Waiting for the videos on MAXWELL'S EQUATIONS. Likes this one too.👍
@ParthGChannel4 жыл бұрын
Thanks so much :)
@bawokemelak93852 жыл бұрын
@@ParthGChannel i need length contraction and time dilation video could you upload it please
@teddy_miljard2 жыл бұрын
Yes! ❣️
@nahidbonna64854 жыл бұрын
Superb explanation. Thanks a lot. Hats of to you. Keep it up and keep making these kind of videos because remember physics is everything.
@StevenRud4 жыл бұрын
Wow, what a great channel ... I’m so glad that I came across this channel by pure coincidence. When I viewed the first video, it just struck me from the start and I immediately subscribed. Been following for a while now and just wanted you to know that you’re doing a fantastic job, the videos are a joy to watch, superbly filmed and edited, right to the point, very informative.... keep up the fantastic job you’re doing and have a great day...☺️☺️😉😉
@hamzamalik11264 жыл бұрын
Finally first video on relativity❤️. Liked the video first. Now gonna watch it. Love ya bro. Love frm Pakistan ♥️
@dudetamil65034 жыл бұрын
Hey Parth. Please be patient. You will get more subscribers soon. You are doing great job. God bless you.
@teddy_miljard2 жыл бұрын
I agree! ❣️
@nathangrant18244 жыл бұрын
i do enjoy your explanations. you seem to get a different angle on things which helps me to increase my understanding or get a slim grip on things that have otherwise eluded me. i look forward to seeing more like this in the new year.
@0RbIt10002 жыл бұрын
Astrophysics grad here, never had anyone explain relativity to me so eloquently before. Very well done
@ec60934 жыл бұрын
Thank you Parth! Been a fan for a few months and still get inspired by you constantly. Merry Christmas!
@fiztube104 жыл бұрын
What I like most about you is that you do not respond to the comments of those who wish to be "supremely wise" and think that what they do not know does not exist. Thank you for keeping the same level of plausibility in your explanations. It’s all about teaching strategy. There is a saying "You can't teach anyone how to teach." Either someone was born for it or not. I think you are.
@teddy_miljard2 жыл бұрын
Well said! ❣️
@lukasrafajpps2 жыл бұрын
Nice vid, maybe you could mention the MM experiment and aether but it might prolong the video quite a bit
@siddhantkumar63404 жыл бұрын
Make a video on explaining new physics discoveries of the decade
@ParthGChannel4 жыл бұрын
That's a great idea, will try and compile something :) Thanks
@physicshuman98082 жыл бұрын
16:28 The velocity of light can at least appear to change and this allows for gravity lensing for general relativity
@philipfreeman4 жыл бұрын
Thank you for another excellent video... I had a moment of fear when the title popped up on my notifications (I have seen too many iconoclastic videos trying to look clever by accusing Einstein of various chicanery). Fortunately you present a very important and correct connection. Two things... first, I just posted a comment on your spin video (which is excellent) noting that you reversed the usual convention for angular momentum and macroscopic spin... here I am amused to discover that you chose consistent left-handed coordinate systems, an even less significant contravention of convention but a consistent one. I have decided to regard this as a charming idiosyncrasy and will make no further comments on the chiral conventions you adopt. Second it is worth noting that Galilean relativity also got a lot of pushback when initially proposed, because it was counter to people's then-common-sense. They argued, for example, that the Earth could not possibly be orbiting the sun since if the Earth was moving then a ball you dropped would land far behind you as you (and the Earth) moved. So Galilean relativity was somewhat revolutionary to our world-view in its day too. Thank you for making these videos, and all the best in the next decade, I look forward to seeing more of your work!
@michaeledwardharris Жыл бұрын
That was a really good one. Nice work!
@douglasstrother65842 жыл бұрын
The profound aspect of Galilean Relativity is that accelerations (a = F/m) are the same between two frames of reference moving at constant velocities with respect to one another. The profound aspect of Special Relativity is that the speed of light (from Maxwell's equations) is the same between two frames of reference moving at constant velocities with respect to one another.
@xjuhox4 жыл бұрын
There are good reasons why Einstein didn't get Nobel prize from special or general relativity since ideas about those theories were everywhere during his time. Also, I'm sure that the "easy" solution of photoelectric phenomenon was conjectured by many right after the Planck's discovery.
@teddy_miljard2 жыл бұрын
Nobel prize is for those who discovers something new! ❣️
@vikranttyagiRN4 жыл бұрын
Recently discovered yourr channel. Your explanations are great. Keep up the good work
@alphaomega10893 жыл бұрын
It wasn't because 'c' needed to be constant (only in your reference frame). It was the fact it had a finite speed. It wasn't instantaneous. Plus, it could be slowed down by a medium (a vacuum being the lowest pressure state possible so far). The omega (velocity of an object in a pressure system) is governed by this (curved space). Time is only a rate of change (it is relative). Space can be compressed (making it impossible to move as within the gravitational field of a dense object); or, expanded (making it longer to traverse as with the expansion of the universe can outrun your effort). Problem: when time and space are linked; what is acting as the universal clock to measure speed for everything? That answer came with the structuring of space (general relativity). It was the maths to calculate all this makes him stand out as a genius. Anyone could imagine what he did. Not anyone could explain why. A model is needed to visualise it. QM (probability matrix on interactions) and ST (everything is mass in motion) want to show us more. Like hearing him break these things down!
@vishank74 жыл бұрын
Please make videos about Thermodynamics and explain why we define its terms the way we do. Really enjoy your vids bud!
@teddy_miljard2 жыл бұрын
I agree with you! ❣️
@saurabhdubey36644 жыл бұрын
Plz make a video on string theory 🙏🙏🙏 btw liked this one..
@ParthGChannel4 жыл бұрын
Sure, I haven't studied it in any detail so will have to learn the fundamentals but I will do it someday
@rselvarajanMBA4 жыл бұрын
You shouldn't be wasting time on dead hypothesis which can never be falsified. But yeah if you love maths, string theory has some beautiful maths
@saurabhdubey36644 жыл бұрын
@@rselvarajanMBA Yeah, you're absolutely right. String theory does have mathematical elegance. However, even if the theoretical structure is mathematically consistent I don't see this theory getting proved experimentally anytime in the near future.
@dickybal49134 жыл бұрын
Love the way how you explain. I get to know many interesting things from your video. Waiting for the next one.
@sicsmaunravelled67864 жыл бұрын
Shouldn't it be: x' = x + vt, And not x' = x - vt, as described in the video? A little confused here.
@pradeepramesh73524 жыл бұрын
Nabarun Moitra nah just the direction no problem with signs I think
@dhritimanroyghatak24083 жыл бұрын
It is x' = x - vt. Take a point in the dash frame. Its distance from O' is x'. But that points distance from O (which is the ground frame) is x. And the difference between the O and O' is vt (since that is the distance O' travels in a given time t with the speed v). Now u see. x = x' + vt. So x' = x - vt. Just draw a neat diagram and try working it out u will get the required result but the result shown in the video are correct
@new-knowledge80404 жыл бұрын
If you have no physics education, and SR makes no sense to you at all, I found that this makes it much much easier to just discover SR all by yourself, and you do so by starting from scratch. You can also derive the SR equations in mere minutes by taking this route, including deriving the Lorentz Transformation equations.
@BuellersBack4 жыл бұрын
Amazing clear explanation. Thank you!
@syzygyoutreach4 жыл бұрын
Explaination is very down to earth. This enables the learners especially from non-science background to get decoction of science qualitative and build up basis for science background to develope quantitative approach. I always look upon ur tact and skills as I too take public and paid session in astrophysics for students. Great going!
@teddy_miljard2 жыл бұрын
👍❣️
@AmanSingh-sb4rd4 жыл бұрын
Sir , Einstine : Stupidity matters a lot ! And this is reason to succeed ! Said by Aman Singh 🙏🏻🥰🙏🏻
@teddy_miljard2 жыл бұрын
Wow! ❣️
@suwarnaca95954 жыл бұрын
Can spacetime be a reference point... like one point on space time kept as center and everything else could be measured according to it. Like for our convenience... or is it already der... or not feasible due to expansion... can we like point where the universe began like the point of the big bang ? Also merry Christmas and happy new year in advance
@ParthGChannel4 жыл бұрын
Well to be honest, we use whatever reference frame is most convenient for each scenario, e.g. the Earth's surface when we talk about moving cars. Relativity just tells us that each different frame is a valid one, and there is no one frame that is "more important" or "more fundamental" than the others. Merry Christmas to you too!
@abdulrahmanmohamed82984 жыл бұрын
IIRC point of bigbang is everywhere in our universe 😁. Correct me if I'm wrong
@suwarnaca95954 жыл бұрын
@@ParthGChannel I understand that none is more important... we could always have one that's most important in our perspective... just in case we figure out fast space travel 😅
@suwarnaca95954 жыл бұрын
@@abdulrahmanmohamed8298 is it so ?
@ezioarno154 жыл бұрын
i think i understand what you're trying to say, my best reasoning for why we dont give any reference point preference over other is because spacetime is curved all most everywhere due to gravity. is that good enough?
@oskardumanski85384 жыл бұрын
Hello Sir I have one question related to the relativity. First we have to assume we have a spacecraft which allows us reaching the speed of light with a constant accelaration equals 9.81 [m/s^2], just to not feel and worry about what we are doing. From the classic physic we know that a=v/t, so if a=9.81 [m/s^2], and v=c=299792458 [m/s] then t=30559884 [s] what is also 353.7 days. It looks okay but since we move faster our time goes slower. What would be the time recorded by someone inside that spacecraft to reach the speed of light? I am also curious what would be the distance the spacecraft would have traveled?
@teddy_miljard2 жыл бұрын
I read your comment 6 times. I believe I didn't understand half of it 🤭❣️
@oskardumanski85382 жыл бұрын
@@teddy_miljard Cose English isn't my first language. Maybe this way. How much time in a spacecraft would take to reach the speed of light at constant accelaration equal 9.81?
@chinthamshiva99524 жыл бұрын
Jst iam thinking of explain maths like the way u explain Ur explaination is simply 😍😍👌👌
@new-knowledge80404 жыл бұрын
If you start by using the 4D Space-Time environment as your reference frame, you can then soon discover the foundation that creates the relativistic outcome. You find out what it is that creates the relativistic independent frames of reference. Or, you can start with those relativistic independent frames of reference, and be confused as ever, all due to not looking at the bigger picture.
@otehrani4 жыл бұрын
Please look into Avicenna's works for the foundation of the theory of motion and relativity...
@harishkumarpathangay8413 жыл бұрын
hi, please clear this for me. time is not relative entity. time is an absolute entity. it is only when we observe or measure time, it becomes relative. only when the distance is involved, time has to slow down. For example, quadruplets are born. two of them are instantaneously transported to different planet light years away from each other[assume for demonstration]. two of them in one planet and other two in earth grow reach 75 years of age. The pair in earth will be 75 years old. The pair in hypothetical planet also 75 years old. only when you observe the two twins in far away planet, you will see them much younger because we are not seeing reality, rather the light emitted relative to our planet. so you observe them to be younger than you than reality. is this correct understanding of relativity? thanks, harish pathangay
@yashas99742 жыл бұрын
Another important bit of history is that Lorentz transformations had already been worked out before Einstein. It's just that Einstein took it seriously while others didn't.
@malayapaul4584 жыл бұрын
33.3K boyyyyy....Parth...I've been here since when you had 150 subs dudeeeee..... congrats..you're the best and you'll soar higher Lots and lots of love from India
@ParthGChannel4 жыл бұрын
Thanks for the support as always man!
@sriranjit36844 жыл бұрын
Where are you ?
@kimsahl85554 жыл бұрын
The Galilei relativity is quit relative, Einsteins relativity is not quit relative: We have in special relativity a "stationary" system, a system that is contrary to Galilei relativity. 150 year ago Maxwell ask what the constant c is constant to? Einstein: c is constant to the "stationary" system - so, c is contrary to Galilei relativity.
@user-vg7zv5us5r Жыл бұрын
17:49 Back-tick have mislead me into thinking that Galileo transformation is somehow connected to the first-oder ODE.
@raspreetsingh55424 жыл бұрын
Noobs like me are grateful to have such a wonderful teacher amongst us. Thank you for ELI5ing everything I thought was incomprehensible! Keep up the great work dude, much love :)
@Lead-lx8qx Жыл бұрын
Amongus
@apayandas39903 жыл бұрын
In SATCOM too, there's use of Relativity.
@ananthakrishnan91864 жыл бұрын
Great base and efficient explanation
@jojolafrite903 жыл бұрын
In France, we seem to know that. But it's said not to loudly, for some strange reason. Edit: Wait, the video doesn't talk about Pointcarré?!
@rajeswari87774 жыл бұрын
Parth, you are doing a great job. Can you pls make videos about Polarization of light and what is circularly and elliptically polarized light, what are half wave and quarter wave plates
@new-knowledge80403 жыл бұрын
And, if we choose space-time as our reference frame, we soon find out that we are all in motion, and that we all share the exact same magnitude of motion. In turn, all we can do is change our direction of travel, within that 4D space-time environment. And so if you create a simple geometric representation of this ongoing motion within space-time, along with the option of changing of direction of travel, from it you can derive the SR mathematical equations, including the Lorentz transformation equations, and you can do so in mere minutes. So why don't they teach this in schools? After all, this simple simple geometric representation of motion within space-time, exposes time dilation, length contraction, velocity addition, and the Lorentz transformations, all at the same time. Of course that makes SR very easy to understand since its entirety is being exposed all at once.
@johnnyd.79984 жыл бұрын
Great video dude. By the way, technically speaking the new decade starts in 2021, not in 2020.
@stevegovea14 жыл бұрын
New subscriber here. Great channel. Just a thought, have you considered doing reviews of science movies. A Beautiful Mind and A Theory of Everything, just to name a few
@mwafrikahalisi25492 жыл бұрын
Why are the Equations of Relativity called Lorentz Transformation Equations?
@garethpeck52993 жыл бұрын
I believe it was Lorentz who came up with that transformation, Voigt's was earlier but slightly different and shown to be less accurate when dealing with time dilation some time in the late 1930's.
@PremSePhysics-4 жыл бұрын
Great one
@ostanin_vadym2 жыл бұрын
Thank you for content
@jonaichs19762 жыл бұрын
Einstein's relativity work is a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists. Nikola Tesla
@teddy_miljard2 жыл бұрын
I just love how Tesla choose his words. ❣️
@karthiksubhash55964 жыл бұрын
I have a doubt , It is said that super conducters have 0 resistance and so that the current will pass very well through it ,but according to R = V/I , will there be any current passing through the conducter .?
@AK-ep8ok4 жыл бұрын
Please make a video on Polarization of wave❤️❤️🌹💐💐💐💐💐💐💐🌹🌹🌹🌹🌹🌹🌹🌹🌹🌹🌹🌹
@aiezen11224 жыл бұрын
Please explain about fenyman diagrams
@siguardvolsung4 жыл бұрын
I miss this stuff. (Physics major now practicing law.)
@akshatsaini693 жыл бұрын
what?👀 physics to law, what made you leave such a natural subject or you had a leaning towards law from the beginning
@siguardvolsung3 жыл бұрын
@@akshatsaini69 My intent was to practice patent law, which I did, but the large law firm where I did it soured me to all of it. I do a little trademark and copyright work, but my practice focuses primarily on real estate. I'm happy with what I'm doing, but still, I miss the science.
@shivimish99624 жыл бұрын
Hey Parth, can you please include your intro music in your videos again? It's lovely!
@mohithemaprasad31814 жыл бұрын
What about a three-body problem would these equations still hold? I really like the explanation for this. Really great job; many people tend to hate relativity because it's hard to wrap your head around. But my question is that the assumption that velocity is along the x-direction would only hold if there are only two bodies in "relative motion". What if we had three bodies simultaneously in relative motion? (Well Einstein's theory of general relativity tells that no two events can be simultaneous) Then again I can't help but wonder how that system would look like. Parth can you help me out with this?
@shawnmicheal96383 жыл бұрын
I have heard poincare write mathematical equations for Einstein? Is it true?
@aaquib20104 жыл бұрын
there are situations where, even at low speeds, relativity is significant... a beautiful example is electromagnetic Field.. you should maybe cover it sometime in future..
@ParthGChannel4 жыл бұрын
Yes definitely!
@CO8848_2 Жыл бұрын
No, relativity is not about "relative", it says physics should be the same no matter where you are. Galileo observed on a moving car, you seem not to know that you are moving, that is fundamentally the same idea as in special relativity, you do not notice the earth is moving at 18 miles/s relative to the sun.
@edt85974 жыл бұрын
Merry Christmas 🎄🦌 🎄⛄ 🎅
@liavofra4 жыл бұрын
Thank you for the video I really liked. Especially the matter that needs to be re-thought everything. For example, the speed of light, we tend to think we know everything about the so-called speed of light. Even we tend to think that the speed of light is constant in the entire universe! Although there is no proof of that! By logic this is a question that is the most obvious answer according to the data we have, either right or wrong.
@shawnmicheal96383 жыл бұрын
Henri poincare do you know him?
@usamakeerio11413 жыл бұрын
Schrodinger equation please😌
@halfbrain36944 жыл бұрын
Is space a fluid?
@georgebakradze32024 жыл бұрын
t'=t/square root from 1-v^2/c^2 isn't this lorentz boost equation ?
@vedantchimmalgi4634 жыл бұрын
Hey Parth I had Written a blog on Einstein’s theory of relativity.. Now I’m probably gonna edit it
@ParthGChannel4 жыл бұрын
Hey! That sounds really interesting, what was the specific topic?
@vedantchimmalgi4634 жыл бұрын
Just wrote about Einstein’s special and general theory of relativity. Just the basics. I’m giving my igcse exams this feb, so I do not have the leisure to do so much research about this topic. But now that you have started explaining complex topics in a simpler way, it has become easier for young aspiring physicists like me to learn more. Keep the good work man, hope I’ll be able to meet you some day
@yesnobody31023 жыл бұрын
@@vedantchimmalgi463 well Einstein was a fraud plagiarist
@ruvstof4 жыл бұрын
Well, it was in a night in 1905, after discussing the issue with a friend, Einstein decided to make time a variable, this was the crucial insight. I found this is a good biography.
@ParthGChannel4 жыл бұрын
Thanks Claudio, any ideas who that friend was? I'm going to try and find out
@ruvstof4 жыл бұрын
Probably I read it in "Einstein: His Life and Universe", from Walter Isaacson. Good Look!
@antoniorojas24084 жыл бұрын
Amazing video, but is 2020 part of a new decade?
@NiSR00113 жыл бұрын
classic knowledge video - right for the laymen tooo..keep it up ...thanks ...looks smart -cut .for christmas ,,tour ..
@evalsoftserver2 жыл бұрын
The theory of Relativity was not discovered or thought up by Albert Einstein, but by Poincare a mathematician and physicist about 30 Year older than Einstein
@rashmir.thakur91824 жыл бұрын
Bro your content is awsm This is my mom's account and i m in 10th You make it understand soo easily
@mahmoudmosa7034 жыл бұрын
How do physicists make laws(theories)?
@chinthamshiva99524 жыл бұрын
Bro which software u use for editing
@yeastinchampagne4404 жыл бұрын
Bhaiya, DO YOU KNOW ABOUT ELECTRIC UNIVERSE THINGH?
@ParthGChannel4 жыл бұрын
I need to check it out!
@caryboy20064 жыл бұрын
Parth G It’s flat earth shit.
@yeastinchampagne4404 жыл бұрын
@@ParthGChannel check it.
@karthiksubhash55964 жыл бұрын
Also can you make a video explaining all the Units related to light .
@Zeno2Day3 жыл бұрын
Ty
@soumyaranjanpanda88654 жыл бұрын
Hey! I have a doubt on length contraction. is length actually physically contracted or it just appears to the observer ?!! If it actually contracts then what happens to the atoms within it ?does their interatomic distance reduces or how ?
@drakeequation5214 жыл бұрын
You are jumping the gun and not building up the basics first before exploring length contraction. But, yes, it does happen. When you focus an old CRT television you are doing the same thing an astronomer does with his or her telescope, by changing the focal length. Now the television does not contract but the distance from the coil to the screen does change in the reference frame of the electron so that the electron will not tumble.
@anmolkumar92852 жыл бұрын
It appears to be contracted for a observer in Inertial frame
@lancebaldi95484 жыл бұрын
brooo you got 35k subscribers now
@ridwanjani63234 жыл бұрын
Plz make a video about entropy.
@nickmerix2900 Жыл бұрын
In the beginning of the video you explained that we need to define motion as relative to “ what” . Then you mentioned how Maxwell s work on waves was used by Einstein . But what did Maxwell use as relative “ to what “ for his c ? I think this has to be clarified before we can assume that c is the same for all observers. And why did Einstein pick c as his constant and not t? After all as you said this makes more sense cause we can easily test it in everyday life. What motivated him to even propose his theory? Its not like he was doing work in that field for years. We are told he was a patent clerk. Another thing i find odd is the reference of his genius and high IQ. People with high IQ are born that way . Its not something that comes later in life. And its very evident from the early years. Yet nobody noticed anything special in Einstein . Some of his teachers even describe him as lazy and below average student. How can this be explained ?
@ivanmarianek354 жыл бұрын
I have been always wondering: Why speed of light has to be constant in all reference frames and how this results from Maxwell's equations?
@noether94474 жыл бұрын
I am not sure if this is the right answer but afaik it is because when deriving the speed of EM waves(light) we get a constant of sqrt(e*b). The constants e and b depends upon the medium and not the reference frame. So speed of light has to be constant.
@teddy_miljard2 жыл бұрын
I didn't understand your question.. ❣️
@caryboy20064 жыл бұрын
Another viewpoint is that relativity is the wrong term for his theories. A different term would be Einstein’s Special Invariant theory as his theory deals with the invariance of the speed of light.
@offgridwanabe4 жыл бұрын
You don't invent a law you may discover it though.
@joeboxter36353 жыл бұрын
Please do more research. I was surely hoping that when you did a video "who invented relativity," you were going to do more than just repeat what everyone says: Einstien. The fact is Einstein did not question Maxwell's equations. He did nothing of the sort. 1. There was an assumption in physics that there must be some field that light oscillated in. There were already Maxwell equations saying light was a wave. 2. To "discover" this Michaelson and Morley proposed to measure this "something" called "Aether". 3. Unfortunately the experiment was the most amazing failure in all Physics. It showed that Aether did not exist. They expected the Aether "wind" to drag light and slow it down. But no matter what direction, the speed of light was always constant. 4. Lorentz did some basic work and proposed "space contraction" i.e. the first of 3 well know "Lorentz Equations". 5. Poincare, a mathematician, was also aware of this problem and he in parallel to Lorentz came up with the same idea. 6. Poincare then extended this to not only length, but to time, and mass. 7. Item 4, 5, 6 were published and widely known 4 years before Einstein 8. Even the famous E=mc2 was known prior to 1905, when Einstein published SR 9. The problem w/ both Lorentz & Poincare was they did not know what to make of it. They had answers. 10. What Einstein did was to say, (a) no Aether (because he always thought light was a particle form "his" photoelectric effect and (b) he said it must be a "law" of the universe that all inertial observers will measure the speed of light as a constant. By the way, Einstein is pretty much wrong on both points. But never the less 10 stuck, because after all Einstein was a genius who had won the Nobel Prize for the Photo Electric Effect. And his "voice" carried the day. We thus end up with Einstein being credited with Special Relativity. Why don't you research this and re-do your video with the *real* history. Oh, and after you have researched all this, come back and ask me the truth behind (a) GR and (b) my suspicion of who really came up w/ the photo-electric effect.
@katykayvideos2 жыл бұрын
Thanks for those details. sir. Can you please answer the questions you brought up?
@YathishShamaraj3 жыл бұрын
18:46 the understatement of the decade 😂😂
@zalixbros30493 жыл бұрын
5:00 this man is 10km tall
@moriyartyholmes39144 жыл бұрын
Hello sir! Can i reach you on mail or any other communication medium for physics questions ??? Your explanations are quite understandable!
@davidbennett30464 жыл бұрын
Off topic: I hope school is going well. What is it that you want to do when you graduate?
@constructivecritique51913 жыл бұрын
It might help viewers if you first explain the reason for validation of reference points. When measuring movement of objects, all reference points are relative to each other and valid for measuring. This is not to say the conclusions are valid. Two people walk towards each other. How to best describe the movement. You can't say the earth is moving in opposite directions.
@GeovaniLopesDias4 жыл бұрын
Hi! Epistemologically and etymologically speaking, "discover" is not an appropriate word. Since physics knowledge is a model, it is not a real thing-in-the-world that is cover and waiting to be un/discovered. I do think "proposed" relativity is a less naive idea. Best regards from Brazil! Love your videos.
@drakeequation5214 жыл бұрын
False. Understanding differs from knowledge. You know how to walk. But do you understand walking as a neuroscientist does, researching and experimenting with nervous systems and brains to see how all the proper firing of neurons in a particular order must take place before one can figure out how to help someone with cerebral palsy how to move smoothly without shaking as you do?
@GeovaniLopesDias4 жыл бұрын
@@drakeequation521 That physics is a model is a consensus on epistemology discussion. Hence, the "discover" concept must to be inappropriate. By the way, I did not realize how your rhetoric question rebuts anyway the statement post. Would you mind to clarify your point?
@GeovaniLopesDias4 жыл бұрын
@@drakeequation521 Science does not study reality, just models, due to its inherent complexity. Models evolve as they survive to test and discussion. There's nothing to be discover. Along decades the science community took Newtonian Mechanics for granted, so we have Einstein and Quantum. We are just looking for more powerful models, not discovering new things. When a whole theory is proposed, often old basic assertions are "thrown away", so we are not just discover something new, but proposing a new way to do "reality reading". I suggest Bachelard and Bunge, if I may do it, as authors to you deeply explore the issue I bring to discussion.
@drakeequation5214 жыл бұрын
@@GeovaniLopesDias You are not making the comparison I made at all. You are differentiating between "discover" and "knowledge". I am not. I was taking the latter (knowledge) and contrasting it with understanding. I do not question that modeling is what physics does. It does appear that your interest lies with philosophy. I have a suggestion as well. Pick up Poul Moller's "Diary of a Danish Student" and further read Niels Bohr's response to it. Bohr saw insanity resulting from following philosophy. Philosophers to Bohr are like monks who merely continue tolling the bell and cannot get anything done.
@GeovaniLopesDias4 жыл бұрын
@@drakeequation521 I see, you're exiting the philosophy discussion by some sort of pragmatism. I got your point. However it'll be the case if Parth did not put in his title a word play. I also agree with Feynman (supposedly) who thinks epistemology is useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds. However, as I wrote, I do not see my first comment as a metodolocigal discussion, but a philosophical one. The issue's utility, despite your interest on it, is not relevant on the play Parth did. Why would he strikethrough invented to replace it by discover? The title suggest, as I see, I philosophical discussion, even subliminally, as it'd be possible.
@lancebaldi95484 жыл бұрын
SPEECH
@rabiekheiri18334 жыл бұрын
5:00 Your height is 10???? Next year, I will study electromagnetism. You must complete the electromagnetic series before this
@saeedhamdhan7913 жыл бұрын
It was was a little unclear, from the point you started telling x prime and y prime
@mwafrikahalisi25492 жыл бұрын
Relativity was discovered. The mathematical equations (the symbols and descriptions) were invented. That's my take.
@globaldigitaldirectsubsidi44934 жыл бұрын
Merry Christmas in case you are celebrating!
@neiloppa26204 жыл бұрын
If relativity is about reference frames then I think the first person who discovered relativity was Zeno of paradox fame.
@hassegreiner96752 жыл бұрын
It's impossible to run as slowly as 5km/h ;-)
@Astro-uc8er4 жыл бұрын
I want to see that second chanel please.
@ParthGChannel4 жыл бұрын
Hopefully very soon! :D
@vedantpanchal61984 жыл бұрын
Parth G Hey Parth, I hope you are not busy at the time you see this. Well, this reply is totally unrelated to the main thread. What I want to say is that *your voice intrigues me* (of course not comparable to your insightful lessons). *Could you please tell me if you did any voice coaching? **Could you suggest some tips to produce a resonating voice of yours?* Thank you, *your advice will be helpful*. Have a superb day.
@3Space1time4 жыл бұрын
I am in grade 9 and able to understand all what he says can someone suggest a book
@onky054 жыл бұрын
Dead Famous Albert Einstein. Get this one very simple language. And very cheap.
@Sttuey4 жыл бұрын
The Order of Time by Carlo Rovelli
@lancebaldi95484 жыл бұрын
relativity doesn’t agree with quantum mechanics, which in turn violates classical logic. physics has a long way to go
@oscarstaszky19603 жыл бұрын
it always has a long way to go and that's where the fun part comes, of course