I don't think any of them understand special relativity because to understand it you need to have an understanding of Galileo's original theory first. The theory of relativity was the first thing we were taught in high school physics before we moved onto special relativity
oh, cool, I'm not alone in my addiction haha! but they are so superbly taking "infotainment" beyond what anybody expects from it, I'm proud of being guilty of watching it!
@Disfunston : Indeed... & I hate to say this, but I really wasn't aware of a special & general theroy of relativity... I thought he was joking at first. The things you learn on QI...
Education is a bitch but research Henri Poincaré & Olinto De Pretto and don't forget the word "plagiarism" and you will Einstein was a fake promoted by the Oil barons at the time to prevent Tesla getting the attention of the academic World - You won't find any of this information on You-Tube! If you have the brains you can join the dots or just be happy to be a sheep... Baaa
Timmy Cob is right. Tesla perfected a perpetual motion machine which our government is keeping from us. He also constructed an electric generator, the power from which could provide food for the entire planet for several centuries--of course companies like General Mills and Chef Boy Ardee won't ever let that be revealed.
Einstein didn't discover shit - He stole a life time of other peoples ideas & inventions when working in the Geneva patent office and then when he could not explain why his work and experience did not give him the backgrounds for his miracles he claimed it was divine intervention, inspiration from from the heavens.
@TimCob You're claiming that somebody sent in the solutions to Relativity, Brownian Motion and the Photoelectric Effect to the Bern Patent Office, where Einstein stole them? You know, theoretical physicists send their discoveries to journals like Nature and Science, not to the patent office. You've got no idea what you're talking about. And Tesla wasn't in the same business as Einstein. Einstein was a physicist, Tesla was an engineer. Tesla wrote patents, Einstein wrote scientific articles.
@TimCob Did einstein invent anything? Do people patent mathimatical theorys? Where do you research? You tube? Tesla was outstanding but in a different field.
@TimCob This misconception is inconceivable to anyone who doesn't make the usual mess of science and engineering.
Yes, the devices that went through his shop probably inspired him. But what he came up with couldn't have been "stolen" from patents; it would be like saying Wiles "stole" his theorem from Shimura.
the continuing debate on philosophy vs science vs religion or even psychology will all be resolved when the anthropic principle is truly understood @ 1 mm the universe both recedes inwards to the planck constant and expands outward to the co moving event horizon making the scale which we experience as reality the centre of the universe, this concept puts you the reader at the central point or more precisely...your MIND
Galilean relativity was only called such or recognized as an important idea after the discovery of Special Relativity, so it is correct to say that Einstein discovered Relativity.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Einstein stole his theory of relativity while working in the patent office in Switzerland - He is the biggest faker in science history. Research it.. The E=MC² cames from combined work deposited by an Irish and Itailian scientsits. The reason Einstein was promoted was to throw the idiot media of the day away from Tesla who had invented energy sources that would have stopped the oil industry in its tracks. Better to talk meaningless space stuff to take attentions away from money making - True!
@TimCob Einstein a faker? Nobody invents such a huge theory by themselves, but Einstein was the first to synthesize various ideas into a coherent theory of Special Relativity, and then worked almost alone for 10 years on the General Theory. Meanwhile, he had enough time to do groundbreaking work on the photoelectric effect, which won him a Nobel Prize and helped to open up the field of Quantum Mechanics, and on stimulated emission. Few physicists in history have had such a wide-ranging impact.
Einstein was a Zionist media promoted over-rated plagiarist of far greater western scientists works.
For further education on this please reply with an ad hominem attack on me the messenger if you are an idiot, or an inquiry as to why this is true if you possess scruples and intelligence.
@weweallthewayhome Actually Galileo DID invent relativity, he just assumed that there was an absolute time which was the same for everybody and that all inertial frames move in uniform relative motion, so that if you were moving without experiencing inertia you would'nt be able to tell you were moving at all. Einstein just changed the terminology, measuring time with respect to the speed of light (which is fundamentally absolute) which meant different frames had to be transformed.
@weweallthewayhome My bad, I thought you meant he merely postulated it and left it at that. which incidently is kind of what he did. the church locked him up before he could apply relativity to gravity, which Newton did.
Consider this, E = mc², so there is the claim that nothing can exceed the speed of light. However, if Energy exists, then some mass MUST HAVE BEEN accelerated to the SPEED OF LIGHT SQUARED. That would seem to imply that the speed of light squared was the actual speed limit of the universe.
Either that or E = mc² is a flawed equation. Thoughts?
Of course I'm wrong, but it is still one of those seeming perfect paths of logic that leads to a seeming perfect logical conclusion, even when it is not.
If Energy equals Mass accelerated to the Speed of Light Squared, and I flick the button on a cigarette lighter, then the flame I create is a form of Energy, & at the juncture where the Mass of Butane is converted into Energy, it must be accelerated to the Speed of Light Squared. That's logic ...seemingly.
@blueboyblue Yes. iickle is right. E=mc^2 does in no way portray that energy is mass at the speed of light squared, in the same way that kinetic energy is [1/2mv^2]. Nothing can go faster than the speed of light. Stuff with no mass can go AT the speed of light (ie electromagnetic waves, such as light) in a vacuum. The closer to c a mass gets, the more massive it becomes, and so the harder it is to accelerate, etc etc.
@pritchardo92 And when you get close to a large mass or get close to travelling at the speed of light, time slows down so you can never reach the limit value for speed, about 2,99 x 10^8 m/s, right?
@Sackrider5000 "time slows you down" - LOL. Time isn't sentient, and can't make decisions. Masses in space-time distort space-time, kind of like how a football will displace water if you plunge it into a filled bath. But yeah, the principle is right :)
@blueboyblue energy doesn't equal mass accelerated to the speed of light squared....the c^2 term is simply a conversion factor when you go from using natural units to standard mks units. the energy from the cigarette lighter is energy stored in the bonds of the butane molecules aka potential energy. it is completely analagous to the energy released when you drop a book onto the floor, gravitational PE is being converted to kinetic(in the case of the book), nothing to do with the speed of light
@blueboyblue No, that energy comes from a chemical reaction, the energy in E = mc² comes from the energy released if the mass were to be completely annihilated.
I do watch the TV show. The fact that these clips are taken from an excellent show doesn't excuse their being terribly edited, rather it makes the poor editing that much more abhorrant. P.S. I'm sorry that my singular use of a cuss word has offended your sensitive eyes.
These clips are so fucking poorly edited. You can tell that the person who made them only cared about the banter and viewed the actual knowledge being imparted as unimportant. This particular clip ends before we even get to see what Galileo's theory was.
@freshfreenlovinit I've personally done experiments that comfirm the theory of relativity in the way that time slows down and distances shrink when traveling at very high speeds. With a muon detector. Muons are created in the atmosphere and their half life is abour 1.5 microseconds. At the speed of light they would get around 1 km or so, the atmosphere is 1000 km thick. Still we can measure quite a lot of them on earth, because time moves slower for them.
@liamlemur Lorentz transforms were derived by Einstein from the postulates of his special relativity and he was the one to come up with those postulates. In fact, if memory serves me right, not only did he derive them (and the rest of spec. rel.) from his postulates, but also they are in fact different from whatever Lorentz proposed himself. Don't remember what the difference is, if there is one anyway. I think Lorentz's stuff was based on his ideas about aether.
@AlwaysDisagreeing It's easy to get on youtube and say that GPS satellites are adjusted to compensate for time dilation. Do you have any reputable references which state this and explain how and why it is done.
@freshfreenlovinit On wikipedia, check the entry on "Error analysis for the Global positioning system", in particular the section "Relativity" as well as the articles it cites, or just search around on google, you'll find a wealth of informations on the topic and what kind of calculations need to be done to account for relativistic error sources.
@whoppix wikipedia is most definitely not a reliable source of information. i find this comment strange: "The time dilation effect has been measured and verified using the GPS". You cannot use GPS to measure and verify time dilation while at the same time incorporate time dilation into the equations used by GPS itself to make calculations.
@freshfreenlovinit If you don't trust wiki, check out the references, or find any other references on the net, there are plenty. Why would you not be able to correct and verify something at the same time? You correct your calculations to account for the expected error, then you check if it comes out fine. If it does, it's an indication that your error is as predicted. Note, I never suggested to use this to verify GR; there are plenty of other experiments and ways that are much better and safer.
@whoppix I have yet to find any other references. If you do not understand why you cannot both incorporate time dilation in your calculations and at the same time verify its existence then you are not very scientifcally minded.
@freshfreenlovinit As I've said, incorporating both into the calculations is no problem at all, as long as you have the necessary mathematical framework to describe the deviations you expect, and you can rule out other sources of errors. But as I said, that is *not* the way you prove GR normally, there are hundreds of other, better suited experiments that can (and have) be used. If you google "experimental verification of GR" or so, you'll find more than enough to occupy you for half a lifetime.
@freshfreenlovinit Youtube does not allow posting links, but seriously, just enter the search-term I told you into google. "About 142,000 results (0.12 seconds) ". The first two results right at the top ("First experimental verification of GR" and "On Experimental Verification of GR") are EXACTLY what you're looking for. Try variations on the search-terms (like "General Relativity proof" etc) to get even more results.
@whoppix Tried this search in Google ""First experimental verification of GR" and it came up with 9 hits. The first one was a forum and the second one was a pdf that didn't seem to want to open.
@freshfreenlovinit tried it without quotes and the first 2 sites were forums. People keep talking about hundreds of this and thousands of that but all I am asking for is one single reputable experiment which proves time dilation occurs and I would like specific instructions as to where to find it, not type something into google and the first 2 sites that come up are forums
@freshfreenlovinit You may have trouble accessing the actual scientific publications for free. If you want to read them you could go to a local university and ask people at the library how you can access these papers. Usually universities subscribe to many journals so that the students can read them for free (well, not quite,since they do have to pay for tuition). Also, you could even ask them to help you find specific papers on specific experiments.
@MaximPodolsky I have contacted a senior lecturer in physics at Queensland University of Technology and asked him where I can find these experiments. He told me "look on the net. You will find them." He would give me nothing more specific than that. The reason I started looking for experiments in the first place, was that it didn't make sense to me that time could slow down from one object to another depending on relative speed. I wasn't surprised at all when I could not find any experiments.
@freshfreenlovinit I have just left some brief details on one experiment (and a few other idea's) in the "comments" section of your profile page. I hope it is of some help to you.
@butiamben How did they synchronise clocks at a nanosecond level? Also, the experiment was done in 1971. Einstein's theory had come out decades before and had already been accepted by the scientific community without experimental evidence. Scientific method had not been followed and has still not been followed to this day. Where is the evidence that GPS uses theory of relativity?
@butiamben You have not explained how the clocks were synchronised. Just because they are accurate does not mean they are easy to synchronise. How do you know the results of the experiment are accurate? Scientific experiments should be repeatable. It does not seem that this one was repeated many times. You do not believe something is true because of one experiment especially when it doesn't make sense in the first place. Scientific method does mean that something should be proven my experiment.
@freshfreenlovinit Couple of things. You never "proof" something in physics. You only find supporting evidence. Also "believing something is true" is often done without solid evidence to back it up. General relativity, Atomic model and various other ideas were widely accepted before solid evidence was given.
Part of the "scientific method" is accepting the most accurate prediction until a better one is discovered. This was not "unscientific" of the community to do.
@freshfreenlovinit Good question. Usually it is done by "usefulness" or the theory's ability to predict/explain phenomenons. Example: With the atom theory you can predict which elements would combine to make a salt molecule. And general relativity predicted gravitational lenses. This would constitude as "evidence" for the accuracy of the theory. But this is far from proof, the theories could still be completely off, or only partially correct.
I agree. I don't complain about adverts on YouTube as it's at least free, but this should be illegal. Don't we pay a license fee? So advertising as well, very naughty.
Yeah, I guess you're right but then the BBC should be doing what other television networks around the world do and make these only available to the British license payers, or come up with some way of only having ads for international users.
@codeyday WH-WHOINVENT-WHWHWHWHWHHOOOOOOINVENT-W-W-WH-H-H-H-H-WHO INVENTED THE-WWWHWHWHWHHHHHHH-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-WHO IN HHOHOHOHOHOHOHWOHWOWHOWHOWHOWHOHHHHHHWHOINVENTED THE THEO WHOWHOWHWOHWO WHO INVENTED THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY?
@TheTrigger124 I kinda exaggerated tbh. I'm not actually a physicist but I am finishing my second year of studying Physics (as part of Nat Sci degree) at Cambridge. I'm alright - I can understand some of the hard stuff, but a lot goes over my head too - at the moment anyway. Some guys I know though are incredibly good (combination of talent + hard work)
That said, some of the stuff in physics isn't even properly understood by the best physicists in the world. Quantum mechanics for example.
@TheTrigger124 It really isn't that hard. If you love Physics just start small and enrole in a night course.You only get 70 years to do whatever you want before you check out... don't waste it.
@BreachedWall Yep, don't get down on yourself if your no "Einstein"...
I wish I had the background for Cambridge... Alas I got pigeonholed into working in science rather than developing/studying it. I am a Non-destructive Inspector by trade... in addition to being a Aviation Mechanic, a composite repair technician, and a surveyor. Actually, Sailor would pretty much cover it all(except the surveyor part, which lead to my unemployment, and subsequent enrollment in an Art program.).
@wubs23 Galileo is my life, my hero, my God. "Eppur si muove"...."And yet it moves"....dropping different weight balls off the leaning tower of Pisa, watching them hit the ground at the same time...pure genius...*sniff*...Look at me. Now I'm all tearing up.
@CheDonJohn Lol, ok I lied, I'm not a physicist. I just study physics at a top University. And after a few years of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity I'm starting to wish I'd chosen something easier. :P
@BreachedWall Haha well, like you, I knew the answer was Galileo; not from studying physics, but from studying philosophy (but does that make me a philsopher?!). Galileo's relativity had a massive impact on political philosophy, particularly on Social Contract Theory (it changed the way we look at human nature). More often it is or has been philosophy that has driven the sciences (posing the hypotheses and questions for science to test and answer) but in this case it was the other way around.
@CheDonJohn Could you give me some examples as to when philosophy has driven the sciences?
I remember Feynmann saying “Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds". Not saying I agree with him entirely though, but generally I'd say that science drives philosophy and not the other way around.
@BreachedWall As my answer is fairly long, I'll post it to you in a message or comment on you profile (which might be better as I think others can then read it). Let me know if it sends through OK.
@BreachedWall: Good humorous program! Note: Philosophical opinion, preceded Galileo's science. Ex., Greek scholars were of the opinion the world was composed of four "elements" (tangibles); earth, water, air & fire; not bad thinking (opinion). However, "- naturally, the bigger rock falls faster than a smaller because weighs more."; didn't 'fly' with scientific Galileo. Who scientifically, took two different masses to the leaning tower of Piza --- oops, Pisa; to prove his scientific theory.
@BreachedWall The Schrodinger's Cat paradox (conceived by Erwin Schrodinger, respectively) inspired a lot of thought and research into metaphysics as is understood even today. Philosophy and science go hand in hand, there is no "first". One cant exist without the other, as both are in essence the process of questioning, reflecting and finally proving. Science simply places its emphasis on the later.
@7CellarDoors But my argument is that science is what drives philosophy and not vice versa. Schrodinger's cat has vastly changed philosophical approached to causality, but I cannot think of an example of where philosophical arguments have driven scientific discovery. Perhaps you have such an example?
I'm not saying philosophy is a waste of time btw, far from it. I'm merely arguing that science is not reliant on advances in philosophy but philosophy is reliant on advances in science.
@BreachedWall Well, it's not that simple. If you look at western cultural history, it was philosophy that science originated from. Also in a way science still works "inside" philosophy. It uses philosophical assumptions, regarding metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of language and so on. You are right about how science, especially physics have affected philosophy. Also psychology! However, philosophy uses philosophical methods and science scientific.
@BreachedWall (continue) Philosophy isn't an advancing science, it's not even a science. That's why philosophy can't (and shouldn't be) reliant on science. Before Aristoteles separated them they were sort of a same thing and in a way still are. For some reason people often see philosophy as something that can be easily compared to science and thus, I would say, most criticism towards philosophy occurs.
@7CellarDoors But my argument is that science is what drives philosophy and not vice versa. Schrodinger's cat has vastly changed philosophical approached to causality, but I cannot think of an example of where philosophical arguments have driven scientific discovery. Perhaps you have such an example?
I'm not saying philosophy is a waste of time btw, far from it. I'm merely arguing that science is not reliant on advances in philosophy but philosophy is reliant on advances in science.
he did INVENT it. isaac newton didn't "discover" the theory of gravity. he didn't stumble upon it one day, he invented a theory using numbers and letters to describe a the laws of gravity, and in that sense it is an invention.
that's like saying someone discovered the telescope. a theory is an invention in that it describes the natural order. nobody can discover a theory of relativity unless it was invented at some point in describing the universe.
@MrAsiansunite - Not true. Poincare came very close, but didn't get to the final point of mass-energy equivalence or the constancy of the speed of light.
Unlimited energy sources are out there!But Millions are spend in supressing that information,Find this technology at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Big change is comming soon!
Einstein came up with the Theory of Relativity nearly 100 years ago and it's still just a theory not a law.
If you have 2 torches a kilometre apart shining their beams towards each other and someone travels back and forth between those torches at one third the speed of light, how can it be explained that the light from both torches is travelling at the speed of light relative to the person travelling back and forth between the torches?
@freshfreenlovinit I believe they actually confirmed the theory this month (May 2011). A Nasa probe, Gravity Probe B (GP-B), confirmed two key parts of Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity.
@abkalmo Someone saying they proved it and someone actually proving it are two different things. You have to prove you've proven it! Which means publishing your experiment with adequate details.
@freshfreenlovinit That's exactly what they did. They proved that it worked as described in theory. The details of the experiment are published. It's NASA! Look at the website: einstein stanford edu.
@freshfreenlovinit Clocks? I don't think you understand this subject or experiment.
The GP-B experiment measured the geodetic and the frame-dragging effect; the amount by which the Earth warps and drags around the local spacetime in which it resides.
The measured the displacement over the course of a year and compared these results with predictions from Einstein's theory of gravity and general relativity.
@abkalmo Someone else put this experiment forward as proving what I said has never been proven. I didn't say it proved it because as you say, it doesn't. So that leaves us with finding an experiment that does prove time dilation occurs. Like I say, I 've never seen one that is even close to being well documented and proves that time dilation occurs.
@abbyasbo140896 Oh, I know, shithead. That's not the question and you're both too stupid to understand obviously. Read the damn report, fool. The experiment explains itself, there's no NEED for simple clocks! Stupid cunt!
Another dumb "Gotcha" question like the "How do you put an elephant in a fridge?" that some people think is so clever. It only depends on how you define it. Once you discount Einstein, Lorentz seems an acceptable choice.
I knew he was going to say Galileo... except what Galileo came up with isn't called the Theory of Relativity. It's called the -Principle- of Relativity. I don't think it can even be considered a Theory.
Whoopsy. I think their researchers blundered there.
the original idea was Galileo Galilei's, i don't put much credit into einstein, he was once stopped speeding. The police asked him to recite his registration and einstein turned around and said "i do not fill my head with such nonsense". What a dick.
I want you to know that I now hate everybody on Earth because of you. I'm going to stand in traffic flicking people off and yelling obscenities. "recite his registration"? wtf are you talking about? He couldn't even drive! Calling Einstein a dick? one of the greatest humanitarians and pacifists of all time? If you're telling a joke, i really don't get it.. But Galileo, as brilliant as he was, didn't contribute shit to Einstein's incredibly detailed explanation of the universe.
@evilsinzy There's a story, from Princeton, about one of Einstein's students, who ran into an old man who was looking very cnfused. He LOOKED like Einstein, so the student asked if he could assist him. The old man asked if he could show him the way to Einstein's house. The student was confused, but thought the man might be his brother or something, and showed him the way. When they got there, the man thanked him, leaned in and whispered, "I'll tell you a secret; I am Einstein!"
0:25 Dara's wink...
dec8808 3 days ago
I love the sound stephen makes at 1:11 after alan says "Galileo just did telescopes"
mancno1 6 days ago 4
@mancno1 I love when Alan makes him sputter indignantly because he just wants to get a rise out of him. haha
thefinewino 5 days ago
how could they not know who created the theory of relativity.. :/
mQtek 1 week ago
Yea, my answer was Newton :/
ViperRob42 2 weeks ago
Quite Interesting
TBlenx1995 2 weeks ago
I don't think any of them understand special relativity because to understand it you need to have an understanding of Galileo's original theory first. The theory of relativity was the first thing we were taught in high school physics before we moved onto special relativity
thejonoleonard 3 weeks ago
I've been clicking these QI videos for hours....anyone else just QI watching?
IOWChris 1 month ago 171
@IOWChris I do it allllll the time. :P
MissSuicidalCupcake 1 week ago
@IOWChris
oh, cool, I'm not alone in my addiction haha! but they are so superbly taking "infotainment" beyond what anybody expects from it, I'm proud of being guilty of watching it!
aNdYmAtTeR 1 week ago
@Disfunston : Indeed... & I hate to say this, but I really wasn't aware of a special & general theroy of relativity... I thought he was joking at first. The things you learn on QI...
FuneralDust666 1 month ago
nooooooo why did ya say einstein alan??
weatherallc05 1 month ago
PLEASE DONT SAY EINSTEIN
weatherallc05 1 month ago
Saying that he was the second-most-famous scientist after Newton was just cheating.
IoEstasCedonta 1 month ago
Tesla was brilliant, but he was not a comic book mad scientist supervillain like people make him out to be. Don't taint his reputation with nonsense.
Disfunston 2 months ago
@Disfunston Brilliant, yes but at the same time is a fool since he was shafted by someone intellectually beneath him.
josephsimeon 1 month ago
neuton wasnt it?
noodlesmealey 2 months ago
Education is a bitch but research Henri Poincaré & Olinto De Pretto and don't forget the word "plagiarism" and you will Einstein was a fake promoted by the Oil barons at the time to prevent Tesla getting the attention of the academic World - You won't find any of this information on You-Tube! If you have the brains you can join the dots or just be happy to be a sheep... Baaa
TimCob 2 months ago
@TimCob
Timmy Cob is right. Tesla perfected a perpetual motion machine which our government is keeping from us. He also constructed an electric generator, the power from which could provide food for the entire planet for several centuries--of course companies like General Mills and Chef Boy Ardee won't ever let that be revealed.
tarzanmorrison 2 months ago
@tarzanmorrison Proof?
lyon1535 2 months ago
@TimCob I was taking you semi-seriously until "promoted by the Oil barons at the time to prevent Tesla getting the attention of the academic world."
No, you can find this all over Youtube, right between Annunaki videos and "alternative physicists."
His citation protocol wasn't perfect, no, and might have gotten him expelled today, but his contributions were his own.
IoEstasCedonta 1 month ago
He just did telescopes!
He just..*splutters*.
- Stephen's outrage here is brilliant, haha.
ninacat88 2 months ago
Einstein didn't discover shit - He stole a life time of other peoples ideas & inventions when working in the Geneva patent office and then when he could not explain why his work and experience did not give him the backgrounds for his miracles he claimed it was divine intervention, inspiration from from the heavens.
Nikolai Tesla was the real master...
TimCob 3 months ago
@TimCob You're claiming that somebody sent in the solutions to Relativity, Brownian Motion and the Photoelectric Effect to the Bern Patent Office, where Einstein stole them? You know, theoretical physicists send their discoveries to journals like Nature and Science, not to the patent office. You've got no idea what you're talking about. And Tesla wasn't in the same business as Einstein. Einstein was a physicist, Tesla was an engineer. Tesla wrote patents, Einstein wrote scientific articles.
Thucydides411 3 months ago 2
@TimCob Did einstein invent anything? Do people patent mathimatical theorys? Where do you research? You tube? Tesla was outstanding but in a different field.
TheJimmax 2 months ago
@TimCob This misconception is inconceivable to anyone who doesn't make the usual mess of science and engineering.
Yes, the devices that went through his shop probably inspired him. But what he came up with couldn't have been "stolen" from patents; it would be like saying Wiles "stole" his theorem from Shimura.
IoEstasCedonta 1 month ago
the continuing debate on philosophy vs science vs religion or even psychology will all be resolved when the anthropic principle is truly understood @ 1 mm the universe both recedes inwards to the planck constant and expands outward to the co moving event horizon making the scale which we experience as reality the centre of the universe, this concept puts you the reader at the central point or more precisely...your MIND
couthyband 3 months ago
Galilean relativity was only called such or recognized as an important idea after the discovery of Special Relativity, so it is correct to say that Einstein discovered Relativity.
Thucydides411 3 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Einstein stole his theory of relativity while working in the patent office in Switzerland - He is the biggest faker in science history. Research it.. The E=MC² cames from combined work deposited by an Irish and Itailian scientsits. The reason Einstein was promoted was to throw the idiot media of the day away from Tesla who had invented energy sources that would have stopped the oil industry in its tracks. Better to talk meaningless space stuff to take attentions away from money making - True!
TimCob 3 months ago
@TimCob
E=mc^2 wasn't the actual equation used. Nice trolling though ^_^
HumaneAnon 3 months ago
@TimCob Einstein a faker? Nobody invents such a huge theory by themselves, but Einstein was the first to synthesize various ideas into a coherent theory of Special Relativity, and then worked almost alone for 10 years on the General Theory. Meanwhile, he had enough time to do groundbreaking work on the photoelectric effect, which won him a Nobel Prize and helped to open up the field of Quantum Mechanics, and on stimulated emission. Few physicists in history have had such a wide-ranging impact.
Thucydides411 3 months ago
@Thucydides411 Do some research !!
TimCob 3 months ago
Very topical right now...
tomwiddv2 3 months ago
Galilleo does not approve.
CaroDrago 4 months ago
how much you wouldn't like having a discussion about everything with stephen fry at a dinner or something(no homo ;P)?
tavi921 4 months ago
Alan actually said Einstein before
MrGaruko 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Einstein was a Zionist media promoted over-rated plagiarist of far greater western scientists works.
For further education on this please reply with an ad hominem attack on me the messenger if you are an idiot, or an inquiry as to why this is true if you possess scruples and intelligence.
Thank you in advance.
;)
Kenmorfdublin 5 months ago
wow! the caliber of nerdery displayed in these posts is fantastic! cheers to you all. ;)
pisoamarillo 5 months ago 17
Comment removed
BenjyKyleAtkinson 3 weeks ago
galilean relativity isn't a theory, it's a postulate.
weweallthewayhome 5 months ago
@weweallthewayhome Actually Galileo DID invent relativity, he just assumed that there was an absolute time which was the same for everybody and that all inertial frames move in uniform relative motion, so that if you were moving without experiencing inertia you would'nt be able to tell you were moving at all. Einstein just changed the terminology, measuring time with respect to the speed of light (which is fundamentally absolute) which meant different frames had to be transformed.
MuonRay 5 months ago
@MuonRay "galilean relativity isnt a theory, it's a postualte." when did I say he didn't invent it?...
weweallthewayhome 5 months ago
@weweallthewayhome My bad, I thought you meant he merely postulated it and left it at that. which incidently is kind of what he did. the church locked him up before he could apply relativity to gravity, which Newton did.
MuonRay 5 months ago
Consider this, E = mc², so there is the claim that nothing can exceed the speed of light. However, if Energy exists, then some mass MUST HAVE BEEN accelerated to the SPEED OF LIGHT SQUARED. That would seem to imply that the speed of light squared was the actual speed limit of the universe.
Either that or E = mc² is a flawed equation. Thoughts?
blueboyblue 6 months ago
@blueboyblue
Not the right place to ask, but you are wrong....
RhydianTJ 6 months ago
@RhydianTJ
"...you are wrong...."
Of course I'm wrong, but it is still one of those seeming perfect paths of logic that leads to a seeming perfect logical conclusion, even when it is not.
If Energy equals Mass accelerated to the Speed of Light Squared, and I flick the button on a cigarette lighter, then the flame I create is a form of Energy, & at the juncture where the Mass of Butane is converted into Energy, it must be accelerated to the Speed of Light Squared. That's logic ...seemingly.
blueboyblue 6 months ago
@blueboyblue YEh, I knew where you had that idea, but since its impossible to go faster than light, that thought shouldve done away quickly...
It is actually a really simple version of a an equation that shows the relative velocity and mass of an object, so you had to square..
RhydianTJ 6 months ago
@blueboyblue Yes. iickle is right. E=mc^2 does in no way portray that energy is mass at the speed of light squared, in the same way that kinetic energy is [1/2mv^2]. Nothing can go faster than the speed of light. Stuff with no mass can go AT the speed of light (ie electromagnetic waves, such as light) in a vacuum. The closer to c a mass gets, the more massive it becomes, and so the harder it is to accelerate, etc etc.
pritchardo92 6 months ago
@pritchardo92 And when you get close to a large mass or get close to travelling at the speed of light, time slows down so you can never reach the limit value for speed, about 2,99 x 10^8 m/s, right?
Sackrider5000 5 months ago
@Sackrider5000 "time slows you down" - LOL. Time isn't sentient, and can't make decisions. Masses in space-time distort space-time, kind of like how a football will displace water if you plunge it into a filled bath. But yeah, the principle is right :)
pritchardo92 5 months ago
@pritchardo92 indeed that's what I meant basically
Sackrider5000 5 months ago
@blueboyblue energy doesn't equal mass accelerated to the speed of light squared....the c^2 term is simply a conversion factor when you go from using natural units to standard mks units. the energy from the cigarette lighter is energy stored in the bonds of the butane molecules aka potential energy. it is completely analagous to the energy released when you drop a book onto the floor, gravitational PE is being converted to kinetic(in the case of the book), nothing to do with the speed of light
weweallthewayhome 5 months ago
@blueboyblue No, that energy comes from a chemical reaction, the energy in E = mc² comes from the energy released if the mass were to be completely annihilated.
pubuman 1 week ago
@blueboyblue
The c^2 term is constant.
iickle 6 months ago
Who created the theory of relativity? Well its relative..
Relyct 6 months ago
@iPodRepoFinder
I do watch the TV show. The fact that these clips are taken from an excellent show doesn't excuse their being terribly edited, rather it makes the poor editing that much more abhorrant. P.S. I'm sorry that my singular use of a cuss word has offended your sensitive eyes.
wcibbt 6 months ago
These clips are so fucking poorly edited. You can tell that the person who made them only cared about the banter and viewed the actual knowledge being imparted as unimportant. This particular clip ends before we even get to see what Galileo's theory was.
wcibbt 6 months ago
@freshfreenlovinit I've personally done experiments that comfirm the theory of relativity in the way that time slows down and distances shrink when traveling at very high speeds. With a muon detector. Muons are created in the atmosphere and their half life is abour 1.5 microseconds. At the speed of light they would get around 1 km or so, the atmosphere is 1000 km thick. Still we can measure quite a lot of them on earth, because time moves slower for them.
InterbredRollmops 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'd say it was actually Protagoras
wladwlad 7 months ago
"Could he make a good pasta sauce?" LOL
WasMilkABadChoice 7 months ago 32
einstein used lorentz's transformation equations anyway so i guess he was just as significant in the theory of special relativity as einstein.
liamlemur 7 months ago
@liamlemur Lorentz transforms were derived by Einstein from the postulates of his special relativity and he was the one to come up with those postulates. In fact, if memory serves me right, not only did he derive them (and the rest of spec. rel.) from his postulates, but also they are in fact different from whatever Lorentz proposed himself. Don't remember what the difference is, if there is one anyway. I think Lorentz's stuff was based on his ideas about aether.
MaximPodolsky 7 months ago
No physicist would call the Galileo transformation the "theory of relativity", it's just one of them tv-mindfucks.
Lupus9 7 months ago
"...he just did telescopes". one of man's greatest scientific minds, casually swept aside... LOL
ThePassiveFist 7 months ago 5
@ThePassiveFist I KNOW RIGHT I LOL'D SO HARD AHAHA XDD
WhySoBass 7 months ago
I knew it! :D
ErikeRKK 8 months ago
This video helped me get a B in my GCSE exam, cheers stepho!
dancelittlesquire 8 months ago 2
@AlwaysDisagreeing It's easy to get on youtube and say that GPS satellites are adjusted to compensate for time dilation. Do you have any reputable references which state this and explain how and why it is done.
freshfreenlovinit 8 months ago
@freshfreenlovinit On wikipedia, check the entry on "Error analysis for the Global positioning system", in particular the section "Relativity" as well as the articles it cites, or just search around on google, you'll find a wealth of informations on the topic and what kind of calculations need to be done to account for relativistic error sources.
whoppix 8 months ago
@whoppix wikipedia is most definitely not a reliable source of information. i find this comment strange: "The time dilation effect has been measured and verified using the GPS". You cannot use GPS to measure and verify time dilation while at the same time incorporate time dilation into the equations used by GPS itself to make calculations.
freshfreenlovinit 8 months ago
@freshfreenlovinit If you don't trust wiki, check out the references, or find any other references on the net, there are plenty. Why would you not be able to correct and verify something at the same time? You correct your calculations to account for the expected error, then you check if it comes out fine. If it does, it's an indication that your error is as predicted. Note, I never suggested to use this to verify GR; there are plenty of other experiments and ways that are much better and safer.
whoppix 8 months ago
@whoppix I have yet to find any other references. If you do not understand why you cannot both incorporate time dilation in your calculations and at the same time verify its existence then you are not very scientifcally minded.
freshfreenlovinit 8 months ago
@freshfreenlovinit As I've said, incorporating both into the calculations is no problem at all, as long as you have the necessary mathematical framework to describe the deviations you expect, and you can rule out other sources of errors. But as I said, that is *not* the way you prove GR normally, there are hundreds of other, better suited experiments that can (and have) be used. If you google "experimental verification of GR" or so, you'll find more than enough to occupy you for half a lifetime.
whoppix 8 months ago
@whoppix Yes I know what you said. I disagree. You talk about hundreds. Can you give me a single instance that is not from wikipedia.
freshfreenlovinit 8 months ago
@freshfreenlovinit Youtube does not allow posting links, but seriously, just enter the search-term I told you into google. "About 142,000 results (0.12 seconds) ". The first two results right at the top ("First experimental verification of GR" and "On Experimental Verification of GR") are EXACTLY what you're looking for. Try variations on the search-terms (like "General Relativity proof" etc) to get even more results.
whoppix 8 months ago
@whoppix Tried this search in Google ""First experimental verification of GR" and it came up with 9 hits. The first one was a forum and the second one was a pdf that didn't seem to want to open.
freshfreenlovinit 8 months ago
@freshfreenlovinit Try leaving out the quotes when you type it into google.
whoppix 8 months ago
@freshfreenlovinit tried it without quotes and the first 2 sites were forums. People keep talking about hundreds of this and thousands of that but all I am asking for is one single reputable experiment which proves time dilation occurs and I would like specific instructions as to where to find it, not type something into google and the first 2 sites that come up are forums
freshfreenlovinit 8 months ago
@freshfreenlovinit You may have trouble accessing the actual scientific publications for free. If you want to read them you could go to a local university and ask people at the library how you can access these papers. Usually universities subscribe to many journals so that the students can read them for free (well, not quite,since they do have to pay for tuition). Also, you could even ask them to help you find specific papers on specific experiments.
MaximPodolsky 7 months ago
@MaximPodolsky I have contacted a senior lecturer in physics at Queensland University of Technology and asked him where I can find these experiments. He told me "look on the net. You will find them." He would give me nothing more specific than that. The reason I started looking for experiments in the first place, was that it didn't make sense to me that time could slow down from one object to another depending on relative speed. I wasn't surprised at all when I could not find any experiments.
freshfreenlovinit 7 months ago
@freshfreenlovinit I have just left some brief details on one experiment (and a few other idea's) in the "comments" section of your profile page. I hope it is of some help to you.
butiamben 7 months ago
@butiamben How did they synchronise clocks at a nanosecond level? Also, the experiment was done in 1971. Einstein's theory had come out decades before and had already been accepted by the scientific community without experimental evidence. Scientific method had not been followed and has still not been followed to this day. Where is the evidence that GPS uses theory of relativity?
freshfreenlovinit 7 months ago
@freshfreenlovinit I have sent you a "message" - easier than trying to write in these tiny boxes
butiamben 7 months ago
@butiamben You have not explained how the clocks were synchronised. Just because they are accurate does not mean they are easy to synchronise. How do you know the results of the experiment are accurate? Scientific experiments should be repeatable. It does not seem that this one was repeated many times. You do not believe something is true because of one experiment especially when it doesn't make sense in the first place. Scientific method does mean that something should be proven my experiment.
freshfreenlovinit 7 months ago
@freshfreenlovinit Couple of things. You never "proof" something in physics. You only find supporting evidence. Also "believing something is true" is often done without solid evidence to back it up. General relativity, Atomic model and various other ideas were widely accepted before solid evidence was given.
Part of the "scientific method" is accepting the most accurate prediction until a better one is discovered. This was not "unscientific" of the community to do.
Btw check out GPS
ChrisHekman 6 months ago
@ChrisHekman How can a prediction be classed as accurate if its accuracy has never been tested?
freshfreenlovinit 6 months ago
@freshfreenlovinit Good question. Usually it is done by "usefulness" or the theory's ability to predict/explain phenomenons. Example: With the atom theory you can predict which elements would combine to make a salt molecule. And general relativity predicted gravitational lenses. This would constitude as "evidence" for the accuracy of the theory. But this is far from proof, the theories could still be completely off, or only partially correct.
ChrisHekman 6 months ago
@butiamben actually its exactly the same process
only quicker here
PDodds77 7 months ago
Who laughed when they notices the title is "QI:QI"
xkoenigseggx 8 months ago
I WAS SHOUTING GALILEO!!!!! say it say it!!!!
tingyuyan12 9 months ago
@tingyuyan12 nobody but you
corvus13 8 months ago
@corvus13 forever alone Q_Q
tingyuyan12 8 months ago
Comment removed
PlayEvenLouder 9 months ago
Since when did BBC do advertising?
tomharding 9 months ago
@tomharding What was the advertising? for pasta sauce?
StevenBee2 9 months ago
@tomharding
I agree. I don't complain about adverts on YouTube as it's at least free, but this should be illegal. Don't we pay a license fee? So advertising as well, very naughty.
deletedtarget 9 months ago
@deletedtarget i think its because its bbc world-wide and americans dont pay licence fee and we dont want to pay for them so they have adverts
PinkNinjaNews 9 months ago
@PinkNinjaNews
Yeah, I guess you're right but then the BBC should be doing what other television networks around the world do and make these only available to the British license payers, or come up with some way of only having ads for international users.
deletedtarget 9 months ago
@tomharding Since always overseas. You should see the website!
Easyandy100 9 months ago
the frustation when u know the answer but no one in the show does..
orion0mtl 9 months ago
@orion0mtl
Lol, I just read Wikipedia pages on Copernicus and Galileo not more than 4 hours ago...
De revolutionibus orbium coelestium
I bet your sentiment was shared by Galileo when he read this...
;D
nazaxprime 9 months ago
Seems he is actually talking about the law of inertia ?
lordandprotector 10 months ago
Alain Locke invented relativity because Immanuel Kant couldn't.
Sakkura1 10 months ago
Roflmao holding down '0' Hehehe
codeyday 10 months ago
@codeyday WH-WHOINVENT-WHWHWHWHWHHOOOOOOINVENT-W-W-WH-H-H-H-H-WHO INVENTED THE-WWWHWHWHWHHHHHHH-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-WHO IN HHOHOHOHOHOHOHWOHWOWHOWHOWHOWHOHHHHHHWHOINVENTED THE THEO WHOWHOWHWOHWO WHO INVENTED THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY?
MrKoiking1 9 months ago
Lol, as a physicist, I was shouting Galileo at the screen.
There's a big difference though between Galileo's relativity, special relativity and general relativity.
BreachedWall 10 months ago 17
@BreachedWall As a non-physicis I want to know how the hell you understand that stuff? It goes straight over the top of my head :'(
TheTrigger124 10 months ago
@TheTrigger124 I kinda exaggerated tbh. I'm not actually a physicist but I am finishing my second year of studying Physics (as part of Nat Sci degree) at Cambridge. I'm alright - I can understand some of the hard stuff, but a lot goes over my head too - at the moment anyway. Some guys I know though are incredibly good (combination of talent + hard work)
That said, some of the stuff in physics isn't even properly understood by the best physicists in the world. Quantum mechanics for example.
BreachedWall 10 months ago
@BreachedWall All the stuff goes over my head. I wish I understood it, but physics is not my subject, no matter how intresting I find it :(
TheTrigger124 10 months ago
@TheTrigger124 It really isn't that hard. If you love Physics just start small and enrole in a night course.You only get 70 years to do whatever you want before you check out... don't waste it.
meloveoasis 9 months ago
@BreachedWall Yep, don't get down on yourself if your no "Einstein"...
I wish I had the background for Cambridge... Alas I got pigeonholed into working in science rather than developing/studying it. I am a Non-destructive Inspector by trade... in addition to being a Aviation Mechanic, a composite repair technician, and a surveyor. Actually, Sailor would pretty much cover it all(except the surveyor part, which lead to my unemployment, and subsequent enrollment in an Art program.).
I need work.
;)
nazaxprime 9 months ago
@nazaxprime Yeah, I was lucky to get the opportunity. Had to work very hard of course but everyone always encouraged me etc.
But wow, you do a lot! I'm pretty awful when it comes to doing practical stuff tbh so I respect what you guys do. Good luck finding work anyway.
BreachedWall 9 months ago
@BreachedWall shut up
Jazzmencorp7 5 months ago
@BreachedWall i thought a physicist would understand shouting at a screen doesnt really do anything.
wubs23 5 months ago 67
@wubs23 Well with quantum mechanics being what it is you never know eh ;)
BreachedWall 4 months ago
@BreachedWall lol. depends on how big galileo is to you, i suppose.. does quantum mechanics have any influence? :P
wubs23 4 months ago
@wubs23 Galileo is my life, my hero, my God. "Eppur si muove"...."And yet it moves"....dropping different weight balls off the leaning tower of Pisa, watching them hit the ground at the same time...pure genius...*sniff*...Look at me. Now I'm all tearing up.
BreachedWall 4 months ago
@BreachedWall haha i understand. i would too if he actually had climbed pisa tower. ;)
wubs23 4 months ago
@BreachedWall That's kinda funny, considering both events have weak historical evidences
Erufailon42 3 months ago
@BreachedWall Do physicists often use acronyms like 'LOL'?
CheDonJohn 4 months ago
@CheDonJohn Lol, ok I lied, I'm not a physicist. I just study physics at a top University. And after a few years of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity I'm starting to wish I'd chosen something easier. :P
(It's fun but haaaaaaaaarrrrddddd!)
BreachedWall 4 months ago
@BreachedWall Haha well, like you, I knew the answer was Galileo; not from studying physics, but from studying philosophy (but does that make me a philsopher?!). Galileo's relativity had a massive impact on political philosophy, particularly on Social Contract Theory (it changed the way we look at human nature). More often it is or has been philosophy that has driven the sciences (posing the hypotheses and questions for science to test and answer) but in this case it was the other way around.
CheDonJohn 4 months ago
@CheDonJohn Could you give me some examples as to when philosophy has driven the sciences?
I remember Feynmann saying “Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds". Not saying I agree with him entirely though, but generally I'd say that science drives philosophy and not the other way around.
BreachedWall 4 months ago
Comment removed
CheDonJohn 4 months ago
@BreachedWall As my answer is fairly long, I'll post it to you in a message or comment on you profile (which might be better as I think others can then read it). Let me know if it sends through OK.
CheDonJohn 4 months ago
@BreachedWall: Good humorous program! Note: Philosophical opinion, preceded Galileo's science. Ex., Greek scholars were of the opinion the world was composed of four "elements" (tangibles); earth, water, air & fire; not bad thinking (opinion). However, "- naturally, the bigger rock falls faster than a smaller because weighs more."; didn't 'fly' with scientific Galileo. Who scientifically, took two different masses to the leaning tower of Piza --- oops, Pisa; to prove his scientific theory.
PreacherDoc1 4 months ago
@BreachedWall The Schrodinger's Cat paradox (conceived by Erwin Schrodinger, respectively) inspired a lot of thought and research into metaphysics as is understood even today. Philosophy and science go hand in hand, there is no "first". One cant exist without the other, as both are in essence the process of questioning, reflecting and finally proving. Science simply places its emphasis on the later.
7CellarDoors 4 months ago
@7CellarDoors But my argument is that science is what drives philosophy and not vice versa. Schrodinger's cat has vastly changed philosophical approached to causality, but I cannot think of an example of where philosophical arguments have driven scientific discovery. Perhaps you have such an example?
I'm not saying philosophy is a waste of time btw, far from it. I'm merely arguing that science is not reliant on advances in philosophy but philosophy is reliant on advances in science.
BreachedWall 3 months ago
@BreachedWall Well, it's not that simple. If you look at western cultural history, it was philosophy that science originated from. Also in a way science still works "inside" philosophy. It uses philosophical assumptions, regarding metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of language and so on. You are right about how science, especially physics have affected philosophy. Also psychology! However, philosophy uses philosophical methods and science scientific.
villel80 3 months ago
@BreachedWall (continue) Philosophy isn't an advancing science, it's not even a science. That's why philosophy can't (and shouldn't be) reliant on science. Before Aristoteles separated them they were sort of a same thing and in a way still are. For some reason people often see philosophy as something that can be easily compared to science and thus, I would say, most criticism towards philosophy occurs.
villel80 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@7CellarDoors But my argument is that science is what drives philosophy and not vice versa. Schrodinger's cat has vastly changed philosophical approached to causality, but I cannot think of an example of where philosophical arguments have driven scientific discovery. Perhaps you have such an example?
I'm not saying philosophy is a waste of time btw, far from it. I'm merely arguing that science is not reliant on advances in philosophy but philosophy is reliant on advances in science.
BreachedWall 3 months ago
@CheDonJohn Yeah they do lol, rofl, lmao :P
pubuman 1 week ago
All that effort NOT to say Einstein, and there goes poor Alan, like a lamb to the slaughter.
Kingpin1880 1 year ago 211
he did INVENT it. isaac newton didn't "discover" the theory of gravity. he didn't stumble upon it one day, he invented a theory using numbers and letters to describe a the laws of gravity, and in that sense it is an invention.
that's like saying someone discovered the telescope. a theory is an invention in that it describes the natural order. nobody can discover a theory of relativity unless it was invented at some point in describing the universe.
romanpr1nce 1 year ago 2
@romanpr1nce
oops I tripped/ I mean 'invented' over the theory of relativity....
or
honey, I just accidentally 'discovered' tachyons
well said
subteleferic22 11 months ago
Albert... eeeeggmont
fl1ns 1 year ago 96
It was Henri Poinkare to speak frankly
MrAsiansunite 1 year ago
@MrAsiansunite - Not true. Poincare came very close, but didn't get to the final point of mass-energy equivalence or the constancy of the speed of light.
RSVPBlogger 1 year ago
@RSVPBlogger Whether it's true or not, ALL frenchmen think it was Pointcaré....and it's hard to convince them otherwise...
Varoonmg 10 months ago
No one invented it, but DISCOVERED.
databris 1 year ago
Could he make pasta sauce? Now that's a question
ONLYUSERIOTSHIELD 1 year ago 4
Stephen Fry, the man with one of the most charming voices in the world.
Nightrazr 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Unlimited energy sources are out there!But Millions are spend in supressing that information,Find this technology at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Big change is comming soon!
Stgopena1212 1 year ago
Gotta love Stephens offended sputterings at Alan's "He just did telescopes!"
MoooonshoesPotter 1 year ago
Einstein came up with the Theory of Relativity nearly 100 years ago and it's still just a theory not a law.
If you have 2 torches a kilometre apart shining their beams towards each other and someone travels back and forth between those torches at one third the speed of light, how can it be explained that the light from both torches is travelling at the speed of light relative to the person travelling back and forth between the torches?
freshfreenlovinit 1 year ago
@freshfreenlovinit I believe they actually confirmed the theory this month (May 2011). A Nasa probe, Gravity Probe B (GP-B), confirmed two key parts of Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity.
abkalmo 8 months ago
@abkalmo Someone saying they proved it and someone actually proving it are two different things. You have to prove you've proven it! Which means publishing your experiment with adequate details.
freshfreenlovinit 8 months ago
@freshfreenlovinit That's exactly what they did. They proved that it worked as described in theory. The details of the experiment are published. It's NASA! Look at the website: einstein stanford edu.
abkalmo 8 months ago
@abkalmo I do not see any mention of clocks. To prove time dilation has occurred you need clocks which can be synchronised to a nanosecond level.
freshfreenlovinit 8 months ago
@freshfreenlovinit Clocks? I don't think you understand this subject or experiment.
The GP-B experiment measured the geodetic and the frame-dragging effect; the amount by which the Earth warps and drags around the local spacetime in which it resides.
The measured the displacement over the course of a year and compared these results with predictions from Einstein's theory of gravity and general relativity.
abkalmo 8 months ago
@abkalmo Someone else put this experiment forward as proving what I said has never been proven. I didn't say it proved it because as you say, it doesn't. So that leaves us with finding an experiment that does prove time dilation occurs. Like I say, I 've never seen one that is even close to being well documented and proves that time dilation occurs.
freshfreenlovinit 8 months ago
@abkalmo He/She means clocks because of how the theory of relativity was proved ---> Dumbass.
abbyasbo140896 8 months ago
@abbyasbo140896 Oh, I know, shithead. That's not the question and you're both too stupid to understand obviously. Read the damn report, fool. The experiment explains itself, there's no NEED for simple clocks! Stupid cunt!
abkalmo 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@abkalmo He/She means clocks, because of how the theory of relativity was proved ---> Dumbass.
abbyasbo140896 8 months ago
I love the way Stephen gets when Alan says things like "he just did telescopes"
gilli39 1 year ago
Another dumb "Gotcha" question like the "How do you put an elephant in a fridge?" that some people think is so clever. It only depends on how you define it. Once you discount Einstein, Lorentz seems an acceptable choice.
00bean00 1 year ago
wow i did not know that
JoeDuku 1 year ago
I knew he was going to say Galileo... except what Galileo came up with isn't called the Theory of Relativity. It's called the -Principle- of Relativity. I don't think it can even be considered a Theory.
Whoopsy. I think their researchers blundered there.
Nibor7301 1 year ago
Fish bite hooks? Fish bite bait..
ohmichael203 1 year ago
@ohmichael203 which are attached to hooks and therefore hooking the fish..wait for it...TO THE HOOK!
davidk1rby 1 year ago
wow, I didn't know that
Piatasify 1 year ago
F5 to skip adverts!
MollieSox1 1 year ago
what episode was this in?
HcmJames 1 year ago
Nice! I guessed the right answer straight away. Seen as I know very little about science I'm quite impressed with myself. :P
foxyfaefife 1 year ago
the original idea was Galileo Galilei's, i don't put much credit into einstein, he was once stopped speeding. The police asked him to recite his registration and einstein turned around and said "i do not fill my head with such nonsense". What a dick.
depl0rable 1 year ago
@depl0rable
I want you to know that I now hate everybody on Earth because of you. I'm going to stand in traffic flicking people off and yelling obscenities. "recite his registration"? wtf are you talking about? He couldn't even drive! Calling Einstein a dick? one of the greatest humanitarians and pacifists of all time? If you're telling a joke, i really don't get it.. But Galileo, as brilliant as he was, didn't contribute shit to Einstein's incredibly detailed explanation of the universe.
evilsinzy 1 year ago
@evilsinzy There's a story, from Princeton, about one of Einstein's students, who ran into an old man who was looking very cnfused. He LOOKED like Einstein, so the student asked if he could assist him. The old man asked if he could show him the way to Einstein's house. The student was confused, but thought the man might be his brother or something, and showed him the way. When they got there, the man thanked him, leaned in and whispered, "I'll tell you a secret; I am Einstein!"
MaiaMadness 1 year ago
Comment removed
pepicanable 1 year ago
Comment removed
pepicanable 1 year ago
@evilsinzy
Galileo contributed in explaining relative motion....
pepicanable 1 year ago
@depl0rable Einstein was dyslexic and had no sense of direction; how could you expect him to remember his registration?
MaiaMadness 1 year ago
I guessed this based on an episode of QI that I previously watched, so QI is helping me learn more...about QI.
RefusetoListen 1 year ago
"Could he make a good pasta sauce?"
Lol, alan
equallyeasilyfuqyou 1 year ago 8