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.❤
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!
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!'"
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
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
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.
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!
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
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)
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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. 😀
@@MLennholm the space stations (like tycho) used centrifuge aka 'spin gravity'. Mars' and the moon had reduced gravity. That's all accurate to perfection!
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. ❤❤
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.
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.
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!!
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
Aristotle's physics (and chemistry) were garbage, and they were incredibly influential, unfortunately. But that was because everything else he did was brilliant, and he did SO much else. A full 2/3 of his writings that survive to this day were on biology, and he was the first on record to put forth a classification system for living things. His political science was brilliant and influenced the framers of the US Constitution. And he was perhaps the first to develop a system of symbolic logic, the successors of which eventually became the foundations for computer language. The thing with Aristotle is, he was different from his predecessors specifically because so much of what he thought and wrote was based on observation rather than just pure reason, but when it came to physics he seriously dropped the ball. He didn't experiment and test things; he based his thoughts on just what could be seen in everyday life, and this leads to errors, sometimes massive errors. Perhaps his biggest error was not having a concept of friction, leading him to believe objects would come to rest on their own UNLESS they experienced a continuous force--which is the exact opposite of what happens. Part of why he didn't experiment was cultural; it just wasn't done. I've often thought of what brilliant ideas we would have had over 2000 years ago if he'd only been shown the value of experimentation.
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.
It's quite the miracle that God made the tower of Piza lean just so Galileo could prove his theory. Such a miracle! (That oughta keep them bible thumpers going for quite a while LOL!!!)
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.
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
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...
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?
Imagine three identical bricks covered in concrete falling next to eachother. They fall at the same rate. Now imagene that two of them come together on the way and stick to eachother forming a single object twice as heavy. Offcourse it would still fall at the same rate as the single brick..
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/ ✨🖖🤓🖖✨
could not understand...... earth is accelerating 9.8m/s2... reference to what? does not speed increase every second? it accelerating since billions of years 😂😂😂 can this accelerating is expansion of universe??
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
@@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.
Einstein apparently started to think about General Relativity at the age of 16. Think about that for a second. What wonders of scientific thought could be unlocked from the minds of all those young people out there who, instead are bullied or mistreated at the schools they go to? What despair must they go through? Makes me so angry; the schools just shrug their shoulders and blame the victims, who supposedly, should be more resilient! Shame on them!
@@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.
So, the reason we are pinned to the ground here on earth is solely due to the acceleration of Earth. This effect is called 'Gravity', caused by the 'Galileo Effect'. ua-cam.com/video/XrJzUqX520k/v-deo.html
@@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
@@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
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.
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 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)?
@@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.
@@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.
Dutch chauvinism insert: Simon Stevin, a Dutch/Flemish scientist from actually performed this experiment in Delft in 1586, and somehow it got attributed to Galilei.
@@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
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!
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).
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."
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.
In an atmospheric environment (air) the denser object will fall faster as it will displace air more. In an airless environment, both objects will fall at the same rate but the force of gravity will be stronger for the denser (higher mass) object. Note that the force of gravity acting on them is different, but the acceleration experienced due to gravity is the same.
One way to think about it- Let’s say you and your twin are exactly the same weight (better said, you have the same mass.) You are both at the top of a 10m high diving platform. You decide to jump together, hold hands with your twin, and go for it. 1.4 seconds later, you hit the water. Later, you both have the courage to jump on your own, you do so and time each other’s fall. It was 1.4 seconds for each of you to hit the water. In the first case, the both of you were falling together bound as a single object that was twice the mass of any one of you individually. But you found out in both cases you fall at the same rate. In your experiment, you discovered by holding hands, you do NOT fall twice as fast. It makes sense, right? Why would the mere fact of you holding hands change the laws of physics and make you fall faster? Obviously, it doesn’t! Therefore, objects of different masses will fall at the same rate (when air resistance is non existent or negligible.)
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?
😂🤣🤣😂 Y'all leave surfer whiteboi Jesus alone. That poor man ain't even real.... he didn't ask to be whitewashed and painted everywhere, and he doesn't want to be brought into this human tomfoolery. 🤣 stick to the topic.
"Ibn Malka says: '... Also, if bodies moved in a vacuum, the motion of the heavy and the light, the large and the small, the cone moving on its sharp tip, and the cone moving on its wide base would be equal in speed and slowness. This is because they differ in a filled space due to these things easily piercing through what they pierce from the resisting medium, such as water and air and other things...'"
"كتاب المعتبر في الحكمة" (The Book of Consideration in Wisdom) is a significant philosophical and scientific work by the Arab scholar Ibn Malkā al-Baghdādī . This book addresses various subjects including physics, astronomy, and philosophy, reflecting the scientific knowledge and methodologies of the Islamic Golden Age.
![[UA] NAVI проти G2 Esports | Blast Premier Fall Final](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QWlIm4FGESQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Did you know about the Apollo 15 experiment?
No
Yes I watched it on TV :).
yep
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.❤
🙏😂
RIP Aristotle you would've hated this episode
I disagree. He might have argued his pov but i dont think he would have hated it 😂
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!
I adore Neil, and love Startalk, even contribute to their patreon, but I'm gonna have to disagree on this one.
Neil, can you please run for president? Please
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!'"
The Leaning Tower of Pizza --->> Food for Thought
Yum 😋👍
He totally said Pizza
I heard that too. Had to rewind to see if I heard it correctly.
I didn’t know he did his experiment from an extra tall Chicago style…
I thought the same
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
that's what we call "the friends we made along the way"
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
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.
He should go on Joe Rogan with Chuck! Cuz the last two times he was on there he seemed pompous and arrogant
@@migmo89 u mean joe and him on the neil podcast lol
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!
Lucky you
targeted ads :)
You're right 😂
Coincidence?
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
Poor flat Earthers, they won't understand this at all.
Why? The floor in the rocket is flat right? So the earth is flat all the same. I rest my case
@@nolanr1400 But light wouldn’t curve down on a flat Earth.
😂😂😂😂😂😂
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)
This, and alot of other things.. 😅
What an amazing explainer Mr. Tyson is proven to be.
Dr. Tyson
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.
He’s annoying
I wish he'd quit boxing sooner because he sounds slightly punch drunk
Did you know deGrasse makes a BIG CONTRADICTION in this video?
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.
Still wrong
@@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.
Aristotle in philosophy was good
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.
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.
Keep making these videos and educate us. Love it
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. 😀
@lesliefranklin1870
Yes. Thank you.
That is what I thought he said so I don't need to get my hearing checked.
He used ramps and balls to come up with his equations on the force of gravity.
The Expanse (sci-fi series) does acceleration/deceleration/“gravity” on spaceships amazingly accurate.
Great show and book series
Yep, gravity was an actual character.
I was wondering if someone gonna mention the expanse.
Has the Neil ever talked about the series the Expanse on here before.
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!
@@MLennholm the space stations (like tycho) used centrifuge aka 'spin gravity'.
Mars' and the moon had reduced gravity.
That's all accurate to perfection!
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.
❤❤
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.
And Aristotle philosophy is great and fundamental.
"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
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.
Neil deGrasse Tyson turned into Jeff Goldblum at 7:31
😂😂😂
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!!
He already did. And there's no point in quoting him or his points. It's a wasted endeavor to argue with idiots.
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.
Gravity gains 💪
Precisely!
How?
Thank you
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
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.
It took an Aristotle to create an Einstein.
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.
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.
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.
Why wont he address Terrace and his mathematics
@@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.
@@bawssnarmz5204because the first sentence of his letter to Neil was “1x1=2”
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.
"Leaning tower of pizza" -a Ph.D.
2:04 Galileo went to the leaning tower of pizza to do his experiment!
#HospicioToday
Pizza! I thought that was what he said. 🍕
"Tower of Pizza" - That was NDT serving up a softball for Chuck to joke about, but Chuck didn't swing at that one.
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.
Aristotle's physics (and chemistry) were garbage, and they were incredibly influential, unfortunately. But that was because everything else he did was brilliant, and he did SO much else. A full 2/3 of his writings that survive to this day were on biology, and he was the first on record to put forth a classification system for living things. His political science was brilliant and influenced the framers of the US Constitution. And he was perhaps the first to develop a system of symbolic logic, the successors of which eventually became the foundations for computer language. The thing with Aristotle is, he was different from his predecessors specifically because so much of what he thought and wrote was based on observation rather than just pure reason, but when it came to physics he seriously dropped the ball. He didn't experiment and test things; he based his thoughts on just what could be seen in everyday life, and this leads to errors, sometimes massive errors. Perhaps his biggest error was not having a concept of friction, leading him to believe objects would come to rest on their own UNLESS they experienced a continuous force--which is the exact opposite of what happens. Part of why he didn't experiment was cultural; it just wasn't done. I've often thought of what brilliant ideas we would have had over 2000 years ago if he'd only been shown the value of experimentation.
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 👌
I'm more impressed by the scientific knowledge he's accrued by hanging around with NDT.
He definitely is underrated. After watching these videos. He be having me cracking up.
@@marvhollingworth663I said that too. He answers way more correct answers than I do lol
@ayyocool I was being sarcastic my entire comment is the opposite of what I think. I know tone doesn't come across while reading
@ayyocool chuck is really annoying he's never funny
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.
Doesn't get much better than that video, thanks guys. A+.
It's quite the miracle that God made the tower of Piza lean just so Galileo could prove his theory.
Such a miracle! (That oughta keep them bible thumpers going for quite a while LOL!!!)
In other words: INERTIAL MASS IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS GRAVITATIONAL MASS.
The saying "the bigger they are, the harder they fall," makes so much more sense now! 😲🤯🤯🤯
Thank you, you never know when I might need this information.
We probably use it every day, we just don't know it.
Don't be so harsh on Aristotle,he lived in a time when 99 % of people were at the same level of intelligence as Marjorie Taylor Green.
Chuck and Neil are aging backwards
Neil stopped their aging and Chuck can’t tell anyone about it!! LOL!!!
😂😂😂hilarious
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.
Be fair to my boy Aristotle he did what he could for his time.
Aristotle was working with what he had 😅. Put Einstein in Greece at that period of history and he'd be saying, "yeah, that sounds good." 😅
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
Neil: Gravity pulls harder on the heavier objects. 😏😏
Me: Are we still talking about Stars, Universe and that kind of stuff? 🤔🤔
Neil and chuck, you guys are insane 😉💯🤣
Had to pause at the mic drop @ 08:48 and soak in brilliance.
Hank! Nice to see you here!
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...
Guy lied to you and you took it right on the chin...
Awesome to see you on here man!
Loved this episode. Sometimes the basics are the founadtion of understanding.
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?
Equal give and take = balance.
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
Hi ...Neil and chuck...I just love your videos❤very interesting and informative ❤
Imagine three identical bricks covered in concrete falling next to eachother. They fall at the same rate. Now imagene that two of them come together on the way and stick to eachother forming a single object twice as heavy. Offcourse it would still fall at the same rate as the single brick..
These guys are legends. Always dropping knowledge bombs!🤙
And those knowledge bombs all land at the same time. 😆
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/
✨🖖🤓🖖✨
because gravity is not a force :)
could not understand...... earth is accelerating 9.8m/s2... reference to what?
does not speed increase every second?
it accelerating since billions of years 😂😂😂
can this accelerating is expansion of universe??
Man, I am so glad you went there. I never understood this, and now I do. Thank you.
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
@@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.
Who else thought the seats in the spaceship looked like toilets?
Can't see them as anything else after that
How bout a feather vs melon
Einstein apparently started to think about General Relativity at the age of 16. Think about that for a second. What wonders of scientific thought could be unlocked from the minds of all those young people out there who, instead are bullied or mistreated at the schools they go to? What despair must they go through? Makes me so angry; the schools just shrug their shoulders and blame the victims, who supposedly, should be more resilient! Shame on them!
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
Please sir😔
@@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.
I'm sorry Neil but you are wrong. Gravity isn't pulling on anything. Objects with mass are warping space causing them to fall toward each other.
Keep making such informative videos!
So, the reason we are pinned to the ground here on earth is solely due to the acceleration of Earth. This effect is called 'Gravity', caused by the 'Galileo Effect'.
ua-cam.com/video/XrJzUqX520k/v-deo.html
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
Do you have a better term to explain the behavior? Otherwise pull works as description that people can grasp without specialized knowledge.
@@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
@@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
But it’s one of the four fundamental forces…
umm no different mass objects fall at the same rate. it's been done in vacuum chambers where there is no atmosphere.
How many of you missed Chuck's 2:43 joke that Neil ignored to his face? Lol Chuck's face was burned.
Whoever insults Aristotle really has insulted himself.
gravity pull harder on heavier objects but its harder to get heavier objects to move, its not that unintuitive
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.
Hmm excellent point
If your correct...I should as out skinny women on dates❤ less effort to get the same result.😅😅😅😅
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.
Terrence Howard is delusional. All his theories have already been debunked. This guy is too smart to get in the mud with lunatics.
@@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)?
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.
@@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.
@@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.
Dutch chauvinism insert: Simon Stevin, a Dutch/Flemish scientist from actually performed this experiment in Delft in 1586, and somehow it got attributed to Galilei.
Galileo's story needs to be taught more to the youth.
Dude I've been going nuts over the past decade trying to figure how much information was never discovered due to poor epistemology.
@@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
Are calling for child abuse?
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!
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).
Such a great explanation abour something I always thought was too dumb of a question to ask. ❤
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."
I am, therefore I think I am, I think.
well now I want to know more about that last part, that thing about bending the beam of light.
Put simply, gravity is the warping of space. Light travels straight through space... but if that space is warped, the path of light bends.
Aristotle was smart.
Never thought about it that way, that's amazing! Thank you!
"The Leaning Tower of Pizza"
-Neil deGrasse Tyson, 2024
2:02
Imagine if Aristotle was here now and you handed him a hotpocket and an ipad. ;)
1x1=2 😂 😂 😂 😂
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.
Hayden Planetarium request an interview. Give me a call bud.
"Mic drop"
-Drops onion and a red ball
Just when I'd finished cleaning my head parts off the wall (from one of your previous episodes). I love you both dearly 😊
Thank you for this video Doctor. This is something that I have always wondered about.
If it’s based on mass, then would a tungsten ball (very dense) fall at a faster rate than a silicon one (less dense) of the same volume?
In an atmospheric environment (air) the denser object will fall faster as it will displace air more. In an airless environment, both objects will fall at the same rate but the force of gravity will be stronger for the denser (higher mass) object. Note that the force of gravity acting on them is different, but the acceleration experienced due to gravity is the same.
Guys playin' with their balls. We all do it.
This is the first thing they teach us in our secondary school physics class but bit more complicated than this.
One way to think about it-
Let’s say you and your twin are exactly the same weight (better said, you have the same mass.) You are both at the top of a 10m high diving platform. You decide to jump together, hold hands with your twin, and go for it. 1.4 seconds later, you hit the water.
Later, you both have the courage to jump on your own, you do so and time each other’s fall. It was 1.4 seconds for each of you to hit the water.
In the first case, the both of you were falling together bound as a single object that was twice the mass of any one of you individually. But you found out in both cases you fall at the same rate.
In your experiment, you discovered by holding hands, you do NOT fall twice as fast. It makes sense, right? Why would the mere fact of you holding hands change the laws of physics and make you fall faster? Obviously, it doesn’t!
Therefore, objects of different masses will fall at the same rate (when air resistance is non existent or negligible.)
Next guest TERRANCE HOWARD, don't be scared Neil
That would be an epic episode
Onion drop
Because they are both affected by the same acceleration due to gravity and have the same initial velocity at its peak (zero).
Anyone who has weighted himself on a scale should know that gravity pulls harder on a heavier object.
Anyone who has weighted himself on a scale should know that gravity pulls harder on a heavier object.
Why you stood out
Mr Terrence Howard?
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?
Neil and Chuck for 2024!
So Aristotle wasnt wrong, he just used the wrong words to describe his idea 🤔
Indeed
TLDR: Gravity is quiet quitting
First Pluto - now Aristotle - Next up 😇🙌White Jesus.🎅
😂🤣🤣😂 Y'all leave surfer whiteboi Jesus alone. That poor man ain't even real.... he didn't ask to be whitewashed and painted everywhere, and he doesn't want to be brought into this human tomfoolery. 🤣 stick to the topic.
Actually.. some Arab scientist in Baghdad 4-5 centuries before Galileo gave the same theory.
"Ibn Malka says: '... Also, if bodies moved in a vacuum, the motion of the heavy and the light, the large and the small, the cone moving on its sharp tip, and the cone moving on its wide base would be equal in speed and slowness. This is because they differ in a filled space due to these things easily piercing through what they pierce from the resisting medium, such as water and air and other things...'"
"كتاب المعتبر في الحكمة"
(The Book of Consideration in Wisdom) is a significant philosophical and scientific work by the Arab scholar Ibn Malkā al-Baghdādī . This book addresses various subjects including physics, astronomy, and philosophy, reflecting the scientific knowledge and methodologies of the Islamic Golden Age.
Entertaining but not exactly correct! But then so long as a marble and an onion fall at the same rate, who cares!
Thank you Neil and Chuck for this amazingg content.
We need longer 40 minute explainers like the g/old days
I wish that Neil would be as funny as Chuck is intelligent - but I love them both!
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