The Special Theory of Relativity Explained

[wilfredrodgers]

thanks! great!!



[LeconsdAnalyse]

@2:24

"...physicists proposed...",

Albert Einstein proposed that.

[LogicSolver]

@LeconsdAnalyse

Actually, almost nothing of the "Special Theory of Relativity" was Einstein's own idea. He took pieces of other peoples thoeries and put them together in his own concoction. Hendrik Lorentz was the first to propse length contraction.

[LeconsdAnalyse]

@LogicSolver Hello.

Yes. And the subject of your clip is about "..his own concoction..".

[LogicSolver]

@LeconsdAnalyse

That doesn't change anything. I stand by my words.

[coma22309]

im not studying physics so my knowledge is very small i was reading a book and it says the kinetic energy of a moving mass must equal to infinity in order to reach speed of light and it was talking about some formula can someone please explain to me in detail (bcause my knowledge is quit primitive) how the formula works out

[LogicSolver]

@coma22309

There's more than one way to answer that question. First, the formula in question is M = Mo / (1 - V^2 / C^2). As V approaches C, the number by which Mo is divided becomes smaller and smaller, thereby making M bigger and bigger. So if V were to become equal to C, it would mean M grew beyond infinity, which makes no sense.

[coma22309]

@LogicSolver thanks for that i appreciate it one more question would you say that a particle has kinetic energy just because it vibrates

[LogicSolver]

@coma22309

Well, I certainly would, but I don't really know what the scientific establishment says anymore, and I'm not convinced it knows either.

[LeconsdAnalyse]

@coma22309 NO. That follows (linear approximation) from Hooke`s law! It is called the energy of vibration about a fixed point. This has nothing to do with SR.

[NWOBUMICHAEL]

pls everybody i have a question i will like somebody to answer for me . can somebody tell me the;

1 Reason why relative motion causes relativity(variation in the physical quantity e.g time,distance or frequency, as measured by different frames).

2 Qumtum theory says we cannot measure two motional properties of an electro...n at same time. Does that mean that even an electron cannot have knowledge of two of its motional properties at same time?

[jellington90]

@NWOBUMICHAEL

The changes in time, mass, etc are caused because it was found that the speed of light is constant and is the same for everybody, regardless of their motion. So, everything else had to be relative.

All we can measure about electrons is probability because of their wave/particle duality. I think the electron knows where its going, though.

[NWOBUMICHAEL]

i know that the answer you gave to me is not correct and that even you, know that it is not the correct answer to that question because you cannot prove that it is because the speed of light is constant, that is why two observers measuring time of motion of a moving car should obtain different values.what has the onstancy of speed of light got to do with the motion of a car beeing measured by two observers?

am bit satisfied with your second answer, thanks.

[NWOBUMICHAEL]

@jellington90 i will be very glad if you can show me how the constancy of the speed of light causes variation in the values obtained by two observers of different frames. but if you cant do it ,which of course i know you will never be able to solve, then i suggest you indicate your interest so that i will send you the newly created theory of relativity (nwobu's effect) that answers all the questions you have in relativity and also reconcils all the inonsistencies of Einstein relativity.thanks

[jellington90]

@NWOBUMICHAEL Because if two observers are moving toward each other, and they are both emitting light, from obs. 1s perspective, observer 2's light is traveling faster than the speed of light (and also as obs 1 nears the speed of light his light will appear to be going slower as he travels with it), however light will always travel at 2.98*10^8 regardless of what the observers speed so time and space will shift to compensate. This has been proven through experiment, sorry I'm on my phone

[jellington90]

@NWOBUMICHAEL I don't know the math behind it but I do know its solid and its been proven through experiment.

[daenumen]

well it sure is a good thing then that you dont see photons unless they actually interact with you, ie your detector and the photon are on a collision course, otherwise time might just dilate!

[nickharvey7]

Nice video!! Do you think EMR or light could be working as a dynamic ether?

[LogicSolver]

Truthfully, I don't know that much about Dynamic Ether Theory. But based on what I've read about it this morning, it's supposed to be a perfect, non-particulate fluid. I have a problem with that. But I have long felt that fluid dynamics and, in particular, vortex motion is a big part of the subatomic picture, which is exactly what DET postulates. So, at least, in that regard, I do agree with the theory.

[cesinis]

you people make me feel stupid.... no joke...

[kongr889]

(... continue from previous comment) Long before Einstein, everybody have already known that light is a kind of electromagnetic waves. Using "light" in illustration is simply just to make the description more easy to visualized/ understandable.

[kongr889]

I think, the following will be the more accurate description of the special theory of Relativity: "The Laws of electromagnetism are the same for all observers in uniformed motions." And one of the laws of electromagnetism is that "All electromagnetic waves must travel in a constant speed of c = 3x10^8ms." The measurement of c is initially performed by studying of electromanegtic waves, not really directly based on light. ... (continue in next comment)

[SuperMagnetizer]

Excellence Unveiled! Thanks, LogicSolver.

[Alexandurs]

This didnt need to be in a video, go post it somewhere.

[Fleischmahn]

This prooves that learning is REALLY fun!

[shaninthomas]

The explanation dat i have found here is truly d simplest i have ever seen....thanx a lot...

This video is definitely best of d lot...

[EuropaBloke]

Wow! I'm speechless. I can't thank you enough for uploading this sheer GOLD of information. It's very clear, easy to understand, and yet conveys soo much.

So many of my questions are answered now, and in a way I can understand!

Thanks again soo much for this!! Much Appreciated! 5/5

[Forsure3333]

I think they did this experiment a few decades ago: They compared the time of two atomic clocks: One at a research center and another one if a fast-flying airplane that that flew a few days. If I remember correctly, the clock on the plane had run slower.

[LogicSolver]

True, but some scientists, including the inventor of the atomic clock, disagreed that the results confirmed Einstein's theory.

[NWOBUMICHAEL]

you are correct dear. no two clocks starting at same time, will vary from one another simply because one is stationary and the other in motion. i have a theory of relativity that solves all this inconsistencies but just that here does not accept links.

[Guiriism]

ForSure3333 (not)

It was a null result

[crooksfischer]

Could you let those long paragraphs stay on the screen for maybe a split second longer? Your video isn't traveling at the speed of light ya know.

[Spartan2215]

he isnt gonna remake his video because you are 2 lazy to press "pause" people these days.......................

[seison5]

hahahha.yea nice.yea it is soo!!!

[crooksfischer]

Perhaps slowing it down a bit is of more importance then you realize. Would Sagan have been as popular if he were rattling things off at an incomprehensible rate of speed? If he is smart enough to understand relativity he can understand how to properly edit a video and review it before hastily posting it in an incomprehensible fashion.

I was not too lazy to press pause. I got through the video.

People these days apparently don't know how to punctuate.

[Spartan2215]

ok cockfisher i think you need to chill the fuck out. would albert einstein be so succesfull if he were so defensive, suppose he had a jackass in his his research team and punched him in the face? goodbye funding!

[crooksfischer]

I'm sorry but I do not have the time to argue with every 10 year old like you with a youtube account.

You obviously do not understand the contents of the video nor the humor in my original comment.

Anything else you would like to say to prove to the rest of the video comment thread that you are a total idiot?

[Spartan2215]

Yeah, GO FUCKYOURSELF COCKSNOTGOBBLER! YOUR AS UGLY AS AN INSIDE OUT ASSHOLE REGURGITATING PUTRID ANAL FECAL MATTER!!!!! YOUR FUCKING FACE LOOKS LIKE CHEWBACCAS HAIRY, SHITTY ASSHOLE AFTER IT WAS LIT ON FIRE AND DOUSSED BY LIQUID CHLAMYDIA FROM THE NASTYASS TEST TUBE YOU WERE BORN IN!!!!

AND I HOPE YOU REALLY DON'T HAVE TIME TO REPLY, OR YOU ARE A LIAR. I FUCKING HATE LIARS. YOU WON'T BE HATED FOR IGNORING THIS, THAT WOULD BE THE MATURE THING TO DO, OTHERWISE.....FUCK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11!1ONE!!

[crooksfischer]

mature...

[squeeeeenis]

Listen guy, the mans trying to do post a video. Stop trying to act smart, its backfireing

[Jay8Cee]

lol

[leo742573201]

then what's the velocity of darkness ?

[LogicSolver]

"then what's the velocity of darkness?"

About a thousand times the speed of silence.

[VICTORGIRAFFE]

Why bother put an explanation of relativity on YouTube if it's comprehension demands that the viewer have a knowledge of complex mathematics? Just put it into layman's terms you dickhead so us plebians can grasp the concept on some very basic level. Keep your Newtonian binomial theorems for your professors will you and give us YouTube pop-science fans something we can get our feeble intellects around. Nerdo jerk.

[Alex890511]

Yes, you are right, Einstein said that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light; He was wrong. i think that the speed of light can be beated

[centurionl]

so do i, and i think that rest mass has nothing to do with it. light is in a way similar to sound but very different at the same time its not impossible to surpass light speed

[Alex890511]

i'm not a physicist, i think that anything can be modified, multiplied at infinite, we as humans, we think, and we have limits in our thinking, and our perception about things can be wrong sometimes, the barrier of sound can be exeeded, about light i don't know enough things to give an answer about the posibility of exeeding it's speed, but i like to think that the speed has no limits as anything else

[Alex890511]

is known that the speed of light and the speed of electromagnetic has the same value, but if u just think that the speed of electromagnetic is bigger than the speed of light, u will can see this difference? my answer is not, because, for example: an object is moving true a illuminated room at the speed of electromagnetic from a point A to a point B, u will see the track of light created by the object, not directly the object moving, u see the track of light after the object reached the point B

[Alex890511]

and u will see the track of light created by the object, not directly the object moving, u see the track of light after the object reached the point B, and u never knew that because we see the light, not the objects, we see the light reflected from the objects.

[Alex890511]

At CERN experiment in GENEVA, the fotons are accelerated by electromagnetic, and if the speed of electromagnetic is bigger than the spped of light, that means that the fotons are mooving faster than the speed of light, but u will not see the difference, because we don't have the necesary instruments for this

[Alex890511]

How to say that the time is ticking slowly for those from the other ship?, that's fals, in reality the time is the same for anithing, i think that only us, humans are equipped with the sense of time, the time doesn't exist, but because the speed of light is limited, the time to arrieve to the second observer was longer and because at the same time the ship was moving 3/4 from speed of light, there was a deinterlacing.

This theory is just a theory

Darkhorse21x's comment is right,

[Darkhorse21x]

I feel the theory that objects "shorten" as they approach the speed of light is merely an observational phenonenon. If something travels at the SOL - 1 towards a light source then the front hits the light first and the back last. As the object is moving towards the light it will "appear" shorter to the observer as the observer has to wait until the back of the object reaches the approaching light beam. I feel that this explains the shortening "phenomenon". Only appearance not reality.

[centurionl]

THATS EXACTLY WHAT I THINK!

[Darkhorse21x]

Imagine craft A travels in a direction at 3/4 the SOL and craft B does the same, however, craft B is 3/4 the SOL below craft A in distance. Craft A has a photon generator on its underside in it's exact centre. Craft B has a mirror on it's top side in the exact centre. According to the video the beam from craft A will strike the mirror on craft B. I suggest that the beam will miss craft B which would indicate a major flaw with the special theory of relativity.

[LogicSolver]

". . . the video shows the light beam travelling the 40 feet and striking the screen in the center. Is this accurate?"

I have often ask myself this very same question. I really don't know, but I do know the special theory assumes it to be true. I, for one, however, think the whole theory is complete nonsense.

[Darkhorse21x]

I feel that people get hung up on the "measurement of time" as being time. If acceleration affects the time measuring device and causes it to slow down, is this really time dilation or merely an observed phenomenon relating to the "clock" only.

I too have always had a hard time accepting this theory.

[Darkhorse21x]

Re: Time Dilation.

near 1:54 the video shows the light beam travelling the 40 feet and striking the screen in the center. Is this accurate?

Imagine that the height within the ship of the light to the screen is 300,000 kms and the ship is and travelling at 300,000 kms per hr. Would the light not hit the screen 300,000 linear meters "behind" the center? The assumed perception of the second observer hinges on this "hypotenuse" distance travelled by the beam which I suggest is incorrect.

[LogicSolver]

Sounds intriguing. Do you mean anomalies in diffraction experiments are unaccounted for by the theory of diffraction?

[mgreider89]

how long did it take for you to understand it

[LogicSolver]

As I was presented with each fragment of the theory, I understood the concepts and equations rather quickly, but it was the acquisition of information about the theory that was time consuming. Technically, I still don't know the theory in its entirety, such as how to factor in non-linear motion into the equations. But I've lost interest in learning more about the theory given that I think it's a bunch of nonsense.

[mgreider89]

why do you think it is non sense

[LogicSolver]

I have several other videos on the matter.

I suggest you first watch "The Special Theory of Relativity is Poppycock". Then, if you care too, you could watch my 4 part series by the name of "Re to Comments on Special Theory".

[mgreider89]

how did you get all the formulas and understand this so well

[LogicSolver]

Years of research and contemplation.

[GeurillaVideo]

Great explanation. But I think that the classic train car and platform example would be easier to understand than the space ship one you used.

[Hammad2k9]

1. Your reading my comment 2. Now your saying/thinking thats a stupid fact. 4. You didnt notice that i skipped 3. 5. Your checking it now. 6. Your smiling. 7. Your still reading my comment. 8. You know all you have read is true. 10. You didnt notice that i skipped 9. 11. Your checking it now. 12. You didnt notice there are only 10 facts Copy and paste to 1 video, tomorrow will be your best day ever! no matter what

[dushtpache]

Thank you very much for this posting. For the first time in my life I feel i might have come close to understanding relativity. The vide is soooo precise.. from the simplicity of the diagram to the relevance of the binomial expansion in understanding the famed equation! Thank you as far as I am concerned you have already done your bit in this universe just incase there is any purpose to everything around us. If there is a purpose I suspect evolution of living beings might be a critical part

[LogicSolver]

I'm glad you enjoyed it. Your comment is the best expression of gratitude I've gotten yet.

[muaddibatreides121]

Magnificent videos, you should set up an online forum, I'd like to discuss more. Have you read any of David Bohm?

[LogicSolver]

"Have you read any of David Bohm?"

No, I haven't. But after reading your comment, I looked him up, and it seems that he and I may think somewhat alike.

[LogicSolver]

". . . you should set up an online forum . . ."

I have been wanting to do that as well, but, for the time being, I'm trying to perfect the way I present my ideas.

[rmmcclay]

How did religion creep into this thread? lol

[LogicSolver]

Ya, I know. I thought that was funny too.

I actually know exactly how it started. It started when Carto0n7 made the statement, "many people question religion.. i question science.. don't get me wrong, i don't have any problems with the proven facts.. its the theories.. the untested hypothesis."

[pescatorewayl]

Why not a power point presentation instead of a mute youtube video?

[LogicSolver]

Different strokes for different folks.

[Skaterman3323]

just because you movw through light, dosnt mean you move through time. if we didnt see via light, time wouldnt change at all.

[LogicSolver]

I agree.

[dushtpache]

I am not a religious person at all.. but even before I got this vide and discussion.. I used to feel that light or electromagnetic radiation if anything is the one thing that resembles the description of god! It is untouchable (its speed is) and seems to dicate the laws of the universe.

[Thymonico]

1. Jihad as-sayf is interpreted by modern muslims as blowing themselves up, taking innocent lives with them! For what purpose? To be granted 72 virgins as stated in the Qu'ran!

The people behind 9/11 commited Jihad As-Sayf. Only blind people wouldn't agree to that the teachings of (some)Islam religion inspires evil! Therefore we must theach them reason and stop treating their violent culture with respect, rather try to change it!

I agree to that many military actions are also stupid! ;)

[LogicSolver]

Hey there,

I'm having trouble viewing my own video. Are you still able to view it?

[Sam89B]

I view it fine. Nice compilation btw ;)

[LogicSolver]

Thank you.

[Thymonico]

It works fine over here.. ;)

[Almanza13]

i cant see it ether

[LogicSolver]

Thank you for your input.

[JMelo19]

Don't most religions inspire evil?

[Thymonico]

I don't know the statistics but at many religions don't.. :)

Buddhism and Jainism are very friendly, but the funny thing about them is the superstition is not really part of their "reigious" beliefs.. They are more like lifestyles than actual religion I would suggest.. ;)

[JMelo19]

Well if you look at them more closely, you will see that other religions have their evils. For example, the old testament states that human races were intended to be separate and promotes racism. And as you have probably observed before, many people are homophobic because the bible teaches that homosexual activity is wrong. The old testament also teaches that stoning people is the right thing to do. It seems to be just a matter of how seriously a religion is taken that leads to such activities.

[Thymonico]

Science is the search for truth.. Some people may hold the M-theory as their "personal" faith and claim that it is the truth no matter what.. They are stupid.. The M-Theory is science as an attempt to explain a lot, if it needs to be modified; we modify it! If we don't modify it, it has become a faith, which ought to be treated with ridicule..

(most)Scientists follow their theories and test them... You could say they "follow" their theories, but in the search for truth contrasted religion.. ;)

[Thymonico]

Sry.. I meant "ridicule" and "ridiculous"..

[Thymonico]

I emphasize on the wannabe-scientific, non-explenatory claims within the religions! And on the movement of anti-science that so many religous cultures serve! Children are being abused, indoctrinated and denied a proper education; inspired by religions all over the world! People blow themselves up because of religion!

Religion is rediculous, and so it should be treated..

[MandyLovesYou99]

This was very well explained. Thank you.

[LogicSolver]

Thank you too.

[DillonR1024x]

because the only reason why we can see earth from far away is because light from the sun is shining on it. so if we catch up to the light "reflected" off earth we can see into the past?

i dont know. somebody told me that a while ago and im just asking if you can think of anything that is wrong with that theory?

[LogicSolver]

Technically, if you were to obtain a distance of 10 lightyears from earth, the earth you would see would be as it was 10 years ago. But you probably wouldn't be able to see the earth if you were looking along the path you just took to get where you are, because your traveling would have disrupted all the light along that path. So once you reached some distance from the earth, you would then need to travel in another direction to get a better view.

[DillonR1024x]

that makes sense.

[DillonR1024x]

this doesnt have anything to do with the video really but i think logicsolver will know the answer.

"If you are traveling faster than the speed of light away form earth, do you think you will be seeing into the past?"

[superwhuffo1]

By the time I finally understood all this stuff over 30 years ago I realized it was all poppycock....check out videos under

superwhuffo1

[gaggOLF]

Great tutorial! I still don't understand WHY time dilation and so on exists. :) How the hell can it be like this? Can the universe exist if time dilation wasn't true? What would change?

I have another question. :P

If i travel at nearly the speed of light, do i get older? Do my organs age? Do i live forever? What do the theory say about that?

[LogicSolver]

Personally, I don't think even proponents of the theory can give straight answers to your questions. The theory doesn't make any sense. And in my video, "The Special Theory of Relativity is Poppycock," I go into some depth as to why the theory is wrong. I then go into even further depth in my 4 part video series, "Re Comments on the Special Theory." Enjoy.

[Thymonico]

If YOU are tavelling near the speed of light on a spaceship, the time will only be percepted slower to the observer outside the spaceship. So.. Yes, you would age slower to the observer, and.. No, you would not age slower to the rate of which you percept the time elapsed in YOUR spaceship.. Your metabolism will work just as fast to you, but not to the observer.. According to special relativity... Oui?

This is only my own little thought experiment.. I don't know.. It's truth - while it's not! ;)

[gaggOLF]

OK, yeah. But why the hell did you say oui? :/ Lame.

[LogicSolver]

"Oui" is french for "yes". I believe he's asking if you agree.

[Thymonico]

Hehehe.. It's the only french word I know.. I'm Norwegian! :P

[LogicSolver]

Oops, not only have I mistaken you for being French but I've accidentally removed your comment as well. But I think I can remember it.

While it's true that the ST says an observer will see someone in a slower time frame if that someone is traveling near the speed of light relative to the observer, it also says that someone will too see the observer traveling near the speed of light and be in a slower time frame, which implies the observer should see the someone in a faster time frame.

[LogicSolver]

There lies in the contradiction. Both should see the other in both a slower and a faster time frame at the same time.

[Thymonico]

Hehehe, you're excused! XD

Hmm.. It's pains me that human logic never ends up being flawless..

I'm most certain! I really AM going to choose Physics after the summer! :D

[Carto0n7]

hello, here's a stupid question:

people keep talking about travelling near the speed of light and being well and alive while doing that.. i've been in cars which have gone so far that i felt weird inside.. imagine a person in a vehicle going in the speed of light.. phsically possible? i thing the human body could not take that..

logical argument?

[LogicSolver]

If you're traveling at a steady and linear velocity, you should feel just as you would standing still. If you felt weird inside from the motion of a car, I would guess that it's because the car was accelerating in one direction or another.

Speaking only of the speed, traveling near the speed of light should present no problem. However, if you accelerate too quickly, that will kill you.

[Thymonico]

It's a matter of acceleration. The act of travelling near the speed of light wouldn't damage you at all, but the act of accelerating to that point would probably kill you, unless you accelerated slow enough.. ;)

I think.. :D

[Carto0n7]

well.. i'm a big skeptic.

many people question religion.. i question science.. don't get me wrong, i don't have any problems with the proven facts.. its the theories.. the untested hypothesis.

[Thymonico]

Everyone ought to be sceptical about science! Whereas, religion ought to be treated with redicule!

I'm not saying my answer is the definite, I'm saying that there are no discovered laws of physics that restricts travelling near the speed of light.. Is there any theories you have more doubt about than others? ;)

[Carto0n7]

i do not treat any religion with redicule or disrespect.. religions are like scientific theories, someone tells you a "story" and you see if that story/theory/claim can be proven. if not.. it means very little to me.. such as the string theory or the quantum loop theory.

[Thymonico]

The String Theory is much more viable than any God hypothesis! The String Theory is not definite and it is still worked on.. No one claims it to be the abselute truth, it is still worked on! Whereas religion is a claim, and is not worked on!

Religions (the superstitious blind faiths withing them) are stupid because it has NO evidentical grounds at all! Just as we should treat Santa and the Bunny rabbit with redicule, we should treat superstition!

[Carto0n7]

I'm sure many people could argue with that comment you just made.. I'm very open minded when it comes to this.. but at the same time I'm the biggest skeptic!

when you mention religion, you mainly think of christianity.. look at other faiths..

most scientists claim to be the biggest skeptics when it comes tofinding the "truth" yet most of them blindly follow theories that may not have truth in them..

if something can't be proven/explained totally does not make it false or nonexistent.

[Thymonico]

"when you mention religion, you mainly think of christianity.. look at other faiths.. "

No, I actually think about all superstitions.. And I may have used the word Religion wrongly.. I meant only the part of religion that are negative! Such as the Jihad al-sayf, child abuse, anti-science and so on..

"if something can't be proven/explained totally does not make it false or nonexistent."

Before Christ, they new of Gravity but they couldn't explain it.. Still truth.. But that's irrelevant.. ;P

[Carto0n7]

1. jihad as-sayf (which i had to reasearch just now) means: Struggle with sword, which is only used by muslims for mainly self defence and military action. (this sounds to me much much better than the hypocrite ways of most military organisations of today.

2. child abuse: wrong.. no one needs a religous or scientificmanuals for that but the human mind is messed up.

3. anti-science: only applies to idiots.. progress is always good.. only if its not harmful..people in hiroshima will prolly agree.

[Thymonico]

3. The discovery of fission was good, the military misuse of it was not. Religion is the main cause of denying stem-cell research, forbidding abortions and denying evolution! This is anti-science! They also teach people a lot of ridiculous things, like talking snake, as facts to children! No good..

2. We can do evil without religion, but (some)religions inspire evil, and we should work against that religion and especially not accept it and respect their ways of culture.. Just like circumsition.

[rwboghdady]

Thank you for the good tutorial ....

[LogicSolver]

Thank you; it was my pleasure.

[myjunno]

sry... i meant "i dun understand" :D sry for the wrong typing...

though i dun clear yet... thnc for this vid ^^

[LogicSolver]

Well, the point of view being considered is always deemed the normal and unchanged view. So the distortion is always applied to whomever is considered to be in motion. Astronauts see the universe shrink because they consider the universe to be in motion, but earth bound observers regard the ship to be in motion, so the shrinking is applied to the ship in their case.

[myjunno]

yo~

ok

i now understand how....^^

thnc alot for the explaining me

[LogicSolver]

No problem.

[myjunno]

u dun understand why the length of the space ship will shrink for the observer to the direction of wat we travel... i mean for the relative length

@2:35

[beenbent]

aether.

[LogicSolver]

V and S are expected to be equal in magnitude but opposite in polarity. So V = -S, and -V = S; therefore, MV+MS = MV+M(-V) = MV-MV=0.

[secorbred]

my confusion is opposite in polarity but far greater in magnitude than your comprehension

i was always told i thought too hard in math...

[HallBoss3]

my bad! i was lazy in school but

what the hell is this???? i THINK i see the concept, but how did you come up with 0????

MV+MS=MV-MV=-MS+MS=0