It’s not about understanding but also the calculation.

@@rexsovelllejes9383 I guess what @Rainer Wahnsinn means is that some of us , in order to understand we need to first be able to visualize in examples like this before reaching the calculations, or at least in my case will be very hard to assimilate the numbers without understanding the other first. Some other people just needs the numbers and done, and that's ok too.

I love your vids science click, especially those about quantum mechanics

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/hsyVZbJ8sM3Hmps.html 1:35 to prove it doesn't exist.

False! Coriolis might be a thing if spin was the only motion. You must do a vector analysis of all motions, to get the resultant vector of the combined effect of all motions. We can debunk the globe by doing this for just 2 motions: spin + orbit + 21 mm/s/s alternating accel/decel every 12 hours or half revolution, experienced by everything on earth's surface, where is it? Nowhere! A rock balancing statue proves motionless earth. Rigid body rotation with translation is the physics kzfaq.info/get/bejne/d8x1ldaftL7WiGQ.html Note the word "rigid" because only solid bodies can spin like a top see flat.wtf [ flatearthclassroom.blogspot.com/2020/11/centrifugal-force-based-on-rotation-axis-of-body.html ] And that's the end of the glob!

It wouldn’t be a universe without things ending up at a black hole

@@stdesy and then out of the black hole due to hawking radiation (probably)

@@zyansheep and then in a restart of expansion as spacetime becomes irrelevant due to there only being photons.

@@Pauluzzs then by pure luck enough photons meet to generate black hole

Was waiting for it

yes, do you perhaps know the intro music used here?

@@lyan2759 nope

@@lyan2759 soundcloud.com/aroussel Its the one called "Scienclic" and then "Musique mysterieuse" is the rest of the video.

Nice observations.

@@aghosh5447 kind of my job. I'm an animator, game developer, artist, coder, 3D artist, and recently started learning music. So observation is becoming a habit.

Oh dear its flammable maths on scienceclic channel

0o0 papa flammy on science

g*rman

😍😍

@@ruinenlust_ what are you trying to say?

thats literally how basic ballistic theories work lol

@@vincentprime740 and people who play on spinning roundabouts are probably nowhere near old enough to understand basic ballistics, so...

@@jmckendry84 wtf is a spinning roundabout?

Hm

@@ispartacus1337 It's like a carousel just... smaller I guess. You know, the thing on playgrounds that spins.

Study hard and give back to your valuable teachers.

🥰🥰

beluga

@@thrash1337 And use your learned skills to do something of value to society.

That's not how you use bold text

Yes exactly!

@@ScienceClicEN Could you please make a video about 1.James Maxwell equation 2. Entropy ( when a ball fall down where can we see disorder?) 3. Quantum physics basic

@@whatsup3519 All what you said is comming (its already out in french, just need translation) and is awesome!

@@ScienceClicEN Can you show the mathematics? Its nice to see the math from different frames of reference and how they are equivalent and derived from different starting conditions.

I've seen some old illustrations about how a water fountain shooting water straight up into the air would create strange looking arcs instead of the water coming straight back down. And if you have enough pressure to reach sufficient height, and tilt the direction of the water jet slightly to the side, the water can do a figure eight path before falling back into the pool. The very first episode of The Expanse shows something like that with water coming out of a bottle, though the effect might be shown exaggerated based on the size of the station they are in.

Ask your physics teacher!

@@TeslaElonSpaceXFan Still, this is way better.

"Geography is just physics slowed down with a couple of trees stuck in it." - Terry Pratchett

@@TeslaElonSpaceXFan He is much better.

Geagraphy is to physics what Architecture is to Engineering.

If the earth is a disk spinning it would still make sense tho

Imagine mistaking the trajectory of a ball in a centrifuge for the coriolis effect 😂

@@ValidatingUsername Imagine saying that and thinking you know how coriolis works. The cause of that trajectory is literally the coriolis force.

Imagine imagining the image of imaginary imagery

​@@GammaFZ Proves earth is flat and He is khalik and knowledgeable ...😜

underrated comment right here

Indeed

His explanation is totally wrong

There are like 10+vids on each subject on different channels

@@rottenpoet6675 no one does these as well as this channel though

Shouldn´t the shape of objects affect the force of gravity then?

@@alepunto7404 i know that the shape of an object can effect it's center of mass and hiw gravity seems to act on it, but i think it'd probably be something more like a 4d shape made of spacetime? Idk don't quote me on that

@@orbismworldbuilding8428 Yes, you are right, it´s better to think in 4D. I guessed that shape could affect gravity because a stick perpendicular to earth would have greater time dilation differential between both ends of the stick than a stick parallel to earth, hence the perpendicular stick should feel more gravity. But I was thinking in 3D. I guess that taking in consideration time as another dimension of the object, the bottom of the object with slower "time speed" its going to slow down the upper part of the object with higher "time speed". And decreasing the "time speed" of the whole object, increases the "space speed", causing the object to start moving towards the earth.

we arent in a constant motion u know, the only motion in space is free falling.

No, you do not get a prize for this nonsense. Nobody knows what gravity is, they just measure it

Unfortunately, just like with every other method to prove the earth is round, the people you would aim to show this to (that don’t already agree with it) will find ways to dismiss it. Very cool comment to bring it up though. Thanks for sharing

@@nikrodox why some people want to believe that flat earth stuff so much is something that is a lot harder to explain than quantum mechanics

You are correct, however flat earthers don't care about stuff like this. They always find some bullshit response. You could fly a flat earther into space for him to see the Earth is spherical and he would say that the windows on the ship were actually tv screens. And that's really sad.

Exactly what I was thinking as well. But to comprehend even simple physics we need brain slightly larger than a pea which is not the case for the group you are talking about!

there are millions of other ways to tell that the earth is a sphere

I would be tempted to say that they are fictitious in the sense that they are absolutely undetectable locally (with an accelerometer for example). They are only "detectable" in the sense that they make straight lines look bent in certain coordinate systems. But in the more modern and powerful framework of general relativity these forces don't exist at all. On the other hand I agree with you that the terms "observed" or "apparent" might be better suited. I especially like "apparent" as it really conveys the idea that they are almost an "optical illusion".

It's kinda like saying that being in a moving train means that ground fictitiously moving relative to you.

The difference is that there is no way to measure "absolute motion", whereas there are ways to measure "absolute forces" (or rather "absolute accelerations")

Calling inertial forces "fictitious" get especially silly once you realize that this includes gravity, which breaks the standard euclidean description of inertial reference frames.

@@ScienceClicEN In German we call it „Scheinkraft“ which equals the term apparent force.

like at 3:47 ? i agree, the red line should be straight, I think. also, assuming that the red line is straight and the person follows a curved path (straight path is the shorter and faster path), it makes sense that the ball would have greater displacement (from its starting point from where the ball was thrown) and thus land further than where the person would land, which is what I understand the coriolis force to be. please correct me if I'm wrong

It is very similar. The coriolis and centrifugal forces are pseudo forces that arise from viewing inertially moving things from a rotating (that is non-inertial) reference frame. In general relativity, the force that makes things fall is _exactly the same thing_ . Standing on the surface of earth we are non-inertial observers while freely falling objects are the inertial ones. We see a force pulling them down(like the coriolis force pulls things sideways) but it vanishes in free fall.

What if the circle has small radius? It is understandable that angular speed will be the same anywhere in the circle, but the linear speed will be greater at the feet. Will that difference in speed make astronaut feel the differences in that linear speed? And if astronaut feels the difference in linear speed does it mean he/she feels the force?

@@miladestesnai9650 In order for the astronaut to feel a certain thing, that thing has to be measurable. How do you measure a difference in velocity? I’m not sure how you would do that in the general case. However, if he moves around, which he is likely to do at some point, he will notice that he doesn’t move as he is used to moving when affected by normal gravity on Earth, and measuring this deviation in how he moves (which could be done by some visual tracking system, for example) is a way to measure the Coriolis effect. I’m pretty sure he would feel this deviation unless the rotating wheel was huge or he was moving very, very slowly, even if he wouldn’t be able to put his finger on exactly what was different. Another effect, which would be measurable even if you remained perfectly still relative to the rotating reference frame, is the deviation in acceleration which causes the artificial gravity. Since the acceleration is proportional to the position relative to the center of rotation (if we assume a 2D system), you will feel that your limbs become heavier the closer to the floor you keep them, and on the contrary, if you for example raise up your arm, it becomes lighter. And your arms will not be pulled what you normally think of as straight down by the artificially gravity, but slightly outwards from your body. But these are effects of the centrifugal force and not of the Coriolis force.

@@kristoferkrus Cheers! Thank you for your time writing the answer! Appreciate it

People are going to make chem jokes

This is actually a myth go watch Veritasium's video on it :) Edit: my bad it's just not noticeable in a sink, you have to set up the experiment! It's the coriolis effect too apparently! Sorry!

A sink is so small that the coriolis effect becomes extremely tiny. Such factors as the shape of the sink or weak currents in the water become much more important and completely overpower the much tinier force of the coriolis effect.

For the translation in English I am helped by Octave, who also does the voice over. Furthermore I am helped with a few people depending on the video, for proofreading. But otherwise for the moment I do everything else on my own (writing, music, images, animations)

@@ScienceClicEN oh ok. Well keep up the great work and hopefully this channel gets it recognition it deserves

The problem with your approach is there's going to be much less usable space. Due to nausea, you're always going to have a bit of waste space in the centrifuge, but you get more "real estate" for the same amount of angular speed than you would get in 2 ships tied together. I agree that this idea is much better suited for early space travel, as the initial cost and maintenance are probably lower, but the centrifuge is the best bang for your buck

@@AndiAbrudan I agree that you will have less usable space. However it’s essentially impossible to launch a Centrifuge on its own, meaning you’d probably have to assemble it in space, driving up the cost a lot. For this reason, I believe my method has more bang for your buck. Because in order to have a centrifuge of a large enough size that it’s possible to stand up without severe nausea, you would need several spaceships worth of material. Also, available space isn’t usually a concern for astronauts. Apollo astronauts spent weeks crammed into a space the size of a minivan. But yes, in the far future, large full centrifuges may become the norm. However I also want to mention that both designs are centrifuges. It’s just that my design only uses 1% of the edge of the centrifuge, the rest is just empty space. This means you can have a higher radius to space ratio, helping prevent that sort of force.

Yep. Two Starships dock, tether-up, then use RCS to spin up. Not sure about dynamic stability though, and of course it would only be used in coast phase.

would the cables be able to withstand the stress?

@@ovencake523 I'm sure it could be engineered. You would only need Mars G (0.4 G), and modern aramid fibres are pretty darn strong. You need somewhere between 400 - 800 m of cable, depending on degree of coriolis discomfort. Failure would not be catastrophic, so you could have pretty tight tolerances. Compared to space elevator, it would be easy as. :-)

Sounds logical to me

@@maikv750 Gravity for things on the ground at the equator is still 99% as much as at the poles. That's pretty minor. Much more important for the lift of planes is the speed by which it moves through the air. How the air is moving over the ground below is irrelevant for the plane, which is why speeds for aircrafts are normally in knots. Knots already specifies that the speed is measured compared to the air or the water something travels to instead of compared to the ground. Since the air through which the plane travels already experiences the coriolis effect itself, I think it becomes irrelevant as far as planes are concerned. It does matter for navigation, though. A plane flying straight from north to south has to fly in an arc to actually get where it wants to.

@@Yora21 The commenter was refering to the centrifugal "force" being weakened by racing the sun. This has nothing to do with the coriolis effect.

Or Guyana. Both are near the equator and with the rockets flying towards the east, any pieces crashing back to Earth land in the ocean. The Soviets went as far south as they could and build their launch sites in Kazakhstan, which has plenty of open desert for debris to fall on. Other great sites for rocket launches would be Kenya or the Philippines. Australia would also work.