Common Physics Misconceptions | The Knowledge Dynasty

Common Physics Misconceptions

What if you thought the earth was flat? And then you found out it isn’t? MinutePhysics is on Google+ – http://bit.ly/qzEwc6 And facebook – http://facebook.co…

What are careers in physics? what are the job prospects in physics? Can a Physics major transfer over to software or engineering? What is Physics? What indus…
Video Rating: 4 / 5

50 Responses to Common Physics Misconceptions

  • stizan24 says:

    The Earth is flat. All this milarky about space travel is nonsence. And you
    need a physics digree to understand the formulas you putt forth. What 8th
    grader has a physics digree. Teach them the basics and that is fine unless
    they want to pursue the study more in depth. That is what collage is for.

  • Kyle Rhulain says:

    “Cosmic Speed Limit” eh? Well I guess we will see who gives the speeding
    tickets for that out since NASA successfully tested a small sale FTL drive.
    That worked.

  • Simple Physiks says:

    MUST READ HENRY: Light does not have momentum because momentum is the
    product of mass and velocity. Light can have velocity but no mass, as you
    said in your video. m=0

  • Yomna Ashraf says:

    u just said there was no “cosmic speed limit” in a previous video !!!!!!
    do not confuse us 

  • baarni says:

    Hmmm, Doesn’t light travel in the fabric of spacetime and it is this fabric
    that is curved by the influence of mass? If this is the case then light is
    not actually attracted by gravity at all, rather it is just following the
    curved line in the spacetime continuum. 

  • James Stiles says:

    My science teacher said that mass caused gravity. :'(

  • Dannys99887 says:

    All sorts of things about physiscs are misrepresented in primary and
    secondary school. We have generations of people who have beeen taught that
    “nothing in the universe can move faster than light.” It’s a good faith
    attempt at teaching Special Relativity, but it’s basically wrong….or at
    least incomplete, when considering the expansion of space itself described
    by GENERAL Relativity. So people don’t understand how it can be that the
    high redshift objects in the Hubble Deep Field pictures for example can be
    moving with recession speeds far beyond the speed of light in proper
    coordinates (taking into acoount the metric expansion rate of space.) Or
    how an object whose light has a measured redshift of 8 traveled for about
    13 billion years to reach the earth, but came from a galaxy that was only a
    little more than 3 billion Light Years distant when the light was emitted,
    and is about 30 billion Light Years distant now. 

  • mohammad abdullah says:
  • SecondLifeDesigner says:

    I don’t like the sheep example and can think of a better explanation as to
    why the sheep moving at 2 mph and train moving is moving 2 mph does not
    equal the sheep moving at 4 mph relative to the ground. In order for the
    sheep to accelerate to 2 mph its legs have to push in the opposite
    direction on the trains floor. The train is slowed down by this even if it
    is a very small amount so the train is not moving at 2 mph so the sheep is
    not moving at 4 mph relative to the ground. How much the train is slowed
    down depends on the relative difference between the mass of the sheep and
    the mass of the train. The sheep mass being so much smaller than the train
    the amount the train is slowed by is very small. If the sheep’s mass was
    equal to the train’s and the sheep accelerated to 2 mph the train would be
    slowed down by 2 mph or in this case would stop in its tracks and the sheep
    would be moving at 4 mph or would the train stop and the sheep just walk
    off the end of the front of the train at 2 mph? Be an interesting physics
    experiment.

  • Poisonapple says:

    NOPE MINUTEPHYSICS THERE IS NO COSMIC SPEED LIMIT U’VE CONTRADICTED
    YOURSELF ONCE AGAIN. WATCH YOUR OWN VID ON HOW TO BREAK THE “UNIVERSAL
    SPEED LIMIT” PLEASE. 

  • хаос компир says:
  • Aaron Reichert says:

    +MinutePhysics Can I ask you a serious question? you will probably never
    see this but here goes:
    If you fire a potato cannon (with a muzzle velocity of 50 mph) on a level
    trajectory out of the back of a truck going 50 mph in the opposite
    direction does that mean that the potato will actually be going the same
    direction as the truck but only a tiny tiny amount?

  • Paul Thevenot says:
  • Robert R. says:

    well according to significant figures the 2+2 is 4.
    3.99999999999999999999999999999 to one sig fig is 4 making that point
    irrelevant. 

  • Paul Hill says:

    I’m not convinced that one is doing something so terribly wrong in teaching
    some of these things at school, even though they are indeed strictly
    misconceptions. Frankly, shouldn’t it depend upon the misconception? To
    teach, say, a twelve year old that the Earth is flat (perhaps just because
    it ordinarily looks flat) would indeed be wrong. Why? Because such a
    youngster would have the concepts available to understand the truth that
    the Earth is really (pretty well) spherical. Here, the there is no
    educational need for the misconception. On the matter of adding ordinary
    velocities without taking into account Special Relativity, however, such a
    youngster would not normally have or even be capable of acquiring, such
    concepts as to understand the larger, more accurate, truth. Given that the
    approximate truth is near enough for most practical purposes, I see no
    reason for for turning into the scientific equivalent of Woody Allen simply
    because it is the approximate truth that is taught at school. The nuancing
    towards the more accurate truth can, quite legitimately, come later.
    (Perhaps one just has to learn the approximate truths before bone can
    swallow the larger truths.) Perhaps science can only ever issue (ever more
    accurate) approximate truths in any case. Scientists would do well not to
    take on an air of righteous strictness that science itself simply does not
    own. Perhaps the otherwise quite excellent ‘Minute Physics’ could therefore
    take what I believe is called a ‘chill pill’ on this one. Many at school
    (including myself at that age) learned better by being taught some
    approximate truths first and being allowed to graduate with the richer
    truths later. So, calm down Minute Physics and just get on with your
    first-class teaching.

  • Calvin C says:

    you you understand, only the people who appreciates physics watch these
    videos, so other kids will never see this and understand Einstein 

  • Voidler says:

    Is C^2= Speed of light^2?

  • Juanele Radear says:
  • SparkySywer says:

    So, if I set up a system with a plane, a cat, and a train, and the train
    moved 20 mph relative to the plane, and the cat ran 20 mph relative to the
    train, removing the train from the system would increase the velocity of
    the cat and thus increasing its energy and in turn mass and density,
    because it has the same volume, meaning sound moves faster through a cat
    that is not on a train than one that is on a train, meaning cats not on
    trains are better things to transmit speech through than cats on trains.
    The only explanation is aliens.

    The aliens part was sarcastic.

  • cursedswordsman says:

    What a joke. Do you REALLY expect little Timmy to be able to understand
    Special Relativity? Most kids can’t even grasp a concept like density until
    they get taught unit analysis in high school physics. It’s not practical,
    there’s NO point in teaching special relativity in any more depth than
    “just so you know, there’s a .0000001% deviation from what you think do to
    science mumbo jumbo” unless you plan on doing astrophysics or nuclear
    physics.

  • ebalint96 says:

    Wait! So the Earth isn’t flat? :OO

  • Juan Bonet says:

    Nasa says gravity is because of mass and light gets bent by it because
    gravity bends space and time and some other stuff so which one is correct?

  • Derod Deal says:

    Can someone explain this?

  • Volker Scheffer says:

    Honestly I don’t think this is misleading. Adding and substracting speeds
    of trains or so in elementary school is simply the first step. Babies and
    children are used to absolutes and slowly but surely they need to learn,
    that in the world everything is relative.

    Instead of pushing hard formulas on elementary kids it is much more fun to
    discuss the first implications of relativity when you look with them up to
    the stars. That now on Earth is not the same now on Mars and little Jonny
    will have to deal with this, when he is grown and will travel as an
    astronaut to Mars.

  • Mitch Horden says:

    Growing up i was always taught that, say, “1.3” was equal to “1.30” even if
    it felt counter-intuitive. And of course, as i learned higher math, 1.30 is
    more precise since 1.3 has unknown second decimal which may have been
    rounded down.

  • Asymptote says:

    I don’t want to bash Engineering fields as they are the one who puts Theory
    on the ground but Physics or Mathematics Majors are usually way beyond
    Engineering Majors when it comes to intelligence and thinking. After all,
    Engineering fields usually are sub-fields of Experimental Physics or
    Chemistry and Experimental comes after Theoretical (Mostly). So dude i hear
    the tone in your video like ” pfft Engineering is the way to go, natural
    sciences are nothing” Well, it’s not all about money you talk about. If
    wasn’t for the discoveries in Physics or Chemistry, Engineering fields
    would die within few years….and on the side note, ANY engineering field
    is no where near as complex as Upper level Physics or Chemistry….and I am
    not even talking about Mother of all yet, MATHEMATICS

  • Liam Hernon says:

    Classic awkward advertisement in the intro. Watch 0:00 – 0:25 for a laugh.

  • Matthew C says:

    Since all engineering really is, is applied physics, I am having a hard
    time understanding how you think it isn’t a viable major. I feel like you
    are not taking into account genuine human intuition (i.e. people learning
    on the job/figuring out how to apply things). A person who gets a PHD in
    Physics is just as capable as an engineer if said PHD in Physics went into
    the private sector. I just think that you are oversimplifying the field.

  • isrrael m says:

    Could you make a video on making yourself marketable for any job? I majored
    in Business (Supply Chain) but am looking for a government contracting job.
    Any tips on making a resume that can be used for any industry? Thanks.

  • Quintin Burd says:

    Great videos man much props…I am currently a nursing major but I am
    thinking of switching to mechanical engineering, my dilemma is am I willing
    to start from scratch basically. Can you do a Nursing major video?

  • chloemallows says:

    Is computer science still a good major ’cause i recently saw on yahoo that
    Tech careers like information systems has a high employment rate bc there
    aren’t many spots to fill and there are lots of applications;
    competitive…..

  • Bernabe De La Cruz says:

    Can you do an in-depth video about chemistry majors and stuff like that?
    That would be awesome :)

  • Caleb Couch says:

    Do you think becoming a Veterinarian is a good idea? 

  • Alexis Alston says:

    I know this question is not related to this video, but It figured it might
    be answered more easily because of less comments and newer video. What
    should I minor in if my major is computer science? I know that minors don’t
    matter much but what would be the most helpful minor to the major that
    would help in my career. Would graphic design be the best minor? Also,
    should I join two or more campus clubs or just join 1 that is closely
    related to my major?

  • IronBeast O.o says:

    Can you do a video about Math-Computer Science major?

  • Wilson 吴 says:

    could you make a video about architects?

  • guynamedjoe says:

    Would a CS major with a Physics or Math minor be useful? Or are minors of
    any use?

  • Joshua B says:

    People who major in physics normally don’t do it for the money, they just
    truly love the subject

  • Noah Pitts says:

    Life isn’t all about money, and you don’t apply physics? Really?

  • Daniel Alexander says:

    A lot of this information is completely wrong, especially regarding quantum
    physics. First of all, the study of light is a branch of physics called
    optics, and is not what quantum physics focuses on. Sound is also not
    quantum physics, as sound is solely the movement of energy as a mechanical
    wave of pressure and displacement through a medium such as air, water,
    rock, etc., and would fall under the subcategory of wave mechanics, a
    branch of mechanics. Quantum Physics is the study of phenomena of a
    nanoscopic scale, such as the uncertainty principle, particle entanglement,
    wave-particle duality, and the behavior of many subatomic particles such as
    electrons and neutrinos. It is useful in studying chemical reactions and
    bonds, and also in explaining many macroscopic phenomena that had been
    previously inexplicable. Since the majority of the things you mentioned are
    not specifically — and only loosely related to — quantum physics, I would
    suggest you take your own advice and not “throw the term around” like you
    know what you are talking about. Also, as for job prospects, the largest
    employment status of physicists is academic research, at colleges and
    universities. The claim that the two most popular fields are medical and
    optical physics is unsupported and frankly wrong. I have know idea where
    you gathered the majority of the information in this video.

  • Dee hyacinthe says:

    im suprise that most video game developers dont use physic majors because
    most of the games now a days have physic engine.

  • danieldinho101 says:

    thank you for the vid. Exaclt what i was looking for.

  • Alex Reidy says:

    Some good jobs for physics majors: embedded software engineering and game
    programming

  • Snails Negron says:

    what would you say about environmental engineering? Do you know anyone in
    that field?

  • iTraumax says:

    My good sir. You don’t know what Quantum Physics is… 

  • D.L. Lopez says:

    Hahahaha. This is hilarious

  • chris cruz says:

    Is this about physics or engineer? What a loser you engineer

  • dasdew2 says:

    I wanted to be a physicist till I saw that it needs a PhD for a job,and how
    unbiased you need to be, engineering for now,till I can afford a physics
    degree, or go into engineering physics.

  • Seofthwa says:

    The big difference imho is that engineers are very product oriented. They
    are given the conditions and criteria. The science they deal with is
    usually well understood. Physics majors have a different way of thinking
    they do not have well defined problems (initially) and do not have anything
    except analytical ability and what ever laws of physics that may apply. It
    is the difference between being given F=ma and just a blank sheet of paper
    and figuring out F=ma.

  • aldo centeno says:

    You could also do a physics degree and take the classes for med school. I
    love physics but I might what to work in the medical field some day so that
    way its a win for me. There’s also a study that showed physics students did
    better on the MCAT. I want to learn about physics and if my GPA is high
    then i’ll apply to medical school.

Leave a Reply

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

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Categories

Coursera

New Skills, New You: Transform your career in 2016 with Coursera

Follow us on Twitter