Galileo the Scientific Parrot
Articles Blog

Galileo the Scientific Parrot

August 10, 2019


okay so we’re at the University of Sydney to experiment with dr. Phil’s dead bird he’s a famous scientist this guy he helped us out back in the 16th century as a 17th century 70s interest 60s 1600s Thank You Galileo was was discussing gravity a lot of people of course thought that different things fell at different rates but Galileo said no no no no gravity is the same for all bodies no matter how heavy or light so we’re gonna prove that right now okay let’s give it a shot yep so so young Galileo here he’s going to lend us a feather feather is very light but it’s still going to fall at the same acceleration as this coin made of metal so you’re telling me they’re going to accelerate together towards the ground that’s right and you know I don’t believe you oh how could you I’m a scientist all right let’s do the experiment let’s see what happens yeah one two three that’s actually going upwards all right so what was happening there obviously they didn’t accelerate down at the same rate well maybe there’s some other factors going on here what do you reckon maybe or maybe it’s the dead birds fault maybe it’s the dead birds fault he was blowing up blowing its air maybe we need to get rid of the air what do you reckon okay let’s get rid of the air and see what happens as it happens we’ve got a vacuum pump here okay so if we put this feather and this coin in here seal it up then we can pump all the air out alright let’s do it so we’re sucking all the air out now coming out of the pipe down the tube out of here through the air so we’re really getting rid of most of the air so there’ll be no wind resistance as the feather falls this time it’s kind of like a vacuum cleaner but it really sucks all right so let’s try it out let’s see if they accelerate with the same right now all right you ready for this yeah one two three Wow they didn’t follow the same right

Only registered users can comment.

  1. I agree with you that the public should be aware of higher scientific accomplishments, but I fear that even a basic understanding might be too much to ask.
    Minutephysics has a great video on the subject btw
    (not enough room in 1 text box, hence the 2 replies)

  2. People who don't acknowledge facts and evidence will always exist, and they will always be sending and not receiving. I'm not referring to them. I'm referring to regular people who live their lives in a genuine way.

    The over-arcing ideas that quantum mechanics and relativity are based on are simple. I want people to be familiar with the basics, no mathematics or diagrams required. There's no reason that the regular person should be relegated to an understanding outdated by 200 or 300 years.

  3. I look forward to your thesis on introducing (general and special) relativity and quantum mechanics in high school education.
    You're not wrong, but I fear it's just an unrealistic goal (for now).
    People have severe misconceptions about even Newtonian physics, despite it being taught in schools (as most of 1Veritasium's videos'll show you).
    I don't like it any more than you do, but the leap from the 'close enough approximation' to 'how it ACTUALLY works' is just too much.

  4. I definitely agree that the public understanding of even Newtonian mechanics is troubling, but improvement is possible. Already, we offer a few different kinds of advanced placement high school physics classes. I would like to see AP Physics-B replace regular high school physics.

    Furthermore, think about biology. It's not uncommon to see biology, honors biology, AP biology, Zoology, Marine biology, Anatomy, etc. all offered in high school. I would like to see a similar situation with physics.

  5. The thing with optional courses is that they're optional, someone uninterested in physics won't opt to take such a course (and if mandatory, probably wouldn't pass).
    To be honest, I don't know the extent of optional courses in the US. Here in Belgium you choose an entire education branch (Latin, Industrial Sciences,..) rather than individual courses, leading to fully educated pupils if they succeed, but a lot lower down upon failure.
    For smart people, your goal works. For the rest, however …

  6. I see the confusion. In the U.S., we don't specialize in high school. Every student must take a number of "core classes" (maths, English, humanities, a few science classes, and a few PE credits). Students then must also choose many "elective" classes, which can be any of the other classes offered by the school once the cores are satisfied.

    I don't want to FORCE people to learn physics. I would be happy if there were several modern physics courses offered as science/electives in high school.

  7. Ahhh
    Well, why not look for methods to make these subjects more accessible for high school pupils and teachers?
    The creator of this channel did something similar, mostly on Quantum and Newtonian physics (albeit focused on multimedia as a teaching method), so maybe there's room for a study on making special and general relativity accessible to high schools?
    his thesis:
    physics.usyd.edu.au/pdfs/research/super/PhD(Muller).pdf

  8. (URL didn't work for me)

    I would love to do that. Physics outreach is always fun; I love going into high school (and even junior high) classrooms and demonstrating physics — I'm fortunate to have a good amount of engaging demo materials provided by my university.

    What I've found is that the kids are usually the most interested in the complicated subjects. They're entirely un-phased by the difficulty. I've even had kids as young as 6th grade wanting to know how LED's work, for instance.

  9. Ye, some youtube thingy, just add the double-u's and it'll work 🙂
    If you think you can do it and want to try to change American education, go mental ^^

  10. F = GMm/d^2 is the gravitational pull, but if substituted into newton's 2° law F = m*a we get a = F/m; and since the objects mass cancels out (represented as m) we get a=GM/d^2, and i don't see objects mass anywhere (only variables are distance and earth mass, not including gravitational constant as it isn't a variable)

  11. Newtonian gravity is an aproximation, but it's a very accurate one, Newtonian physics is used in engineering, in shuttle launchings etc.

    Relativity is only used for extremely complex tasks like GPS satellite nuclear clock resetting, and studying black holes and other complex fenomena.

    but i'd like to see you use Einstein's equations for launching rockets ….it's like using a laser tool to measure the speed of a snail…quite unnecesarry.

  12. I've already had a few conversations on which I expanded upon and explained my position. Go look those up. The problem is, we're not living in a world in which the things that we are doing and making fit into the Newtonian approximation anymore.

  13. weight is a measure of force .

    mass is what you probably wanted to ask, and no, the feather does not have the same mass …it's a feather.

    all objects fall at the same rate in a vacuum twards earth.

  14. actually it can suck out all the air if it's powerful enough, of course there will be a few molecules left, but obviously you can see feather falls faster than in a full atmosphere.

    we can actually create pretty good vacuums, but a perfect vacuum doesn't exist, because even if you take out all the molecules of air etc, you are left with radiation and fields, even if you could take those away, particles come into and out of existence, as quantum fluctuations, perfect vacuums still have energy

  15. General Relavity looks at gravity as a result of curved space time, but we do not have a theory of quantum gravity yet.

    however, there HAS to be a quanta of gravity, that quanta is the graviton, not discovered yet, but there has to be a particle, and the particle is the gauge boson for a force.

    so gravity is a force, there are just multiple ways of explaining it's effect on objects, curved space can also be seen as curved fields of gravitons.

  16. in the exact same way , a magnet curves the EM field around it, dictating to objects how they should move.

    in fact, Einstein himself was comparing the EM force to gravity in terms of curved geometry of fields, in his last manuscipt.

    so , analagous to gravity, the EM force also is a curvature of a field, but thanks to QM we know the field is made of quanta called virtual photons, and particles exchange these photons between them , this is the EM force.

    therefore gravity is a force.

  17. Using General Relativity to predict the motion of a falling object near Earth's surface is like trying to use the most high energy quantum theories to explain a macroscopic process like evolution. From a reductionist's point of view it is certainly possible, but wholly unnecessary. For all intents and purposes, Veritasium's calculation is correct. Newtonian mechanics put Earthlings on the moon. Seems pretty damn accurate to me.

  18. I agree. Newton's Equations are satisfactory in many cases. I start having a problem when people teach/think/believe this is the full extent of our scientific knowledge.

  19. Also, that comment I made was in response to Azntigerlion. I would recommend you read the whole conversation. I wasn't criticizing the accuracy of 1Veritasiums calculations. It was more of a criticism of how science is taught than anything else.

  20. Newtonian mechanics put us on the moon? u sure? i mean general relativity was out in 1915, moon landing was in 1969…

  21. The mathematics of Newtonian physics were indeed precise enough. Perhaps some GR was used for clock synchronization/navigation etc, but as far as I'm aware NASA used Newtonian mechanics for the actual rocket trajectory calculations. Think about how small the GR corrections would be for low mass, low velocity systems like the moon-lander system. The physical equipment probably wasn't precise enough for GR's corrections to matter. A mission to Mercury, however, would be a different story…

  22. that's pretty impressive for Sir Newton fkin 17th century. btw, how do u know how NASA did their calculations?

  23. I'm pretty sure I remember it being mentioned in one of Brian Greene's books. Perhaps I am wrong but I have a sneaking suspicion that Newton's laws would work just fine.

  24. Relativistic mechanics only changes the answer by a tiny bit at the speeds we are talking about, its not until you get to like %'s of the speed of light that it makes any real difference.

  25. There are two things in this video that disturb me to no end:
    1) There is a dead bird sitting on the counter, right next to them, the entire time.
    2) Where is Derek's beard.

  26. Mercury is massively further away, those tiny % differences add up. also you would be going much faster so relativistic effects would skew the navigation much more. Also mercury is close to the sun and (not sure how it works) the immense gravity of the sun causes some effects.

  27. mythbusters did this too, but i liked that more since it proved the point so much better, if you like this check that out

  28. For some reason I used to think that in a vacuum, the gravity is turned off. I don't know why I used to think that. How weird.

  29. If you like this video, type in "astronaut drops hammer and feather" into YouTube search. Check it out ya'll

  30. I'm actually going to counter what everyone else is saying and agree with you slightly. the mass of the feather pulling on the earth and the mass of the coin pulling on the earth would mean that if you measure to the extreme smallest amount that the coin and earth would collide slightly quicker than the feather and the earth. But that is such a very very very small difference that it wouldn't be visible to the naked eye.

  31. Galileo was a moron, and his methods were fundamentally flawed.

    "Two events happened simultaneously" is not a statement that can be scientifically measured about anything.

  32. I think i understand how this worked. I had to compare it to water in my head. If you were to drop this coin along side a marble in the air they would fall at the same rate. But if you were to drop them in water, the coin would flutter and reach the bottom of the pool later than the marble. So now the coin is like the feather. The feather "catches" the air because it has a lot more surface area and a lot less mass than the coin. Air is dense enough to have this effect on the feather, but not the coin. But when you kick it up a notch and do the experiment in a much thicker medium (water), the effects are more obvious. The feather would float, the coin would flutter to the bottom, and the marble would instantly fall. And the equivalent of dropping the feather and coin in a vacuum would be to remove all the water from the pool and let the marble and coin fall through nothing but air. I guess what i'm saying is that it's easy to forget that air is actually made of stuff, so doing a similar experiment in water makes it easier to grasp the concept. At least for a non-scientist such as my self.

  33. but at a very very large scale this should be wrong, because a very heavy object attracs the earth as well and they acccelerate more quickly relative to each other than if it was lower weight F=G(m1*m2)/r^2

  34. Unfortunately this doesn't work on the very small and very large scale when dealing with atoms or things with abnormally large mass…

  35. So, would this work with the earth falling and a blowing ball falling at the sun on opposite sides of the sun with no orbital velocity? I don't think so because the earth has more gravity compared to the bowling ball so it pulls the sun toward it a lot more than the bowling ball.

  36. When you suck air out of that pipe, does it feel like it is lighter? 🙂
    Just like air floats on water, vacuum should float on air.

  37. This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! He's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! He's a stiff! Bereft of life, he rests in peace! He's pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now history! He's off the twig! He's kicked the bucket, he's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible!! THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!

  38. I've seen this before… I think putting the feather above the penny will make it travel the same speed… it's all about air resistance man

  39. It works like this :
    When You throw the feather and the coin together at the same time but they fall at a different rate to the ground.This is because of air resistance which acts opposite the motion of the two objects,air particlass collide with the particles of the objects,even though it is seen that the coin has a larger area and is heavier than feather,so air resistance has little effect on it but a feather's mass is very small even though it has a smaller area compared to the coin,due to its small mass and air esistance it falls slowly even though gravity is acting on it at 9.8 m/s square ,but in a vacuum Chamber There are no air particles and due to gravity they fall at the same time.

  40. Am I the only one who sees the intense sexual tension between these two? All those sucking jokes are just way too obvs. But maybe I'm just jelly?

  41. Arrggg. You're confusing me. Why when you took all the air out of a drum, it explodes but you can take all the air out of this tube and nothing happens to it?

  42. If objects follow the path of least aerodynamic resistance why does a feather float down on its side?

  43. but schould´nt the mass still matter? because the objekts (feather,coin) have a gravitaitional force on their own?

  44. actually they dont fall in the same rate
    even if there is not air at all
    because
    the gravity depend on the mass of earth and the mass of the object
    it is almost at the same rate, but not same

  45. This Galileo isn't a famous 17th Century scientist — he's an ex-parrot who's pining for the fields!

    ;^}

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *