Why only moving charges produce magnetic fields?

Поделиться
HTML-код
  • Опубликовано: 7 фев 2025

Комментарии • 154

  • @paarthraisagar2527
    @paarthraisagar2527 5 лет назад +25

    It really helped me sir! Coz i was just having my lunch and suddenly this same question came to my mind so searched for it in youtube without any expectation that i would such a well explained answer..Thankyou Sir N very happy to see persons like u who
    address these kind of questions which are literally not available in the textbooks.

    • @seekocon
      @seekocon 4 года назад

      but this is a mathematical answer i need a theoretical one

  • @AutoDidact117
    @AutoDidact117 6 лет назад +21

    Amazing video. Please also explain the physical phenomenon and how the magnetic field is produced in permanent magnets where no electron is flowing.

    • @mail2subhankar
      @mail2subhankar 5 лет назад

      For that you can check this video, Sir Fennyman explained that perfectly ruclips.net/video/MO0r930Sn_8/видео.html

    • @manipulativer
      @manipulativer 4 года назад

      @@mail2subhankar He didn't explain anything

  • @drhaddy5193
    @drhaddy5193 6 лет назад +57

    Need physical phenomenon not mathematical!!!

    • @Shoya_Ishida_69
      @Shoya_Ishida_69 4 года назад +7

      U r totally a dumb........u didn't really understand what is physics...... physics cannot be explained alone by logics...... physics need mathematics completely to define it.... without mathematics physics is Zero and nothing!!!!! So first u go home 😁 and study better then ask question .....

    • @levihuerta9393
      @levihuerta9393 4 года назад +3

      Radhe Radhe There’s no need to be condescending.

    • @asutoshpanda
      @asutoshpanda 4 года назад +3

      @@Shoya_Ishida_69 you need to go home and do the home work first

    • @anubhabsaha9843
      @anubhabsaha9843 4 года назад +1

      ae chafal

    • @atman4437
      @atman4437 4 года назад

      @@Shoya_Ishida_69 go home and do work then comment here mathematics is only tha language of physics

  • @ajayshankar4038
    @ajayshankar4038 4 года назад +4

    It was mathematical representation of the magnetic field that is produced by the electric field and only long derivation. But, still no answer why magnetic field is produced in the first place. It is like if someone asks why their is gravitational force between two bodies, and you give them the equation of gravitational force between the two bodies. This particular problem is with the whole education system. Instead of explaining the cause, people will explain the effect.

    • @theoreticalcmp
      @theoreticalcmp  4 года назад

      As Einstein once said, "I have never failed in mathematics. Before I was 15, l had mastered differential and integral calculus". To become good in physics, you have to be better in mathematics. In fact, whatever popular term you've heard of, it could be black hole or Hawking radiations or big bang or whatever, were at first only mathematical certainty. If you want to find a way out from math , the subject that suits you is philosophy, not physics. Every great physicists are best at math. Popular non-mathematical physics talk will only give you pleasure. If you want to make progress try to listen to mathematics and every step is a logical step when you grasp it. By the way, Big bang was not thought first, it was a solution of equations of general relativity. Also, parallel universes are not thought first, until people saw a solution like this exists. Hope you understand and start understanding the symphony of math.

    • @queryclass4621
      @queryclass4621 4 года назад +1

      qv will be zero so force will be zero that's simple yaar

    • @joshicune
      @joshicune 3 года назад

      @@theoreticalcmp But one should be able to summarize and interpret this math transformations, that should come as cherry on the cake. You are not bad at this, I'm just saying math is just a tool and physics is just a model. Reality is out there and we are trying to understand accessible pieces.

    • @joshicune
      @joshicune 2 года назад

      @@theoreticalcmp Sir, you are right about math importance, but with full respect for your effort, proper math should be applied end-to-end. Here you mix pieces of math glued with your intuition and believes. If you want to apply gamma factor to electric force first you need to show charge-energy equivalence, like Einstein did for mass-energy with E=mc2.

  • @MANOJYADAV-gn6kg
    @MANOJYADAV-gn6kg 4 года назад +2

    I was finding this type of video from last 6 months and i didn't get any to solve query ..
    But suddenly youtube recommended this video today and it's worth it....
    Thank u

  • @Archita_Rajpoot
    @Archita_Rajpoot 4 года назад +6

    📌 Since class 11 I was in search for this type of answer only.......I'd asked this question to my teachers also but from there... I didn't get satisfactory ans but now in bsc, finally I got the answer of what I'd searching so far.........

    • @theoreticalcmp
      @theoreticalcmp  4 года назад

      Thanks a lot dear Archita. If so, please please share this video among your friends and please subscribe. Maybe you can check this too..
      ruclips.net/video/oXIY4R0O3AE/видео.html
      If you have any other question, you may send us via mail, thrtclcmp@gmail.com

  • @manishonor5924
    @manishonor5924 3 года назад +4

    but you assume 2 moving charge. why does a single charge creates magnetic field?

    • @joshicune
      @joshicune 3 года назад

      One answer can be: field is just 'possible force' - math description of force which will be present if moving charge is there. But I'm not satisfied with this because magnetic field is also reservoir of kinetic energy of moving charge - so this is real thing, exist without other charges around.

  • @rgudduu
    @rgudduu 5 лет назад +6

    2:32 "Fy = Fy'/gamma". 4:35 "We put gamma=1". Why not put gamma=1 in 1st expression?

  • @AnthonyFrancisJones
    @AnthonyFrancisJones 4 года назад +5

    Many thanks for this video. I can see the work that has gone into it!

  • @nitish_makkar
    @nitish_makkar 4 года назад +3

    Thanks alot. A great explaination for the most simplest yet confusing concept ..
    You made the explanation as smooth as butter👍

  • @Swadeshi.parampara
    @Swadeshi.parampara 4 года назад +4

    Dear sir, according to this theory, production of magnetic field due to a moving charge is completely a relativistic phenomenon, ok here is my doubt, that a charge is at a rest frame at origin, i m a in a frame which is moving in x-axis with velocity v , it seems that charge moving away from us with some velocity -v. I just want to know that in this situation still the charge particle produce magnetic field or not. Plz sir help me

  • @vijay_r_g
    @vijay_r_g 3 года назад +1

    But why is the force term in S frame multiplied by the gamma factor?

  • @mohansundarmadurai1933
    @mohansundarmadurai1933 5 лет назад +10

    I got a theoretical proof but I can't understand what happens in sum atomic level

    • @jiffylou98
      @jiffylou98 4 года назад

      Electromagnetism, like gravity, is a relativistic consequence. Given that like charges repel each other and opposite charges repel, you understand the cause by analyzing different reference frames

  • @frsvegetaop2483
    @frsvegetaop2483 5 лет назад +2

    I have a question too
    In the above video he took gamma approximately 1
    If gamma is 1 then whole thing should stop
    If gamma is 1, then force is s and s prime frame must be equal

  • @ComerNew-jb3mp
    @ComerNew-jb3mp 4 года назад +3

    Nice work! The only question I have now is that why F = F'/γ. Could anybody explain the reason? Thanks a lot!

    • @theoreticalcmp
      @theoreticalcmp  4 года назад +1

      Just get a standard special theory of relativity book.. and it's there

    • @ComerNew-jb3mp
      @ComerNew-jb3mp 4 года назад +1

      @@theoreticalcmp Alright...I found the transformation of forces on Quora.(www.quora.com/Does-force-depend-upon-frame-of-reference)
      By the way, since frame S’ is moving with velocity v relative to frame S along X direction, should the equation be Fx = Fx' instead of Fx = Fx'/γ(at 2:32)?

    • @theoreticalcmp
      @theoreticalcmp  4 года назад +1

      Point is from where you are looking. Here, the observer is at S'.

    • @ansh9318
      @ansh9318 4 года назад +1

      In moving frame , Mass(relativistic) = m(rest)×Y ,where m(rest) is the mass of a body at rest . So F' = m(relativistic)×a and F(rest)= m(rest)×a ; then we can say F'=Y×F so F=F'/Y

    • @joshicune
      @joshicune 3 года назад

      @@ansh9318 but we do not have mass here :-)

  • @amico6153
    @amico6153 6 лет назад +7

    Sirrrr... i have a question for u, we know that in electric field the main role is due to charges and in magnetic field we have the North pole south pole interaction but in case of gravitational field what is the medium i mean how a mass can attracts the other mass without any medium between them. Sir please 😫🙏🙏💓 answer me...

    • @livingobject3236
      @livingobject3236 6 лет назад +9

      Space-time ! This question hve been unsolved until einstein come with general relativity saying that gravity isnt force its a curve , bend in spacetime

    • @theoreticalcmp
      @theoreticalcmp  6 лет назад +3

      Well, this was the quest of Albert Einstein too.. in your course of general relativity, you will get your answer..

    • @amico6153
      @amico6153 6 лет назад +2

      @@theoreticalcmp thank😊s now i understand spacetime cruve bend but i have more questions💭❓
      How the heat (energy) can transfer from one point to another without any medium ?

    • @phenom0990
      @phenom0990 5 лет назад +2

      Abhishek gautam its due to infrared radiation
      Infrared radiation from sun travels to earth at the speed of light (since its a electromagnetic wave) when the radiation strikes on any object it triggers the atom of that object which causes it to jiggle.
      And you might already know that heat is simply the kinetic energy present in the atom.
      So heat itself doesnt travel through empty space, radiation does which produces heat when it strikes on an object...
      Hope you get it.

    • @frsvegetaop2483
      @frsvegetaop2483 5 лет назад +1

      I have a question too
      In the above video he took gamma approximately 1
      If gamma is 1 then whole thing should stop
      If gamma is 1, then force is s and s prime frame must be equal

  • @SantoshKumar-ie5nm
    @SantoshKumar-ie5nm 4 года назад +2

    Many more thanks sir for solving question which is present in my mind

  • @subhashnitta2934
    @subhashnitta2934 6 лет назад +2

    nicely explained sir...this was untold till now to me...

  • @ozkang654
    @ozkang654 4 года назад +1

    Very good And does it mean
    İnto the natural magnets too there are Moving charges ??
    This means magnetic field is not a separated thing from Electric field and all depended on transformation and reserving the Total energy amount

    • @theoreticalcmp
      @theoreticalcmp  4 года назад

      Check This
      qr.ae/pN5VmN

    • @ozkang654
      @ozkang654 4 года назад +1

      @@theoreticalcmp yea okey the moment of electrons
      Produces magnetic dipole moment
      When these moments are polarised in the same direction acts like field producer okey but still there are thing which i dont understand

    • @ozkang654
      @ozkang654 4 года назад

      @@theoreticalcmp that this means every matter
      Can be a magnet if some conditions are apropriate soo magnetic field acts like dictator he wants to make everyone looking same way 😁
      But the force it produces
      Look like everytime magical thing because there is no contact force
      There is no carrier of force its magicaly in space 😁

    • @theoreticalcmp
      @theoreticalcmp  4 года назад

      Actually no. There is a career of electromagnetic field and you've heard the name of that career a thousand times just without realising that it's the career. The name of the career is 'photon'.

    • @ozkang654
      @ozkang654 4 года назад +1

      @@theoreticalcmp
      i mean there is the space between Magnetic field and iron
      And it atracts each other and pulls the iron without any contact force
      İ mean contact force
      Not carrier soory for the language mistakes
      And this property of magnetic force
      Also shows its nature about spacetime and fundemental things
      We dont know the Real answer even feynman said that

  • @subhammukherjee6863
    @subhammukherjee6863 2 года назад +1

    Sir why did you take "v" to be very small quantity?

    • @theoreticalcmp
      @theoreticalcmp  2 года назад

      Nice question @subham. The drift velocity of electron is of that order. That's why..

  • @JustNow42
    @JustNow42 Год назад

    The magnetic field is and contain the Kinetic energy of the electrical field. At low speeds KE = 1/2 m v^2 the energy of the electric field is E= m C^2 so m = E/C^2. We know well how to calculate E . :

  • @ashishganguli69
    @ashishganguli69 6 лет назад +14

    all this math is ok but its still doesn't answer the question why magnetic field is produced? In other words what really happens to the space around it...

    • @denzali
      @denzali 4 года назад

      A magnet is field coherence qualitatively. Fields make everything, a magnet has been made coherent to the fields from which is is made. A laser is made possible by coherent light- a magnet is the same thing.

    • @rfly-fpv
      @rfly-fpv 4 года назад +1

      Check this video: ruclips.net/video/1TKSfAkWWN0/видео.html It will be immediately clear what is happening and why magnetic field is created. Spoiler alert - magnetic field doesn't really exists, it's the electric field plus theory of relativity. It was made up to make calculations easier and explain weird force acting on charges.

    • @denzali
      @denzali 4 года назад

      @@rfly-fpv electric, dielectric, magnetic are roughly analogous to ice, steam, water- the field under different pressure modalities. Dielectric terminates into magnetism/magnitude/mass and electricity is a hybrid of the two but is a discharge. Right hand rule all the way.. magnets don’t attract, they are trying to erase space, magnetism is the dielectric field. The attraction we see is the spacial magnetism losing its fight to the dielectric/counter spacial- its pressure mediation, water flowing downhill. All mass is due to magnetism (counter intuitively pushing out spacially) and all “attraction/gravity” is dielectric acceleration to a null pressure point. A black hole is an object that’s magnetic push has given over completely to its dielectric field coherence- it is litterally terminating into counterspace.
      That’s the theory I love best until it’s proven to be rubbish, which I don’t think it will.

    • @denzali
      @denzali 4 года назад

      @@rfly-fpv thanks for the link though 🙏🏻 I’m going to watch and enjoy.

    • @rgudduu
      @rgudduu 3 года назад

      @@denzali , wow deep thoughts

  • @anindyabhattacharjee7038
    @anindyabhattacharjee7038 4 года назад +3

    If the s' frame moving only in x direction, then why we have to multiply gamma to all components of F?

    • @theoreticalcmp
      @theoreticalcmp  4 года назад +3

      A really nice and conceptual question. See, in special theory of relativity, though the S' is moving along X-direction, still velocities along y and z direction changes, because, the main basic quantity of all- the TIME Lapse changes for whole frame. Hence, the acceleration is also changing. The force is nothing but mass×acceleration; and as a result, all components of forces do change. In short, force, and all quantities that deal with time, changes as time interval changes with respect to frame-change. Hope this clears your doubt. Thanks Anindya, best wishes.

    • @joshicune
      @joshicune 2 года назад

      @@theoreticalcmp What acceleration we see there? Uniform velocity also produces magnetic field. Isn't already explained that retarded potentials of electrostatic field are seen as magnetic field?

  • @SaquibFaisal
    @SaquibFaisal Год назад

    But suppose if S' frame is at rest and S frame is moving with velocity v then a person at S frame will see as if S' is moving and charge must create magnetic field but we know S' is not moving so, will there be any magnetic field by that charge in S' frame or not?

    • @theoreticalcmp
      @theoreticalcmp  Год назад

      Results will be the same. Recap special relativity and do the calculation as an exercise.

  • @NinjaPlayer005
    @NinjaPlayer005 2 года назад

    sir can a charge which itself is not moving but i am moving so relative to me it is moving, so would it produce magnetic field?

    • @theoreticalcmp
      @theoreticalcmp  2 года назад

      Yes, it will & that's a very nice question.

    • @NinjaPlayer005
      @NinjaPlayer005 2 года назад

      @@theoreticalcmp so relative to another observer which is stationary it will not see any magnetic field but since i am in motion i would, how come sir?

    • @theoreticalcmp
      @theoreticalcmp  2 года назад

      @@NinjaPlayer005 Think carefully:
      Your question has been answered properly.
      I think your question is if there is a current(i.e, moving electrons in general) there should always be a magnetic field irrespective of whether I'm moving with the electron at same pace or not!!
      Yes, that's also true as while you are moving with electrons, you're essentially moving wrt protons or nucleas which are charged particles. So, then too, the runner (wrt whom the electronons are stationary) will experience a magnetic field.
      However, for a particular charge or array of charge moving in free space will have the effect that has been answered and it's weird but true.

  • @happysingh6586
    @happysingh6586 5 лет назад +1

    Thank you sir i was also. Having the same doubt I am in class 12 this video help me to clear my doubt thanks

  • @msking007
    @msking007 3 года назад +1

    We appreciate your work thankyou sir

  • @paradoxcat4408
    @paradoxcat4408 2 года назад

    Very good explanation.. Physics is awesome 🥰🥰

  • @Shoya_Ishida_69
    @Shoya_Ishida_69 4 года назад +1

    Best Valid Proof 👌👏🤟🤘👌 👏 Given by u...... Totally acceptable

  • @kimsahl8555
    @kimsahl8555 3 года назад +1

    Electric fields is about the electric charge or the magnetic poles in motion.
    Magnetic fields is about the magnetic poles or the electric fields in motion.
    I don't say what charge/poles is about.

    • @kimsahl8555
      @kimsahl8555 3 года назад +1

      Well, correct .is .... the electric charge (not fields) in motion create magnetic fields.

  • @sarava338
    @sarava338 5 лет назад +2

    i want video on thomson effect of thermoelectric effect

  • @marimarmarimar25
    @marimarmarimar25 3 года назад

    Thank you! But you have not given the answer. You used many triks (gamma=1 when you decided: that velocity of 10E-4 m/s from Solid Physics: adding the k versor at the "right" time)... Ok. the formalism may be right. But what about the fenomen? The World does exist grace to the Xs we put on paper?

  • @mohansundarmadurai1933
    @mohansundarmadurai1933 5 лет назад +2

    Why does electric and magnetic field depends on medium but gravity doesn't for example for electric field we have epislon and for magnetic field mhu

  • @seetharama7254
    @seetharama7254 5 лет назад

    A current carrying conductor placed perpendicular to length of a long rectangular loop ( width negligible to length, say 1: 20) the electrons in the conductor moving perpendicular to the conductor still experiences a force. The conductor moves perpendicular to its length (& perpendicular to length of the loop). How can this be attributed to Relativistic Effect.

  • @himanshunautiyal1052
    @himanshunautiyal1052 4 года назад +1

    So now the question is ...If charge is producing magnetic field then how can the observer sitting in frame S' even observe that ( if he has compass ) magnetic filed??? Because he is at rest w.r.t. both charges so he will observe only electrostatic force.

    • @theoreticalcmp
      @theoreticalcmp  4 года назад +1

      Well, let's take a wire. Free electrons are moving leaving behind the positive ions (which are much heavier and more or less, at rest). If a person moves with the same velocity of electrons, for him, these ions will be moving which in turn will result an experience of magnetic field. Okay?

    • @himanshunautiyal1052
      @himanshunautiyal1052 4 года назад +1

      @@theoreticalcmp thank you for your reply..

  • @st-ex8506
    @st-ex8506 Год назад

    Why do moving charges produce magnetic fields?
    Einstein would have said: "they do not!"

  • @ashish19
    @ashish19 5 лет назад +3

    Thats the problem. No physical insights!

  • @alexblank1613
    @alexblank1613 4 года назад +1

    why did you assume v=10^-4?

  • @badrinarayananrameshbabu5935
    @badrinarayananrameshbabu5935 4 года назад

    Sir theoretically we can accept this derivation but how can we understand in a easy practical way...pls make me understand sir..

    • @queryclass4621
      @queryclass4621 4 года назад

      keep a stationary alpha particle and see if it moves.By this method, you will see that it does not so force will be zero

  • @minhazulkibria4769
    @minhazulkibria4769 5 лет назад

    Special relativity is only applicable for a body when it is in light velocity like 0.5c or something like that. Then when a charge is not in light velocity , what happens then?as far as I know charge in a metal moves in drift velocity which is too small in value.then how can we relate special relativity to explain magnetic field produced by moving charge?please explain.

    • @theoreticalcmp
      @theoreticalcmp  5 лет назад +1

      Yes, we can. Special relativity is applicable for everything and only because c is too high, special relativity is neglected in lower velocities. Comparing the strengths of both electric and magnetic field, you will be able to get the answer.

    • @minhazulkibria4769
      @minhazulkibria4769 5 лет назад

      @@theoreticalcmp thank you sir

  • @vishnudethjj6704
    @vishnudethjj6704 5 лет назад +1

    Less volume please try to improve

  • @Bradman-df8nd
    @Bradman-df8nd 4 года назад +1

    Why there is a factor of 1/gamma in s frame

    • @theoreticalcmp
      @theoreticalcmp  4 года назад

      See, when you are in motion, space contracts and time elongates. A popular phrase is, 'moving clock ticks slow'. Anyway, since space and time behave differently while the body is moving, definitely, in moving frame, force will also be modified. Calculations show this modification is exactly equal to the factor '1/gamma'

  • @masoodahmedmulla525
    @masoodahmedmulla525 6 лет назад +1

    prove it practically! but not mathematically, because there is a difference between mathematical explanation and practical explanation!

    • @theoreticalcmp
      @theoreticalcmp  6 лет назад

      Nice.. in our nxt video, we'll try to take care..

  • @soldireofsolomon9411
    @soldireofsolomon9411 4 года назад +1

    tnx for revealing the truth

  • @SK-gy3ec
    @SK-gy3ec 2 года назад

    Hatsoff to u sir

  • @atman4437
    @atman4437 4 года назад +2

    Explain it with the help of physics not with its language the mathematics

    • @theoreticalcmp
      @theoreticalcmp  4 года назад +3

      As Einstein once said, "I have never failed in mathematics. Before I was 15, l had mastered differential and integral calculus". To become good in physics, you have to be better in mathematics. In fact, whatever popular term you've heard of, it could be black hole or Hawking radiations or big bang or whatever, were at first only mathematical certainty. If you want to find a way out from math , the subject that suits you is philosophy, not physics. Every great physicists are best at math. Popular non-mathematical physics talk will only give you pleasure. If you want to make progress try to listen to mathematics and every step is a logical step when you grasp it. By the way, Big bang was not thought first, it was a solution of equations of general relativity. Also, parallel universes are not thought first, until people saw a solution like this exists. Hope you understand and start understanding the symphony of math.

    • @atman4437
      @atman4437 4 года назад

      @@theoreticalcmp thanks man 🙂

  • @chillhopnation7635
    @chillhopnation7635 3 года назад

    What! I can't understand what explanation is this.

  • @peacebrother681
    @peacebrother681 6 лет назад

    Everything going above my head.anyway nice to see & keep going.👍somporkose😊

  • @shekhataahamad8852
    @shekhataahamad8852 5 лет назад

    Why electron move in magnetic field

  • @lucientjinasjoe1578
    @lucientjinasjoe1578 3 года назад +1

    The more you look the less you see

  • @stevenbaxter7846
    @stevenbaxter7846 5 лет назад

    But, magnetic fields are formed from the aether by atomic alignment, which is permanent in a magnet, and temporary when electrons move in a line through the atoms of a conductor. Atomic alignment is key to magnetic field formation. Whichever method this alignment is achieved, the results are the same formation of the magnetic field, which is composed from the sorrounding aetheric medium which enters and exits every atom causing all to be in perpetual motion.

  • @NitishYadav-lb7zc
    @NitishYadav-lb7zc 4 года назад

    hey dude plzz increase sund of the vedio.

  • @Gyaan_anant
    @Gyaan_anant 6 лет назад +1

    Dhang se samaj ni aaya

  • @revanthjuvvala5357
    @revanthjuvvala5357 4 года назад +2

    V^2 is scalar and u wrote it as v×v which is0

    • @theoreticalcmp
      @theoreticalcmp  4 года назад +1

      Check the difference between two "v", they two are only similar in magnitude and different in direction. When two vectors with same magnitude but different direction are multiplied via cross product, the result is not zero. Hope you understand.

    • @revanthjuvvala5357
      @revanthjuvvala5357 4 года назад +1

      @@theoreticalcmp sorry for that i found the difference between those velocities those were Vi×Vj thnx for replying fast

  • @unknowngamer3922
    @unknowngamer3922 3 года назад

    U r c

  • @khaliffoster3777
    @khaliffoster3777 5 лет назад

    Why make it complex for simple question? It is only two words, MF come from moving charges, which produces electricity, so it is result of two words, charges and motion, combine of them produce MF, so MF is three, so three in total that match parallel represent 3 numbers, would a person write alot of formula that would equal many numbers that is 3 * 2 = 6, is 6 numbers as PR, despite it totals 5 when add, but make more complex w/ multiply, so using higher numbers of assumptions to get right answers contradict to least assumptions make right, you make it complex from simple question, why?

    • @theoreticalcmp
      @theoreticalcmp  5 лет назад

      I think you haven't understood the question in first place. We know that MF comes from moving charges but the question here is why.. ok dear? Probably it's time to go back to revision ..

    • @khaliffoster3777
      @khaliffoster3777 5 лет назад

      @@theoreticalcmp Yea, but you answer with the complex process with math, but not a simple explanation, the simple process.

    • @theoreticalcmp
      @theoreticalcmp  5 лет назад

      @@khaliffoster3777 I don't think it can be made much simpler. It's really a relativistic effect. Einstein said, " Science should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

    • @khaliffoster3777
      @khaliffoster3777 5 лет назад

      @@theoreticalcmp So, you are saying the video is simple as you can make it by using alot of number as math to result, so that is your answer why by using math to show as right answer. Complex math.