He's so enthusiastic and entertaining that not once did I get distracted. This is so cool!!

Cavendish did not get a Nobel Prize because he died in 1810. Alfred Nobel (Nobel prize man, inventor of dynamite) was born in 1833. The Nobel Prizes were awarded beginning in 1901. Only living people qualify for Nobel prizes.

Me: hey mom mom: *suicidal thoughts*

Thank you for this video. I was reading about all of this out curiosity and so many people lacked the explanation of how each constant was determined.

So, in what year wiil the gravitational constant be 6,754E-11 again? ( :

love the Doc Schuster style! reminds me of a good friend at a "high" period on a light bipolar spectrum :)

Nice video. Visual learners could benefit fro loads of it. Thanks

Hehehe thank you so much for this deep explanation in funny way

5:00 " GET ON WITH IT "

Sir Doc Schuster, thank you very much for this video, I have requested you many times to make a video on Derivation of Mass Variation Formula of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, but I don't know why you are not taking my request,

Wow 😯 amazing

This is great but it it all sounds like a very complicated way to go about it... The simplest way to measure the mass of the Earth is by balancing a huge plank upon a fulcrum, with Earth on one end and a Greek philosopher (preferrably Ptolemy but any bearded wise man in a toga will do), standing on the other.

Why not use cubes instead of sphears?

Yeah, close enough to base all other measurements we make on it, I guess, for one day in history.

There's 1/2 au string: G (Newtonian gravitational constant) = (5 m^4/(kg s^2))/(0.5 au (astronomical units))

+Doc, Great job replicating the experiement. I am curious however, do you not somewhat see this akin to balancing a fork and spoon on a glass? What does it prove? Also "he knows the mass of the sun". Do you really stand by that statement? Cheers!

pretty sure gravitational constant is relative to the accumulated mass of a star cluster in the local area. Like soup, each body forms a meniscus and the berth of stars is created from hotspots, or denser areas of space, causing the probability that objects will move to that direction. so an area of space with no stars fro a long way will have a lower value than areas within the center of the galaxy, hence why we tend to have black holes at the center. and so, If one was to remove a black hole "pluck" it from the center of a galaxy and place it in an area of space much further away from any large objects, the "gravity" would cover a larger area (relitave effect) than it would at the center of the galaxy and the gravitational constant would be a lower value, in comparison to the cneter of the galaxy. I would love to Large gravitational waves combine in one area, create a hotspot and then move through. causing momentary black holes non self sustaining. In fact, you could create sustainable black holes If you could create consistant gravitational waves In a lab (a big lab) by causing dense fluctuations in the space at a cirtan point. for what reason, I don't know.... although I may be wrong :P and perhaps slightly mad :)

i wish he know to animate this.. amazing...

A very fine Quartz fiber

If you're feeling a medieval monk vibe, then pronounce it "Prinsipia" as you did; if, on the other hand, you've got the whole Roman Senator thing going on, then pronounce it "PrinKipia". Great vid. btw. thx.

hello doc, got a question I hope you can help me with, electromagnetic waves: I understand the principles involved with a dipole antenna, an oscillating current creates charges that oscillate back and forth in the antenna itself and produce a complete wave which travels out, then the process repeats... my question is, we take our dipole antenna ( which are separate pieces of metal ) attached to wires which are attached to two large plate capacitors, so as follows ...... we have two plate capacitor attached to the dipoles with high separate charges, and we have a switch inline....... we throw the switch momentarily and charges flow and create the START of the electromagnetic wave but the charges aren't on a alternating cycle, so does this create an incomplete wave ? if so what are the details or implications of such a scenario .. If I see this properly, I could emit many half wave electromagnetic waves ( incomplete waves ) until the capacitor is discharged .... if this wave impacts a metal surface ( copper wire ) it would seem that this wave would create a DC type of current rather then AC ... I don't really know .

16:01 When you finally get the thing in your mind you forgot in 10,000 B.C

Op in the chat 😂

When I do this experiment I’m not using lead balls I will use steel balls

How much does the universe weight? Is it infinite ?

Very fast

angle of sunlight reflected was used, LASAR pointers were not available until 1812, (I know, I was there, using one.)

But the distance from a hill or buildings to the small balls is different a little bit between every small ball. There is a slight difference between the two small balls distance to the hill outside the lab. Or to buildings outside the lab and probably this slight difference produces bias gravitational force from outside the lab which is higher than the heavy ball gravitational force. The hill outside or buildings outside the lab can cause bias gravitational force on the system of the two balls which is higher than the gravitational force of the bigger ball :-).

Air conditioners in 1798?

For both G and Lamda you actually can’t say what these mean and why they are there anyway.

Try Adderall dude, seriously

Dear Flat Earthers, go back to your flat Earth videos and stop polluting other people's video comments.

He did not measure.Someone else measured 50-100 years after :-)

Wait and wait and wait and then Newton Dies

You knoww why this experiment was tossed out and not used any more? Because it's static . Not gravity

horrible explanation

Doc Schuster, I hope that you read this. So just a moment ago I was writing an explanation (in a forum) of why gravity seems to be a property of space and I realized that Cavendish method is flawed and it produces a wrong result. I was explaining that if you hang 2 steel balls, they seem attracted because they point the center of Earth which forms a triangle and in this triangle we have 2 corners very close to 90 degrees but always less than 90 degrees. If you accept the hanging balls you will realize that it doesn't matter what the mass of these balls is, they would always keep that angle, which proves that this equation is wrong. These balls will not deflect more with increase of mass, therefore the "force" between them will not increase. Cavendish is wrong, because he hangs the small balls on a rod. If you draw it correctly, you have a triangle 2 sides radius of Earth and third is the distance from string to large ball. If you divide the triangle with a 90degree to the distance between the balls you will realize, that the cathet is slightly longer than this dividing line. This means that the hanging balls are a little bit higher than the center where the string is attached. So the balls move closer because they seek this point of lower potential energy. This is a bad experiment. If you hang the balls, they would point the center of Earth and there will be no difference if you increase their mass. In this idea it seems that this "force" is all about the angles that this triangle forms. For example if center of Earth is closer, the force would seem to be more. If you increase the distance between the balls, I think the force would also increase. What I mean is that if you have an exaggerated drawing of small earth and tangential flat surface, the further you move the balls from the radius, you actually *LIFT* the balls, this gives them some extra potential energy that they try to get rid of by falling closer to Earth. Cavendish measured this difference and made wrong conclusions. If you understand what I mean, you can calculate exactly how much the balls would move, because you can calculate exactly how much of a potential energy difference they see. It is really questionable if the balls have a gravitational pull, because as I explained, they move closer because of increased potential energy, which on other hand still doesn't explain gravity.

Nerd

The 'c' in Principia is either a 'k' of you're a degenerate ancient Roman, or a 'ch' like modern Italian if using ecclesiastical pronunciation.

Too time wasting video

Physics untrue how he can measure mass of moon before if he doesn't now the earth's mass where he is on fiction 😂