You did it wrong. Your measurements are at 10 . But your drop actually comes off ramp at around 7-8. Raise the ramp so the 10 is at bottom and the math will be more close to reality.
I think this is the reason A significant percentage of religious people say they don't believe in science, because they don't understand the need for all these complicated equations when they can generally get close enough, well, believe it or not, if you have a vague idea of what you're doing, you don't need these complicated equations. It's pretty obvious to anyone who's messed with a bouncy ball that not accounting for stuff like spin is going to result in more bounces than what this guy is telling us, also, most people don't need pinpoint precision when it comes to stuff like throwing an object
@@markrix it also gains horizontally kinetic energy at the cost of vertical kinetic energy meaning the ball will have less vertical speed when hitting the table meaning it will not bounce as high meaning more bounces.
But without rotation, it would literally not move forward since the slope is responsible for both the rotation and the inclination that propels the ball forward. No rotation means no slope and means the ball will bounce in place until it completely stops
@@johnlynch1353 ooh I love the comments where people put their brains together. Mark and your comments are definitely right! I didn't think about either. I wonder if the energy imbalance counteracts the forward rotational inertia.
You could do all that stuff OR just try it and see what happens. Same with nuclear weapons. You could do the math to know how powerful it is, or you could find a small town.
I imagine the rotation that the ramp imparted on the ball had a significant impact on the rate that it count progresses forward. I would love to see this again with a roller barring ramp
Right. Specifically, the ball bounces both in _x,y_ and in rotation. The ball will bounce further along _x_ when landing on a forward roll, and less when landing on a backwards roll. _I think:_ theoretically, the forward & backwards bounces should balance out to net zero effect, but my guess is that the energy absorption during rotational bounce is appreciable and unaccounted for in the workup calcs.
Right. Specifically, the ball bounces both in _x,y_ and in rotation. The ball will bounce further along _x_ when landing on a forward roll, and less when landing on a backwards roll. _I think:_ theoretically, the forward & backwards bounces should balance out to net zero effect, but my guess is that the energy absorption during rotational bounce is appreciable and unaccounted for in the workup calcs.
I suspect a roller barring ramp (however that might work - maybe like a gentle air gun, rather than a ramp) would lead to *_less accurate_* predictions, specifically more actual bounces than predicted. Justification: entering the first bounce, the ball has no rotational kinetic energy. In the first bounce, the x velocity component will impose rotation, meaning a transfer of _x,y_ KE into rotational KE. This transferred KE will never be restored to the _x,y_ frame, so it's a net _x,y_ loss.
maybe but conversely the ramp used in the video imparts a rotation, which in contrast to your example, adds energy to the movement along the x axis starting with the first bounce. Resulting in fewer bounces in a given distance than expected. You can imagine if you could have ramp that some how rolled the ball in the opposite direction it would take away energy from the movement along the x axis resulting in more bounce over a given distance. There for a system that moves the ball forward with no rotation should be the closest to a prediction based on data from watching the ball bounce just on the y axis
@@colin-me I think you're close. I think the ball's rotation coming off the ramp should "match" the ball's x velocity. Ideally the ball should be frictionless on the bouncing plane. Perhaps a billiards ball on glass (😵 - very very thick glass) would get close to ideal)
When i first saw the kid i picked him and said “this little rat is guilty!” From the incredibles, in hindsight i realized my decision was… only a hunch
U r right , but for rolling smooth surface its less. Bounce back vertically 180° vs Bouncing at degree < 180 roll ahead contact hence frictional resistance is lesser + momentum
Now apply this concept to something super important or a daily regular. Here's another 1: The Cookie Halving Theory. In reality, the odds of perfectly splitting a cookie in half is super rare. There is nearly always a bigger and smaller "half." This principle is important to life and probability, but I still do not know the math behind it. Any big brains?
Over makes sense because your calculations only took into account vertical CoR, not horizontal CoR or angular CoR. A rotating object, even with a perfectly straight trajectory, still requires a horizontal and angular CoR to predict its behavior. Steve Mould just recently did a video on this topic.
My first thought was inconsistencies along the path of travel. A "dead" spot might absorb more energy and significantly reduce the height of subsequent bounces.
If you've ever spun a basketball when you dropped it and watched it bounce back in the other direction, whatever exact forces are at play in that scenario are probably also causing the ball to slow down just enough to get that 6th bounce
I’m three for three on these bets Update: 3-4 didn’t see the first ever with the soap thought it would hit at a weird angle so I took the under😢 Update 2: 4-5 less gooo just saw the newest with the parachute
But the original calculation was dropping the ball by the wall where there's more support to the counter than out further along where it is just over an empty space.
Under is what I thought but I never knew it was without the tape measure so I would probably say on top of if you did more then one but I will take the loss
If you missed the first leg with the coin flip, you can find it using the link on this short. Thanks for watching and good luck!
You did it wrong. Your measurements are at 10 . But your drop actually comes off ramp at around 7-8. Raise the ramp so the 10 is at bottom and the math will be more close to reality.
Im not here for physics, im here to GAMBLE
I’m hear for both lol
Let's go gambling!
Aw dangit
Aw dangit
Aw dangit
Aw dangit
Aw dangit
"📞So, Jenny. Remember when you told me to not gamble our house again?"
Aw dang it!
Understanding the physics makes it pretty obvious it's going to bounce more times than the ideal calculation though
It just matters if the ball tastes good
What do you mean all balls are delicious
@__madmaverick why you dirty minded like that 💀
Agreed 👍
@__madmaverick my ball aint bouncy
@@jellymemo6384 you should get that checked out
Rarely felt this dumb watching a ball bounce.
bro what was with the subliminal massaging halfway through lmao
Friction (Bets)
Subliminal massaging lol I think u mean messaging
I'm sure that was a (BET!!!) editing mistake
my back has never felt better
"subliminal massaging" - what I _dream_ about!
🤠
I never actually calculate i can just take an educated guess and im always right😎
Same!
I can take an uneducated guess, and I am sometimes right, so... idk what that means 😂
Same! I just go with my gut.
@snoball9389 educated in the sense that you use learned experiences to determine your answer, without actually knowing if you're correct.
I think this is the reason A significant percentage of religious people say they don't believe in science, because they don't understand the need for all these complicated equations when they can generally get close enough, well, believe it or not, if you have a vague idea of what you're doing, you don't need these complicated equations. It's pretty obvious to anyone who's messed with a bouncy ball that not accounting for stuff like spin is going to result in more bounces than what this guy is telling us, also, most people don't need pinpoint precision when it comes to stuff like throwing an object
The biggest unaccounted for loss is rotational energy. That allowed the ball to slow down and get more bounces on the table
But the ball would be rotating in the direction that would improve its movement to the edge, ie less bounces... Hmmm
@@markrix it also gains horizontally kinetic energy at the cost of vertical kinetic energy meaning the ball will have less vertical speed when hitting the table meaning it will not bounce as high meaning more bounces.
But without rotation, it would literally not move forward since the slope is responsible for both the rotation and the inclination that propels the ball forward. No rotation means no slope and means the ball will bounce in place until it completely stops
@@MegaIronica the slope is not responsible for the rotation. Friction is.
@@johnlynch1353 ooh I love the comments where people put their brains together. Mark and your comments are definitely right! I didn't think about either.
I wonder if the energy imbalance counteracts the forward rotational inertia.
You could do all that stuff OR just try it and see what happens. Same with nuclear weapons. You could do the math to know how powerful it is, or you could find a small town.
Better if you use a large city, the bigger size will allow you to see how much damage the nuke does at further distances.
@@ExzaktVid Yes, but bigger cities are more likely to be seen in the news if you nuke them.
Or, hear me out, you could just try it out and see if the whole atmosphere is going to be ignited in a nuclear chain reaction
Somehow i just sat here while he was talking and i said loudly 6 and it was 6 bounces
Same here lmao
Same
Okay I'm really liking the sports references he keeps sprinkling into the videos.
As a sixers fan I took this personal
Trust the process
Stanford pines fan?
The process is over 😢
That ball looks like it would taste mad good tho
I HAVE THE POWER HAHAHA I CAST 1 THOUSANDTH LIKE
bro why’d you have to bring the Kawhi shot up man 😥
Forreal, so unnecessary
I havent been wrong in months, if im mot sure i tend to go over because genrally math estimates high rather than low
bets jumpscare at 0:39
Bouncee ball
let’s go the parlay hit
I dont know how you got 4.5, i solved t for the point where x=edge and t=1.4, my bounce function is 0.2 bounces/sec.. i got 7.....
This is the nerdiest shit I've ever seen and I'm here for it!
I have literally never been wrong on one of these. I can’t stop WINNING
I saw the table and just said 6 from the top of my head, didn't even think about it
I WIN. now what :p
When he said "no drag no friction" rhe video glitched and i was scared
OMG I GUESSED 6 AND I WAS RIGHT OMG OMG
HOW DO YOU GET HALF A BOUNCE!?
I guessed six, I win your silly games
Still haven't lost an over under yet
Bets jumpscare
6 was my literal guess 😂
I said 47
Uhh uhh this is the fake one
Over
I imagine the rotation that the ramp imparted on the ball had a significant impact on the rate that it count progresses forward. I would love to see this again with a roller barring ramp
Right. Specifically, the ball bounces both in _x,y_ and in rotation. The ball will bounce further along _x_ when landing on a forward roll, and less when landing on a backwards roll.
_I think:_ theoretically, the forward & backwards bounces should balance out to net zero effect, but my guess is that the energy absorption during rotational bounce is appreciable and unaccounted for in the workup calcs.
Right. Specifically, the ball bounces both in _x,y_ and in rotation. The ball will bounce further along _x_ when landing on a forward roll, and less when landing on a backwards roll.
_I think:_ theoretically, the forward & backwards bounces should balance out to net zero effect, but my guess is that the energy absorption during rotational bounce is appreciable and unaccounted for in the workup calcs.
I suspect a roller barring ramp (however that might work - maybe like a gentle air gun, rather than a ramp) would lead to *_less accurate_* predictions, specifically more actual bounces than predicted.
Justification: entering the first bounce, the ball has no rotational kinetic energy. In the first bounce, the x velocity component will impose rotation, meaning a transfer of _x,y_ KE into rotational KE. This transferred KE will never be restored to the _x,y_ frame, so it's a net _x,y_ loss.
maybe but conversely the ramp used in the video imparts a rotation, which in contrast to your example, adds energy to the movement along the x axis starting with the first bounce. Resulting in fewer bounces in a given distance than expected. You can imagine if you could have ramp that some how rolled the ball in the opposite direction it would take away energy from the movement along the x axis resulting in more bounce over a given distance. There for a system that moves the ball forward with no rotation should be the closest to a prediction based on data from watching the ball bounce just on the y axis
@@colin-me I think you're close. I think the ball's rotation coming off the ramp should "match" the ball's x velocity.
Ideally the ball should be frictionless on the bouncing plane. Perhaps a billiards ball on glass (😵 - very very thick glass) would get close to ideal)
i thought it might be under due to the spin from the launch ramp but yea ig the other losses add up a lot more
My thoughts exactly.
I probably should have paid more attention in Dynamics lol.
Why am I so good at this
YAY I WIN, where's my money?
Need multiple drops then take the average
This is making me reconsider becoming an engineer.
When i first saw the kid i picked him and said “this little rat is guilty!” From the incredibles, in hindsight i realized my decision was… only a hunch
I thought the effect of rolling would outweigh the effect of friction, i was wrong.
U r right ,
but for rolling smooth surface its less.
Bounce back vertically 180° vs
Bouncing at degree < 180 roll ahead
contact hence frictional resistance is lesser + momentum
What the, i am an idiot and just guessed 6 and i got it right , why can't this happen when there's some real stakes😅
He us personal who makes physics questions, he already tested collision train, throwing a ball from eifle tower etc
still perfect in these🙌
Wtf i just saw Kawhi leonards game winning shot right before this 💀
Now apply this concept to something super important or a daily regular.
Here's another 1: The Cookie Halving Theory.
In reality, the odds of perfectly splitting a cookie in half is super rare. There is nearly always a bigger and smaller "half." This principle is important to life and probability, but I still do not know the math behind it. Any big brains?
Over makes sense because your calculations only took into account vertical CoR, not horizontal CoR or angular CoR. A rotating object, even with a perfectly straight trajectory, still requires a horizontal and angular CoR to predict its behavior. Steve Mould just recently did a video on this topic.
"If everything is ideal it will bounce 4.5 times but everything is not ideal"
I voted over
My first thought was inconsistencies along the path of travel. A "dead" spot might absorb more energy and significantly reduce the height of subsequent bounces.
bouncing 4.5??? me when i have 5.39 kids
Wait....... I totally thought it would be less.. ugh.. thats way better than. Click bait, i must know why
Me during the video: yeah hmm yeah exactly... Yeah yeah yes yeah hmm i knew it...
I very understand the video😵
I just guessed it will be 6. I hope all my luck wasn't used for this because they announce the winning numbers today.
well 12 is twice of 6.. so do i get half the points?
I can't believe I could understand all of this in highschool. 🤧🤧
The roll spins the ball. Each bounce the spin is reversed and the spin affects the angle of motion. Hence the complexity of these models.
I missed the second leg and first leg with the coin flip and now im on the third leg
Guys its a joke 😂💀💀☄️
If you've ever spun a basketball when you dropped it and watched it bounce back in the other direction, whatever exact forces are at play in that scenario are probably also causing the ball to slow down just enough to get that 6th bounce
I bet 17. I complwtely forgot the "before falling off"part
I’m three for three on these bets
Update: 3-4 didn’t see the first ever with the soap thought it would hit at a weird angle so I took the under😢
Update 2: 4-5 less gooo just saw the newest with the parachute
Thank you christ for covering my ass was almost had on this one🙏🏻🙏🏻💀
Can’t believe I guessed right 😂 I never guess right that’s 2/2 on your vids so far
Why exactly is THIS the question?
Of course i picked the over, that ball looks very bouncy
my guess is that it’s over because the ball has topspin after rolling down the ramp
I just played an intuition/experience based sim in my head and guessed 7. Not too bad.
I guessed 7 times so was just under but accurate in my prediction of over 4.5 at least 😅
But the original calculation was dropping the ball by the wall where there's more support to the counter than out further along where it is just over an empty space.
"I just farted, but how many times?"
it would’ve been like 10 times easier, if you showed the whole runway from the side
The last one got air dropped
I just guessed it right from experience lmao 🤣
Liked because of the ‘19 Raptors
I was barely paying attention and I just went:
uhh …6 I really was not expecting to get it right
I think I’m going with the under. I think the spin will have an impact.
Damn, so close. I predicted 7 bounces.
was not expecting sixers trauma in a jadropping science video
The only thing i can recall from school was the rebound thingy
You're assuming it travels at the same speed as it does bounce.
Under is what I thought but I never knew it was without the tape measure so I would probably say on top of if you did more then one but I will take the loss
Its a jee advanced question its preety similar but all the conditions are ideal
bro just explained the entirety of one of my next semester classes to me in a single UA-cam short
It’s always the over bc loses are never accounted for
This is the kind of gambling I can get behind 😂 also, I lost
Under for sure
Edit: man I'm bad at these.
I can’t believe how invested in this I just got.
YESSSS❣️❣️❣️❣️❣️❣️❣️❣️
I WINNNN❣️❣️❣️❣️❣️❣️❣️❣️❣️🦄☄️⚡️❤️🔥🌈⚰️👑🏀🙃
Bro, i just bounced it in my head and counted how many it took, turns out, i was right about amount of the bounces
All that scientific data and you didn't come up with a different way to drop it that was more consistent
I’m really bad at these, but this one I was able to guess the bounces exactly for some reason
I love this series. Two truth and trash was good too but I like the betting aspect here
OVER. I can hear it in my head
🎉🎉 yay 🙌🏾 what do I win?!
Bro is literally doing the shit which I used to curse in my jee prep
You neglected to mention that the ball has floating stars is it. Amateur
Not accounting for any rotational energy, going for over
The bouncy ball one is fake
I didn't understand a single thing but liked the video 😊
I called that without you’re fancy math
How many times? Easy , it will fall off the table once