I'm pretty sure that Time Dilation is why the digital clock in my truck always starts to get a few minutes slower and slower to my work digital clock after months and months of driving it...
@wallacegrommit Let an inertial frame O(τ) move with speed `v` relative to another inertial frame O(t). The frames have identical clocks initially synchronized, and working ideally. The time dilation formula is t=γτ. Where γ=1/√(1-v²/c²).
Suppose your truck is moving with speed v=100km/hr. Using the value of `c` in the same units gives γ= 1.000000000000008573463649000074 !
so would that mean that your age is dependent on how close you are to earth? Say two people were born at the same moment, one on earth, the other at a different location at space, and they met 20 (earth) years later, the one that was born at the other place would be younger?
@chopperboi89 It depends on the strength of the gravitational field. The stronger the gravity is the slower time runs. If one person lived right next to a black hole he would age extremely slowly.
I wish you would be more detailed, explain a bit more in this videos. I don't take it would take hours. It's very educational and it would be worth the time.
Alphabetical sentences, etc can be said via words &, or mathematical equations such as +3.65 • 10⁵ ± -3.65 • 10⁵ via math is alphabetically equivalent to saying 1 = 1000 to the bibliotist(s) &, or the adeptly cognizant individual(s) with adequate knowledge &, or understand within the congruent field(s) of physics. Time dilation (i.e., Δt =) E = m oscillation variations
@soymilk135799 Galaxies, etc are extreme time dilation field.
The Milky Way galaxy (in all actuality) is nothing more than the accretion disc of a super massive black hole & within our particular gravity field of the accretion disc our space Δ time is slowed down by a factor of -3.65 • 10⁵ (√+3.65 • 10⁵)
Since all things (height, width, density, space, velocity, time, knowledge, understanding, etc) is relative, relatively speaking people are not aware they're in a extreme time dilation field.
Let a clock C₁ at rest in the muon frame, and moving relative to another clock C₂ (with speed `v`) that it is initially synchronized with, measure time `τ`. Let C₂ measure time `t`.
The time-dilation formula is t=γτ, where γ>1 ∀v∈(0,c). Where γ=1/√(1-v²/c²).
Therefore, C₂ will `tick` faster than C₁. Viz., for an observer at rest with C₂ the muon decay will have already occured.
To those muons moving to the earth, in their frame of reference, there are not moving, so for them, they would have decayed before reaching the earth, while to us, they have not.
And in LHC, two beams of hadron moving in the speed 10m/s below light in the opposite diretion. From the reference frame of one of them, the other beam is travelling faster than the speed of light,but if special relativity is true, what speed of the later beam would the former beam observe?
No. The act of changing direction introduces an acceleration even if you don't change speed.
To visualize this, think of two bowls; one in your car and one in your house. If you put a marble in the one in your car and get on the highway, and go through a bank at a constant speed, you will observe the marble to move in the bowl. This is different from the marble in the bowl in your house. This difference is due to the changing direction. Same idea for the twins.
Time is simply a mass of quarks-gluons, ions-gluons, subatomic particles-gluons, atoms-gluons oscillations which is all subjected to gravity thus I say, our Milky Way galaxy (in all actuality) is nothing more than the accretion disc of a super massive black hole & within our particular gravity field of the accretion disc our time frame is slowed down by a factor of -3.65 • 10⁵.
All things (height, width, depth, space, distance, time, knowledge, understanding, etc) is relative to something else.
What if there is an object moving faster than the speed of light relative to the earth simply due to the expanding universe,then the expansion slows down and the light emitted when the relative velocity is higher than the speed of light finally reach our eyes, would we be seeing its time not being dilated at all or flowing backwards?
Awesome video. I've been just going through and clicking on all of the Sixty Symbols videos. I'm no physicist, and in fact...never even took a physics class in High School. But this stuff is all very interesting to me, and I've thoroughly enjoyed every second of these 'lessons' so far. This is now, by far and away, my favorite.
What if the spaceship go pass the earth at a constant velocity which is near to the speed of light relative to the earth and at a trajectory very near to the earth, and inside it is an atomic clock. There would also be another identical atomic clock on earth. Both the clocks would start ticking when they pass through each other, and the spaceship would send out Radio signal to tell what time is its atomic clock indicates. Then what would the time difference be?
@LeconsdAnalyse Would you mind using a plainer language? And if i take away the time the radio signal it takes to travel? And should the time differences measured on earth and spaceship be the same?
actually only after they accounted for time dilation they were able to make GPS devices precise to 1m cause GPS satelites move so fast relative to earth surface.
@koktelici Incorrect, time dilation works not just with high speed, but with high gravity as well. Satellites' speed is insignificant relative to the speed of light, so speed is not a factor. The lower gravity in space is what is important here. Their clocks are actually faster than clocks on the surface, taking this into account is what allows high accuracy GPS.
@koktelici No, the relative motion between the earth and the satellite are cancelled out by the fact the satellites are higher from the earth, and thus time runs faster. And it's the gravitational time dilation that wins so the clocks have to be adjusted for that. The relative motion only reduces the amount.
@LeconsdAnalyse There is, but the relative velocity is cancelled out by the gravity. Say, normal = 0, faster time = +ve, slower time = -ve, The motion brings the time brings it to say, -5, but the gravity counters this and brings it to +1 (not exact or to scale, but the point is gravity wins). It's the gravity that causes the damage.
The motion of muons is redshifted relative to our frame, but our frame is blueshifted when observed from the muon's frame. It must be, since our universes is passing by at a very much faster rate. This is the undeniable, proven reality of the time dilation.
This Assymetry is counter to SR and needs testing.
I suggest measuring the transverse doppler shift of a rocket passing overhead at great speed.
You will find I'm right and SR will have to be changed.
@MrKENHUGHES How is the muon's frame redshifted relative to ours? As far as I gathered, the muon was heading TOWARDS the earth. If there is relative movement between two objects, SR still applies as both sides measure a "blueshift" (The term is inapplicable here, but I'll humour you).
Why is the muon, that is travelling towards the earth, is different than a galaxy heading towards the earth? Both should (And in the case of the galaxy, do) measure a "blueshift".
@MindLessWiz With the Doppler effect, there is either a red or a blue shift of light depending on whether the emitter is moving away from or towards the observer. However, this effect is not what I am referring to. I refer to the "Transverse" Doppler shift due purely to the time dilation of the emitter's frame caused by its relative motion. This can only be independantly observed at the instant the emitter and observer pass each other. No one has ever sat on a muon to observe this shift.
@LeconsdAnalyse Of course you are right and this Transverse Doppler shift reflects the differential between the time rates in the two frames. In the faster moving frame the clock runs slower and everything within this frame is red shifted as viewed from the other frame. You cannot get away from the fact that in the slower frame, the clock runs faster and therefore everything within this frame is blue shifted as viewed from the faster moving frame. This dissagrees with SR's interpretation.
@LeconsdAnalyse Of course you are right and this Transverse Doppler shift reflects the differential in time rates between the two frames. In the faster moving frame the clock runs slower and everything within this frame is red shifted as viewed from the other frame. You cannot get away from the fact that in the slower frame, the clock runs faster and therefore everything within this frame is blue shifted as viewed from the faster moving frame. This dissagrees with SR's interpretation.
Take the two rockets passing in space with one going faster than the other and understand that BOTH came from the same planet with synchronised clocks on board.
The overtaking rocket has the slower clock since it is going faster.
This relative differential in time rates is REAL (Hafele & Keating)
If you look at the faster clock from the slower rocket you see redshift in accordance with Special Relativity. BUT
You see BLUESHIFT when looking at the slower clock since his time is faster
Rudimentary humans....They divide a year into 12 months, a month in between 28 and 31 days, a day into 12 hours a.m. and 12 hours p.m. or 24 hours, one hour into 60 seconds...above the year and below the second they get normal again ...best is to use 100 for everything....but they simply can't make it because then their unstability would show up ... they need culture where norms should be - while they try to norm the real of the sociocultural realm.
I though I had a basic intuition of relativity until I asked myself: what are the implications of relativity to the age of the universe? Suppose you've been in a spaceship at near the speed of light since almost the big bang: is it wrong to say that for you (?) the universe is millions of times younger? Does relativity make the age of the universe relative or multiple? The universe has 13.7 B. years according to whom? To us here on Earth? To most objects not affected by relativistic effects?
Are there any Physicists who could help me on this one?
If the twins travel away from each other on rockets, then both age at the same rate, right?
Yet when one travels, then turns round back to Earth, he could argue that it's Earth which is then returning, he could say that he's in a constant reference frame. We cannot say the Earth is the stationary object without reffering to an absolutist version of space.
@Tallguyification That can be resolved with General Relativity, like he said. I imagine in this case, assuming they followed the same trajectory through spacetime, they would measure the same time relative to one another.
surely the phenomiena which caused the twin who went to alpha centuri to delay ageing would work accelerate his ageing on the way back wards and at the "time" they met would both be the same state of ageing?.
@paulashton6969 In the real world as in the mathematical descriptions of it, spacetime 'progression' (or curvature) can only be either positive or negative, by definition - but never both.
@alewisgb Causation is a very difficult, and often nearly impossible (I dare not say impossible) to determine. Answers to those questions can supposedly only be given in a correlation manner between different phenomena that may be only loosely related in reality.
Sadly I'm not yet proficient by almost any stretch of the imagination on the math of the General theory of Relativity to satisfy your question - even in the correlation manner I described in the previous paragraph.
Anyone ever wondered if we will travel to the stars? Above light speed impossible right? So how about 90% of light speed we could get to our nearby stars at that speed. But accellerating at f1 car rates it would take thousands of years to get to that speed! Isn't that awesome :-) Illustrates just how fast light really is.
@MindLessWiz in space (or any vaccum) even one newton of force is enough to get you to 90% the speed of light...its only that it will take a long long time to get their.
..hmm.. BUt at what time did Time knew whos brother is in the right refrence frame and is gonna slow down and turn around. Did he grew younger when he turned or ..see what i mean?
But, couldn't the twin just never turn around and count on the curvature of space to get him back to earth? It would take longer but then who would be the one to have aged?
@goldentitan21 That would only work if space is curved enough to close on itself. In such a universe, we would observe that the expansion is slowing down. Instead, we measured that the expansion is actually accelerating, so space is not curved enough and the twin on the spaceship would just travel in the same direction until the Big Rip takes place.
What would happen if you had a tube, which was say, 30 light years long, and in this tube was a rod. If there where people at both ends of this device, and one of them moved the rod backwards and forwards (perhaps in a morse code sort of way), would it take 30 years for the other person to see this movement, or would it be instantaneous? If it was immediate, would this mean you are able to send messages faster than the speed of light?
@boswell255 I think i heard this theory. i think the spacing of the atoms in your rod must be compressed to some degree before the other end will move and over 30 light years thats alot of space. something like that anyway.
No. As the vibration would only travel the speed of sound (The compression of the material is in the category of sound and vibrations) hence it would be slower.
@boswell255 I think because the information is travelling through a medium ie. what ever the rod is made of, then going the speed of light would not be possible. In other words the information would still travel in a wave in a medium. Not sure given your numbers how long the information would take to travel. This is a guess on my part. Love to hear others chime in.
Atoms are attracted to each other by the electric force. If you move some of them, the atoms next to them will not respond instantly (they would get slightly further from each other and then pulled to each other). So your pull (incredibly strong) would travel through the rod by this wave, which would by actually slower then the speed of light.
I think in this way the Signal speed becomes Infinitly.
But do remember that any material has a spring effect, you push on one side, the rod compresses a bit and stretches out again, so the lag depens on the lenght and material.
@boswell255 theoretically it might be possible. irl the rod would be too heavy to move and the friction on the rod would be too great. think about sticking a stick into sand. the friction becomes too great in a matter if cm to go any further. and if it is levatated by magnets, the amount of force needed to move it would simply make it buckle, so no.
@Ashcombeguy He's obviously talking theoretically. There are no rod 30 light years long. But what would happen is the atoms will compress, then expand again, kind of like a spring.
@Mrtheunnameable again, theoretically yes, they would spring, which also means that you could end up with no movement at the other end at all because the rod is acting as a shock absorber, but the rod is likely just buckle as i said before. we can merely ponder upon the question, as i, nor you i suspect has a computer powerful eneugh to run a simulation :P
@boswell255 LOL But you won't be violating relativity in that example. In any case the example just shows an error or a clever exception in one way to EXPLAIN/EXPRESS that nothing can travel faster than light. However the rod won't be traveling faster than light.
@LeconsdAnalyse No i was talking about physically moving the rod back and forth a few centimetres or so. The follow up comments I've had since pretty much proved me wrong, and the consensus is it would travel at the speed of sound. I suppose a similar thought experiment would be to do it on earth, and have something like an elongated LHC, a tunnel a few miles long, containing the rod, and firing a loud starting pistol at the same time as moving the rod, to see which was observed first.
Although the speed of sound is of course terrestrial. But the speed of light would definitely be the maximum, and you could measure against that in this tunnel I mentioned, with lasers.
@LeconsdAnalyse calm down mate, it was just something else to think about. I get replies every week or so telling me the idea wouldn't work. I was wrong, I've said it before. I've thumbed down my own comment in an effort to push it out of the top rated spot. It was just a crazy idea. I never claimed it would bring about a paradigm shift in the way we think about physics.
The speed of sound ISN'T constant, it depends on the medium it's in. On earth it's mostly air. In helium it's faster etc.
@boswell255 The rod is so long and as a result, so very flexible, that any input at one end would first partially compress the rod over the vast distances involved. This compression would then travel along the rod at the speed of sound in the metal. This is much slower than the speed of light in a vacuum.
It is not sensible to mix physical entities with an analysis of relative effects.
No it wouldn't. The exchange particles transferring the electro-static repulsive force between the atoms in the rod (Photons) are bound by the speed of light.
@boswell255 Technically no. This is because the person at the other end will still be able to see the rod as they move it back and forth; this would mean the person at the other end would also have to be able to see it as it goes back and forth. You're not actually sending a message, as the rod you can see is 30 light years away from the other person. The rod they see is still moving but does not contain the same message you are sending. It's confusing, but i think i might be right?
What if there were a series of heavy objects which would change the rocket-twin's direction, eventually directing him back to Earth.. Then he wouldn't have to accelerate at any point, no?
He puts hardly any time into these. This is about 1 seconds worth of information from his brain played at a high v2 frame rate.
As for them sharing it, I whole heartedly agree. You'll find this is the big difference between secondary school (or normal life) and university; that university is full of people who will happily spend hours talking to you about their area of study having spent so much effort reading every detail of it themselves.
@posro1988 The seeming paradox is the dilemma that, under special relativity, if the twin leaves and travels 90% the speed of light, the earth is also and relatively traveling away from him at 90% the speed of light. Therefore, the earth should be traveling at 90% the speed of light, and slower in time relatively (to traveling twin). So how can they both be slower? HOWEVER, this is not correct because the traveling twin is one that did the accelerating, therefore gen relativity. 1 twin slower.
@posro1988 Yep, that's correct, assuming that "accelerating" (any change in direction or speed) is specifically referring to speeding up, then the one that accelerated is the one that will go slower. So it works out.
As far as I know, this is the only way to time travel, according to the laws of physics.
@TankEsquire yes but it's only in one direction "forward" and that doesn't constitute time trave (I think), because you could call cryogenics time travel...you fall asleep today and *puff* you wake up 3259 AD...true time travel would be going backwards, and I don't see it's possible... I mean implications are huge ethical and physical
@mike150160 Ah... I get it, I think! Ok, let's say they were triplets instead of twins. Let's call them T (travelling) and S1 & S2 for the 2 who stay on earth. If S1 is always closer to T (let's say S1 & S2 are geostationary on opposite sides of earth), would the oldest be S2, since he's further away from T, so the gravity/acceleration exercised by T (which is REALLY small) is smaller on him than on S1? I know it's kinda extreme, but... is it true?
I don't remember the specifics of my physic class about the twins paradox, but I'm not satisfied with the explanation of the resolution. You say that if you consider the stationary twin as the reference, the moving twin will decelerate and accelerate the other way to come back. Doesn't the same apply if you consider the traveling twin as the reference? I'll read a bit on the subject, even though I doubt I remember enough physics to properly comprehend!
What if the guy in the rocket never accelerates? Say he takes an eleptical path and by using his engines in a clever way stays at the same speed. What happens then?
ok this is confusing, have you tried playing multiplayer games from a moving van? Would the time be unsynchronized? What if the server was on the car?
@Melki Unless that car is travelling at a large fraction of the speed of light, you won't notice anything on the scale of times we use (milliseconds).
I'm asking for generousity since I still don't understand and a bit sceptical,
I wonder which one would arrive faster, light that came from 10m away from you, or the light from you that travels from you to a mirror 5m away? Can anyone generously show me an experiment like this?
If you move from A to B in 1 second you have velocity B-A in point B. When your reference frame is with a velocity C, then each movement from A to B results in an acceleration in B. Since we measure time as an effect of acceleration vs velocity (gravity, earth orbit), the amount of time goes faster on earth because there is more gravity = more acceleration = more time. Your clock is build on earth, remember?
From my understanding this is false... I could be wrong, but from my understanding as soon as one stops moving away from the other and starts accelerating twords it, they would see eachothers clocks moving more rapidly... by the time they get back to the same location the clocks would be eactly equal. (Not sure how well I explained that).
Is it really a paradox? I though it was more about being relative to the universe. It makes sense if you compare each person to the universe rather than each other.
i thought the paradox to do with both seeing slow clocks is explained by the +(gamma)vx/c^2 term in the Lorentz transformation, ie clocks go out of sycronisation when you move.
I heard... yeah I know this is the best source of knowledge... that some scientists in Japan put one clock on the floor and one on a desk, let them sit there for a year, came back and the predicted dilation in time (due to the different reference systems) occurred. Is this true? I don't know. But I think it better demonstrates time dilation than anything else I've ever heard!
EXCELLENT video, I absolutely (no pun intended) loved it :-)
One thing that should have been said, though, is that time dilation at near the speed of light permits traveling trough the universe, at least for the people that are INSIDE a ship. I encourage everybody to watch this Cosmos episode where this is explained: /watch?v=TYobCdq9BEA
my AP Physics C teacher showed my class an email sent from the home-ec/ nutrition & wellness teacher at my school. apparently she's been having trouble with the "regular kids" who think that 1/3 cup + 1/3 cup = 3/4 cup. She, however, wrote it in the email as 1/3c +1/3c = 3/4c, so our physics teacher showed us that it should actually equal 3/5c if c is defined as the speed of light. we all wanted him to reply to all with that, but he thought that would be tacky. I'd stil like to see him do it :)
So, if your truck moves @100km/hr for 365 days (!) then the two clocks will be off by approximately 0.0000001352 of a second !
More likely the clock that you have in your truck is not a very good clock.
LeconsdAnalyse 1 day ago
LOL, I love the difference between the top comments XD
commetsmasher 1 week ago 3
the simplest isn't what he described. the simplest is why the GPS system works...
NiamOfAsuras 1 week ago
I WANT TO PUKE ON MY ASS.
Mritsonlyaname 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 2 weeks ago
How would the planets gravity affect the twin who stayed at home?
Morrgore 2 weeks ago
@Morrgore
The planets gravity wouldn't affect the twin that stayed.
dudejohnny 1 day ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 2 weeks ago
I'm pretty sure that Time Dilation is why the digital clock in my truck always starts to get a few minutes slower and slower to my work digital clock after months and months of driving it...
wallacegrommit 2 weeks ago
@wallacegrommit Let an inertial frame O(τ) move with speed `v` relative to another inertial frame O(t). The frames have identical clocks initially synchronized, and working ideally. The time dilation formula is t=γτ. Where γ=1/√(1-v²/c²).
Suppose your truck is moving with speed v=100km/hr. Using the value of `c` in the same units gives γ= 1.000000000000008573463649000074 !
LeconsdAnalyse 2 weeks ago
@LeconsdAnalyse Correction:
γ= 1.00000000000000428673182450002738
LeconsdAnalyse 2 weeks ago
time dilation?
Smoke pot for your first time and welcome to 1 hour becoming 5
sk8er4ever0101 3 weeks ago 2
so would that mean that your age is dependent on how close you are to earth? Say two people were born at the same moment, one on earth, the other at a different location at space, and they met 20 (earth) years later, the one that was born at the other place would be younger?
chopperboi89 3 weeks ago
@chopperboi89 It depends on the strength of the gravitational field. The stronger the gravity is the slower time runs. If one person lived right next to a black hole he would age extremely slowly.
GammahooX 3 weeks ago
I see you have "the atlas of creation" sitting on your shelf. You should just throw it away.
MathPhysChemSkyNerd 1 month ago
I wish you would be more detailed, explain a bit more in this videos. I don't take it would take hours. It's very educational and it would be worth the time.
dragos7puri 1 month ago
∵|x ± y =| +3.65 • 10⁵ ± -3.65 • 10⁵ ∴8.64 • 10⁴ (-x =) ⇔ 3.1536 • 10⁹ (+y =)
Alphabetical sentences, etc can be said via words &, or mathematical equations such as +3.65 • 10⁵ ± -3.65 • 10⁵ via math is alphabetically equivalent to saying 1 = 1000 to the bibliotist(s) &, or the adeptly cognizant individual(s) with adequate knowledge &, or understand within the congruent field(s) of physics. Time dilation (i.e., Δt =) E = m oscillation variations
1 = 1000 (i.e., 8.64 • 10⁴ ⇔ 3.1536 • 10⁹).
Entrepreneur101 1 month ago 14
@Entrepreneur101 ...What? O_o
soymilk135799 1 month ago
@soymilk135799 Galaxies, etc are extreme time dilation field.
The Milky Way galaxy (in all actuality) is nothing more than the accretion disc of a super massive black hole & within our particular gravity field of the accretion disc our space Δ time is slowed down by a factor of -3.65 • 10⁵ (√+3.65 • 10⁵)
Since all things (height, width, density, space, velocity, time, knowledge, understanding, etc) is relative, relatively speaking people are not aware they're in a extreme time dilation field.
Entrepreneur101 1 month ago
@Entrepreneur101 I see... It kinda makes sense without the numbers ^^;
soymilk135799 4 weeks ago
some people be smart and stuff O__o
MrPizzaboy01 1 month ago 14
for those of you who are slightly annoyed with how fast he's talking and shaking his hands, he's only trying to see if he can get younger
Redflowers9 1 month ago
what if the twin went off in an orbital shape travelling at the same angle and speed for the entire journey
godommot 1 month ago
0:00 Atchoooo!! :)
aei05h1 1 month ago
still confused...
ShakespeareOner 1 month ago
NO.
Let a clock C₁ at rest in the muon frame, and moving relative to another clock C₂ (with speed `v`) that it is initially synchronized with, measure time `τ`. Let C₂ measure time `t`.
The time-dilation formula is t=γτ, where γ>1 ∀v∈(0,c). Where γ=1/√(1-v²/c²).
Therefore, C₂ will `tick` faster than C₁. Viz., for an observer at rest with C₂ the muon decay will have already occured.
LeconsdAnalyse 1 month ago
Just would like to ask if my muon statement was correct or not.
Much appreciated
TheDingiso 2 months ago
Thanks a lot!!
TheDingiso 2 months ago
Use the (relativistic) velocity-addition law.
LeconsdAnalyse 2 months ago
To those muons moving to the earth, in their frame of reference, there are not moving, so for them, they would have decayed before reaching the earth, while to us, they have not.
And in LHC, two beams of hadron moving in the speed 10m/s below light in the opposite diretion. From the reference frame of one of them, the other beam is travelling faster than the speed of light,but if special relativity is true, what speed of the later beam would the former beam observe?
TheDingiso 2 months ago
what if the ship did a "U-turn" keeping it's speed, would it still be a parodox?
CaptainObviouzz 2 months ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 2 months ago
@CaptainObviouzz
No. The act of changing direction introduces an acceleration even if you don't change speed.
To visualize this, think of two bowls; one in your car and one in your house. If you put a marble in the one in your car and get on the highway, and go through a bank at a constant speed, you will observe the marble to move in the bowl. This is different from the marble in the bowl in your house. This difference is due to the changing direction. Same idea for the twins.
IhaveWoodforSheep 1 month ago
@CaptainObviouzz A chance in direction is also considered acceleration
Sizerian 1 month ago
@motionapplied where exactly did i said anything about time lapse and slow motion?
koktelici 2 months ago
Love these videos, and this guy is one of my favorite. The Canadian girl and the soft spoken smiley guy are right up there though
Kntrabssi 2 months ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 2 months ago
I'm going to punch someone so fast that my hand will be half a second younger than their face...
elminz 3 months ago
does that mean that mechanical clocks go slower than digital clocks?
HerraPuuPaa1 3 months ago
great video, just that the volume is too low.
ROBOTSAYSHI 4 months ago
Time is simply a mass of quarks-gluons, ions-gluons, subatomic particles-gluons, atoms-gluons oscillations which is all subjected to gravity thus I say, our Milky Way galaxy (in all actuality) is nothing more than the accretion disc of a super massive black hole & within our particular gravity field of the accretion disc our time frame is slowed down by a factor of -3.65 • 10⁵.
All things (height, width, depth, space, distance, time, knowledge, understanding, etc) is relative to something else.
Entrepreneur101 5 months ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 5 months ago
What if there is an object moving faster than the speed of light relative to the earth simply due to the expanding universe,then the expansion slows down and the light emitted when the relative velocity is higher than the speed of light finally reach our eyes, would we be seeing its time not being dilated at all or flowing backwards?
TheDingiso 5 months ago
Mind asplode.
Awesome video. I've been just going through and clicking on all of the Sixty Symbols videos. I'm no physicist, and in fact...never even took a physics class in High School. But this stuff is all very interesting to me, and I've thoroughly enjoyed every second of these 'lessons' so far. This is now, by far and away, my favorite.
Cheers,
-Adam
Baltimore, USA.
300Z31 5 months ago
@LeconsdAnalyse By time difference, i mean would both measure the other being slower than its own
TheDingiso 5 months ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 5 months ago
What if the spaceship go pass the earth at a constant velocity which is near to the speed of light relative to the earth and at a trajectory very near to the earth, and inside it is an atomic clock. There would also be another identical atomic clock on earth. Both the clocks would start ticking when they pass through each other, and the spaceship would send out Radio signal to tell what time is its atomic clock indicates. Then what would the time difference be?
TheDingiso 5 months ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 5 months ago
@LeconsdAnalyse Would you mind using a plainer language? And if i take away the time the radio signal it takes to travel? And should the time differences measured on earth and spaceship be the same?
TheDingiso 5 months ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 5 months ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 5 months ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 5 months ago
What is the v relative to?
TheDingiso 5 months ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 5 months ago
actually only after they accounted for time dilation they were able to make GPS devices precise to 1m cause GPS satelites move so fast relative to earth surface.
koktelici 6 months ago 20
@koktelici Incorrect, time dilation works not just with high speed, but with high gravity as well. Satellites' speed is insignificant relative to the speed of light, so speed is not a factor. The lower gravity in space is what is important here. Their clocks are actually faster than clocks on the surface, taking this into account is what allows high accuracy GPS.
Fobia985 4 months ago
@Fobia985 Actually he was right.
anticorncob6 1 month ago
@koktelici No, the relative motion between the earth and the satellite are cancelled out by the fact the satellites are higher from the earth, and thus time runs faster. And it's the gravitational time dilation that wins so the clocks have to be adjusted for that. The relative motion only reduces the amount.
IamBread18 4 weeks ago
@IamBread18 Hello.
koktelici`s comment is correct. There is a discrepancy due to relative velocity, and another due to gravity.
LeconsdAnalyse 3 weeks ago
@LeconsdAnalyse There is, but the relative velocity is cancelled out by the gravity. Say, normal = 0, faster time = +ve, slower time = -ve, The motion brings the time brings it to say, -5, but the gravity counters this and brings it to +1 (not exact or to scale, but the point is gravity wins). It's the gravity that causes the damage.
IamBread18 3 weeks ago
The motion of muons is redshifted relative to our frame, but our frame is blueshifted when observed from the muon's frame. It must be, since our universes is passing by at a very much faster rate. This is the undeniable, proven reality of the time dilation.
This Assymetry is counter to SR and needs testing.
I suggest measuring the transverse doppler shift of a rocket passing overhead at great speed.
You will find I'm right and SR will have to be changed.
MrKENHUGHES 6 months ago
@MrKENHUGHES How is the muon's frame redshifted relative to ours? As far as I gathered, the muon was heading TOWARDS the earth. If there is relative movement between two objects, SR still applies as both sides measure a "blueshift" (The term is inapplicable here, but I'll humour you).
Why is the muon, that is travelling towards the earth, is different than a galaxy heading towards the earth? Both should (And in the case of the galaxy, do) measure a "blueshift".
MindLessWiz 6 months ago
@MindLessWiz With the Doppler effect, there is either a red or a blue shift of light depending on whether the emitter is moving away from or towards the observer. However, this effect is not what I am referring to. I refer to the "Transverse" Doppler shift due purely to the time dilation of the emitter's frame caused by its relative motion. This can only be independantly observed at the instant the emitter and observer pass each other. No one has ever sat on a muon to observe this shift.
MrKENHUGHES 6 months ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 5 months ago
@LeconsdAnalyse Of course you are right and this Transverse Doppler shift reflects the differential between the time rates in the two frames. In the faster moving frame the clock runs slower and everything within this frame is red shifted as viewed from the other frame. You cannot get away from the fact that in the slower frame, the clock runs faster and therefore everything within this frame is blue shifted as viewed from the faster moving frame. This dissagrees with SR's interpretation.
MrKENHUGHES 5 months ago
@LeconsdAnalyse Of course you are right and this Transverse Doppler shift reflects the differential in time rates between the two frames. In the faster moving frame the clock runs slower and everything within this frame is red shifted as viewed from the other frame. You cannot get away from the fact that in the slower frame, the clock runs faster and therefore everything within this frame is blue shifted as viewed from the faster moving frame. This dissagrees with SR's interpretation.
MrKENHUGHES 5 months ago
(Contd)
Take the two rockets passing in space with one going faster than the other and understand that BOTH came from the same planet with synchronised clocks on board.
The overtaking rocket has the slower clock since it is going faster.
This relative differential in time rates is REAL (Hafele & Keating)
If you look at the faster clock from the slower rocket you see redshift in accordance with Special Relativity. BUT
You see BLUESHIFT when looking at the slower clock since his time is faster
TBC
MrKENHUGHES 6 months ago
(Contd)
This thought experiment ignores the acceleration of the one body that moves and views motion as purely relative. IT IS CLEARLYNOT!
This can be understood by considering the different nature of the two types of dimension.
Physical dimensions are symetrical, the same in opposite directions, whichever direction you consider.
Time is Assymetrical in that it is only available in ONE direction, towards the
future.
(TBC)
MrKENHUGHES 6 months ago
(Contd)
It has nothing to do with appearance, ie how the moving frame "looks" from the rest frame, or any doppler effects observed between frames.
The realities occur only within the frames under consideration.
These are 1. the clock ticks at Earth rate for the stationary clock
and 2. the moving clock ticks at the slower rate due to time dilation of motion.
The thought experiment involving two bodies moving relatively and both having slow clocks as observed from each, is incorrect.
(TBC)
MrKENHUGHES 6 months ago
Regarding the twin paradox, I am not happy with the standard explanation using acceleration, turning around and using two reference frames.
For a start, the time dilation was REAL for the clocks used by Hafele & Keating.
Time dilation is caused by the speed of the object that accelerates from "rest".
It accumulates during the execution of this relative speed at a constant rate.
It does so for motion in any direction.
The outbound frame and inbound frame for the twin are the same frame.
(TBC)
MrKENHUGHES 6 months ago
How do scientist tell if time is going slower?
xLDH1109x 6 months ago
I tried for about an hour last night trying to understand the twin paradox. . . thank you for explaining it so clearly to me.
weeryan2008 7 months ago
Rudimentary humans....They divide a year into 12 months, a month in between 28 and 31 days, a day into 12 hours a.m. and 12 hours p.m. or 24 hours, one hour into 60 seconds...above the year and below the second they get normal again ...best is to use 100 for everything....but they simply can't make it because then their unstability would show up ... they need culture where norms should be - while they try to norm the real of the sociocultural realm.
vertexgo 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ispravljat why do you need to prove time?
TheRightNeutrino 7 months ago
I always love the way this professor explains things on sixtysymbols. He makes whatever the subject easy to understand.
2000everett4 8 months ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 8 months ago
I though I had a basic intuition of relativity until I asked myself: what are the implications of relativity to the age of the universe? Suppose you've been in a spaceship at near the speed of light since almost the big bang: is it wrong to say that for you (?) the universe is millions of times younger? Does relativity make the age of the universe relative or multiple? The universe has 13.7 B. years according to whom? To us here on Earth? To most objects not affected by relativistic effects?
cristianfcao 8 months ago
Comment removed
cristianfcao 8 months ago
so would a photon never age then? if it moves at the speed of light.
PizzaManTech 8 months ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 8 months ago
@LeconsdAnalyse Hey, I'm just repeating what he said in the video... Take it up with him. ^^
MindLessWiz 8 months ago
so... i tried to blow my new bf but he wont accept it. kinda want to break up with shld i?
Soccer894life 8 months ago
Are there any Physicists who could help me on this one?
If the twins travel away from each other on rockets, then both age at the same rate, right?
Yet when one travels, then turns round back to Earth, he could argue that it's Earth which is then returning, he could say that he's in a constant reference frame. We cannot say the Earth is the stationary object without reffering to an absolutist version of space.
Interabderian 9 months ago in playlist White
What would happen if both of the twins were in rockets traveling away from each other, turning around, and coming back together?
Tallguyification 9 months ago
@Tallguyification That can be resolved with General Relativity, like he said. I imagine in this case, assuming they followed the same trajectory through spacetime, they would measure the same time relative to one another.
MindLessWiz 9 months ago
surely the phenomiena which caused the twin who went to alpha centuri to delay ageing would work accelerate his ageing on the way back wards and at the "time" they met would both be the same state of ageing?.
paulashton6969 9 months ago
@paulashton6969 In the real world as in the mathematical descriptions of it, spacetime 'progression' (or curvature) can only be either positive or negative, by definition - but never both.
MindLessWiz 9 months ago
does time slow down because your mass increases and your mass causes gravity and gravity slows down time?
alewisgb 10 months ago
@alewisgb Causation is a very difficult, and often nearly impossible (I dare not say impossible) to determine. Answers to those questions can supposedly only be given in a correlation manner between different phenomena that may be only loosely related in reality.
Sadly I'm not yet proficient by almost any stretch of the imagination on the math of the General theory of Relativity to satisfy your question - even in the correlation manner I described in the previous paragraph.
MindLessWiz 9 months ago
Anyone ever wondered if we will travel to the stars? Above light speed impossible right? So how about 90% of light speed we could get to our nearby stars at that speed. But accellerating at f1 car rates it would take thousands of years to get to that speed! Isn't that awesome :-) Illustrates just how fast light really is.
calvinjones 10 months ago
@calvinjones I don't believe any human can ever accelerate to those speeds and stay alive. The force required for it is beyond numbers.
MindLessWiz 9 months ago
@MindLessWiz in space (or any vaccum) even one newton of force is enough to get you to 90% the speed of light...its only that it will take a long long time to get their.
calvinjones 9 months ago
..hmm.. BUt at what time did Time knew whos brother is in the right refrence frame and is gonna slow down and turn around. Did he grew younger when he turned or ..see what i mean?
saliverdis 10 months ago
@saliverdis To go anywhere in space and come back to Earth, you need to:
1) accelerate toward your destination, for half of the distance or less
2) decelerate so that your velocity is zero when you reach your destination
3) accelerate toward Earth again, for half of the distance or less
4) decelerate so that your velocity is zero when you reach Earth.
When each acceleration or deceleration takes place, the symmetry is broken. Acceleration can be measured on the spaceship, but not on Earth.
DevilMaster 10 months ago
But, couldn't the twin just never turn around and count on the curvature of space to get him back to earth? It would take longer but then who would be the one to have aged?
goldentitan21 10 months ago
@goldentitan21
i think the twin would come home before he left
Riotstarter100 10 months ago
@goldentitan21 That would only work if space is curved enough to close on itself. In such a universe, we would observe that the expansion is slowing down. Instead, we measured that the expansion is actually accelerating, so space is not curved enough and the twin on the spaceship would just travel in the same direction until the Big Rip takes place.
DevilMaster 10 months ago
@boswell255
Since the rod is not infinitely stiff nor massless, morse code would propagate down the rod in a wave at less than the speed of light.
killbot0011101000101 10 months ago
@killbot0011101000101 Awww :( There's just no cheating the laws of physics.
Guess quantum entanglement is the only hope for intergalactic facebook
boswell255 10 months ago
Hmm... But from the spaceship twin's perspective, isn't the Earth twin the one that's accelerating?
killbot0011101000101 10 months ago
@killbot0011101000101 No, because the acceleration can only be measured on the spaceship.
DevilMaster 10 months ago
What would happen if you had a tube, which was say, 30 light years long, and in this tube was a rod. If there where people at both ends of this device, and one of them moved the rod backwards and forwards (perhaps in a morse code sort of way), would it take 30 years for the other person to see this movement, or would it be instantaneous? If it was immediate, would this mean you are able to send messages faster than the speed of light?
boswell255 11 months ago 32
@boswell255 I think i heard this theory. i think the spacing of the atoms in your rod must be compressed to some degree before the other end will move and over 30 light years thats alot of space. something like that anyway.
charzy888 10 months ago
@charzy888 Oh bugger :(
boswell255 10 months ago
@boswell255 LOL solve this
CISCOTREE 7 months ago
@boswell255
No. As the vibration would only travel the speed of sound (The compression of the material is in the category of sound and vibrations) hence it would be slower.
macro312 7 months ago
@boswell255 I think because the information is travelling through a medium ie. what ever the rod is made of, then going the speed of light would not be possible. In other words the information would still travel in a wave in a medium. Not sure given your numbers how long the information would take to travel. This is a guess on my part. Love to hear others chime in.
nprfan2002 7 months ago
@boswell255 Here is the answer in layman's terms:
Atoms are attracted to each other by the electric force. If you move some of them, the atoms next to them will not respond instantly (they would get slightly further from each other and then pulled to each other). So your pull (incredibly strong) would travel through the rod by this wave, which would by actually slower then the speed of light.
Kryptops 7 months ago
@boswell255 30 light year, the mass of the rod would be enormous!
JagexGotServed 6 months ago
@boswell255 Yep had the same idea.
I think in this way the Signal speed becomes Infinitly.
But do remember that any material has a spring effect, you push on one side, the rod compresses a bit and stretches out again, so the lag depens on the lenght and material.
PanzarMetal 6 months ago
@boswell255 theoretically it might be possible. irl the rod would be too heavy to move and the friction on the rod would be too great. think about sticking a stick into sand. the friction becomes too great in a matter if cm to go any further. and if it is levatated by magnets, the amount of force needed to move it would simply make it buckle, so no.
Ashcombeguy 6 months ago
@Ashcombeguy He's obviously talking theoretically. There are no rod 30 light years long. But what would happen is the atoms will compress, then expand again, kind of like a spring.
Mrtheunnameable 6 months ago
@Mrtheunnameable again, theoretically yes, they would spring, which also means that you could end up with no movement at the other end at all because the rod is acting as a shock absorber, but the rod is likely just buckle as i said before. we can merely ponder upon the question, as i, nor you i suspect has a computer powerful eneugh to run a simulation :P
Ashcombeguy 6 months ago
@boswell255 LOL But you won't be violating relativity in that example. In any case the example just shows an error or a clever exception in one way to EXPLAIN/EXPRESS that nothing can travel faster than light. However the rod won't be traveling faster than light.
cristianfcao 6 months ago
@boswell255 mind blown...holy crap!!!!!!!.....somebody please answer this!!!!!!!!!
xar51 6 months ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 6 months ago
@LeconsdAnalyse No i was talking about physically moving the rod back and forth a few centimetres or so. The follow up comments I've had since pretty much proved me wrong, and the consensus is it would travel at the speed of sound. I suppose a similar thought experiment would be to do it on earth, and have something like an elongated LHC, a tunnel a few miles long, containing the rod, and firing a loud starting pistol at the same time as moving the rod, to see which was observed first.
boswell255 6 months ago
Although the speed of sound is of course terrestrial. But the speed of light would definitely be the maximum, and you could measure against that in this tunnel I mentioned, with lasers.
boswell255 6 months ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 6 months ago
@LeconsdAnalyse calm down mate, it was just something else to think about. I get replies every week or so telling me the idea wouldn't work. I was wrong, I've said it before. I've thumbed down my own comment in an effort to push it out of the top rated spot. It was just a crazy idea. I never claimed it would bring about a paradigm shift in the way we think about physics.
The speed of sound ISN'T constant, it depends on the medium it's in. On earth it's mostly air. In helium it's faster etc.
boswell255 6 months ago
@boswell255 They would not see it because it would take 30 years for the light of them moving the rod to reach you.
JumpStartation 6 months ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 6 months ago
@LeconsdAnalyse Try reading the question one more time.
JumpStartation 6 months ago
@boswell255 The rod is so long and as a result, so very flexible, that any input at one end would first partially compress the rod over the vast distances involved. This compression would then travel along the rod at the speed of sound in the metal. This is much slower than the speed of light in a vacuum.
It is not sensible to mix physical entities with an analysis of relative effects.
MrKENHUGHES 6 months ago 3
@boswell255 the tube might collapse on it's own gravity if you think about it
jeff77789 5 months ago
@boswell255
No it wouldn't. The exchange particles transferring the electro-static repulsive force between the atoms in the rod (Photons) are bound by the speed of light.
WardleVonAwesome 5 months ago
@boswell255 I've always wondered this too.
danjeffries96 5 months ago
@boswell255 very interesting.... the only problem would be that it would be a very heavy rod lol
photonman54 5 months ago
@boswell255 Technically no. This is because the person at the other end will still be able to see the rod as they move it back and forth; this would mean the person at the other end would also have to be able to see it as it goes back and forth. You're not actually sending a message, as the rod you can see is 30 light years away from the other person. The rod they see is still moving but does not contain the same message you are sending. It's confusing, but i think i might be right?
Greenehh 5 months ago
you sir just BLEW MY MIND!!!!! i love these vids please keep them coming!
cheddar07 11 months ago
What if there were a series of heavy objects which would change the rocket-twin's direction, eventually directing him back to Earth.. Then he wouldn't have to accelerate at any point, no?
SaraCufer 11 months ago
i find it odd to hear from a very intellectual person the phrase "more slowly" rather than using only the word "slower",.
still, a great explanation :D
blackrose32 11 months ago
He puts hardly any time into these. This is about 1 seconds worth of information from his brain played at a high v2 frame rate.
As for them sharing it, I whole heartedly agree. You'll find this is the big difference between secondary school (or normal life) and university; that university is full of people who will happily spend hours talking to you about their area of study having spent so much effort reading every detail of it themselves.
lexichronicle2 11 months ago
holy cow I still don't understand the twin paradox
posro1988 11 months ago
@posro1988 The seeming paradox is the dilemma that, under special relativity, if the twin leaves and travels 90% the speed of light, the earth is also and relatively traveling away from him at 90% the speed of light. Therefore, the earth should be traveling at 90% the speed of light, and slower in time relatively (to traveling twin). So how can they both be slower? HOWEVER, this is not correct because the traveling twin is one that did the accelerating, therefore gen relativity. 1 twin slower.
TankEsquire 11 months ago
@TankEsquire so basically the one that does the accelerating is experiencing the "slower time"
posro1988 11 months ago
@posro1988 Yep, that's correct, assuming that "accelerating" (any change in direction or speed) is specifically referring to speeding up, then the one that accelerated is the one that will go slower. So it works out.
As far as I know, this is the only way to time travel, according to the laws of physics.
TankEsquire 11 months ago
@TankEsquire yes but it's only in one direction "forward" and that doesn't constitute time trave (I think), because you could call cryogenics time travel...you fall asleep today and *puff* you wake up 3259 AD...true time travel would be going backwards, and I don't see it's possible... I mean implications are huge ethical and physical
posro1988 11 months ago
please, please, SLOWER. Thanks
pcbheaven 11 months ago
ohhhhhh
You can see the
"ATLAS OF CREATION" in the back, which is written by Adnan Oktar, who is in jail for now.
johnnystorm28 11 months ago
@mike150160 Ah... I get it, I think! Ok, let's say they were triplets instead of twins. Let's call them T (travelling) and S1 & S2 for the 2 who stay on earth. If S1 is always closer to T (let's say S1 & S2 are geostationary on opposite sides of earth), would the oldest be S2, since he's further away from T, so the gravity/acceleration exercised by T (which is REALLY small) is smaller on him than on S1? I know it's kinda extreme, but... is it true?
TixTipx 11 months ago
That isn't Harun Yahya's Atlas of Creation I can see on the bookshelf?
mike150160 11 months ago
@mike150160
Funnily enough that was the first thing I noticed in the clip as well... but then gathered even intelligent physicists need comic relief ;)
kakamana1000 11 months ago
I don't remember the specifics of my physic class about the twins paradox, but I'm not satisfied with the explanation of the resolution. You say that if you consider the stationary twin as the reference, the moving twin will decelerate and accelerate the other way to come back. Doesn't the same apply if you consider the traveling twin as the reference? I'll read a bit on the subject, even though I doubt I remember enough physics to properly comprehend!
TixTipx 11 months ago
@TixTipx Which twin feels the acceleration?
mike150160 11 months ago
What if the guy in the rocket never accelerates? Say he takes an eleptical path and by using his engines in a clever way stays at the same speed. What happens then?
5r22 11 months ago
@5r22 wouldn't there be acceleration towards the center of the curved path?
nineblackkasabian 11 months ago
@5r22 any change of direction IS acceleration. So any path other than a straight line has acceleration.
zyntolaz 11 months ago
@5r22 f=ma. using your engines gives you some f, so there must be some a.
abrelosojo 11 months ago
Sixty symbols is pumping out the videos, credible sources of knowledge
heyandy889 11 months ago
4:03 - 5:24 Great explanation about the "transition" from special to general relativity.
cristianfcao 11 months ago 2
ok this is confusing, have you tried playing multiplayer games from a moving van? Would the time be unsynchronized? What if the server was on the car?
Melki 11 months ago
@Melki Unless that car is travelling at a large fraction of the speed of light, you won't notice anything on the scale of times we use (milliseconds).
Nyphur 11 months ago
@Nyphur ok thanks, thumbs up for you : )
Melki 11 months ago
I'm asking for generousity since I still don't understand and a bit sceptical,
I wonder which one would arrive faster, light that came from 10m away from you, or the light from you that travels from you to a mirror 5m away? Can anyone generously show me an experiment like this?
Melki 11 months ago
If you move from A to B in 1 second you have velocity B-A in point B. When your reference frame is with a velocity C, then each movement from A to B results in an acceleration in B. Since we measure time as an effect of acceleration vs velocity (gravity, earth orbit), the amount of time goes faster on earth because there is more gravity = more acceleration = more time. Your clock is build on earth, remember?
bvssvni 11 months ago
Love the dramatic zoom-in at 2:11
stur1975 11 months ago 23
From my understanding this is false... I could be wrong, but from my understanding as soon as one stops moving away from the other and starts accelerating twords it, they would see eachothers clocks moving more rapidly... by the time they get back to the same location the clocks would be eactly equal. (Not sure how well I explained that).
gibsonbaud1 11 months ago
Is it really a paradox? I though it was more about being relative to the universe. It makes sense if you compare each person to the universe rather than each other.
urantivirus 11 months ago
i thought the paradox to do with both seeing slow clocks is explained by the +(gamma)vx/c^2 term in the Lorentz transformation, ie clocks go out of sycronisation when you move.
abrelosojo 11 months ago
I find Prof Merryfield great to watch. Excellent video and really understandable.
davedupplaw 11 months ago
good explanation of the twin paradoc without getting into the math.
PikPobedy 11 months ago
He took 5 minutes and 35 seconds just to say that Einstein's theory of relativity was correct.
itsMinuteMaid 11 months ago
I heard... yeah I know this is the best source of knowledge... that some scientists in Japan put one clock on the floor and one on a desk, let them sit there for a year, came back and the predicted dilation in time (due to the different reference systems) occurred. Is this true? I don't know. But I think it better demonstrates time dilation than anything else I've ever heard!
That said; good video!
MegaYippie 11 months ago
EXCELLENT video, I absolutely (no pun intended) loved it :-)
One thing that should have been said, though, is that time dilation at near the speed of light permits traveling trough the universe, at least for the people that are INSIDE a ship. I encourage everybody to watch this Cosmos episode where this is explained: /watch?v=TYobCdq9BEA
cristianfcao 11 months ago
most of this episode went way over my head
M1FFY 11 months ago
This universe is amazing!
noblessus 11 months ago
my AP Physics C teacher showed my class an email sent from the home-ec/ nutrition & wellness teacher at my school. apparently she's been having trouble with the "regular kids" who think that 1/3 cup + 1/3 cup = 3/4 cup. She, however, wrote it in the email as 1/3c +1/3c = 3/4c, so our physics teacher showed us that it should actually equal 3/5c if c is defined as the speed of light. we all wanted him to reply to all with that, but he thought that would be tacky. I'd stil like to see him do it :)
Sherlocksbumstead 11 months ago