Why Objects of Different Mass Fall at The Same Rate

[@StarTalk]

Did you know about the Apollo 15 experiment?

[@jonhaxe3738]

No

[@johnadastra1754]

Yes I watched it on TV :).

[@TheRealSkeletor]

yep

[@TheSouthernSiren]

Honestly yes and no. I heard about it, but never bothered to watch it until now. ( had to pull up the original, and all information on it seperately, your clip was too blurry.) Interesting demonstration. But all credit should be acknowledged and given to Commander David Scott for conducting it and confirming it. I'm neutral. I've never been an Aristotle fan, nor an Einstein fan. 😑 I think they're both oddly being glorified far too much for things of science they never actually tested and never put their life on the line to prove. But now I'm a fan of Commander Scott.❤

[@Mysteries-revealed]

🙏😂

[@StarTalk]

RIP Aristotle you would've hated this episode

[@takumi2023]

I disagree. He might have argued his pov but i dont think he would have hated it 😂

[@TheSouthernSiren]

I don't think he would have hated it, I agree with Takumi that he would have argued his point of view. Neil wants to discredit Aristotle for not testing his idea and could do no wrong, but then turns around and says that Einstein had a thought experiment (which is an idea) that was never tested! 🤦🏻‍♀ Clearly Einstein can do no wrong either....🤣 -So same saga you're just on a different love boat!

[@TheSouthernSiren]

I adore Neil, and love Startalk, even contribute to their patreon, but I'm gonna have to disagree on this one.

[@Homer-pc6oj]

Neil, can you please run for president? Please

[@ReelKnowledge]

Aristotle might have said, "Guess I'll stick to philosophy and leave the physics to the pros. Maybe I'll start a school of thought called 'Gravity's got nothing on me!'"

[@One.Zero.One101]

This is one of the best episodes on this channel. I knew most of the concepts here but the way Neil tied them all up together just made me understand it on a deeper level.

[@savagepro9060]

The Leaning Tower of Pizza --->> Food for Thought

[@robinbrowne5419]

Yum 😋👍

[@chrismohler4500]

He totally said Pizza

[@shawnsampson1727]

I heard that too. Had to rewind to see if I heard it correctly.

[@skeller61]

I didn’t know he did his experiment from an extra tall Chicago style…

[@rafadestefano]

I thought the same

[@cliffordobaze3797]

Aristotle live over two thousand years ago and unlike Galileo and Einstein, had no science precedence to guide him. That he had the audacity to speculate on such highly rarified subject, shows how truly remarkable and brilliant he really is. Thumbs up to him.

[@DeshaunBouvier]

Still wrong

[@RenatoZandrini]

​@@DeshaunBouvieras well as everyone that came after him. In other words: you are just as correct as it is possible to be at your time. As Aristotle was wrong, so was Galileu, and so was Newton. And even though nobody could prove Einstein wrong so far, the major point of scientific knowledge is to build on top of those who come before, in a way that someday, mankind will know better than Einstein. We can not forget that scientific knowledge is a persuit tring to get closer and closer to a "truth" about a reality that we will never know in it's totality.

[@Carrix_]

Aristotle in philosophy was good

[@JackieDaytona1776]

Actually, he built his scientific theories on the observations and knowledge available in his time. Much of his work was influenced by earlier Greek philosophers and naturalists, such as Thales, Anaximander, and Empedocles, who laid the groundwork for rational inquiry into the natural world. One significant precedent for Aristotle's scientific thought was the philosophical tradition of the Ionian school, which emphasized naturalistic explanations for phenomena rather than supernatural or mythical interpretations. This tradition, which flourished in the 6th and 5th centuries BCE, encouraged the systematic study of nature and the search for underlying principles governing the universe. Additionally, Aristotle was influenced by the empirical observations and classifications of living organisms made by his predecessor, the biologist and philosopher Hippocrates. Hippocrates' emphasis on careful observation and classification of natural phenomena likely shaped Aristotle's approach to studying the natural world. Furthermore, Aristotle was influenced by the works of earlier philosophers such as Plato, whose dialogues explored questions of natural philosophy and metaphysics. While Aristotle departed from some of Plato's ideas, particularly regarding the nature of forms and the realm of ideas, he nonetheless engaged with Plato's philosophical framework and built upon it in his own work. Overall, Aristotle's scientific thought was shaped by a combination of empirical observations, philosophical traditions, and the intellectual milieu of ancient Greece. While his theories were groundbreaking in their time, they were also constrained by the limitations of the available evidence and the conceptual framework of ancient natural philosophy.

[@derekpoulin2482]

Actually Democritus had come up with the atomic theory 400 BC Aristotle had preceded him went against him and turned the beautiful theory to nincompoop... Democritus had spoke of a void, sound traveling through the void to us. If you look online you can figure out pretty quickly it is a longitudinal wave. So electrons hold Mass through a longitudinal stress lateral collapse of the universal constant. Just so you know if you grab the local gravity calculator standard gravity calculation only applies at 45 North and South latitudes while at sea level and it is not as standard as Neil had described. You have to be at the point of inverse square in reference to the greatest amount of energy into the system to hold at standard gravity calculation. This is a fact amongst science, and he's only speaking about the points he wants you to understand.

[@Ytinasniiable]

I feel like chuck has helped Niel feel less like he's talking down, idk what it is, but i like his more recent stuff and the way he explains things than the way he used to a number of years ago Could just be me and i understand him better, but the mood just feels more relaxed than it used to

[@George-j6q]

hes an astrophysicist and an educator. hes used to talking down in a way. he wants everyone on the same page (pun intended). everyone on the same page? turn the page. cycle repeats

[@George-j6q]

did you know he was captain of the wrestling team in the 70s. some dominance there as well lol who would have thought. but understanding physics at that level might be an advantage in wrestling.

[@migmo89]

He should go on Joe Rogan with Chuck! Cuz the last two times he was on there he seemed pompous and arrogant

[@George-j6q]

@@migmo89 u mean joe and him on the neil podcast lol

[@Wallyworld30]

These types of video require someone on screen to be the everyman and Chuck fills that role perfectly because he also throws in some very funny lines rising the edutainment value to a 10/10.

[@linda1lee2]

Right before Neil dropped the ball and onion, YT interrupted it with an ad from a meal delivery service where a bag dropped to a table! It was seamless!

[@TheChosenOne_____22_28]

Lucky you

[@robertmrobo8954]

targeted ads :)

[@Andi-cr9ko]

You're right 😂

[@nickpaine]

Coincidence?

[@worldmadebyphysics8622]

I saw a video once the guy was saying he don't ask for donations and immediately after it was the same guy in a YT ad asking for donations 😂.. algorithms? Or coincidence? We will never know but it was hilarious

[@elprofessor5195]

Keep making these videos and educate us. Love it

[@greatdayn4651]

What an amazing explainer Mr. Tyson is proven to be.

[@wayelrob]

Dr. Tyson

[@derekpoulin2482]

He told you things fall the same speed, but he never told you the only two spots in which that speed applies is 45 North and South latitudes while at sea level on the local gravity calculator. That speed is adjusted per latitude as well as distance from Mass.

[@ryanmac9963]

He’s annoying

[@jgunther3398]

I wish he'd quit boxing sooner because he sounds slightly punch drunk

[@exploityourinsight4014]

Absolutely! Like, how can gravity force both objects downwards, with different magnitudes while at the same time, the objects floats in order to be approached by the earth's surface?🤷🏼‍♂️ Let's make it make sense!

[@snowgods2195]

For those of you with a mathematical bent: F= Force G= constant m mass of object M= Mass of planet R = Distance between their center of masses a = accleleration of the object F = GmM/R² F=ma ma = GmM/R² a=GmM/(R²m) Cancel the m a= GM/R² => acceleration is independent of the mas of the object. Assumption: gravitational mass is identical to inertial mass. We think this is true, but as far as I know it hasn't yet been proven.

[@EmpyreanLightASMR]

I actually find this video a bit confusing. With physics, like you wrote, it's shown that the mass of the smaller object (the ball in this case) doesn't matter when showing acceleration to be the same on all objects near the more massive object (Earth). However, the *force* is different; so if you left F in there instead of substituting it with ma, you would see a very small but distinct difference between the two objects. Neil jumps between these two ideas seamlessly but I only find it to be kind of confusing.

[@rbrtbnsn]

There have been tests to compare gravitational mass and initial mass and the difference between them has always been less than the uncertainty of the experiment. The real issue is from the theoretical side... I have never heard a compelling argument for WHY the masses are equivalent.

[@bawssnarmz5204]

Why wont he address Terrace and his mathematics

[@rodrigowettstein5655]

​@@EmpyreanLightASMRAnd I give to you my greater respect going to inquire when Neil gone risky talking so fast about Force and accelaration. Originally we do have different forces for different masses at the same distance from the Earth and these different forces we call our different weights (btw: AND THIS IS THE NATURE OF THE CONFUSION WHEN THE WORLD PUT ON WEIGHT BALANCES OUR MASS (Kg, Pounds) AND NOT OUR WEIGHT (Newtons of Force)!). Einstein used a trick comparing the gravity on a huge Mass (Earth) with a rocket (with no huge Mass, only same accelaration) but this is more complex to explain like Neil explained.

[@Downsjasmine]

@@bawssnarmz5204because the first sentence of his letter to Neil was “1x1=2”

[@ΓΙΩΡΓΟΣΚΩΣΤΗΣ-ο6γ]

Well in Aristotle's defence (I don't think he needs one though), the man invented Physics!... I mean he started the science of physics. He first used the term "Physics" from the Greek word "fysika" which means "nature" He first studied the science that he believed described nature. Even the term "scientific method" was first described by him. ❤❤

[@MZRandom]

the Greeks were influenced by earlier civilizations that had already developed sophisticated knowledge and sciences. Like Egyptians, Babylonians, Sumerians, Indus.These civilizations, among others, contributed greatly to the pool of human knowledge long before the rise of Greek science and philosophy. The Greeks built upon and further developed this knowledge, often through interactions with these earlier cultures.

[@commandvideo]

And Aristotle philosophy is great and fundamental.

[@commandvideo]

"Happiness is the meaning and the purpose of life, the whole aim and end of human existence" Aristotle. This is how great his philosophy is

[@DesertRat332]

Yup, we had to start somewhere. Even if your theories are wrong they can teach us something. They used to think light moved through an "ether." After Michelson-Morley disproved the "ether" theory, Albert came along, said it's all "relative", and the rest is history.

[@theduder2617]

To be fair, no single person "invented" physics. Physics is the result of inquiries and observations made by generations of people from several different civilizations. He was a first in the development of what would eventually become the scientific method of discovery, he did perform empirical studies, but "physics" involves far more than what Aristotle brought to the metaphorical table. And the word "physics" is derived from the Latin word "physica". Latin "physica" is derived from the Greek word "physis". Aristotle did some good during his tenure. But a lot of gaps were filled by many who came after him. He got us traveling in the right direction and gave us strong ammo to use in our hunt for information. For that we should always be grateful. But we must also acknowledge all the effort made since he departed this life. Effort which has developed physics into the scientific field of inquiry it is today. Something tells me that Aristotle would want that effort appreciated.

[@freeb1111]

Doesn't get much better than that video, thanks guys. A+.

[@blazingdisciple4070]

In The Expanse, the space ships create gravity through acceleration. It's the most realistic portrayal I've seen of space ships. Really freaking cool.

[@linyenchin6773]

I know Chuck's joke at 4:53 can be used to play off why you weren't more clear in your explanation but your opening words at 3:58 seem like a poorly phrased regurgitation of mass opinion aka facts: "The force of gravity is proportional to how much mass is in the object." I find it poor because it gives the illusion that "gravity is being selective," but gravity has no Sapience(what many incorrectly call 'sentience' aka 'having senses') so it can not be selective. I am left thinking the "why" it could seem like there is "more gravity at play" is not that there is different levels of gravity being "exerted" or "proportioned" but there is more area of effect on "bigger objects." Is it not the same amount of gravity for every unit of mass, only having items with more mass be more attracted because there are more anchor points for gravity to take effect? Excluding the gradiant of distance from source: There is no "more or less force" of gravity within the same gravity well, just more or less to be grabbed by that gravity, with mass being the basic unit of "grabability" within said gravity. Seems, to me, there is not "more effort" being made by gravity on things of larger mass but more net gravity is being pooled between larger quantities of mass. Seems there is more to attract and not more "desire(force) to attract." It should be the same exact amount of gravity per given unit of mass = it isn't an increased gravity as use of the word "force" denotes, but increased area of effect. It only looks like "more force" but is not more force, it is the same measure of force just more stuff being forced to "fall." That's why I would change "The force of gravity is proportional to how much mass is in the object" to "The saturation of gravity proportions to how much mass is in the object in question." It's the same measure of force(9.8 meters per second per second) but more units of interaction that force takes with more massive objects, granting equal speed to all falling objects(within a specified field of gravity). *I could be wrong but it seems gravity is pooling as it is pulling whatever it pulls, the pooling isn't really an increased gravity as your phrasing leads the imagination to conclude. There doesn't seem to be a genuine graduation of force at play.* Note: My I.Q is only 72 so I often trip up on poor phrasing and that's why I can't learn much(or quickly) from anyone whose phrasing seems counterintuitive to their specific intent.

[@sj4392]

This video of all star talk made me think the most of any topic so far. So much thought provoking and how powerful human mind can be. Blows me away when he says Einstein deduced light bending from this and mic drop.

[@GowthamNatarajanAI]

Thanks!

[@Aurochhunter]

Poor flat Earthers, they won't understand this at all.

[@nolanr1400]

Why? The floor in the rocket is flat right? So the earth is flat all the same. I rest my case

[@Aurochhunter]

@@nolanr1400 But light wouldn’t curve down on a flat Earth.

[@kamaldurant2908]

😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@ifbfmto9338]

The flat earth explanation for gravity actually attempts to explain this: the earth beneath us is just accelerating up at us, instead of us ‘falling down’ to the earth Under that model, yeah, any object ‘falling’ will still act the same way regardless of mass (ignoring air resistance of course) Flat earthers DO come up with a bunch of creative explanations for things, that sometimes can ‘correctly’ explain individual phenomena To me at least, the best debunking of flat earth are the horizon effects for distant objects, because those always perfectly align with curvature and atmospheric refraction, and those effects are never explainable with a flat earth model (meaning the actual data/observations will still conflict with flat earth)

[@dusermiginte4647]

This, and alot of other things.. 😅

[@PecosHank]

Had to pause at the mic drop @ 08:48 and soak in brilliance.

[@Tornadox7000]

Hank! Nice to see you here!

[@derekpoulin2482]

5.52 he tells you how fast things fall and then you go get a local gravity calculator. You read the scientific tool that they used to calculate gravity and find out while at sea level that standard gravity calculation only applies at 45 North and South latitudes the point of inverse square or mirror legs of the greatest amount of energy entering the system at the equator. How's that for brilliant actually looking at the local gravity calculator...

[@derekpoulin2482]

Guy lied to you and you took it right on the chin...

[@thedude142]

Awesome to see you on here man!

[@relasoft]

Pretty much like weight lifting: you lift the weight at the same rate, always, but for heavy weights you use more strength. The more weight, the more force that you has to apply to sustain the rate.

[@brandonjones3306]

Gravity gains 💪

[@billionsandbillionsofstars]

Precisely!

[@alexmshobane5163]

How?

[@deolihp]

Thank you

[@benjamingoldman3760]

One thing I'll add here is that you're assuming the force one exerts on the weight is "do-able"...then the rate would be the same...thus making your statement true. However, if the person (the one exerting the force to move an object) cannot produce enough force to move the weight properly...then the rate will vary. Think of a person struggling to bench-press their PR, the rate at which the weight is moving will be slower than the weight at which they might do reps. Exercise Science....GNAR

[@kittyco0n]

Been bingewatching a lot of Star Talk videos the past days. Thank you so much for making me a tiny bit smarter every day and sparking my curiosity! ❤

[@houserhythm]

The Expanse (sci-fi series) does acceleration/deceleration/“gravity” on spaceships amazingly accurate.

[@Lazerchicken69]

Great show and book series

[@dalemsilas8425]

Yep, gravity was an actual character.

[@a_real_one2000]

I was wondering if someone gonna mention the expanse. Has the Neil ever talked about the series the Expanse on here before.

[@MLennholm]

Indeed, on spaceships... but on the Moon, Mars and space stations, not so much. I don't fault the production for that though, love the show!

[@dalemsilas8425]

@@MLennholm the space stations (like tycho) used centrifuge aka 'spin gravity'. Mars' and the moon had reduced gravity. That's all accurate to perfection!

[@paulz5301]

This duo! I freaking love it! I just finished an entire day studying trigonometry for my classes you’d think I’d be done with science for the day but I just love listening to them so much!

[@srikrishnanarayanan2031]

I asked my dad the same question about a month ago, about why objects having different masses fall at the same rate even though their inertias are different, and here is the answer

[@JakeCorn-p2k]

Best channel on KZbin. thanks for teaching me so many things

[@lesliefranklin1870]

Galileo actually did perform experiments on this. He used ramps (instead of dropping straight down) to slow down the experiments so he could observe more closely. Next time I go to Italy, I'll be sure to visit that "Tower of Pizza." Neil must have been hungry. 😀

[@rickkwitkoski1976]

@lesliefranklin1870 Yes. Thank you.

[@ericdunayer6687]

That is what I thought he said so I don't need to get my hearing checked.

[@Wallyworld30]

He used ramps and balls to come up with his equations on the force of gravity.

[@morkey74]

Loved this episode. Sometimes the basics are the founadtion of understanding.

[@loisrossi841]

Thank you, you never know when I might need this information.

[@dustman96]

We probably use it every day, we just don't know it.

[@dredwardchippsfrontdesk8676]

You guys are the absolute BEST teachers! We need more of you in our schools!

[@khanage360]

"Becuase we didn't go on the moon " ignores that completely lmao

[@patludwig1971]

Just when I'd finished cleaning my head parts off the wall (from one of your previous episodes). I love you both dearly 😊

[@shirleenrodriguez3355]

Man, I am so glad you went there. I never understood this, and now I do. Thank you.

[@alexmshobane5163]

Please help me understand. 4:23 to 4:55 and 7:00 to 7:07 Seem to contradict, in one Gravity is a force that acts differently on objects of different sizes to get them moving the same rate, in the other gravity is the floor just accelerating towards the objects no applied force that differs based on mass

[@Lothos88]

@@alexmshobane5163 If you're on a space ship, not moving, and too far away from any celestial body for its mass to be causing your ship to be significantly accelerating towards it due to gravity, and release the ball and onion, they'd just float there, motionless. If the ship then starts moving in a direction, whatever rate of acceleration the ship has in relation to another point in space, the ball/onion will have the same rate of acceleration towards the floor of the space ship. It's important to recognize that it is NOT gravity causing the ball/onion to fall, it is literally the ship moving around them, causing the ship's floor to move towards them, the ball/onion themselves did not move at all from the perspective of everything outside the ship. However, what's important is that the rate of how quickly they "appear" to fall is equal to the ship's rate of acceleration. This effectively "mirrors" how gravity works with relatively tiny objects on the surface of a large enough mass, exerting proportional force based on the falling object's mass to cause them all the fall at the exact same rate. In this case, there is no force acting on the objects, you're correct. It's the equivalent outcome (hence being called The Equivalence Principal), but the cause is totally different.

[@HaleyMKunz]

The saying "the bigger they are, the harder they fall," makes so much more sense now! 😲🤯🤯🤯

[@lxxredxxl9587]

Neil, can you please do a long explainer or a full episode on the FACT that we did go to the moon!! I would appreciate it if it was fully detailed with your best logical arguments, even though it's ridiculous that you would have to argue about something that is COMPLETELY FACTUAL!! A lot of that going around these day's unfortunately. Thank you for all that you do!!

[@jeanaprewitt9658]

He already did. And there's no point in quoting him or his points. It's a wasted endeavor to argue with idiots.

[@travt5343]

Wow I wish I saw this video when I was introduced to it in high school physics class. Great presentation and thank yall so much for what you do

[@theunluckycharm9637]

Chuck has to be the funniest comedian i have ever seen I mean the guy doesnt miss! Every joke is on point good job Chuck you did your absolute best 👌

[@marvhollingworth663]

I'm more impressed by the scientific knowledge he's accrued by hanging around with NDT.

[@ayyocool]

He definitely is underrated. After watching these videos. He be having me cracking up.

[@ayyocool]

@@marvhollingworth663I said that too. He answers way more correct answers than I do lol

[@theunluckycharm9637]

@ayyocool I was being sarcastic my entire comment is the opposite of what I think. I know tone doesn't come across while reading

[@theunluckycharm9637]

@ayyocool chuck is really annoying he's never funny

[@edwardbontrager9721]

Thank you for this video Doctor. This is something that I have always wondered about.

[@SajjadMoslehi]

Keep making such informative videos!

[@aranichowdhury7698]

I really was confused about the same thought. Thanks for clearing it out.

[@devil_editz_gaming5285]

Hi ...Neil and chuck...I just love your videos❤very interesting and informative ❤

[@seantlewis376]

I love these explainers. They are my favorite Star Talk segments. As for this one, I had been taught that within an atmosphere, objects of the same density and shape would fall at the same rate. I was never taught the Apollo 15 experiment with virtually no atmosphere. Curious.

[@Jayman5281]

These guys are legends. Always dropping knowledge bombs!🤙

[@dpsingh6421]

And those knowledge bombs all land at the same time. 😆

[@marvhollingworth663]

I had a discussion about this with another viewer in the comments of 1 of your other videos not long back where they explained the same thing to me. Thanks for confirming what they said.

[@majkus]

The demonstration in the children's biography of Galileo that I read as a kid pointed out that a wadded-up sheet of paper and an unfolded paper fall at different rates, so the weight is not the determiner.

[@andrewmccullough559]

Determiner of what exactly? It's somewhat misleading because mass just is the thing being acted on with gravity. The gravitational force is directly proportional to mass, and the acceleration due to gravity is inversely proportional to mass (a = f/m), so that these exactly balance and objects of different masses fall with the same acceleration, ignoring the effects of air resistance. The paper example is a bad one, even for children, because it purports to teach something about gravity while actually being entirely about the effects of air resistance. The fundamentals of gravitational force should be understood first, then the secondary effects of air drag can be understood properly in relation to it. It's a confusion of topics which is good for producing pseudo-science literacy, people who will tend to think they know a good deal about science -- after all, even as children they were reading books about it, and who can deny this undeniable fact about falling paper.

[@andrewmccullough559]

The paper example isn't bad if it's being used to make the point that mass isn't everything. You could make a similar point about the mass, not of the attracted body, but of the attracting one: the same ball of paper, being drawn to the less massive moon, will fall with a slower acceleration than on earth. And then you could make the point that more than three variables can affect the rate of fall: m1, m2, the distance between them, and air drag.

[@POLICECAMERA6688]

Please keep making these videos and educating us. Very impressed with your explanation!

[@POLICECAMERA6688]

@@Tornadox7000 Thank you for that. We are still trying every day.

[@t-fuelernienotoriousmisfit7449]

Neil and chuck, you guys are insane 😉💯🤣

[@Anas.Sharif]

We need longer 40 minute explainers like the g/old days

[@QuaveryNelson]

Mr Neil sir, please my request is that you make a video on why it's not fast to go in the opposite direction of the Earth's rotation

[@QuaveryNelson]

Please sir😔

[@negativeindustrial]

@@QuaveryNelson Because you’re starting with the relative motion of the planet. If you started from outside the Earth it would be faster by the speed of the earth’s rotation.

[@shabithossain6811]

Mind-blowing fact at the end. Got me shivering

[@RGAstrofotografia]

2:04 Galileo went to the leaning tower of pizza to do his experiment! #HospicioToday

[@dannyh9010]

Pizza! I thought that was what he said. 🍕

[@BillyJoeJimBob8]

"Tower of Pizza" - That was NDT serving up a softball for Chuck to joke about, but Chuck didn't swing at that one.

[@ShonMardani]

I have 3 identical volleyballs, I fill one with water, the other with air and the third with Helium, if I drop them from a 1000 meters height at once, which one will reach the ground first? It is a question for you Neil, please answer this question.

[@eileendunn2130]

So totally cool, man! Thanks, guys!

[@Spathephoros]

"Leaning tower of pizza" -a Ph.D.

[@gregorykeating4195]

OMG - connecting the dots and realizing gravity can bend light - you just stretched my mind - AGAIN! Fantastic!

[@wilhelmhetrick8948]

Be fair to my boy Aristotle he did what he could for his time.

[@mervcharles8365]

I was just thinking about this topic... Perfect timing

[@james-fy1ms]

Neil deGrasse Tyson turned into Jeff Goldblum at 7:31

[@wrAIth-AI]

😂😂😂

[@priscillawrites6685]

We did the math regarding the impact force of a penny dropped from the top of the Empire State Building. While I don’t remember the number (55 years ago), we concluded dropping a penny from the top of the ESB would have two potential results: 1. If a person was standing in the path of the penny the person would be killed at impact. 2. If the sidewalk happened to be empty of people, the penny would make a hole in the sidewalk and a significant amount of the earth beneath it. 3. Nothing would happen if a feather dropped. It’s windy at the top of the ESB. Wind drafts would carry the feather to Staten Island.

[@spoopy1322]

Such a great explanation abour something I always thought was too dumb of a question to ask. ❤

[@noway9081]

The biggest intuative hurdle to understanding this is recognizing that it takes gravitational for e to pull an object to the ground. That's why using the example of moving a heavy object vs moving a lighter on a long the ground was so perfect. We all intuitively understand that there is more gravitational force working upon a more massive object because we have all lifted and moved things and know that a more massive object is harder to move/lift. But psychologically we don't equate an object falling with an object being moved ie. We understand that moving an object requires force, but psychologically we view dropping an object as the absence of force (because gravity is constant and our exertions of force are almost always against the force of gravity). So instinctively we think that a because gravitational force is greater on a more massive object than a small one, the more massive object should fall faster. But once we recognize that moving a more massive object downwards requires more force in the same way as moving a more more massive object in any other direction.l, then we can understand how even though gravitational force acts more on a more massive object, it still moves downwards at the same rate as a less massive object in the same way it even though I apply more force to move a more massive amount object, the object may move move slowly than a less massive object I apply less force in order to move in the same direction. The insight that force is force is both unintuitive and brilliant! Thank you Einstein!

[@itsawonderfullife4802]

In other words: INERTIAL MASS IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS GRAVITATIONAL MASS.

[@joppadoni]

What i loved about this episode is how it describes how Einstein worked out spacetime is curved. And that gravity isn't a force. Very clever.

[@billionsandbillionsofstars]

Exactly, gravity is not a force but the curvature of spacetime in the presence of mass.

[@joppadoni]

@@billionsandbillionsofstars You can see how he worked it out in the video can't you, amazing stuff.

[@joppadoni]

@@billionsandbillionsofstars Although doesn't explain why, just explains.. It Is. Which, decades ago i was happy with. Would love to know why? There is the information out there.. But I'll never work it out as i do not think the math is written and if it is, I am no where near it. By a Trillion miles.

[@J_Strong]

It took an Aristotle to create an Einstein.

[@miks564]

From my understanding, this experience only works because it doesn't involve much higher falls where air resistance will definitely play a part limiting the top speed of the fall. When we factor air drag coefficient, even if the objects have the same shape, the one with lower mass will suffer more from drag and will not reach the same top speed of the heavier one. Correct?

[@ДарК-ґ4ї]

Never thought about it that way, that's amazing! Thank you!

[@charlessukati4866]

I just love this outstanding pair. They make physics so simple and interesting 🎉🎉🎉❤❤❤

[@workingoutwhilebackingthebrave]

Equal give and take = balance.

[@SonwaboM]

Enjoying to the last bit, much love from south africa

[@GapCam93]

Can y’all please just have a public conversation with Terrance Howard? “It’s what the people want” - All jokes aside, that conversation would likely bring a lot more viewers to this channel.

[@swinginghigh7666]

Terrence Howard is delusional. All his theories have already been debunked. This guy is too smart to get in the mud with lunatics.

[@GapCam93]

@@swinginghigh7666 if someone is delusional and wants to have a conversation, why not educate them? In this case, why not educate them and others (considering how large their platforms are)?

[@ianstopher9111]

Next thing you would ask a Globalist to converse with a Flat-Earther. The reality is that the Flerfer will not budge one inch in their beliefs.

[@andrewcarr2431]

@@GapCam93 delusional people are diffcult to change [their minds]. May be what people want but would be a seasoned heavyweight fighter in the ring with a schoolboy lightweight. Personally, I wouldn't watch it. And would rather Neil (and the startalk team) put their effort into something more educational that attempting to change the mind of a "flat earther" type person.

[@GapCam93]

@@andrewcarr2431 I understand. The goal wouldn’t be to change that persons mind, but inform them and others of the reasons they are wrong. By the way, Neil finally addressed some things. Personally, I wanted someone to combat each of Terrance’s claims with opposing scientific evidence if any exist, rather than be silent in response. Most responders that I’ve seen got stuck on the “1*1=2” or square root thing and then formed fallacious reasoning that everything Terrance says has zero potential of being useful or true. Both men have a large following so my point was for them to discuss the topics, debunk some things, and ultimately have an open minded and professional conversation that would naturally be entertaining, and also informative.

[@pencilography2025]

Object 1 object 2 Mass =m1 Mass =m2 Resultant Resultant force force = F1 =F2 Acceleration Acceleration = a1 = a2 Resultant force acting on both objects is equal to weight given that we ignore air resistance/drag so.... Weight of object 1 = W1= m1g =F1=m1a1 Weight of object 2 = W2 = m2g =F2=m2a2 So m1a1 = m1g And m2a2=m2g So a1=g and a2=g Therefore a1 = a2

[@benttranberg2690]

I never understood this idea that supposedly "everybody" has, by intuition - that heavier objects fall faster. An object is just a collection of subobjects, and they fall in the same way whether attached to each other or not. Because they're actually at rest.

[@PsychiCorey]

Hmm excellent point

[@Mehrunzebub]

Ugh, I love explainers so much. I start to feel like Chuck sometimes because I'll be on the verge of making an educated guess at the answers or have a much better understanding than when I did two years ago watching, and the "eureka!" I feel when it all concludes.

[@paulschneider2856]

Galileo's story needs to be taught more to the youth.

[@roblena7977]

Dude I've been going nuts over the past decade trying to figure how much information was never discovered due to poor epistemology.

[@paulschneider2856]

@@roblena7977 I think it’s vital that humanity has a deep understanding of how we used to believe in geocentric models all around. It’s just nuts how information is distributed

[@ShonMardani]

Are calling for child abuse?

[@isatousarr7044]

The fact that objects of different masses fall at the same rate is a remarkable phenomenon that reflects the universal nature of gravity. This principle has important implications for our understanding of the cosmos, as it suggests that the laws of physics are the same throughout the universe, regardless of the specific objects or scales involved. If objects of different masses fall at the same rate in the presence of gravity, how does this principle apply to the motion of celestial bodies, such as planets and moons, within the solar system or other planetary systems? How does this concept contribute to our understanding of the dynamics and evolution of these cosmic structures?

[@ZxZNebula]

And gravity doesn’t “pull” cuz it’s not an actual force. So the pulling of more massive objects is due to the massive curving the fabric of space time

[@leebratina1089]

Do you have a better term to explain the behavior? Otherwise pull works as description that people can grasp without specialized knowledge.

[@ZxZNebula]

@@leebratina1089 no ur exactly right. Pull is basically the best word we have to describe it, cuz even the imagery of a fabric being bent when you put something on it, doesn’t fully do it justice. Because that’s only 2D, since it’s flat and horizontal, but trying to imagine 3D being bent in that way, hurts my mind lmao. I feel like we just aren’t advanced enough yet, including our language, to construct words that describe these things. I feel like vocabulary is a huge barrier for human, like for myself, trying to describe my emotions, or my beliefs, is very difficult. I just don’t know the words that would do it justice

[@ZxZNebula]

@@leebratina1089 but the way Neil used the word “pull”, is fine imo, but it still creates a lot of misconceptions of what gravity is. Because general relativity shows how gravity isn’t actually a force. Also quantum theories may be able to even prove gravity in itself isn’t a real thing of nature, but just an emergent principle of the quantum world

[@illogik]

But it’s one of the four fundamental forces…

[@jetthelooter]

umm no different mass objects fall at the same rate. it's been done in vacuum chambers where there is no atmosphere.

[@bklock7]

04:40 Technically speaking ... the equivalence principle might be entirely WRONG because the force of gravity is also proportional to volume (believe it, or not), which means that a marble and a black hole will NOT accelerate at the same rate for the same reason that gravitational waves exist ... because one amount of mass shields any other amount of mass from the full intensity of the background permeative particle fields that cause gravity. The effect of volumetric gravitational asymmetry becomes more pronounced the more massive and dense one object becomes ... which means that black holes might be FAR more massive than current theoretical equations indicate. The masses inferred through the theoretical equations are actually gravitational field magnitudes rather than masses! ...which are translated into expected-mass units instead of force units. Believe it or not, all the mathematical calculations they've made regarding dense celestial objects are completely invalid, and all they've been calculating are inferred gravitational field magnitudes that satisfy their own theoretical equations that are, after all, based upon errant conjecture. Gravity is FAR more complex than they think ... gravitation being caused by background permeative particle fields means that gravity is proportional also to volume, and a gravitational field has an entire spectrum of granularity (because denser objects absorb particle momentum from additional permeative particles of even smaller size), ... making gravitational calculations ridiculously complex. We can't even build scientific equations for gravity until we learn how to survey the particle-size demographics of the background permeative particle fields. causeofgravity.com/ ✨🖖🤓🖖✨

[@omerdogruyol7984]

How bout a feather vs melon

[@kiruicyrus2816]

Quick question, I understand both classical explanation of gravity(Newton) and Einstein's theory of relativity. My question is the description that Einstein gives in terms of the curvature of space. And how then do we explain how planets form? If gravity is that force that brings them together. How do you explain that using Einstein's theory of relativity? Because if gravity is not a force, then there's no pull within the gravitational field that would have led all those gas and dust particles and debris to collage into a single entity-what will call a star or a planet? How do you explain the formation of planets and stars using the general theory of relativity?

[@dunsel5887]

with stellar dust its static charge that brings the dust together until the mass is high enough to start a gravitational field that will bring in more dust and make a planet or star. does that help?

[@kundakaps]

​@@dunsel5887How do dust particles get opposite charge to clump together?

[@TheOJDrinker]

All matter warps spacetime, even particles of gas and dust. The effect of gravity would be very small, but it's still there. Far enough from any other source of gravity, they would move toward each other. (being close to another source of gravity would keep them in a stable orbit, such as the asteroid belt or the rings of saturn) We still describe things as having a "gravitational field" but it's really just the area of spacetime that is affected by the existance of matter within it. It's the warping of space that causes matter to accelerate toward each other.

[@ShonMardani]

I have 3 identical volleyballs, I fill one with water, the other with air and the third with Helium, if I drop them from a 1000 meters height at once, which one will reach the ground first?

[@dunsel5887]

@@kundakaps think, rubbing balloons in your hair and a wall

[@cheeseburger-ye1mv]

Chuck and Neil are aging backwards

[@l.mosesfrazier7436]

Neil stopped their aging and Chuck can’t tell anyone about it!! LOL!!!

[@felicianomazoio8012]

😂😂😂hilarious

[@carlwhittaker7570]

I love these videos it's what made me buy Neil's books.

[@Cuchufly]

well now I want to know more about that last part, that thing about bending the beam of light.

[@TheOJDrinker]

Put simply, gravity is the warping of space. Light travels straight through space... but if that space is warped, the path of light bends.

[@andres182415]

Love you guys. I think many of our lives would be different without this talk

[@aquamanGR]

because gravity is not a force :)

[@dummie4guitars]

9:05 I don't believe Aristotle didn't test this idea by dropping various objects (like amphoras, chariot wheels and such) from a substantial cliff and into the sea.

[@itsawonderfullife4802]

Whoever insults Aristotle really has insulted himself.

[@flamurbedrolli802]

Keep it up Tyson . Your work is fabulous and your contribution is just here. Noone cant deny it.

[@an3ssh]

This is the first thing they teach us in our secondary school physics class but bit more complicated than this.

[@mp-kq3vc]

This is the first time I understood per second per second. Thanks guys!

[@PatrickMrSmith]

Love you Neil and Chuck! You guys are awesome and I love star talk so much!!!! 😍

[@OfficialFA]

It's all a building process of which each of the generations who study these particular fields contribute to...👍More will be known in the future

[@piyushtalele3594]

Wow.. I have seen another video proposing the same theory on why the gravity is pulling heavier objects with more force bit it was confusing (sorry for my stupidness). but the way you explained have made it crystal clear. Thanks a ton 😀

[@1voluntaryist]

Aristotle was correct where it counted most, 1st principle of metaphysics, i.e., A = A, i.e., reality isn't tricky, it's our minds, our epistemology, from which errors originate. If we start by assuming we, our minds, our consciousness, is primary, the 1st principle, we distrust reality when we err. A good example is Descartes' famous conclusion: "I think, therefore I am." This implies his existence is created by his thought. Before he "thought" he needed to exist as a thinking being, therefore he should have said: "I am, therefore I think."

[@billh5923]

I am, therefore I think I am, I think.

[@pierremaiden]

Ah man , i always thought that the esrtg gravity acceleration was 9.8m/s² on obects because the m2 (mass of deopped obect) in the universal gravitation formula was negligible when added to the m1(mass of earth) in the calculation. But now i see that it only changes the gravity force on the object itself and not its acceleration. This was a fun watch!

[@pangalactictuber]

Total mass is still a factor - it’s not like gravitational acceleration is a universal constant. It’s slower on the moon, because the total mass is smaller. So you’re right in the sense that if instead of a regular onion, you dropped an onion so dense it weighed as much as the Earth, the increased total mass would lead to a higher acceleration and it would “fall” faster (though the Earth would move up as much as the onion would move down).

[@007Napster]

Can you answer this one Neil? When photons make their journey from the sun to the earth. I understand they are travelling at the speed of light, so no time passes. For the photon. The journey is instant right? So how does that apply to length contraction? Does the photon experience them as literally next to eachother? Like from the sun to the earth is 0 distance?

[@MrVibrating]

Since gravity is a uniform acceleration that applies to masses, and velocity times mass is momentum, gravity can be described in terms of an ambient time rate of change of momentum, *dp/dt.* Testing this, consider a drop weight attached via a pulley to a horizontally-sliding mass on good bearings: the falling weight is now forced to also accelerate this non-gravitating mass sideways, its inertia slowing the descent. Monitoring their speed, and summing the horizontal and vertical momenta, we find that gravity is a dp/dt of 9.80665 p/sec per kg of gravitating mass, irrespective of the amount of non-gravitating mass. Equivalently, we could make the weight drop spool up a flywheel, and despite the rotational dimensions differing (kg-m²-rad/s instead of just kg-m/s) the sum of angular and linear changes in momentum remains 9.80665 p/sec per kg of gravitating mass, regardless of the flywheel's moment of inertia.

[@alswedgin9274]

Thank you for once again talking about my favorite subject: gravity..

[@marknovak6498]

I remeber the video much clearer than when I saw the hammer feather thing on TV as a kid. Did the recording deteriorate?

[@fromnorway643]

That footage has undoubtedly been copied countless times with different quality. This clip shows the feather more clearly: kzbin.info/www/bejne/haCbhZSGi9ihb7s

[@the.on.coming.storm.4.20]

Love when Neil says, "I Wonder?"

[@nl3064]

Richard Feynman explains the equivalence principal in Six Not-So-Easy Pieces (that was my first thought when watching the video, as I had already read it years ago in Feynman's book).

[@groopmmex]

Good one guys!

[@XavierBetoN]

Wow! I knew all these things but even though it cleared my mind about why the light bends. Great splaining doc! Thanks a lot.

[@BenjySparky]

Niel and Chuck, y'all rock! Peace