The twin paradox means the fast moving object experiences time slower which means at some speed, while the none travelling twin experiences 2 years, the travelling one experiences time slower and thus only 1 year. He will be younger, not older.
Newton's First Law of Motion isn't invalid in the real world because we have friction. Instead, it *is* absolutely valid in the real world, because on Earth the primary, always-present forces that act on objects are friction and gravity of both the Earth and other objects that alter a moving object's motion. Even if you don't block a bike's path, it will stop moving because friction and the downwards gravity force will slow it down.
@@Knighterforker the video said that newtons first law ONLY applies in situations where there is no opposing force. But this is wrong, it works anywhere, wherever, whenever. The video seems to think that friction isn't a force, when it in fact 100% is. Friction IS a force acting on an object, same goes with gravity.
Newton's third law is also why punching a wall hurts. You're exerting a certain amount of force on the wall, but the wall exerts that same amount of force back in your hand, especially because the wall is a solid object without any give, and thus no absorption of force. If your punch doesn't break the wall, the force goes back into your hand, which might break first depending on how much force your hand bones can withstand versus the wall.
7:49 The 2nd law states that a system's entropy *tends* to increase, not that it can *only* increase. Case in point: Life is *very* organized, i.e. has a very low entropy, yet we're still here 🧐. Absolute zero isn't impossible to reach because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but because of quantum mechanics (quantum fluctuation).
Life is organized with the cost of LOTS of things being disorganized, like the death of stars to create the elements we are made of, ecosystems that dissipates and transforms energy to what we use to stay alive.
Like reaching the speed of light is harder when you are approaching it closer and closer, it is almost same for the absolute zero. Closer you are, harder to progress. Also absolute vacuum is impossible, too.
What about Kepler's Law? All planets' orbits around the sun are elliptical, and always sweep the same area at the same rate regardless of their speed (if a planet is at its periapsis, its speed will be high, if a planet is at its apoapsis, its speed will be low)
Well, it's not like the first law of Newton doesn't apply on Earth. It does cause when an object is moving air resistance and friction act on it. So there is a net external force on the object that changes the state of the object. Secondly, Newton’s second law motion isn't F=ma. It states that “The rate of change of momentum is force”
First comment I saw was already wrong. Newton's first law isn't about inertia, as some people call it. "Object stays in motion if objects don't act on them" is a consequence of Second Law. It would be extremely dumb to make it another law
First law lays a foundation to 2nd and 3rd laws, stating that "in INERTIAL FRAMES OF REFERENCES objects in motions stay in motion if other forces don't act on it." It lays a foundation to 2nd and 3rd laws by introducing INERTIAL FRAMES OF REFERENCE. So, treat 1st law as a definition for Inertial frames of references, without which 2 and third law don't make sense, or don't work
Wrong on the third law , when gravity pulls the table table also pulls the earth which is obviously not noticeable but it is there , meanwhile floor does exert the force but only because the table also exerts the force on the floor , by which you can also say the action reaction pair has to be of the nature , but dont worry you are not the only ome who made this mistake , many teachers also do this mistake
@@Magmaxyz what's the point of him making a video if it's wrong on too many accounts to count? Either make it accurare or not at all. And I don't need to make a video, there are already tons of good videos out there explaining these laws.
You're lying. You would give a reason if you weren't. Regardless, he's simplifying. What he's saying is obviously not exactly accurate because he's not trying to be.
yeah. f=ma is a very specific case of Newton's second law when the mass is constant. It wouldnt have been that much harder to just say that force is the change in momentum divided by the change in time
