so sick of theoretical bollox. He mentioned empty space... Surely, there is no such thing. Surely the soup we all live in and the planets live in is full of matter or no gravitational pull etc could exist. it has to be transferable the same as any transfer of force?
so sick of theoretical bollox. He mentioned empty space... Surely, there is no such thing. Surely the soup we all live in and the planets live in is full of matter or no gravitational pull etc could exist. it has to be transferable the same as any transfer of force?
well yes we can but for that we have to be walking REAL SLOW almost as think as a hair so it might take millions of years for you to reach up to that wall and go through it
@coolboylikethat So does the conversion the other way around. SI-units are standarized, miles are not. It makes a lot more sense to use the standard, right?
@outofpeanuts Well of course it is miles, pounds not standers kilogram, kilometer, are scientist like me and others all over the world use these SI units because they are basic units for measurements. only Americans use miles and pounds which is unique but they are sill units so i don't care too much. i personally find SI units easy too
@outofpeanuts yes. miles pounds are not standers only Americans use them. Rest all over Europe and other places SI Unites are used , scientist like me and others all over the world use SI unit which is native language for all of us Scientists, it makes more sense using SI Units
So why would a clock slow down as its speed increased if its ticking wasnt based on light bouncing. Say there are 2 spring based clocks and one is approaching light speed, what makes its time mechanism slow down?
@Esoremada The mechanism does not slow down. It realy does not. If you where to have a watchmaker examine it, he would find it perfectly timed. Of course the watch-maker would be approaching light speed too. Get it? :-)
@billysgeo But I mean if you just had a way of remotely knowing the time of both clocks, would they be different like the photon powered timing mechanisms in this video? Because that's what the video is suggesting, but I dont see how their example applies to anything other than photon powered timing mechanisms
@Esoremada It about time. Not about how you measure time. You could be counting seconds in your mind. If you are traveling near the speed of light, you are still going to be slower RELATIVE TO the person counting seconds standing still.
@Esoremada Anything of any physical presence is 'hampered' by increased speed or gravity, except light, which has no mass and the as yet unidentified Higgs particale can have no affect on it. I assume time dilation is actually a sort of drag caused by moving more rapidly through the Higgs field. This would tie in with the theory that objects approaching the speed of light also approach infinite mass.
@mahnatay But it seems like this video is trying to give an explanation of why time dilation occurs, and all Im taking from it is why this timer based on photons bouncing up and down is flawed.
@Esoremada It's important to keep in mind that the imagery used here is not meant to be precise. The clock they use, for example, is an impossible object, so any flaws you might see could just as easily be a result of that, rather than the concept it is meant to impart.
So when they say that the person in the moving ship will age more slowly than the person who is stationary, how can that slowing in age be relative as well? I mean, I understand that the person in the moving ship, from his reference frame, will see the other person as the one moving and not him. But both people can't age slower, only one can age slower, right?
Imagine a cylinder with 2 mirrors, one at each end. The ticking of the light from one mirror to the other is done, say, 10 times per second (Imagine the light going up and down). So each 10 ticks = 1 second. Now imagine if the cylinder is moving in a certain direction. It goes from spot A to B. So that moving light now has to also go to spot B. So the distance is greater, thus now it does, say, 5 ticks. But 1 sec = 10. So the 2nd example had 0.5 sec pass, and the first, 1 sec, in the same "time"
@ThePaNDaMoNeuM My interpretation is that the entire physical functioning of everything onboard the moving vessel is "slowed" so that no conscious organism onboard can even percieve the slowing effect. The clock runs slow, the eyes that see the clock are slowed, the brain that operates the eyes is slowed.
@RelativisticVeocity You must love to provide that exact answer? He says that the clock in the moving vessel slows down compared to the clock in the stationary vessel, but relativistically speaking the stationary vessel might as well be the moving vessel and therefore the clock in the moving vessel would slow down? Wouldn't it just even out and they would all come out just as old?
What about the astronaut returning home younger than his twin brother? If movement is entirely relative, Doesn't it make the twin brother at home just as old as the spacetraveling brother?
what if the space ship fire a laser beam in two oposite direction, then what happens? with the slowing time theory the laser in the front of the space ship will travel 6 light seconds in 6 seconds , and the laser behind the space ship will be at distance of 12 light seconds (distance that the light had traveled)plus 3 light seconds (distance that the space ship had traveled ) all that in 6 seconds ?!! i miss something here, it dosen't fit with the phisics of the speed of light !please some help
Does speed alter with size? For example, if something the size of an ant is moving at 100 miles per hour would it be moving equally as fast as a human that's moving at 100 miles per hour. I know the distance covered is 100 miles in one hour, but it seems like the ant is moving faster then the human.
I have one question though. Since we can compare the different of how we experience time to the speed of light relative to nothing, can we tell exactly how fast we're going through time relative to an absolute stationary object?
Question: If I travel in a spaceship close to the speed of light and i see the clocks on earth move slower and they see MY clock move slower, how can my brother on earth age more than me? Don't we bothe see the other's clock move slower?
how the hell do they know the clock would seem the same? what a crock, just because the instrument we measure with can't measure while it is in motion doesn't mean TIME actually passes any different onlt that our instrument to measure with has a design flaw, wouldn't happen with a clock with gears instead of an atomic clock
@alcolyte76 Well if you used a wrist watch controlled by the pulse of a quartz crystal, although less accurate, you would measure the same time difference relative to different locations in space-time. They have to recalibrate the clocks on GPS satellites regularly, if they neglected to do so for a full day, the GPS would be out by about 7 miles. The clocks must be in synch but they're far from earth and traveling faster than us. Time is relative, its a proven fact, but was 1st predicted!
@alcolyte76 it would appear that relative to each other these galaxies move apart at more than double the speed of light... so moron what is you reference point for this supposed speed that slows time down first off, and second where is your proof and third if it was proven then why isn't it a law? total garbage what a nimrod, your a liar, if it was proven then it wouldn't be a theory, get bent, loser, you fail, try again
@theemurf your wrong it has not been proven.. I have seen all the math and it's all smoke and mirrors... total bs.... I have a masters in electrical and know trig, calc, algebra, not to mention the special mathematics involved with electricity... the THEORY is totally bs and Einstein was an idiot... he said light is a speed limit but check this... the farthest galaxies we can see are moving away from us at faster than the speed of light IN BOTH DIRECTIONS... *deep breath* SOOOOOO cont
if any one could answer my question that would be great
with the example with the space ships what if the ships fired a laser in either directions when the time slows down to compensate for the one moving the same direction the other laser would be moving at twice the speed of light so how exactly would that work
the bar tender says: "what are you doing in here mate? you might end up meeting a real woman, shouldn't you be at home on your computer wank*ng over those CGI images of women you love like the rest of you boffins.
Thinking about it, how can you measure time in space? Time on earth is calculated by the time it takes to rotate once on itself. Though space doesn't move, On Jupiter, it takes 4332 (earth) days to make a complete circle. Because it's bigger time go slower. Time has been created by humans so that we have precise knowledge of how long time has passed, but doesn't mean that it is true everywhere in the Universe.
@beradification Please correct me if im wrong, but since we suspect neutrinos travel faster than light wouldn't the neutrino arrive first then be seen after it has already been there for a while? the opposite of the joke?
I think you're incorrectly using the term uncanny valley which is defined by disgust of human replicas, probably because they evoke fear of mortality. It's not animations that climb out of the uncanny valley (that makes no sense whatsoever) but rather humans.
This video's explanation is bogus. If the starships' lasers move at a speed regardless of the starships' speed, then they go the same distance in the same speed. The diagram completely writes out the distance the moving ship traveled before the lasers reached the arbitrary end. The laser traveled that distance too, so unless these are really dumb people on board that ship, they should measure the same.
mirror clocks- the most beautiful explanation i've seen yet. once it hits you nothing remains the same. pandora's box can be a wonderful thing to open!
@JoshBHC i divulged into relativity last week and i understand now. hopefully it wasnt in vain with the neutrino thing at CERN, because the universe fits together so nicely in relativity.
somebody help me understand this. in theory this makes sense, but we do not experience time dilation in our daily lives. what would occur if these two ships are in constant contact? is it only at the speed of light and near it we experience time dialation?
@ColdSparrowProd Gravity distorts our perception of time as well. That is covered in the General Theory of Relativity. I could explain but it would be easier if you looked it up. In a really small nutshell time moves faster the closer you are to an object with a significant amount of gravity.
What would happen if the spaceships shot their light beams backwards? That is to say, if the moving spaceship shot the beam the opposite direction its movement. Why wouldn't the light beam be 18 light seconds away while the clock aboard the ship, being in motion, would register only 6 seconds?
The last example is inaccurate, the stationary viewer would initially see the clock at a faster speed slowing down until the clock passes him, then he would see the clock moving slower and gradually slower. This effect can be analogous to when you hear a ambulance siren moving toward you then away from you.
If you wish to see GOD particle, Higgs Boson see YOU TUBE VK SONAKIA.FIT-lFuture Imaging tool or Certainty tool technology developed which is GOD Particle in Human body.Based on data in biometric or biosensor of both hands where FITtechnology has blue prints of future diasters like earthquake,nuclear radiation,tsunami,Dam burst ,Hurricane, KATRINA , 9/11 2001 WTC Tragedy, 26/11 2008 mumbai serial blast.scientist welcome to see and test FIT
2) This disparity is due to the time taken for light from planet B to arrive on planet A, which is not affected by the speed of light (which is constant), but by the relative positions of the two planets at a given point in time (which is ever-changing). I hope that makes sense because I think I've just confused myself @_@
1) This is how I understand it. Please correct me if I'm wrong. So, time, like speed, is relative. Person A on planet A observes normal time. Person B on planet B observes normal time. But if person A were to observe person B's location (and vice versa), time would appear to be faster/slower....
what if we lived in a different universe where everything was absolute? there was no speed relative to another? how would that change the world we live in?
Hi TRYCLOPS, Thats a good question. In fact Einstein came up with his Theories by asking similar questions, so keep on questioning! You would have to be "outside" the universe, observing it, to make it true. Quantum mechanics tells us its possible to have parallel universes, so you may actually be asking a much deeper question than you realize. So I guess my answer is "maybe".
I have a question to ask anyone who knows a lot about physics. Is time slowing down since the beginning of the Big Bang? Could that explain everything moving apart at a faster rate? The more space-time stretches, the slower time would move, so distances are further and takes longer to reach too. Maybe I'm just stupid but could anyone please tell me if it makes sense or not?
So if I were to build a ship that would circle earth at the speed of light for 1 year. After the 1 year I would slow down and then land on earth. after landing I would find that everyone had aged 1 year and I would still be 25? Would I still be 25 biologically, or just relative to the peoples on earth time when infact I still aged 1 year?
Time is motion that is relative to the Ohms of the V closer to the constant of the speed of light. Space Time I'm sure has Ohms that restrict the ability to move faster then the speed of light. If a particle could possibly go faster then the speed of light it would only move back in time. which could be achieved more practically using a static gravity to have the quantum motion increase to greater then the speed of light.
I had one question, which is what happens when the light acts unexpectedly like in the double slit experiment or in other words on a quantum level? How does that effect the theory of relativity? any ideas anyone...
@LeconsdAnalyse Its funny i asked this, and thanks for your response! Reason I say funny is I watched Nassim Haramein 45 part speech on his theory (onpart12) and it answered this question! I starting to believe what he is saying is more than likely correct and the scientists of today are blinded by their arrogants. I mean how can you discard infinity, or even make something up to suit their equations and call it dark matter.....
@anticorncob6 Because there was Tesla, who thought that there is a medium, which defines the speed of light in space. If there is a medium NO relativity needed!
explanation:
light is a wave, sound is a wave.
the speed of sound is defined ONLY by the properties of medium.
In air speed of sound lower, in water higher.
two helicopters one moves, the second is standing still. Both make sound signal.
The signals reach the observer at the same time. because both signals move at the speed of sound
@shtirlic76tube It doesn't work this way with a light. Take those 2 helicopters the same way as in your example, but with a wind blowing towards them. The sound waves will reach observer in the same time, but time measurement will be different with and without the wind. So it might look like speed of sound changes. Earth orbits Sun with speed around 30km/s, The solar system moves around center of Galaxy. Nevertheless no one observed any changes in speed of light. The Michelson-Morley experiment
@tjblues01 Nothing wrong. If the wind is blowing then the frequency of sound will change(Dopler's shift). And taking into account Dopler's shift and time measurement we can get a speed of sound again.
The Michelson-Morley experiment is a great example.
Lorentz showed mathematically, that interferometric method is not do for the experiment.
@shtirlic76tube With blowing wind you wont notice any Doppler's effect. An important thing there is non-zero speed: object -> observer. Sound waves are not the same as EM waves. In the case of a stationary source and observer in moving air, you will notice only a difference of time when sound wave reaches you. Pitch of the sound wont change. You have to know difference between frequency and wave length. For ex. different wave length in water and air, but frequency will be the same of given tone.
@anticorncob6 Here is the reason I reject special relativity as taught today: A long train approaches you at apparent velocity 0.866c. The near end is just passing you at x=0; at the far end is a carriage of Proper Length L. The train will be contracted to 1/2 is proper length, and so will the car because both ends will be contracted to 1/2 their former distances. The near end of the train at, x = zero is not contracted. The car by itself, without the train, will still suffer an optical shift.
@anticorncob6 well.. in the past 24 hours it has been proven that einsteins theory of relativity was not completely true, i understand that ur comment is posted 3 months ago.. but there has been found a thing that moves faster then the speed of light.
this is still not confirmed by independent experiments. We're talking about 60 nanoseconds which could have been caused by many factors (to get a measurement a signal must travel through wires etc) Either way it won't invalidate GTR, it will just extend it (with additional dimensions maybe). The GTR is incomplete, this is nothing new.
@anticorncob6 Why bother? Right now, in the reference frame of any living being from the other side of our milky way traveling at 20 percent of light speed towards our planet earth, you and I already died long time ago of old age, if not sooner.
And according to a traveler at 20 percent of the speed of light away from us from the other side of our milky way, the both of us would not have even been born yet. Blows your mind off, doesn't it?
@phicomingatya No, you don't understand how relativity works. 20% the speed of light, less time has passed for them, and relative to them, we're younger. Special relativity has been observed anyways.
@anticorncob6 Ok, you are 13 and you are telling me that I don't understand relativity...
Watch this video: youtube.com/watch?v=ghB7EUxEdD0
At the exact moment the woman in the train passes the man on the platform, there are two simultaneous flashes from the man's perspective, but in the woman's perspective, the front flash is already underway while the rear flash has not happened yet. So the space in front of her is the mans future space, but behind her is the mans past space. You understand?
If the link youtube.com/watch?v=ghB7EUxEdD0 does not work for you, copy this into google: ghB7EUxEdD0 and you'll find the relativity youtube video.
If the link youtube.com/watch?v=ghB7EUxEdD0 does not work for you, copy this into google: ghB7EUxEdD0 and you'll find the relativity youtube video.
@DRosenman87 I know. Whenever I explain time dilation to people, they think it is science fiction or simply a theory. I tell them that we have to take these equations into account when we launch satellites or else our clocks would be off on earth, they then say 'oh'.
4.14 to 5.56 . If the spaceships moves just like in the film, but instead shoots its lasers in the opposit direction (from the tail of the ships towards the left side of the screen), must'nt that mean that the ship at rest will see the time on the moving ship as going faster instead of slower, in order for the laser to move at the speed of light? If no, doesn't that mean that the laser will move faster than the speed of light for the ship in motion?
Ok I get the stationary observer's relative point of view. And also, if in motion with the moving clock why it looks normal. But how does the moving observer see the stationary clock as slowing down? I get the "rule" but not the intuition. The moving clock and observer both have an accelerated motion imposed that the stationary clock does not, (Relative to motion forces) If one is moving at 50% of c can we really pretend we are at rest relative to the stationary clock? And flip intuition?
@FloppyDickNation you will always travel through spacetime at c, no matter what you do. your direction of travel is your time axis, so you will always travel through YOUR time at c. however someone traveling relative to you (ie they are traveling in a different direction through spacetime) will have their axis pointing in a different direction, so your progression along their time axis will be less than c, but thats ok because your moving through their space, still giving you a total speed of c!
i still dont get it, the light particle will move slower the faster you go. But humans are not made up of light so how can they theoretically time travel ? How come the light bounces left to right when the paddles or mirrors dont change angles , they are perfectly horizontal ? And earth is kept in orbit by the suns mass in the fabric of the universe creating swirls, but how come the sun doesnt move ? it has no swirls from other planets to keep from moving away.
@TheBostonstapler That is because relative to the motion of the sun, the planets cycles are in tow. The sun holds all in this region of space. (We follow it so to speak) Sure the sun is following the galaxy's tow, and outward influences on and on towards larger structures. To me? 2 things will unlock the universes secrets of space. Fractal understanding of how time reiterates. Where are its thresholds? We as of yet have "no sense of that whatsoever" IE: Explain any distance?
I don't get why time is slower for the moving space ship. Since speed is total distance divided by total time, the total distance of the laser beam from the moving ship would be from where the laser is fired and where we stop counting. The total time would be from the moment the laser is fire to the time where we stop counting. Since the animation showed the laser is fire at the same time at the same time, the movement of the space ship wouldn't even matter.
I think in real case the light beam won't hit at the middle of the plate, because the light beam would travel straight down, it doesn't affected by inertia and miss the middle of the other plate as it moves.
Cells are biological particles and like all other particles are centered by a nucleus so the would react the same as light particles or any other at light speed beyond universal expansion speed
I will continue to say that cells return to normal at 2X the speed of light tricked in to thinking they are back in sync with the space time expansion of the universe. Faster than 2x and they just gain in mass
It doesnt matter about the clock what matters is your cells slow down and stop at light speed. The effect of time dilation on living things is different from clocks. All life is moving at 186,000 mps to go faster than that makes your cells slow down, like the atomic clock did. Light particles stop so do your cells
In 7:46, why does the moving clock tick slower? I understand that it travels a longer diagonal distance, but i thought that the vertical path of the light beam would be independent of the horizontal path. For example, a bullet shot from a gun will theortically hit the ground the same time that another bullet is dropped from the same height, even though the shot bullet travels a longer total distance. If this applies, wouldn't the lightbeam hit those plates at the same time?
@itsgot2beME You have to understand that the moving clock ticks slower only from the reference point of a stationary observer. When the clock is moving, the light beam is traveling a greater distance per tick than the stationary clock, yet the light beams MUST move at the same speed in all reference frames. In order for the apparent speed of light to be conserved, it must appear to the stationary observer that time is slowed for the moving observer. Think of it this way:
@itsgot2beME If the stationary observer did not perceive time to be going slower for the moving clock, the moving clock's light beam would travel a greater distance per unit time than the stationary clock's light beam, meaning that it was traveling faster, which we know cannot happen.
The bullet analogy fails because one bullet is traveling faster than the other. The dropped bullet covers less distance per time than the fired one, and that is where it breaks down. Light behaves differently.
the speed of light. I think that light is not always constant regardless. if you shoot light from a vehicle doing 100 mph then light is increased by that speed. how can we rely on this old info of Einstein's, cant we measure the speed of light with modern equipment and experiment?
i just cant understand this time distortion stuff... have spent the entire afternoon on this. feel stupid!
garizable 3 days ago
so sick of theoretical bollox. He mentioned empty space... Surely, there is no such thing. Surely the soup we all live in and the planets live in is full of matter or no gravitational pull etc could exist. it has to be transferable the same as any transfer of force?
MrH2hungry 4 days ago
so sick of theoretical bollox. He mentioned empty space... Surely, there is no such thing. Surely the soup we all live in and the planets live in is full of matter or no gravitational pull etc could exist. it has to be transferable the same as any transfer of force?
MrH2hungry 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
5:24 whats that weird sound?
ShakespeareOner 1 month ago
Comment removed
ShakespeareOner 1 month ago
did you know we can walk through walls?
well yes we can but for that we have to be walking REAL SLOW almost as think as a hair so it might take millions of years for you to reach up to that wall and go through it
coolboylikethat 1 month ago
are you fucking serious?
MagicMutilator6000 1 month ago
Any scientific discussion that uses Klingon birds-of-prey as examples... automatic win.
jq747 1 month ago
I whish he would use the International System of Units instead of miles.
eddybrox 1 month ago 3
@eddybrox you could always convert it
coolboylikethat 1 month ago
@coolboylikethat Indeed, but it would make it more easy when listening.
eddybrox 1 month ago
@eddybrox right! but it only takes 2 seconds
coolboylikethat 1 month ago
@coolboylikethat So does the conversion the other way around. SI-units are standarized, miles are not. It makes a lot more sense to use the standard, right?
outofpeanuts 3 weeks ago
@outofpeanuts Well of course it is miles, pounds not standers kilogram, kilometer, are scientist like me and others all over the world use these SI units because they are basic units for measurements. only Americans use miles and pounds which is unique but they are sill units so i don't care too much. i personally find SI units easy too
coolboylikethat 3 weeks ago
@outofpeanuts yes. miles pounds are not standers only Americans use them. Rest all over Europe and other places SI Unites are used , scientist like me and others all over the world use SI unit which is native language for all of us Scientists, it makes more sense using SI Units
coolboylikethat 3 weeks ago
MY BRAIN HUUUURTSSS
manwithouthat44 1 month ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 1 month ago
I like this guy's voice. Very good for this type of material.
celestian1111 2 months ago in playlist More videos from ScienceTV
@celestian1111 I can't listen to it
Ergophile 2 months ago
I appreciate living in this time.
We have the ability to accesses information in seconds with just a click.
I wonder what the next ten years will bring?
Right @ 4:57 Thank you.
seanSHRED87 2 months ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 2 months ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 2 months ago
So why would a clock slow down as its speed increased if its ticking wasnt based on light bouncing. Say there are 2 spring based clocks and one is approaching light speed, what makes its time mechanism slow down?
Esoremada 2 months ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 2 months ago
@Esoremada The mechanism does not slow down. It realy does not. If you where to have a watchmaker examine it, he would find it perfectly timed. Of course the watch-maker would be approaching light speed too. Get it? :-)
billysgeo 1 month ago in playlist More videos from ScienceTV
@billysgeo But I mean if you just had a way of remotely knowing the time of both clocks, would they be different like the photon powered timing mechanisms in this video? Because that's what the video is suggesting, but I dont see how their example applies to anything other than photon powered timing mechanisms
Esoremada 1 month ago
@Esoremada It about time. Not about how you measure time. You could be counting seconds in your mind. If you are traveling near the speed of light, you are still going to be slower RELATIVE TO the person counting seconds standing still.
billysgeo 1 month ago
@Esoremada Anything of any physical presence is 'hampered' by increased speed or gravity, except light, which has no mass and the as yet unidentified Higgs particale can have no affect on it. I assume time dilation is actually a sort of drag caused by moving more rapidly through the Higgs field. This would tie in with the theory that objects approaching the speed of light also approach infinite mass.
mahnatay 1 month ago
@mahnatay But it seems like this video is trying to give an explanation of why time dilation occurs, and all Im taking from it is why this timer based on photons bouncing up and down is flawed.
Esoremada 1 month ago
@Esoremada It's important to keep in mind that the imagery used here is not meant to be precise. The clock they use, for example, is an impossible object, so any flaws you might see could just as easily be a result of that, rather than the concept it is meant to impart.
mahnatay 1 month ago
So when they say that the person in the moving ship will age more slowly than the person who is stationary, how can that slowing in age be relative as well? I mean, I understand that the person in the moving ship, from his reference frame, will see the other person as the one moving and not him. But both people can't age slower, only one can age slower, right?
ThePaNDaMoNeuM 2 months ago
Imagine a cylinder with 2 mirrors, one at each end. The ticking of the light from one mirror to the other is done, say, 10 times per second (Imagine the light going up and down). So each 10 ticks = 1 second. Now imagine if the cylinder is moving in a certain direction. It goes from spot A to B. So that moving light now has to also go to spot B. So the distance is greater, thus now it does, say, 5 ticks. But 1 sec = 10. So the 2nd example had 0.5 sec pass, and the first, 1 sec, in the same "time"
DTNRom88 2 months ago
@ThePaNDaMoNeuM My interpretation is that the entire physical functioning of everything onboard the moving vessel is "slowed" so that no conscious organism onboard can even percieve the slowing effect. The clock runs slow, the eyes that see the clock are slowed, the brain that operates the eyes is slowed.
mahnatay 1 month ago
Use kilometers when explaining science, american twats.
aegisgfx 2 months ago
@aegisgfx umad?
xxxDave24xxx 2 months ago
@RelativisticVeocity nice
SuperAthiest1 2 months ago
@RelativisticVeocity You must love to provide that exact answer? He says that the clock in the moving vessel slows down compared to the clock in the stationary vessel, but relativistically speaking the stationary vessel might as well be the moving vessel and therefore the clock in the moving vessel would slow down? Wouldn't it just even out and they would all come out just as old?
ohedd 2 months ago
Can you talk with more echo please!!! GEEZ! whats wih the fucking echo?
Whatwon1 2 months ago
What about the astronaut returning home younger than his twin brother? If movement is entirely relative, Doesn't it make the twin brother at home just as old as the spacetraveling brother?
ohedd 2 months ago
what if the space ship fire a laser beam in two oposite direction, then what happens? with the slowing time theory the laser in the front of the space ship will travel 6 light seconds in 6 seconds , and the laser behind the space ship will be at distance of 12 light seconds (distance that the light had traveled)plus 3 light seconds (distance that the space ship had traveled ) all that in 6 seconds ?!! i miss something here, it dosen't fit with the phisics of the speed of light !please some help
nsh2000 3 months ago
Does speed alter with size? For example, if something the size of an ant is moving at 100 miles per hour would it be moving equally as fast as a human that's moving at 100 miles per hour. I know the distance covered is 100 miles in one hour, but it seems like the ant is moving faster then the human.
Ramel34 3 months ago
@Ramel34 Speed does not differ with size.
lophilip 3 months ago
I have one question though. Since we can compare the different of how we experience time to the speed of light relative to nothing, can we tell exactly how fast we're going through time relative to an absolute stationary object?
FlargidyTV 3 months ago
This is awesome. It explained very well how an atomic clock works. At least I assume they're talking about an atomic clock?
FlargidyTV 3 months ago
This is porn for nerds.
TheEyesOfNye 3 months ago
Question: If I travel in a spaceship close to the speed of light and i see the clocks on earth move slower and they see MY clock move slower, how can my brother on earth age more than me? Don't we bothe see the other's clock move slower?
bndkllr2 3 months ago
how the hell do they know the clock would seem the same? what a crock, just because the instrument we measure with can't measure while it is in motion doesn't mean TIME actually passes any different onlt that our instrument to measure with has a design flaw, wouldn't happen with a clock with gears instead of an atomic clock
alcolyte76 3 months ago 2
@alcolyte76 Well if you used a wrist watch controlled by the pulse of a quartz crystal, although less accurate, you would measure the same time difference relative to different locations in space-time. They have to recalibrate the clocks on GPS satellites regularly, if they neglected to do so for a full day, the GPS would be out by about 7 miles. The clocks must be in synch but they're far from earth and traveling faster than us. Time is relative, its a proven fact, but was 1st predicted!
theemurf 3 months ago
Comment removed
alcolyte76 3 months ago
@alcolyte76 it would appear that relative to each other these galaxies move apart at more than double the speed of light... so moron what is you reference point for this supposed speed that slows time down first off, and second where is your proof and third if it was proven then why isn't it a law? total garbage what a nimrod, your a liar, if it was proven then it wouldn't be a theory, get bent, loser, you fail, try again
alcolyte76 3 months ago
@theemurf your wrong it has not been proven.. I have seen all the math and it's all smoke and mirrors... total bs.... I have a masters in electrical and know trig, calc, algebra, not to mention the special mathematics involved with electricity... the THEORY is totally bs and Einstein was an idiot... he said light is a speed limit but check this... the farthest galaxies we can see are moving away from us at faster than the speed of light IN BOTH DIRECTIONS... *deep breath* SOOOOOO cont
alcolyte76 3 months ago
this is sooo interesting!
dsotmdsotm 3 months ago
Comment removed
Bearz314 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A neutrino walks into a bar.
The bartender says: we don't serve neutrinos here.
The neutrino replies: I was just passing through.
JewleBrews 3 months ago
The "sexy" animations were a bit irritating. If I wanted to look at animations of scantily-clad women I wouldn't be watching science videos.
RichardForkins 3 months ago
@RichardForkins -- was thinking the same thing... except i was thinking "slutty" animations more than sexy...
razingvibration 3 months ago
hey bro can u upload a simpler version for dummies?
ignatei 3 months ago
if any one could answer my question that would be great
with the example with the space ships what if the ships fired a laser in either directions when the time slows down to compensate for the one moving the same direction the other laser would be moving at twice the speed of light so how exactly would that work
500deegrez 3 months ago
a physicist walks into a bar
the bar tender says: "what are you doing in here mate? you might end up meeting a real woman, shouldn't you be at home on your computer wank*ng over those CGI images of women you love like the rest of you boffins.
derwall2005 3 months ago
Thinking about it, how can you measure time in space? Time on earth is calculated by the time it takes to rotate once on itself. Though space doesn't move, On Jupiter, it takes 4332 (earth) days to make a complete circle. Because it's bigger time go slower. Time has been created by humans so that we have precise knowledge of how long time has passed, but doesn't mean that it is true everywhere in the Universe.
darkitachi50 3 months ago
The bartender says: we don't serve neutrinos here.
A neutrino walks into a bar.
beradification 4 months ago 76
@beradification ahahahah
NickDanielCorcoran 4 months ago
@beradification
That is fucking genius hahaha
DTNRom88 2 months ago
@beradification Please correct me if im wrong, but since we suspect neutrinos travel faster than light wouldn't the neutrino arrive first then be seen after it has already been there for a while? the opposite of the joke?
Nastybeanlady 1 month ago
@Nastybeanlady There's a theory that if you travel faster then the speed of light, you will go backwards in time.
brbracing 2 weeks ago
@beradification physics jokes are funny
godzillaleas 1 day ago
hey excellent videos, is there anywhere i can get the background audio? that mysterious sounds awesome.
TheJunkalos 4 months ago
Your computer animations need to climb out of the uncanny valley.
NarlepoaxIII 4 months ago 21
@NarlepoaxIII
I think you're incorrectly using the term uncanny valley which is defined by disgust of human replicas, probably because they evoke fear of mortality. It's not animations that climb out of the uncanny valley (that makes no sense whatsoever) but rather humans.
jumb0mumb0 1 month ago
@NarlepoaxIII
"Animators" try to climb out of the Uncanny Valley, not "animations". Fail.
jumb0mumb0 1 month ago
The equations of relativity are used in GPS. Without them, you couldn't get more accurate than a few miles.
So if you don't believe in relativity, take out your smart phone and marvel at the magical way it can find where you are.
miketwo345 4 months ago
This video's explanation is bogus. If the starships' lasers move at a speed regardless of the starships' speed, then they go the same distance in the same speed. The diagram completely writes out the distance the moving ship traveled before the lasers reached the arbitrary end. The laser traveled that distance too, so unless these are really dumb people on board that ship, they should measure the same.
HatoburekaSutajio 4 months ago
mirror clocks- the most beautiful explanation i've seen yet. once it hits you nothing remains the same. pandora's box can be a wonderful thing to open!
saganemc2 4 months ago
@JoshBHC i divulged into relativity last week and i understand now. hopefully it wasnt in vain with the neutrino thing at CERN, because the universe fits together so nicely in relativity.
ColdSparrowProd 4 months ago
somebody help me understand this. in theory this makes sense, but we do not experience time dilation in our daily lives. what would occur if these two ships are in constant contact? is it only at the speed of light and near it we experience time dialation?
ColdSparrowProd 5 months ago
@ColdSparrowProd Gravity distorts our perception of time as well. That is covered in the General Theory of Relativity. I could explain but it would be easier if you looked it up. In a really small nutshell time moves faster the closer you are to an object with a significant amount of gravity.
JoshBHC 5 months ago
What would happen if the spaceships shot their light beams backwards? That is to say, if the moving spaceship shot the beam the opposite direction its movement. Why wouldn't the light beam be 18 light seconds away while the clock aboard the ship, being in motion, would register only 6 seconds?
eric0598 5 months ago
Them be some sexy aliens :3
MrMintox 5 months ago
The last example is inaccurate, the stationary viewer would initially see the clock at a faster speed slowing down until the clock passes him, then he would see the clock moving slower and gradually slower. This effect can be analogous to when you hear a ambulance siren moving toward you then away from you.
tacticalstation 5 months ago
If you wish to see GOD particle, Higgs Boson see YOU TUBE VK SONAKIA.FIT-lFuture Imaging tool or Certainty tool technology developed which is GOD Particle in Human body.Based on data in biometric or biosensor of both hands where FITtechnology has blue prints of future diasters like earthquake,nuclear radiation,tsunami,Dam burst ,Hurricane, KATRINA , 9/11 2001 WTC Tragedy, 26/11 2008 mumbai serial blast.scientist welcome to see and test FIT
vksonakia@yahoo.co.in
unified field scientist
India
vksonakia 5 months ago
2) This disparity is due to the time taken for light from planet B to arrive on planet A, which is not affected by the speed of light (which is constant), but by the relative positions of the two planets at a given point in time (which is ever-changing). I hope that makes sense because I think I've just confused myself @_@
smoothbanana 6 months ago
1) This is how I understand it. Please correct me if I'm wrong. So, time, like speed, is relative. Person A on planet A observes normal time. Person B on planet B observes normal time. But if person A were to observe person B's location (and vice versa), time would appear to be faster/slower....
smoothbanana 6 months ago
what if we lived in a different universe where everything was absolute? there was no speed relative to another? how would that change the world we live in?
Scythemeup 6 months ago
Hi TRYCLOPS, Thats a good question. In fact Einstein came up with his Theories by asking similar questions, so keep on questioning! You would have to be "outside" the universe, observing it, to make it true. Quantum mechanics tells us its possible to have parallel universes, so you may actually be asking a much deeper question than you realize. So I guess my answer is "maybe".
cliffhanger625 6 months ago
I have a question to ask anyone who knows a lot about physics. Is time slowing down since the beginning of the Big Bang? Could that explain everything moving apart at a faster rate? The more space-time stretches, the slower time would move, so distances are further and takes longer to reach too. Maybe I'm just stupid but could anyone please tell me if it makes sense or not?
TRYCLOPS1 6 months ago
So if I were to build a ship that would circle earth at the speed of light for 1 year. After the 1 year I would slow down and then land on earth. after landing I would find that everyone had aged 1 year and I would still be 25? Would I still be 25 biologically, or just relative to the peoples on earth time when infact I still aged 1 year?
xXDEICIDE216Xx 6 months ago
I can learn anything if hot chicks on a Klingon bird of prey are involved.
Andrewh313 6 months ago
you guys don't know what a sopwith camel is? haven't any of you ever watched It's The Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown?!?
stephk42 6 months ago
For the first time I really understood it.
SteveArpo 7 months ago
space babes
MrLetsdothisthang 7 months ago
Time is motion that is relative to the Ohms of the V closer to the constant of the speed of light. Space Time I'm sure has Ohms that restrict the ability to move faster then the speed of light. If a particle could possibly go faster then the speed of light it would only move back in time. which could be achieved more practically using a static gravity to have the quantum motion increase to greater then the speed of light.
76BlueLions 7 months ago
I had one question, which is what happens when the light acts unexpectedly like in the double slit experiment or in other words on a quantum level? How does that effect the theory of relativity? any ideas anyone...
olimon2 7 months ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 7 months ago
@LeconsdAnalyse Its funny i asked this, and thanks for your response! Reason I say funny is I watched Nassim Haramein 45 part speech on his theory (onpart12) and it answered this question! I starting to believe what he is saying is more than likely correct and the scientists of today are blinded by their arrogants. I mean how can you discard infinity, or even make something up to suit their equations and call it dark matter.....
olimon2 7 months ago
I stopped listening at "miles per second".
LeTinctoire 7 months ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 7 months ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 8 months ago
ok. if you keep using hot half naked women for your examples I'm not going to learn anything, nor will any other teenage schoolboy
FunkafizeProductions 8 months ago
best description of special relativity and general relativity
lenze92 8 months ago
Why are there still people who refuse to accept relativity as a fact?
anticorncob6 8 months ago 16
@anticorncob6 Because there was Tesla, who thought that there is a medium, which defines the speed of light in space. If there is a medium NO relativity needed!
explanation:
light is a wave, sound is a wave.
the speed of sound is defined ONLY by the properties of medium.
In air speed of sound lower, in water higher.
two helicopters one moves, the second is standing still. Both make sound signal.
The signals reach the observer at the same time. because both signals move at the speed of sound
shtirlic76tube 7 months ago
@shtirlic76tube It doesn't work this way with a light. Take those 2 helicopters the same way as in your example, but with a wind blowing towards them. The sound waves will reach observer in the same time, but time measurement will be different with and without the wind. So it might look like speed of sound changes. Earth orbits Sun with speed around 30km/s, The solar system moves around center of Galaxy. Nevertheless no one observed any changes in speed of light. The Michelson-Morley experiment
tjblues01 6 months ago
@tjblues01 Nothing wrong. If the wind is blowing then the frequency of sound will change(Dopler's shift). And taking into account Dopler's shift and time measurement we can get a speed of sound again.
The Michelson-Morley experiment is a great example.
Lorentz showed mathematically, that interferometric method is not do for the experiment.
shtirlic76tube 6 months ago
@shtirlic76tube With blowing wind you wont notice any Doppler's effect. An important thing there is non-zero speed: object -> observer. Sound waves are not the same as EM waves. In the case of a stationary source and observer in moving air, you will notice only a difference of time when sound wave reaches you. Pitch of the sound wont change. You have to know difference between frequency and wave length. For ex. different wave length in water and air, but frequency will be the same of given tone.
tjblues01 6 months ago
@tjblues01 yeah you're right. the frequency grows and the wave length grows in the same time.
Sorry it's my fault, but anyway we have simultaneity
For EM is the same rule. Fizeau experiment
shtirlic76tube 6 months ago
@anticorncob6 Here is the reason I reject special relativity as taught today: A long train approaches you at apparent velocity 0.866c. The near end is just passing you at x=0; at the far end is a carriage of Proper Length L. The train will be contracted to 1/2 is proper length, and so will the car because both ends will be contracted to 1/2 their former distances. The near end of the train at, x = zero is not contracted. The car by itself, without the train, will still suffer an optical shift.
SuperMagnetizer 6 months ago
@SuperMagnetizer Special relativity has been observed through the fastest vehicles and most accurate clocks as of today.
anticorncob6 5 months ago
Comment removed
anticorncob6 5 months ago
@anticorncob6 I think its because people cant wrap their heads around such a concept
SilentEcho16 6 months ago
@SilentEcho16 The problem is that the example given is poor and a bad illustration, that steps over the same laws of relativity.
shasha1873 6 months ago
@anticorncob6 Our brain has a limitation to understand that we dont see :)
pavansughosh 5 months ago
@anticorncob6 To quote some fictional person: "Because they're stupid. That's why everybody does everything."
whiterottenrabbit 5 months ago
@anticorncob6 well.. in the past 24 hours it has been proven that einsteins theory of relativity was not completely true, i understand that ur comment is posted 3 months ago.. but there has been found a thing that moves faster then the speed of light.
XredstarrX 5 months ago
@XredstarrX
this is still not confirmed by independent experiments. We're talking about 60 nanoseconds which could have been caused by many factors (to get a measurement a signal must travel through wires etc) Either way it won't invalidate GTR, it will just extend it (with additional dimensions maybe). The GTR is incomplete, this is nothing new.
Korn1holio 5 months ago
@anticorncob6 Because there are particles that can travel faster than the speed of light ha ha ha
boxingisbest 5 months ago
@anticorncob6 Because relativity is absurd
phicomingatya 4 months ago
@phicomingatya Can you demonstrate this please?
anticorncob6 4 months ago
@anticorncob6 Why bother? Right now, in the reference frame of any living being from the other side of our milky way traveling at 20 percent of light speed towards our planet earth, you and I already died long time ago of old age, if not sooner.
And according to a traveler at 20 percent of the speed of light away from us from the other side of our milky way, the both of us would not have even been born yet. Blows your mind off, doesn't it?
phicomingatya 4 months ago
@phicomingatya No, you don't understand how relativity works. 20% the speed of light, less time has passed for them, and relative to them, we're younger. Special relativity has been observed anyways.
anticorncob6 4 months ago
@anticorncob6 Ok, you are 13 and you are telling me that I don't understand relativity...
Watch this video: youtube.com/watch?v=ghB7EUxEdD0
At the exact moment the woman in the train passes the man on the platform, there are two simultaneous flashes from the man's perspective, but in the woman's perspective, the front flash is already underway while the rear flash has not happened yet. So the space in front of her is the mans future space, but behind her is the mans past space. You understand?
phicomingatya 4 months ago
Comment removed
phicomingatya 4 months ago
If the link youtube.com/watch?v=ghB7EUxEdD0 does not work for you, copy this into google: ghB7EUxEdD0 and you'll find the relativity youtube video.
phicomingatya 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If the link youtube.com/watch?v=ghB7EUxEdD0 does not work for you, copy this into google: ghB7EUxEdD0 and you'll find the relativity youtube video.
phicomingatya 4 months ago
@anticorncob6 LOL
svettypoo 4 months ago
@anticorncob6 you do know they disproved his theory a couple weeks ago due to the discover of a mystery particle....right?
NateHail 4 months ago
@NateHail NO they didn't. SPECIAL relativity is fact and observed, GENERAL relativity is theory.
anticorncob6 4 months ago
@anticorncob6 but specifically Einstein's was disproven.
NateHail 4 months ago
@NateHail I don't get what you're saying.
anticorncob6 4 months ago
@anticorncob6 bleep boop bloop beep bloop.
NateHail 4 months ago
@anticorncob6 Because they believe in God? o.0
andorei14 4 months ago
@anticorncob6
Because it is a fact.
NarlepoaxIII 4 months ago
@anticorncob6 Some people don't accept it yet I dont see any of them throwing out their gps devices.
DRosenman87 4 months ago
@DRosenman87 I know. Whenever I explain time dilation to people, they think it is science fiction or simply a theory. I tell them that we have to take these equations into account when we launch satellites or else our clocks would be off on earth, they then say 'oh'.
AroundSun 4 months ago
4.14 to 5.56 . If the spaceships moves just like in the film, but instead shoots its lasers in the opposit direction (from the tail of the ships towards the left side of the screen), must'nt that mean that the ship at rest will see the time on the moving ship as going faster instead of slower, in order for the laser to move at the speed of light? If no, doesn't that mean that the laser will move faster than the speed of light for the ship in motion?
soulsuckeddry 9 months ago
This video is a conspiracy. The government was behind its length all along.
Everyman1337 9 months ago
Ok I get the stationary observer's relative point of view. And also, if in motion with the moving clock why it looks normal. But how does the moving observer see the stationary clock as slowing down? I get the "rule" but not the intuition. The moving clock and observer both have an accelerated motion imposed that the stationary clock does not, (Relative to motion forces) If one is moving at 50% of c can we really pretend we are at rest relative to the stationary clock? And flip intuition?
EddieGoregor 9 months ago
so if i walk around time is actually going slower than if i just sit there? obviously not by much but is that correct?
FloppyDickNation 9 months ago
@FloppyDickNation you will always travel through spacetime at c, no matter what you do. your direction of travel is your time axis, so you will always travel through YOUR time at c. however someone traveling relative to you (ie they are traveling in a different direction through spacetime) will have their axis pointing in a different direction, so your progression along their time axis will be less than c, but thats ok because your moving through their space, still giving you a total speed of c!
abrelosojo 9 months ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 8 months ago
According to this theory, how fast is the classroom moving?
wierdflex199222 9 months ago
i still dont get it, the light particle will move slower the faster you go. But humans are not made up of light so how can they theoretically time travel ? How come the light bounces left to right when the paddles or mirrors dont change angles , they are perfectly horizontal ? And earth is kept in orbit by the suns mass in the fabric of the universe creating swirls, but how come the sun doesnt move ? it has no swirls from other planets to keep from moving away.
TheBostonstapler 10 months ago
@TheBostonstapler That is because relative to the motion of the sun, the planets cycles are in tow. The sun holds all in this region of space. (We follow it so to speak) Sure the sun is following the galaxy's tow, and outward influences on and on towards larger structures. To me? 2 things will unlock the universes secrets of space. Fractal understanding of how time reiterates. Where are its thresholds? We as of yet have "no sense of that whatsoever" IE: Explain any distance?
EddieGoregor 9 months ago
so the more you move the longer you live ?
TheBostonstapler 10 months ago
@TheBostonstapler reletive to those who don't move as much yes
forfreedom61 10 months ago
FIND SOP WITH CAMELS???
dinomario10 10 months ago 45
@dinomario10 sopwith camel, biplane british single seater used in world war one
ntobar 7 months ago
@dinomario10 flying sopwith camels, sopwith camel = world war 1 plane. i read it on another of these vids, hope it helps.
Subject134127 6 months ago
@dinomario10 The Sopwith Camel was a British World War I single-seat biplane fighter
DiscoDanify 6 months ago
@dinomario10 flying sopwith camels (a type of plane)
SingHouse 4 months ago
@dinomario10 What's he really saying???????
ByRecentDesign 4 months ago
@ByRecentDesign Flying Sopwith camels (a type of planes)
dinomario10 4 months ago
So if the total distance and the total time is the same for both space ships, why does the clock have to be slower?
ahxc 10 months ago
I don't get why time is slower for the moving space ship. Since speed is total distance divided by total time, the total distance of the laser beam from the moving ship would be from where the laser is fired and where we stop counting. The total time would be from the moment the laser is fire to the time where we stop counting. Since the animation showed the laser is fire at the same time at the same time, the movement of the space ship wouldn't even matter.
ahxc 10 months ago
@ahxc to US the space ship wouldn't matter, but to the crew of the spaceship, the laser beam would only travel six light seconds relative to them.
forfreedom61 10 months ago
I think in real case the light beam won't hit at the middle of the plate, because the light beam would travel straight down, it doesn't affected by inertia and miss the middle of the other plate as it moves.
FeelFree3 11 months ago
ok this makes sense, but what about a clock not driven by light, but for example by a current flow?
Fomelogo 11 months ago
Loving the space chicks.
GandalfsPipe 11 months ago
go 2 rscheats101.webs.com
MrWayil 11 months ago
Cells are biological particles and like all other particles are centered by a nucleus so the would react the same as light particles or any other at light speed beyond universal expansion speed
MrDanBunes 1 year ago
I will continue to say that cells return to normal at 2X the speed of light tricked in to thinking they are back in sync with the space time expansion of the universe. Faster than 2x and they just gain in mass
MrDanBunes 1 year ago
It doesnt matter about the clock what matters is your cells slow down and stop at light speed. The effect of time dilation on living things is different from clocks. All life is moving at 186,000 mps to go faster than that makes your cells slow down, like the atomic clock did. Light particles stop so do your cells
MrDanBunes 1 year ago
In 7:46, why does the moving clock tick slower? I understand that it travels a longer diagonal distance, but i thought that the vertical path of the light beam would be independent of the horizontal path. For example, a bullet shot from a gun will theortically hit the ground the same time that another bullet is dropped from the same height, even though the shot bullet travels a longer total distance. If this applies, wouldn't the lightbeam hit those plates at the same time?
itsgot2beME 1 year ago
@itsgot2beME You have to understand that the moving clock ticks slower only from the reference point of a stationary observer. When the clock is moving, the light beam is traveling a greater distance per tick than the stationary clock, yet the light beams MUST move at the same speed in all reference frames. In order for the apparent speed of light to be conserved, it must appear to the stationary observer that time is slowed for the moving observer. Think of it this way:
TheBleuBlurr 11 months ago
@itsgot2beME If the stationary observer did not perceive time to be going slower for the moving clock, the moving clock's light beam would travel a greater distance per unit time than the stationary clock's light beam, meaning that it was traveling faster, which we know cannot happen.
The bullet analogy fails because one bullet is traveling faster than the other. The dropped bullet covers less distance per time than the fired one, and that is where it breaks down. Light behaves differently.
TheBleuBlurr 11 months ago
In don't get something. Clock in moving ship only will look moving slower, but time in both ships has to be same.
sauroman1 1 year ago
@sauroman1 The only thing that has the be the same is the speed of light. To the stationary observer, the clock in the moving ship IS moving slower.
TheBleuBlurr 11 months ago
the speed of light. I think that light is not always constant regardless. if you shoot light from a vehicle doing 100 mph then light is increased by that speed. how can we rely on this old info of Einstein's, cant we measure the speed of light with modern equipment and experiment?
ExplodingGing 1 year ago
@ExplodingGing That's not true. Speed of light is constant in vacuum. Take your example. The light would not go c + 100mph, it would still go c.
Airclot 1 year ago
@Airclot then if you were to travel at c then shoot a beam of light it would never leave the vessel, thats what your saying?
ExplodingGing