see my videos at 269cristo for a refutation of special relativity. it's clear that neither einstein nor the relativists have thought out the nature and consequences of their assumptions. please challenge me. thank you
Is there any particular reason that we believe nothing can travel faster than light, or is it just an assumption we made and never saw evidence to the contrary?
In the 1970's 'scientists' around the world decided to give light a specific value.
This was to make their jobs easier because the fact is that light does not have a constant speed and the speed of light has been slowly increasing since the speed of light began to be measured.
Science needs to stop teaching the value of light speed in a vacuum - because we do not live in a vacuum. Reality is reality
I'm confused. aren't those two postulates at least somewhat contradictory? My reasoning...
1. All uniform motion is relative
Light travels in uniform motion (i.e "the speed of light"), and since all uniform motion is relative, the speed of light is also relative...? when the second postulate says that cannot be so..
Am i missing something or was there something that was left out...?
you gave no evidence justification or rationalization for your 2nd postulate. experiments show this to be true is a pretty lame explanation. What experiments.
Have a look at YouTube for a presentation involving several critiques on a number of paradigms such as e.g. the relativity of simultaneity thought experiment, the Lorentz-contraction and the light clock. Look e.g. for ebrauns789 or use several keywords in a row, e.g. - Relativity of Simultaneity train thought experiment -
Free inexhaustible energy is real!But the coverup is very strong,Get the blueprints for a free energy motor at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Start the revolution!
The first postulate has been known to be incorrect for awhile now, the so called twin paradox shows it. There is a background reference frame that all matter move relative to. It is space itself. You can tell what reference frame is actually moving.
Free energy has been here all along ,But Millions are spend in supressing that information,Find this technology at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Let the revolution begin!
Hey, I was listening to the presentation by Bruce Lipton yesterday about fractal evolution. He was saying that it's not a matter of choosing between light being a particle or a wave--rather, it's both, and the important part is where these two beings *interact*. Going by the Holographic Universe concept, on the large scale we can compare this to the earth (particle) recieving radiation from the sun (waves). The action is that the interface. Interesting concept!
One thing gets left out of most all speed of light descriptions is that time is altered for a body in motion. The speed of the car is counteracted by a decrease in the 'speed' of time.
Just recently they have done experiments that DO alter the speed of light so these old explanations will need to revised. Its still a mystery how they've been able to pulse a laser at a target and the light pulse hits the target faster than the 'normal' speed of light.
@Peopleunit I am by no means a scientist, but I believe that the reason that they are able to slow down the speed of light or speed up the speed of light is because of the unique properties of light. The fact that light is at all times energy AND matter and therefore has the properties and is affected by the things that interact with these (i.e gravity. visible light unable to escape black holes). From my understanding, this would indicate that light speed is different in between planets
@boxesrotses and their stars, in the space between stars there would be another speed, and between galaxys yet another speed, all locations where there is a change in the gravitational field (once again there would be a change of speed once you move outside the bounds of all the galaxys gravitational field).
It took me a long time to grasp the seemingly impossible conundrum that something (light) could always have the same relative speed, regardless of the observer's speed. But once I realized that it is time that is changing, it made sense. So, yes, it's always 670 million MPH, but that hour is not the same for everyone.
I'll take a stab at Red Shift. The doppler effect explains that as a train moves toward your position, the waves are compressed by the relative object moving close toward you. The opposite is true as the Train moves away from you. Wavelengths are manipulated. If you look at the spectrum of light, the more compressed the wavelength the more "blue" it will be. The opposite Red Shift would occur if something was moving away,
He misses something: If the determination of speed is relative, then having an object moving straight towards light would increase the speed of light relatively to the moving object. Else, the light would decrease it's speed relatively to the enviroment which is "standing still". That - or light is not made out of either particles or waves.
THE SPEED OF LIGHT IN A VACUUM IS 669,600,000 MPH OR 186,000 MPS!!!!!! (roudning up would make u time travel or be stuck in one time u must be more excact!)
Point taken. Now to be playful, I should note, however, that you are assuming the use of more than two significant figures. Also, 6.7 x 10^7 MPH is actually more accurate than 6.696 x 10^7 MPH since c is closer to 1.86282397 x 10^5 miles per sec than it is to 1.86 x 10^5. I'm okay trading some precision for accuracy. ;)
@dcolarusso great presentation, but where does red shift come into it in terms of light? we see a red shift and blue shift effect when he's trowing candy at the parade and we have records indicating that stars like Sirus A have shifted from red to orange since the days of early greek civilization, so I'm a little confused, which as a teacher of relativity is something you must used to.
@theinfinitezero1 you are correct to note that an object moving towards or away from us will exhibit a blue or red shift. If you want a waved-based explanation, the Doppler Shift provides a pretty good explanation. From a particle-based standpoint, it can be thought of on terms of conservation of energy. If you Google "nova moving targets" you'll find an old explanation put together explaining the Doppler Shift of stars. I hope it's helpful.
@theinfinitezero1 The wavelength of light changes as something moves towards or away from us - but not the speed of the light. The color shift is a result of this change in wavelength, or frequency - just as the sound a car horn is different if the car moves towards you or away from you. The intervals between waves get shorter as something moves towards you, longer as it moves away - but the speed remains constant.(Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but that's how I understand it.)
@greg41stone You are indeed correct, that is the theory of dopler shift, I suppose my question at the time was more related to the star sirius and their relationship towards each other. If a star changes red to blue then does that mean that it was once moving away from us but is now moving toward us or vice versa and if that is the case does that indicate that our sun is part of a multiple star system locked in an eliptical orbit around a barycentre shared by other stars like sirius?
@theinfinitezero1 I didn't know Sirius had changed colors and I have never heard that color of a star - really a tint - as detected by the naked eye (ancient Greeks, of course, did not have spectroscopes) had anything to do with its motion in relation to us. Star color, as far as I know, is related primarily to temperature. My guess is that the proper motion of a star relative to us is not fast enough to produce any noticeable change in color.
@greg41stone although the observations were by the naked eye the star was described by greek and egyptian astronomers as red, whereas today it appears as blue to us. That might sound primitive but the same people worked out the circumfrence of the earth to within a few hundred miles of today's calculations by measuring the movement of shadows to approximate the curviture of the earth's surface. It is also interesting that the vast majority of stars are in binary or multiple formation.
@theinfinitezero1 Stars change color, but not from red to blue - they go the other direction. The only explanation that makes sense to me for the Greeks referring to Sirius as red is that from their latitude they frequently saw it through a lot of atmosphere - that is it would be relatively low - and as such, in part because it is so bright, it frequently appears red, just as our Sun does and for the same reason - our atmosphere. Greeks did some amazing things - they also made huge mistakes.
@greg41stone yes, if we go by the widely - though not universally - accepted theory that everything is expanding then any shift would be blue to red, but if it's more complex than that and our star is part of a multiple star system then there would be times during the orbit cycle when we are moving apart and times we are moving toward each other. As the speed of light is constant and cannot be exceeded then the only observable difference in the light from sirius would be in the dopler shift.
@theinfinitezero1 No - I'm not talking about a shift from blue to red - I'm talking about everything we know about stars and why they show color at all - star color and multiple multiple stars happen to be a special interest of mine. Of course current science may be wrong, but you have to present more than guesses. I have simply never heard of a star's motion causing us to visually perceive it as a different color - and I've been observing stars - and reading about them - for half a century.
@greg41stone It's a bit crazy but I like the more unusual angles to any subject. You're right the greeks made plenty of mistakes, and still do as any economist will tell you not that I can talk being Irish, but so did newton, einstein, hawkins, etc. Who's to say our current model isn't flawed. They might be laughing at the mistakes of 21st century science in another three thousand years, or even sooner perhaps, who knows?
Einsteins theories are not jokes; they are among the best tested theories in physics. I originally had problems with relativity but have long since worked through them.
That last thing any one can accuse me of is being a sheep. I would be more than happy to discuss the difficulties you have with Special and General relativity. As I said I use to have problems with Relativity and it was not an easy turn around for me but the facts are what they are. No one pressured me, as I studied it, I simply realized it i the best description of relevant observations and experiments.
Your books are nothing more than brainwashing tools to keep your mind down!Do you really think that the so called laws of relativity exist throughout the entire universe?Do you think a tiny mind at the ass end of the universe can postulate how the entire un known universe works let alone dimensions and endless realities?If you believe a single word of any thing you read you are a bigger fool than you sound like. Hear is how you sound "I read a book and now im smart!"WAKE UP!!!
While I appreciate reasonable skepticism, more than a baseless claim that books are brainwashing tools is needed to have a discussion. Perhaps if instead of being insulting you could give me an idea of what you actually believe maybe we could have an intelligent discussion.
By the way I did not come to my conclusions about relativity by reading a book by working thing out for myself.
i dont believe any thing because belief is the base form of misunderstanding.We cant even prove that we are real.how can i be asked to believe anything if i cant even justify my own existence?let alone yours?So who is a none existant person to push there point of view onto me another none existent!Not that i believe that!
It is clear that we have no bases for any further of discussion. Its a little hard to have an intelligent conversation with some one whos not even sure of the own existence.
I agree its hard to have a solid conversation with someone about reality when they cant even prove there existence.I mean its hard to believe what they write or say isnt it?Hence "Einstein was a joke"!My point exactly!
EInstein is definetly wrong....... thats why you are famous and thats is why you are traveling at the speed of light...... Also that is why you are a famous scientist......
I find the idea that light does not increase it's speed when leaving a fast moving object odd as you would think the two speeds would be added, but I accept the idea. Does that also suggest that if the van was going at 671 million MPH that it would be travelling faster than light and hence it would disappear?
So wait. If I combine the fact that the speed things are thrown at (5 mph in the video) and those rules that go with it or whatever, and that example on the plane, what if I throw an object forward, and then the same or an identical object backward and see if the speeds are different? Is there something that would prevent the speed from changing?
@fonzonzonz k so lets say you throw the bag at 5mph in the plane. to you it will look like its going 5mph and to anybody else inside the plane (in the same frame of reference) it will look like its going 5mph, even if you throw it in any direction. but say that the windows were open, and the plane is doing 50mph. a person stationary on the ground looking up at the plane will see the bag travelling at 55mph because they are in a different frame of reference. does that help?
@fonzonzonz I think I know what you're getting at. Basically it's all to do with relative to something. You're standing on top of a truck (it's moving at 30MPH) and you throw a ball at 5MPH forwards and one at 5MPH backwards - that's relative to YOU on the moving truck. To someone behind the truck it hits them at 25MPH (the truck stole 5MPH of speed), to someone in front it hits them at 35MPH (truck gave 5MPH) - relative to them, because they're not on a moving object.
Additionally, light is able to travel instantaneously at 186K MPS because Earth's gravity has no hold on it - the gravitational field isn't strong enough to "grab" the light particles, so when a flashlight is turned on, the light waves are met with NO resistance. Significantly stronger g-fields, however, like those of a black hole, would be sufficient enough to "grab" light particles.
Light doesn't increase speed with the motion of its source because light has NO MASS. Light is energy, and having 0 mass allows it to travel at 186,000 MPS. The candy slows/accelarates because the candy has MASS, and the MASS of your hand is "pushing" against that mass to speed it up, and gravity slows it down. With the truck, although IT has mass, the light does not, and thus there is nothing for the mass of the truck to "PUSH" faster.
but if light has no mass light is energy and you are energy why do you have mass?? If you had no light would you still exist ... are we one with light or are we something separate from it..???
I'm not sure I understand what you were saying, but maybe this helps - mass contains NO LIGHT. Light either bounces off mass or gets absorbed by it. If it all gets absorbed, it appears black. Which colors of the spectrum are bouncing off determines what color it is.
it does vary, if your viewing light as a wave of course its gonna vary because soundwaves traveling through objects, be it liquids or solids, either slows down or speeds up, and light acting as a wave would do the same, in my chem class we were discussing how light passing through the cornea has an effect on the lights speed in order for us to perceive light more smoothly or some shiz
This video is overly simplified SR can be used for accelerating objects the analysis is done with momentarally comoving reference frames (MCRF). Special relativity is cannot analyze gravitational fields whose acceleration cannot be removed by a MCRF. Also the nonsense about "different" speeds of light in glass, water etc. is false the speed of light does not vary at all or else Einstein would be wrong, the effect is really just light being bounced around it does not change it's speed.
theory then you should know, LIGHT PROPAGATES WITH DIFFERENT SPEED IN DIFFERENT MEDIA.....and my friend, that has nothing to do to prove Einstein wrong.
Light can be completely stopped, nothing Einstein says goes against this, neather does he say that things cannot surpass the speed of light, he just says that information cannot travel faster than light.
I know how you could find out if you were flying in a plane without looking out the window.... ask your friend to look out the window and tell him to give you the report. =)
Actually he theories the founding theory of Quantum Physics, and won the Nobel Prize for it. The Photo-Electric Effect. He just thought there was a simpler way of understanding the universe.
Where are the other episodes of this series? If you have not yet made them, please change the name from preventing people like me, to search for them unnecessarily.
yes! u are so right! just look up tesla! he proved the ether does exist! i have proven nikola teslas wireless energy tranfer, this same device can be considered a quantum tunneling device because it sends energy faster than light to a distant point, its very important! please everyone check this out, wireless power is for real
Okay so the speed of light in a vacum is constant. A vacum is a place with relativley little to no matter. Air, where the headlights were shining from, does contain relativley more matter than a vacum. The video mentioned that the speed of light changes when it hits glass or water but not when it hits air? It seems like the example was a little off to me and just my basic knowledge of special relativity.
The Big Bang occurred at a particular point and sent everything traveling outward/away from it. Can't we track all these outwardly moving objects back to the central point away from which they are moving? And, finally, can't that central point serve as the single point of reference against which all movement is judged?
Well, no. So as we all know the universe is big... like really big. As in astronomically huge. The edges of our universe are actually outside the realm of our ability to observe them i.e light can not travel fast enough to reach us from the edge of the universe even with all of creation as a timescale. Also, you run into the issue of, assuming a finite universe, of any references outside of the universe. Like the earth around the sun, but much much bigger.
We could theoritcally but because of technical issues (look up inflation theory) we cannot see back to the very single point of the universe at present time.
Sure we can - all galaxies would come back to us :) .
But it is also true for any other place in the universe. Wherever you are (almost) all other galaxies are moving away from you, so to you it always looks like you are at the center of the universe. So you could use yourself as your "single point of reference"...
A good way for you to understand is to think in the action in slowmotion...no matter how fast the truck goes, the speed of the light is WAAAY faster than the speed of the truck, so, you can assume that every particle of light that exit the truck, reaches the observer in the same moment. I hope it helps.
another way to view it is with a simple thought experiment.
Imagine a car hits a bike. The car is going 45 mph and the bike is going 20 mph. If the speed of light changed with added momentum you would see the car dent (for no apparent reason) then the bike hit the car.
The speed of light through a medium is a constant because it acts like a wave, any additional momentum may increase the energy, or change the wavelength (like red or blue shift) but will not change the rate of propagation.
What relativty finds is that BECAUSE the speed of light is constant, time and space change relative to the motion of the observer. We don't know why light behaves in the ways that it does, we just know how it behaves.
Einsteins general relativity says that a gravitational field slows time down, earths is too small to slow it down enough to be significant but a black hole has such a large one that an object moving towards it will appear to slow down (to an outside observer) as it reaches the event horizon
"What's cool about relativity is that it tells us that it's a different time at every point in the Universe and quite possibly multiple different times everywhere. So, time it's self has multiple dimension." No. That sentence does not follow logically in your argument.
Light travels at the same speed no matter reference frame you are in. You are forgetting that your time and your friend's time are now two very different experiences, as opposed to very similar experiences at sub-luminal speeds.
Now, if I'm standing 100 miles away from a source of light that is off and start moving away from the source of the light, at light speed just before the beam of light is turned on, will it get to me? Because if it doesn't then it doesn't hold that it is moving toward me at light speed relative to me. Just like if I'm moving away from car at 10 mph and the car is folloing me at 10 mph. Will the light reach me?
In terms of special relativity at least. The postulate here is that the speed of light is the same for all observers undergoing constant motion. In order for us to begin to explore the theory, we must accept that postulate as true, as per the definition of a postulate. So the answer I'm giving you is the answer derived from that theory.
Ok, my friend with the flash light is standing still as I move away from him at 99.999% c. He turns on the light as soon as I start moving away from him, how long will it take the light to reach me and when it does, will it speed up? What's cool about relativity is that it tells us that it's a different time at every point in the Universe and quite possibly multiple different times everywhere. So, time it's self has multiple dimension. WHAAAAA?!?!? Time can't be a single dimension!!!
Its stated that we wont feel any motion because Earth is moving at a constant velocity, but isnt the Earth moving at different velocities at different parts of the orbit?
Correct. Special relativity is special/specific only for inertial frames.
General relativity accounts for acceleration. Because time is included in the 4 dimensional space-time, the acceleration is relative to the quantity known as proper time - that is, the time as it is localized to frames in motion.
Its theory that applies to constants. They arent practical equations like you point out, but to keep the numbers the same, and the forces accurate (in the example) you have to accept the restraints of basic demonstration so he doesnt have to explain every single imbalanced example of physics in the universe...
3:55 - 4:48 when he is throaing candy from the truck, the candy that is traveling forwards trvels 7 m/h and when he throaws backwards the candy travels 3 m/h. Now heres the question, how fast will it travel if he throaws it to the side? and up?
Sorry if i spell something wrong im from sweden. xD
The speed of the candy, if thrown perpendicular to the motion of the truck can be extrapolated using Pythagorean Theorem. One leg of the triangle is the speed of the truck at 2mph and the other leg is the speed the candy is thrown at 5mph. The actual speed of the candy relative to the observer equals the square root of the sum of 2mph and 5mph or the 2/sin(arctan(2/5)).
if he throws it towrds the screen at a right angle u treat the two speeds as component vectors and use pythagoras's therom like jhdlmn said but since the animation is 2d you will only see the candy fall with gravity while not displacing any distance from the guy, neglecting wind resistance. if he throws it up it will go up decellerating till it peaks the it will accelerate down
I can not hear what u say 2:05-2:12. Will the bag be under my hand after the bag landed and the plane speeds up. I can't realy understand that. maybe it is because and don't realy hear what u are saying in that or it is not good enough explained to understand.
At 5:55... A photon _DOES NOT_ change speed at all. Even if it's traveling through a medium - it continues to travel at the speed of light, however its travel is impeded by the particles in the medium! ~G~!
your objections only reflect a lack of understanding of relativity. it can be difficult to wrap your mind around it, but the assertions of relativity are true and without paradox or illusion. it's just that the conclusions aren't what we expect based on the world we're used to observing. if you chase light at 90% the speed of light, you will observe it moving away from you at the speed of light. non-intuitive, unexpected, odd, and true.
Exactly. If light is traveling at a constant speed relative to it's source, it's not traveling at a constant speed relative to anything moving relative to the light's source.
If a person moving at 99%C can see their reflection in a mirror normally, light is moving normally... whatever optical illusions you may detect... are illusions. An observer isn't going to suddenly experience time more slowly because YOU started running.
a police car A is chasing a car B, both travelling at 4/5 at speed of light, seperated by a distance of one light second. they both pass earth. what is this distance of seperation as seen by an observer on earth?
Special Relativity exception. If you have a light and a proton speed detector that measures the speed of the light on the plane you can do the math and boom thats your speed.
Postulate 1 is simple, and I'm fine with... but two beams of light traveling parallel to each other in the same direction cannot both be moving at "C" relative to each other. One will not observe the other going faster than it while the other observes the first going faster than IT.
I buy that light APPEARS to be constant, but the doppler effect shows it is not.
Photon A travels away from it's source... The first observer isn't moving relative to the source and will see that photon at a certain frequency. A second observer moving relative to the light source will observe the same photon at a different frequency (red shift/blue shift). If frequency changed, this means one of two things. Either the wavelength changes depending on the observer... no. Or the speed of the wave is dependent upon YOUR speed relative to that wave.
So, our cartoon character, takes on-board the plane, a michelson interferometer (or a device for measuring the time for a light pulse to leave an emitter and arrive at a sensor) and from that, he can determine that he is, or is not moving. Do I misunderstand ?
Does the second postulate actually invalidate the first because the "constant" speed of light provides a way to determine our motion relative to a "static" frame of reference ?
The speed of light is the same regardless of your relative speed.
Whether the emitter is moving toward you or away from you, or you are moving toward or away from the emitter, indeed even if you and the emitter are not moving relative to each other, you will measure the light as traveling at the same speed.
In which case, Hilbert, as I stated in my first comment, a device which measures the journey time of a light-pulse will show the experimenter if he is moving relative to a static frame of reference. Thus, the first postulate is invalid because the constant speed of light will tell us our velocity and vector in comparison to a "fixed point". True ?
If I get you correctly, the answer is in the video.
From about 2.15 to 3.15
You aren't supposed to look out the window to see a fixed point.
But even if you did, all you could say was you are moving relative to each other.
There are no fixed points in the universe with which to compare ones motion.
Yes if you marked a point on the ground and flew away from it you could show you were moving relative to that point, but that is why he goes on about falling asleep etc.
see my videos at 269cristo for a refutation of special relativity. it's clear that neither einstein nor the relativists have thought out the nature and consequences of their assumptions. please challenge me. thank you
269Cristo 2 weeks ago
2 words "sub-atomic neutrinos"
ChazBoable 3 weeks ago
nice one sir,
thanks for sharing info
lionvirat 2 months ago in playlist More videos from dcolarusso
I thought the title said "Two Prostitutes"
maynardr6 2 months ago
Is there any particular reason that we believe nothing can travel faster than light, or is it just an assumption we made and never saw evidence to the contrary?
1708Sean 3 months ago
soon this will be awesomely explained by minutephysics xD
watdafact2 4 months ago
U would feel the 'pop' sensation in ur ears due to decreased pressure in the air , hence u can tell whether u r in the sky or on the ground .
67550085 5 months ago
In the 1970's 'scientists' around the world decided to give light a specific value.
This was to make their jobs easier because the fact is that light does not have a constant speed and the speed of light has been slowly increasing since the speed of light began to be measured.
Science needs to stop teaching the value of light speed in a vacuum - because we do not live in a vacuum. Reality is reality
canadakim1 7 months ago
I'm confused. aren't those two postulates at least somewhat contradictory? My reasoning...
1. All uniform motion is relative
Light travels in uniform motion (i.e "the speed of light"), and since all uniform motion is relative, the speed of light is also relative...? when the second postulate says that cannot be so..
Am i missing something or was there something that was left out...?
DJSami23 8 months ago
you gave no evidence justification or rationalization for your 2nd postulate. experiments show this to be true is a pretty lame explanation. What experiments.
cunnidvd 9 months ago
you gave no evidence justification or rationalization for your 2nd postulate.
cunnidvd 9 months ago
did your brother put lincon logs in your butt when you were kids
09assault800 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We hit it off so well after another visit busizz4me.info
sasinihsani 11 months ago
WAH. The character's facial expression change from 1:14-1:19. HAHAHAH. So cute.
Not Physics. But i just had to say it. :)
PIGLETnotre 1 year ago
Have a look at YouTube for a presentation involving several critiques on a number of paradigms such as e.g. the relativity of simultaneity thought experiment, the Lorentz-contraction and the light clock. Look e.g. for ebrauns789 or use several keywords in a row, e.g. - Relativity of Simultaneity train thought experiment -
ebrauns789 1 year ago
this was soooo helpful on my physics assignment! great job :D though i still hate physics! :)
cizzaa94 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free inexhaustible energy is real!But the coverup is very strong,Get the blueprints for a free energy motor at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Start the revolution!
graywackeknifebdr 1 year ago
Time travel, relativity
nickshortjr 1 year ago
The first postulate has been known to be incorrect for awhile now, the so called twin paradox shows it. There is a background reference frame that all matter move relative to. It is space itself. You can tell what reference frame is actually moving.
SuperFinGuy 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free energy has been here all along ,But Millions are spend in supressing that information,Find this technology at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Let the revolution begin!
rebelliouseoagj 1 year ago
Sorry David. I can't listen to your audio because you mic yourself so close I can hear your saliva moving around.
youdontsmellbad 1 year ago
that was amature
Keekle9 1 year ago
Great presentation! This is really great.
MrSwiftNinja 1 year ago
Hey, I was listening to the presentation by Bruce Lipton yesterday about fractal evolution. He was saying that it's not a matter of choosing between light being a particle or a wave--rather, it's both, and the important part is where these two beings *interact*. Going by the Holographic Universe concept, on the large scale we can compare this to the earth (particle) recieving radiation from the sun (waves). The action is that the interface. Interesting concept!
bitterbonker 1 year ago
Very well explained.
serpent49374 1 year ago
One thing gets left out of most all speed of light descriptions is that time is altered for a body in motion. The speed of the car is counteracted by a decrease in the 'speed' of time.
Just recently they have done experiments that DO alter the speed of light so these old explanations will need to revised. Its still a mystery how they've been able to pulse a laser at a target and the light pulse hits the target faster than the 'normal' speed of light.
Peopleunit 1 year ago
@Peopleunit I am by no means a scientist, but I believe that the reason that they are able to slow down the speed of light or speed up the speed of light is because of the unique properties of light. The fact that light is at all times energy AND matter and therefore has the properties and is affected by the things that interact with these (i.e gravity. visible light unable to escape black holes). From my understanding, this would indicate that light speed is different in between planets
boxesrotses 11 months ago
@boxesrotses and their stars, in the space between stars there would be another speed, and between galaxys yet another speed, all locations where there is a change in the gravitational field (once again there would be a change of speed once you move outside the bounds of all the galaxys gravitational field).
boxesrotses 11 months ago
Okay so, can light be slowed down in a vacuum???
deallis1 1 year ago
It took me a long time to grasp the seemingly impossible conundrum that something (light) could always have the same relative speed, regardless of the observer's speed. But once I realized that it is time that is changing, it made sense. So, yes, it's always 670 million MPH, but that hour is not the same for everyone.
TheSwamper 1 year ago
I'll take a stab at Red Shift. The doppler effect explains that as a train moves toward your position, the waves are compressed by the relative object moving close toward you. The opposite is true as the Train moves away from you. Wavelengths are manipulated. If you look at the spectrum of light, the more compressed the wavelength the more "blue" it will be. The opposite Red Shift would occur if something was moving away,
TheMuscleShark 1 year ago
He misses something: If the determination of speed is relative, then having an object moving straight towards light would increase the speed of light relatively to the moving object. Else, the light would decrease it's speed relatively to the enviroment which is "standing still". That - or light is not made out of either particles or waves.
Yakitawa 1 year ago
I dont beleive this.
please show us videos about Speed of light tests.
where object is running in high speed and its light is reacheng target.
gioperc 1 year ago
Thanks my man.
theinfinitezero1 1 year ago
beautifully explained..
thank you so much... respekt
sofianbelhedi 1 year ago
what happens when you got figurre (1) and figure (2) going to the second postulate, but they move apart.
SaluteTheRocker 1 year ago
THE SPEED OF LIGHT IN A VACUUM IS 669,600,000 MPH OR 186,000 MPS!!!!!! (roudning up would make u time travel or be stuck in one time u must be more excact!)
1gummyipod1 1 year ago
Point taken. Now to be playful, I should note, however, that you are assuming the use of more than two significant figures. Also, 6.7 x 10^7 MPH is actually more accurate than 6.696 x 10^7 MPH since c is closer to 1.86282397 x 10^5 miles per sec than it is to 1.86 x 10^5. I'm okay trading some precision for accuracy. ;)
dcolarusso 1 year ago 11
@dcolarusso great presentation, but where does red shift come into it in terms of light? we see a red shift and blue shift effect when he's trowing candy at the parade and we have records indicating that stars like Sirus A have shifted from red to orange since the days of early greek civilization, so I'm a little confused, which as a teacher of relativity is something you must used to.
theinfinitezero1 1 year ago
@theinfinitezero1 you are correct to note that an object moving towards or away from us will exhibit a blue or red shift. If you want a waved-based explanation, the Doppler Shift provides a pretty good explanation. From a particle-based standpoint, it can be thought of on terms of conservation of energy. If you Google "nova moving targets" you'll find an old explanation put together explaining the Doppler Shift of stars. I hope it's helpful.
dcolarusso 1 year ago
@theinfinitezero1 The wavelength of light changes as something moves towards or away from us - but not the speed of the light. The color shift is a result of this change in wavelength, or frequency - just as the sound a car horn is different if the car moves towards you or away from you. The intervals between waves get shorter as something moves towards you, longer as it moves away - but the speed remains constant.(Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but that's how I understand it.)
greg41stone 8 months ago
@greg41stone You are indeed correct, that is the theory of dopler shift, I suppose my question at the time was more related to the star sirius and their relationship towards each other. If a star changes red to blue then does that mean that it was once moving away from us but is now moving toward us or vice versa and if that is the case does that indicate that our sun is part of a multiple star system locked in an eliptical orbit around a barycentre shared by other stars like sirius?
theinfinitezero1 8 months ago
@theinfinitezero1 I didn't know Sirius had changed colors and I have never heard that color of a star - really a tint - as detected by the naked eye (ancient Greeks, of course, did not have spectroscopes) had anything to do with its motion in relation to us. Star color, as far as I know, is related primarily to temperature. My guess is that the proper motion of a star relative to us is not fast enough to produce any noticeable change in color.
greg41stone 8 months ago
@greg41stone although the observations were by the naked eye the star was described by greek and egyptian astronomers as red, whereas today it appears as blue to us. That might sound primitive but the same people worked out the circumfrence of the earth to within a few hundred miles of today's calculations by measuring the movement of shadows to approximate the curviture of the earth's surface. It is also interesting that the vast majority of stars are in binary or multiple formation.
theinfinitezero1 8 months ago
@theinfinitezero1 Stars change color, but not from red to blue - they go the other direction. The only explanation that makes sense to me for the Greeks referring to Sirius as red is that from their latitude they frequently saw it through a lot of atmosphere - that is it would be relatively low - and as such, in part because it is so bright, it frequently appears red, just as our Sun does and for the same reason - our atmosphere. Greeks did some amazing things - they also made huge mistakes.
greg41stone 8 months ago
@greg41stone yes, if we go by the widely - though not universally - accepted theory that everything is expanding then any shift would be blue to red, but if it's more complex than that and our star is part of a multiple star system then there would be times during the orbit cycle when we are moving apart and times we are moving toward each other. As the speed of light is constant and cannot be exceeded then the only observable difference in the light from sirius would be in the dopler shift.
theinfinitezero1 8 months ago
@theinfinitezero1 No - I'm not talking about a shift from blue to red - I'm talking about everything we know about stars and why they show color at all - star color and multiple multiple stars happen to be a special interest of mine. Of course current science may be wrong, but you have to present more than guesses. I have simply never heard of a star's motion causing us to visually perceive it as a different color - and I've been observing stars - and reading about them - for half a century.
greg41stone 8 months ago
@greg41stone a mere blink of a star's eye, but here's to your good health and many more years of observation. Good luck. ;-)
theinfinitezero1 8 months ago
@greg41stone It's a bit crazy but I like the more unusual angles to any subject. You're right the greeks made plenty of mistakes, and still do as any economist will tell you not that I can talk being Irish, but so did newton, einstein, hawkins, etc. Who's to say our current model isn't flawed. They might be laughing at the mistakes of 21st century science in another three thousand years, or even sooner perhaps, who knows?
theinfinitezero1 8 months ago
@dcolarusso powned
benjoandrichie 1 year ago
@1gummyipod1
or, like I was taught in Primary school in Spain: 300.000 Km/s
Inigobalboa 9 months ago
@1gummyipod1
299792458 m/s
The metric system is the only system accepable for physics - and by the way the only system I know as a german.
The mile- system is a typical american nonsens.
MrFilmfuzzi 5 months ago
@MrFilmfuzzi i aint american u dumb fuck.
1gummyipod1 5 months ago
Einstein was a joke and so were his theories!
CONSTRINGACY 1 year ago
Einsteins theories are not jokes; they are among the best tested theories in physics. I originally had problems with relativity but have long since worked through them.
chuckpcr 1 year ago
Blah Blah Blah.Whatever you say sheep!~
CONSTRINGACY 1 year ago
That last thing any one can accuse me of is being a sheep. I would be more than happy to discuss the difficulties you have with Special and General relativity. As I said I use to have problems with Relativity and it was not an easy turn around for me but the facts are what they are. No one pressured me, as I studied it, I simply realized it i the best description of relevant observations and experiments.
chuckpcr 1 year ago
Your books are nothing more than brainwashing tools to keep your mind down!Do you really think that the so called laws of relativity exist throughout the entire universe?Do you think a tiny mind at the ass end of the universe can postulate how the entire un known universe works let alone dimensions and endless realities?If you believe a single word of any thing you read you are a bigger fool than you sound like. Hear is how you sound "I read a book and now im smart!"WAKE UP!!!
CONSTRINGACY 1 year ago
While I appreciate reasonable skepticism, more than a baseless claim that books are brainwashing tools is needed to have a discussion. Perhaps if instead of being insulting you could give me an idea of what you actually believe maybe we could have an intelligent discussion.
By the way I did not come to my conclusions about relativity by reading a book by working thing out for myself.
chuckpcr 1 year ago 4
i dont believe any thing because belief is the base form of misunderstanding.We cant even prove that we are real.how can i be asked to believe anything if i cant even justify my own existence?let alone yours?So who is a none existant person to push there point of view onto me another none existent!Not that i believe that!
CONSTRINGACY 1 year ago
It is clear that we have no bases for any further of discussion. Its a little hard to have an intelligent conversation with some one whos not even sure of the own existence.
chuckpcr 1 year ago
I agree its hard to have a solid conversation with someone about reality when they cant even prove there existence.I mean its hard to believe what they write or say isnt it?Hence "Einstein was a joke"!My point exactly!
Good day sir.
CONSTRINGACY 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
two things are unbelievable for me
1 thinking that you don't exist, clearly you and me exist here, and we are getting on peoples nerves
2 because you don't accept your existence you don't want to try understanding anything scientific and just ignore it
non of my damn business BUT you took a step further,
just cuz you don't understand Einstein's theories doesn't mean they are wrong,
hell i don't understand it fully but i don't say anything is wrong with a theory that proves right for 65 years
msgol1 1 year ago
EInstein is definetly wrong....... thats why you are famous and thats is why you are traveling at the speed of light...... Also that is why you are a famous scientist......
1gummyipod1 1 year ago
Id rather be no one rather than a famous liar who excels in suppress the human mind!
CONSTRINGACY 1 year ago
joke is the thing witch is in your Head and surely its not Brain
msgol1 1 year ago
So then prove your existence?Or you sir are the joke!
CONSTRINGACY 1 year ago
I find the idea that light does not increase it's speed when leaving a fast moving object odd as you would think the two speeds would be added, but I accept the idea. Does that also suggest that if the van was going at 671 million MPH that it would be travelling faster than light and hence it would disappear?
johnmacward 1 year ago
Succinctly put.
playerVlad19992 1 year ago
this is why the earth is moving so fast, yet none of us notice.
streabarra 1 year ago
@streabarra Exactly, but if it sped up or slowed down one day, we'd be thrown miles.
johnmacward 1 year ago
Did someone say Two Prostitutes?
ojideagu 2 years ago
So wait. If I combine the fact that the speed things are thrown at (5 mph in the video) and those rules that go with it or whatever, and that example on the plane, what if I throw an object forward, and then the same or an identical object backward and see if the speeds are different? Is there something that would prevent the speed from changing?
fonzonzonz 2 years ago
@fonzonzonz k so lets say you throw the bag at 5mph in the plane. to you it will look like its going 5mph and to anybody else inside the plane (in the same frame of reference) it will look like its going 5mph, even if you throw it in any direction. but say that the windows were open, and the plane is doing 50mph. a person stationary on the ground looking up at the plane will see the bag travelling at 55mph because they are in a different frame of reference. does that help?
Charliefletch 2 years ago
@fonzonzonz I think I know what you're getting at. Basically it's all to do with relative to something. You're standing on top of a truck (it's moving at 30MPH) and you throw a ball at 5MPH forwards and one at 5MPH backwards - that's relative to YOU on the moving truck. To someone behind the truck it hits them at 25MPH (the truck stole 5MPH of speed), to someone in front it hits them at 35MPH (truck gave 5MPH) - relative to them, because they're not on a moving object.
johnmacward 1 year ago
Love the hand drawn, cartoon style animations. No fancy 3D graphics needed.
hornetpalooza 2 years ago
Additionally, light is able to travel instantaneously at 186K MPS because Earth's gravity has no hold on it - the gravitational field isn't strong enough to "grab" the light particles, so when a flashlight is turned on, the light waves are met with NO resistance. Significantly stronger g-fields, however, like those of a black hole, would be sufficient enough to "grab" light particles.
sixstanger00 2 years ago
Light doesn't increase speed with the motion of its source because light has NO MASS. Light is energy, and having 0 mass allows it to travel at 186,000 MPS. The candy slows/accelarates because the candy has MASS, and the MASS of your hand is "pushing" against that mass to speed it up, and gravity slows it down. With the truck, although IT has mass, the light does not, and thus there is nothing for the mass of the truck to "PUSH" faster.
sixstanger00 2 years ago
However, objects that DO HAVE mass ABSORB energy/light, and that is why lightwaves slow down when passed through a glass of water, a window, etc.
sixstanger00 2 years ago
but if light has no mass light is energy and you are energy why do you have mass?? If you had no light would you still exist ... are we one with light or are we something separate from it..???
woyay 2 years ago
I'm not sure I understand what you were saying, but maybe this helps - mass contains NO LIGHT. Light either bounces off mass or gets absorbed by it. If it all gets absorbed, it appears black. Which colors of the spectrum are bouncing off determines what color it is.
sixstanger00 2 years ago
@woyay
frequency of the vibration...
light can penetrate mass... change its temperature, size,??? there are different "kinds " of light and mass
If we had no light... we dont need eyes... we use some other sense or "orientation tool"... some bats are blind... they use sound...
iff you'll become light,... well... :) i think you'll know... :)
thx for the question, i had fun in triyng to answer it... hope it helps :) cause for now, this is the best i can do...
ThePutasfever 1 year ago
animation is retarded. Speeding it up like 5 times might help.
f00kumofo123 2 years ago
@preyfrominsanity
apparently u dont know what your talking about,
it does vary, if your viewing light as a wave of course its gonna vary because soundwaves traveling through objects, be it liquids or solids, either slows down or speeds up, and light acting as a wave would do the same, in my chem class we were discussing how light passing through the cornea has an effect on the lights speed in order for us to perceive light more smoothly or some shiz
Thrurafaseyes 2 years ago
This video is overly simplified SR can be used for accelerating objects the analysis is done with momentarally comoving reference frames (MCRF). Special relativity is cannot analyze gravitational fields whose acceleration cannot be removed by a MCRF. Also the nonsense about "different" speeds of light in glass, water etc. is false the speed of light does not vary at all or else Einstein would be wrong, the effect is really just light being bounced around it does not change it's speed.
preyfromysanity 2 years ago
theory then you should know, LIGHT PROPAGATES WITH DIFFERENT SPEED IN DIFFERENT MEDIA.....and my friend, that has nothing to do to prove Einstein wrong.
MegaSushil1 2 years ago 2
Light can be completely stopped, nothing Einstein says goes against this, neather does he say that things cannot surpass the speed of light, he just says that information cannot travel faster than light.
jamesn0va 2 years ago
I had this figured out for myself when I was like 10 years old.
DrStench13 2 years ago
I'm so using this the next time I goto court to fight a speeding ticket!
ethosflux 2 years ago 2
I can't get my head around the second postulate, is there any other video that explains it in more detail?
MetalManiac257 2 years ago
This might explain it better? You Tube > Time Travel - Einstein's Big Idea - Theory of Relativity
Bugstomper2 2 years ago
The constant speed of light is one of the laws of nature. The speed of light, moves at the speed of light relative to everything.
You can check out the channel Best0fScience, and their videos on the matter. (It is a zero in the "of", not an o)
KamiKagutsuchi 2 years ago
thats sooooo cool!
unotwotiga 2 years ago
I know how you could find out if you were flying in a plane without looking out the window.... ask your friend to look out the window and tell him to give you the report. =)
sneakysneaky333 2 years ago
@sneakysneaky333 But I don't have any friends.
johnmacward 1 year ago
Gooood job! It's even more incredible that Einstein wasn't able to accept Quantum Physics. Yeah, I know things would get 'complicated'!
pedrovalle10 2 years ago 4
Actually he theories the founding theory of Quantum Physics, and won the Nobel Prize for it. The Photo-Electric Effect. He just thought there was a simpler way of understanding the universe.
WeAreTheStreet 2 years ago
Where are the other episodes of this series? If you have not yet made them, please change the name from preventing people like me, to search for them unnecessarily.
greenleaf81 2 years ago
i also want to watch`em
sonic837 2 years ago
Comment removed
vee00Roar 2 years ago
Comment removed
vee00Roar 2 years ago
did he say 670 million MPH? i thought it was 180,000 miles per second? or is that the same thing converted? probly
0000infinity0000 2 years ago
yes! u are so right! just look up tesla! he proved the ether does exist! i have proven nikola teslas wireless energy tranfer, this same device can be considered a quantum tunneling device because it sends energy faster than light to a distant point, its very important! please everyone check this out, wireless power is for real
boxa888 2 years ago
300,000 kmh
Jackpotur 2 years ago
more exactly 299792458 m/s
hianyzoli 2 years ago
that's km/s not hour
msgol1 1 year ago
WHERE ARE THE REST OF THE CLIPS?
mklik4 2 years ago
Okay so the speed of light in a vacum is constant. A vacum is a place with relativley little to no matter. Air, where the headlights were shining from, does contain relativley more matter than a vacum. The video mentioned that the speed of light changes when it hits glass or water but not when it hits air? It seems like the example was a little off to me and just my basic knowledge of special relativity.
v2thamoney007 2 years ago
Its called refraction it is irrevelant air has an insig refractive idex. Nothing can travel Faster than the speed of light that is revelant to srel.
perioendo 2 years ago
The Big Bang occurred at a particular point and sent everything traveling outward/away from it. Can't we track all these outwardly moving objects back to the central point away from which they are moving? And, finally, can't that central point serve as the single point of reference against which all movement is judged?
mulvidon 2 years ago
Well, no. So as we all know the universe is big... like really big. As in astronomically huge. The edges of our universe are actually outside the realm of our ability to observe them i.e light can not travel fast enough to reach us from the edge of the universe even with all of creation as a timescale. Also, you run into the issue of, assuming a finite universe, of any references outside of the universe. Like the earth around the sun, but much much bigger.
dracarys666 2 years ago
We could theoritcally but because of technical issues (look up inflation theory) we cannot see back to the very single point of the universe at present time.
Kainspear 2 years ago
Sure we can - all galaxies would come back to us :) .
But it is also true for any other place in the universe. Wherever you are (almost) all other galaxies are moving away from you, so to you it always looks like you are at the center of the universe. So you could use yourself as your "single point of reference"...
Biarry 2 years ago
that's special pleading, I can easily pick any other point in the universe..
DoctorNumLuck 2 years ago
candy (particles) thrown at 5 mph, plus two mph of the truck is 7mph.
light (particles) beamed at 186,000 mph plus 10 mph of the truck equals 186,000 mph...?
I'm still not getting why light is the only constant....or is that just the only way the theory works?
isthedealreal 2 years ago
A good way for you to understand is to think in the action in slowmotion...no matter how fast the truck goes, the speed of the light is WAAAY faster than the speed of the truck, so, you can assume that every particle of light that exit the truck, reaches the observer in the same moment. I hope it helps.
BlastedNation 2 years ago
another way to view it is with a simple thought experiment.
Imagine a car hits a bike. The car is going 45 mph and the bike is going 20 mph. If the speed of light changed with added momentum you would see the car dent (for no apparent reason) then the bike hit the car.
The speed of light through a medium is a constant because it acts like a wave, any additional momentum may increase the energy, or change the wavelength (like red or blue shift) but will not change the rate of propagation.
dracarys666 2 years ago
Constant speed of light is a fact - experiments show it always travels as the same speed. The Special Relativity is a theory based on this fact.
Biarry 2 years ago
What relativty finds is that BECAUSE the speed of light is constant, time and space change relative to the motion of the observer. We don't know why light behaves in the ways that it does, we just know how it behaves.
yuothineyesasian 2 years ago
I just stumbled upon this by accident. Thanks so much for the great videos. I now feel an understanding of special relativity is within my grasp.
Casho0106 2 years ago
great video mate
HECTORtorrez 2 years ago
Why aren't the other 4 of the 2 postulates series not up?!
deepfriedlard 2 years ago
what if black holes slow light down?
insanekoolness 2 years ago
How does it slow?If black hole pulls the light towards it,wouldnt it increase its speed?
lyzergnature 2 years ago
that too...
the point is how do we know if light is coming from where we see it?
insanekoolness 2 years ago
Einsteins general relativity says that a gravitational field slows time down, earths is too small to slow it down enough to be significant but a black hole has such a large one that an object moving towards it will appear to slow down (to an outside observer) as it reaches the event horizon
CaptainofSquad14 2 years ago
The speed of light is always constant, it never changes.
yuothineyesasian 2 years ago
Well, not exactly. Light slows down when passing through a medium.
TBucker 2 years ago
Light doesn't really "slow down" when passing through a medium. It just takes longer for it to pass through, kind of like its bouncing around.
jrd261 2 years ago
"What's cool about relativity is that it tells us that it's a different time at every point in the Universe and quite possibly multiple different times everywhere. So, time it's self has multiple dimension." No. That sentence does not follow logically in your argument.
Light travels at the same speed no matter reference frame you are in. You are forgetting that your time and your friend's time are now two very different experiences, as opposed to very similar experiences at sub-luminal speeds.
TheBleuBlurr 2 years ago
Now, if I'm standing 100 miles away from a source of light that is off and start moving away from the source of the light, at light speed just before the beam of light is turned on, will it get to me? Because if it doesn't then it doesn't hold that it is moving toward me at light speed relative to me. Just like if I'm moving away from car at 10 mph and the car is folloing me at 10 mph. Will the light reach me?
FCKEVRY1 2 years ago
Yes.
TheBleuBlurr 2 years ago
In terms of special relativity at least. The postulate here is that the speed of light is the same for all observers undergoing constant motion. In order for us to begin to explore the theory, we must accept that postulate as true, as per the definition of a postulate. So the answer I'm giving you is the answer derived from that theory.
TheBleuBlurr 2 years ago
Ok, my friend with the flash light is standing still as I move away from him at 99.999% c. He turns on the light as soon as I start moving away from him, how long will it take the light to reach me and when it does, will it speed up? What's cool about relativity is that it tells us that it's a different time at every point in the Universe and quite possibly multiple different times everywhere. So, time it's self has multiple dimension. WHAAAAA?!?!? Time can't be a single dimension!!!
FCKEVRY1 2 years ago
What reference frame are you asking the question from. Your's or your friends? Because you would both observe two different outcomes.
yuothineyesasian 2 years ago
is the other 4 coming soon?
crazyjoezx 2 years ago
It's all relative. I'd like to, bit realistically, probably not till this summer.
dcolarusso 2 years ago
awesome!...i look forward to seeing them, and more science vids from u ,thanks!
crazyjoezx 2 years ago
I thought the title read Two Prostitutes. This is way less skanky, i like it.
macharius188 3 years ago
Its stated that we wont feel any motion because Earth is moving at a constant velocity, but isnt the Earth moving at different velocities at different parts of the orbit?
Ra7nyday 3 years ago
real life has terrible lag.
proof1: doesnt matter what speed ur traveling at, light travels at the same speed relative to u.
proof2: it took Jesus 3 whole days to respawn
=P
THISNAMEOWNS 3 years ago
HAHAHA!!!
i love number 2
SupaSexySnake287 3 years ago
Marks comment
guestofytrn 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Buy a decent microphone, please...
ManuelHung 3 years ago
Straight line? All this only applies to objects going in a straight line? Almost nothing in the universe (space/time) is moving in a straight line.
Ragtop1968 3 years ago
Correct. Special relativity is special/specific only for inertial frames.
General relativity accounts for acceleration. Because time is included in the 4 dimensional space-time, the acceleration is relative to the quantity known as proper time - that is, the time as it is localized to frames in motion.
eruse 3 years ago
Its theory that applies to constants. They arent practical equations like you point out, but to keep the numbers the same, and the forces accurate (in the example) you have to accept the restraints of basic demonstration so he doesnt have to explain every single imbalanced example of physics in the universe...
purplemonkeyelephant 3 years ago
what did you make this with? flash? synfig? aftereffects?
tetavo 3 years ago
Flash
dcolarusso 3 years ago
*displacing any horizontal distance
shaun252 3 years ago
3:55 - 4:48 when he is throaing candy from the truck, the candy that is traveling forwards trvels 7 m/h and when he throaws backwards the candy travels 3 m/h. Now heres the question, how fast will it travel if he throaws it to the side? and up?
Sorry if i spell something wrong im from sweden. xD
Alexhoglander 3 years ago
The speed of the candy, if thrown perpendicular to the motion of the truck can be extrapolated using Pythagorean Theorem. One leg of the triangle is the speed of the truck at 2mph and the other leg is the speed the candy is thrown at 5mph. The actual speed of the candy relative to the observer equals the square root of the sum of 2mph and 5mph or the 2/sin(arctan(2/5)).
jhdlmn 3 years ago
if he throws it towrds the screen at a right angle u treat the two speeds as component vectors and use pythagoras's therom like jhdlmn said but since the animation is 2d you will only see the candy fall with gravity while not displacing any distance from the guy, neglecting wind resistance. if he throws it up it will go up decellerating till it peaks the it will accelerate down
shaun252 3 years ago
I can not hear what u say 2:05-2:12. Will the bag be under my hand after the bag landed and the plane speeds up. I can't realy understand that. maybe it is because and don't realy hear what u are saying in that or it is not good enough explained to understand.
Alexhoglander 3 years ago
anyone want to chat? hit up my page
frog1812 3 years ago
At 5:55... A photon _DOES NOT_ change speed at all. Even if it's traveling through a medium - it continues to travel at the speed of light, however its travel is impeded by the particles in the medium! ~G~!
mods3 3 years ago
You rule.
Max11551 3 years ago
this is sooooo good~~~
awesome~~~
i loved it
libbeingcool 3 years ago
what if you kicked the truck in reverse at 10 mph. would the photon move at 680,000,000 -10 mph, slower than the speed of light?
peterthemegapimp 3 years ago
no.
coldfustion 3 years ago 4
Thank you so much for doing this, I wish more people would know science!
latewire 3 years ago
Thanks for uploading :)
highburycatherine 3 years ago
your objections only reflect a lack of understanding of relativity. it can be difficult to wrap your mind around it, but the assertions of relativity are true and without paradox or illusion. it's just that the conclusions aren't what we expect based on the world we're used to observing. if you chase light at 90% the speed of light, you will observe it moving away from you at the speed of light. non-intuitive, unexpected, odd, and true.
nialccmwr 3 years ago
Exactly. If light is traveling at a constant speed relative to it's source, it's not traveling at a constant speed relative to anything moving relative to the light's source.
If a person moving at 99%C can see their reflection in a mirror normally, light is moving normally... whatever optical illusions you may detect... are illusions. An observer isn't going to suddenly experience time more slowly because YOU started running.
dasgregorian 3 years ago
a police car A is chasing a car B, both travelling at 4/5 at speed of light, seperated by a distance of one light second. they both pass earth. what is this distance of seperation as seen by an observer on earth?
independence8 3 years ago
THANKS.. THESE POSTINGS ARE GREAT..
mugwamp4 3 years ago 2
Special Relativity exception. If you have a light and a proton speed detector that measures the speed of the light on the plane you can do the math and boom thats your speed.
kerpal2343 3 years ago
Great vids ! good job !
Jernespand 3 years ago
Postulate 1 is simple, and I'm fine with... but two beams of light traveling parallel to each other in the same direction cannot both be moving at "C" relative to each other. One will not observe the other going faster than it while the other observes the first going faster than IT.
I buy that light APPEARS to be constant, but the doppler effect shows it is not.
dasgregorian 3 years ago
Photon A travels away from it's source... The first observer isn't moving relative to the source and will see that photon at a certain frequency. A second observer moving relative to the light source will observe the same photon at a different frequency (red shift/blue shift). If frequency changed, this means one of two things. Either the wavelength changes depending on the observer... no. Or the speed of the wave is dependent upon YOUR speed relative to that wave.
dasgregorian 3 years ago
This video helped me understand the concept of special relativity for my a-level physics course, cheers for uploading it
rukajorn 3 years ago
So, our cartoon character, takes on-board the plane, a michelson interferometer (or a device for measuring the time for a light pulse to leave an emitter and arrive at a sensor) and from that, he can determine that he is, or is not moving. Do I misunderstand ?
Does the second postulate actually invalidate the first because the "constant" speed of light provides a way to determine our motion relative to a "static" frame of reference ?
Am I babbling a lot of balony ?
RoadRunnerLaser 3 years ago
RoadRunnerLaser
The speed of light is the same regardless of your relative speed.
Whether the emitter is moving toward you or away from you, or you are moving toward or away from the emitter, indeed even if you and the emitter are not moving relative to each other, you will measure the light as traveling at the same speed.
hilbert54 3 years ago
In which case, Hilbert, as I stated in my first comment, a device which measures the journey time of a light-pulse will show the experimenter if he is moving relative to a static frame of reference. Thus, the first postulate is invalid because the constant speed of light will tell us our velocity and vector in comparison to a "fixed point". True ?
RoadRunnerLaser 3 years ago
RoadRunnerLaser
If I get you correctly, the answer is in the video.
From about 2.15 to 3.15
You aren't supposed to look out the window to see a fixed point.
But even if you did, all you could say was you are moving relative to each other.
There are no fixed points in the universe with which to compare ones motion.
Yes if you marked a point on the ground and flew away from it you could show you were moving relative to that point, but that is why he goes on about falling asleep etc.
hilbert54 3 years ago