Second Law: Again referring to the equilibrium of the force i.e. If the forces are balanced the object will either remain at rest or travel with constant velocity. An unbalanced force will cause an acceleration to the object, either acting against it (deceleration or negative acceleration) or acting along with it (positive acceleration)
Friction is an unbalanced force that causes an object to slow down and come to rest. Because Newton stated that an object moving at a constant velocity will have a balanced force ie. Net Force = 0 But when an unbalanced force is acted on the object it will cause it to come to rest. Which is important out when solving problems such as projectile motion because we have to assume friction is negligible therefore the Net force is 0 meaning the object is in equilibrium.
If you are have that little hope for humans to understand the most logical laws of all, then why would you bother to confuse them with bullshit like that?
The first two I got to understand in school. But I have never come to terms with newtons third law of equal and opposite forces. they confuse me. because when i bang my hand on the table I do not bang the table on my hand, yet the force is there according to physics or something
@IvarHuisman When your hand hits the table, the table exerts the same amount of force upon your hand. However, if you try to exceed the limit of which the table will push back with force, like hitting the table with a sledgehammer, the table can't match the amount of force you provide, so you end up breaking the table.
@Ybarchov21 But where did the table get all that force? I am the only one with force right? Its hard for me to accept that there is actually twice as much force to put into account than the amount we got presented with in school with our physics homework with the simple stuff where theres a car and you calculate the amount of energy it has while moving and stuff.
@IvarHuisman The table is also producing a force as well, but only when you apply force to it. So instead of twice as much force, it is producing a negative force to counter you hitting the table with your hand. Let's say you calculated you need 400 N of force to break the table. SO logically 400 N is the max amount of force the table can exert when you hit the table. So if you hit it with your hand with 10 N, the table exerts 10 N as well, but any more than 400 N (400.1 N) the table will break.
@IvarHuisman Different example. Instead of hitting the table with your hand, just imagine a book resting on a table. The third law is if a body exerts a force on a second body, the second body exerts a force that is equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to the first force. The book is exerting a force which is created by gravity and, to prevent the table from breaking, the table pushes the exact same amount of force in the opposite direction. Every force is accompanied by an opposite one.
WOW when i first saw this video, i was like ummm okay..... but then i watched all you videos and then i watched this one and i was able to pinpoint the mistakes.... in other words thanks :)
I think that the correct laws should be presented together with the incorrect ones. Otherwise, they shouldn't be presented at all, since they do not allow one to understand the correct ones, alone.
Don't you think it would have been a better idea to explain the three correct laws of motion instead of confusing everybody with some stupid laws? Now we'll be having all sorts of idiots running around saying stupid things based on this video.
@AndrewDangerously I would argue that by not revealing the correct laws, people will research on their own accord to understand why they are wrong. If your too lazy to research your self, your missing the point of how science operates.
Well I'm certainly glad I actually learned physics correctly, and that I understand it. Seriously, I can understand why all of these laws are incorrect, and I thank my ninth grade physics teacher for that. Now, I'm going to start doing my homework for physics, because I know. It matters.
@BenJHare This is a really stupid video, and I actually think this will do considerable harm to the viewer's understanding of physics, if they do not know enough already.
However I think what he means to say is that these ideas ("incorrect laws") was believed by many before Newton. Aristotle is famous for thinking that constant force gave constant speed I remember, which is obviously incorrect. I don't know if the others are attributed to specific ppl or not.
1. An object in motion tends to stay in motion, and an object at rest tends to stay at rest, unless acted on by an outside force. In the video, he forgot to account for the forces of gravity and friction, so the objects do not truly have no forces acting on them. 2. Force is equal to mass x acceleration, not "F = m v". 3. For every reaction, there is an equal and opposite reaction. With the car and truck example, the car will exert the same force on the truck that the truck exerted on the car.
1st law an object at rest will stay at rest unless acted upon by a force and an object in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by a force. 2nd law don't really remember but it deals with acceleration. 3rd law with every action there is an equal and opposite reaction
"...As you press the accelerator, you increase the force on the car and therefore you move to new higher constant speed" hehehe. And that is why F=mv is wrong.
it's nice to compare the two, and if you understand the real laws, you see the incorrectness, but it's nice to show how uneducated people would think about it.
the third incorrect law most famous application is probably: thinking that a heavier object would fall faster because the earth would have a bigger force on it.
in reality this doesn't matter at all, because it's all about the ratio of the earth's and the object's mass.
i would show this video to teachers, but not confuse pupils ;-)
First law: its wrong because the object is actually having a force called FRICTION that makes them stop, without that force, it would continue moving.
Second Law: it doesent have to do with VELOCITY it has to do with Acceleration. the correct ecuation is F= M*a. applying a force on a object changes its acceleration, no its velocity,
Third Law: not true because the REACTION FORCE is the same, but because a larger object is heavier and has more inertia, it isnt affected by the smaller.
@Anastasiaology The gravity analogy in the video is confusing. Gravity is based on mass of the two objects and their distance apart. On Earth, the gravity exhibited on your body depends on the mass of the Earth. On the Moon, the gravity exhibited on your body depends on the mass of the Moon. Gravity is certainly less on the moon, since the mass of your body hasn't changed, yet the mass you're standing on (earth/moon) has greatly decreased.
@sidewaysfcs0718 Just to correct you on number 1, in a perfect vacuum a spaceship would float forever unless it was acted on by a force. Space is not a perfect vacuum, which is why satellites require thrusters to keep them in orbit, the friction acting on them, while weak in comparison to friction on earth, eventually slows them down. Without thrusters, the satellites would slow down and fall to earth after some time, which they do now when they run out of fuel.
showed this video to a bunch of classmates who were all sorts of showoffs that pretended they understood newtons laws... they failed our recent physics test :D i scored highest... such dirty and effective tricks!!!
So, it seems like all of his videos rely on people misunderstanding the difference between velocity and acceleration, (specifically F=mv incorrectly statin F=ma)
I know that if a truck and a car were to collide, the same amount of force would be applied to both objects. But could someone please explain why it's the car that will be completely smothered? is it the inurtia?
@R34C3S The fact that the car is smthered has to do with the construction.
The fact that the car goes flying and the truck doesn't does have something to do with this topic. Take a look at the formula: F=mv You said that an equal force is distributed over the two vehicles. However the truck has a bigger mass than the car. This means that the velocity of the car will change with a greater amount than the velocity of the truck, leading to a flying car. I hope this helps or is even correct. :P
@Ganonn360 close to correct- but you're using my incorrect second law! (F=mv) rather than the correct F=ma. But you're right, the car will accelerate much more than the truck for the same amount of force because the car has much less inertia.
@1veritasium haha, damn, i'm used to dutch translations. I couldn't remember the lettre and only remembered hearing your wrong law. Well I surely won't make that mistake,again! :D
In fact this dispute is about the definition of the "force". But what is it? It is virtual thing, that can explain, how the world works. But nobody can tell what actually happens! The force is nice thing, which help us explain and predict results!
@1veritasium The first law is actually that with unbalanced forces the speed will remain _constant_ (When an object is still on your desk there's only gravity and the force of your desk pushing back into the object which cancels each other out causing the object to remain still (Not change speed))
After finding out that when forces cancel out we can deduce that the second one should relate to acceleration not velocity
@KingNetherdrake continued. (forces in balance: 0 acceleration, forces out of balance: non 0 acceleration)
I'm not sure about the third, but I believe that the forces applied are equal, yet because of the different mass of the objects it will appear as though the smaller object has more force applied to it (This might be where kinetic energie and such comes and takes a peek, again, I'm not totally sure)
@hemp987 well briefly... for first one the object will not stop.... for second its F = m*a acceleration not velocity...and lastly the force is the same, momentum will be different in case of the truck hitting the car.....oh and for last law even though the force due to gravitational attraction is same the lighter object moves a greater distance relative to the heaver one...and if you really thing about it a heaver object will hit the ground, every so slightly, before the lighter one...
@hemp987 I: An object under balanced or no force will maintain a constant velocity until it is acted upon by an unbalanced force. II: F=ma. Unbalanced force causes acceleration. III: For every action (force of a on b) there is an equal and opposite reaction (force of b on a). Equal in magnitude opposite in direction. So basically the opposite of his incorrect laws, and the opposite of what you 'observe' in every day life.
To all those people who think he should have explained the correct laws I can recommend a little book called: Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica by a chap called Isaac Newton. It has also been translated as "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy". He does a really good job of explaining this stuff.
It is bit of a clunker, I know, but some helpful folks have produced easy learning guides to the basic concepts.
@AtmanIncarnate I thought that was very clear and concise. Those are probably the 3 most prevalent misconceptions people have about physics because of their intuition. Would have liked to have seen a mass being pulled by a string for the second incorrect law.
Seemed pretty basic to me, but I think it would be fantastic for younger viewers, but in this case, as zebruh pointed out himself... they would then have to be shown why they are wrong.
@dakke47 it would take infinite energy to propel an object to infinite speed. So if what you are saying about the second law is correct then there must be a source of infinite energy to propel the object. And if that were the case then we wouldn't be here anyway.
It's quite obvious isn't it. The "incorrectness" about the 1st and 2nd laws stem from ignoring things like friction and air resistance. If there were no opposing forces to hinder the car it would accelerate forever and reach virtually unlimited speeds, just like the books would slide indefinately on a surface with no friction. The third law stems from people's lack of understand of inertia. A bigger mass requires a bigger force to move.
This is an excellent way of presenting the information but you are torturing us by not having posted the answers immediately. I think I know the correct laws but it has been more than 40 years since I reviewed them Thanks again.
Second Law: Again referring to the equilibrium of the force i.e. If the forces are balanced the object will either remain at rest or travel with constant velocity. An unbalanced force will cause an acceleration to the object, either acting against it (deceleration or negative acceleration) or acting along with it (positive acceleration)
garfieldcatgc 6 hours ago
Friction is an unbalanced force that causes an object to slow down and come to rest. Because Newton stated that an object moving at a constant velocity will have a balanced force ie. Net Force = 0 But when an unbalanced force is acted on the object it will cause it to come to rest. Which is important out when solving problems such as projectile motion because we have to assume friction is negligible therefore the Net force is 0 meaning the object is in equilibrium.
garfieldcatgc 6 hours ago
What is air resistance?
Typho0n86 11 hours ago
If you are have that little hope for humans to understand the most logical laws of all, then why would you bother to confuse them with bullshit like that?
TheDigitalStone 13 hours ago
The first two I got to understand in school. But I have never come to terms with newtons third law of equal and opposite forces. they confuse me. because when i bang my hand on the table I do not bang the table on my hand, yet the force is there according to physics or something
IvarHuisman 1 day ago
@IvarHuisman When your hand hits the table, the table exerts the same amount of force upon your hand. However, if you try to exceed the limit of which the table will push back with force, like hitting the table with a sledgehammer, the table can't match the amount of force you provide, so you end up breaking the table.
Ybarchov21 23 hours ago
@Ybarchov21 But where did the table get all that force? I am the only one with force right? Its hard for me to accept that there is actually twice as much force to put into account than the amount we got presented with in school with our physics homework with the simple stuff where theres a car and you calculate the amount of energy it has while moving and stuff.
IvarHuisman 22 hours ago
@IvarHuisman The table is also producing a force as well, but only when you apply force to it. So instead of twice as much force, it is producing a negative force to counter you hitting the table with your hand. Let's say you calculated you need 400 N of force to break the table. SO logically 400 N is the max amount of force the table can exert when you hit the table. So if you hit it with your hand with 10 N, the table exerts 10 N as well, but any more than 400 N (400.1 N) the table will break.
Ybarchov21 21 hours ago
@IvarHuisman Different example. Instead of hitting the table with your hand, just imagine a book resting on a table. The third law is if a body exerts a force on a second body, the second body exerts a force that is equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to the first force. The book is exerting a force which is created by gravity and, to prevent the table from breaking, the table pushes the exact same amount of force in the opposite direction. Every force is accompanied by an opposite one.
Ybarchov21 20 hours ago
no shit
hmehlenbacher 1 day ago
WOW when i first saw this video, i was like ummm okay..... but then i watched all you videos and then i watched this one and i was able to pinpoint the mistakes.... in other words thanks :)
odolfmex 2 days ago
Derek sounds like a fucking idiot.
MusicalAndTall 3 days ago
WA PAH
TheBigglenn311 3 days ago
I think that the correct laws should be presented together with the incorrect ones. Otherwise, they shouldn't be presented at all, since they do not allow one to understand the correct ones, alone.
Cinimod105 4 days ago
Don't you think it would have been a better idea to explain the three correct laws of motion instead of confusing everybody with some stupid laws? Now we'll be having all sorts of idiots running around saying stupid things based on this video.
Crashboy1024 4 days ago
F=m.a
I studied Physiscs only on my first year of highshcool(I'm in the second) and I knew everithing you said.
mattheusveloso2 4 days ago
"Derek's Incorrect Laws of Motion". What don't some of you understand about that? He's giving you the misconceptions of Newton's Laws of Motion.
Chris73194 4 days ago
i find it funny how you get bashed for this video but on multiply others you get praise
aquakiller8 4 days ago
Hipster Physicist: Oh you like know Newtons Laws of Motion? They are too mainstream for me man.
Croga15 5 days ago
now im ready for my physics exam
campion1211 5 days ago
The beauty of the Internet is that one day this snide d-bag will be able to look back at what a waste of a person he was. Progress!
donfolstar 6 days ago
Got to the first law after slogging through the douchey intro and realized that the "incorrect laws" were going to be lame.
aluisious 6 days ago
Why do you speak with a half Australian half American accent?
Funny to see all the people who don't get the point of this video.
blabby102 1 week ago
@blabby102 Because he moved to Australia. :P
Chris73194 4 days ago
Hey guys, the fact that they're all incorrect IS GIVEN TO YOU in the video. :P
Sombomombo 1 week ago
Trolololololol.
Still, I got a laugh out of how ridiculous this is.
btwede10 1 week ago 2
oh man, youre only right about it being incorrect as many ppl here know obviously. i just hope some kids dont listen to you for their exams
bildii 1 week ago
This was painful to listen to.
Fact401 1 week ago
And thus we have Imperial Star Cruisers flying across the galaxy with their rocket engines continually blazing. Yes, I now see where that comes from.
ApolloWasReal 1 week ago
its sort of like the literal opposite of 'correct' is 'incorrect'!!! the laws here are just the opposite of newtons..
1996revanth 1 week ago
ive got three more incorrect laws:
1) magic
2) god
3) because i said so
tankie89 1 week ago
um.. people are NOT this retarded...
N69sZelda 1 week ago
It is not a good idea to make a video on wrong information without presenting the correct information.
This is a very ineffective learning tool.
AndrewDangerously 1 week ago 101
@AndrewDangerously I would argue that by not revealing the correct laws, people will research on their own accord to understand why they are wrong. If your too lazy to research your self, your missing the point of how science operates.
hypock1 14 hours ago
F=ma!! not mv!
shauni1987 1 week ago
@shauni1987 IT'S INCORRECT.
MrPuddingTaco 1 week ago
@MrPuddingTaco ;)
shauni1987 1 week ago
I understand why the first and third "laws" are incorrect, but I'm confused by what the second law is trying to say.
NFITC1 1 week ago
@NFITC1 An unbalanced force on an object causes the acceleration (or deceleration) of that object, not a constant velocity.
ColdoTannen 1 week ago
@ColdoTannen That's right. I remembered that a few hours after making that post. The pedal in a car is correctly called the accelerator after all.
NFITC1 1 week ago
Well I'm certainly glad I actually learned physics correctly, and that I understand it. Seriously, I can understand why all of these laws are incorrect, and I thank my ninth grade physics teacher for that. Now, I'm going to start doing my homework for physics, because I know. It matters.
mudlums 2 weeks ago
the first two laws forget that we are on EARTH where there is FRICTION slowing stuff down
the second one is just that the mass affects inertia and momentum, not force
HimanXK 2 weeks ago
WOAH there are a lot of assholes on youtube. make youtube a better place and get off.
kindpotato 2 weeks ago
applying your second law does in fact give you your third law
11235811193049 2 weeks ago
what an Idiot!
akuariano 2 weeks ago
I though I saw nessie in the background but it was just a black swan.
wait a minute
OMG A BLACK SWAN
LomTang 2 weeks ago
That was so confusing. You're dumbing down anyone that watched this.
slavesofwar 2 weeks ago
I'm confused... Is this meant to be clever? Who thinks that's how physics works? I want to meet these people.
BenJHare 2 weeks ago
@BenJHare This is a really stupid video, and I actually think this will do considerable harm to the viewer's understanding of physics, if they do not know enough already.
However I think what he means to say is that these ideas ("incorrect laws") was believed by many before Newton. Aristotle is famous for thinking that constant force gave constant speed I remember, which is obviously incorrect. I don't know if the others are attributed to specific ppl or not.
Fuglebolle 2 weeks ago
1. An object in motion tends to stay in motion, and an object at rest tends to stay at rest, unless acted on by an outside force. In the video, he forgot to account for the forces of gravity and friction, so the objects do not truly have no forces acting on them. 2. Force is equal to mass x acceleration, not "F = m v". 3. For every reaction, there is an equal and opposite reaction. With the car and truck example, the car will exert the same force on the truck that the truck exerted on the car.
HPU2591 3 weeks ago
1st law an object at rest will stay at rest unless acted upon by a force and an object in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by a force. 2nd law don't really remember but it deals with acceleration. 3rd law with every action there is an equal and opposite reaction
narutomaster667 3 weeks ago
I think the derek's third law is the Law o fconsrevation of momentum..!!
Bila19971 3 weeks ago
shit. now im confused.
bigguy7265123 4 weeks ago
if these laws were correct, we'd have been sucked into the sun a long time ago
1206549 1 month ago
how stupid
hasantariq123 1 month ago
"...As you press the accelerator, you increase the force on the car and therefore you move to new higher constant speed" hehehe. And that is why F=mv is wrong.
anniejillybean 1 month ago
I believe that all three of those incorrect laws have been applied to the airplane on a conveyor belt question a million times over. ;¬)
wordreet 1 month ago
it's nice to compare the two, and if you understand the real laws, you see the incorrectness, but it's nice to show how uneducated people would think about it.
the third incorrect law most famous application is probably: thinking that a heavier object would fall faster because the earth would have a bigger force on it.
in reality this doesn't matter at all, because it's all about the ratio of the earth's and the object's mass.
i would show this video to teachers, but not confuse pupils ;-)
Esudao 1 month ago
wow kindergarten.. i was about to subscribe
MrCephalus 1 month ago
Imagine the universe would actually work like this... We'd all be DOOMED! DOOMED I SAY!
turfele 1 month ago
Wow this ain't helpful at all...
DaxterSpeed 1 month ago
Do you want me to make the flash animations for you?
mreueujj1 1 month ago
the laws make sence, you just don't understand them...
towldryer 1 month ago
Very Aristotelian of you.
johncrwarner 1 month ago
What made you do to Australia Derek? Aren't you American ?
theyasin33 1 month ago
wonderful. you just told me a bunch crap i cannot use in life or bring up in conversation.
not2stupidguitar 2 months ago
@not2stupidguitar but you do use it...all the time.
anniejillybean 1 month ago
First law: its wrong because the object is actually having a force called FRICTION that makes them stop, without that force, it would continue moving.
Second Law: it doesent have to do with VELOCITY it has to do with Acceleration. the correct ecuation is F= M*a. applying a force on a object changes its acceleration, no its velocity,
Third Law: not true because the REACTION FORCE is the same, but because a larger object is heavier and has more inertia, it isnt affected by the smaller.
Thumbs up
manutonXXX 2 months ago 68
@manutonXXX
your job here is done capt. obvious
TheTakaraputo 1 week ago
Comment removed
garfieldcatgc 6 hours ago
im comfuddled xD
eliasnesheim 2 months ago
About Moon. Why then we are taught that gravity is less on the Moon? Is that only in relation to a person, or an astronaut?
Anastasiaology 2 months ago
@Anastasiaology The gravity analogy in the video is confusing. Gravity is based on mass of the two objects and their distance apart. On Earth, the gravity exhibited on your body depends on the mass of the Earth. On the Moon, the gravity exhibited on your body depends on the mass of the Moon. Gravity is certainly less on the moon, since the mass of your body hasn't changed, yet the mass you're standing on (earth/moon) has greatly decreased.
AnomalyTea 2 months ago
Why did I understand this? I'm thirteen :3
MineOdinCraft 2 months ago
i dont understand the goal of the video
soyelmejormadridista 2 months ago
i really don't know what kind of retard would think those laws are true, but apparently there are many retards.
CakesnakeFilms 2 months ago
You should explain heavy things on blankets...?
Baboonaiih 2 months ago
so where are the correct ones?
hasantariq123 3 months ago
OH MA GOD, THAT EQUATION HURTS MAH EYES!!!!!!!!!!!!
alankace 3 months ago
anyone from vsauce here
InsaneRocker1023 3 months ago
well the correct versions are
1. object should really never stop moving, but friction stops them ...in space for example, they would keep going forever
2. a continuous constant force will accelerate the object, its speed will always increase.
3. the forces are equal
sidewaysfcs0718 3 months ago
@sidewaysfcs0718 Just to correct you on number 1, in a perfect vacuum a spaceship would float forever unless it was acted on by a force. Space is not a perfect vacuum, which is why satellites require thrusters to keep them in orbit, the friction acting on them, while weak in comparison to friction on earth, eventually slows them down. Without thrusters, the satellites would slow down and fall to earth after some time, which they do now when they run out of fuel.
Cwagmire 2 months ago
showed this video to a bunch of classmates who were all sorts of showoffs that pretended they understood newtons laws... they failed our recent physics test :D i scored highest... such dirty and effective tricks!!!
insertfancynamehere 3 months ago
So, it seems like all of his videos rely on people misunderstanding the difference between velocity and acceleration, (specifically F=mv incorrectly statin F=ma)
trueShortDude 3 months ago
I was totally tripping because my name is Derek.
SomeNullBytes 4 months ago
k what was the point of that wtf
MultiCheeseGrater 4 months ago
1.gravity is a force so yea...
2.physics ftw
3.it depends on the weight , density , buoncy , charge , etc etc.
rsn00b4life 4 months ago
the first law is wrong because gravity is a force
InAFruitCup 4 months ago
Vesauce brought me here
Starfistfc 4 months ago
I know that if a truck and a car were to collide, the same amount of force would be applied to both objects. But could someone please explain why it's the car that will be completely smothered? is it the inurtia?
R34C3S 4 months ago in playlist Inertia
@R34C3S The fact that the car is smthered has to do with the construction.
The fact that the car goes flying and the truck doesn't does have something to do with this topic. Take a look at the formula: F=mv You said that an equal force is distributed over the two vehicles. However the truck has a bigger mass than the car. This means that the velocity of the car will change with a greater amount than the velocity of the truck, leading to a flying car. I hope this helps or is even correct. :P
Ganonn360 4 months ago
@Ganonn360 close to correct- but you're using my incorrect second law! (F=mv) rather than the correct F=ma. But you're right, the car will accelerate much more than the truck for the same amount of force because the car has much less inertia.
1veritasium 4 months ago
@1veritasium haha, damn, i'm used to dutch translations. I couldn't remember the lettre and only remembered hearing your wrong law. Well I surely won't make that mistake,again! :D
Ganonn360 4 months ago
1. object with NO forces working on him will continue to move infinitely.
2. constant force will cause constant velocity, if there are no other factors
(like change in friction or energy losses)
3. if that'd be the case moon would be pulled down to earth
SEThatered 4 months ago
In fact this dispute is about the definition of the "force". But what is it? It is virtual thing, that can explain, how the world works. But nobody can tell what actually happens! The force is nice thing, which help us explain and predict results!
Xblow23 4 months ago
Could you post the correct laws?
hemp987 4 months ago 19
@hemp987 yeah so that promise to do the correct laws is looking a little shaky - let me see what I can do...
1veritasium 4 months ago 10
@1veritasium The first law is actually that with unbalanced forces the speed will remain _constant_ (When an object is still on your desk there's only gravity and the force of your desk pushing back into the object which cancels each other out causing the object to remain still (Not change speed))
After finding out that when forces cancel out we can deduce that the second one should relate to acceleration not velocity
KingNetherdrake 1 month ago
@KingNetherdrake continued. (forces in balance: 0 acceleration, forces out of balance: non 0 acceleration)
I'm not sure about the third, but I believe that the forces applied are equal, yet because of the different mass of the objects it will appear as though the smaller object has more force applied to it (This might be where kinetic energie and such comes and takes a peek, again, I'm not totally sure)
KingNetherdrake 1 month ago
@hemp987 Erm, basically exactly the opposite of what he said. Or just google it
razveck 4 months ago
@hemp987 Look for it in Wikipedia!
MrOvipare 3 months ago
@hemp987 well briefly... for first one the object will not stop.... for second its F = m*a acceleration not velocity...and lastly the force is the same, momentum will be different in case of the truck hitting the car.....oh and for last law even though the force due to gravitational attraction is same the lighter object moves a greater distance relative to the heaver one...and if you really thing about it a heaver object will hit the ground, every so slightly, before the lighter one...
susvart 2 months ago
@hemp987 I: An object under balanced or no force will maintain a constant velocity until it is acted upon by an unbalanced force. II: F=ma. Unbalanced force causes acceleration. III: For every action (force of a on b) there is an equal and opposite reaction (force of b on a). Equal in magnitude opposite in direction. So basically the opposite of his incorrect laws, and the opposite of what you 'observe' in every day life.
albatross0210 1 week ago
To all those people who think he should have explained the correct laws I can recommend a little book called: Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica by a chap called Isaac Newton. It has also been translated as "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy". He does a really good job of explaining this stuff.
It is bit of a clunker, I know, but some helpful folks have produced easy learning guides to the basic concepts.
Just a thought. Use it, don't use it...
DarkwingScooter 4 months ago
damn it, I'm too smart to learn anything from these videos.
Skinnymarks 4 months ago
Aristotle!
uncleskimo 4 months ago
HAHA. I have the same understanding as his third law.
Now time to review my notes in physics class.
Yamboist 5 months ago
Comment removed
Yamboist 5 months ago
if I read through these comments it makes me sad to see people actually complaining about these rules and how right they are.
These rules are WRONG. So WRONG. Just like he said they would be.
TRUCKERmassaker 6 months ago
not clear or concise. Confusing.
AtmanIncarnate 7 months ago 19
@AtmanIncarnate Excellent! I'm betting you've seen my post on Khan Academy and the Effectiveness of Science Videos?
1veritasium 7 months ago 13
@1veritasium nope, where can I find that
lbb2r 2 months ago
@AtmanIncarnate I thought that was very clear and concise. Those are probably the 3 most prevalent misconceptions people have about physics because of their intuition. Would have liked to have seen a mass being pulled by a string for the second incorrect law.
Richy15251 2 months ago
this is so basic only a fool would learn from this video
MrNEEDabout350 3 weeks ago
I understand why the first and the last are incorrect (even though on this channel I'm usually wrong) but the second feels OK
Arghira 8 months ago
This video confuses more instead of really explain the 3 laws. Why didn't he explain the right laws at the end?
gnomopocho 9 months ago
Seemed pretty basic to me, but I think it would be fantastic for younger viewers, but in this case, as zebruh pointed out himself... they would then have to be shown why they are wrong.
Vsillier 9 months ago
Dude you are confusing many students by not showing the correct way to understand those laws
73kb 9 months ago
it's ok that u say that what is NOT correct, but you should tell what really happens after u say what's wrong
PlutonGB 10 months ago
@dakke47 it would take infinite energy to propel an object to infinite speed. So if what you are saying about the second law is correct then there must be a source of infinite energy to propel the object. And if that were the case then we wouldn't be here anyway.
TThomato 10 months ago
It's quite obvious isn't it. The "incorrectness" about the 1st and 2nd laws stem from ignoring things like friction and air resistance. If there were no opposing forces to hinder the car it would accelerate forever and reach virtually unlimited speeds, just like the books would slide indefinately on a surface with no friction. The third law stems from people's lack of understand of inertia. A bigger mass requires a bigger force to move.
dakke47 10 months ago
cool video
Melki 11 months ago
nice magnets on the fridge
MRH3LO 11 months ago
derek's 3 retarding forces... tut tut
Mriliketofu 11 months ago 27
This is an excellent way of presenting the information but you are torturing us by not having posted the answers immediately. I think I know the correct laws but it has been more than 40 years since I reviewed them Thanks again.
Zeyev 11 months ago
I'm going to write F=mv in my next matrix quiz..
godlikerefugee 11 months ago 6
@godlikerefugee Don't you dare! You know the rant that will unleash!!
1veritasium 11 months ago 19
Staying tuned ...
ghrpdx 11 months ago
yey i know why all these are wrong :D
cheetmeister 11 months ago
duhhhh F=mv... who doesnt know that
Benlew112358 11 months ago
Interesting.....
ArmedFlag 11 months ago
Okay now I'm eager to hear >>>WHY<<< these are incorrect!!!
zebruh 11 months ago 3
@zebruh haha, patience. I'll get the right stuff done soon. Promise!
1veritasium 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Love this channel!
CharlieHog 11 months ago
You have a beard now.
HDvideosaregood 11 months ago