One dimensional object like lines can’t exist in the real world since it depends on some width and then gets two dimensional. One dimensional object only exists in theory. So, my guess is that Klonusk is talking about real existing objects.
You’re right: you can feel the weirdness when he says “two dimensional objects have length and width” but the one dimensional ones had neither in the preceding description. Points are adimensional, zero dimensions.
Also very weird to start your video with a mistake like that. I couldn't bring myself to finish it, despite knowing it probably is made with good quality graphics.
This is the best one I’ve seen so far, this seriously and sincerely deserved more views. Somehow or another visualizing these concepts clicked a lot more in my brain. You are an inspiration.
Fantastic explanation of dimensions and the role of time! Loved the clear discussion on relativity, coordinate systems, and spacetime diagrams. Thanks for making complex concepts easy to grasp!
Your bending of space time animation towards the end when you were explaining Lorentz Transformations was simple, but one of the best ways I've visually seen it expressed!! Very cool
Four-Dimensional Space was developed by Minkowski (who gave us the “Light-cone”). In Einstein’s article of 1905, he treated Space and Time separately. In fact, Einstein stated that “he no longer understood The Special Theory of Relativity” after Minkowski’s lectures. However, Einstein soon adopted Minkowski’s Four-Dimensional point of view (and built on this to develop the General Theory of Relativity in 1915).
This video is really well done. I still have trouble understanding how space literally contracts and expands, the graph at 13:48 helps, and has been the best visual aid I've seen in any video.
@@drgroove101 the easiest way to explain this is to treat Space and Time as two separate frames of reference. F=ma -> Acceleration in Space. E=mc -> Acceleration in Time. From the synchronized clock experiments, both clocks used the same amount of energy and experienced the same amount of Time. Inverse square law of motion shows that force decreases with distance. The clock with the lower readout (less force), experienced more Space. Digging deeper. The clock's cesium-133 atom is being chilled to absolute zero while the observer's atoms are at room/body temperature. The observer is not even in the same time frame as the clock. As for the expansion and contraction. You are walking along a set of railroad tracks that converge in the distance. As you move, the space between the tracts expand in front and contract behind you. This is where the concept of warped space comes from. You can't expand or contract the tract spacing. Their position is absolute. Space is nothing and nothing is absolute. You can't expand/contract nothing. Relativity is a false perception of reality. No experiment has validated relativity nor time-dilation.
6:40 In the video, both were in motion across the dimension of time at the same speed. This is incorrect. However, both are actually sharing an equal magnitude of ongoing motion within the 4D Space-Time environment. Each person is in motion within Space-Time exactly as much as a photon of light is in motion across space.
Nice video and presentation. An elite learns and think straight but deep. Elites learns the Theory of Special Relativity fast and can’t tell that is true or false.
⚠️PLEASE READ THIS⚠️ This was such a great explanation on relativity I have seen but but ⚠️ Brother you have done a mistake in this video that is you said a point of singularity a 1 dimensional object which isn't true. A point is a 0 dimensional object with no length width or height, then comes 1 dimensional object for example a line, a line has length only so it can be considered as 1 dimensional and not a point object, then it is followed by 2d and 3d which was correct in video. HOPE THIS HELPED 👍
A straight line is one dimensional. When you make a squiggly line on a flat piece of paper it's 2 dimensional. When you cut it out and make it spiral it's 3 dimensional. If it moves then it's 4 dimensional. If it's on fire then it's more than 8 dimensional because you could potentially measure it's temperature, volume of smoke, it's smell, brightness and more. Each measurement we take would be another dimension in the equation.
3 dimensional beings such as humans, animals and birds would have a hard time seeing 4 dimensional things but also 2 dimensional objects in our 3 dimensional world if turned flat! I have seen videos of birds flying into strings in mid air used by humans to hoist up objects including bird feeders and they run into things turned on its flat side. I e have also seen humans on bicycles going fast like a bird would run right smack into a line or rope or something similar. Not that it’s impossible to see it’s that when things lie flat to our eyes as 3 dimensional beings we have a hard time seeing it there unless we change our position or it moved and when it doesn’t, we don’t perceive it being there until we’re right ontop of it or running into it or going slow enough to give ourselves time to see it’s there. Basically where 3 dimensional beings but seeing some 2D objects can be hard to see but not as hard as 4D. It’s easier to wrap our minds around 2 and 3D than it is 4D but 2 and 1D can be difficult for us 3D beings to pick up on as well if placed the right way and all stands still. A ball in the distance we assume is a ball but looks as a circle. We have to move through space and it takes time to move through space but once we change our vantage point, it confirms that circle we seen across the yard is actually a spear or ball. Shadows and light areas is what we use to give clues that that spear we see in the distance isn’t just a circle. A square in the corner of the room we assume is more than and actually a box because of the shadows created and the lines but confirmed once we change vantage points and see more of it we are proven right that square we think is a cube or box is a cube or box unless it’s purposefully an optical r illusion but only way to find out is to travel to it, get closer and change vantage points or move it to see it’s a 3D cube and not a 2D square leaning against the wall. A square on the floor can still be a cube of it is one by picking or lifting the edge of the square only to find it’s a cube in the floor. Anyhow, I love the topic of dimensions and what it would look like to visualize other dimensions and why it’s so hard to visualize higher dimensions even as a 3 dimensional being not trapped by 1 and 2 dimensions.
I believe that if all matter stood still, like not moving at all, time is slowed down until it stops, so, the speed of time depends on the speed of matter and the speed of matter depends on the speed of time which absolutely makes no sense to me. I also believe that acceleration never stops to zero but rather goes on decreasing at a constant ratio.
If we turn it around and look at every thing from the travellers point of view IN HIS TIME FRAME then we will find that everything is fine. At 14:07 we will find that in the "Constant motion" time frame the "Stationary" will not have travelled 200000km but possibly only 120000km in the time light travels 300000km. It is simply that felt or measured time just slows down with motion. This also means that if you look out from the train at 7:27 you will not see the platform travel at 100 km/h but slightly slower. At 11:26 light is NOT flying away from the traveller in OUR perspective. It is only flying away from him in HIS time perspective. As his time should stand still if he travels at the speed of light it should go nowhere. Now traveling at speed of light is not possible (according to these formula's for any mass) then this picture is not possible. At nearly the speed of light the travellers clock is going very slow so from our prospective it will take a long time for the light to get 300000km away from him even though he thinks it only takes a second.. I have the feeling that as everything we know of actually moves then we are all slowed down a little in time. I believe that any EME (light being one of them) is stationary at it's origin point. We can not measure that as we can not measure one way speed of light as yet. I believe that there is an ABSOLUTE in space.
Consider this scenario: You are at location 'A' and I am at location 'B', with a 1000-mile distance between us.,We both start moving at the same time. You move at a speed of 1000 miles per second towards location 'B', while I move at a staggering speed of 186,000 miles per second within location 'B'.,As I await your arrival, which will take 1 second, I manage to visit 186 places, each 1000 miles apart.,In this situation, it may seem like I have somehow manipulated time or moved faster than you within the span of 1 second.,While it's true that I accomplished more than you did in that 1 second, I did not actually freeze or stop time to achieve this feat. Which means for your 1000 mile distance it took you 10^0 x 100 centiseconds = 10^-2 x 1 second, but for me a 1000 mile distance, took only 10^-2 x .54 centiseconds = 10^-3 x 5.4 milliseconds. UNITS OF TIME::: 1 sec = 10^0 > 1 deci = 10^-1 > 1 centi = 10^-2 > 1 milli = 10^-3 > 1 micro = 10^-6 >… Only space itself can fit an unlimited miles of space (TIME) per second but light can only fit 186,000 miles of space per second, unless, the source of light = space but darkness is the absence of light therefore light ≠ space. So speed of light ≠ 1 second = light ≠ space because space = 1 second. The speed of light ≠ 1 second because in reality “the speed of light” = distance of space light covers in 1 second; (the speed of light = 186,000 mi./s,). I have the distance, speed but no TIME. You have the distance, time but no SPEED. Speed x Time = distance = space Distance x time = speed = velocity Distance x speed = time = clock The fastest speed ever flown by a manned aircraft is Mach 6.72, which was achieved by the North American X-15 research aircraft, reaching a speed of approximately 4,520 miles per HOUR AND WE WERE TRAVELING PER SECOND. This record was set in 1967 and still stands today -just for reference. My idea is that you cyclically travel towards a moving clock in a linear space, whereas Einstein's theory was linearly going away from a stationary clock in a cyclical space. Both points are rotating and orbiting. Once you leave location “A” you are no longer influenced by the motion of location “A”. I’m at location “B” and I’m waiting for your arrival but the motion of location “B” will affect you so your space ship better not break down within that 1 second or you’re going to have to deal with displacement. The more time you take the farther location “B” drifts away from you. One second ends and another second begins and this cycle continues until the end of space. For you it doesn’t matter where you land on location “B”, but it’s a matter of when you land. However, if I expected you to land at a specific coordinate on location “B”, when you land, the coordinate has changed because of the rotation. So not only did you take longer than 1 second to get to location “B”, but also you landed on a different coordinate. So if location “B” were a clock (🌎 🌍 🌏 🕰️), instead of you landing at 1:00 pm, you landed on 1:20 pm hypothetically speaking. So not only are you traveling to a clock but the clock is also moving further away from you as you travel to it creating more distance between you and it. So more distance creates more time for you thus your speed will need to increase and break the constant velocity that you were originally traveling to make it on the time you expected to arrive. But as we study it the “speed of light” = 1 sec., but the “distance of space” = 1♾️ sec.
Great video. I been trying to understand this for years. This is by far the farthest I’ve been getting close to grasp it. Still not completely but that’s might be my dumb brain lol
I got lost at 11:10. It is my understanding that the sky is black at night, despite the existence of an uncountable number of stars because the light from those stars must travel distances that are greater than the speed of light allows. If it were possible to travel along side a single beam of light, looking forward, we would see nothing, because the light could not go faster than its limit.
Your mention about constant nature of speed of light is true... But want to know that what's so different 'fundamentally' in light that it behaves differently than other...
Einstein made the assumption that the Speed of Light is constant in the Special Theory of Relativity. This has been confirmed by experimental evidence, many times.
@@xgaming4216 what mass has to do with the constant nature of light? Why it is same for the all observer whether they are in stationary position or in motion (even at the significant speed of light)? Einstein made the assumption that is right, but on what basis?
Actually I'd have to say the universe is infinitely multi-dimensional. If you can measure it, it's dimensional. A dimension is not a realm where something exists. That is a common mistake among so many academic fields of study. A dimension is a measurement. Width, depth, height and time are measurements of things in this universe or realm. They are not individual realms. They are a means to describe and measure using Cartesian polar, absolute or relative coordinates in our equations. We can measure temperature, polarity, charge, color, distance, size, mass, density, volume, weight, velocity, acceleration, trajectory and so much more. They are all considered dimensions, IE., measurements. They are not realms. When someone says, there might be another you living in a parallel dimension, they're confused about the actual meaning of the word dimension. If they did say that then they're pretty much saying there might be another you living in a parallel measurement. Which doesn't make any sense. A dimension isn't a realm by itself, it's a measurement of something in our realm. If it can't be measured then it can't be dimensioned. there are 1 dimensions, 2 dimensions and so on, depending how many variables are in you equations. If you include time, temperature, velocity, trajectory and mass then you went from describing 4 dimensions to 8. We can't see time or space but we can use them in our measurements to describe the things in our realm, thus they are considered dimensions.
I think you are wrong as dimensions are nothing to do with temperature, colour etc. Dimensions are not measurements but instead refer to minimum number of points to express and object of x dimensions for example any 3D object can be measured in x, y and z planes ie. breadth, width, height. In our universe this 3D object is moving through time, a fourth dimension, which shows the possibilities of where this object could end up. Hope this helps and correct me if I'm wrong.
@@tiltmaster69 The problem begins when people think multiple dimensions are realms where we can travel to, which is totally wrong. A dimension is nothing more than a measurement used to describe changes in our universe. Dimensions can't be used or considered to describe imaginary realms that can't be measured or observed.
Good explanations. However, I don't seem to understand the connection between the maths and time. It appears that we arbitrarily assign T = time without ever having observed or defined what a unit of time actually is - in the real world. I understand the variables length, width and height because they have real observable counterparts that can be verified. However, when it comes to the variable time, we automatically assume that it will also behave and evolve just like numbers do. I find it hard to believe that linearly progressing numbers could capture the nature of (non-linear) time and that the results of such mathematical calculations would necessarily map onto real time.
A unit of time from the human perspective is 1second per second . This could be different in other parts of the universe . It is certainly different for a photon .
Suppose two Events occur at the same position, then the Time between those two Events (at that position) is what a Clock measures (when it is located at the same position). Time actually slows down if we are moving fast relative to our surroundings: Suppose some Uranium was cut in half, and half is sent around an Accelerator (like at Berne). When we get the Uranium back again, we find less of it has decayed (compared to stationary lump). This is because Time progressed more slowly for the fast-moving Uranium. As Einstein said: “Time is what a Clock measures”.
11:31 , I still don't understand why the speed of light is the same for all observers. You just gave more examples of it, but there's not much explanation. And in graph 13:53, the observer observes light travels at a speed of 200km/h. What are you trying to say?
Speed is distance over time, the faster you're going, the more things get squished due to length contraction so your measurement of the speed of light doesn't change. Floatheadphysics has some great explainers on this.
I personally think that the speed of light is the same for all observers coz when we observers see light moving at 300,000 km/s , that 300,000 km/s is only its slowed down speed due to its slowed down time caused by time dilation.Its time is slowed down because of its speed.So, its true time and therefore speed are way faster than we see it.We only see its true speed when we are travelling close to the speed of light [300,000 km/s] this is so coz our time passage speed is close to light`s we therefore see light`s true speed.This is coz light never realizes its time is slowed.So it will see itself moving at a way greater speed than we see it.And if we try to experience the same time passage as light does , we shall also see light moving at a way greater speed than we see it.That is why the speed of light is always the same for all observers.
Problematically your definition of time could be better thought of as, a dynamic operator rather than an orthogonal direction. In the observer model, it's merely a convention that is used to organize entangled sub systems of the universe into A more stasis -based configuration. Which is more entropicly favorable to the observers.
The speed of light is not a constant as once thought, and this has now been proved by Electrodynamic theory and by Experiments done by many independent researchers. The results clearly show that light propagates instantaneously when it is created by a source, and reduces to approximately the speed of light in the farfield, about one wavelength from the source, and never becomes equal to exactly c. This corresponds the phase speed, group speed, and information speed. Any theory assuming the speed of light is a constant, such as Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong, and it has implications to Quantum theories as well. So this fact about the speed of light affects all of Modern Physics. Often it is stated that Relativity has been verified by so many experiments, how can it be wrong. Well no experiment can prove a theory, and can only provide evidence that a theory is correct. But one experiment can absolutely disprove a theory, and the new speed of light experiments proving the speed of light is not a constant is such a proof. So what does it mean? Well a derivation of Relativity using instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity. This can easily seen by inserting c=infinity into the Lorentz Transform, yielding the GalileanTransform, where time is the same in all inertial frames. So a moving object observed with instantaneous nearfield light will yield no Relativistic effects, whereas by changing the frequency of the light such that farfield light is used will observe Relativistic effects. But since time and space are real and independent of the frequency of light used to measure its effects, then one must conclude the effects of Relativity are just an optical illusion. Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, then it has the same problem. A better theory of Gravity is Gravitoelectromagnetism which assumes gravity can be mathematically described by 4 Maxwell equations, similar to to those of electromagnetic theory. It is well known that General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism for weak fields, which is all that we observe. Using this theory, analysis of an oscillating mass yields a wave equation set equal to a source term. Analysis of this equation shows that the phase speed, group speed, and information speed are instantaneous in the nearfield and reduce to the speed of light in the farfield. This theory then accounts for all the observed gravitational effects including instantaneous nearfield and the speed of light farfield. The main difference is that this theory is a field theory, and not a geometrical theory like General Relativity. Because it is a field theory, Gravity can be then be quantized as the Graviton. Lastly it should be mentioned that this research shows that the Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics can no longer be criticized for requiring instantaneous interaction of the pilot wave, thereby violating Relativity. It should also be noted that nearfield electromagnetic fields can be explained by quantum mechanics using the Pilot Wave interpretation of quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (HUP), where Δx and Δp are interpreted as averages, and not the uncertainty in the values as in other interpretations of quantum mechanics. So in HUP: Δx Δp = h, where Δp=mΔv, and m is an effective mass due to momentum, thus HUP becomes: Δx Δv = h/m. In the nearfield where the field is created, Δx=0, therefore Δv=infinity. In the farfield, HUP: Δx Δp = h, where p = h/λ. HUP then becomes: Δx h/λ = h, or Δx=λ. Also in the farfield HUP becomes: λmΔv=h, thus Δv=h/(mλ). Since p=h/λ, then Δv=p/m. Also since p=mc, then Δv=c. So in summary, in the nearfield Δv=infinity, and in the farfield Δv=c, where Δv is the average velocity of the photon according to Pilot Wave theory. Consequently the Pilot wave interpretation should become the preferred interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. It should also be noted that this argument can be applied to all fields, including the graviton. Hence all fields should exhibit instantaneous nearfield and speed c farfield behavior, and this can explain the non-local effects observed in quantum entangled particles. *RUclips presentation of above arguments: ruclips.net/video/sePdJ7vSQvQ/видео.html *More extensive paper for the above arguments: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: vixra.org/abs/2309.0145 *Electromagnetic pulse experiment paper: www.techrxiv.org/doi/full/10.36227/techrxiv.170862178.82175798/v1 Dr. William Walker - PhD in physics from ETH Zurich, 1997
Even two photons travelling in opposite directions have a relative velocity to one another of the speed of light ... The relative speed of two objects moving in the same direction at speeds u and v is given by: (u - v) / (1 - uv/c²) where c is the speed of light Consider two photons moving in the same direction, so both u and v would equal c. This gives a value of 0 as the relative velocities of the two photos, when they are going in the same direction. Now, the relative speed of two objects moving in opposite directions at speeds u and v is given by: (u + v) / (1 + uv/c²) This gives a value of c as their relative velocities. Thus, the relative velocity of a photon with respect to another photon will be equal to the speed of light when they're going in opposite directions.
Here's a weird thing though. You can't work out time dilation as simply as the common illustrations of the Einstein moving light clock thought experiment would suggest. For a frame traveling at 0.866 light speed you can't just draw a 1 meter high light clock, if we say light travels 1 meter per second, and a horizontal line 0.866 meters long and join the top of the light clock to the end of the horizontal line and say that's how far light really traveled, because that line would be 1.322 meters long. At light speed, it would take 1.322 seconds for light to travel that diagonal length but the Lorentz factor for 0.866 c is 2, not 1.322. For the diagonal line to be the real length light would travel at Lorentz factor 2, it would need to be 2 units long. To get that, the distance traveled has to be 1.732 meters, not 0.866 meters. In other words, you would need to already know the Lorentz factor in order to correctly draw the diagram. Einstein's moving light clock thought experiment is simply not reality and is therefore not a valid basis for time dilation. That's the problem with thought experiments, the thoughts can be wrong.
That's why Einstein said that the math regarding this did not accurately describe physical reality. Time dilation is just one aspect of dilation, it's not just time that gets dilated. A dilation/time dilation graph illustrates the true phenomenon. It has velocity from stationary to the speed of light on the horizontal line and dilation (sometimes called gamma or y) on the vertical. This shows its squared nature, dilation increases at an exponential rate the closer you get to the speed of light. Mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer. It's the phenomenon behind the phrase "mass becomes infinite at the speed of light". It occurs wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass because high mass means high momentum. The mass at the center of our own galaxy is dilated. This means that there is no valid XYZ coordinate we can attribute to it, you can't point your finger at something that is smeared through spacetime. In other words that mass is all around us. This is the explanation for dark matter/galaxy rotation curves, the "missing mass" is dilated mass.
@@shawns0762 Well apparently everyone who ever made a video about time dilation thinks it's just like Einstein suggested with the light clock, the photons simply appearing to travel a slanted path instead of vertical. Not one of them ever said it's not really that simple. Here's a video I made and put on my other Alien Grey channel showing how you really draw the illustration of Lorentz geometry ruclips.net/video/nXcUeMqobN8/видео.html
@@VortekStarling The Lorentz transformations is not Einstein's math. Relativity came first, the math to prove it was correct came later. He hired someone to do the math. Einstein's math is illustrated by the graph. X amount of velocity/momentum = X amount of dilation/gamma. The best way to understand dilation is to imagine a spaceship traveling at a constant acceleration rate. When the ship reaches 50% light speed, as viewed from an Earthbound observer with a magically powerful telescope, it would appear normal because as the graph shows nothing has changed at that point. When the ship reaches 75% light speed it would appear fuzzy because as the graph shows relativistic effects would be noticeable at that point. When the ship reaches 99% light speed it would not be visible because every aspect of its existence would be smeared through spacetime relative to an Earthbound observer. No matter how fast the ship goes everything would be normal from its perspective. Relativistic effects are all from an outside/stationary/Earthbound observer.
@@shawns0762 I just don't believe it's true, it's just not logical and I found several ways to prove it, just based on logic, no math even required. One example, it doesn't work when a light beam is on a slant, like from the upper corner of the back end of a train car to the lower corner of the front end. That's why Einstein used horizontal beams in his thought experiments, he probably realized the flaw a some point so he just avoided the issue by never mentioning slanted beams. What I mean is that to get the horizontal beams to work he used the ploy of the clocks at the front being behind the clocks at the back, like if the back clock showed 2 the front clock would show 1. It may have been the other way around, I can't recall right now, haven't been doing relativity related stuff lately. Point being, the same offset in time of the clocks can't work with both a horizontal and slanted beam, they would require different offsets.
@@VortekStarling I watched that video, that is impressive if you came up with that yourself. I have been studying physics since before you were born most likely. To understand a fundamental phenomenon look at the associated graph. There is many videos that show it. According to Einstein, the aforementioned observer would not see a physically contracted spaceship traveling at 99% light speed. They would see nothing. We are all traveling at the speed of light relative to some potential vantage point. If a rock was heading towards an Earthbound observer at 99% light speed the observer would have nothing to worry about because every aspect of the rock's existence would be irrelevant. The source of the rock's mass would be our galaxy. Its existence would be spread throughout the lifespan of the galaxy from the vantage point of an Earthbound observer. This is the state of mass in our galactic center. It's not just there, it's everywhere. It's the elephant in the room explanation for dark matter/galaxy rotation curves. Dilation does not occur in galaxies with low mass centers because they do not have enough mass to achieve relativistic velocities. It has recently been confirmed in 6 ultra diffuse galaxies including NGC 1052-DF2 and DF4 to have no dark matter. In other words they have normal rotation rates. All galaxies with low mass centers have normal rotation rates.
Please make it possible to sending messages to past. My father Kim KyuDong died snu hospital at 2024.04.15. I must prevent that death. there must be way using sun and earth's revolution, space-time, sun's gravity. Reception of messages will be done by radio telescopes that monitor extraterrestrial radio waves 24 hours a day. Please help me.
SR wrong due to reference frame mixing and bad math. GM follows as incorrect. “The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics including the CAUSE of gravity, electricity, magnetism, light and well.... everything.
I believe that only some of SR is wrong. I believe that "time keeping" varies with speed. I believe if we look around us light will always travel at apr. 300000km/s but at our time scale. I also believe that the starting point of an Electro Magnetic Emission (EME, light in our example) starts from a fixed point in space. This will only really influence things if we could make a one way measurement of EME speed but so far I don't believe any body have. In regards to your last point then I would say maybe not so much the cause but what actually IS electricity, magnetism, energy etc.
@@leonhardtkristensen4093 No energy, charge, photons, waves, spin, fields, potential, quantum,quarks, space, time, space-time etc. All Standard Theory/Model was replaced by Expansion Theory in 2002. A “cause “ - by definition (?)- tells what something IS. Expanding electrons/ atoms do it all. Light is a cluster of expanding electrons and all EMR also manifestations of expanding electrons- things,objects, particles, matter. ‘Gravity’ is simple Galilean relative motion: the earth is approaching- expanding at 16 feet per second per second constant acceleration- the released object (apple). One way “c” is hard to measure: to say ‘time’ depends on “c” creates many ‘problems’; circular ‘reasoning’ among them.
The easy way to understand SR, is to look at the absolute cause of the SR phenomena. But you will not find that practically anywhere these days. Instead, only the SR phenomena itself, is being discussed.
the math is wrong. if light can only travel 300k km in that time. that same light would not have traveled 500k km in the same time just because of a person traveling 200k km to catch up. he will see the light yes, but the light would not have surpassed him at 300k km from his perspective. at the same time the light has reached 300k km in total. thats like saying a train traveling 300k km has traveled 500k km because i drove my car beside it for 200k km at the same amount of time and the train also surpassed me at 300k km. no it simply does not work like that.
If you travel towards or away from a light source, you will see a colour change. The only way this can happen is if the relative speed is not constant.
Redshift and blueshift are due to the change in the frequency of a light wave depending on whether an object is moving away or towards from us. BUT the frequency or wavelength does not affect the fact that the speed of light is constant for all observers. Even the relative speed of two photons approaching each other is the speed of light.
Red & blue shift are changes in the wavelength of light that occur due to an object's movement relative to an observer. And when light travels from one medium to another, the velocity of light changes. To compensate for this change, the wavelength changes, but the frequency remains constant. But the speed of light is constant in a vacuum, and that's what this video relates to. Frequency always stays the same, as that depends on the source, not the medium. This is all established facts, but I'm open to any new science ...
It helped me to think that even though both persons experienced time passing, they experienced it differently. The person in motion had time slowed down for them. So from the still persons point of view, by the time light had reached 500km, 1.66s has passed for them. And for the person in motion only 1second has passed because their time is slower.
It's a cool idea to imagine it this way, but it's not quite accurate. The implication is that from a photon's perspective, it would exist both where it was emitted and absorbed simultaneously, across space. This is obviously not possible. However, the real answer is less nuanced. A photon has no mass, therefore it can never have any rest mass. Only objects that have rest mass can have a frame of reference. This is one of the tenets of special relativity. The idea of a photon's "perspective" is nonsensical, as the math does not allow it.
Bullshit. There are no "dimensions". 2 dimension objects cant exist because they have no width. Space has not 3 "dimensions", thats just a practical way to map it.
You are making the same mistake every other relativist does. Motion is absolute. Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light making it an absolute. The other thing relativists dont understand is that light is information. The Lorentz transforms deals with INFORMATION being exchanged between two moving objects. Not time itself. Space and Time are separate frames of reference. Space is absolute. Time is absolute. Motion is absolute. Knock off the relativiity crap because ot only deals with INFORMATION and you have every one confused thinking clocks measure time. They dont. They measure motion in space. Your motion in time is energy dependent as in E=mc or Energy equals time. Einstein was just a lowly patent clerk who didnt understand basic physics. His relativity nonsense doesnt work in the real world because mistook time for information. Motion in space changes your information cone. You may perceive events taking place differently from another but that doesnt mean they actually are. Space is absolute Motion is absolute. Time is absolute. The only thing that is relative is information and that comes directly from the Lorentz transforms which deals with the transmission of information between moving objects. Quit trying to confuse people with your relativity nonsense. Its a Space-Information frame. And a Time-Energy frame. Two vary separate frames when dealing with real-world physics. .kt
Klonusk 1 dimensional objects are lines without widths i suppose and a singularity would be a 0 dimensional object
Right
One dimensional object like lines can’t exist in the real world since it depends on some width and then gets two dimensional.
One dimensional object only exists in theory.
So, my guess is that Klonusk is talking about real existing objects.
Yes that's correct
You’re right: you can feel the weirdness when he says “two dimensional objects have length and width” but the one dimensional ones had neither in the preceding description. Points are adimensional, zero dimensions.
Also very weird to start your video with a mistake like that. I couldn't bring myself to finish it, despite knowing it probably is made with good quality graphics.
This is the best one I’ve seen so far, this seriously and sincerely deserved more views. Somehow or another visualizing these concepts clicked a lot more in my brain. You are an inspiration.
10:14 I love the fact how both the drivers saved the girl...amazing 😮
the part of the graphic when the grid is angled really helped me understand how the observers see time dilation. thank you.
Fantastic explanation of dimensions and the role of time! Loved the clear discussion on relativity, coordinate systems, and spacetime diagrams. Thanks for making complex concepts easy to grasp!
I need to rewatch this about 10 times just so I can fully not understand it
This is one of the best illustrated explanation of special relativity I ever watched so far from RUclips ❤️.
I agree. I’ve seen so many vids, but this is the best
Absolutely right
Your bending of space time animation towards the end when you were explaining Lorentz Transformations was simple, but one of the best ways I've visually seen it expressed!! Very cool
The amount of effort thast gone into this video is insane... so amazing to watch and learn from
Four-Dimensional Space was developed by Minkowski (who gave us the “Light-cone”).
In Einstein’s article of 1905, he treated Space and Time separately.
In fact, Einstein stated that “he no longer understood The Special Theory of Relativity” after Minkowski’s lectures.
However, Einstein soon adopted Minkowski’s Four-Dimensional point of view (and built on this to develop the General Theory of Relativity in 1915).
Ur statement feels more true then what this video said. As far as I have understood Einstein, he cud never have said things which this video claimed.
Phenomenal diagrams for simple understanding.
Thanks, very well explained (and I appreciated the metric measurements)
This video is really well done. I still have trouble understanding how space literally contracts and expands, the graph at 13:48 helps, and has been the best visual aid I've seen in any video.
That's not how the real universe works.
@@stewiesaidthat Care to elaborate? Like I said -- "trouble understanding."
@@drgroove101 the easiest way to explain this is to treat Space and Time as two separate frames of reference.
F=ma -> Acceleration in Space.
E=mc -> Acceleration in Time.
From the synchronized clock experiments, both clocks used the same amount of energy and experienced the same amount of Time.
Inverse square law of motion shows that force decreases with distance. The clock with the lower readout (less force), experienced more Space.
Digging deeper. The clock's cesium-133 atom is being chilled to absolute zero while the observer's atoms are at room/body temperature. The observer is not even in the same time frame as the clock.
As for the expansion and contraction. You are walking along a set of railroad tracks that converge in the distance. As you move, the space between the tracts expand in front and contract behind you. This is where the concept of warped space comes from. You can't expand or contract the tract spacing. Their position is absolute. Space is nothing and nothing is absolute. You can't expand/contract nothing.
Relativity is a false perception of reality. No experiment has validated relativity nor time-dilation.
6:40 In the video, both were in motion across the dimension of time at the same speed. This is incorrect. However, both are actually sharing an equal magnitude of ongoing motion within the 4D Space-Time environment. Each person is in motion within Space-Time exactly as much as a photon of light is in motion across space.
Nice video and presentation.
An elite learns and think straight but deep. Elites learns the Theory of Special Relativity fast and can’t tell that is true or false.
Perfect up until the end. Good job
Such a good explanation👍 background music was very interesting
⚠️PLEASE READ THIS⚠️
This was such a great explanation on relativity I have seen but but ⚠️ Brother you have done a mistake in this video that is you said a point of singularity a 1 dimensional object which isn't true. A point is a 0 dimensional object with no length width or height, then comes 1 dimensional object for example a line, a line has length only so it can be considered as 1 dimensional and not a point object, then it is followed by 2d and 3d which was correct in video.
HOPE THIS HELPED 👍
Truly the best explanation. Thanks a lot dear sir
This was actually a really good video.
Outstanding simplification 🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉
point is zero dimensional object, not the 1. a line is 1 dimensional object
A straight line is one dimensional. When you make a squiggly line on a flat piece of paper it's 2 dimensional. When you cut it out and make it spiral it's 3 dimensional. If it moves then it's 4 dimensional. If it's on fire then it's more than 8 dimensional because you could potentially measure it's temperature, volume of smoke, it's smell, brightness and more. Each measurement we take would be another dimension in the equation.
😲@@ronaldkemp3952
Just about to say that
12:32 how???😵😵
3 dimensional beings such as humans, animals and birds would have a hard time seeing 4 dimensional things but also 2 dimensional objects in our 3 dimensional world if turned flat! I have seen videos of birds flying into strings in mid air used by humans to hoist up objects including bird feeders and they run into things turned on its flat side. I e have also seen humans on bicycles going fast like a bird would run right smack into a line or rope or something similar. Not that it’s impossible to see it’s that when things lie flat to our eyes as 3 dimensional beings we have a hard time seeing it there unless we change our position or it moved and when it doesn’t, we don’t perceive it being there until we’re right ontop of it or running into it or going slow enough to give ourselves time to see it’s there. Basically where 3 dimensional beings but seeing some 2D objects can be hard to see but not as hard as 4D. It’s easier to wrap our minds around 2 and 3D than it is 4D but 2 and 1D can be difficult for us 3D beings to pick up on as well if placed the right way and all stands still. A ball in the distance we assume is a ball but looks as a circle. We have to move through space and it takes time to move through space but once we change our vantage point, it confirms that circle we seen across the yard is actually a spear or ball. Shadows and light areas is what we use to give clues that that spear we see in the distance isn’t just a circle. A square in the corner of the room we assume is more than and actually a box because of the shadows created and the lines but confirmed once we change vantage points and see more of it we are proven right that square we think is a cube or box is a cube or box unless it’s purposefully an optical r illusion but only way to find out is to travel to it, get closer and change vantage points or move it to see it’s a 3D cube and not a 2D square leaning against the wall. A square on the floor can still be a cube of it is one by picking or lifting the edge of the square only to find it’s a cube in the floor.
Anyhow, I love the topic of dimensions and what it would look like to visualize other dimensions and why it’s so hard to visualize higher dimensions even as a 3 dimensional being not trapped by 1 and 2 dimensions.
I believe that if all matter stood still, like not moving at all, time is slowed down until it stops,
so, the speed of time depends on the speed of matter and the speed of matter depends on the speed of time which absolutely makes no sense to me. I also believe that acceleration never stops to zero but rather goes on decreasing at a constant ratio.
If we turn it around and look at every thing from the travellers point of view IN HIS TIME FRAME then we will find that everything is fine. At 14:07 we will find that in the "Constant motion" time frame the "Stationary" will not have travelled 200000km but possibly only 120000km in the time light travels 300000km.
It is simply that felt or measured time just slows down with motion. This also means that if you look out from the train at 7:27 you will not see the platform travel at 100 km/h but slightly slower.
At 11:26 light is NOT flying away from the traveller in OUR perspective. It is only flying away from him in HIS time perspective. As his time should stand still if he travels at the speed of light it should go nowhere. Now traveling at speed of light is not possible (according to these formula's for any mass) then this picture is not possible. At nearly the speed of light the travellers clock is going very slow so from our prospective it will take a long time for the light to get 300000km away from him even though he thinks it only takes a second..
I have the feeling that as everything we know of actually moves then we are all slowed down a little in time. I believe that any EME (light being one of them) is stationary at it's origin point. We can not measure that as we can not measure one way speed of light as yet. I believe that there is an ABSOLUTE in space.
continue to make this kinds of knowledgeble video❤❤.
Consider this scenario: You are at location 'A' and I am at location 'B', with a 1000-mile distance between us.,We both start moving at the same time. You move at a speed of 1000 miles per second towards location 'B', while I move at a staggering speed of 186,000 miles per second within location 'B'.,As I await your arrival, which will take 1 second, I manage to visit 186 places, each 1000 miles apart.,In this situation, it may seem like I have somehow manipulated time or moved faster than you within the span of 1 second.,While it's true that I accomplished more than you did in that 1 second, I did not actually freeze or stop time to achieve this feat.
Which means for your 1000 mile distance it took you 10^0 x 100 centiseconds = 10^-2 x 1 second, but for me a 1000 mile distance, took only 10^-2 x .54 centiseconds = 10^-3 x 5.4 milliseconds.
UNITS OF TIME:::
1 sec = 10^0 > 1 deci = 10^-1 > 1 centi = 10^-2 > 1 milli = 10^-3 > 1 micro = 10^-6 >…
Only space itself can fit an unlimited miles of space (TIME) per second but light can only fit 186,000 miles of space per second, unless, the source of light = space but darkness is the absence of light therefore light ≠ space. So speed of light ≠ 1 second = light ≠ space because space = 1 second. The speed of light ≠ 1 second because in reality “the speed of light” = distance of space light covers in 1 second; (the speed of light = 186,000 mi./s,).
I have the distance, speed but no TIME. You have the distance, time but no SPEED.
Speed x Time = distance = space
Distance x time = speed = velocity
Distance x speed = time = clock
The fastest speed ever flown by a manned aircraft is Mach 6.72, which was achieved by the North American X-15 research aircraft, reaching a speed of approximately 4,520 miles per HOUR AND WE WERE TRAVELING PER SECOND. This record was set in 1967 and still stands today -just for reference.
My idea is that you cyclically travel towards a moving clock in a linear space, whereas Einstein's theory was linearly going away from a stationary clock in a cyclical space.
Both points are rotating and orbiting. Once you leave location “A” you are no longer influenced by the motion of location “A”. I’m at location “B” and I’m waiting for your arrival but the motion of location “B” will affect you so your space ship better not break down within that 1 second or you’re going to have to deal with displacement. The more time you take the farther location “B” drifts away from you. One second ends and another second begins and this cycle continues until the end of space. For you it doesn’t matter where you land on location “B”, but it’s a matter of when you land. However, if I expected you to land at a specific coordinate on location “B”, when you land, the coordinate has changed because of the rotation. So not only did you take longer than 1 second to get to location “B”, but also you landed on a different coordinate. So if location “B” were a clock (🌎 🌍 🌏 🕰️), instead of you landing at 1:00 pm, you landed on 1:20 pm hypothetically speaking.
So not only are you traveling to a clock but the clock is also moving further away from you as you travel to it creating more distance between you and it. So more distance creates more time for you thus your speed will need to increase and break the constant velocity that you were originally traveling to make it on the time you expected to arrive.
But as we study it the “speed of light” = 1 sec., but the “distance of space” = 1♾️ sec.
Very clear explanation. Thanks!
6:50
The vector length should be considered
Awesome video!
Good work bro ❤❤❤
Great video. I been trying to understand this for years. This is by far the farthest I’ve been getting close to grasp it. Still not completely but that’s might be my dumb brain lol
I got lost at 11:10. It is my understanding that the sky is black at night, despite the existence of an uncountable number of stars because the light from those stars must travel distances that are greater than the speed of light allows. If it were possible to travel along side a single beam of light, looking forward, we would see nothing, because the light could not go faster than its limit.
Your mention about constant nature of speed of light is true... But want to know that what's so different 'fundamentally' in light that it behaves differently than other...
It’s not, it just moves at the speed of causality. Gravitational effects move at the same speed as well
@@stdesy What I mean is why constant and not relative like other objects...?
Einstein made the assumption that the Speed of Light is constant in the Special Theory of Relativity. This has been confirmed by experimental evidence, many times.
Light does not have any mass that’s why
@@xgaming4216 what mass has to do with the constant nature of light? Why it is same for the all observer whether they are in stationary position or in motion (even at the significant speed of light)? Einstein made the assumption that is right, but on what basis?
Actually I'd have to say the universe is infinitely multi-dimensional. If you can measure it, it's dimensional.
A dimension is not a realm where something exists. That is a common mistake among so many academic fields of study. A dimension is a measurement. Width, depth, height and time are measurements of things in this universe or realm. They are not individual realms. They are a means to describe and measure using Cartesian polar, absolute or relative coordinates in our equations. We can measure temperature, polarity, charge, color, distance, size, mass, density, volume, weight, velocity, acceleration, trajectory and so much more. They are all considered dimensions, IE., measurements. They are not realms.
When someone says, there might be another you living in a parallel dimension, they're confused about the actual meaning of the word dimension. If they did say that then they're pretty much saying there might be another you living in a parallel measurement. Which doesn't make any sense.
A dimension isn't a realm by itself, it's a measurement of something in our realm. If it can't be measured then it can't be dimensioned. there are 1 dimensions, 2 dimensions and so on, depending how many variables are in you equations. If you include time, temperature, velocity, trajectory and mass then you went from describing 4 dimensions to 8. We can't see time or space but we can use them in our measurements to describe the things in our realm, thus they are considered dimensions.
Says you! 😂
@@mavelous1763 True beans.
I think you are wrong as dimensions are nothing to do with temperature, colour etc. Dimensions are not measurements but instead refer to minimum number of points to express and object of x dimensions for example any 3D object can be measured in x, y and z planes ie. breadth, width, height. In our universe this 3D object is moving through time, a fourth dimension, which shows the possibilities of where this object could end up. Hope this helps and correct me if I'm wrong.
@@tiltmaster69 The problem begins when people think multiple dimensions are realms where we can travel to, which is totally wrong. A dimension is nothing more than a measurement used to describe changes in our universe. Dimensions can't be used or considered to describe imaginary realms that can't be measured or observed.
Brilliant explanation
May i know which tool you using for making this fantastic video.? Bro
This is awesome and useful content thank you
Light is electromagnetic wave of a certain frequency. So is this only fir light frequency or applies to entire range of electromagnetic frequencies??
Good explanations. However, I don't seem to understand the connection between the maths and time. It appears that we arbitrarily assign T = time without ever having observed or defined what a unit of time actually is - in the real world.
I understand the variables length, width and height because they have real observable counterparts that can be verified. However, when it comes to the variable time, we automatically assume that it will also behave and evolve just like numbers do.
I find it hard to believe that linearly progressing numbers could capture the nature of (non-linear) time and that the results of such mathematical calculations would necessarily map onto real time.
A unit of time from the human perspective is 1second per second . This could be different in other parts of the universe . It is certainly different for a photon .
Suppose two Events occur at the same position, then the Time between those two Events (at that position) is what a Clock measures (when it is located at the same position).
Time actually slows down if we are moving fast relative to our surroundings: Suppose some Uranium was cut in half, and half is sent around an Accelerator (like at Berne). When we get the Uranium back again, we find less of it has decayed (compared to stationary lump). This is because Time progressed more slowly for the fast-moving Uranium.
As Einstein said: “Time is what a Clock measures”.
guys why does he say escape shouldn’t it be outrun? plz explain (im talking about the light cone)
What kond of light has velocity 300k m/s speed ??
So if the line is non-linear on the graph, then it means that the object is faster than light speed, which is impossible.
What do you think of the Brans-Dicke theory of gravity.
Can you explain length contraction
Hi, what do you use for animation? You use some programming language or design it yourself in some software?
When for general relativity ?
This is great
11:31 , I still don't understand why the speed of light is the same for all observers. You just gave more examples of it, but there's not much explanation. And in graph 13:53, the observer observes light travels at a speed of 200km/h. What are you trying to say?
Speed is distance over time, the faster you're going, the more things get squished due to length contraction so your measurement of the speed of light doesn't change. Floatheadphysics has some great explainers on this.
I personally think that the speed of light is the same for all observers coz when we observers see light moving at 300,000 km/s , that 300,000 km/s is only its slowed down speed due to its slowed down time caused by time dilation.Its time is slowed down because of its speed.So, its true time and therefore speed are way faster than we see it.We only see its true speed when we are travelling close to the speed of light [300,000 km/s] this is so coz our time passage speed is close to light`s we therefore see light`s true speed.This is coz light never realizes its time is slowed.So it will see itself moving at a way greater speed than we see it.And if we try to experience the same time passage as light does , we shall also see light moving at a way greater speed than we see it.That is why the speed of light is always the same for all observers.
12:40 ye something is wrong from your friend's perspective he's stationary.
❤ Very good 👍🏼
Problematically your definition of time could be better thought of as, a dynamic operator rather than an orthogonal direction. In the observer model, it's merely a convention that is used to organize entangled sub systems of the universe into A more stasis -based configuration. Which is more entropicly favorable to the observers.
Many people don't understand the theory of relativity, but all people don't understand quantum physics.
And you're not even putting in rotation as a second dimension lol, what if you throw the ball at a 60% angle? Is it some sin cosine thing?
The speed of light is not a constant as once thought, and this has now been proved by Electrodynamic theory and by Experiments done by many independent researchers. The results clearly show that light propagates instantaneously when it is created by a source, and reduces to approximately the speed of light in the farfield, about one wavelength from the source, and never becomes equal to exactly c. This corresponds the phase speed, group speed, and information speed. Any theory assuming the speed of light is a constant, such as Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong, and it has implications to Quantum theories as well. So this fact about the speed of light affects all of Modern Physics. Often it is stated that Relativity has been verified by so many experiments, how can it be wrong. Well no experiment can prove a theory, and can only provide evidence that a theory is correct. But one experiment can absolutely disprove a theory, and the new speed of light experiments proving the speed of light is not a constant is such a proof. So what does it mean? Well a derivation of Relativity using instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity. This can easily seen by inserting c=infinity into the Lorentz Transform, yielding the GalileanTransform, where time is the same in all inertial frames. So a moving object observed with instantaneous nearfield light will yield no Relativistic effects, whereas by changing the frequency of the light such that farfield light is used will observe Relativistic effects. But since time and space are real and independent of the frequency of light used to measure its effects, then one must conclude the effects of Relativity are just an optical illusion.
Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, then it has the same problem. A better theory of Gravity is Gravitoelectromagnetism which assumes gravity can be mathematically described by 4 Maxwell equations, similar to to those of electromagnetic theory. It is well known that General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism for weak fields, which is all that we observe. Using this theory, analysis of an oscillating mass yields a wave equation set equal to a source term. Analysis of this equation shows that the phase speed, group speed, and information speed are instantaneous in the nearfield and reduce to the speed of light in the farfield. This theory then accounts for all the observed gravitational effects including instantaneous nearfield and the speed of light farfield. The main difference is that this theory is a field theory, and not a geometrical theory like General Relativity. Because it is a field theory, Gravity can be then be quantized as the Graviton.
Lastly it should be mentioned that this research shows that the Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics can no longer be criticized for requiring instantaneous interaction of the pilot wave, thereby violating Relativity. It should also be noted that nearfield electromagnetic fields can be explained by quantum mechanics using the Pilot Wave interpretation of quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (HUP), where Δx and Δp are interpreted as averages, and not the uncertainty in the values as in other interpretations of quantum mechanics. So in HUP: Δx Δp = h, where Δp=mΔv, and m is an effective mass due to momentum, thus HUP becomes: Δx Δv = h/m. In the nearfield where the field is created, Δx=0, therefore Δv=infinity. In the farfield, HUP: Δx Δp = h, where p = h/λ. HUP then becomes: Δx h/λ = h, or Δx=λ. Also in the farfield HUP becomes: λmΔv=h, thus Δv=h/(mλ). Since p=h/λ, then Δv=p/m. Also since p=mc, then Δv=c. So in summary, in the nearfield Δv=infinity, and in the farfield Δv=c, where Δv is the average velocity of the photon according to Pilot Wave theory. Consequently the Pilot wave interpretation should become the preferred interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. It should also be noted that this argument can be applied to all fields, including the graviton. Hence all fields should exhibit instantaneous nearfield and speed c farfield behavior, and this can explain the non-local effects observed in quantum entangled particles.
*RUclips presentation of above arguments: ruclips.net/video/sePdJ7vSQvQ/видео.html
*More extensive paper for the above arguments: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: vixra.org/abs/2309.0145
*Electromagnetic pulse experiment paper: www.techrxiv.org/doi/full/10.36227/techrxiv.170862178.82175798/v1
Dr. William Walker - PhD in physics from ETH Zurich, 1997
Even two photons travelling in opposite directions have a relative velocity to one another of the speed of light ...
The relative speed of two objects moving in the same direction at speeds u and v is given by:
(u - v) / (1 - uv/c²)
where c is the speed of light
Consider two photons moving in the same direction, so both u and v would equal c.
This gives a value of 0 as the relative velocities of the two photos, when they are going in the same direction.
Now, the relative speed of two objects moving in opposite directions at speeds u and v is given by:
(u + v) / (1 + uv/c²)
This gives a value of c as their relative velocities.
Thus, the relative velocity of a photon with respect to another photon will be equal to the speed of light when they're going in opposite directions.
Here's a weird thing though. You can't work out time dilation as simply as the common illustrations of the Einstein moving light clock thought experiment would suggest. For a frame traveling at 0.866 light speed you can't just draw a 1 meter high light clock, if we say light travels 1 meter per second, and a horizontal line 0.866 meters long and join the top of the light clock to the end of the horizontal line and say that's how far light really traveled, because that line would be 1.322 meters long. At light speed, it would take 1.322 seconds for light to travel that diagonal length but the Lorentz factor for 0.866 c is 2, not 1.322. For the diagonal line to be the real length light would travel at Lorentz factor 2, it would need to be 2 units long. To get that, the distance traveled has to be 1.732 meters, not 0.866 meters. In other words, you would need to already know the Lorentz factor in order to correctly draw the diagram. Einstein's moving light clock thought experiment is simply not reality and is therefore not a valid basis for time dilation. That's the problem with thought experiments, the thoughts can be wrong.
That's why Einstein said that the math regarding this did not accurately describe physical reality. Time dilation is just one aspect of dilation, it's not just time that gets dilated. A dilation/time dilation graph illustrates the true phenomenon. It has velocity from stationary to the speed of light on the horizontal line and dilation (sometimes called gamma or y) on the vertical. This shows its squared nature, dilation increases at an exponential rate the closer you get to the speed of light.
Mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer. It's the phenomenon behind the phrase "mass becomes infinite at the speed of light". It occurs wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass because high mass means high momentum. The mass at the center of our own galaxy is dilated. This means that there is no valid XYZ coordinate we can attribute to it, you can't point your finger at something that is smeared through spacetime. In other words that mass is all around us. This is the explanation for dark matter/galaxy rotation curves, the "missing mass" is dilated mass.
@@shawns0762 Well apparently everyone who ever made a video about time dilation thinks it's just like Einstein suggested with the light clock, the photons simply appearing to travel a slanted path instead of vertical. Not one of them ever said it's not really that simple.
Here's a video I made and put on my other Alien Grey channel showing how you really draw the illustration of Lorentz geometry ruclips.net/video/nXcUeMqobN8/видео.html
@@VortekStarling The Lorentz transformations is not Einstein's math. Relativity came first, the math to prove it was correct came later. He hired someone to do the math. Einstein's math is illustrated by the graph. X amount of velocity/momentum = X amount of dilation/gamma.
The best way to understand dilation is to imagine a spaceship traveling at a constant acceleration rate. When the ship reaches 50% light speed, as viewed from an Earthbound observer with a magically powerful telescope, it would appear normal because as the graph shows nothing has changed at that point.
When the ship reaches 75% light speed it would appear fuzzy because as the graph shows relativistic effects would be noticeable at that point.
When the ship reaches 99% light speed it would not be visible because every aspect of its existence would be smeared through spacetime relative to an Earthbound observer.
No matter how fast the ship goes everything would be normal from its perspective. Relativistic effects are all from an outside/stationary/Earthbound observer.
@@shawns0762 I just don't believe it's true, it's just not logical and I found several ways to prove it, just based on logic, no math even required. One example, it doesn't work when a light beam is on a slant, like from the upper corner of the back end of a train car to the lower corner of the front end. That's why Einstein used horizontal beams in his thought experiments, he probably realized the flaw a some point so he just avoided the issue by never mentioning slanted beams.
What I mean is that to get the horizontal beams to work he used the ploy of the clocks at the front being behind the clocks at the back, like if the back clock showed 2 the front clock would show 1. It may have been the other way around, I can't recall right now, haven't been doing relativity related stuff lately. Point being, the same offset in time of the clocks can't work with both a horizontal and slanted beam, they would require different offsets.
@@VortekStarling I watched that video, that is impressive if you came up with that yourself. I have been studying physics since before you were born most likely. To understand a fundamental phenomenon look at the associated graph. There is many videos that show it.
According to Einstein, the aforementioned observer would not see a physically contracted spaceship traveling at 99% light speed. They would see nothing. We are all traveling at the speed of light relative to some potential vantage point.
If a rock was heading towards an Earthbound observer at 99% light speed the observer would have nothing to worry about because every aspect of the rock's existence would be irrelevant.
The source of the rock's mass would be our galaxy. Its existence would be spread throughout the lifespan of the galaxy from the vantage point of an Earthbound observer.
This is the state of mass in our galactic center. It's not just there, it's everywhere. It's the elephant in the room explanation for dark matter/galaxy rotation curves.
Dilation does not occur in galaxies with low mass centers because they do not have enough mass to achieve relativistic velocities. It has recently been confirmed in 6 ultra diffuse galaxies including NGC 1052-DF2 and DF4 to have no dark matter. In other words they have normal rotation rates. All galaxies with low mass centers have normal rotation rates.
12:35 One second is not the same for two observers.
Please make it possible to sending messages to past. My father Kim KyuDong died snu hospital at 2024.04.15. I must prevent that death. there must be way using sun and earth's revolution, space-time, sun's gravity. Reception of messages will be done by radio telescopes that monitor extraterrestrial radio waves 24 hours a day. Please help me.
In the future, a time travel machine will be invented. There is only one catch though. It can only go forward in time.
SR wrong due to reference frame mixing and bad math. GM follows as incorrect. “The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics including the CAUSE of gravity, electricity, magnetism, light and well.... everything.
I believe that only some of SR is wrong. I believe that "time keeping" varies with speed. I believe if we look around us light will always travel at apr. 300000km/s but at our time scale. I also believe that the starting point of an Electro Magnetic Emission (EME, light in our example) starts from a fixed point in space. This will only really influence things if we could make a one way measurement of EME speed but so far I don't believe any body have.
In regards to your last point then I would say maybe not so much the cause but what actually IS electricity, magnetism, energy etc.
@@leonhardtkristensen4093 No energy, charge, photons, waves, spin, fields, potential, quantum,quarks, space, time, space-time etc. All Standard Theory/Model was replaced by Expansion Theory in 2002. A “cause “ - by definition (?)- tells what something IS. Expanding electrons/ atoms do it all. Light is a cluster of expanding electrons and all EMR also manifestations of expanding electrons- things,objects, particles, matter. ‘Gravity’ is simple Galilean relative motion: the earth is approaching- expanding at 16 feet per second per second constant acceleration- the released object (apple). One way “c” is hard to measure: to say ‘time’ depends on “c” creates many ‘problems’; circular ‘reasoning’ among them.
Why the need for a 4th dimension when events unfold in 3, progression of existence and events is just causality.
Bruce Dillon
1 dimension is a line not a dot. Dot is dimension 0
The easy way to understand SR, is to look at the absolute cause of the SR phenomena. But you will not find that practically anywhere these days. Instead, only the SR phenomena itself, is being discussed.
Awesome
So we cannot catch up with light
the math is wrong.
if light can only travel 300k km in that time.
that same light would not have traveled 500k km in the same time just because of a person traveling 200k km to catch up.
he will see the light yes,
but the light would not have surpassed him at 300k km from his perspective.
at the same time the light has reached 300k km in total.
thats like saying a train traveling 300k km has traveled 500k km because i drove my car beside it for 200k km at the same amount of time and the train also surpassed me at 300k km. no it simply does not work like that.
P. Marmet "The Collapse of the Lorentz Transformation".
Light travels at a constant speed except at stoplights. Hence, the government gets richer.
Klonusk we have thought in school like a one dimensional object have length but not wight and height{ like a line on a plane }
11:25
If you travel towards or away from a light source, you will see a colour change. The only way this can happen is if the relative speed is not constant.
The speed of light is constant and is independent of the frequency or wavelength of light
@@DABmonger Yes that is true but what point are you trying to make?
Redshift and blueshift are due to the change in the frequency of a light wave depending on whether an object is moving away or towards from us.
BUT the frequency or wavelength does not affect the fact that the speed of light is constant for all observers.
Even the relative speed of two photons approaching each other is the speed of light.
@@DABmonger What, in your view, causes the change in frequency if it's not relative velocity?
Red & blue shift are changes in the wavelength of light that occur due to an object's movement relative to an observer.
And when light travels from one medium to another, the velocity of light changes. To compensate for this change, the wavelength changes, but the frequency remains constant.
But the speed of light is constant in a vacuum, and that's what this video relates to.
Frequency always stays the same, as that depends on the source, not the medium.
This is all established facts, but I'm open to any new science ...
Your starting point it self is wrong - 1Dimensional does not mean a singularity, it is a line.
🤦🏽♂️..... I just lost braincells reading that there's still time to delete this comment
When you are uploading ur video on General Relativity
Gotta question that nothing goes faster than light. Theory means so-far-as-we-know.
Der weit Weg steht ist im Dreieck näher dran, als der nah dransteht
Universe is at least 4-dimension length, width, height, breadth.
Everything in our universe is relative except the speed of light
I clearly understood everything except last minute 😅
It helped me to think that even though both persons experienced time passing, they experienced it differently. The person in motion had time slowed down for them. So from the still persons point of view, by the time light had reached 500km, 1.66s has passed for them. And for the person in motion only 1second has passed because their time is slower.
Einstein was so smart.
Distance is relative not absolute
how?
No one dimension is a line zero dimension is the point or singularity
how am I watching someone explain spacetime that doesn't understand one dimension?
Для константы скорости света "прямой" опыт Майкельсона Морли с 1881 по 2024 г выполнен всего на 50%. Вопрос - почему не 100%?
Thats because light doesnt feel time… it is born and dead at the same time
It's a cool idea to imagine it this way, but it's not quite accurate. The implication is that from a photon's perspective, it would exist both where it was emitted and absorbed simultaneously, across space. This is obviously not possible. However, the real answer is less nuanced. A photon has no mass, therefore it can never have any rest mass. Only objects that have rest mass can have a frame of reference. This is one of the tenets of special relativity. The idea of a photon's "perspective" is nonsensical, as the math does not allow it.
Well If you sit in a train in India and close the windows something bad happens. Everything is moving. 😀😀😀😘
So is this how God can see past present and future because we are light & he travels faster than light? Let there be light. God created the light.
Singularity mean zero dimension
4 seconds into the video and you already fucked up
Is this AI?
I think singularity is zero dimension. cmiiw
stop saying time/dimension
Bullshit. There are no "dimensions". 2 dimension objects cant exist because they have no width. Space has not 3 "dimensions", thats just a practical way to map it.
You are making the same mistake every other relativist does.
Motion is absolute. Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light making it an absolute.
The other thing relativists dont understand is that light is information. The Lorentz transforms deals with INFORMATION being exchanged between two moving objects. Not time itself.
Space and Time are separate frames of reference.
Space is absolute.
Time is absolute.
Motion is absolute.
Knock off the relativiity crap because ot only deals with INFORMATION and you have every one confused thinking clocks measure time. They dont. They measure motion in space. Your motion in time is energy dependent as in E=mc or Energy equals time.
Einstein was just a lowly patent clerk who didnt understand basic physics. His relativity nonsense doesnt work in the real world because mistook time for information.
Motion in space changes your information cone. You may perceive events taking place differently from another but that doesnt mean they actually are.
Space is absolute
Motion is absolute.
Time is absolute.
The only thing that is relative is information and that comes directly from the Lorentz transforms which deals with the transmission of information between moving objects.
Quit trying to confuse people with your relativity nonsense.
Its a Space-Information frame.
And a Time-Energy frame.
Two vary separate frames when dealing with real-world physics.
.kt
На Руки Вверх похоже.
There's no easy way to understand this.
Any class 9 student 😂
1st year student here (I'm commerce )