So if we could travel at light speed, then distance in the direction of travel would shrink to zero ? Is that correct ? That would mean, surely, that we would get from A to B in zero time. No time at all. I`m not a scientist. So I don`t know. I`m just going on the things one of these fella`s said. Can anyone enlighten me ?
@valarmanwe no not zero although it would shrink. the reason that it is not zero is the fact that light does travel at a set speed-we can measure it. this speed is 299 792 458 m/s so although it is very fast the speed of light is not an infinite velocity so therefore the distance you are going to travel will not be zero. it would be shorter but not zero and it wouldn't take zero seconds either for the same reason. hope you are enlightened and if it makes no sense then tell me?
@ljf95 I thought that the speed of light is variable, or is that just through different things? also I don't know if you know the answer but you sound kinda smart, does the light speed up again once it has passed through what ever was causing it to slow?
@akaAlexthekid yes you can slow it down using super conductors and lasers but this very rarely happens naturally, and it does speed up again after being slowed down but we are still yet to discover why this happens.
No particle can travel faster than the speed of light, what these guys dont know is that Billy Connolly said so in his 'Tour of Scotland' series. Also climate change doesnt exist, George W Bush said its commy lies and he would know. Why dont we have a book burning campaign to focus peoples minds more on Jesus?
I guess you can't explain "why" the E=m part of the equation, right? It seems like reaching something too fundamental like opposite EM charge attract. I wonder however if the c^2 part can be explained to a layman like myself? Why the speed of light and why squared, then? Anyone can point me to some other video/website about this? Thanks!
@cristianfcao ² is because we live in a 3 dimensional universe. C because the speed of light was thought of as a constant, witch we have known for a long time it is not. And E=M implies that all energy has mass and all mass has energy. Effectively suggesting they are interchangeable.
The standard model has gravitons which are considered to be massless energy which would mean that E does not = M. And Cern is more concerned with string theory than Einstein's dinosaur. Hope it helps.
@cristianfcao - Here's my take on it. Everything comes from light, or if you're spiritual like me you might say from The Source. It therefore makes sense that light is the basis of the physical universe. My view is that outside this physical dimension there is no time, or space and therefore no velocity, so light is everywhere and nowhere. The speed of light in a vacuum acts as a mathematical base on which to build the structure of the physical universe. Everything afterall is just energy.
@cristianfcao no worries. Actually once you delve deeper into what we call "the physical universe" you actually discover that this is indeed the illusion, after all it is mostly empty. Quantum Mechanics gives light to the viewpoint that thoughts become things, but yeah all the sciencey stuff is cool too... I'm still hanging out for some breakthru with the Higgs Boson and the mass effect.
don't listen to FractalCodex; that was all crap.it's nothing to do with charge either. this is about the way in which matter behaves at speeds approaching c. the actual equation is better understood in this form: (E/m) = c² ...which shows why - the more energy that is fed into a particle to make its speed approach c - the higher its mass becomes ... as measured from a stationary frame of reference. as for the WHY of all this, you need to read a lot of books.
existing Energy = mass times the maximum speed of electro magnetic waves stretching out in both directions.. E = stretching of space and time times the amount of gravitons .
@peterm3964 in a nutshell "absolutely" .. this video actually makes me care less ! if you're gonna profess then make it interesting at least ... *yawn*
Excuse me, I'm not a physicist, not even close. I have a question.
If satellites and the ISS and the Moon orbit the Earth because of gravity then why do the astronauts not experience gravity inside or outside the space station? They just float away outside if they're left alone but the ISS and satellites don't. Why?
Would somebody in a "space vehicle" travelling at some fantasticle speed not feel somesort of force if sitting in a chair aka Captain Kirk style now when say the Enterprise does a tight turn to fire some missiles at some Romulan fag would not Cpt Kirk feel some force into his seat due to the direction his body is moving relative to the directional change of the Enterprise? Or is it like a fly hovering in a car?
@Thensolomonsaid Are you dismissing god? Because that is a possibility. I hate christians that dismiss the big bang and people that dismiss god. Why can't god have caused the big bang? People that say it is not POSSIBLE actually piss me off. Not that i'm saying that is what you're saying.
@dannysmith15 No i am not saying that.I am a Christian.All the talk seems to be about the big bang as some proof that God does not exist.But not many even try to explain their theories on what there was before the big bang.It seems the big bang,or expansion of the universe,is accepted as fact by most and if this is the case why could it not have been at Gods hands?It seems to me ,and i have studied physics, that most physicists create theories out of thin air to try to explain the unexplainable.
I was really enjoying reading this book until I reached page 72 and the next page was 143 - how bloody annoying - great book so far tho - fascinating ;-)))
@Mr21Snakeeyes Equations are like sentances....just simplified, so when you see E=mc^2 you think Energy (E) is equal to mass (m) times'd by the square of the universal constant (c). So for the sentance to make sense it has to mean the same thing, if you wanted q to denote mass then yes, you could put E=qc^2 but it's just generally agreed that m is mass. If maths is complicated for you just think of them as sentances, not algebra (that's the difference between mathmatical and physics algebra).
@KarlHansson OK, at the end of the book see if you understand why the people in the spaceship age more slowly than those on earth. If their speeds are relative then they are both moving away from each other and back together at the same rate. If it's to do with acceleration then what was that cryptic stuff about accelerating at G-Force for 40 years making 40,000 years pass? That's like a 40 year old living on earth, surely, if it's relative? Conclusion; it's crap and Brian don't get it.
@RavenPrecept G-Force?? the G stands for gravity and that depends on where you are (different values in different place) but there isn't any in space. the accepted theory is that the closer to LIGHT SPEED you travel the slower time goes relative to the objects travelling at that speed. so a man travelling at light speed for 40 years could go home to find that 40000 years had passed on earth
@allmodcons6 No G-Force in space? What planet are you on? What do you think stops this planet going in a straight line and not orbiting the sun? Same with people on the space station, why does that not fly off into deep space? Just because forces sum to zero does not mean there is no force.
@RavenPrecept yes gravity keeps objects in orbit but it sure as shit isn't a measure of speed you fuckwit. the G- Force you were referring too is the G-Force experienced by fighter pilots and the like, which isn't felt in space
@allmodcons6 I'm sorry but if a space vehicle were to do tight turns like a fighter plane but in space the pilot would still feel the G-Forces. I don't understand what you mean by gravity is not a measure of speed, I never said it was. However without opposing forces gravity does lead to an increase in speed.
@RavenPrecept absolute horseshit space vehicles don't do tight turns or banking like on earth because there is no atmosphere to bank against, all space manoeuvres are a series of straight lines. THERE ARE NO G-FORCES THAT ACT ON PILOTS IN SPACE THATS WHY IN THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION THATS MOVING AT OVER 5 MILES A SECOND THE CREW STILL FLOAT AND ARE NOT PRESSED INTO THE FLOOR.
@allmodcons6 OK, that explains a lot. According to you there are no G-Forces in space because there is no atmosphere to push against. Fantastic and incredible. Anyone else agree with this?
@RavenPrecept thats not what i said idiot you said 'if a space vehicle were to do tight turns like a fighter plane' which isn't possible like i already explained retard. you can't pull G's like a pilot in space. there is no sensation of movement whatsoever. i suggest in future you actually do some research before you try and tell everyone they're wrong
@allmodcons6 of course it's possible if you have the fuel. Turn on a perpendicular thruster in the nose, one the opposite way in the tail and the spaceship will accelerate and the inhabitants will feel it as gravity. Heck you can generate an artificial gravity field just the same way. You don't need anything to "push" against any more than does a rocket motor. There is no theoretical reason a spaceship can;t perform any maneuver an airplane can, it's only thrust
@RavenPrecept i think allmodcons6 is correct... the G in G-Force stands for gravitational force, and there is no gravity in space, unless you are close to a massive object, massive being something with mass. therefore you may feel a force acting upon you if you were in a spaceship that flew by close to a planet or star, but otherwise no. and also, RavenPrecept, space ships dont do tight turns in space at the moment, like you said, but it is possible to do, with the correct placement of thrusters
@spikegrob Whether you feel the force or not depends if you are resisting the force or are in equilibrium. The forces of gravity extend throughout the whole solar system, it's what keeps planets in orbit. In orbit the body is in equilibrium so feels no force. It is in fact the G-Forces of orbit, ie turning round the earth, which balance the actual force of gravity from the earth. You would not feel the G-Force of a planet unless the spaceship thrusted against this.
@RavenPrecept they are falling to earth but their forward motion is such that they keep missing it thats what orbit is retard. look at footage from the ISS and you'll see all the crew floating because of the zero-G environment. like i've already said there is no sensation of movement in space travel, there is no atmosphere to turn against so all manoeuvres are a series of straight lines, and it is impossible to 'pull G' like a fighter pilot in space.
@allmodcons6 Don't call me a retard. I was kind enough to explain it to a dummy like you without reference to the fact you are as thick as shit. If you pull tight turns you get G-Force, it matters not whether you use flaps or thrusters. Saying the reason there is not G-Force in space is because there is no air is something unique to you. No one else is that stupid. Even Cox would not say that.
@RavenPrecept IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO DO TIGHT TURNS IN SPACE THERE IS NO SENSATION OF MOVEMENT DURING SPACE TRAVEL AND IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PULL-G LIKE A PILOT IN SPACE. THE ONLY REASON PLANES TURN LIKE THEY DO IS BECAUSE THE ATMOSPHERE GIVES THEM A MEDIUM TO PULL AGAINST (HENCE FLAPS FOR THE CONTROL SURFACES) SPACE VEHICLES DON'T HAVE THIS, HENCE NO G-FORCE. I'M NOT A DUMMY BUT YOU ARE A RETARD BECAUSE EVERYTHING YOU'VE SAID IS WRONG
@allmodcons6 You really are a doofus. Calling on anyone who agrees with you to back you up please. If they don't agree with you then maybe they should back me up. This allmodcons is an idiot when it comes to science.
@allmodcons6 " IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO DO TIGHT TURNS IN SPACE"
Of course it is. It's just a question of thrust anything that can be done in the atmosphere can be done in space if you have the thrusters to do it. Just because it isn't done by human designed craft, doesn't mean it can't be done
I'm 44yrs old and am only now beginning to delve into wanting to study this fascinating subject! Brian Cox is such an inspiration to me, if teachers back at school in my day were like Brian I wouldnt have left it so late to learn more! Just started reading this book!
You have god in your hands? Why don't you give him a shake and wake him the fuck up. He's let wonderful things like disease, discrimination, war, poverty, ignorance, suffering and horror spread like wildfire. He needs to clean his room.
@portuguesemelon: It comes out of Einstein's other great insight, that time and space are not completely separate, but are connected by the universal constant "c". In physics you will learn that energy is releated to work, which is related to motion and force, which is related to mass and speed, and speed is related to time and space. So we already knew that energy was related to mass and time and space, even before Einstein. The connecion between time & space lets you add the "c".
Cox is to damn dumb to even remember the Co Authors full name or his credentials, that's a real genius and great guy for you. Jeff on the other hand seems to actually have a pretty good clue. Seen other Cox interviews and he is completely inept at expressing any logic during discussion without just retorting to lame name calling.
@godnmyhands i agree completely with you. I remember one debate he had with a physics professor from india and all Cox could do was call him 'curry breath' and 'smelly bum' and things like that.
@godnmyhands its called humour, maybe your not from the UK but i am from the north of england where both these guys are from and its just how we talk to each other. Brian Cox is a profesor of particle physics, i dont think you get there by bein a dumb ass. i personally think you are the dumb ass for not understanding this. oh an you have absolutely NO sense of humour by the way.
no discussion of any substance on what the theory is or how it works. worthless Cox promotion. Einstein's beautifully simple idea does not need this knuckle-head's help. Jeff Forshaw must be the books main contributing thinker, cause is sure isn't Cox!
I'm skimming these comments and I'm seeing some negative comments, oh okay, hmm... that one's from godnmyhands, gee, that's a shame... there's another argument going on here. Huh. Oh wait, that's him again. Hmm... oh, here's another one! ...it's by godnmyhands.
Had this book recommended to me with the words "Now it all makes sense!" by a friend who read it in a single sitting. aparently its very very good and cant wait to read it
These people are presenting a rather distorted version of physics; the sort that one usually associates with journalists. Why don't they mention, for instance, that mass-energy equivalence was proved by another German, long before Einstein. Indeed, the thought-experiment that he used makes it quite obvious that energy and matter HAVE to be equivalent. I wonder whether these young professors have really had time to study the history of their own subject!
Classical (non-relativistic) calculations of the mass-energy relationship were off by a troublesome factor of 4/3; just as classical light-deflection predictions were off by a factor of 2. Relativity theory removed these factors.
I found the introduction to be absolutely hilarious. "I'm Brian Cox, ruler of the universe and distorter of time as we all know it! This bloke over here....thats Jeff". It just seemed REALLY funny to me LOL
@Gtrsnax It came off the same way with me at too, But n in nature there is always an alpha and a beta, poor ole Jeff is just the Beta dog. Sorry. Foxy Coxy is just the Alpha...
Check out "relativity visualised" by Lewis Carrol Epstein (no, really). Should be in your local library system. He does a great job of, well, visualising why E=mc^2.
i would recommend this book to anyone considering a future career in science, or anyone who is interesting in furthering their knowledge.
To the people that doubt science, and its leaps, for example doubting moon landings, and believing the Earth will be swallowed into a black hole created by CERN, they only deserve our ignorance.
Cox still believes we landed on the moon...I think he's an utter dreamer. When the truth finally gets out I think his professor title ought to be expunged.
@k1net1k A camera was placed at the end of a darkened cylindrical tube as the Apollo craft orbited the Earth to give the impression of distance as they were supposedly travelling to the moon. It's not difficult to down size a full photograph even with 1969 technology.
@rh7189 so did they just orbit to whatever distance they needed to in order to get the full earth in shot ? i guess so. what do you think about the mars rover pictures ? are you saying we didnt go to the moon then, but have now ?
@rh7189 is there a telescope with enough clarity to look at the moon and see evidence ? or did they conveniently land all moon missions on the far side of the moon
@k1net1k Yes, it is. But we don't need it. There are mirrors on the moon which had lasers fired at them and beamed back to earth to calcualte distance, spin etc. The mirror were put there by man.
@k1net1k ...sorry hit "return" to early. I wanted to mention that my neighbour has a telescope that I have looked through and seen one of the moon buggies and the tracks in the surface. Yes, it is cool!!!!!
@MusicStudyMan no he hasn't there is no telescope big enough to resolve the lunar landers or buggies from earth even the hubble space telescope can't the JAXA satellite can but then again it is orbiting the moon
@allmodcons6 Ignorant or not, shit in my head or not - that doesn't change the fact that youare misinformed and you can rant all you like but you're the one looking like a shit head because you're talking out of your arse. Bye. Don't forget to write. xxx
@MusicStudyMan go on google, search for why can't we see the lunar lander on the moon and read the sixth result down. you need a telescope over 100 METRES in diameter (the largest ever built are only 8 metres) to be able to see anything that small. you're a liar and a retard. good day
@allmodcons6 ah I see you have your education from Google...wow, that's impressive Mr Numpty. Have you got your people skills training from McDonalds too?
@MusicStudyMan i see you've no education at all its not physically possible to see the lunar lander's from earth, or even Hubble. i've proven that, and also that you're a prize bullshitter so maybe you should just cut your losses and shut the fuck up
@allmodcons6 Ooooh, so we could get pictures of the lunar landers if they would simply show us the JAXA satellite photos? I expect many people would like to see those.
@k1net1k They have. Hubble has already and the japanese probe has pictures, they're not amazing but it they do exsist. There's really no reason to doubt the moon landings they brought back 382kg of moon rock, about 40 peices have been found on the earth aswell so there's no reason to doubt the origin of it.
I think anyone who doesn't believe is too stupid to understand the technology and is speaking whit an argument from ignorance (I don't know it means it is impossible)
Nasa can give us facts what were they doing every second of a single mission, you can't give us any fact that it was faked :)
@kandiys Well why don't you ask NASA as to the whereabouts of a whole room filled with original video footage of the supposed Apollo 11 (and other) moon landings? This has just disappeared into thin air, however the answer is all too obvious. It never pays to get too emotional with words like 'stupid', which reveals your emotional belief system programmed into your brain that says everything US does is honest.Why NASA hasn't been back to the moon in 41yrs..ask yourself? Wake up!
@rh7189 Have you ever tried to get all these answers by yourself? I was watching an interview another time with a documentary maker he said that there is a room with a lot of film cans and documentary makers are using it and they had spent a lot of weeks there.
And it is very expensive and dangerous to go to the moon, who would have tought? :))
@allmodcons6 Remind me why they did all that studio work with men lifted into the air on wires. In hindsight you have to agree that NASA putting out all that fake moon footage was bound to bite them in the bum one day. How can we believe they went to the moon when so much of their so called proof was theater? It would be a great idea to actually get some current shots of the moon landers, that might stop people complaining about how fake it all was.
I am not sure if you meant to say that if one collects all the pieces of ash when coal is burnt, no matter how impractical that may be, and weighs it, the ash would weigh less than the coal which was burnt because E = MC²? I would think that some part of the coal goes out as oxides in gaseous form and water vapor and even without E = MC², it would weigh less.
I will say the ideas were very scattered, they writers jump from one concept to another quiet frequently. Then again how long can you talk about the relationship between matter and energy :)
Now that statement about the possibility of travelling vast distances is the one that made me prick up my ears. I always believed that we were limited as to how far we could travel in inter-stellar space due to the shear distances involved. If physical laws are such that it makes possible such travel, that would be awesome indeed. Because surely there must be other ''earths'' out there but ver very distant indeed. I always thought they were too distant to be reachable.
@wlwak As one approaches the speed of light, length contracts in the direction of travel. Exactly at the speed of light, the distance to infinity becomes nothing. Of course, you can't actually reach that speed but in theory you could get arbitrarily close. Given sufficient propulsion, you could travel anywhere in the universe in any amount of time you choose. The downside is you will travel millions or billions of years into the future, so there is nothing for you to come home to.
i am 14 and for about maybe a year and a half my mind has been bottled by so many questions conserning einsteins theories. recently i was asked the question, how does E=MC2, and it stumped me. i have been researching it on my own and have had trouble understanding the concept of HOW einstein came up with this. if mass and energy are so similar. why doesn't it show more bluntly. and then after i grasp a concept. i have so many feeder questions. i need to answer my questions before i blow up.
Try not to think too much or your hair will become unmanageable like a lot of noted thinkers, i.e., Einstein and most professors with beards. You're young, so let your hair do you favors while it can. When you're about 26 you can return to thinkin.
I'm 47 and I still can't get my head around it :-)
But as to HOW; I think he made a few good assumptions based on experimental data and was clever/crazy enough to follow through all the logical consequences, without be led astray by 'common sense'.
One assumption was probably that all inertial frames have the same laws. The other was probably that the speed of EM waves (light) was one of these laws. He supposed it didn't move through a medium (eg like sound) but relative to the inertial frame.
haha portugesemelon I completely understand, I'm also 14 and suddenly about a week ago I got into physics and spend most of my waking hours study science(I even dream about science) I'm mostly confused about time, space and space time though.
@portugesemelon Get a girlfriend or boyfriend or whatever you're into lol. Youth is wasted on the young - don't be in a hurry to grow up. Plenty of time for these questions later ;) And if you think I'm just trying to be an asshole, I'm not. I've been reading Hawking et all since I was 14 myself, and I am talking from experience.
@portugesemelon always try and take it from first principles. If you don't understand relativity, try and understand what exactly is mass and what exactly is energy. What is and what happens at the speed of light? What is light? What is space and how does light move through it? Trust me, it's so much better to ask questions and not ever get an answer than it is to not ask them at all. But eventually, when if you start physics studies you will get to the point that relativity is illuminated.
Imagine a dime pops into existence, sits in place for 1 second then vanishes. If we rotate the time dimension into view, and the height dimension out of view that dime/second would be vertical dime sized column 300km tall
If the dime had moved 150km during that second, the column would still be 300km long, but it would be at a 30 deg angle, so only 255 km tall.
E=MC2 follows from the trig. Mass is the cross section. Time the height.
I laughed at "Why should we care?"
omgnotaflake 2 weeks ago
So if we could travel at light speed, then distance in the direction of travel would shrink to zero ? Is that correct ? That would mean, surely, that we would get from A to B in zero time. No time at all. I`m not a scientist. So I don`t know. I`m just going on the things one of these fella`s said. Can anyone enlighten me ?
valarmanwe 1 month ago
@valarmanwe no not zero although it would shrink. the reason that it is not zero is the fact that light does travel at a set speed-we can measure it. this speed is 299 792 458 m/s so although it is very fast the speed of light is not an infinite velocity so therefore the distance you are going to travel will not be zero. it would be shorter but not zero and it wouldn't take zero seconds either for the same reason. hope you are enlightened and if it makes no sense then tell me?
ljf95 1 month ago
@ljf95 I thought that the speed of light is variable, or is that just through different things? also I don't know if you know the answer but you sound kinda smart, does the light speed up again once it has passed through what ever was causing it to slow?
akaAlexthekid 2 weeks ago
@akaAlexthekid yes you can slow it down using super conductors and lasers but this very rarely happens naturally, and it does speed up again after being slowed down but we are still yet to discover why this happens.
ljf95 2 weeks ago
@ljf95 thanks =)
akaAlexthekid 2 weeks ago
So, you spend your time, saying nothing ?
Sounds about right...make money on your nothing book ;-)
gazzaka 1 month ago
No particle can travel faster than the speed of light, what these guys dont know is that Billy Connolly said so in his 'Tour of Scotland' series. Also climate change doesnt exist, George W Bush said its commy lies and he would know. Why dont we have a book burning campaign to focus peoples minds more on Jesus?
whangie1 2 months ago
No reason to doubt these guys... or?
RuudJH 2 months ago
I'm Brian Cox (enters into a monologue)
Oh , and this is Jeff.
:)
DreadedEddy 2 months ago
This guys My Tutor!
edddotcom 3 months ago
@edddotcom
which one? brian or Jeff?
psychobollox 1 month ago
@psychobollox Jeff but Brians just across the corridor
edddotcom 1 month ago
Jeff Forshaw's giving my lecture on Quantum Physics & Relativity tomorrow :) So excited!
TimothyGregoryMusic 3 months ago 2
The irony that Cern should prove Einstein wrong. :lol:
TCupUK 3 months ago
He always throws that he "works at cern" out there...lol
mattysimsoficial 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mattysimsoficial He has a right to be proud of that.
pcuimac 3 months ago
They are saying now this might be wrong. Saying now it might be e mc3?
knight72347 3 months ago
I guess you can't explain "why" the E=m part of the equation, right? It seems like reaching something too fundamental like opposite EM charge attract. I wonder however if the c^2 part can be explained to a layman like myself? Why the speed of light and why squared, then? Anyone can point me to some other video/website about this? Thanks!
cristianfcao 4 months ago
@cristianfcao ² is because we live in a 3 dimensional universe. C because the speed of light was thought of as a constant, witch we have known for a long time it is not. And E=M implies that all energy has mass and all mass has energy. Effectively suggesting they are interchangeable.
The standard model has gravitons which are considered to be massless energy which would mean that E does not = M. And Cern is more concerned with string theory than Einstein's dinosaur. Hope it helps.
TCupUK 3 months ago
@cristianfcao - Here's my take on it. Everything comes from light, or if you're spiritual like me you might say from The Source. It therefore makes sense that light is the basis of the physical universe. My view is that outside this physical dimension there is no time, or space and therefore no velocity, so light is everywhere and nowhere. The speed of light in a vacuum acts as a mathematical base on which to build the structure of the physical universe. Everything afterall is just energy.
FractalCodex 2 months ago
@FractalCodex I was hoping for a merely physical (i.e.: not "metaphysical") answer to my question, but thanks anyway.
cristianfcao 2 months ago
@cristianfcao no worries. Actually once you delve deeper into what we call "the physical universe" you actually discover that this is indeed the illusion, after all it is mostly empty. Quantum Mechanics gives light to the viewpoint that thoughts become things, but yeah all the sciencey stuff is cool too... I'm still hanging out for some breakthru with the Higgs Boson and the mass effect.
FractalCodex 1 month ago
@cristianfcao
don't listen to FractalCodex; that was all crap.it's nothing to do with charge either. this is about the way in which matter behaves at speeds approaching c. the actual equation is better understood in this form: (E/m) = c² ...which shows why - the more energy that is fed into a particle to make its speed approach c - the higher its mass becomes ... as measured from a stationary frame of reference. as for the WHY of all this, you need to read a lot of books.
psychobollox 1 month ago
I'm Brian Cox. I'm a particle physicist. I work at.... WRONG INTRO. I am Brian Cox and I'm a fucking legend. RIGHT INTRO.
TranslatorTuber 4 months ago
Listened to Jeff Foreshaw talk yesterday, my mind is boggled :P
neevle93 4 months ago
1234 likes/dislikes
mp3talon 4 months ago
i really have no idea what i just said :)
but im gonna stick to that.
ImmortalUniverse 4 months ago
As bad as evangelical Christians professing the glory of God.
Give us some frikin' proof!
(without having to read the wretched book!)
jagara1 5 months ago
@jagara1
If you want some proof that E=MC^2 then go look at a nuclear reactor. If you want to know why E=MC^2then don't be a cheapskate and go buy the book :P
ytmoog 5 months ago
@ytmoog
E = MC2
hmmmm.
i think it should be
existing Energy = mass times the maximum speed of electro magnetic waves stretching out in both directions.. E = stretching of space and time times the amount of gravitons .
ImmortalUniverse 4 months ago
@ImmortalUniverse
I'm sorry; but the universe does not need to conform to how you would like it to be.
Also I suggest you learn where that formulae came from before you just start making up things.
ytmoog 4 months ago
@ytmoog
why so serious?
we gonna die .
so i make up my reality.
goz i am my own observer.
your formula falls apart when you break down everything to quantum level.
that must give you a clue .
ImmortalUniverse 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ImmortalUniverse
"so i make up my reality."
You can make up whatever you want, doesn't make it true or useful though.
"your formula falls apart when you break down everything to quantum level."
Actually it does not.
The full form of the formulae applies everywhere on every scale.
"that must give you a clue"
Yea, it tells me you have no idea what you are talking about.
ytmoog 4 months ago
Articulate ego tripper asks an opinion of a stuttering gasbag . /
peterm3964 5 months ago
@peterm3964 in a nutshell "absolutely" .. this video actually makes me care less ! if you're gonna profess then make it interesting at least ... *yawn*
ma1com10tatgmaildotc 5 months ago
Excuse me, I'm not a physicist, not even close. I have a question.
If satellites and the ISS and the Moon orbit the Earth because of gravity then why do the astronauts not experience gravity inside or outside the space station? They just float away outside if they're left alone but the ISS and satellites don't. Why?
sausagedogheaven 5 months ago
@sausagedogheaven They do. Not as much as a large object, but some. Left alone long enough they would fall to earth.
polygona9 5 months ago
buying this book today :D
BaskingInTheRain 5 months ago
i'm done with this bitch whatever you do don't consider physics as a career save us all that at least
allmodcons6 6 months ago
Would somebody in a "space vehicle" travelling at some fantasticle speed not feel somesort of force if sitting in a chair aka Captain Kirk style now when say the Enterprise does a tight turn to fire some missiles at some Romulan fag would not Cpt Kirk feel some force into his seat due to the direction his body is moving relative to the directional change of the Enterprise? Or is it like a fly hovering in a car?
cactus200 6 months ago
I hope he doesnt spoil the ending..
Skateonyourmam 6 months ago
God, it's Justin Bieber of theoretical physics...
fakpuppet 6 months ago
Personally i'm not really interested in the conditions after the big bang.I want to know what there was before the big bang.
Thensolomonsaid 7 months ago
@Thensolomonsaid Are you dismissing god? Because that is a possibility. I hate christians that dismiss the big bang and people that dismiss god. Why can't god have caused the big bang? People that say it is not POSSIBLE actually piss me off. Not that i'm saying that is what you're saying.
dannysmith15 6 months ago
@dannysmith15 No i am not saying that.I am a Christian.All the talk seems to be about the big bang as some proof that God does not exist.But not many even try to explain their theories on what there was before the big bang.It seems the big bang,or expansion of the universe,is accepted as fact by most and if this is the case why could it not have been at Gods hands?It seems to me ,and i have studied physics, that most physicists create theories out of thin air to try to explain the unexplainable.
Thensolomonsaid 6 months ago
I was really enjoying reading this book until I reached page 72 and the next page was 143 - how bloody annoying - great book so far tho - fascinating ;-)))
Judipops13 7 months ago
Is that claudeel einstein - winner of the 2010 nolbel 'tit of the year' award ?
squeatley 8 months ago
e equals emc sqare cuz emc square equals e , its that fuckin simple
claudeel 8 months ago
'The Portable Atheist' edited by Christopher Hitchens is on the bookshelf behind them.
chrisgrainger 8 months ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 8 months ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 8 months ago
E=mc Viringa
unda93 8 months ago
Brian knows his stuff. He's proper mint.
itsthearistocrat 9 months ago
why not E = qc2
Mr21Snakeeyes 9 months ago
@Mr21Snakeeyes Equations are like sentances....just simplified, so when you see E=mc^2 you think Energy (E) is equal to mass (m) times'd by the square of the universal constant (c). So for the sentance to make sense it has to mean the same thing, if you wanted q to denote mass then yes, you could put E=qc^2 but it's just generally agreed that m is mass. If maths is complicated for you just think of them as sentances, not algebra (that's the difference between mathmatical and physics algebra).
Sciocc0 9 months ago
Comment removed
Drensworth 9 months ago
Epic fail guys.
GlentoranMark 9 months ago
It's a brilliant book. I'm reading it now. Go get it if your like these things.
KarlHansson 10 months ago
@KarlHansson OK, at the end of the book see if you understand why the people in the spaceship age more slowly than those on earth. If their speeds are relative then they are both moving away from each other and back together at the same rate. If it's to do with acceleration then what was that cryptic stuff about accelerating at G-Force for 40 years making 40,000 years pass? That's like a 40 year old living on earth, surely, if it's relative? Conclusion; it's crap and Brian don't get it.
RavenPrecept 6 months ago
@RavenPrecept G-Force?? the G stands for gravity and that depends on where you are (different values in different place) but there isn't any in space. the accepted theory is that the closer to LIGHT SPEED you travel the slower time goes relative to the objects travelling at that speed. so a man travelling at light speed for 40 years could go home to find that 40000 years had passed on earth
allmodcons6 6 months ago
@allmodcons6 No G-Force in space? What planet are you on? What do you think stops this planet going in a straight line and not orbiting the sun? Same with people on the space station, why does that not fly off into deep space? Just because forces sum to zero does not mean there is no force.
RavenPrecept 6 months ago
@RavenPrecept yes gravity keeps objects in orbit but it sure as shit isn't a measure of speed you fuckwit. the G- Force you were referring too is the G-Force experienced by fighter pilots and the like, which isn't felt in space
allmodcons6 6 months ago
@allmodcons6 I'm sorry but if a space vehicle were to do tight turns like a fighter plane but in space the pilot would still feel the G-Forces. I don't understand what you mean by gravity is not a measure of speed, I never said it was. However without opposing forces gravity does lead to an increase in speed.
RavenPrecept 6 months ago
@RavenPrecept absolute horseshit space vehicles don't do tight turns or banking like on earth because there is no atmosphere to bank against, all space manoeuvres are a series of straight lines. THERE ARE NO G-FORCES THAT ACT ON PILOTS IN SPACE THATS WHY IN THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION THATS MOVING AT OVER 5 MILES A SECOND THE CREW STILL FLOAT AND ARE NOT PRESSED INTO THE FLOOR.
allmodcons6 6 months ago
@allmodcons6 OK, that explains a lot. According to you there are no G-Forces in space because there is no atmosphere to push against. Fantastic and incredible. Anyone else agree with this?
RavenPrecept 6 months ago
@RavenPrecept thats not what i said idiot you said 'if a space vehicle were to do tight turns like a fighter plane' which isn't possible like i already explained retard. you can't pull G's like a pilot in space. there is no sensation of movement whatsoever. i suggest in future you actually do some research before you try and tell everyone they're wrong
allmodcons6 6 months ago
@allmodcons6 of course it's possible if you have the fuel. Turn on a perpendicular thruster in the nose, one the opposite way in the tail and the spaceship will accelerate and the inhabitants will feel it as gravity. Heck you can generate an artificial gravity field just the same way. You don't need anything to "push" against any more than does a rocket motor. There is no theoretical reason a spaceship can;t perform any maneuver an airplane can, it's only thrust
salerio61 5 months ago
@RavenPrecept i think allmodcons6 is correct... the G in G-Force stands for gravitational force, and there is no gravity in space, unless you are close to a massive object, massive being something with mass. therefore you may feel a force acting upon you if you were in a spaceship that flew by close to a planet or star, but otherwise no. and also, RavenPrecept, space ships dont do tight turns in space at the moment, like you said, but it is possible to do, with the correct placement of thrusters
spikegrob 6 months ago
@spikegrob Whether you feel the force or not depends if you are resisting the force or are in equilibrium. The forces of gravity extend throughout the whole solar system, it's what keeps planets in orbit. In orbit the body is in equilibrium so feels no force. It is in fact the G-Forces of orbit, ie turning round the earth, which balance the actual force of gravity from the earth. You would not feel the G-Force of a planet unless the spaceship thrusted against this.
RavenPrecept 6 months ago
@allmodcons6 What force stops them from falling to earth?
RavenPrecept 6 months ago
@RavenPrecept they are falling to earth but their forward motion is such that they keep missing it thats what orbit is retard. look at footage from the ISS and you'll see all the crew floating because of the zero-G environment. like i've already said there is no sensation of movement in space travel, there is no atmosphere to turn against so all manoeuvres are a series of straight lines, and it is impossible to 'pull G' like a fighter pilot in space.
allmodcons6 6 months ago
@allmodcons6 Don't call me a retard. I was kind enough to explain it to a dummy like you without reference to the fact you are as thick as shit. If you pull tight turns you get G-Force, it matters not whether you use flaps or thrusters. Saying the reason there is not G-Force in space is because there is no air is something unique to you. No one else is that stupid. Even Cox would not say that.
RavenPrecept 6 months ago
@RavenPrecept IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO DO TIGHT TURNS IN SPACE THERE IS NO SENSATION OF MOVEMENT DURING SPACE TRAVEL AND IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PULL-G LIKE A PILOT IN SPACE. THE ONLY REASON PLANES TURN LIKE THEY DO IS BECAUSE THE ATMOSPHERE GIVES THEM A MEDIUM TO PULL AGAINST (HENCE FLAPS FOR THE CONTROL SURFACES) SPACE VEHICLES DON'T HAVE THIS, HENCE NO G-FORCE. I'M NOT A DUMMY BUT YOU ARE A RETARD BECAUSE EVERYTHING YOU'VE SAID IS WRONG
allmodcons6 6 months ago
@allmodcons6 You really are a doofus. Calling on anyone who agrees with you to back you up please. If they don't agree with you then maybe they should back me up. This allmodcons is an idiot when it comes to science.
RavenPrecept 6 months ago
@allmodcons6 " IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO DO TIGHT TURNS IN SPACE"
Of course it is. It's just a question of thrust anything that can be done in the atmosphere can be done in space if you have the thrusters to do it. Just because it isn't done by human designed craft, doesn't mean it can't be done
salerio61 5 months ago
@salerio61 the earth does.
ImmortalUniverse 5 months ago
I'm 12 years old and Love science but I can't get my head around some equations going to buy the book though!!!
xxHoLtStAz 10 months ago
@xxHoLtStAz do it
FIGHTFANNERD3 9 months ago
I'm 44yrs old and am only now beginning to delve into wanting to study this fascinating subject! Brian Cox is such an inspiration to me, if teachers back at school in my day were like Brian I wouldnt have left it so late to learn more! Just started reading this book!
SuperStarlight777 10 months ago
@godinmyhands you're a douche.
eloisejo 10 months ago
He needs some Just For Men. And I need a toupee.
basstard013 10 months ago
Brian Cox is the reason I'm going to school for Physics!
kungfudancin 11 months ago 9
@kungfudancin
is this in a sens that if he can do it everybody else can?
vocam12 10 months ago
@vocam12 I was choosing between chem and physics but then I realized (because of him) how awesome physics is!
kungfudancin 10 months ago
@kungfudancin Me too man! :D Prof. Brian Cox FTW!
PatrickVedlog 4 months ago
I have a sense of humor... however all i sense in Mr Cocks is an idiot.
godnmyhands 11 months ago
@godnmyhands yeah cos CERN have a habit of bringing idiots into their establishment don't they?
crispee1978 11 months ago
@godnmyhands "your sense is weak old man"
davidcross30 11 months ago
@godnmyhands
He has a PhD and has been working on one of the biggest experiments in science to date, of course, he must be some sort of vegetable!
BlockisticStudios 4 months ago
@godnmyhands
You have god in your hands? Why don't you give him a shake and wake him the fuck up. He's let wonderful things like disease, discrimination, war, poverty, ignorance, suffering and horror spread like wildfire. He needs to clean his room.
BlockisticStudios 4 months ago
c^2 = 10^16... 16 orders of magnitude... im like 1000 nukes walking around :|
Makkerz 11 months ago
@portuguesemelon: It comes out of Einstein's other great insight, that time and space are not completely separate, but are connected by the universal constant "c". In physics you will learn that energy is releated to work, which is related to motion and force, which is related to mass and speed, and speed is related to time and space. So we already knew that energy was related to mass and time and space, even before Einstein. The connecion between time & space lets you add the "c".
rickbrown2000 11 months ago
@dminortheory ...nice what a solid come back.
"...and this is Jeff." ...wow great intro of the co-author. real bright one here.
godnmyhands 1 year ago
Cox is to damn dumb to even remember the Co Authors full name or his credentials, that's a real genius and great guy for you. Jeff on the other hand seems to actually have a pretty good clue. Seen other Cox interviews and he is completely inept at expressing any logic during discussion without just retorting to lame name calling.
godnmyhands 1 year ago
@godnmyhands TROLLS DIE.
dminortheory 1 year ago
@godnmyhands i agree completely with you. I remember one debate he had with a physics professor from india and all Cox could do was call him 'curry breath' and 'smelly bum' and things like that.
vymmas 11 months ago
@vymmas lol
SuperLevi07 11 months ago
@godnmyhands its called humour, maybe your not from the UK but i am from the north of england where both these guys are from and its just how we talk to each other. Brian Cox is a profesor of particle physics, i dont think you get there by bein a dumb ass. i personally think you are the dumb ass for not understanding this. oh an you have absolutely NO sense of humour by the way.
crispee1978 11 months ago
Cox = cheezy fake smile.. completely in-genuine poof.
no discussion of any substance on what the theory is or how it works. worthless Cox promotion. Einstein's beautifully simple idea does not need this knuckle-head's help. Jeff Forshaw must be the books main contributing thinker, cause is sure isn't Cox!
godnmyhands 1 year ago
@godnmyhands piss off god botherer
allmodcons6 7 months ago
@godnmyhands
I'm skimming these comments and I'm seeing some negative comments, oh okay, hmm... that one's from godnmyhands, gee, that's a shame... there's another argument going on here. Huh. Oh wait, that's him again. Hmm... oh, here's another one! ...it's by godnmyhands.
BlockisticStudios 4 months ago
And this is Jeff.
Hellfire2120 1 year ago 2
Had this book recommended to me with the words "Now it all makes sense!" by a friend who read it in a single sitting. aparently its very very good and cant wait to read it
timefallen 1 year ago
X for upload dude
molekulaTV 1 year ago
Jeff has no ear lobes ...
BazzDolan 1 year ago
These people are presenting a rather distorted version of physics; the sort that one usually associates with journalists. Why don't they mention, for instance, that mass-energy equivalence was proved by another German, long before Einstein. Indeed, the thought-experiment that he used makes it quite obvious that energy and matter HAVE to be equivalent. I wonder whether these young professors have really had time to study the history of their own subject!
flowerbower 1 year ago
@flowerbower
in the book i expect they do:D
fao4shka 1 year ago
@flowerbower
in the book i expect they do:D oh by the way Dr Cox is around 47
fao4shka 1 year ago
@fao4shka No, they don't*. And he is 42.
Classical (non-relativistic) calculations of the mass-energy relationship were off by a troublesome factor of 4/3; just as classical light-deflection predictions were off by a factor of 2. Relativity theory removed these factors.
flowerbower 1 year ago
@fao4shka
cox was born in 1968
simpsonmark 1 year ago
I found the introduction to be absolutely hilarious. "I'm Brian Cox, ruler of the universe and distorter of time as we all know it! This bloke over here....thats Jeff". It just seemed REALLY funny to me LOL
Gtrsnax 1 year ago 44
@Gtrsnax haha yeah i bet he was laughing aswell! lol
DJMKN93 1 year ago
@Gtrsnax It came off the same way with me at too, But n in nature there is always an alpha and a beta, poor ole Jeff is just the Beta dog. Sorry. Foxy Coxy is just the Alpha...
solipsisticone 7 months ago
@Gtrsnax except he didnt say that
khisanth75 5 months ago
2:00 Brian considers the very real fact that Jeff is coming on to him.
uberminge 1 year ago
HAHAHAHA and right after that Brian starts leaning away
riptide3568 1 year ago
@melon:
Check out "relativity visualised" by Lewis Carrol Epstein (no, really). Should be in your local library system. He does a great job of, well, visualising why E=mc^2.
fnxtr 1 year ago
I think that over guy is using Brains name to sell a book.
BlindingBlizzard 1 year ago
i would recommend this book to anyone considering a future career in science, or anyone who is interesting in furthering their knowledge.
To the people that doubt science, and its leaps, for example doubting moon landings, and believing the Earth will be swallowed into a black hole created by CERN, they only deserve our ignorance.
EnceladusTitan 1 year ago
im reading your book and im a big fan and im 10 years old. like your book its awesome
jonreiluis 1 year ago
so um, why do people think the moon landing was fake? and why are they discussing it on this videos comments?
Vermin298 1 year ago
Cox still believes we landed on the moon...I think he's an utter dreamer. When the truth finally gets out I think his professor title ought to be expunged.
rh7189 1 year ago
@rh7189 what do you think took the photos looking back at earth then.
k1net1k 1 year ago
@k1net1k A camera was placed at the end of a darkened cylindrical tube as the Apollo craft orbited the Earth to give the impression of distance as they were supposedly travelling to the moon. It's not difficult to down size a full photograph even with 1969 technology.
rh7189 1 year ago
@rh7189 so did they just orbit to whatever distance they needed to in order to get the full earth in shot ? i guess so. what do you think about the mars rover pictures ? are you saying we didnt go to the moon then, but have now ?
k1net1k 1 year ago
@rh7189 is there a telescope with enough clarity to look at the moon and see evidence ? or did they conveniently land all moon missions on the far side of the moon
k1net1k 1 year ago
@k1net1k Yes, it is. But we don't need it. There are mirrors on the moon which had lasers fired at them and beamed back to earth to calcualte distance, spin etc. The mirror were put there by man.
MusicStudyMan 1 year ago
@k1net1k ...sorry hit "return" to early. I wanted to mention that my neighbour has a telescope that I have looked through and seen one of the moon buggies and the tracks in the surface. Yes, it is cool!!!!!
MusicStudyMan 1 year ago
@MusicStudyMan no he hasn't there is no telescope big enough to resolve the lunar landers or buggies from earth even the hubble space telescope can't the JAXA satellite can but then again it is orbiting the moon
allmodcons6 7 months ago
@allmodcons6 yes he has. you're a jealous twat.
MusicStudyMan 7 months ago
@MusicStudyMan no he hasn't because its not possible shit head. you're an ignorant prick
allmodcons6 7 months ago
@allmodcons6 Ignorant or not, shit in my head or not - that doesn't change the fact that youare misinformed and you can rant all you like but you're the one looking like a shit head because you're talking out of your arse. Bye. Don't forget to write. xxx
MusicStudyMan 7 months ago
@MusicStudyMan go on google, search for why can't we see the lunar lander on the moon and read the sixth result down. you need a telescope over 100 METRES in diameter (the largest ever built are only 8 metres) to be able to see anything that small. you're a liar and a retard. good day
allmodcons6 7 months ago
@allmodcons6 ah I see you have your education from Google...wow, that's impressive Mr Numpty. Have you got your people skills training from McDonalds too?
MusicStudyMan 7 months ago
@MusicStudyMan i see you've no education at all its not physically possible to see the lunar lander's from earth, or even Hubble. i've proven that, and also that you're a prize bullshitter so maybe you should just cut your losses and shut the fuck up
allmodcons6 7 months ago
@allmodcons6 Ooooh, so we could get pictures of the lunar landers if they would simply show us the JAXA satellite photos? I expect many people would like to see those.
RavenPrecept 6 months ago
@RavenPrecept you can see them search for them on the web
allmodcons6 6 months ago
@k1net1k They have. Hubble has already and the japanese probe has pictures, they're not amazing but it they do exsist. There's really no reason to doubt the moon landings they brought back 382kg of moon rock, about 40 peices have been found on the earth aswell so there's no reason to doubt the origin of it.
redeyejedi1987 1 year ago
I think anyone who doesn't believe is too stupid to understand the technology and is speaking whit an argument from ignorance (I don't know it means it is impossible)
Nasa can give us facts what were they doing every second of a single mission, you can't give us any fact that it was faked :)
kandiys 1 year ago
@kandiys Well why don't you ask NASA as to the whereabouts of a whole room filled with original video footage of the supposed Apollo 11 (and other) moon landings? This has just disappeared into thin air, however the answer is all too obvious. It never pays to get too emotional with words like 'stupid', which reveals your emotional belief system programmed into your brain that says everything US does is honest.Why NASA hasn't been back to the moon in 41yrs..ask yourself? Wake up!
rh7189 1 year ago
@rh7189 Have you ever tried to get all these answers by yourself? I was watching an interview another time with a documentary maker he said that there is a room with a lot of film cans and documentary makers are using it and they had spent a lot of weeks there.
And it is very expensive and dangerous to go to the moon, who would have tought? :))
kandiys 1 year ago
@rh7189 every single theory about the moon landings being faked can, and have been, proved completely unfounded
allmodcons6 7 months ago
@allmodcons6 Remind me why they did all that studio work with men lifted into the air on wires. In hindsight you have to agree that NASA putting out all that fake moon footage was bound to bite them in the bum one day. How can we believe they went to the moon when so much of their so called proof was theater? It would be a great idea to actually get some current shots of the moon landers, that might stop people complaining about how fake it all was.
RavenPrecept 6 months ago
I am not sure if you meant to say that if one collects all the pieces of ash when coal is burnt, no matter how impractical that may be, and weighs it, the ash would weigh less than the coal which was burnt because E = MC²? I would think that some part of the coal goes out as oxides in gaseous form and water vapor and even without E = MC², it would weigh less.
uchakrabarty 1 year ago
Iv read this book, was really intersting.
I will say the ideas were very scattered, they writers jump from one concept to another quiet frequently. Then again how long can you talk about the relationship between matter and energy :)
jaydnisevil 1 year ago
Brought the book last week and haven't put it down since. Found some it a bit hard to get my head around but what I do understand is mind-blowing ;)
toutpardonner 1 year ago
Cover of the book: Let me guess, the cat is bemused by an ever expanding circle on the ground only to be hit by a dustbin landing from great height!?
johnnythelowery 1 year ago
@johnnythelowery: The cat is simultaneously hit and not hit by the dustbin. And it stays that way 'till you open the book.
jpdemers 1 year ago
..and this is Jeff
LOL brilliant :)
this books firmly on my ever increasing to-read list
InsaneFandom 1 year ago
@InsaneFandom hahaha That is so classic
thejugglenaut91 1 year ago
lol i saw a shot on the latest solar system show 'dead or alive' a sneaky shot of a man 'reading' this in the camp. sneaky plug!!
Beoy999 1 year ago
ah whats wrong with his hair
rohit91 1 year ago
@rohit91 He's going gray....he's 42...not all that surprising lol.
MissGwen17 1 year ago
Now that statement about the possibility of travelling vast distances is the one that made me prick up my ears. I always believed that we were limited as to how far we could travel in inter-stellar space due to the shear distances involved. If physical laws are such that it makes possible such travel, that would be awesome indeed. Because surely there must be other ''earths'' out there but ver very distant indeed. I always thought they were too distant to be reachable.
wlwak 1 year ago
@wlwak As one approaches the speed of light, length contracts in the direction of travel. Exactly at the speed of light, the distance to infinity becomes nothing. Of course, you can't actually reach that speed but in theory you could get arbitrarily close. Given sufficient propulsion, you could travel anywhere in the universe in any amount of time you choose. The downside is you will travel millions or billions of years into the future, so there is nothing for you to come home to.
jlmadill 1 year ago
Brian does look like the ove child of Cliff Richard..?
SASNIGHTCRAWLER 1 year ago
Waiting for my copy of the book Jeff.......
thepatchetts1 1 year ago
i am 14 and for about maybe a year and a half my mind has been bottled by so many questions conserning einsteins theories. recently i was asked the question, how does E=MC2, and it stumped me. i have been researching it on my own and have had trouble understanding the concept of HOW einstein came up with this. if mass and energy are so similar. why doesn't it show more bluntly. and then after i grasp a concept. i have so many feeder questions. i need to answer my questions before i blow up.
portugesemelon 1 year ago 72
@portugesemelon
Glad you are 14 and thinking about this stuff. Keep your thirst for knowledge.
brodi81 1 year ago 56
@brodi81 indeed
FIGHTFANNERD3 9 months ago
@portugesemelon
Try not to think too much or your hair will become unmanageable like a lot of noted thinkers, i.e., Einstein and most professors with beards. You're young, so let your hair do you favors while it can. When you're about 26 you can return to thinkin.
PatrickLeeRyan 1 year ago
@PatrickLeeRyan
We both know that kind of unmanageable hair is the best hair. It's the hair of science. Einstein, Clifford Stoll, it's all awesome.
BlockisticStudios 4 months ago
I'm 47 and I still can't get my head around it :-)
But as to HOW; I think he made a few good assumptions based on experimental data and was clever/crazy enough to follow through all the logical consequences, without be led astray by 'common sense'.
One assumption was probably that all inertial frames have the same laws. The other was probably that the speed of EM waves (light) was one of these laws. He supposed it didn't move through a medium (eg like sound) but relative to the inertial frame.
chrisofnottingham 1 year ago
haha portugesemelon I completely understand, I'm also 14 and suddenly about a week ago I got into physics and spend most of my waking hours study science(I even dream about science) I'm mostly confused about time, space and space time though.
VanHalen383 1 year ago 2
Have you learned about the photoelectric effect yet?
ecaepevolhturt 1 year ago
@portugesemelon Get a girlfriend or boyfriend or whatever you're into lol. Youth is wasted on the young - don't be in a hurry to grow up. Plenty of time for these questions later ;) And if you think I'm just trying to be an asshole, I'm not. I've been reading Hawking et all since I was 14 myself, and I am talking from experience.
themuid 1 year ago
@themuid i'll take that inter consideration! thank you
portugesemelon 1 year ago
@portugesemelon always try and take it from first principles. If you don't understand relativity, try and understand what exactly is mass and what exactly is energy. What is and what happens at the speed of light? What is light? What is space and how does light move through it? Trust me, it's so much better to ask questions and not ever get an answer than it is to not ask them at all. But eventually, when if you start physics studies you will get to the point that relativity is illuminated.
thejugglenaut91 1 year ago
Re; how does e=mc2
Time is a dimension
Imagine a dime pops into existence, sits in place for 1 second then vanishes. If we rotate the time dimension into view, and the height dimension out of view that dime/second would be vertical dime sized column 300km tall
If the dime had moved 150km during that second, the column would still be 300km long, but it would be at a 30 deg angle, so only 255 km tall.
E=MC2 follows from the trig. Mass is the cross section. Time the height.
neoaeonian 1 year ago
@neoaeonian Corrections to what I wrote above:
300km -> 300,000 km
150km -> 150,000 km
255km -> 255,000 km
neoaeonian 1 year ago
@portugesemelon and dont get fed up with the education system.
TurKdiRty 1 year ago
Einstein was the first to give the energy/ mass equivalence a firm theoretical footing, i.e. to prove that and explain WHY E = mc^2
musicalgenius1234 1 year ago
@portugesemelon you remind me of me; maybe we are the same person 0.0
MelodyAnneHedin 1 year ago
@portugesemelon wow I feel the same way!!! I´m only a year older than you :-D finally someone who gets me and has the same q´s
KellzSparkzandlenny 1 year ago