One more slight inaccuracy, at 9:44 when TSC jumps off the (still accelerating) rocket to get the magnet the rocket should just keep accelerating and leave him behind. We know the rocket is still accelerating because bright exhaust is still being produced, very slight error but one which almost nobody caught
So far the best explanation I stumbled upon! Most of the reactions I skimmed through seemed to just name the principles. The spinning rope to linear momentum got me the most confused. I'm guessing how ever you twist the equations, the whole system momentum must be conserved even if TSC is able to generate angular momentum by doing work. I'm unsure if having the platform or the 0.1 friction makes it any more plausible.
There are two flaws in and around 10:59 : Firstly, you can’t create a magnetic field with solely a solenoid without inducing current through the solenoid. No electricity, no electromagnet. Secondly when TSC’s rocket’s South Pole is attracted to the ring’s North Pole, it creates acceleration and that’s all fine and dandy up until the rocket leaves the ring, where the rocket’s North Pole (rear) gets attracted to the ring’s South Pole (the side just behind the rocket) which decelerates the rocket. You won’t be able to achieve 0.8c this way.
At 3:50, while I also considered the conservation of linear momentum as a problem, that would only be an issue if u=0, which it isn't, since then the planet also becomes part of the system.
Great catch. The fact that TSC skis smoothly indicate that mu is indeed 0. Anyway, sometimes you have to sacrifice a little bit rigor for the story. It's all good.
Like the original didn't gave me existential dread, this video added more to my existential dread I'm impressed with how much details were put into this masterpiece
Hella detailed than the first version, though i think the moment TSC enters the quantum world in 18:00, floating particle out of nothing is a reference to virtual particle as he is now small enough to manipulate strings (directly means manipulating particle)
okay, so about the 'problem' at 3:49: it isn't actually a problem that he moves forward when he throws the ball. it's true that it seems like there should be zero net force, but that's only true in the absence of external energy provided to the system. as a hypothetical, imagine he was holding a jet engine, and activated it-- of course he'd move, since there's external energy being provided, in the form of the jet engine's fuel having chemical bonds which are broken down to get the energy. this is the same thing, but it's not a jet engine burning fuel-- the energy comes from TSC, in the form of sugars in his body or whatever breaking down, providing external energy. as for the momentum-- while the friction is low, it's not zero. i imagine that what would happen is, since his velocity is much lower than the ball's, and since he's in contact with the ground, his leftward momentum would be dissipated due to friction much faster, making it so that the rightward momentum of the ball would then transfer back to him, providing an overall rightward motion.
Hmm, thanks for your input. 1. Energy conservation is one thing but momentum conservation is another thing. You can have huge burst of energy of the "whole system" without changing momentum at all. 2. Regardless of the friction coefficient, considering the system as a whole, no external force causes momentum change. Think about this way... When the ball flys out to the right, there must be a "force" to "push" it out, why didn't this force push TSC leftwards? However, I do love your idea and I think it practically may work. When it snows in my place, I will do a real experiment on ice.
My personal theorem to life is that everything has been done before, that we can only experience once per parallel universe. Everything we're experiencing now has been experienced before and will be experienced in the future. Surprised you didn't mention the parallel universe and current universe when it came to explanation of the future and past. In fact, I'm surprised the original video didn't go into parallel universes. Steins;Gate would have been a prime example of it.
At 12:29, what exactly do you mean by pure energy ? Not in the form of heat energy? So all the em spectrum except infrared? That imho doesn't make sense. could you please elaborate?
15:21 wow still can't believe I made a change to a youtube video
Hey my friend. Sorry I didn't put your name there because it is not very physics-related but I highly appreciate your input.
must’ve been sad being left out
No, it's fine. I've never been a big fan of being put in the spotlight. Never even thought you would respond thrice in a row!
It's a pity that they didn't show Maxwell's equations. They would perfectly fit there when he turns on a flashlight
One more slight inaccuracy, at 9:44 when TSC jumps off the (still accelerating) rocket to get the magnet the rocket should just keep accelerating and leave him behind. We know the rocket is still accelerating because bright exhaust is still being produced, very slight error but one which almost nobody caught
Good catch!
Eh, if that was what happened, TSC would just be floating into space forever. Not a good ending for a video, like what they made later.
Damn this must've took a long ass time, I'm still amazed at how accurate everything is even though its just for entertainment.
So far the best explanation I stumbled upon! Most of the reactions I skimmed through seemed to just name the principles.
The spinning rope to linear momentum got me the most confused. I'm guessing how ever you twist the equations, the whole system momentum must be conserved even if TSC is able to generate angular momentum by doing work. I'm unsure if having the platform or the 0.1 friction makes it any more plausible.
Oh hello again friend! Sorry I didn't see this before, but I just want to say it looks amazing👊
I couldn't help it, I'm laughing at the nickname "TuMadre8000" as it means "YourMother8000"
I want to say sorry to TuMadre8000…
There are two flaws in and around 10:59 :
Firstly, you can’t create a magnetic field with solely a solenoid without inducing current through the solenoid. No electricity, no electromagnet.
Secondly when TSC’s rocket’s South Pole is attracted to the ring’s North Pole, it creates acceleration and that’s all fine and dandy up until the rocket leaves the ring, where the rocket’s North Pole (rear) gets attracted to the ring’s South Pole (the side just behind the rocket) which decelerates the rocket. You won’t be able to achieve 0.8c this way.
Are you planning on making a second version of this video?
Would be more accurate if he removed a battery from the flashlight and power a solenoid with it
@@Maxcraft2013I would not ask for full accuracy when TSC can survive inside a black hole
Maybe the rocket's engine has a power alternator that generates electrical current as it burns? Idk man I just played ksp a bunch as a kid
11:45 hold on, how are there still stars outside the galaxy? And it even looks like the entire scene is *in* the Milky Way
Better to have something in the background :)
I am so so interested in the philosophical angles of this
Same
for some reason this is terrifying to think about…but its also so fascinating and interesting
At 3:50, while I also considered the conservation of linear momentum as a problem, that would only be an issue if u=0, which it isn't, since then the planet also becomes part of the system.
Great catch. The fact that TSC skis smoothly indicate that mu is indeed 0. Anyway, sometimes you have to sacrifice a little bit rigor for the story. It's all good.
@@ron与数学isn't mu = 0.1 shown at the start ? Anyways, I believe @ghostcat... Whatever that long username was, puts it into words better than I did : )
dreamcastg0hst is the one I meant
@@scienceoverload184 thats one thing about the vid is that friction seems to turn "on" and "off" at will regarding the ice
Like the original didn't gave me existential dread, this video added more to my existential dread
I'm impressed with how much details were put into this masterpiece
Thank you for the all the notes. I’m looking forward to the next video of “Animation vs Geometry”
Hella detailed than the first version, though i think the moment TSC enters the quantum world in 18:00, floating particle out of nothing is a reference to virtual particle as he is now small enough to manipulate strings (directly means manipulating particle)
okay, so about the 'problem' at 3:49:
it isn't actually a problem that he moves forward when he throws the ball. it's true that it seems like there should be zero net force, but that's only true in the absence of external energy provided to the system. as a hypothetical, imagine he was holding a jet engine, and activated it-- of course he'd move, since there's external energy being provided, in the form of the jet engine's fuel having chemical bonds which are broken down to get the energy. this is the same thing, but it's not a jet engine burning fuel-- the energy comes from TSC, in the form of sugars in his body or whatever breaking down, providing external energy. as for the momentum-- while the friction is low, it's not zero. i imagine that what would happen is, since his velocity is much lower than the ball's, and since he's in contact with the ground, his leftward momentum would be dissipated due to friction much faster, making it so that the rightward momentum of the ball would then transfer back to him, providing an overall rightward motion.
Hmm, thanks for your input.
1. Energy conservation is one thing but momentum conservation is another thing. You can have huge burst of energy of the "whole system" without changing momentum at all.
2. Regardless of the friction coefficient, considering the system as a whole, no external force causes momentum change. Think about this way... When the ball flys out to the right, there must be a "force" to "push" it out, why didn't this force push TSC leftwards?
However, I do love your idea and I think it practically may work. When it snows in my place, I will do a real experiment on ice.
@@ron与数学post a video when you do. UA-cam physicsq baby
Great video, thanks! Btw, I think it's Nietzsche, not Kant.
You are absolutely right. I was confused how can the space fits his name. My mistake. Thank you!
I always thought the cowboy hat was a reference to Oppenheimer
Awesome awesome awesome human. If we did make it its because of people like you
My personal theorem to life is that everything has been done before, that we can only experience once per parallel universe.
Everything we're experiencing now has been experienced before and will be experienced in the future.
Surprised you didn't mention the parallel universe and current universe when it came to explanation of the future and past.
In fact, I'm surprised the original video didn't go into parallel universes. Steins;Gate would have been a prime example of it.
9:59 Felming right hand rule comes in play!
At 12:29, what exactly do you mean by pure energy ? Not in the form of heat energy? So all the em spectrum except infrared? That imho doesn't make sense. could you please elaborate?
Hey! I was just trying to make a contrast to "matter". The energy can be in any form.
nice more or less understandable, i have no means expert in this field, but the video was amazing. keep it up!
how about A vs G
Hyperbolic Space: What. 19:24
0:30 OH YEAH
interstellar is a banger movie
🎉cool man ,keep it up .
2:05 p=1% of the speed of light
did anybody else get the space cowboy reference?😅
good and AMAZING!
21:41 Don’t know this reference. And don’t wanna give up my Otaku card. 😭
1st😎