Theory of Relativity, Albert Einstein

[EterIronGen]

Let`s say that whit sound I would agree but light?

This narrator knows the speed of light?

The train has to move very quickly to delay the perception of the observer, like 200 times more faster than any train.

The theory is ok but is not as important in the big part of the science and unfortunately has a bad implication to social and law interpretation,

So it may be true but is not something that we have to take to direct.

[klkiktkhk]

@EterIronGen Ofc it's not to be taken direct. It's just an explation and a very accurate one at that. They could even do it easier with just the friend walking in one direction. He proberly wouldnt know, but the strike he is closest to upon impact would be the first light that reaches him. This has nothing to do with the perception speed, but how the _THEORY_ works.

[EterIronGen]

@klkiktkhk Tx for RE but my post is divided in 2 parts:

1 the impossible deduction of the speed of light in short distances by a man,referring to the narrator and the analogy that he makes.

2 the theory its self,which is not responsible for much (rather than the obvious) but given a lot of importance,and unfortunately is a bad thing in law,because now everyone can easily say that he saw something else since there isn’t something common in perception of events. Why Einstein is up and not Tesla?

[EterIronGen]

@klkiktkhk

And this video makes people look stupid, you have to be not understanding distortions, A fire can distort your view as water can or other moveable transparent, why is so hard to understand light, when anyone knows that we see only the light and because the light is not infinite in speed or is not always constant we can have distortions of perception, it’s not hard to understand, the mathematics are not hard, but relativity engulf more and because of it simple becomes complicated.

[FeedMoi]

the observer looks like a serial killer... seriously

[Mostwantedo]

I just still don't get it. Why would the passenger see the lightnings not simultaneously?

[AlexHated]

@Mostwantedo because, as the train is moving towards the front light, the passenger meets the front light before the rear, and as she is travelling away from the rear it has to 'catch up' with her so it takes longer for her to see it.

[Mostwantedo]

@AlexHated Ah yeah I got that now long time ago, but I've heard that it really ''happens'' before the rear lightning, like the passenger was ''time traveling''. But it's just an illusion, right? They still happen at the same time, she just sees them not simultaneously.

[ancientastronomer]

@Mostwantedo Because, from the passengers point of view, they were not simultaneous. That is the key to Relativity. The observation of a light is "Relative" to the viewer. If you think that this is confusing, try & imagine the flow of Light & Time if you could stand just to the outside edge of the Event Horizon of a Black-Hole. Ponder that one for a while.....

[TheAtheistworld]

is this a joke? if i kick u in your ass, u gonna say that i didnt kick you cause u cant see your own ass???

[ancientastronomer]

@TheAtheistworld That would depend upon wether you are "Kicking me in the ass" in the world of Quantum Mechanics, OR, in the world of Relativity?

Technically speaking though, it would actually be impossible for you to "kick me in my ass" because, the millions of electrons orbiting the millions of atoms that make up the matter that you visually "SEE" as your foot are actually electro-gravitationally repelled by the millions of electrons

orbiting the millions of atoms you "SEE" as my ass.

[FoSbaKiaS]

different worlds?

[Hyroar]

difficult explaination.. there are several other videos that explain the theory of einstein on an easier and better way i think..

[1stTrillionaire]

Ugh! Tesla debunked this bitch.

[nickharvey7]

Interesting video!! I am very interested in physics but I am only an amateur

[kongr889]

This video demostrates clearly issue of simultaneity, althought it fails to provide explanation of it. The viewer's comments reflect that as well. But, I think it is extremely difficult to achive the goal "explanation", definitely not within the time constraint of a video clip.

Still, I am impressed for just demostrating the issue itself using such a clear example. Hopefully, this will motivate people to go through the long process of learning relativity.

[fiesta181]

even if you traveling at the speed of light, light would move away from you at the speed of light.

This is the shift that Einstein represents for modern physics.

[GunsNRosesbitches]

@fiesta181 wrong, you can't travel at the speed of light. IF you did, time would stop

[fiesta181]

*wrong*

-

That's strange. You reached the same conclusion as I did and yet you don't seem very enlightened at all. So I'll state it once more so that you don't have any doubts: The speed of light (C) is constant for all observers in inertial frames and does not depend on the speed of the source that is emitting the light nor the observer who is measuring it. No matter thus what speed you go, C doesn't change. If you are saying that this changes the way you measure time, you are correct.

[GunsNRosesbitches]

@fiesta181 I am not talking about light, I am talking about acceleration towards those speeds. I am trying to convey WHY you can't travel AT the speed of light. There are numerous reasons for that...one of them is that time would stop, the other is that your mass becomes infinite etc. I know the speed of light, C, doesn't change even if you are travelling at 99.999999% of it.

[GunsNRosesbitches]

@fiesta181 For example, even tho C never changes...it stays at 300,00 km/s from any reference frame, a human can potentially reach 299,000 km/s. Let's assume this person wants to hit the 300,000 km/s mark...he can't. Why not? What's so special about 300,000 km/s? That's what I meant. One could be extremely close to C, but C still moves away at C. So it's like ur almost at the speed of light, but at the same time, you're not cuz light still moves away from u at C

[fiesta181]

Oh, you are talking (inside the technical impossibility of really traveling at 99.9% the speed of light) about the theoretical impossibility of 'covering' the remaining 0.1%. That's a pretty damn specific issue for one that resumes this all idea in one redundant* WRONG *(like you are wrong, dude).

[fiesta181]

2

Well, I'm not wrong nor right as I didn't even referred the issue you now talk about. I was referring to the matter of paradigm. The one that (remains nowadays for many people) that time 'passes' at a steady rate no matter where in the U. Let's just say that if time stops at the speed of light, it almost stops at almost the speed of light, but it sure changes with physical implications for it, and that is the point.

[fiesta181]

3

The idea contained in the video and that I was trying to underline is ESSENTIAL to grasp concepts such as space-time or space-time bending - Much more efficient (to me) than those (kind of crappy) analogies with heavy weights standing on top of cloths to explain gravity.

[GunsNRosesbitches]

@fiesta181 How am I wrong? I am talking about the technical impossibility of traveling at such a speed. At the speed of light, Einstein's equation shows that one's inertial mass is infinite at that speed. That's one way of looking at it. I know the speed of light is CONSTANT. I know space and time change so that light can remain constant from all inertial reference frames.

[fiesta181]

Maybe I didn't express well but I never said that you were wrong; it was you who judge me wrong in the first place. The point that you brought to the debate (the remaining 0.01%) IS NOT IRRELEVANT in any debate but sure is a lateral issue to the point I made. That's why I don't understand how you can say that I'm *wrong* (your words). If you read the comments right, you will see that we in fact agree in most about everything else.

[GunsNRosesbitches]

@fiesta181 The way you said "even if you were at light speed, light would still move at C away from you". I disagree with it. First of all, AT light speed, time halts, therefore nothing is moving in the first place. Second of all, length contraction is at a maximum, objects have zero dimensions. How can light be traveling at C away from you if time halts and length contracts to zero dimensions?

[fiesta181]

So, suppose (I say SUPPOSE - it is very important that you read my words now) that you could travel at the speed of light. What WOULD you see/experience? - This is strictly a conceptual issue like Einstein thought of it: *what would I see if I could ride a beam of light?*- he asked.

He didn't ask whether that was even possible. In fact, when asked about *how he intended to ride a beam of light* he would simply answer, *...by using a method that doesnt matter for now.*

[grozmo1]

This doesn't make sense.

The passengers conclusion *should* be that she saw the front strike first.

Also the animation is wrong, the center of the strike follows the train, instead of remaining stationary from where it hit.

Plus, they're measuring from each end of the train - which is irrelevant to the distance light traveled, since the train is moving.

[thecheezwhizard]

Light moves, and since the gap between the first strike and the viewer's eyes is closed faster, (Because the train is moving in that direction) it also means that the second strike has to "chase" the train, resulting in two different times in which the lightning strikes. I hope that answer's castro's question.

[rcastro0]

so... supposedly time goes by slower for the woman in the train. but how exactly does that explain that the two lightnings were out of sync for her? what am i missing?

[kakkannon]

@rcastro0

nah, You notice things in your direction of travel slightly faster.

The same way things sound differently when you travel towards something as you travel away.

Its pretty much a glorified doppler effect.

it would be like driving towards someone in an ice cream truck,

To you it sounds like the song is in the key of C, but to them it could be a B

WHICH NOTE IS IT?!!?

;)

[187781jason]

@kakkannon

The real question is what note is it for the Driver? Thats relativity.

[pandykc]

So it is the point of view that determine things?

[selant07]

its is the speed of observer, that determines the speed of time.

[aikidosa]

is that how Einestine really explained his assumptions!!! :) loool

[stadionikis]

Dear marsCubed, science is in order to discuss and exchange opinions and noτ to humiliates its other...

[aikidosa]

sir u didnt really need to reply to that loser

[stadionikis]

totally wrong!

[iulian12345]

can you please argumment ?

[marsCubed]

totally not wrong and also evident in all experiments we have tried to falsify it. YOU are totally wrong, come on, do some research for once in your ignorant life and find out, you might even get to sound cool to your friends and get some respect from others with an education for trying. Or will you be a worthless fool forever? is that how you define yourself in the universe in your mind?

[berkinbuoy]

wow! that was helpful! thx

[niks12]

DAMN TRUE!