705]

Btw u have said a wrong statement that during rocket propulsion the mass changes, but actually the weight changes, according to physics mass of every object remains same everywhere

[@naeemullah4083]

Wowww You r so quick and genius . amazingly done.

[@swagatambanerjee4102]

Intuitive explanation to Kaluza Klein theory. Curling up of higher dimensions in a simplest mathematical way.

[@vedansh29]

Pls make a video on centripital force and centrifugal force

[@AddittiAgrawal]

really helpful!

[@richasinh]

It's very helpful, and insightful explanation, makes more sense to me. Thank you very much, god bless.

[@joefuentes2977]

I thought F=ma is only right because the units we use cause the constant of proportionality to be 1...

[@fasizmiseverm2164]

bro ur sayin its directly proportional then how ur jumping to equal and does it has any proof?

[@deltalima6703]

This is newtons general theory of moving around. First law is newtons special theory of moving around.

[@bigboik1013]

Very appropriate considering how much time I spent today on a tripos question about a lander on mars with changing masses haha

[@Prashanth-yn9zd]

How about navier-stokes equation in 1 min??

[@PasajeroDelToro]

No, it's F=dp/dt=m.dv/dt+v.dm/dt and dm/dt does NOT mean "changing mass" , it means "mass flow" (like current). dm/dt =0 NEVER HAPPENS IN REAL LIFE. It's ALWAYS =/=0 for ANY force.

[@ganeshramamurthi9663]

When a body gathers mass like a rolling magnet gathers iron stuff or an airplane keeps losing its fuel , a change of mass can happen...

[@cartbox8598]

How is jee advanced. Parth reply

[@robertgreenfield9051]

This is actually how he described it in Principalia.

[@angelmendez-rivera351]

Actually, to be precise, the explanation given in the video is not correct either. What Newton's second law of motion states, in formal language, is that in an inertial frame of reference, the sum of the forces acting on the object is proportional to the acceleration experienced by the object, with the constant of proportionality being equal to the mass of the object. A fundamental assumption of classical physics is the conservation of mass, and therefore, the constancy of said mass. Obviously, for more modern physics, this assumption is known to be incorrect.

[@lancebaldi9548]

Ooh. delta mv

[@ماريا-و7د]

very very very helpful thanks

[@ishikawalia3407]

Make on centre of mass

[@swagatambanerjee4102]

A bit of the mathematics of the uncertainty principle.

[@MLai-iv1qg]

Doesn’t this law also suggests that energy and mass are interchangeable?

[@finthechat7134]

do you think if I told this to my physics teacher i could get out of doing the assignment?

[@jewett425]

Second law is not incorrect but in rocket propulsion we differentiate mass w r t time. If velocity changes implies change in momentum also if mass changes thus the momentum. But for practical purpose we consider mass to be constant. But a/c to Einstein mass and energy are interchangeable. Also massless particles in classical physics is a non sense concept.

[@hardikdineshchandra4375]

So do uni lectures tell you at the start of the year, forget everything you have learnt in highschool

[@emilylancaster8993]

ur smart

[@viraj5079]

The accent is 🔥

[@Inferno-ob9td]

Nice

[@swagatambanerjee4102]

The origin of string theory. What observations and data brought about this String revolution. A bit of math, just tiny bit.

[@channelone6865]

TRUE or FALSE : F=MA { A STATE MENT IS EATER TRUE OR FALSE : ALWAYS TRUE} IF A IS CONSTANT THEN EVERY OBJECT FALL AT SAME SPEED : FALSE THEN THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE : NOT EVERY OBJECT FALL AT THE SAME SPEED : TRUE: HIGH DENSITY HAVE LONG WAVELENGHT LOW FREQUENCY / LOW DENSITY HAVE SHORT WAVELENGHT , FAST FREQUENCY

[@SalmanKhan-hn4ov]

You should talk more slowly in these basic intro videos. Allow the rest of us non-sciency people to absorb the information.

[@kaiboonlow8537]

👏👏👏👏👏

[@dr.rahulgupta7573]

F=ma is not Newton's law .

[@zia-i]

Wow

[@maksimoski]

I think F=mga

[@vahose3875]

what a desperate opinion.