Physics Engineer REACTS to Animation vs. Physics @alanbecker

Alan Becker made several physics errors in this video. Did you catch them?
#alanbecker #animationvsphysics #animation

[@nathan_mcleod]

Subscribe for more Brain Games!

[@hellfun1337]

The hat was actually clever, he was swinging it through the suns atmosphere. could also be a reference to solar wind or solar sales.

[@deathreaper6541]

he was actually just moving the sun away with the power of his swings.

[@codename-nai7426]

On the note of the hat. Its not the fact that hes swinging it around that did anything, its the fact that he changed the angled the rocket was approaching causing him to have the right trajectory. Hes just swinging around his hat cause hes a space cowboy yee haaw.

[@hunnyjar8937]

it also could be the rocket itself giving an extra push, because its personified as a bull or a horse in the video lmao

[@Centauri902]

He was swinging it in reference to the old movie, Dr. Strangelove where the pilot of a nuclear bomber rides the bomb all the way down to the ground.

[@Piemur1]

@@Centauri902 Well, the ORIGINAL fanning of the hat was more because there was an electrical short on the bomb when it was still on the bomber plane and he was waving it to try and put out the fire. But then it deployed (because of that short) and dropped him with it, he was riding it down yeah just like a cowboy.

[@user-db7ky5dg2z]

LOL😂

[@justsomeguywhoneverdies9210]

It clearly shown that the rocket doesn't have enough force to push him out. It doesn't matter what you think, physics just doesn't work like that don't get me wrong, i really like this video. But I like the truth too

[@Sef_Era]

I’ve taken to seeing this stick-person as playing by conceptual rules. He’s using the physics to figure it out, but he doesn’t *have* to. He’s actually an animation (with internal plot-rules) that just happens to exist in a (mostly) physical world. Also, to prevent a Bootstrap Paradox, the first time through he cheated (and spawned from his utility belt of convenience) a whole bunch of shite; eventually figuring out time travel, and deciding to make his own life easier. After an unknown number of recursions, the timeline stabilized as is.

[@Library_Of_Gurkistan]

I would actually say that it is an infinite timeline but that at the very first time he went back through the black hole, he was brouht to another universe. I think this because, in math he was „teleported“ to he physics world, and just as in AvM there is a white circle where he vanishes, in AvPh there is a white „flashbang“ when everything starts. So in my opinion, the time when he goes through the einstein-rosen bridge, he actually travels to the chemistry world, because that would be the third fundamental field of science. Also i think that, starting with math, these two build off each other: Physics needs math to exist, and chemistry needs physics (as seen when he falls through the inner hotizont, there is a small timeframe when things pop up that are somewhere at a boundary between physics and chemistry (like the „Hydrogen bond“).

[@rocketrider6918]

Another thing to point out, at the part when it looks like he is running on the frictionless surface, he's not actually running, he's pulling on the string as her ran, so it gave the effect of him running, when all of that movement was from his pulling on the string

[@rocketrider6918]

And he didn't even really run, it yanked on the string and jumped

[@rocketrider6918]

Or I should say he was running, but it was he was running while he still had momentum, so it wouldn't have slowed him down either way.

[@jveekulit]

Another side note is that the surface is not "totally frictionless". As we can see, the friction coeff is 0.1 and not 0, it's merely frictionless.

[@zacharymcleod460]

@@jveekulit Yeah I think that was just to justify the fact that he could actually walk on the surface and not the phase through it. In reality, I think a frictionless surface either has to be nothing or everything packed into a small amount. Like nothing obviously is frictionless, but if you made something so dense that the atoms and sub-atomic particles and everything smaller than that didn't move (assuming it didn't explode) I think that might make it near smooth enough to be frictionless. IDK

[@skilz8098]

@@jveekulit Nah, 0.1 is still 10% of normal friction... Merely frictionless would be something like 0.0000000001 There's a huge difference in magnitude between the differences of [n^1 to n^-1] compared to [n^1 to n^-10] ...

[@SCP-Dr_Bright]

9:10 except it's not frictionless, you yourself noted that the ground was 0.1 friction. it is possible he used less force than it takes to overcome the friction of the heavy boulder. also he was never running on the ice. he always used some way to propel himself other than his feet.

[@stephencahill7821]

The ice changed from having friction to being frictionless as the plot demanded. I think that's worth a strike.

[@SCP-Dr_Bright]

@@stephencahill7821 when? it was never shown to be the case in the video. what you did right there is called an assumption. now i also made an assumption but i prefaced it with "it's possible" you however seem to be stating your assumption as fact.

[@stephencahill7821]

@@SCP-Dr_Bright No assumption necessary! We can simply observe it. At 4:04, we can see that despite several seconds of his feet moving against the ice, there is no sideways movement. At 5:46, the character is moving on the ice without slowing down. Here's what we would expect to see if someone were running on ice. We see that μ = 0.1 when the character is both stationary and moving, so if his feet are slipping on the ground, then (force of friction = μ*(normal force) Since we can also observe over several seconds that his body is in vertical equilibrium (all upwards and forces are balanced), and since there are no upwards or downwards forces except normal force and the force of gravity, (normal force) = Fg = m*g (force of friction = μ*m*g If there is indeed a force of friction, then it would be parallel to the surface, and there wouldn't be any other unbalanced forces. Therefore, (net force) = m*a (net force) = (force of friction) = μ*m*g m*a = μ*m*g a = μ*g We would expect to see an acceleration of 0.1g as he is running and slipping on the ice. Although we can't make an assumption about the exact value of g, we were able to see that it looked somewhat close, when we saw the parabolic trajectories with the ball bouncing. Even if it were moon-like gravity, we would see an acceleration of 0.16 m/s/s. In both of the instances that I mentioned, he is running or sliding long enough for this acceleration to be noticeable. (Especially at 5:46, when we get an exact measurement of velocity without it changing.) If the gravity were more Earth-like, then the acceleration would be closer to 1 m/s/s. It's my job to teach physics of this level.

[@SCP-Dr_Bright]

@@stephencahill7821 just because it doesn't say it doesn't mean it's not the case. at 4:04 he's exerting an opposing force on the ice, even with 0.1 friction, without momentum he's not going anywhere. (you'd know that if you learned physics) throughout your silly little display you make assumption after assumption. no one said it was "earthlike gravity," just because they didn't show something doesn't mean it doesn't exist (which is another thing you learn in physics lessons if you were paying attention) if you make this many assumptions in your classroom then i'm glad im not a student of yours!

[@justsomeguywhoneverdies9210]

You don't have to add 0.1 friction to it like adding one drop of water to your cup, because it's not that much different. What the guy said is still true

[@Agent_Matt_6]

Now I’m remembering how when Alan reacted to it with DJ on their gaming channel, he always mentioned how it was his lead animator that was the brains behind both the physics and math animations

[@kynoVNs]

Terkoiz is one crazy son of a bitch. Amazing animator, even though it's mostly stickmen that made his carrer (Shock 1-3 series) Math nut Physics nut what's next? Animation vs Chemistry?

[@Azyraasr]

Fire that dude (joke)

[@stephencahill7821]

I've been looking through a lot of reaction videos and critiques of this animation, and I think that yours was probably the best one, and you actually caught some physics mistakes!

[@nathan_mcleod]

Thank you friend

[@justsomeguywhoneverdies9210]

True, i don't like just all compliments, I like to hear the truth too, even though some people might not like it

[@markdanielesplanaperilla]

The Doppler effect is not exclusive to sound waves. It also applies to light waves and other forms of electromagnetic radiation. The Doppler effect causes the observed frequency and wavelength of a wave to change when there is relative motion between the source and the observer. When a light source is moving away from an observer, the light waves emitted by the source are stretched, which means they have a longer wavelength and a lower frequency. This is called a red shift, because red light has the longest wavelength and the lowest frequency in the visible spectrum. Conversely, when a light source is moving towards an observer, the light waves are compressed, which means they have a shorter wavelength and a higher frequency. This is called a blue shift, because blue light has the shortest wavelength and the highest frequency in the visible spectrum. The Doppler effect for light can be used to explain how galaxies appear to be red when they are moving away from us. This is evidence for the expansion of the universe, as most galaxies are receding from us due to the stretching of space. The amount of red shift can be used to measure the speed and distance of a galaxy. I Bard it for you.

[@Glader65]

you're saying this to a physics engineer lmao

[@markdanielesplanaperilla]

@@Glader65 Physics is a vast field and its very easy to forget stuff from time to time. Your title, whether your an engineer, doctor, or any field doesn't necessarily make you immune to mistakes, misunderstanding, or inaccuracies on a specific information which is ok if you know that you're wrong, accept the truth rather than spitting something you're not sure about.

[@bradleyrhodes8906]

I'm nowhere near a physicist but I I remember being taught in high school that the doppler effect works with sound AND light. And I was educated in Africa. So you claim doppler doesn't affect light because? You didn't explain why, you just denied it when it comes to relativistic. So do you have a reason to deny red or blue shift at relativistic?

[@Sanovskiy]

At 8:43 (3:33 original video) you can see the force appied to the large ball. And the large ball began to move but very slow due to the large difference in masses. And it seems that the friction of this surface is not zero after all.

[@key_bounce]

Sigh. 1. The ice is *not frictionless*. 0.1, not 0. 1a. The slingshot motion -- he is standing still (static friction) while doing the slingshot, and then shooting *UP* at an angle -- so the counter-force is down, against static friction. It might not work *well*, but it *does* work. 1b. Yea, the additional acceleration while in motion is questionable. And the later scenes seem to imply a "mostly zero" friction. 2. Slingshot around the star, there *is* an atmosphere around the star. If you have a complaint, it's that he's not harmed by the heat of the star (but then, he can survive a fall to a planet, and everything that happens later.)

[@MrFallout984]

The doppler effect here is referring to its effect on light, which does the same thing to light as it does sound. Hence why everything in front of him is blue, but becomes red as he passes by objects

[@GoldSrc_]

The physics wasn't done by Alan though, so blame their nerd lol. He even has a pinned comment that says "if anything isn't accurate, blame my lead animator, he's the physics nerd behind this." I saw the hat thing to give him more thrust as just a silly animation, and most likely a reference to Dr Strangelove.

[@EchostyleStudios]

the way i saw it, it wasn't necessarily for additional thrust but more adjusting his angle and the rocket. Dunno if the angle of the rocket would affect the trajectory THAT much but that's just my takeaway.

[@justsomeguywhoneverdies9210]

​@@EchostyleStudiosThe rocket there doesn't have even force to save him doesn't matter what angle he changes to, so that is the part where you temporarily turn off your brain and just watch it for fun

[@willosborn2048]

25:19 I think as you get faster and get closer to the speed of light, length actually shrinks, it doesnt get longer. As you get to the speed of light, length becomes zero. I think the stretchung is more about spaghettification and gravity

[@RMX7777]

The magnetic accelerator wouldn't work as depicted. It was shown to use permenant magnets for both the rocket and the rings. For this to function, at least one of them would need to be an electromagnet. If both are permenant magnets, it would function exactly like the boulder in a valley example. Magnetic potential energy would convert to kinetic energy as he approached the center of the ring, then kinetic would convert back to potential as he left the ring. The net result would be no change in velocity. The only way this could work as an accelerator is to collapse the magnetic field at the moment of maximum velocity. This is how all particle accelerators and electric motors work.

[@dovos8572]

either collapse or change polarity (getting also pushed away instead of just getting attracted by the next magnet). either way the setup like shown wouldn't work like you said. it would be somewhat possible if the magnet rings wouldn't be symetrical magnets but ones with a bend magnetic field so that one side is stronger than the other pole for the path he is moving through. in that case he wouldn't lose all of his momnetum that he gained but he would still slow down a at least a bit. and yes we can create magnets with assymetrical fields by combinding different magnetic fields together in a specific way. this way we can even create permanent magnets that can be "deactivated" by rotating the core or magnet plates that act like a key because the plate has a polarity pattern on the surface.

[@miselfis]

Theoretical physics is not just "guesstimations". Theoretical physics is what all of physics is built on. Sure, it's not a scientific theory since it has not been tested yet. These frameworks however are the best we have right now for working with gravity on a quantum scale. From a lot of these theoretical frameworks we can derive Newtonian physics for example. And theoretical areas such as general relativity and quantum field theory have tons of empirical evidence as well. It's incredibly mathematically rigorous and takes a bunch of work, so I think it's kind of disrespectful to call it "guesstimations" and say that your own theories are as good as theirs.

[@TheMattunes08119]

Also in regards to the second strike he doesn't actually run, he pulled himself using the rope & Ball that was on the branch, the little stick figure even goes into an ice skater stance and doesn't move his legs. And in regards to the hat, I know it's a Dr. strange love reference.

[@markdanielesplanaperilla]

STRIKE 2: From the part where he "ran", he didn't really ran, he pulled himself towards the ball's direction.

[@dragoda]

Great video, Love that you passed up the actual video and made more interesting. good job man!

[@nathan_mcleod]

Appreciate it!

[@youssefnr1310]

I feel like the flapping of the hat was just an instinct, it wasn't the reason he managed to save himself.

[@coldReactive]

Reactor: Says it's a frictionless surface even though he said it was 0.1 Friction prior.

[@nathan_mcleod]

The video contradicts itself. MU is 0.1, but yet the stick figure cannot gain any traction, which would only happen is MU is 0. 😂🤦‍♂️

[@-victim.]

Hey, atleast this is alot better than anime physics 😂

[@vipeyv2280]

I thought stars had a sort of gaseous atmosphere like the photo and chromospheres. Also the stretching is caused by the difference in the force of gravity acting on the stickman's head and feet, and not just speed isn't it?

[@nathan_mcleod]

Our Sun has no atmosphere…most stars don’t because the gravity is too big…. Another way of saying it is, the “atmosphere is on fire”, since starts are all gaseous.

[@shashankpathak4752]

I believe he used the hat as a solar sail. As I understand it, there are no air molecules, but being so close to the star, there are many solar flares. He utilized these to gain momentum to avoid crashing and to increase his velocity for a slingshot maneuver.

[@LiliaIxalia]

It's listed in the video about 'Future Singularity' and 'Past Singularity' that, "in theory" said it's impossible for us to reach the singularity because Singularity is something that we cant interact with but rather something that we 'experienced'. We wont know that we 'touched' the singularity until that 'singularity' hit us. like we celebrate our birthday, we cant touch our birthday but we experienced our birthday. That analogy can be applied to singularity.

[@letsb3nameless665]

he didnt run on the ice at 7:55, he increased his kinetic energy by pulling on the rope connected to the tree to give him some excess kinetic energy, which is why he slid past the ball. what i mean to say is you are giving this video a physics error when there isnt a physics error there. but i do agree with you about angular momentum and not being able to swing the ball to move like that. another thing to note is the stickfigure could be light enough to push against the 600kg ball so the ball is only moving very very slowly (too slowly to see on camera). i think they should have annotated the balls velocity to make it clear that its moving. also when the stickfigure pulls back on the ball with the rope to pull it into the cavern, the stickfigure would have applied the same force in the opposite direction, setting the 600kg ball's velocity to something much closer to 0 another thing to mention is when he flaps his hat and moves the ship, i think its meant to be a joke about comparing the ship to a horse, since he taps the sides of it to speed it up earlier in the episode. its definitely not physically possible to move a ship with a hat like that, but i give it a pass since its a pretty obvious creative liberty, just like how ill give a pass to whatever happens inside the blackhole because we dont know what happens in there.

[@sinfulwrath666]

Alan Becker: If there are mistakes to the animation, blame my lead animator. Or something along those lines he said during his react to his own animation.

[@user-nr4yu9zz2o]

For strike 3Ithink you need to think about the dimension setted up in the animation, maybe TSC just pull the ball inside the background and not backward direction but the animation just can show in 2 dimension because some technical restriction, so the ball seem like not moving but actually it is moving inside when in 3 dimension

[@farazliaqat6442]

alan becker is right here because he is not throwing boll instead rolling boll to create Centripetal force and converting into centrifugal force and use this force to move forward. i hope u understand my point.

[@norotoro0]

There were some things wrong with your reaction: At the beginning, there is some level of friction, but there was also air resistance (5:45). Some mistakes could be explained with fact. Then also at the blackhole the black you see is not event horizon, but the point where light can't reach YOU. The stretshing at the blackhole also would come purely from the gravitational pull. When you go faster, someone from the outside would see you contract, while yourself would not notice anything. And because the camera is following him, we can also not notice.

[@kim-ik4ei]

23:45 I've learnt that according to equivalent principle spacetime is locally flat everywhere so event if you across the horizon you can still see ourselves. photons can still reach to our eyes from our feet moving up relative ti us. It is just that geodesics are eventually destine to fall towards the singularity.

[@fetB]

7:06 man, you must be fun at parties. It is clever because it demonstrated the point in an entertaining way. Of course it cannot compete with your brilliance, but it was pretty cool for us mere mortals... yack Also, 7:40 where do you see him run?

[@raunak51299]

Yeh the 'using the ball to create momentum' part bugged me the most and no other reacter mentioned it. So tnx for mentioning it.

[@deltalima6703]

He is changing angular momentum to linear momentum. This engineer just embarassed engineers everywhere by not knowing that. Myself included. :'(

[@deekshithb9097]

@@deltalima6703 i have been up and about this whole thing arguing with random people and going on physics stack ex ffs, can you please help me understand how is that possible, my intuition says it is but these people sayin it dont, please help

[@deltalima6703]

He did not "throw" the ball. He released tension on the string just as the ball hit the bottom of the circle. The ball then buggers off in a tangential direction, forwards. He drops his hand down while keeping no tension on the string and arrests the balls linear momentum which gives the ball/stickman system a little bit of forward momentum. I have done this manoeuvre in real life while spinning large flaming poi wicks. It works. Only pssible issue could be in starting the generation if the angular momentum in the first place, but this is remedied by starting it in such a way that your initial momentum is upward which gravity would cancel. Or downward which electromagnetic forces in the ice would cancel. That should be in depth enough to explain it to most people.

[@deekshithb9097]

@@deltalima6703 what about the reaction force from the ball hitting the end of the rope?

[@Salteamates]

The animatecpd dude, necause of lore, cannot be destroyed. So thats why he got smaller and crushed, but didnt die

[@asassin0735]

I am noy physic nor math person but I do enjoy diffrent people reactioning to them. that being said, there are some parts what gotta take off from the narrative as fact. Like running in 0 friction is not a thing he does to move, but instead its totally diffrent thing, but it is shown that he runs because that is the automatic reaction. want more speed, run. like these. Unsure are there the actual fact there but shown narratively the 2 things and people only focus on one. Unsure

[@Imnewnpc]

There was a hat for TSC so you can identify which TSC you are looking at the end

[@Netto-Mc.]

The physics is like most likely had working like gravity also its like the rocket science

[@erikaarts9680]

That’s a lot of woah explanations right there

[@tayayaso]

the rocket behaves like a horse is the biggest strike to me lol

[@hlessiavedon]

We dont know what happens inside a black hole. This could be it for all we know. Also it's not alternate realities, it's a temporal causality loop.

[@sadiaabd09]

i actually caught some mistakes in physics while watching the video, most of them on push and pull

[@AbuMaia01]

You're the second reactor I've seen complaining about the hat flapping to get around the star, saying it wouldn't work because there's no atmosphere. But if you'll look again, he's inside the star's corona, inside the star's atmosphere.

[@chimitrash2966]

Good catch Good catch

[@nathan_mcleod]

That’s a good point. But. If there was atmosphere, then at that speed, he would be a ball a flame!! It can’t be both.

[@sargentgullible2794]

​@@nathan_mcleodIsn't solar wind a thing?

[@AbuMaia01]

@@nathan_mcleod Sure it can, you even commented on how robust or durable the stick figure guy is, falling from space onto a planet, then surviving massive G forces and spaghettification. :)

[@omegaalpha8380]

​@@nathan_mcleodSir, we already went over this, the stick figure is not a human. You keep applying the same durability rules to a drawing that we already saw fall onto a planet from space, and survive a black hole. So Alan hit the nail on the head when he swung the hat to change his trajectory.

[@DrYu-jf6tb]

the surface is not frictionless. its 0.1 .mass is still a thing.

[@Centauri902]

Its still wrong even if there is friction. If the friction is 0.1, then he wouldnt move either way through the momentumn of the ball.

[@DrYu-jf6tb]

@@Centauri902 why wouldnt he ? could you please explain ? physics are not my strength.

[@RensStoryteller]

The Second Coming is a literal god, he does not obey the laws of reality until they can set up something cool or funny.

[@deebznutz100]

22:55 I mean... what is "seeing" at that point. If light is being pulled away from you. I would also think there would be intense light or radiation coming from behind him. he'd be in third person mode!

[@nathan_mcleod]

You aren’t wrong. Lots of things are wrong here. Nearing the speed of light, you also approach infinite mass, and 0 time…. So an even better question is “what is anything” 😂

[@nuajbo4693]

i think its implying turning angular momentum from the energy put into spinning it, and converting it into linear momentum. but im not a physics major im a chem major and i also didnt think it makes sense there. but idk just a thought

[@zacharymcleod460]

I really liked this video

[@rocklerock495]

5:00 the ball have less mass and the total force of the ball being thrown will not be enough to pull the stickman.

[@GiulianoVenturo]

4:05 wasnt fric in the "ice" plane there u = 0.1? or because it was too small it doesn't count?

[@the_longest_comment]

this dude was talking about him being resiliant BEFORE he survived being sucked into a black hole. edit: he also said that the ice was a zero fiction thingy, but also he read that the friction of the ice was 0.1 soooooo

[@szymon2897]

its 2024 and people still cant find a good microphone 😩 Just use your phone, we cant hear anything

[@nathan_mcleod]

I bought a better mic. lol 😂

[@hlessiavedon]

The planet could also be tiny.

[@anime_enjoyer5507]

i know there's already alot of comments that said this but yeah the animation guy doesnt affected by the physics at all, its just that he's in the physics world(just like what he did in the math world) he's just learning it to help him leave that place.. still, its good to see someone commenting to everything they see wrong since im not learning anything new if all people who reacted to this is just agreeing to everything in the video.. i've watch others react to this and i didnt learn anything since they're very open about this, they only explain what the video is teaching and not the video is showing

[@nathan_mcleod]

That’s a fair point. However, if the animation guy is simply an observer; and doesn’t really exist in space… then how does he move the ball, or bend the pole while making it a magnet, or lift up his hat…. In any case, I appreciate the comment. It’s tougher than you think to give commentary in real time. I have still only seen the video once. 😂

[@pescador1789]

16:30 I think the idea was to use the star's atmosphere to propel themselves with the hat. Remember that the character knows kung fu.

[@nathan_mcleod]

King fu is massively important! Stars don’t have atmospheres, but I haven’t considered Kung Fu!

[@hellfun1337]

Big OOF, Dunning Kruger effect in full force here.

[@pedramporbaha]

Thanks a lot for your reaction and useful explanations. I think we have atmosphere and gasses near the sun

[@nuajbo4693]

would pumping work? like skating in a half pipe we can pump once you have some initial momentum, and with low friction this would work better i imagine. the time he pulled to to get to the other side where the big ball it seems he did a pumping motion at the bottom. Im not sure if pumping inherently requires friction because on a smooth halfpipe on wheels his relatively low friction and you can easily gain momentum by pumping, its weird though because it would arguable not follow conservation of momentum, yet maybe the energy difference is the energy you use from burning calories? im not sure. also the sun has an atmosphere in a way if hes not burning from being too close tho

[@Aetherbeen]

Dont forget that its still some kind of animation, its an animated stickman on an animated rocket in a cowboy hat, that makes a million inaccuracies and mistakes already.

[@nathan_mcleod]

That is the most correct comment I have seen yet. 😂

[@ZinWolff]

Alan DID say in his vid desc that if there was any mistakes in the animation, blame his nerdy physics friend 😂

[@jonathanhadden8199]

Your second "strike" is incorrect. If you pay attention you will notice that the stick man pulls on the rope to give himself additional energy. Also, the Doppler effect also deals with light. You have to pay attention to the video man, because he was showing blue shifting in front of stick man and red shifting behind him.

[@LeeDanielCrocker]

All three of your first strikes complain that the observed effect wouldn't happen on a frictionless surface...right after you point out that the surface isn't frictionless. It clearly shows a mu of 0.1, as you point out. This easily takes away strikes two and three. At strike two he's not just running to add energy, he's pulling on the rope affixed to the tree. At strike two, the ball moves back a very small amount because it's very massive. My physics chops aren't up to evaluating strike one, but I've heard others explain converting angular momentum into linear momentum, and they seem to be more on the ball than you on this one.

[@krumkutsarov618]

16:00 the corona is an athmosphere and it's a lot denser than a planet's athmosphere

[@wofkwengel]

4:40 I thought this ball throwing part exemplifies something I don't quite understand about turning angular momentum to linear momentum. So that's not actually a thing?

[@anterg0]

Knowing Newton's 3rd law, which states that every action has a counteraction, this cannot be done. In this case, it is the tension of the thread that brings the resultant force to zero (as I understand it)

[@ShadowCooper77]

You can transform angular momentum to linear momentum, yes. But the momentum must be conserved, which it isn't in the video.

[@mysticvirgo9318]

15:20 ish.. Action man's hat ' flapping' is what one would do to try to get even more speed out of a horse.. He was trying to get a little more juice out of the rocket

[@zzman223]

You mention frinctionless surface alot in the first part of the vid, but note that the surface is not frictionless. It has a friction coefficient of 0.1 not 0. Also the hat was just messing around, the way he actually slingshoted was to change the angle of the rocket and increase his velocity by hitting the rocket with his feet, which create an extra burst of velocity as seen here, 11:51 .

[@nathan_mcleod]

True. But if the friction was anything higher than 0, the ball wouldn’t have reached the top of the other side of the valley…

[@zzman223]

​True this was a small mistake by Alan's physics animator friend. However most aspects of the vid are accurate and seem to have taken a lot of work to complete. Btw I'm glad u aren't scared to have an opinion and question things.@@nathan_mcleod

[@adriking4272]

7:52 He didn't run, he pulled himself forward with the string on the tree

[@merlepatterson]

15:41, it looked as though he was using his hat as a horse whip to get the rocket moving faster, just like he spurred the rocket (11:49) earlier with imaginary spurs (12:14).

[@nuajbo4693]

why does light have no mass but have momentum and can travel at light speed while mass goes to infinity as you approach light speed? I mean i know light is energy in quanta that are described by wavefunctions and not the same as trying to accelerate mass to light speed but still its hard to wrap my mind around a particle with no mass even if it travels as a wave a lot of the time. and also im curious what your thoughts on what a singularity really means. because its arguable that infinite density doesnt make sense considering we can calculate the mass of blackholes (unless thats wrong) is this because a black hole under our theory's has infinite space? or is it just an artifact of the fact that a singularity is described as being infinitesimally small, and so while it has a gravitational pull we can use to estimate mass, the density is infinite because we either dont know or think that a singularity is without volume. curious on what you think about black holes and singularities

[@Flintthealhoon]

The ground couldn't be completely frictionless as if it were, he wouldn't be able to stand to begin with, there wouldn't be any friction to let his feet stay stable balance or no balance.

[@nathan_mcleod]

Hey… good point.

[@Farscryer0]

If you want to learn more about Tipler Cylinders, or to see one as a plot point in fiction, read/watch Stein's Gate.

[@theyellowfish1337]

At the ball throwing part, there is a 0.1 mu, like will that work in this scenerio?

[@nathan_mcleod]

That depends on several factors, but earlier the animation guy wasn’t able to walk…. So Alan is wrong one way or the other lol

[@Joshua_23]

@@nathan_mcleod Alan said the Physics stuff was done by a physics nerd on the team and he + everyone else just animated his instructions (shifting blame lol)

[@sunshine1220]

​​@@nathan_mcleodactually that wasn't Alan's scenarios, scenarios for Math and Physics created by Terkoiz, one of the members of Alan's team. He was the lead animator and Alan said if something is wrong in animation, it's all because of his lead animator

[@PincKen]

7:55 I dont understand your explanation. Also where did he run?

[@pandapro_yt7868]

Nice camera bro

[@nathan_mcleod]

🙌

[@celestial_649]

I've seen other engineers and smart peoples reactions to this, and none of them pointed out the strikes that you did. I'm not saying what you pointed out was wrong, I just think it's interesting that you're the only one that I've seen thats pointed them out.

[@nathan_mcleod]

It’s good to see a lot of opinions I would say. 😀 thanks for watching.

[@ripleysonic]

I like to point out something that might make you correct your negative feedback at the beginning on the Slick surface, at least the very first one. If you notice right before he throws the ball while he's spinning it he hops ever so slightly into the air but lands before the ball reaches the end of the Rope, doesn't that change how you judge this part of the animation?

[@ripleysonic]

Also, the surface isn't frictionless it's (.1) normal friction which means it's 10 times slippery the normal ground or am I misunderstanding that part?

[@FireyDeath4]

Alan's gonna be forwarding a looooooot of strikes to Terkoiz after this...

[@eonuzex]

Overall loved the video and reaction! There ae a few that I was slightly disagree with though I am no physicists or in college or any certifications and all that.. I am a nobody, so take it with a moon sized piece of salt. One thing that I er. didn't agree with in the react is the whole friction scene. Now I know there were probably liberties taken to make the animation work. But the animation made it very clear there WAS friction.. just not much of it 0.1. Stick man is probably so light that he doesn't have enough mass to move in frictionless 0.1 friction. But it could be that the 600N ball has at least some along with a bigger surface area. So him using it to stop, go and all that seems reasonable even though it might/or should move at least a little. In the end its there to explain real physics (well up until the blackhole part where we still kind of have to guess.) Which leads me to another I guess quip I have to say to the react regarding his comments on black holes. I am quite the futurist, I do not seeing a future where IF humans advance to conqueror the galaxy that we would have NO MEANS to see what happens at the singularity. I mean we could be at that point of time be able to create our own blackholes in the form a kugel blitz's. Either way the likelihood of a very advanced race and our ingenuity along with our brilliance and AI would come up with all sorts of ways to eventually see what is happening at the center of a black hole. Plus this depiction postulates that its an Einstein-Rosen Bridge, which isn't way out there in the realm of possibility. Yes we need way more empirical and action data and vigorous testing to prove something is right or wrong, but we are never 100%, so Never is a very hard word to say if our Universe is Infinite with an infinite amount of probabilities that never reach 0 or 100. We are only products of our Time in the Universe and our location and probability of existing, coupled with chaos theory and the Butterfly Effect there is no outcome we can predict, no data we can't understand, or no thing we can't do, we always have the probability of cutting through to elevate ourselves.. However I don't want to detract from your viewpoints or any other viewpoints as all is a form of knowledge and information that can be acted on regardless of what form it takes and what it becomes. Even when I am completely wrong, its new information that I can use to reinforce or change my speculative and theoretical idea's. Being grounded in the real world is important so we don't go completely off the rails and spread information that is not factual or not factual yet. I just have a very over active imagination and a deep OCD about the Universe and everything about it, including ourselves as we are too just a product of the Universe. Anyway its just my Opinion, and I do like your viewpoint and opinions on most of everything even the things I don't agree with, as it gives me new knowledge to work on and compare to. Keep up the work, I kind of like your "matter of fact" way to bring some of the things grounded at least a bit in real world physics but most importantly Current real world physics.

[@bejeh79]

sheldon hates him

[@ViolaGMidi]

it's not a frictionless surface.

[@nathan_mcleod]

True. MU is 0.1, but then why wasn’t he able to walk when he first walked in the ice?

[@Centauri902]

@@nathan_mcleod It would not work even if it was normal friction. If throwing the ball does not generate enough force to overcome friction in one direction, the rope snapping tight wont generate enough force to pull him in the other direction. Alan fucked up. Pure and simple.

[@xeroxian]

I feel like saying theoretical physics isn't "backed by science" is the wrong phrasing. There were a lot of things considered to be theoretical when we didn't understand them, like gravity and things smaller than atoms. We consider those things to be relatively trivial on the surface level now, and we may feel the same way about the very things we understand to be "only theoretical" now. I am no professional physicist, let alone professional anything for that matter; however, I am a giant geek who has a passion for the philosophical side of every topic in existence, and I feel as though everything theoretical may one day be proven. :) Thanks for your commentary, by the way! Gives me some more insight on how the world works. EDIT: To expand upon my first statement, I would infer that theoretical physics is "not yet understood" rather than "not backed by science."

[@nathan_mcleod]

Well said. However, when I say that it’s not backed by science, I mean that literally. Consider the scientific method… this process is designed for us to determine whether or not something is measurable and repeatable. Theoretical science does not fit that mold. It is neither measurable nor observable. So another way of saying it would be… “theoretical physics is not measurable nor observable. So take what you’re seeing with a grain of salt.” 😂

[@maribelmenese4845]

Bro ain't no way you know anything about physics😭😭💀💀💀💀

[@Tyulenin]

I kinda disliked this animation. It felt really "meh" in comparison to "vs math". I guess it's good to know it's not just me, and that it also has some physics errors in it, some being more obvious to me that the others.

[@kriper-ly3uu]

Its literally much more epic and better than math and u saying this-

[@Centauri902]

@@kriper-ly3uu Its not. why are you defending Alan Becker for his fuckups?

[@Val-cl2wd]

Why because your not good at physics i can see that. Why don't you make your own way.

[@FireyDeath4]

I thought it was reasonably fun, though I did also feel like Animation VS Math was more exciting and interesting, I guess (although I haven't watched that since AVP came out, which I proceeded to watch multiple times just like AVMath) I noticed some errors, but it wasn't really them that made it that way to me

[@Aetherbeen]

The main flaws are that its still an animation, it doesnt show you everything, math was a lot easier

[@sodabob7867]

Evry of your first strike are wrong because its not an absolutly frictionless surface and you can see the value at the begining...

[@nathan_mcleod]

True. MU is 0.1… But if that were truly the case, then the ball wouldn’t have reached the top of the valley when it rolled to the other side (due to friction) So there is a friction mistake one way or the other.

[@sodabob7867]

@@nathan_mcleod i agree with you. But i dont know what they wanted to say on the part with the hat and the sun. I think i didn't understand.

[@ZinWolff]

bro let me tell you something, cuz you clearly didnt enjoy watching this. the ONLY thing you looked for in the animation is flaws. only. if you look for flaws, the only thing your gonna see is flaws. okay, its fine to point out a couple of minor mistakes, but to pause every couple minutes or something to criticise EVERYTHING is just wrong. remember that this is just an animation. ENJOY IT!!

[@nathan_mcleod]

I did enjoy it. I enjoyed your comment too. Thanks for watching

[@6lack5ushi]

your video is how I saw it, your first strike was what made the first 70% of the video slightly annoying. yes its representationally accurate but not physically accurate. but I forgave him for the ending.

[@nathan_mcleod]

Ending was sweet. I gotta say.

[@cliptracer8980]

The moment you said 0.1 is how much friction, then you kept saying frictionless. That isn't ok man. Doppler is also about light and red shift. String theory yes isn't proven. Inside black hole doesn't exist. We found that out already. Your audio was low vs the sample, supposed to be higher than what you're watching. Lighter things can fall faster than heavier things at times. I bet a million dollars on that.

[@FireyDeath4]

Well, times like having air resistance I suppose But damn, you're straight to the point! Gotta like that lol

[@deltalima6703]

Thats an ugly mixing of "theory"'s definition which is very different in everyday conversation than it is in physics. In physics its simply a dichotomy between experimental and theoretical physics, experimental is what we measure and theoritical is what caused that result. Why is either not a valid question or always answered as "God" if you are so inclined. Conflating conjecture or hypothesis with theory is a newbie mistake.

[@nathan_mcleod]

There is much incorrect about your comment… but I appreciate you watching 😅

[@deltalima6703]

@nathan There is a spelling mistake and its not overly detailed, hope it made sense though. Appreciate the response.

[@deltalima6703]

Good example is asking why clocks on GPS satellites run faster than ground based clocks. Theory of relativity tells you what causes that. If you say "but why? Newtonian mechanics was good enough, it should be like that." Then the answer is either "the universe is under no obligation to do what you think it should" or "God made it like that." Theory of relativity is not a guess though, its an experimentally confirmed system that is the best we have until something comes along that contains relativity as a subset of the new system.

[@dovos8572]

5:40 the angular momentum to linear momentum giving him velocity does work. the reason why that works is because he isn't accelerating the ball when he is changing the momentum. the ball got already accelerated while moving in the circle/orbit around him. he is just deorbeting the ball with enough lose string so that the ball is then tucking him into that direction when the string is running out. you can even test it yourself. take a long string (3 meters) and a weight (100g) and then speed it up while holding it at one meter radius. then let go and hold at the end of the 3 meter string. the moment the string runs out you will feel a tuck in your arm and that is what he is using to get the speed. not the throw itself. (that said it only counts for the first throw and not his combos where he isn't really using the orbiting method to speed up the ball)

[@stephencahill7821]

If you are imagining the ball tugging him forward as the ball deorbiting, then you should also consider what should be happening when the ball is in orbit. He should be sliding back and forth (if the surface is truly frictionless) as the ball moves forward and backward. The reason why you feel a tug when the ball hits the end of the string but not before is not because there isn't any other tug. It's because of two main reasons. The first is that your hand is the driving mechanism behind making the ball orbit around you. Any force that you might feel is conflated with the motion that is necessary to keep the ball spinning. The second reason why you don't feel the tug is because the change in momentum is happening over a longer period of time. Specifically, on the quarter of the loop where the ball's momentum is changing from a downward direction to a sideways direction. F = Δp/Δt. It really comes down to the conservation of momentum. If something goes right, something else needs to go left. And if we're assuming a frictionless surface, it's not going to be the planet. And if the surface does have friction, then he should be able to run.

[@dovos8572]

@@stephencahill7821 the ball get's slowed down/stopped when it tucks you forwards so it is the thing that "goes left". also we can't forget that the masses of both object play a major role on how the energy get's converted. the ball weights 1kg but we don't know heavy he is so we can't actually do the math without assumtions.

[@stephencahill7821]

@@dovos8572 You are correct about what happens when the ball reaches the end of the tether. It receives a change in momentum to the left, and the person receives a change in momentum to the right. If the person is standing still, then that will move him to the right. However, the person is not standing still when the ball moves to the right. He is (or he should be) moving to the left. When the man is holding the ball still, they have 0 momentum, correct? And we're assuming that the ball and person are a closed system (meaning that they have no interaction with anything else). So any change in the momentum of one object has to come from a change in momentum of the other object. When the person starts swinging the ball, he himself is also sliding around. Go look up a video of a hammer throw for a good example of what this looks like with a not-insignificant mass. Any forward momentum that the ball gains comes from the person gaining backwards momentum.

[@kaan_inal]

Just a note, so even light can not escape a blackhole, this is a strike, right. Well, thank you. Lets try to animate a fiction in total darkness. Let's imagine, lets try to feel what can be inside a blackhole, oh sorry, we cant, we shouldn't be imagining it because we would be already dead, right? Children would have watched this and got excited and later they would also watch a big knowledgeable brother reacting this inspirational video, starting with crossing his arms saying strike over strike. I am pretty sure if the animators would want to be %100 correct, they would have created a documentary. I think finding errors on the starting point about an imaginary fiction makes you misunderstood. I refuse to believe you are actually a bug finder. How about trying to catch the main point?

[@nathan_mcleod]

I just tell you what my reaction is as I watch for the first time. No more, no less.

[@Scion_uwu]

Booooring

[@nathan_mcleod]

Sooo boring, that you had to leave a comment. 😂

[@rutomeds]

@@nathan_mcleod ignore them fam, you're doing a great job explaining and breaking down these videos! Personally, this is how a reaction channel should be! They should know what they're talking about and be also educational + entertaining! Good work Nathan