As promised in the video, here is a template to describe your emotions towards the RU-vid Rewind 2018 video: "REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111!!!!!!!!!!!"
Hey I don't want to be that guy that doesn't even finish the video before commenting, but I'm going to have to be. I promise to finish watching later :D. What software/hardware do you use for writing your notes while recording the video? Thanks! Love your stuff.
@etgsuryoutube8476 I will leave the interpretation of the comment to your imagination! The only thing I will say is that it should not be construed as an act of pursuit against you, Dr. Director! Pls don't cause a piece of furniture to fly towards my head
here is something that I have never seen done. Do a video about the Abel-Ruffini proof of the unsolvability of the quintic polynomials WITHOUT GALOIS THEORY and then make another video about Galois theory. People just prove the unsolvability of the quintic using galois theory even though Abel proved it before galois theory existed. Please don't use hand waving like all other youtube channels. Be rigorous. That is why we love your channel
It is possible to derive 2 contradictory time dilation equations. Let's look. The first paragraph below describes the situation with Sally aiming a flashlight straight up and down so that Sally sees the light moving straight up and down and John is outside the spaceship and sees the light forming a triangle with the floor of the spaceship. The second paragraph describes Sally aiming a flashlight towards the left while the spaceship moves to the right. Now the situation is exactly reversed. Sally sees the light forming a triangle with the floor and John sees the light bouncing straight up and down. Sally is in a moving spaceship. John is outside the spaceship. Sally is moving to the right at .6c. The height of her spaceship is .8 light-seconds. If Sally has a light clock with the light bouncing straight up and down the light will make a 3-4-5 right triangle from the viewpoint of John. If the change in time for Sally is delta T_o and the change in time for John is delta T then the following equation can be derived: delta T = delta T_o/((1-.6^2)^.5). So .8 seconds for Sally = 1 second for John. Now Sally has a light clock but this time she is holding a flashlight at an angle of 53.13 degrees above the horizontal and pointed to the left. Now the leftward movement of the light exactly matches the rightward movement of the spaceship from John's viewpoint. Now the light is bouncing straight up and down from the viewpoint of John and the light is making a 3-4-5 right triangle from viewpoint of Sally. If the change in time for Sally is delta T_o and the change in time for John is delta T then the following equation can be derived: delta T_o = delta T/((1-.6^2)^.5). So 1 second for Sally = 0.8 seconds for John. The 2 equations are in direct contradiction to each other. Special relativity is falsified.
As someone who knows nothing about special relativity, my only question is how did postulate 2 be discovered to be true? Postulate 1 seems intuitive to me. Postulate 2 seems more of a stretch to make that assumption.
"In May and November, the Earth is moving at "right angles" to the line to Algol. During this time we see minima happening regularly at their 2.867321 day intervals. However, during August, the Earth is rapidly moving towards Algol at about 107,229 km/hr as explained on my How Fast Are We Moving? page. (The Earth moves approximately 202 times its own size in one day.) So in 2.867321 days the Earth moves about 7,379,039 km closer to Algol. _But the varying light from Algol doesn't know this - its light waves left Algol 93 years ago and are travelling at a constant speed._ The result - we "catch a bunch of minima early" during August as shown on Chart 2. Exactly the opposite happens during February - the Earth is moving away from Algol that fast and it takes longer for the group of minima to reach us so we see them taking longer between events. How long? 7,379,039 km divided by the speed of light 299,792.458 km/sec is 24.61382 seconds. So in May and November when we are not moving towards or away from Algol - the period seems constant. It is our rapid movement towards or away from the events in August and February that causes the timing differences." In February the earth is moving away from Algol and the time between the eclipses is 2.8675875347 days and the light is passing the earth at 186,265 mi/sec. In May and November the earth is not moving towards or away from Algol and the time between eclipses is 2.867321 days and the light is passing the earth at 186,282 mi/sec. In August the earth is moving towards Algol and the time between eclipses is 2.8670608912 days and the light is passing the earth at 186,299 mi/sec.
Hi i like all your videos! I don't understand the speed addition. For example if we consider water : 1. im in a boat moving and i pertubate the water 2. The wave speed doesn't add to the boat speed i would say the wave velocity stays the same in respect to the water (Hence the same should be for the light and the train, the speed of light shouldn't be added to the speed of the train therefore the addition in min 5:18 doesn't make sense to me) 3. the person in the boat should detect a change in speed (slower if the boat is moving in the direction of the proagation, faster if its moving against, in min 5:18 observer A should still be able to measure light going at the speed c since he is not moving with respect to the medium and only the guy on the car should detect a change because the car is moving)
There is indeed such a thing as absolute motion. I show how to detect it here in my refutation of the Relativity of Simultaneity. vixra.org/pdf/2002.0103v1.pdf If you're interested in truth and real science, you'll read it. If you're interested in quirky fables and sleight of hand, you won't read it.
The Kronecker Deltas related to Tensors? Yeah, I briefly discuss them at the end of this video (8:12) here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE--hOhhRe2gSA.html
Could you please, please explain how the observer on the train still measures the speed of light as c for the beams arriving from both directions? Does he have to account for the fact that he is moving at speed v and the distance between him and the photon is being length contracted and his own time dilated? I’m trying to put some numbers to it and struggling to see what calculation I need to do to get distance/time = c for both photons coming from opposite directions? I suppose put simply, suppose the train was 2 light seconds long, with observer B in the middle so that in his FOR it was 3x10^8m to Ft and 3x10^8m to Rt as the light rays are emitted. If he measures the speed of light as c regardless of his own relative motion then how can it not take 1s for both beams to reach him from either direction (i.e he too sees the flashes as instantaneous)?
The observer measures the speed of light at c regardless of how he's moving relative to the light beams (this is one of the special relativity postulates). It's just that in this case, the distance between him and the photon on the right side of the picture is narrowing according to his own velocity while the distance to the left photon is increasing. As a result, given the same speed, the observer sees the photon on the right first and the one on the left later; this is because the photon on the right has to travel a smaller distance to reach the observer owing to the observer's direction of travel. I wouldn't think of this in terms of the 'photon is being length contracted and his own time dilated', as that would only lead to confusion (besides, length contraction and time dilation would be relative observations the train observer makes in reference frames that are moving relative to him, not in his own reference frame).
Go to 11:15 in the vid and you'll see the presenter duplicate Einstein's error: The observer on the train is described as moving towards the light coming from the front of the train, but that *motion* is the observation of the observer on the platform, and we can't use that to determine what the observer on the train sees. Einstein also makes this mistake. These lightning strikes may be seen by any number of observers in relative motion at any number of different velocities, any distance, and each in a different direction, and that changes nothing: IF the lightning strikes are simultaneous as observed by anyone, THEN they must be simultaneous for every observer -- after adjusting for transit delay. Transit delay is irrelevant to simultaneity of events: for example if you are in the front of a train that is at rest on a track or in uniform motion that is struck by lightning at both ends, then the strikes will be simultaneous for you after you adjust for the greater signal delay of the strike at the back of the train: *simultaneity* of the events is never effected. In fact, where the observer on the train is standing in the train makes no difference -- the strikes are simultaneous *everywhere* IF they are *simultaneous* anywhere, because uniform motion is equivalent to rest, and placing her at the center is just a way to eliminate the added discussion of transit delay. If you check Einstein's paper, you'll see he made the same error and even presents bad math to "prove" it. We know now what Einstein didn't know then: light is not a particle and it's behavior is effected by observation. He won a Nobel for proving light is a particle and he was wrong. If you'd like to see the results of an actual test that falsifies the *principle of failure of simultaneity*, and a discussion of the changes in our understanding of time, relativity, gravity, and the universe from the new understanding that ensues, go to www.quora.com/How-does-space-being-curved-make-gravity-pull-us-down/answer/Kevin-Parcell-1. You can also google "failure of simultaneity" in any top search engine in the world and see the top return is the paper published in 2007. Yes, progress happens simultaneously too ;) and that is also somewhat mysterious.
finally someone talking sense. listen to the way this guy says 'THE LIFE YOU HAVE BEEN LEADING IS A LIE' it sent a weird feeling through me, its like, it was cut into the audio..... theres something not right about it....
@@kevinparcell8537 he says it in the video. its just weird how he said it like it was cut in almost. it is kind of true though XD man relativity is some poisonous shit.
B as the reference frame, the light from both sides should move toward B at the same speed c and reach point B at the same time. Is there any problem with my understanding?
The description of simultaneity misses the point. An observer in A’s frame, but halfway between A and the right lightning bolt will see the flashes at different times. And it would be possible for a moving observer to see the bolts simultaneously. The definition of simultaneity requires knowing the distances involved and accounting for the time delay. Even so, A and B have different surfaces of simultaneity. This seems best illustrated with spacetime diagrams.
I'm not sure I follow. When you mention a new observer C halfway between A and the R bolt, you're right that C will see the flashes at different times. You're also right that a moving observer in B's frame who initially starts off in the same x position as C but is moving to the left may observe the bolts to be simultaneous. That's consistent with what this video does (although reference frame where the events are observed simultaneously is switched); what do you feel is missing from the explanation?
@@FacultyofKhan : My comment was directed at the two points in yellow stating that light information from two events has to reach the observer _simultaneously_ to be perceived as simultaneous. That's not wrong in terms of your example, but I thought it over-simplifies. (I'm not saying anything is wrong with the presentation, just that it missed a nuance.) The judgement of simultaneity of observed space-like separated events depends both on the arrival time of light from those events _and_ the distance to those events. Simultaneous observation only means simultaneity if the distances are equal. When distances are not equal, arrival times are different. In both cases the calculation involves the distances to the events as well as arrival times. The case where distances are equal (for both observers) is a special case that's easy to simplify by essentially ignoring the distance.
@@TheWyrdSmythe B as the reference frame, the light from both sides should move toward B at the same speed c and reach point B at the same time. Is there any problem with my understanding?
@@monicazhang8240 No, I don't think so. I'm commenting about a nuance. Seeing the light from two events at the same time means those events are simultaneous in your frame _only_ if the distance to those events is the same. To judge simultaneity, you have to know the distance to the events. If you stood to one side, the light would arrive at different times due to different path lengths, but knowing the distances involved you could still judge the events as simultaneous. Likewise, if the events were _not_ simultaneous in your frame, there's always a place you can stand where the light from both events reaches you simultaneously. But if you know the distances, you see that the events are not actually simultaneous.
@@avanishpadmakar5897 Newton's 2nd Law is modified when you write it as F = ma with the gamma factor included, but writing it in the alternative form as F = dp/dt is still consistent throughout reference frames. See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_mechanics#Force
@@FacultyofKhan F=ma can't be modified with the gamma factor to be right, because the inertia will be different in perpendicular and parallel directions to the motion. You have to change m to a matrix in order to get a correct equation. But what you wrote is right, writing this equation with the momentum is correct, even what I said can be derived from it. I just wanted to point out that F=ma can't be made right with a gamma factor, as many people think. Special relativity is mostly an easy subject, at least at it's surface. Eventually it gets pretty complicated with the Belinfante symmetrisation and such. Maybe this is why so much wrong information is spreading about it, everybody thinks that they know SR.
@@zoltankurti Yeah you're right; I meant to say what was written in the article (the sum of expressions corresponding to parallel and perpendicular directions to the motion which each contain a term involving gamma). Thank you for clarifying!
Special relativity: speed of light = c in the "stationary" system. What is the stationary system stationary to? The stationary system is stationary to the stationary system. The observer in the stationary system is stationary to the stationary system and is called a stationary observer. This is self-referential nonsense.
No such a thing as "Absolute Motion" ? WTF ? Start with an "Absolute" 4D environment called Space-Time. Then have all objects that exist within this "Absolute" 4D environment, all share a specific magnitude of "Absolute" motion. With this being the case, all that can be altered is the direction of which an object may move within the "Absolute" 4D Space-Time environment. Now analyze the outcome of such a setting. What you end up with is the Special Relativity(SR) phenomena, all of the SR mathematical equations, independent frames of reference, the Lorentz Transformation equations, etc. See my YT videos if you have any doubts. If you passed grade 9, then you too should be able to discover SR all on your own, by simply analyzing motion.
If you have absolute motion of all matter that is present within the 4D space-time environment, and this absolute motion is equivalent to the magnitude of motion of which light has across space, "c", the outcome is the special relativity phenomena. If you use simple geometry, which includes motion vectors and length scalars stacked on top of each other, all to represent this absolute motion within space-time, you can derive all of the SR mathematical equations in mere minutes, including the Lorentz Transformation equations.
The YT rewind video was a shitshow because it was SJW/leftist/diversity propaganda, indoctrination and degeneracy. Talking about lgbt, people of color, etc. all about virtue signaling. It was also hella dumb with fortnite being the main theme and cringey dances (I wished I didn’t see late night hosts dance those FN dances badly), abuse of kpop and just way too much bad things about it, it’s insane. Some of these other bad things include no Pewdiepie, they deleted some NZ guys clip after flying him for 15 hours, markass brownlee regretted it, some YT who hasn’t uploaded in 8 months. YT is so out of touch + censoring ‘controversial’ voices.
