Fun fact, the German name "Schwarzschild" translates as "black shield", which is kinda fitting for the radius that got named after the guy.

@hurnidan

2 жыл бұрын

He named it wrong in the video. Its not Schwarz-Child... Its Schwarzschild...

@lohphat

2 жыл бұрын

"Shvarts-shillt"

@512TheWolf512

2 жыл бұрын

@@hurnidan he's an American, what do you expect. Bet he can't properly pronounce gestalt either

@zioqqr4262

2 жыл бұрын

@@512TheWolf512 Cut him some slack, pronouncing different languages is hard.

@netx421

2 жыл бұрын

Schwartz? Yogurt is the keeper of the Schwartz..

This is really good. I've got this recommended to me by KZread, which is a good sign, as it likely means the Channel reached the escape velocity.

@Science__Politics

2 жыл бұрын

Same

@vanguardcycle

2 жыл бұрын

Same! The dreaded YT algorithm actually wins for once

@nman1

2 жыл бұрын

@Nirakar Giri that's just SAD

@LC-yo3bj

2 жыл бұрын

Funny joke but to note a serious thing, the YT algorithm often actively suppresses creators so it's important to sub and like stuff, otherwise people don't see it for years or ever.

@heavencanceller1863

2 жыл бұрын

The only thing faster than the speed of light

I like how clean the derivation for the Schwarzschild radius is. Neither escape velocity nor Schwarzschild radius were foreign concepts to me, but I had never realized how closely related they are.

@misteratoz

2 жыл бұрын

Here's what's crazy... His answer is right but his derivation is wrong... He used newton's laws to talk about an Einstein concept. Newton's laws don't work nearb blackholes because they make incorrect assumptions about what time and space are and a black hole just makes that obvious. There is no escape velocity at a blackhole's event horizon not because of velocity but because the event horizon breaks causality.

@atenrok

2 жыл бұрын

@@misteratoz well put. Unfortunately you can't simply plug a speed of light into a classical equation of motion, and just jump into relativity...

@bogdanlevi

2 жыл бұрын

@@misteratoz Michell noticed this in the 18th century, long before GR and Swarzschild. This derivation is sort of a pre-history of black holes. But of course, it's not Swarzschild.

@farazahmed7

2 жыл бұрын

Look at all these experts here that got their degrees from youtube University

@atenrok

2 жыл бұрын

@@farazahmed7 what place did you get your degree from?

“You cannot orbit around black holes “ Says the dude who is apparently orbiting around a black hole 🕳

@stefansmuts8882

2 жыл бұрын

So awesome!

@cyberguroo

2 жыл бұрын

Yup everything in galaxy is orbiting around the central black hole

@CramcrumBrewbringer

2 жыл бұрын

@@cyberguroo Theorized, but it could also be condensed dark matter. We just don't know.

@recreant359

2 жыл бұрын

Prove black holes even exist

@prosterdbz9663

2 жыл бұрын

@@recreant359 We have mathematics for that. And if that's not enough for you, we have a photo. They exist. 😐

This guy seems to really know his stuff and apparently explained it in a very methodical and comprehensive way. Unfortunately, I didn’t grasp any of it. I’m glad people like him know what’s going on so I don’t have to.

@natashamaddox3117

2 жыл бұрын

Why do i relate to this so much.

@creeib

2 жыл бұрын

Gravity sucks

@tangibleandroid285

2 жыл бұрын

That's cos its freemasongibberish.

@Mynipplesmychoice

2 жыл бұрын

He doesn’t. As a physicist with my doctorate in astrology i graduated magnum cum laude from the university of Denmarkia in Denmark. I know this is all pseudoscience. Not mentioning that stars form in clusters that allow you to predict the future is intellectually dishonest. You should be ashamed of yourself for promoting this behavior. You must be a Leo.

@PoochieCollins

2 жыл бұрын

@@Mynipplesmychoice 😂😂😂

Whenever he says "our balls" I wheeze

"We freeze time & look at our balls energy" Me: snickers

@Sephiroth36977

2 жыл бұрын

Me too.

@austinlincoln3414

2 жыл бұрын

lol

@ralphgodlauren7305

2 жыл бұрын

same lol im childish

@wasakwarrior

2 жыл бұрын

Wish i could like this twice lol

@TheTendermen

2 жыл бұрын

We never stop being children

When I was 14 our English teacher asked us to write an essay on a topic of our choosing, any topic. Because "it's all English, it doesn't matter what topic you pick". I wrote a 15 page essay on the Chandrasekhar limit. I got a B and as far as I could tell he never asked for a free form essay ever again. Life goals?

@clotz1820

2 жыл бұрын

Id like to read it

@h00db01i

2 жыл бұрын

you could write about some war atrocities of the 19th and 20th century. chances are though, you'd never want to write an essay again, or anything for that matter

@fudgefudge8913

2 жыл бұрын

15 pages at 14? Was your teacher Hitler?

@jonathanlalremsanga366

Жыл бұрын

@@fudgefudge8913 🤣

@Molivnika

Жыл бұрын

Only a B?? That teacher must have been drunk

The algorithm hit you bro. Keep up the good content and you're hitting a million subs in a year.

@ananousous

2 жыл бұрын

Arghahuhh! Ah that's hot! That's hot!

This does a really good job illustrating and explaining why the ISCO exists and what happens in and out of it. I've heard of the concept but never truly grasped the mechanisms for why. Showing the contracting ring stay mostly the same while the distance to the singularity rapidly changes is auper intuitive.

There's this concept in orbital mechanics called a "hyperbolic trajectory", which happens when your energy is too high to stay in an orbit. Basically if you start off far from a celestial object, you can get extremely close, and as long as nothing slows you down and you don't collide with the object, you'll still have way too much energy to stick around and leave. This doesn't work for a black hole within a certain distance, however, because iirc, if you get close enough, the warped space will adjust your trajectory so you get closer to the center regardless

I've heard before the idea of a tethered orbit operating outside of ISCO as a way of "generating" energy, but I get the feeling a lot of ideas centered around black holes would be doomed to be crunched.

@Grissbane

2 жыл бұрын

....odd to see you here.

@AverageAlien

2 жыл бұрын

yeah because we don't really understand them

@Tyhros

2 жыл бұрын

Phased matter which primarily exists in another dimension but can physically interact with ours should be able to function as a skeletal structure around a black hole, maybe even inside it.

@Unevaluated

2 жыл бұрын

No

@TysonJensen

2 жыл бұрын

Only if the black hole spins. You can then theoretically extract some of the angular momentum - the black hole slows down it’s spin but spits out the matter you threw in with more energy than it originally had. But you have to get everything right and it’s probably impossible from an engineering point of view to avoid just being obliterated.

The embedding diagram was completely new to me and blew my mind. I had never realized that length contraction makes the path through the diameter even shorter than it normally is relative to that around the semi-circle. Even more fascinating was it's connection to the escape velocity. This seems both a very interesting and promising channel in many ways, so I'll subscribe.

Of course you can. It depends on what you mean by "near" of course, but the closest that you could orbit my be thought of as "near" or literally nearest orbit

@yashagarwal8249

2 жыл бұрын

Omg dude, you're so smart! You showed this dumb video creator.... Your Nobel prize should be arriving via mail shortly

@lorenh763

2 жыл бұрын

@@yashagarwal8249 thank you

@darkracer1252

2 жыл бұрын

@@yashagarwal8249 i pitty you

@iqbalindaryono8984

2 жыл бұрын

Are you the type of guy to put a tomato in a fruit salad?

@ExoticDva

2 жыл бұрын

@@iqbalindaryono8984yes why?

The fact that black holes exist is absolutely mind bending

@richardreeder

2 жыл бұрын

Don’t you mean ‘space bending’?

@64-bit63

2 жыл бұрын

@Bob Smith both. Space-time bending

You made me sit through an entire math lesson and managed to not only make it interesting, but provide examples of changing one variable and how it changes the system. You deserve more followers!

This was fascinating to watch. First time seeing your channel, definitely will subscribe for more.

Just learning about gravity and kinetic energy in physics its so cool how these equations are derived and connected to eachother

This was so brilliant. Keep making more videos please!!

Liked and subscribed, best explanation of black holes I've seen so far - and I've seen many. Looking forward to watching all of your videos.

Your videos are so interesting and relaxing, keep up the awesome work!

Another banger of a video, your gonna blow up this year im feelin it

How am I supposed to sleep now knowing that there are invisible ghost-like hands pushing everything at all times...

@Javalar

2 жыл бұрын

You don't, because that's when they get you!

@whatthepfpsays4234

2 жыл бұрын

Well heres a good thought. They pushin yo meat

@jaybingham3711

2 жыл бұрын

I'm so scared now...they gonna get me...how can I fight em off

@whatthepfpsays4234

2 жыл бұрын

@@jaybingham3711 enjoy it

@Grasfh

2 жыл бұрын

@@jaybingham3711 soap, they just want someone to wash em

This is 100x more understandable than any other video ive seen. Great job!

Nice video, but I have to say I dislike the "invisible hands" thing, because there is no force involved when one is traveling thru space with no rockets on (no acceleration) and having one's apparent path change due to gravity. Same thing with the body on the earth - no force (the "invisible hands") is pushing you toward the earth. Traveling along a spacetime geodesic involves no force and no acceleration. The hands analogy paints a very misleading picture.

@ethribin4188

2 жыл бұрын

It is a comprehendable visualization though

@CramcrumBrewbringer

2 жыл бұрын

Agreed. Newtonian physics shouldn’t be used to explain celestial orbits when Einstein’s is accurate.

@davidbaker8634

2 жыл бұрын

I'm not a fan either, but I suppose it makes sense to use a fictious analogy to explain a fictious force? 😅

@frenchguitarguy1091

2 жыл бұрын

@@davidbaker8634 yeah but there are much better analogies.

@davidbaker8634

2 жыл бұрын

@@frenchguitarguy1091 Yes, I agree. I think there are a number of issues/miscommunications/inaccuracies in this video generally.

No matter how much of a nerd I am in the media I consume, I heard “ball’s” as “balls’ ” and I can’t help but find that funny

@123-eyeclover7

2 жыл бұрын

I looked for this comment 😂😂😂

@alex.g7317

2 жыл бұрын

I hope your username isn’t named after ur job.

@KirasGreenWorld

2 жыл бұрын

@@123-eyeclover7 same

@h00db01i

2 жыл бұрын

balls amigo vinegar

@rossbrumby1957

2 жыл бұрын

@@alex.g7317 it's his specialty pizza topping.

Not only is this a perfect simple explanation, its also a tutorial for simple physic equations. Love the work, keep goin!

Not a bad video for explaining things to a layperson. One issue I have is with the description of the ratio between circumference and radius. The radius to a black hole is generally defined by the circumference, because radial distance itself ceases to have any meaning when you get close to a black hole, because of the gravitational stretching of spacetime in that direction.

you are one of my favorite.

The elegance and simplicity of your explanations are hugely impressive. Thank you so much.

Nice work you are quite underrated, a nice inspiration to start to get back in to making videos again.

Holy heck, I actually finally understand quasars now! It's to do with ISCO line and the energy stuff! Amazing video, may have to re-watch to get this info stuck in my head lel

The music in this one is great

May god bless you You are the best😀😀

you did the greatest explanation of these concepts, starts with the closest to us, using simple mathematical methods, I've never been this enlightened to these concepts, thank you

Clear and precise. Great concepts.

Really interesting and well produced video. I was a bit surprised when the term centrifugal force was used. My understanding is the its the bodies inertia and velocity that keeps it in orbit, balanced by the centripetal force exerted from the orbited body. No centrifugal force involved.

@bdemaree

2 жыл бұрын

It sounded odd because in physics centrifugal force is... well, it isn't. It's more of a layman's term to simplify centripetal acceleration. As you move in a circle at a constant rotational velocity the force vectors add up to equal a positive acceleration directly toward the center of the circle. (Or something like that, my last physics class was like 10yrs ago). As you accelerate in any direction your inertia resists the movement, think sinking into your car seat as you gun it, giving the FALSE impression that there is a force pushing you back. The only REAL force is the seat pushing forward. When you add gravity it gets weird because while gravity is calculable it breaks basic physics. ALL forces in physics are positive. They all push. On the maths side it's easy to add a negative sign to balance the equation, but in physics there's no such thing as pulling.

@jeffyboyreloaded

2 жыл бұрын

@@bdemaree gravity only pulls (like tension in centripetal force problems), electromagnetism can both push and pull depending on what's being acted on. Presenting gravity as a pushing force in this video let me immediately know this guy doesn't really grasp what he's trying to talk about

An interesting video, I didn't know the mathematics behind it. Though vivid, the gravitational hands metaphor irks me still; people might yet think of it as a force (that pulls you down). You could have used the ball example instead to illustrate clearly the illusory force of gravity, i. e. actually the constant falling of mass towards other gravicenters like in earth. This would also have helped prepare for the usually not circular effect on a given object; both while orbiting and in it's form, like the ovoid earth.

Brilliant explanation and illustration - thank you!

I love your videos. I could listen to space-stuff all day.

Misleading title. You can orbit a black hole just fine. In fact you are actually orbiting galacitic black hole as of this moment.

@youtricktube

2 жыл бұрын

Agreed. What is "near" a black hole? Having to be closer to the black hole than the ISCO sounds like an opinion.

Great video! I have a question: On images of stars orbiting the dark center of our galaxy, in elyptical orbits, does it mean that they will eventually fall into them or be flung out, given enough time?

@charliestone3581

2 жыл бұрын

I'm not sure since they are orbiting a supermassive black hole. Unless Sagittarius A eats the living shit out of them and renders them into almost nothing. I mean, andromeda is nearing us within 5 million years so it is going to be violent . If that happens either they get sucked into the ultramassive black hole formes within milkdromeda or orbit it. P.S loved your question sir.

this was such a fascinating listen

I literally asked myself this very question just a few days ago. Pretty nice to have this video recommended

I remember in the game The Outer Worlds, fantastic space game btw. I was trying to get to the sun and orbit really close. But I just couldn't do it. I needed to use my engine to even allow me to get even close to any kind of stable orbit really close to the sun. This video explains to me why I couldn't get there. Thank you for explaining that.

@jordy13xoxo17

8 ай бұрын

Its my favourite game

I like this channel because mathematically it doesn’t pull punches and assumes the listener has had High school physics and at least remembers a bit of it. While this isn’t as suitable to a “general audience”, this is amazing for people who like to watch these sorts of Astronomy and Physics videos for fun on occasion. It also never goes deep into it as to be too niche, but more like a professor explaining mathematics using conceptual understanding, which always makes learning easier in a classroom setting. I like this channel a lot!

This is just awesome thank you for making this type of content

Excellent video. I love black holes. Been obsessed with them since I was 11 years old. Earned a sub.

I thought that you will not upload any video I was very sad😩

It always bothers me when the first comparison isn't about a star. for a black hole of similar mass as our sun, the orbit you talking about would be inside the star, so of course, it is not a stable orbit. Because really when you talking about orbit, the type of object doesn't matter, only its mass(unless it trow gamma-ray burst at you then ok). great vidéo by the was, will watch more.

@michaelbuckers

2 жыл бұрын

Gravitational field strength falls off once inside the object, being zero at the center, so ISCO simply doesn't exist for stars or planets. Planets can however orbit inside stars, the supergiant stars have density lower than that of thin air.

It literally took me a few seconds to decide that I'm subscribing. Usually I watch the video then decide but this is so good I just had to subscribe then watch

I love finding small(ish) channels like this that should definitely have more subs.

"we freeze time and look at our balls energy." LOL classic

@kevynhansyn2902

2 жыл бұрын

Yup, I sighed as well as I tried to not think that way. Nope, I thought that way.

Imagine getting a strike in Bowling then you see this on the screen

I just started going to college for astrophysics. I can say this Chanel is AWESOME

Awesome presentation, along with the newest black hole video. I'd be surprised if this channel doesn't blow up big time. More space content?

And this is why the entire 2nd and 3rd act of “Interstellar” doesn’t make any sense 😂

@DavidJao

2 жыл бұрын

Interstellar assumes a rapidly spinning black hole spinning at over 99% of the speed of light -- unlikely, but not physically impossible. The spin drags along space itself at nearly the speed of light and makes close stable orbits possible.

@jeffw8218

2 жыл бұрын

@@DavidJao Yeah, which is dumb. Same as trying to inhabit a planet that’s orbiting a neutron star, then a black hole. The first would be a frozen wasteland, the second would be inhospitable due to radiation. And I’m not even getting into falling into a black hole then getting out somehow, or turning the entire planet into thousands of O’Neil cylinders within a few decades, and lots of other dumb crap that movie somehow gets away with…

@andye5724

2 жыл бұрын

@@jeffw8218 its.. its.. a sci-fi movie >_>. I must admit tho the soundtrack was good U_U.

@jeffw8218

2 жыл бұрын

@@andye5724 It’s a “sci-fi” film, yeah, but it was touted as being backed by real scientists/physicists and scientifically accurate by countless news articles and commenters.

@jameswebb3410

2 жыл бұрын

@@jeffw8218only the time dilation part is where they claimed to be accurate,but i could be wrong

This is actually a pretty impressively done explanation. Nicely dovetails from orbits and gravitational energy into swarzschild radius. Use of math instead of relying on the typical 2d picture and explaining when you were going to use such a limited reference frame was very nice. Math. Sumtime it do good.

I really like your analogy whereby the Universe is an uber' complex sym and the black hole's a bug- too much matter in too small an area. Codes break down. Love it!

So happy I found this channel

Well, we do technically orbit a black hole already, the milky way. That being said, and just as a conceptual, it is possible that a strong enough magnetic alloy forged from a star could be set around the event horizon. The outer shell could be pulled by it's gravity into an orbit and an inner layer kept stable enough to not notice a thing. The technology needed is absurd, but if humans make it to heat exhaustion, it'll be one of the few sources left for energy.

@HugoFilho.

Жыл бұрын

The black hole in the galaxy center has negligible mass compared to the rest of the galaxy. And orbits only become unstable near the event horizon

@Taime88

Жыл бұрын

@@HugoFilho. I'm not sure if this is an add on or a counterpoint. That said while yes it does have negligible mass by comparison, it does influence many large bodies in the galaxy. It can't be taken for granted it sits at the center of a rotating mass (galaxy). That said the instability range is a bit to close for where you'd want any part of a Dyson sphere like construct to be in place. Though in theory the chaotic nature of the event horizon could be manipulated for the formation of stars. But that's a seriously diffacult concept without first knowing we can make an alloy strong enough to not be spaghetified too close to the event horizon. The concept however would be to use an inner sphere as something of a pressure plunger. Creating a strong enough pressure zone inside may trigger an explosion not unlike a quasar, but again we'd first need to figure out a regular Dyson sphere for a star (Dyson sphere may be the wrong vocabulary term, however if you know to correct it you know what I mean, I'll take the points off for that, my recent study is cognitive function and behavior of chemical abuse, and rehabilitation techniques.) In theory it could be used to cause an explosion that could provide raw materials for star formation, but it's a seriously questionable theory. I did note in OP this was only a possibility worth researching, and that suggesting we make it to heat exhaustion, black holes simply would be our only bet for continued survival, and so the concepts of how to do that are worth exploring, even if we'd be looking millions of years ahead of time.

Let’s think about things in terms of pure mathematics. So there are these invisible hands…

@bdemaree

2 жыл бұрын

That's how mathematics works. You gotta balance the equation even if it means applying numbers to impossible imaginary things that break physics. Then the physicists take the balanced equation and try to work out what non voodoo explination there is for the magical negative sign. That's where curved space time came from. Gravity CAN'T pull. There's no such thing as pulling in physics.

Keep making black hole and interesting space content and I'll keep liking

So interesting. Thank you for the effort to explain. 👌👍

3:51 is simply wrong. Black holes are not places where the rules and axioms of the universe break. The only things that break are our human rules and axioms. You might dismiss this as just a semantic argument, but it's just as wrong as when students say, "but I was only one decimal place off..." Language matters, especially in science communication, because sloppiness with language is what gives the anti-science community more ammunition than they should have. Please be as careful with your language as you are with your math.

Superb video! Just one tiny gripe- it should be pronounced “Schwartz -shilt” not “child”, there’s no such name as “Schwartz-Child” in German. Thanks for posting good Physics and great graphics.

@_BLACKSTAR_

2 жыл бұрын

You wanna get really technical with the phoenetics, its "Shvarst shilt"

@oneeleven7897

2 жыл бұрын

@@_BLACKSTAR_ 👍

@h00db01i

2 жыл бұрын

@@_BLACKSTAR_ I'm a native German speaker. "shvarst" implies the "tz" sounds has an "s"-like sound before the "t" which is obviously wrong. you probably meant "Shvarts shilt" - much better. change "shilt" to "shild" the german d is identical to the English

You can orbit a black hole if it is spinning. Kip thorne illustrates this perfectly.

If you was about to think I was going to sit through this disguised physics lesson then you miscalculated the Kinetic energy of THESE HANDS

Please, PLEASE enlighten me if I am mistaken, but my high school physics teacher drilled into us that "centrifecal" (or "centrephical") is the force of poop in motion in a circular path, while "centripetal" force is the force acted on a body in a circular path. Unless y'all mean centrifugal force, but that was DEFINITELY not what was said.

Please spell and pronounce Schwarzschild correct, so with an S after the Z, and pronounced as ‘swarts-shield’. It has nothing to do with ‘child’. For the rest it was a nice video, but I’m not sure about some of the math and furthermore I think the title is misleading. We currently *are* orbiting a black hole, so…

@nojakthegemlad

2 жыл бұрын

We aren't orbiting NEAR one, the title says we can't orbit NEAR one.

@bdemaree

2 жыл бұрын

I agree with you on the possible mistakes in calculations, mostly because he used the term centrifugal force. It just threw me off. And sure, spelling is important. The pronunciation thing is kinda BS though. Different languages pronounce things differently. You're not one of those "it's I-be-THA" people are you? I'm gonna stick with Ibiza with a hard Z. That is unless you wanna start calling Mexico Meheeco or Japan Nippon.

@fllthdcrb

2 жыл бұрын

@@bdemaree Pronunciation variations are one thing. (Gotta say, "Japan"/"Nippon" is a non-example, though.) It's quite another to change "schild" to "child", making it sound like the English word that has nothing at all to do with it, not to mention thoroughly mangling someone's name.

@CramcrumBrewbringer

2 жыл бұрын

My Astronomy professor with a PhD says "swarts-child". Different countries have different pronunciations.

@robarons

2 жыл бұрын

@@CramcrumBrewbringer You cannot just choose how to pronounce someone’s name. If it’s difficult to pronounce, you can still try to do your best. In this case, it is just a misinterpretation of the last part which looks like ‘child’, where it actually is ‘schild’. I can understand that not everybody can pronounce this name in German, but by just pronouncing it as a result of a misinterpretation does not show much respect for Karl Schwarzschild, or at least it doesn’t look like it. It’s just too easy to pronounce things the way you want, especially in videos intended for education. Pronouncing it as “swarts-shield” is not difficult, and at least shows some awareness of the origin of the term. Pronouncing it as ‘child’ does the opposite.

Fascinating stuff!

a joy to watch!

"On earth we always have invisible hands holding us down" ah yes the invisible guiding hand of the free market, my favorite oppressor

You called the guy Schwarzchild. He is called Schwarzschild though.

That simulation of the guy falling into the black holes with the two balls gave me an existential crisis

Excellent content

In short: you can orbit blackholes, because they spin and produce drag frames. First "original" theoretical blackholes did not spin. Thus, the whole idea of the video is wrong.

@bdemaree

2 жыл бұрын

I had two problems with this video. 1. Centrifugal force doesn't exist in physics. It's a hand wave simplification of not really too complicated idea. 2. Our entire galaxy orbits a black hole.

@HugoFilho.

2 жыл бұрын

He is saying tha you cant orbit NEAR ( less than 3 swartchild radius ) if you are farther than 3 SR orbits are normal.

Beautifully crafted in every way. This is my firs video from your channel and it impressed me very much. I'm half asleep right now and was still able not only to enjoy it, but to understand the points of this particular video. Hope you get all the audience that you deserve and wish you all well for the future. A big salute from your new subscriber.

Love this channel

Great stuff!

Math and science are not my things. I'm proud to say I actually followed this video! Awesome 👌🏾👏🏾👍🏾 This actually made sense to me.

3:21 Great video, but I do have to complain about the 'derivation' of the Schwarzschild radius by equating the escape velocity to the speed of light. It just so happens to coincidentally give the right answer, but via an incorrect method (Newtonian physics stops being a good approximation in exactly this scenario) and, more importantly, gives completely the wrong intuition for how black holes work. If black holes worked like that, then you'd be able to see light from the event horizon at any finite distance, it just wouldn't reach infinitely far - and moreover, you'd be able to escape from beyond the event horizon, because you don't have to be travelling at escape velocity to leave a Newtonian gravitational field. You only have to go at that velocity to leave a Newtonian gravitational field UNPROPELLED. See rockets on Earth - they don't go anywhere close to escape velocity but they get to the moon all the same. You could do that with a Newtonian "black hole" too, as long as you weren't right at the singularity. With actual black holes, it works nothing like escape velocities. The path of a photon heading directly away from the black hole at the event horizon ends no further from the black hole than where it started, and if you're within the event horizon there's no escaping, finite distances or otherwise - it bends spacetime so much that any direction forward in time is towards the centre. That's why you can't escape, not because you run out of energy or anything like that. And I get that there's no way to find the radius of the event horizon with nearly as much ease as anything involving escape velocities, but still, this sort of thing is at least worth a mention because it gives the wrong idea otherwise.

Another nice channel!

Your channel is awesome, it's like branch education but for physics

I don't know where you came from, but thanks. Those are incredibly well made and informative videos.

You got it wrong. The circumference over radius ratio is SMALLER than 2pi in the Schwarzschild metric, not larger.

Best recommendation by KZread 👍❤️

Nice to know I will remember this the next time I'm passing a black hole

Thats interesting. I was led to believe its relatively easy to go into orbit around a black hole if you stay outside the event horizon. I like the hands analogy.

Digging your channel 👍🏼

My ball's final trajectory is on a collision course with Joe's face.

Cool video, Subbed

Good explanation.

I like it. Subscribed.

This conversation is like fresh air. Em happy they came to common ground.

This deserves more views and subs

Fantastic video

good work man

amazing production quality of video! and i wish you would include information outside the radius of 'rockefeller science' ;)

This channel should have more subs!