AnonymousAsh, Some of my other videos I'm more like Chewbacca. Thanks for the comment, and keep up with the physics! You might also like my new website: www.universityphysics.education Cheers, Dr. A

Thanks Wali, I appreciate the comment. If you're interested in the tools, check us out: learningglasssolutions.com Cheers, Dr. A

Asb, Thanks for the comment, and keep up with the physics! You might also like my new website: www.universityphysics.education Cheers, Dr. A

Geoffreygeefresh95, Great comment, thanks. You might also like my new website: www.universityphysics.education Cheers, Dr. A

imJOKER, Imagine you're falling with nothing underneath you. Certainly there is gravity, but what can you say about your weight? Thanks for the comment, and keep up with the physics! You might also like my new website: www.universityphysics.education Cheers, Dr. A

ISS is in orbit, the plane is not . The Sun's gravitational field is strong enough to hold the Earth in place but we don't all fall towards the sun do we

Gravity in terms of a net force. Interestingly there is still some Gravity, pulling towards the Sun!

General relativity is indeed the prevailing theory of gravity but this is an introductory course and Newton's laws work exceptionally well in most circumstances. We don't want to scare students. At least not yet. Cheers, Dr. A

@@yoprofmatt Thank you so much for your reply..! But my problem is that if Einstein is more correct than Newton, then we are teaching students that Gravity is a Force. And according to Einstein gravity is not a force. I can see no reason to teach Newton if Einstein is correct. Once again thank you.

@@yoprofmatt From this principle, Einstein deduced that free-fall is inertial motion. Objects in free-fall do not experience being accelerated downward (e.g. toward the earth or other massive body) but rather weightlessness and no acceleration. I think it's important to teach reality, and important not to teach Newton which is just wrong.

@@yoprofmatt You're about to go to space, and you weigh 200 lbs. The rocket takes off, soon you'll weigh 400 then 600 then 800 lbs. as the acceleration UP increases. But guess what? Before takeoff you already weigh 200 lbs. What that means is before liftoff you're already accelerating UP. Teaching kids that gravity pushes down is just wrong. No wonder people don't understand what really happened on 9/11.

@@yoprofmatt NIST WTC FAQ 31: (Twin Towers) "Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos." "In other words the supporting structure below was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above, and not any dynamic effects." Question - We have Weightless (0G), Static weight (1G), and Dynamic weight (heavier than 1G). If free fall is known as zero G, static weight is known as 1G, and dynamic weight is known a heavier weight than 1G, then by saying "dynamic effects" is NIST meaning a dynamic weight greater than 1G? (since NIST is comparing static weight to dynamic effects, I'm assuming dynamic effects has something to do with a weight heavier than 1G? IDK?) Therefore, has there ever been a name or a term for a weight that is lighter than 1G, other than just saying, "essentially in free fall"?