Soooo who else waited/is going to wait till last min to watch this for HW from Mr. S's chem honors class!!!! lolol. Yeahhh... Larry here. It'd be pretty funny if you read this too Mr. S. I wonder if u go down and read the comments. Ohhh weelll. I wonder if any of u actually are gunna read this...
@Matthewkindpend The equation works? Saying electricity can flow through a conductor is equivalent to saying water can flow through a solid object. Since it is not possible to flow water through a solid object. So is someone smart or insane saying it can?
Jesus, I'm bored by your comments, guys... It seems everybody wanna show how they are smart by saying some shit they've learned just in classes... Just shut up and stop pretending you are smart, you are making opposite effect... But those comments like "Fuck Einstein" are great and epic
This is an invitation to see an artist theory on the physics of light and time!
This theory is based on two postulates
1. Is that the quantum wave particle function Ψ represents the forward passage of time ∆E ∆t ≥ h/2π itself
2. Is that Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle ∆×∆p×≥h/4π that is formed by the w- function is the same uncertainty we have with any future event that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual!
Love this film! So interesting learning the stories, histories and more about the equation. Very insightful. Great job!! I've recommended it so many times for people to check out.
Energy is the ability to do work. Heat is not energy. The heat from my brakes does not stop my car. The car moving is energy. The heat is a result of destroying the motion.
It requires outside energy to seperate the hydrogen and oxygen in water.
"There is no energy in matter other than that received from it's environment" Dr Nikola Tesla
@bridgetroll9 Heat produced by your breaks doesn't stop your car. It is actually the friction between your break pads and drum. And as you should know, friction produces heat. And heating your break assembly by applying the breaks alot actually makes the breaking system less efficient.
Energy is the ability to do work. It would require energy to accelerate a mass to the speed stated. Mass contains zero energy unless it's moving. Even then the moving mass required energy from a source outside itself to get it moving.
What I am saying is this equation is science fiction.
@bridgetroll9 You obviously have no idea of what you're talking about. Your argument is pathetic and void of substance, but given your intellectual capacity, it's understandable. Einstein's genius is above your capable comprehension. Just because you don't understand, or even Nikola Tesla, doesn't mean Einstein was wrong. Given Tesla was a great scientist, and he disagreed, apparently, with Einstein's theory, doesn't justify Einstein was wrong.
@bridgetroll9 Ohoho. I love it when these sort of trolls try to outsmart Einstein. It's funny because we've seen that the equation works. If you deny the equation, you're also denying the empirical nature of its formulation. You're pretty much just denying everything from Maxwell onward. :o
Intra pe canalul meu si pe site-ul de acolo (policam) si cumpara un dispozitiv radionic. Dispozitivele pot aprinde neoane fara fire si pot proteja oamenii de atacuri oculte. Daca vrei sa faci experimente cumpara un dispozitiv pentru ca sa fii protejat cand faci experimentele si sa-ti maresti talentul la descoperiri (se pot programa pentru asta) sau fa experimente cu dispozitivele pentru a dezvolta stiinta din domeniu si nu numai (se poate ajunge la teleportare)
@bridgetroll9 E=MC^2 only approximates how much energy is in a mass; it's not stating that mass can do work independently, which seems to be what you're saying.
Anyone who knows Science truly and it's history will now that 1) Einstein didn't come up with Relativity 2) He didn't come up with E=mc^2 3) Eddingtons eclipse which shot Einstein into "stardom" was a hoax 4) All this was to get rid of the AETHER. The M-M experiment was aimed to detect a static ether, for good reason. The Aether is dynamic as proved by Tesla, Baron von Reichenbach, Wilhelm Reich amongst many other scientists. It's also been spoken of for thousands of years. Research.
@LucifersArgument Part IX: I petition that this person’s youtube account be immediately shut down or otherwise rendered incapable of posting comments so that we will not be exposed to this and similar displays of horrendous ignorance.
@LucifersArgument Part VIII: Overall, we can see a general pattern of poor research and rampant stupidity in this user’s comment. Although there are glimmers of intelligence in the reference to Tesla’s experiment, the following references make it more than clear that this was nothing more than a fluke. The troll then ironically compounds the ignorance he displays by suggesting that NOVA should do “research.”
@LucifersArgument Part VII: Wilhelm Reich’s theory of aether is frankly bullshit and warrants no response. Neither of these is based in experiment, much less a proof of aether’s existence.
We now see our conspiracy theorist reference ancient belief in ether. Of course, along with other historical theories, such as the spontaneous generation of flies from rotten meat and the earth’s position in the center of the universe, this theory was scrapped long ago with ample evidence against it.
@LucifersArgument Part VI: and the extension of the half-lives of unstable particles moving at high speeds). The later references, however, are impressive in their sheer stupidity. Von Reichenbach’s theory of Odic force is little more than 19th Century scientific mysticism. It has no foundation in experiment, and other theories regarding the interaction of biological compounds have long since replaced this theory as more accurate models.
@LucifersArgument Part V: (We can dismiss claims of a static aether by Occam’s Razor: there is no reason an aether would follow the motion of the earth). However, the experiment itself did not prove the existence of aether, and we have since disproved his corresponding claims that time is independent of reference frames, in a variety of experiments. (These include but are not limited to the use of digital clocks to detect miniscule time dilation in moving objects
@LucifersArgument Part IV: 4) Despite the appearance that our troll friend here did absolutely no research before making these particular claims, there is a small amount of truth to this first one. Tesla’s theory of ether appears to be a somewhat believable early statement of the existence of dark energy. It differs from earlier claims regarding the existence of aether in that it postulates the substance to be dynamic rather than static.
@LucifersArgument Part III: 2) Einstein was not the first to propose mass-energy equivalence, but was the first to use the E=mc^2 transformation. 3) The original predictions of the magnitude of the gravitational lensing of Venus were incorrect, but the equations have been perfected since then based on the new data. This is correction, not conspiracy. The gravitational lensing effect is valid, and often used now in many areas of astronomy such as the detection of exoplanets.
@LucifersArgument Part II: 1) Einstein did not create the Lorentz transforms or name every implication of his theories, but his thought experiments are the basis of relativity. Yes, there were many predecessors, but he was the first to put these together into a relevant and consistent theory. And Tesla’s claims that Einstein did not formulate relativity, but that his theory was plagiarized from Boskovic’s atomic theories, are verifiably unjustified.
@LucifersArgument Part I: I could not condense my response into a single 482-character piece, because each and every detail of LucifersArgument’s comment deserves individual attention for its incredible boorishness. Let us first begin by stating that making vague references to conspiracy theories is in no way a valid substitute for knowing the actual science and history behind the subjects we are discussing. But as to the individual claims:
@MrSaad1932 The speed of light is exactly 299 792 458 meters per second. This is perhaps the only number related to Science that I've ever remembered LOL.
@psppower123456789 Not that I am aware of. I have thought about this concept myself and am planning on bringing this up with a scientist I can get in contact with and see what he has got to say.
I don't have any theories about it at the moment, when I have some time to think about it I will :-)
2. "...and which is taken in passing to and returning from the region diametrically opposite the pole over the earth’s surface with a mean velocity of about four hundred and seventy-one thousand two hundred and forty kilometers per second.” (ART OF TRANSMITTING ELECTRICAL ENERGY THROUGH THE NATURAL MEDIUMS, Nikola Tesla, USA Patent No. 787,412. Application May 16, 1900, patented April 18, 1905.)
1. “The most essential requirement is, however, that irrespective of frequency the wave or wave-train should continue for a certain interval of time, which I have estimated to be not less then one-twelfth or probably 0.08484 of a second..."
38:30 - Hmm... I thought the Idea behind E=mc2 was that it won't weight the same as the small portion of the mass will convert to heat energy. It would weight almost, almost the same and this small missing part would be mass that converted to enormous heat created during the process. So which is it?
@dawdus When you burn wood you end up with a high quantity of carbon. While the physical carbon that you can see left behind may weight less, there is some carbon is released into the air. While not all of what is produced is carbon, there may be other elements. If you could weight all these split elements in the air and whats left over, they would be the same as the original piece of wood.
@05sdj Well. You burn a piece of wood, and the wood and oxygen that take part in the process weight exactly the same as all the products of this process? I mean all the carbon, dust, smoke, carbon dioxide? What about the light and heat? Does it mean we created light and heat out of nothing? We have all the mass that went into the process but above that we also have light and heat?
this is nothing new..i been working n proving that einstein was wrong..he made three error which on that is where i been working on for last years to show in a way that makes sence that it is possible to travel faster than speed of light..have send email to the head office and to the papers but no reply..i guess cuz i am like a historian researcher that try to find missing links and corect history..they no count on me as being good enough to be lisen to me....
@ivanwarrior37 Yeah I heard about the neutrino particle. Supposedly it travels about 4 miles/hr faster than the speed of light? Interesting to see what comes of it...
there is a flaw in this movie... at 1:26 the film says... "c is for the speed of light squared" i was under the impression c is for the speed of light and c2 is for the speed of light squared(cant figure out how to make the 2 a power sign).
@SIRA063 They technically should have said C^2. And what you say is totally correct. Even though they only said C, they really need to talk about C^2 as it is one part of the equation. The speed of light needs to be squared and will be discussed as a whole, not individually.
I agree the sentence is not correct strictly speaking. However, I think the makers of the movie realized that, but chose to do it this way to keep simplicity.
At least they put "squared" on a separate line.
They can't say C^2 because the beginning of the movie is showing scenes from the different sections of it. And "C" and "squared" are two different stories. "C" is in Michael Faraday's story, and "squared" is in Émilie du Châtelet's.
Soooo who else waited/is going to wait till last min to watch this for HW from Mr. S's chem honors class!!!! lolol. Yeahhh... Larry here. It'd be pretty funny if you read this too Mr. S. I wonder if u go down and read the comments. Ohhh weelll. I wonder if any of u actually are gunna read this...
11iAm95 1 week ago
@11iAm95 lollll Larry this is Brendan xD im doing the same thing lolll
Sekgolo74 6 days ago
@11iAm95 lmao larry... yes i indeed am now watching it...
MasterOfDisguise116 5 days ago
@11iAm95 its gabe i cant believe thi...
MasterOfDisguise116 5 days ago
I don't know man I am looking at this myself, I mean do we really know what Einstein really thought
xhemexx 3 weeks ago
3 people don't get E=Mc2
nikbistro2 3 weeks ago
Can someone sum this up in 200 words I have a paper due on this in like two hours.
VanillaWiteOut 4 weeks ago
@Matthewkindpend The equation works? Saying electricity can flow through a conductor is equivalent to saying water can flow through a solid object. Since it is not possible to flow water through a solid object. So is someone smart or insane saying it can?
bridgetroll9 1 month ago
@Matthewkindpend Does gravity make the rock move? Or does the rock make the rock move?
Gravity and magnetic fields perform work with no heat and both are not a liquid or a solid or or a gas.
Using friction/resistance to do work is backwards to all logic and reason.
bridgetroll9 1 month ago
Jesus, I'm bored by your comments, guys... It seems everybody wanna show how they are smart by saying some shit they've learned just in classes... Just shut up and stop pretending you are smart, you are making opposite effect... But those comments like "Fuck Einstein" are great and epic
mappingtheshit 2 months ago
great movie
deyomash 2 months ago
What the fuck is she doing at 41:54
RonnocRetep 2 months ago
@RonnocRetep Moaning?
JohnAdamsHarvard1992 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nice video!
This is an invitation to see an artist theory on the physics of light and time!
This theory is based on two postulates
1. Is that the quantum wave particle function Ψ represents the forward passage of time ∆E ∆t ≥ h/2π itself
2. Is that Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle ∆×∆p×≥h/4π that is formed by the w- function is the same uncertainty we have with any future event that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual!
nickharvey7 2 months ago
Love this film! So interesting learning the stories, histories and more about the equation. Very insightful. Great job!! I've recommended it so many times for people to check out.
cocacolandd 2 months ago
Fuck einstein
RespectMyHate 2 months ago
Isn't this equation wrong though?
RespectMyHate 2 months ago
Energy is the ability to do work. Heat is not energy. The heat from my brakes does not stop my car. The car moving is energy. The heat is a result of destroying the motion.
It requires outside energy to seperate the hydrogen and oxygen in water.
"There is no energy in matter other than that received from it's environment" Dr Nikola Tesla
bridgetroll9 2 months ago
I question the sanity of the concept that the heat from my brakes is stopping my car.
bridgetroll9 2 months ago
@bridgetroll9 Heat produced by your breaks doesn't stop your car. It is actually the friction between your break pads and drum. And as you should know, friction produces heat. And heating your break assembly by applying the breaks alot actually makes the breaking system less efficient.
05sdj 2 months ago in playlist E=Mc2 Einstein's Big Idea
@05sdj "Breaking system" WTF is that? Car's have Brakes, NOT Breaks.
BythewayIampink 1 month ago
@BythewayIampink Thanks for the pointer, I am sure no one knew what I was trying to say.
05sdj 1 month ago
@bridgetroll9 Rub your hands together, friction makes heat. Anyways the heat is a bi-product of friction stopping your car.
TheForrunner159 2 months ago
Energy is the ability to do work. It would require energy to accelerate a mass to the speed stated. Mass contains zero energy unless it's moving. Even then the moving mass required energy from a source outside itself to get it moving.
What I am saying is this equation is science fiction.
bridgetroll9 3 months ago
@bridgetroll9 What about the energy released when I set fire to my pants? I am not moving my pants, I am using heat to release the energy.
05sdj 2 months ago in playlist E=Mc2 Einstein's Big Idea
@bridgetroll9 You obviously have no idea of what you're talking about. Your argument is pathetic and void of substance, but given your intellectual capacity, it's understandable. Einstein's genius is above your capable comprehension. Just because you don't understand, or even Nikola Tesla, doesn't mean Einstein was wrong. Given Tesla was a great scientist, and he disagreed, apparently, with Einstein's theory, doesn't justify Einstein was wrong.
housetenrckets 2 months ago
@housetenrckets Do more research before you make such ludicrous claims.
housetenrckets 2 months ago
@bridgetroll9 Trollolol
5teampunker 1 month ago
@bridgetroll9 Ohoho. I love it when these sort of trolls try to outsmart Einstein. It's funny because we've seen that the equation works. If you deny the equation, you're also denying the empirical nature of its formulation. You're pretty much just denying everything from Maxwell onward. :o
Matthewkindpend 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Intra pe canalul meu si pe site-ul de acolo (policam) si cumpara un dispozitiv radionic. Dispozitivele pot aprinde neoane fara fire si pot proteja oamenii de atacuri oculte. Daca vrei sa faci experimente cumpara un dispozitiv pentru ca sa fii protejat cand faci experimentele si sa-ti maresti talentul la descoperiri (se pot programa pentru asta) sau fa experimente cu dispozitivele pentru a dezvolta stiinta din domeniu si nu numai (se poate ajunge la teleportare)
policamtv 3 months ago
No work can be performed by multiplying a mass by the speed of light and squareing it.
Mass can do no work. It takes work to move mass. Water falling is mass being moved by gravity. Gravity is doing the work not the water.
bridgetroll9 3 months ago
@bridgetroll9 E=MC^2 only approximates how much energy is in a mass; it's not stating that mass can do work independently, which seems to be what you're saying.
housetenrckets 3 months ago
@housetenrckets Your right, you just need to know the most efficient way to utilise / extract the energy in the mass.
05sdj 2 months ago in playlist E=Mc2 Einstein's Big Idea
@05sdj That would take another equation to solve that. I believe bridgetroll9 fails to understand that.
housetenrckets 2 months ago
@bridgetroll9 How about I extract the hydrogen from water and the set fire to it. That's a form of energy in water.
05sdj 2 months ago in playlist E=Mc2 Einstein's Big Idea
nothing in this video is the truth
darkforbrothers 3 months ago
Anyone who knows Science truly and it's history will now that 1) Einstein didn't come up with Relativity 2) He didn't come up with E=mc^2 3) Eddingtons eclipse which shot Einstein into "stardom" was a hoax 4) All this was to get rid of the AETHER. The M-M experiment was aimed to detect a static ether, for good reason. The Aether is dynamic as proved by Tesla, Baron von Reichenbach, Wilhelm Reich amongst many other scientists. It's also been spoken of for thousands of years. Research.
LucifersArgument 4 months ago
Comment removed
RiverTam51 1 month ago
Comment removed
RiverTam51 1 month ago
@LucifersArgument Part IX: I petition that this person’s youtube account be immediately shut down or otherwise rendered incapable of posting comments so that we will not be exposed to this and similar displays of horrendous ignorance.
Sincerely,
Summer Glau.
RiverTam51 1 month ago
@LucifersArgument Part VIII: Overall, we can see a general pattern of poor research and rampant stupidity in this user’s comment. Although there are glimmers of intelligence in the reference to Tesla’s experiment, the following references make it more than clear that this was nothing more than a fluke. The troll then ironically compounds the ignorance he displays by suggesting that NOVA should do “research.”
RiverTam51 1 month ago
@LucifersArgument Part VII: Wilhelm Reich’s theory of aether is frankly bullshit and warrants no response. Neither of these is based in experiment, much less a proof of aether’s existence.
We now see our conspiracy theorist reference ancient belief in ether. Of course, along with other historical theories, such as the spontaneous generation of flies from rotten meat and the earth’s position in the center of the universe, this theory was scrapped long ago with ample evidence against it.
RiverTam51 1 month ago
@LucifersArgument Part VI: and the extension of the half-lives of unstable particles moving at high speeds). The later references, however, are impressive in their sheer stupidity. Von Reichenbach’s theory of Odic force is little more than 19th Century scientific mysticism. It has no foundation in experiment, and other theories regarding the interaction of biological compounds have long since replaced this theory as more accurate models.
RiverTam51 1 month ago
@LucifersArgument Part V: (We can dismiss claims of a static aether by Occam’s Razor: there is no reason an aether would follow the motion of the earth). However, the experiment itself did not prove the existence of aether, and we have since disproved his corresponding claims that time is independent of reference frames, in a variety of experiments. (These include but are not limited to the use of digital clocks to detect miniscule time dilation in moving objects
RiverTam51 1 month ago
@LucifersArgument Part IV: 4) Despite the appearance that our troll friend here did absolutely no research before making these particular claims, there is a small amount of truth to this first one. Tesla’s theory of ether appears to be a somewhat believable early statement of the existence of dark energy. It differs from earlier claims regarding the existence of aether in that it postulates the substance to be dynamic rather than static.
RiverTam51 1 month ago
@LucifersArgument Part III: 2) Einstein was not the first to propose mass-energy equivalence, but was the first to use the E=mc^2 transformation. 3) The original predictions of the magnitude of the gravitational lensing of Venus were incorrect, but the equations have been perfected since then based on the new data. This is correction, not conspiracy. The gravitational lensing effect is valid, and often used now in many areas of astronomy such as the detection of exoplanets.
RiverTam51 1 month ago
@LucifersArgument Part II: 1) Einstein did not create the Lorentz transforms or name every implication of his theories, but his thought experiments are the basis of relativity. Yes, there were many predecessors, but he was the first to put these together into a relevant and consistent theory. And Tesla’s claims that Einstein did not formulate relativity, but that his theory was plagiarized from Boskovic’s atomic theories, are verifiably unjustified.
RiverTam51 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LucifersArgument Part I: I could not condense my response into a single 482-character piece, because each and every detail of LucifersArgument’s comment deserves individual attention for its incredible boorishness. Let us first begin by stating that making vague references to conspiracy theories is in no way a valid substitute for knowing the actual science and history behind the subjects we are discussing. But as to the individual claims:
RiverTam51 1 month ago
i think the speed of light is NOT 670 000 000 miles/hour.....
MrSaad1932 4 months ago
@MrSaad1932 The speed of light is exactly 299 792 458 meters per second. This is perhaps the only number related to Science that I've ever remembered LOL.
ChristianGospodinov 4 months ago
@ChristianGospodinov iknow what it is in m/s but i am too lazy to convert it into mph
MrSaad1932 4 months ago
E=mc2 is from Newton and Not from Einstein. Einstein was a Ideot with an IQ from 90. And He had an F in mathematic
GesandterHollywoods 4 months ago
@GesandterHollywoods and he was diplomed from the federal polytechnical school of zurich by the God's hand.
Madhibiki 4 months ago in playlist Favoris de psppower123456789
@GesandterHollywoods huh can you show me where you aquired that information
MrSaad1932 4 months ago
@ 50:00 That is very impressive...is there some theory of this on the internet ?
psppower123456789 4 months ago 4
@psppower123456789 Not that I am aware of. I have thought about this concept myself and am planning on bringing this up with a scientist I can get in contact with and see what he has got to say.
I don't have any theories about it at the moment, when I have some time to think about it I will :-)
05sdj 4 months ago
@05sdj Thx man !
psppower123456789 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
2. "...and which is taken in passing to and returning from the region diametrically opposite the pole over the earth’s surface with a mean velocity of about four hundred and seventy-one thousand two hundred and forty kilometers per second.” (ART OF TRANSMITTING ELECTRICAL ENERGY THROUGH THE NATURAL MEDIUMS, Nikola Tesla, USA Patent No. 787,412. Application May 16, 1900, patented April 18, 1905.)
klopedokle 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1. “The most essential requirement is, however, that irrespective of frequency the wave or wave-train should continue for a certain interval of time, which I have estimated to be not less then one-twelfth or probably 0.08484 of a second..."
klopedokle 4 months ago
einstein did not calculate the speed of light
manamixingup 4 months ago
@manamixingup Correct!
tiny. cc/3ma8d
05sdj 4 months ago
Very good documentary. I must admit the actor fits perfectly into the role as Einstein, I was impressed by the similarity.
PenisWurst030 4 months ago
38:30 - Hmm... I thought the Idea behind E=mc2 was that it won't weight the same as the small portion of the mass will convert to heat energy. It would weight almost, almost the same and this small missing part would be mass that converted to enormous heat created during the process. So which is it?
dawdus 4 months ago in playlist Einstein and E=mc^2
@dawdus When you burn wood you end up with a high quantity of carbon. While the physical carbon that you can see left behind may weight less, there is some carbon is released into the air. While not all of what is produced is carbon, there may be other elements. If you could weight all these split elements in the air and whats left over, they would be the same as the original piece of wood.
05sdj 4 months ago
@05sdj Well. You burn a piece of wood, and the wood and oxygen that take part in the process weight exactly the same as all the products of this process? I mean all the carbon, dust, smoke, carbon dioxide? What about the light and heat? Does it mean we created light and heat out of nothing? We have all the mass that went into the process but above that we also have light and heat?
dawdus 4 months ago
@dawdus E=MC2 is an equation that specifies the amount of energy in a piece of mass, or mass–energy equivalence.
05sdj 4 months ago
@05sdj Exactly. Thats why if you create an energy you have to sacrifice mass.
Try to find "Modern Physics For Non-Scientists" episode 12 - What About E=mc2
The physics professor talks exactly about that.
dawdus 4 months ago
it's amazing how much this guy looks like Einstein when he was young
VanMedia 5 months ago
einsteins girl is moaning myrtle.
MJ4coheed 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this is nothing new..i been working n proving that einstein was wrong..he made three error which on that is where i been working on for last years to show in a way that makes sence that it is possible to travel faster than speed of light..have send email to the head office and to the papers but no reply..i guess cuz i am like a historian researcher that try to find missing links and corect history..they no count on me as being good enough to be lisen to me....
redmosquito50 5 months ago
neutrino
MrZulusniper 5 months ago
oh yeah this shit is wrong now :) neutrino particle is mind blowing :)
ivanwarrior37 5 months ago
@ivanwarrior37 Yeah I heard about the neutrino particle. Supposedly it travels about 4 miles/hr faster than the speed of light? Interesting to see what comes of it...
05sdj 4 months ago 2
@ivanwarrior37 they measured it wrong it was on the news
itziBLACKOUTv1 4 months ago in playlist Liked
Comment removed
lomsad 5 months ago
26:57 mmm.... Sexy Science talk ohohohoho it's gettin' hot in HERE so take off all your ELECTRONS
bremen93 5 months ago in playlist bremen93's Favorited Videos
36:11 - what is happening???
Oh, that's just the French Revolution honey.
fiesta181 5 months ago 15
uhh life so utterly pointless :D I jelly of Einstein XP
TheSunnycar 6 months ago
i can hear dr michio kaku in this lol :P
fullmetal660956 6 months ago
but why not interpret it as "c is for the speed of light, [which is] squared."
DCUPtoejuice 6 months ago
Excellent film. After people watch this, they will look at the world differently.
VoguishArts 6 months ago 16
@VoguishArts i wish i could like that comment a 100x
9GHOSTCHIKEN 5 months ago
thanks so much
bruty16 7 months ago
it was a good documentary/biography, blew my mind.
SIRA063 8 months ago
there is a flaw in this movie... at 1:26 the film says... "c is for the speed of light squared" i was under the impression c is for the speed of light and c2 is for the speed of light squared(cant figure out how to make the 2 a power sign).
SIRA063 8 months ago
@SIRA063 They technically should have said C^2. And what you say is totally correct. Even though they only said C, they really need to talk about C^2 as it is one part of the equation. The speed of light needs to be squared and will be discussed as a whole, not individually.
Fact about life: Nothing is perfect!
05sdj 8 months ago
@05sdj : Fact about life: Nothings perfect! Have you ever seen a flower? or anything for that matter.. perfect
Rather a opinion of life...
Tureno777 6 months ago
@SIRA063
I agree the sentence is not correct strictly speaking. However, I think the makers of the movie realized that, but chose to do it this way to keep simplicity.
At least they put "squared" on a separate line.
They can't say C^2 because the beginning of the movie is showing scenes from the different sections of it. And "C" and "squared" are two different stories. "C" is in Michael Faraday's story, and "squared" is in Émilie du Châtelet's.
KKM121 8 months ago
@SIRA063 ². it's these two keys together - 'Alt Gr' 2
jdhf983y4uhu 4 months ago