Видео

@@MatthewRodgers no they didn't consider stationary ether, they considered earth's frame as stationary and ether as moving relative to it, however the mistake that they did was in the conservation of momentum during the reflection of light from mirror.

@@vishalsutar8705 I said it and say it just in a metaphorical sense, not in a literal sense, by shudra I don't mean a person who is associated with lower works of society but a person who is unaware and is unconscious of his actions despite whatever name his is or whatever class he claims to be in, as long as one is totally unconscious, one can be referred to as shudra, it has nothing to do with Varna system.

Please watch the full video for clarification and other videos.

@@x__gamer001-ka Thanks for your heart.

A Big Trap Between Stupid Politicians and Stupid People of Media Like Him.

No because there is no preferred frame of reference in pure relative(inertial) motion.

Ether has to come back, when Einstein proposed his theory, many great physicists consider it as Absurd including Lorentz, Mach, Poincare, Kelvin and Even Michelson and emphasized ether's existence, even einstein changed his mind many times about the existence of ether during his lifetime, Many physicists and philosophers gave detailed criticisms even after Experimental verification of it's predictions like Henri bergson, Herbert Dingle, Ronald Hatch(1992), Unnikrishnan and so on, Anyways the question is not just about special relativity but all of relative motion including galilean (even if we take time is absolute).

@ScienceRevised E=mc. Where does relativity come in when motion is absolute. Both in space and in time. Two cars travel do the sane destination. One is going 10 mph faster. The relative speed difference is 10 mph but their absolute speeds are 50 and 60 mph. F=ma. Space and Time are separate frames of reference. E=mc where c is the speed of light. Speed is distance/time. Two separate frames of reference. How are you coming up with a combined spacetime frame? Even so, when Nasa started launching people into orbit and the flight-log data came back showing accelerated heart rates during lift-off. A g-force environment, what did you continue the charade. Galileo? He showed that the earth was in motion around the sun. This is what created the tides. Not some fictitious force emanating from the moon and sun. So why the gravitational attraction, mass as an actionable force nonsense? Because acceleration as the frame of reference takes science to one place and one place only. Who turned on the lights. Ancient man invented a god just like flat earthers and their gravitational attraction nonsense. F=ma/E=mc. The initial accelerating force came from outside the universe as we know it. E=mc creates the universe as we know it. If you want a different universe (FTL) you are going to have to warp (c), not mass. If you can't tell the difference between acceleration in space and acceleration in time, you have no business being a physicist. If you don't understand that the earth is rotating on its axis, accelerating its mass outward and forward, creating curved space, you have no business being a physicist. F=ma. Force comes from the acceleration of the mass. Mass, by itself has no force. Only flat earthers believe in gravitational attraction. FYI. None of Einstein’s baseless relativity theories has been validated. The twin paradox is a shining example of the ignorance of the relativists.

​@@stewiesaidthat Yeah but the part which remains to be completed is to develop such mechanics where inertial motion and non inertial motion, both are absolute and different sides of same coin, such formulation has not been done so far.

@ScienceRevised I don't understand. At least I think you don't understand. F=ma. Can be written as ma=F and ma=ma. Or Acceleration equals Acceleration. The mass is either being accelerated by an outside force F=ma. Or Accelerating itself, ma=F. Walking down the street, you are accelerating yourself in the forward direction. You are using your mass/energy to accelerate so no outside force, no resistance, no 'gravity". Riding on a bus, the seatback is accelerating you in a forward direction. So there is resistance, 'gravity'. Inertial/non-inertial is just the source of the acceleration. Inside or outside the frame.

@@stewiesaidthat for any acceleration of a particle to come in existence, you would need a potential or say a force provided by another mass, a photon hitting a particle may cause acceleration or a particle may emit any other particle which causes acceleration by conservation of linear momentum, The statement you are making is a misconception, In reality, no particle can accelerate by itself provided it has not emitted a mass or has not interacted with other matter, it cannot accelerate via it's own mass energy transition you referred to, it's a misconception. A particle may have a kinetic energy or an inertial(constant velocity) state of motion with respect to the other particle but without any interaction with any potential field, it cannot accelerate, I hope you get it.

Yup, I believe in ether as well with mathematical reasons, that's what I have tried showing it here.

The main question is whether the speed of light is galilean in nature just like all other speeds or is it not, that's what I addressed in my video.

@@ScienceRevised To your question. The answer will be given by the results of the HYBRID gyroscope experiment.

@@zhavlan1258 can you share me the link of this experiment?

yuviatfi6@gmail.com Here is my email, please mention the subject while send the mail

But measurements were not taken through the ether's frame as a rest frame(as that cannot happen since we live on matter) rather from earth's frame where ether has a relative wind, Think about it, velocity of sound is also isotropic in air's frame but it goes relative as far as relative motion of matter is concerned and that is exactly what is happening here which will lead to conserved speed in the reflected speed of light as per momentum conservation and not frequency, You phrased 'Light bouncing off moving objects' but in the experiment, there are no moving objects but all at rest with respect to each other only light and ether has relative speeds with respect to matter, Also, I didn't claim that there is a change in speed due to reflection, on the contrary I am saying that speed has to remain conserved during reflection, I think the Sound-matter analogy can aid in such thinking.

@@ScienceRevised​​⁠​⁠I’ll give this one more attempt to convey the error I see with your approach. Let’s go with the sound analogy. The speed of sound in the medium is c relative to the medium at all times in all cases (assuming the medium properties remain unchanged). Even if the object sound is bouncing off of has a speed relative to the medium the sound bounces off at c in the opposite direction with respect to the medium. What about the speed of sound with respect to the moving object it bounced off of? If the object were moving away from the sound, then the speed there would be c-w and the speed back is c+w. If the object were moving towards the sound, then the speed of sound there is c+w, and back is c-w. This is exactly what the Michelson-Morley experimental predictions used as a model for light in a medium (the ether). At 5:20 I see many confusions in how you set up the Michelson-Morley experiment. You’re adding velocities incorrectly or using the wrong reference system to represent them; example, your implying the speed is relative to the medium when it ought to be relative to the moving mirror (or vice versa). Take more care to be more explicit to what speeds are relative to what reference system. So, for the Michelson-Morley experiment you illustrated, the speed of Light traveling to the right towards the mirror, when the mirror is also traveling to the right, ought to be c-w (with respect to the mirror), and not c+w as you wrote. Likewise for the return trip the speed ought to be c+w (relative to the mirror) and not c-w as you wrote. This error then cascades into all your other calculations and conclusions. Another error you make is to claim the speed (implying relative to the moving mirror) is conserved during reflection. For waves, momentum is conserved, but not speed relative to a moving object. The speed of waves through a medium is always constant relative to that medium and momentum is conserved via changes in frequency as I said.

@@CausalDiscoveries Thanks for your concern, I hope this may clarify: The frame I have chosen as a rest frame is that of earth as what Michelson and Morley did(that too partly, if you want more clarification about this, you can see my one hour long video in book format), So the mirrors are not moving at all, it is the ether which is now moving relative to our frame from east to west, So about your claim about speed of sound in forward journey to be c-w and c+w in backward journey is wrong because mirrors are not moving at all, it is the ether which is moving from left to right and light in the forward journey is moving along with ether and against the ether in the backward journey, hence their respective speeds are C+W and C-W in forward and backward journeys are such (this is also in their original calculations contrary to what you interpreted), Also I said the sound air analogy can aid, so let's see how: Think about conducting the same experiment in a lab where everything is relatively at rest with respect to each other(including mirrors) and air is moving from left to right, So now if you calculate the speeds, they will turn out to be C+W in forward journey and C-W in backward journey, this addition and subtraction is happening because the medium itself is moving relative to mirrors and the rest of the experimental apparatus so that the net speed of sound in any journey as perceived by the measurement in the rest frame of lab will turn out to be speed of medium plus minus speed of sound(with respect to medium itself) depending upon the direction of sound wave with respect to medium's relative speed with respect to rest frame of laboratory. This is alright so far but the mistake they did in their experiment is they didn't conserve the momentum which is basically equivalent of conserved speed of light during reflection provided ether exists(that is another matter that speed won't remain conserved and frequency will if ether does not exist but if ether exists, then the speed will be conserved during reflection, that is basic Newtonian mechanics and Galilean Invariance, if you again use the sound air analogy, (as in the case discussed above) then you can understand how speed of sound during reflection will remain conserved) and because of this mistake they concluded that the net speed of light in backward journey is C-W in their calculations where if we conserve speed then net speed of light in backward journey must come to be C and as a result, their calculations and results turned out to be wrong, Hope you understood.

I appreciate the attempt at clarifying, but I’ve lost interest.

​@@CausalDiscoveriesAs you wish but please criticise if you find anything wrong or any mistake in my reasoning, It will be a gratitude, thanks for your time.

Available in Channel's description

Let's not play AdHominem(making personal comments) and let's try to understand each other, That's where your mistake lies, you have judged and hence you failed to understand why the design of this video has been chosen like this. About Personal Background, I have done MBBS but despite my medical background, I have read other things on my own, so rather than claiming for the degree, claim by pointing out where I was wrong. About first criticism, to say that heart is not conscious is indirectly saying consciousness is localised in brain, hence I clearly mentioned that Armour named scientist have found an independent set of 40,000 neurons which are responsible for heart's own consciousness, hence brain is not the only structure which is allocated with resembling conscious activity, heart too is, hence you misunderstood that. About 2nd point you made, I think the statement in the background is completely valid, I am simply saying that anyone who speaks the uninvestigated facts with certainty as if they are the truths and claims them as truth are really the biggest criminals of humanity because for me, to distort truth is equivalent to committing a crime, hence such Statement. I feel you are biased with him over past years and now we are breaking your illusions hence you feel this hatredness, that's alright, so your homework is that you have to become unbiased and then see this work, thank you.

Your reply is laughable. 1. You are repeatedly insisting on not getting personal but paradoxically you are using terms like "to me" or "I feel you are biased", "that's where your mistake lies" which are extremely personal forms of addressing. You're doing the same thing which you are asking me not to do. Multiple contradictions in a single comment. LOL You are constitutionally allowed to share your opinion obviously but that doesn't mean we must trust you (benchmark of a smart content consumer today!) 2. Good that you have a MBBS degree and surely like the other 140 crore Indians, you have a right to read beyond your academic discipline. But that AGAIN doesn't posit that consumers should consider your content as authentic. You have already failed to defend your stand where you contradicted on getting personal. 3. You ASSUMED that I am a follower of Dr Divyakirti and that's where lies your lack of maturity and lack of logic. No, I've never been a follower of Dr Divyakirti (if you don't believe me than I don't believe you have a MBBS degree lol) but I'm an ardent believer of rational discussions and when I see content creators hungry for views who fail to prove their authority or are unable to rationally defend themselves it makes me laugh. 4. You have made the feedback about what YOU FEEL on the quotation. Read more about common sensical norms then you'll understand where lies the problem in making sweeping statements like "xyz is the biggest crime of humanity". Go tell this to a terror attack victim and they'll laugh on your face and teach you what crime actually feels like. Nobody gives a damn what you FEEL until you have enough experience to demonstrate. Content like this is being created in all countries. There are thousands of like you making tall claims with zero understanding of the subject matter (just reading about something makes you a student and not the teacher of a subject.)

@@academicgeek Atleast I have to address you as you right? And hey man, I never said to trust me but don't mock me either before listening. And about the statement in the background, again I have written truth as per me and let me, I don't find anything wrong in it. If you find anything wrong in our content, just point out exactly at which place or which criticism did you find us wrong? And about maturity, your aggressive tone at the first is indicative enough of your maturity and being a psychologist I can say you are suffering from a mild form of ADHD, And also your Lols say much more about your maturity too. Anyways, moving ahead, You said that so many people are doing this in other countries.. so what? That's why they are the only people who are making a change, And that is exactly what we are doing here. If so many people are doing this in their countries then how can that stop us doing in our own country rather inspiring us as well? And so many people also eat everyday, if that seems usual to you so do you remain hungry all the time by this logic? And you don't have to watch it man if you can't value anyone before listening to people, if you can't value people or listen to what they are saying without asking a degree, that's perfectly alright, it's just not your problem, it's a problem of millions of people worldwide, it's a product of extreme westernization and I understand where do you come from and that is exactly what we will be changing through our channel, Hope you Understand, Thank you. Come back only if you have valid criticisms of our criticisms, please don't go personal, we don't have time to waste in such stupid personal talks where one is pulling the other down and so on.

1. "that's why only they are able to make a change" - another sweeping statement. Show us the survey where you have quantitatively proven this? 2. "not your problem but a problem of millions of people in the world" - another sweeping statement. Show us the survey where you have quantitatively interviewed these "millions of people". You keep on making sweeping generalizations without realising that you're creating a mockery of yourself. 2. You say you're a psychologist, well I'm also a psychologist and I can sense you have strong narcissistic disorder 😄 3. Your narcissistic self only focuses on the "personal comments" (and you react by making personal comments yourself, contradicting enough) But you fail to focus on the constructive feedback that I gave - studying more about prosumer platform economy on how the content consumers of these days are smart enough, to not make sweeping statements which will make you look like a "gyan guru" like that idiot ranveer allahbadia. 3. You focused only on the degree part and not where I said about demonstrable experience. There's nothing westernized about asking the knowledge and experience credentials of someone who wishes to "bring a revolution". Lol If you're unable to prove your knowledge+experience credentials, and still make tall claims then the problem is with you and not the viewers. We'll just move on to a better content creator. Lol