No

Yes I watched it on TV :).

yep

Honestly yes and no. I heard about it, but never bothered to watch it until now. ( had to pull up the original, and all information on it seperately, your clip was too blurry.) Interesting demonstration. But all credit should be acknowledged and given to Commander David Scott for conducting it and confirming it. I'm neutral. I've never been an Aristotle fan, nor an Einstein fan. 😑 I think they're both oddly being glorified far too much for things of science they never actually tested and never put their life on the line to prove. But now I'm a fan of Commander Scott.❤

🙏😂

I disagree. He might have argued his pov but i dont think he would have hated it 😂

I don't think he would have hated it, I agree with Takumi that he would have argued his point of view. Neil wants to discredit Aristotle for not testing his idea and could do no wrong, but then turns around and says that Einstein had a thought experiment (which is an idea) that was never tested! 🤦🏻‍♀ Clearly Einstein can do no wrong either....🤣 -So same saga you're just on a different love boat!

I adore Neil, and love Startalk, even contribute to their patreon, but I'm gonna have to disagree on this one.

Neil, can you please run for president? Please

Aristotle might have said, "Guess I'll stick to philosophy and leave the physics to the pros. Maybe I'll start a school of thought called 'Gravity's got nothing on me!'"

that's what we call "the friends we made along the way"

hes an astrophysicist and an educator. hes used to talking down in a way. he wants everyone on the same page (pun intended). everyone on the same page? turn the page. cycle repeats

did you know he was captain of the wrestling team in the 70s. some dominance there as well lol who would have thought. but understanding physics at that level might be an advantage in wrestling.

He should go on Joe Rogan with Chuck! Cuz the last two times he was on there he seemed pompous and arrogant

@@migmo89 u mean joe and him on the neil podcast lol

Yum 😋👍

He totally said Pizza

I heard that too. Had to rewind to see if I heard it correctly.

I didn’t know he did his experiment from an extra tall Chicago style…

I thought the same

Dr. Tyson

He told you things fall the same speed, but he never told you the only two spots in which that speed applies is 45 North and South latitudes while at sea level on the local gravity calculator. That speed is adjusted per latitude as well as distance from Mass.

He’s annoying

I wish he'd quit boxing sooner because he sounds slightly punch drunk

Did you know deGrasse makes a BIG CONTRADICTION in this video?

Still wrong

​@@DeshaunBouvieras well as everyone that came after him. In other words: you are just as correct as it is possible to be at your time. As Aristotle was wrong, so was Galileu, and so was Newton. And even though nobody could prove Einstein wrong so far, the major point of scientific knowledge is to build on top of those who come before, in a way that someday, mankind will know better than Einstein. We can not forget that scientific knowledge is a persuit tring to get closer and closer to a "truth" about a reality that we will never know in it's totality.

Aristotle in philosophy was good

Actually, he built his scientific theories on the observations and knowledge available in his time. Much of his work was influenced by earlier Greek philosophers and naturalists, such as Thales, Anaximander, and Empedocles, who laid the groundwork for rational inquiry into the natural world. One significant precedent for Aristotle's scientific thought was the philosophical tradition of the Ionian school, which emphasized naturalistic explanations for phenomena rather than supernatural or mythical interpretations. This tradition, which flourished in the 6th and 5th centuries BCE, encouraged the systematic study of nature and the search for underlying principles governing the universe. Additionally, Aristotle was influenced by the empirical observations and classifications of living organisms made by his predecessor, the biologist and philosopher Hippocrates. Hippocrates' emphasis on careful observation and classification of natural phenomena likely shaped Aristotle's approach to studying the natural world. Furthermore, Aristotle was influenced by the works of earlier philosophers such as Plato, whose dialogues explored questions of natural philosophy and metaphysics. While Aristotle departed from some of Plato's ideas, particularly regarding the nature of forms and the realm of ideas, he nonetheless engaged with Plato's philosophical framework and built upon it in his own work. Overall, Aristotle's scientific thought was shaped by a combination of empirical observations, philosophical traditions, and the intellectual milieu of ancient Greece. While his theories were groundbreaking in their time, they were also constrained by the limitations of the available evidence and the conceptual framework of ancient natural philosophy.

Actually Democritus had come up with the atomic theory 400 BC Aristotle had preceded him went against him and turned the beautiful theory to nincompoop... Democritus had spoke of a void, sound traveling through the void to us. If you look online you can figure out pretty quickly it is a longitudinal wave. So electrons hold Mass through a longitudinal stress lateral collapse of the universal constant. Just so you know if you grab the local gravity calculator standard gravity calculation only applies at 45 North and South latitudes while at sea level and it is not as standard as Neil had described. You have to be at the point of inverse square in reference to the greatest amount of energy into the system to hold at standard gravity calculation. This is a fact amongst science, and he's only speaking about the points he wants you to understand.

Lucky you

targeted ads :)

You're right 😂

Coincidence?

I saw a video once the guy was saying he don't ask for donations and immediately after it was the same guy in a YT ad asking for donations 😂.. algorithms? Or coincidence? We will never know but it was hilarious

@lesliefranklin1870 Yes. Thank you.

That is what I thought he said so I don't need to get my hearing checked.

He used ramps and balls to come up with his equations on the force of gravity.

I actually find this video a bit confusing. With physics, like you wrote, it's shown that the mass of the smaller object (the ball in this case) doesn't matter when showing acceleration to be the same on all objects near the more massive object (Earth). However, the *force* is different; so if you left F in there instead of substituting it with ma, you would see a very small but distinct difference between the two objects. Neil jumps between these two ideas seamlessly but I only find it to be kind of confusing.

There have been tests to compare gravitational mass and initial mass and the difference between them has always been less than the uncertainty of the experiment. The real issue is from the theoretical side... I have never heard a compelling argument for WHY the masses are equivalent.

Why wont he address Terrace and his mathematics

​@@EmpyreanLightASMRAnd I give to you my greater respect going to inquire when Neil gone risky talking so fast about Force and accelaration. Originally we do have different forces for different masses at the same distance from the Earth and these different forces we call our different weights (btw: AND THIS IS THE NATURE OF THE CONFUSION WHEN THE WORLD PUT ON WEIGHT BALANCES OUR MASS (Kg, Pounds) AND NOT OUR WEIGHT (Newtons of Force)!). Einstein used a trick comparing the gravity on a huge Mass (Earth) with a rocket (with no huge Mass, only same accelaration) but this is more complex to explain like Neil explained.

@@bawssnarmz5204because the first sentence of his letter to Neil was “1x1=2”

Great show and book series

Yep, gravity was an actual character.

I was wondering if someone gonna mention the expanse. Has the Neil ever talked about the series the Expanse on here before.

Indeed, on spaceships... but on the Moon, Mars and space stations, not so much. I don't fault the production for that though, love the show!

@@MLennholm the space stations (like tycho) used centrifuge aka 'spin gravity'. Mars' and the moon had reduced gravity. That's all accurate to perfection!

the Greeks were influenced by earlier civilizations that had already developed sophisticated knowledge and sciences. Like Egyptians, Babylonians, Sumerians, Indus.These civilizations, among others, contributed greatly to the pool of human knowledge long before the rise of Greek science and philosophy. The Greeks built upon and further developed this knowledge, often through interactions with these earlier cultures.

And Aristotle philosophy is great and fundamental.

"Happiness is the meaning and the purpose of life, the whole aim and end of human existence" Aristotle. This is how great his philosophy is

Yup, we had to start somewhere. Even if your theories are wrong they can teach us something. They used to think light moved through an "ether." After Michelson-Morley disproved the "ether" theory, Albert came along, said it's all "relative", and the rest is history.

I'm more impressed by the scientific knowledge he's accrued by hanging around with NDT.

He definitely is underrated. After watching these videos. He be having me cracking up.

@@marvhollingworth663I said that too. He answers way more correct answers than I do lol

@ayyocool I was being sarcastic my entire comment is the opposite of what I think. I know tone doesn't come across while reading

@ayyocool chuck is really annoying he's never funny

Gravity gains 💪

Precisely!

How?

Thank you

One thing I'll add here is that you're assuming the force one exerts on the weight is "do-able"...then the rate would be the same...thus making your statement true. However, if the person (the one exerting the force to move an object) cannot produce enough force to move the weight properly...then the rate will vary. Think of a person struggling to bench-press their PR, the rate at which the weight is moving will be slower than the weight at which they might do reps. Exercise Science....GNAR

We probably use it every day, we just don't know it.

Why? The floor in the rocket is flat right? So the earth is flat all the same. I rest my case

@@nolanr1400 But light wouldn’t curve down on a flat Earth.

😂😂😂😂😂😂

The flat earth explanation for gravity actually attempts to explain this: the earth beneath us is just accelerating up at us, instead of us ‘falling down’ to the earth Under that model, yeah, any object ‘falling’ will still act the same way regardless of mass (ignoring air resistance of course) Flat earthers DO come up with a bunch of creative explanations for things, that sometimes can ‘correctly’ explain individual phenomena To me at least, the best debunking of flat earth are the horizon effects for distant objects, because those always perfectly align with curvature and atmospheric refraction, and those effects are never explainable with a flat earth model (meaning the actual data/observations will still conflict with flat earth)

This, and alot of other things.. 😅

Please help me understand. 4:23 to 4:55 and 7:00 to 7:07 Seem to contradict, in one Gravity is a force that acts differently on objects of different sizes to get them moving the same rate, in the other gravity is the floor just accelerating towards the objects no applied force that differs based on mass

@@alexmshobane5163 If you're on a space ship, not moving, and too far away from any celestial body for its mass to be causing your ship to be significantly accelerating towards it due to gravity, and release the ball and onion, they'd just float there, motionless. If the ship then starts moving in a direction, whatever rate of acceleration the ship has in relation to another point in space, the ball/onion will have the same rate of acceleration towards the floor of the space ship. It's important to recognize that it is NOT gravity causing the ball/onion to fall, it is literally the ship moving around them, causing the ship's floor to move towards them, the ball/onion themselves did not move at all from the perspective of everything outside the ship. However, what's important is that the rate of how quickly they "appear" to fall is equal to the ship's rate of acceleration. This effectively "mirrors" how gravity works with relatively tiny objects on the surface of a large enough mass, exerting proportional force based on the falling object's mass to cause them all the fall at the exact same rate. In this case, there is no force acting on the objects, you're correct. It's the equivalent outcome (hence being called The Equivalence Principal), but the cause is totally different.

He already did. And there's no point in quoting him or his points. It's a wasted endeavor to argue with idiots.

Pizza! I thought that was what he said. 🍕

"Tower of Pizza" - That was NDT serving up a softball for Chuck to joke about, but Chuck didn't swing at that one.

I have 3 identical volleyballs, I fill one with water, the other with air and the third with Helium, if I drop them from a 1000 meters height at once, which one will reach the ground first? It is a question for you Neil, please answer this question.

Hank! Nice to see you here!

5.52 he tells you how fast things fall and then you go get a local gravity calculator. You read the scientific tool that they used to calculate gravity and find out while at sea level that standard gravity calculation only applies at 45 North and South latitudes the point of inverse square or mirror legs of the greatest amount of energy entering the system at the equator. How's that for brilliant actually looking at the local gravity calculator...

Guy lied to you and you took it right on the chin...

Awesome to see you on here man!

And those knowledge bombs all land at the same time. 😆

Please sir😔

@@user-eh7iq8mw8w Because you’re starting with the relative motion of the planet. If you started from outside the Earth it would be faster by the speed of the earth’s rotation.

@@Tornadox7000 Thank you for that. We are still trying every day.

😂😂😂

Hmm excellent point

Neil stopped their aging and Chuck can’t tell anyone about it!! LOL!!!

😂😂😂hilarious

Put simply, gravity is the warping of space. Light travels straight through space... but if that space is warped, the path of light bends.

Dude I've been going nuts over the past decade trying to figure how much information was never discovered due to poor epistemology.

@@roblena7977 I think it’s vital that humanity has a deep understanding of how we used to believe in geocentric models all around. It’s just nuts how information is distributed

Are calling for child abuse?

Terrence Howard is delusional. All his theories have already been debunked. This guy is too smart to get in the mud with lunatics.

@@swinginghigh7666 if someone is delusional and wants to have a conversation, why not educate them? In this case, why not educate them and others (considering how large their platforms are)?

Next thing you would ask a Globalist to converse with a Flat-Earther. The reality is that the Flerfer will not budge one inch in their beliefs.

@@GapCam93 delusional people are diffcult to change [their minds]. May be what people want but would be a seasoned heavyweight fighter in the ring with a schoolboy lightweight. Personally, I wouldn't watch it. And would rather Neil (and the startalk team) put their effort into something more educational that attempting to change the mind of a "flat earther" type person.

@@andrewcarr2431 I understand. The goal wouldn’t be to change that persons mind, but inform them and others of the reasons they are wrong. By the way, Neil finally addressed some things. Personally, I wanted someone to combat each of Terrance’s claims with opposing scientific evidence if any exist, rather than be silent in response. Most responders that I’ve seen got stuck on the “1*1=2” or square root thing and then formed fallacious reasoning that everything Terrance says has zero potential of being useful or true. Both men have a large following so my point was for them to discuss the topics, debunk some things, and ultimately have an open minded and professional conversation that would naturally be entertaining, and also informative.

Total mass is still a factor - it’s not like gravitational acceleration is a universal constant. It’s slower on the moon, because the total mass is smaller. So you’re right in the sense that if instead of a regular onion, you dropped an onion so dense it weighed as much as the Earth, the increased total mass would lead to a higher acceleration and it would “fall” faster (though the Earth would move up as much as the onion would move down).

Do you have a better term to explain the behavior? Otherwise pull works as description that people can grasp without specialized knowledge.

@@leebratina1089 no ur exactly right. Pull is basically the best word we have to describe it, cuz even the imagery of a fabric being bent when you put something on it, doesn’t fully do it justice. Because that’s only 2D, since it’s flat and horizontal, but trying to imagine 3D being bent in that way, hurts my mind lmao. I feel like we just aren’t advanced enough yet, including our language, to construct words that describe these things. I feel like vocabulary is a huge barrier for human, like for myself, trying to describe my emotions, or my beliefs, is very difficult. I just don’t know the words that would do it justice

@@leebratina1089 but the way Neil used the word “pull”, is fine imo, but it still creates a lot of misconceptions of what gravity is. Because general relativity shows how gravity isn’t actually a force. Also quantum theories may be able to even prove gravity in itself isn’t a real thing of nature, but just an emergent principle of the quantum world

But it’s one of the four fundamental forces…

umm no different mass objects fall at the same rate. it's been done in vacuum chambers where there is no atmosphere.

I am, therefore I think I am, I think.

with stellar dust its static charge that brings the dust together until the mass is high enough to start a gravitational field that will bring in more dust and make a planet or star. does that help?

​@@dunsel5887How do dust particles get opposite charge to clump together?

All matter warps spacetime, even particles of gas and dust. The effect of gravity would be very small, but it's still there. Far enough from any other source of gravity, they would move toward each other. (being close to another source of gravity would keep them in a stable orbit, such as the asteroid belt or the rings of saturn) We still describe things as having a "gravitational field" but it's really just the area of spacetime that is affected by the existance of matter within it. It's the warping of space that causes matter to accelerate toward each other.

I have 3 identical volleyballs, I fill one with water, the other with air and the third with Helium, if I drop them from a 1000 meters height at once, which one will reach the ground first?

@@kundakaps think, rubbing balloons in your hair and a wall

Exactly, gravity is not a force but the curvature of spacetime in the presence of mass.

@@billionsandbillionsofstars You can see how he worked it out in the video can't you, amazing stuff.

@@billionsandbillionsofstars Although doesn't explain why, just explains.. It Is. Which, decades ago i was happy with. Would love to know why? There is the information out there.. But I'll never work it out as i do not think the math is written and if it is, I am no where near it. By a Trillion miles.

That footage has undoubtedly been copied countless times with different quality. This clip shows the feather more clearly: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/hdVoh8SBu9nSaY0.html

They used the LM's landing engine, so any pinning would be downward against the floor, not the walls. The acceleration was also quite weak (0.1 g at most) since the LM was docked to the twice as massive CSM.