@@davidrowe762 THE CLEAR, INTEGRATED, EXTENSIVE, LOGICAL, BALANCED, AND MATHEMATICAL PROOF THAT ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity: Consider what is E=MC2. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. The MIDDLE DISTANCE in/of SPACE AND the full distance in/of SPACE are CLEARLY linked AND BALANCED opposites (ON BALANCE), AS c squared CLEARLY represents a dimension of SPACE (ON BALANCE); AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE. This CLEARLY explains and proves TIME dilation AND what is the fourth dimension. CLEARLY, gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites (ON BALANCE); AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). Notice what is the TRANSLUCENT blue sky ON BALANCE in relation to what is THE EYE. What are OBJECTS may fall at the SAME RATE in order to VANISH as part of what is THE EARTH/ground (ON BALANCE). TIME dilation CLEARLY proves that what is E=MC2 is CLEARLY in FULL accordance with TIME AND the fact that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity, AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE. (Indeed, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE). Notice what is the orange (AND SETTING) SUN in what constitutes direct comparison WITH what is the FULLY ILLUMINATED (AND SETTING WHITE) MOON. (They are the SAME SIZE as what is THE EYE, AS the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON then matches it's revolution; AS gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent WITH what is E=MC2, TIME, AND what is THE EYE ON BALANCE.) Consider what is the man (AND THE EYE ON BALANCE) who IS standing on what is THE EARTH/ground. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. LOOK directly overhead at what is the BLUE AND TRANSLUCENT sky. (Consider what is invisible AND VISIBLE SPACE in fundamental equilibrium AND BALANCE.) NOW, lava is orange; AND it is even blood red. Excellent. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE) pursuant to what are E=MC2 AND TIME. Accordingly, ON BALANCE, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution; AND the cosmological redshift proves that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE. (Consider TIME AND TIME dilation ON BALANCE, AS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity ON/IN BALANCE). INDEED, GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY is proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; AND “mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY; AND gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent WITH E=MC2 AND TIME. This CLEARLY explains and proves what is the fourth dimension. I have also CLEARLY explained (ON BALANCE) why THE PLANETS move away very, very, very, very slightly in relation to WHAT IS THE SUN, AND I have CLEARLY explained ON BALANCE why the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY (AND NECESSARILY) proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). (BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand.) Excellent. The INTEGRATED EXTENSIVENESS of THOUGHT AND description is improved in the truly superior mind. Again, consider what is the BALANCED MIDDLE DISTANCE in/of SPACE (ON BALANCE) in accordance WITH WHAT IS E=MC2 AND TIME; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE); AS c squared CLEARLY represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE !!! Indeed, now consider what is THE EYE. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense ON BALANCE. Magnificent !!! By Frank DiMeglio
@Keylanos Lokj - interesting that you say Einstein's equation "was stolen by DePretto who published it three years earlier." ... He must have really got the hang of all this spacetime malarky.
Well considering algorithms focus on the county of origin (America in this case) they will use what is most familiar with the audience most likely too see it. I do wish the would at least for the converted numbers on the screen.
Normally it annoys me but in this video it doesn't matter what he uses. Miles, kilometers, millimeters, light-year... they all work exactly the same in this case.
I very much appreciate your trying to explain the concept of relativity… Thank you ! I don't get how the person in the car traveling 60 mph can claim he is not moving ? I understand that if he is looking at stuff inside the car, things look like they are not moving. But of course, if he is looking at things outside the car, they should look like they are moving.
WHY the over complicated chalkboard for a background ? ? And am I missing something here or might any of these visuals be better ? : ● 3 Spacecrafts traveling in unison in one direction.... another spacecraft traveling in the opposite direction..... All in DARK black outerspace with only distant stars and no close reference points for them to detect their movement. And where the class of students are all hidden observers watching from a distant powerful telescope. .... or the path of a ball for the ball hander on the train compared to observers looking from outside to inside the moving train. ...or elevator. ...or three skydivers doing a relative work jump. All "floating" in their "universe" but falling at 120mph down to earthlings looking up. And when one freefaller opens their parachute .... they appear to go up to camera guy's view even though they are still falling to earthlings veiwing. ... or astronauts in training .... that think they're in floating in zero gravity ....when they are really just in freefall within the freefalling windowless aircraft heading to crash on earth if the pilot doesn't pull up. ( You really do think you are floating completely still and weightless at the center of your universe. ) With a SIMPLE diagrams on the mostly blank chalkboard !
Nice video Don. Could you explain what is happening with gravity on a quantum level and what the equations are? Or at least best hypotheses for quantum gravity?
Don, this is great. I'm building up to a deep dive in special relativity, but it's a ways off at this point and these videos will be a nice primer to set the stage for that. Thanks for looking over the comments and trying to put together something that your viewers are looking for. It's greatly appreciated.
Fantastic! Dr. Lincoln i really appreciate your explanations of physics topics. I like the new intro very much. Now that I'm retired as a physician i can study physics for fun. They are spelled similarly, any way.
As an Electrical Engineer, I wanted to say that your videos are just as entertaining to someone experienced with these concepts as they are to a layman. :)
Love the idea. The World Science Festival channel recently uploaded multi-part videos and they were well organised, easy to follow. Best of all: you can really get a deeper understanding of a topic. I'm ready to go deeper ;)
I love the idea of doing a series on a single topic and I'm excited to see you do it! One thing that I've been thinking about with the second assumption (that the speed of light is the same in any inertial reference frame) is that it should follow from the first assumption. Since the speed of light is a result of two fundamental constants (vacuum permittivity and permeability) and the first assumption is that the laws of physics should hold in any frame, the speed of light follows naturally and doesn't have to be taken as an assumption. I've seen people ask why the second assumption should be valid in the comments a decent bit and think that, though getting to the speed of light through those constants is not particularly intuitive, it does provide a solid basis for the assumption that the speed of light should be the same in any inertial reference frame.
To be clear, I don't disagree that the fact that the constants really are constant is, in fact, amazing. I'm just arguing that it's already baked into the assumption that the laws of physics are frame-independent.
[01:27] ...indeed, Galileo thought about relativity, Newton too, the ancient Greeks had notions aboard ships-but they were 'slow travelers', (they also supposed light speed was finite, as everything-else that appeared)... Yet, if one accelerates, one feels-and-remembers it, the other DOES NOT...
Although he was just a man and although his work stood on the shoulders of similar giants: it is incredible to think how many 10s of thousands of legitimate scientists and millions of lay people Einstein's work impacted.
Thank you so much for explaining the core meaning of Special Relativity. Now, have you done a video explaining the Andromeda Paradox? I cannot seem to wrap my head around it and would appreciate your help.
I don’t understand people who dislike videos like this first of all how can you not like physics second if you don’t like physics don’t watch this video there’s no need to dislike it basically denoting that this is a bad video which it isn’t
Great idea to make a series. But there should be a clear list of which videos make up this series. I want to see the series, but I have to choose the videos about relativity rather random or guess which is next.
Dr. Don is a brilliant presenter and professor! Someone who really knows the subject matter, which is reflected in the way he presents it: as simple as possible, but not simpler!
@silverrahul this is true, and he stated that in this video. but he didn't state that caveat in the later video i allude to, meaning he doesn't know or care what he's presenting to us.
And that's why Relativity is often explained with trains. You can do the explanation with a passenger on a train without having to think "Man, the car guy is crazy. He thinks he's not moving? How can he drive like that? He's a danger to everyone on the road!" A nitpick of course. Good video, Don!
I'm sorry, but I found this account unnecessary complicated and confusing. If you're going to talk about special relativity where all reference frames are equally legitimate, why not use reference frames that at least look identical? For example, you could have used two flying saucers passing each other in space. The two situations are then more obviously identical, with even the craft having no front or back to indicate a particular direction of travel, especially when we are to think of the as stationary in their own reference frames. This also avoids bringing in a third reference frame (the Earth). It would also avoid having to talk about the egocentricity of the person in the craft, which is especially confusing because the person in the car has to be much more egocentric to consider himself the centre of the universe than the person standing who, at least, has the entire Earth agreeing with him. That is unnecessary confusing when you are explaining special relativity where all frames of reference are equally legitimate.
Agreement ! .... and WHY the over complicated chalkboard for a background ? ? Should be: ● 3 Spacecrafts traveling in unison in one direction.... another spacecraft traveling in the opposite direction..... in DARK black outerspace with only distant stars and no close reference points. And where the class of students all hidden observers watching from a distant powerful telescope. .... or the path of a ball for ball hander on the train compared to observers looking from outside into the moving train. ...or elevator. ...or three skydivers doing a relative work jump. All "floating" in their "universe" but falling at 120mph down to earthlings looking up. And when one opens their parachute .... they appear to go up to camera guy even though they are still falling to earthlings veiwing. ... or astronauts that think they're in floating in zero gravity ....when they are really just in freefall within the freefalling windowless aircraft heading to crash on earth if the pilot doesn't pull up. You really are floating completely still and weightless at the center of your universe. With a SIMPLE diagram on the blank chalkboard ! Mlm
I like the idea of a series of videos around the same subject. But keep making videos the old style. We need our professor to occasionally tell about random science stuff.
Dr Lincoln, your videos and Fermi Lab rock. I do appreciate your efforts. I’m so glad DOE supports your educational outreach. Physics is everything. I worked in Oak Ridge for 38 years. I believe in our national laboratories. Thank you.
Lorentz fun: Skinny selfie, Train and tunnel w/ flashing tips, Lorentz lens (Interesting if you look at it), what the cutting edge of scissors looks like if blades were flying passed each other which allowed the (no real information transferring) cutting edge to "move" at faster than the speed of light. I love Physics! Always more!
#1) Galilean Transformation(GT) works for all velocity(v). Relativistic Transformation(RT) break down when V is greater or equal to speed of light(c). When v=c, Gamma is undefined. When v > c, Gamma = 1/ sqrt(negative number). Denominator is i (imaginary) when v = sqrt(2) and NA (not a number) for any others value of v > c. #2) Assumption of c is a constant for all frames, therefore inductively that other constants exists which also satisfied for all frames as well. So, if using a different constant, RT would produces different X' & T' = RT is arbitrary = nonsensical transformation/math. Furthermore, when a constant d is greater or equal to c, SR Transformation failed in #1 for range between c and d.
Thanks. However path length is always greater than wave length, so a point or segment (shorter path length) of EM wave travel faster than c. Adding nonzero degrees freedom of movement (spiral, loop,etc..), this point/segment now travel even faster. Therefore c can't be a constant nor speed upper limit.
+Luong La _"Galilean Transformation(GT) works for all velocity(v)."_ Then show us how Maxwell's equations stay the same under the Galilean transformation.
there are plenty of videos on youtube with this kind of explanation with "all observers agree on the speed of light" thing. But this raises another question: why the hack they agree on that? And explanation of this fact is way more interesting and it may seem to make things complicated at first, improves understanding of the theory derivation later.
Actually, I believe it's a consequence of Maxwell's equations. The speed of light (or rather all electromagnetic effects) is determined by the electrical and the magnetic field constant (IIRC, it's the product of the two). But everyone should see the same values for those constants (kind of what being constant means), so necessarily everyone should see the same speed of light. Later, it turns out that this is actually the speed of causality. But "speed of light" has a nice ring to it, so that's what is used.
The big thing with this assumption is that it doesn't actually have to be taken as an assumption. The speed of light is the result of two fundamental constants: the vacuum permittivity and the vacuum permeability, which describe the strengths of electric and magnetic fields, respectively. The speed of light is a direct result of these two physical constants. Since the first assumption demands that the laws of physics should be the same in any inertial reference frame, these constants must also be the same, thus the speed of light is constant.
Very simplified video in understanding Relativity, thanks. Just wanted to know about why did Newton came up with Absolute Space and Time despite knowing Galilean Relativity equations
I am loving it, professor. Connected videos make possible to explain a subject clearly and completely but in a good rhythm. Also, adding math to the explanations is great and necessary. I would love stuff series like this about particle physics. Thank you so much
Dr. Lincoln, does your shirt feature the name “Einstein” rendered in a fashion similar to the stylized logo of the rock band Boston? It certainly looks like it.
Thanks, Don! Oh, where were you when I was in high school physics! The idea of a linked sequence developing ideas one central point at a time is excellent. Then understanding unfolds like a spring flower ... exuberantly!
Why do a bunch of piecemeal, partially incoherent videos on a single topic? This one explained virtually nothing beyond basic physics 101 stuff. It skips over the most essential points, namely the Lorentz factor. Disappointed.
Dr Don, just with the Big Bang, how did it create all the matter we have in our universe? I don’t think there was a Big Bang but other forces at play here.
There was definitely a Big Bang. There's just way too many independent lines of evidence for it. But the Big Bang Theory only explains what happens _after_ the Big Bang itself. We still have no idea how the matter came into being in the first place, just like the Theory of Evolution doesn't try to explain how life got started (that's another field of study called abiogenesis).
Define a position, where a length l requires two origins, separated by a horizontal line (t = 0). Assume Bob and Mary travel the same distance, where xc = xv = l then tc is shorter than tv, and t' = tG is greater than tv , bob travels at the speed of light along x, mary travels more slowly along the same length, and t' even slower because t'/t = G is a density. But even that is wrong in STR. Note that Relativity rejects Newton's Third Law, where an equal and opposite force - f^2 = =f^2(f^2/f^2 = f^2(1_(f^2)) (f is a prime number represented by f = ct = ma f^2 characterizes a single origin at (x,t) = (0,0) = m0 Note that x = vt has been eliminated from the Lorentz transforms under the assumption that x = ct iff x' = ct' (Einstein's condition), and so is therefore not explicit in the 'time dilation" equation. Note that m' = (ct') = (m0)G = (ct)G (it is difficult to write all of this in ASCII) There are a number of fundamental issues involved The Barber Paradox: "A Barber in a village shaves all those and only those that don't shave themselves. Does the Barber shave himself)?" - Bertrand Russell. This is equivalent to the question: "Is 1^2 = 1? Compare with G = 1/sqr(1 - b^2)m b = v/c
What exactly is 'time'? Many say that 'time' is the 'speed of causality'. The problem with that definition the way I 'relatively see it' ;-) is that 'speed' is distance divided by time. They are utilizing 'time' to define 'time' without really saying what 'time' actually is. So, what exactly is 'time'? And note: 'Distance' (two points in 'space' with 'space' between those two points) and 'time' (however it is defined) has to have some sort of existent reality for 'speed' to have an actual existent reality since 'speed' is a higher construct of distance divided by time. If distance (space) and/or time didn't have some sort of actual existent reality, then speed could not have an actual existent reality because 'speed' would be based upon at least one thing that didn't really exist. Sure, it would work on paper and in math formulas, but it wouldn't work in actual existent reality, of which it apparently does. So, what exactly is 'space' and what exactly is 'time'?
So for the car example, when you switch up the view, and the car is stationary apposed to the guy being stationary, The guy is now moving in perspective of the car. Do the primed and unprimed views switch up? Or simply, when analyzing perspectives, is the perspective that you analyse to be stationary always the prime view, and do they switch up once you look at another perspective that you analyse as stationary? Or are the primed and unprimed view, once chosen, always the same?
if the speed of light is measured in m/s and meters and seconds dilate then how can a constant be measured with units that dilate? you cant explain relativity you need to force it.
Professor Lincoln, As a distant learning Adult student of yours and many respected professors ...I have learned a lot to build on my science backgrounds and intuitions...to fulfill my curiosity about human life and evolution of the universe and the whole of PRAPANCHAM...!!! During that Journey ...met History ; Science; Religion ; politics of Race , caste , media and UN...and Civil and World Wars ...!!! Also encountered HUMAN SUFFERINGS AND SACRIFICES in all of them ...!!! Met Pseudo Scientists ; General Freudian Psychologists ;Environmentalists; Animal Rights Activists; ProLIFE and proCHOICE POLITICIANS ...!!! ABOVE THEM ALL , I saw the PREACHERS FOR THE PAIN SUFFERING AND SALVATION ; Heard repeatedly about promises of HEAVEN and AFTER LIFE ... BY THEM ...!!! But what I COULD NOT SEE OR HEAR IS A PERSON ; GROUP OR GOVERNING BODY , WHO COULD HONESTLY ADVOCATE FOR TRUE HUMANITY AND THEIR PEACE & HAPPINESS...!!! I COULD NOT COME EVEN CLOSE TO A GOVERNMENT FOR ADMINISTERING TRUTHFULLY REALISTIC LIFE AND LIVING...!!! ( ALL POLITICS & PARTY ) From All These , I finally came to the conclusion that LIFE AND LIVING ; BIRTH AND DEATH ARE ALL BUSINESSES ...!!! The one who can play the dice well may win through ... Others will be their guinea pigs or lab specimens( already subjected or to be picked up) ...!!! So, 1) what is LIFE& LIVING ...??? 2 ) Who is HUMAN ...??? 3 ) Where is GOD ...??? 4 )Why God made every one Unique...??? 5 )WHY DON'T the law makers and religious- political- media and psychologists and people like them understand that ...GENERALIZATION do not apply to this modern world...??? Even in the same family our life and living is individual...due to several factors ...like B.E.S.T.& A.S ( Background ; Environment ; Space; Time and Atmosphere ; Situation ) ...!!! My Final QUESTIONS to the SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY ( for all the people who live with psychological pain in this unrealistic manipulated world ) ARE : 1 )IF YOU HAVE A FORMULA TO MAKE EVERY ONE LOOK AND BEHAVE THE SAME WAY AND EASE OUR PAIN ...WOULD YOU USE IT PLEASE...??? 2 ) IF YOU CANNOT ...COULD YOU ALL PLEASE STOP ALL HUMANITY FROM BEING BORN ANYMORE ON THIS EARTH ...FOR OTHERS TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF ... BY THE SELFISH WORLD ...???( ISN' T IT A POLITICAL CRIMINAL WORLD , WE LIVE IN...!!! ) 3 ) WHY SHOULD WE LIVE, IF WE ALL CANNOT HAVE OUR RIGHTS ; FREEDOM AND DIGNITY...??? THANK YOU ALL IN ANTICIPATION ...!!!
So, would one say that when matter gets compressed within a black hole, the energies of the weak, strong, and electromagnetic forces unify into gravitational energy? Or is that not even wrong?
If the car guy thinks he's not moving and a location 1 mile ahead of him and another 1 mile behind him are also not moving with respect to him and will always stay at those distances why would he be in his car? He'll never get anywhere!
"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. 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 - this rough calculation explains the deviations we see in Graph 2. 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.
To solve the problem with the Galilean transformation equations, if you say you want to use the time of a slower clock the way Einstein describes, the equations from the frame of reference of an observer in frame of reference S(x,y,z,t) do not show anything about a slower clock in frame of reference S'(x',y',z',t'). x'=x-vt y'=y z'=z t'=t In order to show the time of that slower clock in S', you would have to use a different set of Galilean transformation equations with different variables for velocity and time. So the inverse equations from S' would be x = x' - (-vt/n')n' y = y' z = z' n = n' n' is the time of the slower clock in S'(x',y',z',n'). (-vt/n') is the velocity of S(x,y,z,n) relative to S'. The equation n=n' shows that the time of the slower clock in S' is being used in both frames of reference. So then if you want to say light is traveling at a speed of c in both frames of reference, you would say, x=ct and x'=cn'. I arrived at the basic idea behind this when I was in high school, and since that time, no one in science has ever attempted to answer it. What I believed back then and still believe is that if an observer in S' has a slower clock than an observer in S, the observer in S' will get a faster speed of one frame of reference relative to the other than an observer in S. I call this phenomenon reality.
How about a link to the next episode? (You know, to help the algorithm out a bit). *(Relativity's key concept: Lorentz gamma* ruclips.net/video/qXxtqK7G4Uw/видео.html) Or a link to a playlist? *(Fermilab* - *_Special Relativity_* ruclips.net/p/PLCfRa7MXBEspw_7ZSTVGCXpSswdpegQHX)
Please connect videos that fit together for whatever reason. If you feel like explaining, fine. If not, that is fine also. Either way, I thoroughly enjoy the videos. topics, and the presentation. Thank You! so very much.
It is possible to derive 2 contradictory time dilation equations. 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.
I have been investigating propagating Electromagnetic fields for many years. My investigations revealed that these fields and the information in these fields propagate nearly instantaneously when they are created and reduce to the speed of light as they propagate into the farfield. William Walker Superluminal According to Albert Einstein, if the speed of light is not a constant, then his theories of Special and General Relativity are wrong. This can be seen in Einstein's time dilation result due to a moving observer: t=r t' and the length contraction result: L=L'/r, where t and L are reference to the stationary frame, and t' and L ' are reference to the moving frame, and r is the Relativistic gamma factor: r =1/Sqrt(1-(v/c)^2). These results are easily derived using Einstein's light clock thought experiment using simple algebra. But if propagating EM fields with infinite speed near the source are used in the derivation, then c = Infinity, and r=1. If propagating EM fields far from the source are used, then c = the speed of light, and r= the standard Relativistic gamma factor. What comes out of this is that the effects on time and space are completely different depending on whether one uses propagating fields near or far away from the source, which can't be true since time and space are real. So the conclusion must be that Einstein's Relativity is wrong and time and space do not change with respect to moving reference frames, Galilean Relativity is correct, and that Einstein's equations just enable us to back calculate to the correct answer, given the time delays observed by the propagating EM fields used in measuring the effects. William Walker Relativity But these results do not account for the time dilation observed by moving atomic clocks in airplane experiments, but can be accounted for using variable light speed theory (VLS), originally proposed by Einstein, and later improved by Robert Dicky in 1957. In this theory, spacetime is not curved by gravity as suggested by General Relativity, instead Newtons theory of gravity is correct and the many other known effects of gravity are due to the affect of gravity on the of light speed. For instance the observed bending of light by mass, which caused General Relativity to be accepted, can be explained, by the gravity generated by the mass, changing the speed of light, causing the light to bend around the mass. This effect is analogous to the bending of light in glass. Since lasers are used in atomic clocks to measure time, then the observed time dilation in atomic clocks in moving airplanes can be explained as due to the effects of light speed changes in the clocks due to changes in gravitation as the plane goes up and down. It should also be noted that several researchers have shown the relation E=mc^2 can be derived without Relativity using Newtonian mechanics, and the Michelson Morley experiment can be explained using the Doppler effect, ref Nathan Rapport 2021 In summary, this research shows that Einstein's theories are wrong and that time and space do not change with respect to moving observers, Galilean Relativity is correct, Newtons theory of gravity is correct, and many of the other effects of gravity can be explained as gravity simply changing the speed of light. The importance of this research is that it completely changes our understanding of time and space and gravity, and simplifies our theories. Perhaps this new understanding will finally enable researchers to finally unite Gravitational theory with quantum mechanics which have been incompatible since scientists accepted Einstein's theories for Special and General Relativity. For instance, Relativity is incompatible with quantum entanglement, which requires communication faster than light, but can perhaps can be explained by superluminal propagating fields between entangled particles. It should be mentioned that this superluminal effect is also observed in the propagating gravitational fields generated by an oscillating mass using Newtonian gravitational theory, and is nearly infinite near the source and reduces to speed of light far from the source. William Walker Gravitation. This matches very well with observations of the stability of the planets, which would not be possible if gravity propagates at light speed, and was original proposed by Simone Laplace in his famous book: Mécanique Céleste in the late 1700's, where he estimated the speed of gravity to be 7x10^6 times greater than the speed of light.
THANK YOU for the math. A simple formula to explain a very advanced perspective in physics in user friendly language. Where are your t-shirts? I want a 'quality 100% cotton' Fermeilab t-shirt! You should start making some $ for all your hard work.
Did not even whisper about what is called "failure of simultaneity" (FOS) whose emergence surprised Einstein (and Feynman). FOS is possibly the most intriguing and important point and not a word about it? Don't believe the presenter truly understands the subject. One just CANNOT discuss Relativity without discussing its significance.
No, doesn't work for me. I've been studying SR for a year. How could a person in a moving car think they are not moving? Do you mean that person states they are not moving relative to the car? Or the "ground." Same with " guy" not in car. He is not moving relative to the ground; he is correct. Of course it is not about clocks; it is about the "postulates." Next time, leave out what the "guys" are thinking. You need another approach.
![FendiDa Rappa - Clock Dat ft. Shamar Marco [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3NBU8KHdxYY/mqdefault.jpg)
Does this work if i get a speed ticket? I can just say "No officer, you were moving"
Substitute your velocity in the equation and claim that the police officer was moving with that speed
Both - you and the officer get a ticket!
@@kimsahl8555 Yes you are right
You can try, but be prepared to be accosted by an egomaniac
@Nova Brody seems a scam lol
This idea is great. I would love to see separate series on Relativity, Particle Physics - Standard Model - Particle Detectors. Keep up the good work!
One on Quantum Mechanics would also be great!
@@davidrowe762 THE CLEAR, INTEGRATED, EXTENSIVE, LOGICAL, BALANCED, AND MATHEMATICAL PROOF THAT ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity:
Consider what is E=MC2. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. The MIDDLE DISTANCE in/of SPACE AND the full distance in/of SPACE are CLEARLY linked AND BALANCED opposites (ON BALANCE), AS c squared CLEARLY represents a dimension of SPACE (ON BALANCE); AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE. This CLEARLY explains and proves TIME dilation AND what is the fourth dimension. CLEARLY, gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites (ON BALANCE); AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). Notice what is the TRANSLUCENT blue sky ON BALANCE in relation to what is THE EYE. What are OBJECTS may fall at the SAME RATE in order to VANISH as part of what is THE EARTH/ground (ON BALANCE). TIME dilation CLEARLY proves that what is E=MC2 is CLEARLY in FULL accordance with TIME AND the fact that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity, AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE. (Indeed, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE). Notice what is the orange (AND SETTING) SUN in what constitutes direct comparison WITH what is the FULLY ILLUMINATED (AND SETTING WHITE) MOON. (They are the SAME SIZE as what is THE EYE, AS the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON then matches it's revolution; AS gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent WITH what is E=MC2, TIME, AND what is THE EYE ON BALANCE.) Consider what is the man (AND THE EYE ON BALANCE) who IS standing on what is THE EARTH/ground. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. LOOK directly overhead at what is the BLUE AND TRANSLUCENT sky. (Consider what is invisible AND VISIBLE SPACE in fundamental equilibrium AND BALANCE.) NOW, lava is orange; AND it is even blood red. Excellent. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE) pursuant to what are E=MC2 AND TIME. Accordingly, ON BALANCE, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution; AND the cosmological redshift proves that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE. (Consider TIME AND TIME dilation ON BALANCE, AS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity ON/IN BALANCE). INDEED, GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY is proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; AND “mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY; AND gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent WITH E=MC2 AND TIME. This CLEARLY explains and proves what is the fourth dimension. I have also CLEARLY explained (ON BALANCE) why THE PLANETS move away very, very, very, very slightly in relation to WHAT IS THE SUN, AND I have CLEARLY explained ON BALANCE why the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY (AND NECESSARILY) proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). (BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand.) Excellent. The INTEGRATED EXTENSIVENESS of THOUGHT AND description is improved in the truly superior mind. Again, consider what is the BALANCED MIDDLE DISTANCE in/of SPACE (ON BALANCE) in accordance WITH WHAT IS E=MC2 AND TIME; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE); AS c squared CLEARLY represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE !!! Indeed, now consider what is THE EYE. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense ON BALANCE. Magnificent !!!
By Frank DiMeglio
When he gives you "a second to take that in" - he really gives you ONE second
LITERALLY 1 SEC... TO SINK THE FUCK IN
Well, from a different perspective he gave like 10 minutes
@@PedroMelloA What planet are you on?
@@i.ehrenfest349 He's moving at the speed of light
You present the material in a clear fashion while not talking down to people that have very little background. Thank you
You are the best (imho)
Thanks for keeping up the good work.
Series of connected videos are great I hope you can make series like this one also for quantum mechanics string theory QFT QCD......big fan btw
Great video, Don; love the idea of a series covering a single topic. Gives an opportunity to dive a little deeper on these ideas!
@Keylanos Lokj - interesting that you say Einstein's equation "was stolen by DePretto who published it three years earlier." ... He must have really got the hang of all this spacetime malarky.
Hey jon watching don
Fermilab calculates in miles per hour :(
... in videos they make for the public.
Well considering algorithms focus on the county of origin (America in this case) they will use what is most familiar with the audience most likely too see it. I do wish the would at least for the converted numbers on the screen.
Normally it annoys me but in this video it doesn't matter what he uses. Miles, kilometers, millimeters, light-year... they all work exactly the same in this case.
There are two types of countries in world. Those who use the metric system, and those who have been to the moon 😉
Keadin Mode Why would you think that the public that watches these videos is presumably largely non-American?
This idea of serialised videos is awesome. Hope more from FERMILAB
I really like the way this guy muddles the info nicely. Thanks
I very much appreciate your trying to explain the concept of relativity… Thank you !
I don't get how the person in the car traveling 60 mph can claim he is not moving ? I understand that if he is looking at stuff inside the car, things look like they are not moving. But of course, if he is looking at things outside the car, they should look like they are moving.
If the only visual reference is the standing person, the driver will think the standing person is moving, not him.
havent you ever sat on a train and imagined that it was completely motionless and everything outside the window was moving? it's all relative.
I love the idea of connected, educational physics videos. Please, keep it up! :) I look forward to the next one.
Huh, Minutephysics is doing the same multipart series on special relativity at the same time
WHY the over complicated chalkboard for a background ? ?
And am I missing something here or might any of these visuals be better ? :
● 3 Spacecrafts traveling in unison in one direction.... another spacecraft traveling in the opposite direction.....
All in DARK black outerspace with only distant stars and no close reference points for them to detect their movement. And where the class of students are all hidden observers watching from a distant powerful telescope.
.... or the path of a ball for the ball hander on the train compared to observers looking from outside to inside the moving train.
...or elevator.
...or three skydivers doing a relative work jump. All "floating" in their "universe" but falling at 120mph down to earthlings looking up.
And when one freefaller opens their parachute .... they appear to go up to camera guy's view even though they are still falling to earthlings veiwing.
... or astronauts in training .... that think they're in floating in zero gravity ....when they are really just in freefall within the freefalling windowless aircraft heading to crash on earth if the pilot doesn't pull up. ( You really do think you are floating completely still and weightless at the center of your universe. )
With a SIMPLE diagrams on the mostly blank chalkboard !
Finally! Longed for a series for better clarity.
Nice video Don. Could you explain what is happening with gravity on a quantum level and what the equations are? Or at least best hypotheses for quantum gravity?
Love it, looking forward to the next videos!
First, thanks for doing a series on this!
Don, this is great. I'm building up to a deep dive in special relativity, but it's a ways off at this point and these videos will be a nice primer to set the stage for that. Thanks for looking over the comments and trying to put together something that your viewers are looking for. It's greatly appreciated.
Series videos are a great idea. How about a video on identical particles. It seems unbelievable how electrons can be identical including their charge.
Fantastic! Dr. Lincoln i really appreciate your explanations of physics topics. I like the new intro very much. Now that I'm retired as a physician i can study physics for fun. They are spelled similarly, any way.
As an Electrical Engineer, I wanted to say that your videos are just as entertaining to someone experienced with these concepts as they are to a layman. :)
you just wanted everyone to know you are an Electrical Engineer
So what the fact is he's an electrical engineer and you're not
@@johanan9987 wrrrrooong!
@@mrld3005 you just wanted me to know you're an electrical engineer ;) and I guess we are all electrical engineers
@@johanan9987 hahahah
Love the idea. The World Science Festival channel recently uploaded multi-part videos and they were well organised, easy to follow. Best of all: you can really get a deeper understanding of a topic. I'm ready to go deeper ;)
I love the idea of doing a series on a single topic and I'm excited to see you do it! One thing that I've been thinking about with the second assumption (that the speed of light is the same in any inertial reference frame) is that it should follow from the first assumption. Since the speed of light is a result of two fundamental constants (vacuum permittivity and permeability) and the first assumption is that the laws of physics should hold in any frame, the speed of light follows naturally and doesn't have to be taken as an assumption. I've seen people ask why the second assumption should be valid in the comments a decent bit and think that, though getting to the speed of light through those constants is not particularly intuitive, it does provide a solid basis for the assumption that the speed of light should be the same in any inertial reference frame.
Would constants being frame-independent not be implicit in the assumption that the laws of physics are frame-independent?
To be clear, I don't disagree that the fact that the constants really are constant is, in fact, amazing. I'm just arguing that it's already baked into the assumption that the laws of physics are frame-independent.
I would like this format and would like to see you expand it to other subjects as well. Thanks for helping us understand the works around us.
[01:27] ...indeed, Galileo thought about relativity, Newton too, the ancient Greeks had notions aboard ships-but they were 'slow travelers', (they also supposed light speed was finite, as everything-else that appeared)... Yet, if one accelerates, one feels-and-remembers it, the other DOES NOT...
Can i know that, have u made any video regarding 4th dimension...if u haven't made it ,could u make it....please
I was never good at physics in high school, but watching these videos has helped me understand principles that I didn't understand as a kid. Thanks!
Although he was just a man and although his work stood on the shoulders of similar giants: it is incredible to think how many 10s of thousands of legitimate scientists and millions of lay people Einstein's work impacted.
Thank you so much for explaining the core meaning of Special Relativity. Now, have you done a video explaining the Andromeda Paradox? I cannot seem to wrap my head around it and would appreciate your help.
I’m binge watching the videos of this channel, everything very well explained, complex concepts enlightened, great dynamic!!
All what you do is great! I love the idea of a series of connected, detailed, videos
I don’t understand people who dislike videos like this first of all how can you not like physics second if you don’t like physics don’t watch this video there’s no need to dislike it basically denoting that this is a bad video which it isn’t
Imagine a PBS Spacetime collab with FermiLab... 🤤
Too much epicness for the world. Reality would colapse
Well... Go check it out now
Great idea to make a series. But there should be a clear list of which videos make up this series. I want to see the series, but I have to choose the videos about relativity rather random or guess which is next.
Yes, please, make more of these in a series. Demystification of Special Relativity would be most welcome.
Yes, a series will be great
Dr. Don is a brilliant presenter and professor! Someone who really knows the subject matter, which is reflected in the way he presents it: as simple as possible, but not simpler!
Very good explanation Dr. Don, thanks for doing this. The gamma part of the equation interests me.
love the series idea! major kudos for being inclusive in your examples (TWO women in lab coats?!?!? AMAZING) thank you dr. don!
5:37 you contradict this claim in a later video, saying here "prime is for stationary, and unprimed is for moving" and the opposite later.
@silverrahul this is true, and he stated that in this video. but he didn't state that caveat in the later video i allude to, meaning he doesn't know or care what he's presenting to us.
And that's why Relativity is often explained with trains. You can do the explanation with a passenger on a train without having to think "Man, the car guy is crazy. He thinks he's not moving? How can he drive like that? He's a danger to everyone on the road!"
A nitpick of course. Good video, Don!
I'm sorry, but I found this account unnecessary complicated and confusing. If you're going to talk about special relativity where all reference frames are equally legitimate, why not use reference frames that at least look identical? For example, you could have used two flying saucers passing each other in space. The two situations are then more obviously identical, with even the craft having no front or back to indicate a particular direction of travel, especially when we are to think of the as stationary in their own reference frames. This also avoids bringing in a third reference frame (the Earth). It would also avoid having to talk about the egocentricity of the person in the craft, which is especially confusing because the person in the car has to be much more egocentric to consider himself the centre of the universe than the person standing who, at least, has the entire Earth agreeing with him. That is unnecessary confusing when you are explaining special relativity where all frames of reference are equally legitimate.
Agreement ! .... and WHY the over complicated chalkboard for a background ? ?
Should be:
● 3 Spacecrafts traveling in unison in one direction.... another spacecraft traveling in the opposite direction..... in DARK black outerspace with only distant stars and no close reference points. And where the class of students all hidden observers watching from a distant powerful telescope.
.... or the path of a ball for ball hander on the train compared to observers looking from outside into the moving train.
...or elevator.
...or three skydivers doing a relative work jump. All "floating" in their "universe" but falling at 120mph down to earthlings looking up.
And when one opens their parachute .... they appear to go up to camera guy even though they are still falling to earthlings veiwing.
... or astronauts that think they're in floating in zero gravity ....when they are really just in freefall within the freefalling windowless aircraft heading to crash on earth if the pilot doesn't pull up. You really are floating completely still and weightless at the center of your universe.
With a SIMPLE diagram on the blank chalkboard !
Mlm
Amazing explanation ...but why there lorentz factor in the equations because we take example of standing person and and moving car
1. Quantum Mechanics Series.
2. String Theory Series.
I like the idea of a series of videos around the same subject. But keep making videos the old style. We need our professor to occasionally tell about random science stuff.
Awesome! I think the idea of short series of videos is an great idea.
Dr Lincoln, your videos and Fermi Lab rock. I do appreciate your efforts. I’m so glad DOE supports your educational outreach. Physics is everything. I worked in Oak Ridge for 38 years. I believe in our national laboratories. Thank you.
"Einstein’s theory of special relativity is one of the fascinating !!!->scientific advances
Sir I have a doubt
That in lorentz contraction
Does the object in motion to speed of light shrinks for ever
Or it's just observed while it's moving
@silverrahul okkk thnx sir
I love your work so much
your videos are much better than PBS Spacetime
Lorentz fun: Skinny selfie, Train and tunnel w/ flashing tips, Lorentz lens (Interesting if you look at it), what the cutting edge of scissors looks like if blades were flying passed each other which allowed the (no real information transferring) cutting edge to "move" at faster than the speed of light.
I love Physics! Always more!
#1) Galilean Transformation(GT) works for all velocity(v). Relativistic Transformation(RT) break down when V is greater or equal to speed of light(c). When v=c, Gamma is undefined. When v > c, Gamma = 1/ sqrt(negative number). Denominator is i (imaginary) when v = sqrt(2) and NA (not a number) for any others value of v > c.
#2) Assumption of c is a constant for all frames, therefore inductively that other constants exists which also satisfied for all frames as well. So, if using a different constant, RT would produces different X' & T' = RT is arbitrary = nonsensical transformation/math. Furthermore, when a constant d is greater or equal to c, SR Transformation failed in #1 for range between c and d.
Thanks. However path length is always greater than wave length, so a point or segment (shorter path length) of EM wave travel faster than c. Adding nonzero degrees freedom of movement (spiral, loop,etc..), this point/segment now travel even faster. Therefore c can't be a constant nor speed upper limit.
+Luong La _"Galilean Transformation(GT) works for all velocity(v)."_
Then show us how Maxwell's equations stay the same under the Galilean transformation.
cant wait for the twin paradox, pick a nice t-shirt lol
Sir, i am unable to understand , why velocity of light is constant for all the observer?
I think it was already explained Minkowski Space. Vsauce did a video I think.
there are plenty of videos on youtube with this kind of explanation with "all observers agree on the speed of light" thing. But this raises another question: why the hack they agree on that? And explanation of this fact is way more interesting and it may seem to make things complicated at first, improves understanding of the theory derivation later.
Actually, I believe it's a consequence of Maxwell's equations. The speed of light (or rather all electromagnetic effects) is determined by the electrical and the magnetic field constant (IIRC, it's the product of the two). But everyone should see the same values for those constants (kind of what being constant means), so necessarily everyone should see the same speed of light.
Later, it turns out that this is actually the speed of causality. But "speed of light" has a nice ring to it, so that's what is used.
The big thing with this assumption is that it doesn't actually have to be taken as an assumption. The speed of light is the result of two fundamental constants: the vacuum permittivity and the vacuum permeability, which describe the strengths of electric and magnetic fields, respectively. The speed of light is a direct result of these two physical constants. Since the first assumption demands that the laws of physics should be the same in any inertial reference frame, these constants must also be the same, thus the speed of light is constant.
It is great to see Dr. Lincoln explain with such a detail how relativiy works in a fundamental way. I'd love to see this kind of videos.
Very simplified video in understanding Relativity, thanks. Just wanted to know about why did Newton came up with Absolute Space and Time despite knowing Galilean Relativity equations
Definitely like the new series format..
I am loving it, professor. Connected videos make possible to explain a subject clearly and completely but in a good rhythm. Also, adding math to the explanations is great and necessary.
I would love stuff series like this about particle physics.
Thank you so much
I always had a suspicion that it was about relativity.
Dr. Lincoln, does your shirt feature the name “Einstein” rendered in a fashion similar to the stylized logo of the rock band Boston? It certainly looks like it.
Thanks, Don! Oh, where were you when I was in high school physics! The idea of a linked sequence developing ideas one central point at a time is excellent. Then understanding unfolds like a spring flower ... exuberantly!
Plz a VIEDO on STRING THEORY I beg you and quantum electrodynamics
Great channel man 👍. Loving long playlist. Subscribed
Love it. Series sounds like a good idea
Why do a bunch of piecemeal, partially incoherent videos on a single topic? This one explained virtually nothing beyond basic physics 101 stuff. It skips over the most essential points, namely the Lorentz factor. Disappointed.
Dr Don, just with the Big Bang, how did it create all the matter we have in our universe? I don’t think there was a Big Bang but other forces at play here.
There was definitely a Big Bang. There's just way too many independent lines of evidence for it. But the Big Bang Theory only explains what happens _after_ the Big Bang itself. We still have no idea how the matter came into being in the first place, just like the Theory of Evolution doesn't try to explain how life got started (that's another field of study called abiogenesis).
yes. keep the series format.
Great explanations
Uli's Goodbye cake is distracting me ... :)
You are the best Dr Lincoln!
I like your idea to make a coherent stream of video. You explain the theories well.
Awesome, keep it up!
Define a position, where a length l requires two origins, separated by a horizontal line (t = 0).
Assume Bob and Mary travel the same distance, where xc = xv = l
then tc is shorter than tv, and t' = tG is greater than tv , bob travels at the speed of light along x, mary travels more slowly along the same length, and t' even slower because t'/t = G is a density. But even that is wrong in STR.
Note that Relativity rejects Newton's Third Law, where an equal and opposite force - f^2 = =f^2(f^2/f^2 = f^2(1_(f^2)) (f is a prime number represented by f = ct = ma
f^2 characterizes a single origin at (x,t) = (0,0) = m0
Note that x = vt has been eliminated from the Lorentz transforms under the assumption that x = ct iff x' = ct' (Einstein's condition), and so is therefore not explicit in the 'time dilation" equation.
Note that m' = (ct') = (m0)G = (ct)G
(it is difficult to write all of this in ASCII)
There are a number of fundamental issues involved
The Barber Paradox: "A Barber in a village shaves all those and only those that don't shave themselves. Does the Barber shave himself)?" - Bertrand Russell.
This is equivalent to the question: "Is 1^2 = 1?
Compare with G = 1/sqr(1 - b^2)m b = v/c
Love the new format :) more please !
What exactly is 'time'? Many say that 'time' is the 'speed of causality'. The problem with that definition the way I 'relatively see it' ;-) is that 'speed' is distance divided by time. They are utilizing 'time' to define 'time' without really saying what 'time' actually is. So, what exactly is 'time'?
And note: 'Distance' (two points in 'space' with 'space' between those two points) and 'time' (however it is defined) has to have some sort of existent reality for 'speed' to have an actual existent reality since 'speed' is a higher construct of distance divided by time. If distance (space) and/or time didn't have some sort of actual existent reality, then speed could not have an actual existent reality because 'speed' would be based upon at least one thing that didn't really exist. Sure, it would work on paper and in math formulas, but it wouldn't work in actual existent reality, of which it apparently does. So, what exactly is 'space' and what exactly is 'time'?
I like your channel
You explain a complex topic in a very simple way
So for the car example, when you switch up the view, and the car is stationary apposed to the guy being stationary, The guy is now moving in perspective of the car. Do the primed and unprimed views switch up?
Or simply, when analyzing perspectives, is the perspective that you analyse to be stationary always the prime view, and do they switch up once you look at another perspective that you analyse as stationary?
Or are the primed and unprimed view, once chosen, always the same?
if the speed of light is measured in m/s and meters and seconds dilate then how can a constant be measured with units that dilate? you cant explain relativity you need to force it.
Love the idea of connected series. Please continue, I'm a big fan.
Excellent idea!
Question to Relativity experts: In relativistic velocity addition do you predict (V1 + V2) + V3 or V1 +(V2 + V3)? And why?
Professor Lincoln,
As a distant learning Adult student of yours and many respected professors ...I have learned a lot to build on my science backgrounds and intuitions...to fulfill my curiosity about human life and evolution of the universe and the whole of PRAPANCHAM...!!!
During that Journey ...met History ; Science; Religion ; politics of Race , caste , media and UN...and Civil and World Wars ...!!!
Also encountered HUMAN SUFFERINGS AND SACRIFICES in all of them ...!!!
Met Pseudo Scientists ; General Freudian Psychologists ;Environmentalists; Animal Rights Activists; ProLIFE and proCHOICE POLITICIANS ...!!!
ABOVE THEM ALL , I saw the PREACHERS FOR THE PAIN SUFFERING AND SALVATION ;
Heard repeatedly about promises of HEAVEN and AFTER LIFE ... BY THEM ...!!!
But what I COULD NOT SEE OR HEAR IS A PERSON ; GROUP OR GOVERNING BODY , WHO COULD HONESTLY ADVOCATE FOR TRUE HUMANITY AND THEIR PEACE & HAPPINESS...!!!
I COULD NOT COME EVEN CLOSE TO A GOVERNMENT FOR ADMINISTERING TRUTHFULLY REALISTIC LIFE AND LIVING...!!!
( ALL POLITICS & PARTY )
From All These , I finally came to the conclusion that LIFE AND LIVING ; BIRTH AND DEATH ARE ALL BUSINESSES ...!!!
The one who can play the dice well may win through ... Others will be their guinea pigs or lab specimens( already subjected or to be picked up) ...!!!
So, 1) what is LIFE& LIVING ...???
2 ) Who is HUMAN ...???
3 ) Where is GOD ...???
4 )Why God made every one Unique...???
5 )WHY DON'T the law makers and religious- political- media and psychologists and people like them understand that ...GENERALIZATION do not apply to this modern world...???
Even in the same family our life and living is individual...due to several factors ...like B.E.S.T.& A.S
( Background ; Environment ;
Space;
Time and
Atmosphere ;
Situation ) ...!!!
My Final QUESTIONS to the SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY ( for all the people who live with psychological pain in this unrealistic manipulated world ) ARE :
1 )IF YOU HAVE A FORMULA TO MAKE EVERY ONE LOOK AND BEHAVE THE SAME WAY AND EASE OUR PAIN ...WOULD YOU USE IT PLEASE...???
2 ) IF YOU CANNOT ...COULD YOU ALL PLEASE STOP ALL HUMANITY FROM BEING BORN ANYMORE ON THIS EARTH ...FOR OTHERS TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF ... BY THE SELFISH WORLD ...???( ISN' T IT A POLITICAL CRIMINAL WORLD , WE LIVE IN...!!! )
3 ) WHY SHOULD WE LIVE, IF WE ALL CANNOT HAVE OUR RIGHTS ; FREEDOM AND DIGNITY...???
THANK YOU ALL IN ANTICIPATION ...!!!
So, would one say that when matter gets compressed within a black hole, the energies of the weak, strong, and electromagnetic forces unify into gravitational energy?
Or is that not even wrong?
Great idea! more please!
If the car guy thinks he's not moving and a location 1 mile ahead of him and another 1 mile behind him are also not moving with respect to him and will always stay at those distances why would he be in his car? He'll never get anywhere!
I can't wait for the next video. I like all of Dr. Lincoln's videos. Thanks Doctor Don.
"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. 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 - this rough calculation explains the deviations we see in Graph 2. 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.
To solve the problem with the Galilean transformation equations, if you say you want to use the time of a slower clock the way Einstein describes, the equations from the frame of reference of an observer in frame of reference S(x,y,z,t) do not show anything about a slower clock in frame of reference S'(x',y',z',t').
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
In order to show the time of that slower clock in S', you would have to use a different set of Galilean transformation equations with different variables for velocity and time. So the inverse equations from S' would be
x = x' - (-vt/n')n'
y = y'
z = z'
n = n'
n' is the time of the slower clock in S'(x',y',z',n'). (-vt/n') is the velocity of S(x,y,z,n) relative to S'. The equation n=n' shows that the time of the slower clock in S' is being used in both frames of reference. So then if you want to say light is traveling at a speed of c in both frames of reference, you would say, x=ct and x'=cn'. I arrived at the basic idea behind this when I was in high school, and since that time, no one in science has ever attempted to answer it. What I believed back then and still believe is that if an observer in S' has a slower clock than an observer in S, the observer in S' will get a faster speed of one frame of reference relative to the other than an observer in S. I call this phenomenon reality.
How about a link to the next episode? (You know, to help the algorithm out a bit).
*(Relativity's key concept: Lorentz gamma* ruclips.net/video/qXxtqK7G4Uw/видео.html)
Or a link to a playlist?
*(Fermilab* - *_Special Relativity_* ruclips.net/p/PLCfRa7MXBEspw_7ZSTVGCXpSswdpegQHX)
Please connect videos that fit together for whatever reason. If you feel like explaining, fine. If not, that is fine also. Either way, I thoroughly enjoy the videos. topics, and the presentation. Thank You! so very much.
This man is a brilliant lecturer.
It is possible to derive 2 contradictory time dilation equations. 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.
I have been investigating propagating Electromagnetic fields for many years. My investigations revealed that these fields and the information in these fields propagate nearly instantaneously when they are created and reduce to the speed of light as they propagate into the farfield. William Walker Superluminal
According to Albert Einstein, if the speed of light is not a constant, then his theories of Special and General Relativity are wrong. This can be seen in Einstein's time dilation result due to a moving observer: t=r t' and the length contraction result: L=L'/r, where t and L are reference to the stationary frame, and t' and L ' are reference to the moving frame, and r is the Relativistic gamma factor: r =1/Sqrt(1-(v/c)^2). These results are easily derived using Einstein's light clock thought experiment using simple algebra. But if propagating EM fields with infinite speed near the source are used in the derivation, then c = Infinity, and r=1. If propagating EM fields far from the source are used, then c = the speed of light, and r= the standard Relativistic gamma factor. What comes out of this is that the effects on time and space are completely different depending on whether one uses propagating fields near or far away from the source, which can't be true since time and space are real. So the conclusion must be that Einstein's Relativity is wrong and time and space do not change with respect to moving reference frames, Galilean Relativity is correct, and that Einstein's equations just enable us to back calculate to the correct answer, given the time delays observed by the propagating EM fields used in measuring the effects. William Walker Relativity
But these results do not account for the time dilation observed by moving atomic clocks in airplane experiments, but can be accounted for using variable light speed theory (VLS), originally proposed by Einstein, and later improved by Robert Dicky in 1957. In this theory, spacetime is not curved by gravity as suggested by General Relativity, instead Newtons theory of gravity is correct and the many other known effects of gravity are due to the affect of gravity on the of light speed. For instance the observed bending of light by mass, which caused General Relativity to be accepted, can be explained, by the gravity generated by the mass, changing the speed of light, causing the light to bend around the mass. This effect is analogous to the bending of light in glass. Since lasers are used in atomic clocks to measure time, then the observed time dilation in atomic clocks in moving airplanes can be explained as due to the effects of light speed changes in the clocks due to changes in gravitation as the plane goes up and down. It should also be noted that several researchers have shown the relation E=mc^2 can be derived without Relativity using Newtonian mechanics, and the Michelson Morley experiment can be explained using the Doppler effect, ref Nathan Rapport 2021
In summary, this research shows that Einstein's theories are wrong and that time and space do not change with respect to moving observers, Galilean Relativity is correct, Newtons theory of gravity is correct, and many of the other effects of gravity can be explained as gravity simply changing the speed of light. The importance of this research is that it completely changes our understanding of time and space and gravity, and simplifies our theories. Perhaps this new understanding will finally enable researchers to finally unite Gravitational theory with quantum mechanics which have been incompatible since scientists accepted Einstein's theories for Special and General Relativity. For instance, Relativity is incompatible with quantum entanglement, which requires communication faster than light, but can perhaps can be explained by superluminal propagating fields between entangled particles.
It should be mentioned that this superluminal effect is also observed in the propagating gravitational fields generated by an oscillating mass using Newtonian gravitational theory, and is nearly infinite near the source and reduces to speed of light far from the source. William Walker Gravitation. This matches very well with observations of the stability of the planets, which would not be possible if gravity propagates at light speed, and was original proposed by Simone Laplace in his famous book: Mécanique Céleste in the late 1700's, where he estimated the speed of gravity to be 7x10^6 times greater than the speed of light.
THANK YOU for the math. A simple formula to explain a very advanced perspective in physics in user friendly language.
Where are your t-shirts? I want a 'quality 100% cotton' Fermeilab t-shirt!
You should start making some $ for all your hard work.
Did not even whisper about what is called "failure of simultaneity" (FOS) whose emergence surprised Einstein (and Feynman). FOS is possibly the most intriguing and important point and not a word about it? Don't believe the presenter truly understands the subject. One just CANNOT discuss Relativity without discussing its significance.
No, doesn't work for me. I've been studying SR for a year. How could a person in a moving car think they are not moving? Do you mean that person states they are not moving relative to the car? Or the "ground." Same with " guy" not in car. He is not moving relative to the ground; he is correct. Of course it is not about clocks; it is about the "postulates." Next time, leave out what the "guys" are thinking. You need another approach.
i like the idea of connected videos