Ha!!! Nice oneee Best joke so far

uh-uh, no. don't even.

Sebastian Elytron good pun

Einstein: (saving mankind) Also Einstein: (smokes pipe)

War and Peace joke?

5

i agree

R/wooOosh

@XY ZW So the amount of energy released from Radioactive elements doesn't follow Mass-Energy equivalence ? Because it is a direct consequence of Special relativity when you try to fix Momentum conservation in 4D Spacetime

Relativistic BURN!!

Added to nerd joke collection.

@XY ZW It would be a shame if a pair of European satellites in highly eccentric orbits with highly accurate atomic clocks proved Einstein right.

Puns, fricking puns...

Because Einstein only work as a patent clerk in Swiss Office until 1905 where he published 4 miracle papers. Then spend the last 10 years developing general theory of relativity. So basically, unknown before 1905, relatively known after 1905, and a popular science icon in 1919. ^_^

@@moisesallenmontalbo157 you miss the joke 🙄

but we enhanced technology through war

@@JushBJJ it's a dilemma isn't it

@@Tensho_C war makes things pathetic but without war we would never advance like we have to this point it would of taken millions of years to do it like would we of ever farmed if there was always food available to find

@@Mystickrage I know, that's why i said it's a dilemma, but Thanks

@@Mystickrage it did make advancements quicker but not a million years quicker, like 30-50 years quicker. In a million years the human race will be gone because we will have killed ourselves to extinction by war or global warming

Aww man

So we back in the mine (?)

Swinging my pickaxe from

@@castroploiin side to side

Astute observation.

Holy smoke! Nice one. Wonder if this was planned in some way. Einstein, you little...

Sagittarius A* lol he was kinda mad, accounts said that when he was at Princeton you could often see him wandering in the corridors talking to walls. He was too smart for this world

@david chappel Yeah😂

People understand is pritty well

@a normal everyday Spider We did learn some things from his brain. For example, the areas of his brain that deal with spatial reasoning were much more developed than average. . Of course, how useful that information is is up for debate. It doesn't tell us whether he was able to come up with his theories because of an over-developed sense of spatial reasoning, or if his spatial reasoning centers developed more because of how much time he spent thinking about his theories. It also doesn't tell us how one would go about coercing the over-development of a person's spatial reasoning areas, nor does it tell us if that over-development was the only necessary piece of the puzzle. . Not to mention, Einstein died during the heyday of things like lobotomies. Cutting up brains was all the rage at the time, and little things like ethics were being routinely overlooked by medical researchers, especially in psychology. Its hardly a huge surprise that his wishes would have been ignored given the practices of the day. . Nowadays not only would we be far less likely to ignore his wishes, we'd also consider his dead brain to be relatively useless. And even if we did decide to poke at it (and got permission..) we now have things like MRI and CAT that can image the brain without having to physically destroy it. Or better yet, if the brain is still alive, fMRI is significantly better at showing how various areas activate during specific activities than trying to deduce activity based purely on structural imaging (or slides.)

@a normal everyday Spider There are many things rendered useless by better technology as time goes on. Certainly by today's standards, it seems pretty useless (perhaps even wasteful since we had to physically destroy the specimen.) . But scientists in the 1950s didn't have today's technology, nor today's insights. And a lot of what we have learned has been _negative_ results -- that is, trying something and finding out that it was "useless" also tells us something. . So overall, yes we kind of agree. I'm just suggesting that we need to take historical context into account rather than simply condemning them for an act that, at the time, seemed like a perfectly reasonable thing to do (and as noted, ethics wasn't really a concept for _any_ scientists back then either so even the lack of consent has to be taken with a pinch of historical salt.)

... wait didn’t he consent to his body being used for scientific research?

2wice

@@abhimistry3070 Yup twice ...

yup i too

well you know we are not so polite then

@@kal9mondal bs kr pagle rulayega kya 1:06

You are much more kind than I, and more eloquent. And gracious. Thx. For posting.

Well yes, but actually no

The theory (GR) agrees with the observation(a lot of them not only what shown in the video). if it explains what we see, then the theory correct and so far GR is the king in science. ( passed all tests!)

@@chenlevy3773 If you checked Dr. Dowdye or thoroughly read my comment, than you would know that neither of us deny the consistency between GR's prediction for the Sun and the actual result. What is the issue (in the case of Sun specifically) is that the measurements have been made only for the "surface atmosphere" so to speak or rather more precisely described as the plasma limb of the Sun. If GR is to be completely consistent then the bending of the light should be seen all around the Sun and it should be continuous, not just inside its plasma limb. But the latter is the case, therefore it is only natural to use a much simpler explanation of refraction within a medium with a gradient of its refractive index (classical electrodynamics for plasma) and you will (as Dr. Dowdye shows) arrive at the exact same expression as GR proposes. Therefore this experiment is at best inconclusive towards the validity of GR or a disproof of it at the worst. Regarding the correctness of a theory, from what I've gathered about the scientific method, it allows you to progress from a hypothesis to theory under two conditions: 1) you have to have an INTERNAL LOGICAL CONSISTENCY and 2) the PREDICTIONS of the hypothesis MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL CURRENT OBSERVATIONS. Then the hypothesis can be regarded as a theory. The most important thing to remember is that there is no mention of validity or correctness of the hypothesis anywhere. When you think about it for a while, there is a quite simple reason for it: "We don't know what we don't know." Because of that, we can never be absolutely sure if we got the "right" answer and therefore can never absolutely decide whether a theory is proven correct. We can only absolutely disprove it.

Sankaravelayudhan Nandakumar Nandakumar but yet it cannot take a good picture of Mars? 🤫

Time

I thought the dimension were length, hight, width and time.

amd i preparing a Nobel for you.

XDDDDDDDDDDDDD

6:53 again

We only had so much time to cover everything here, but you can read more about it in Daniel's book! www.amazon.com/Shadow-Doubt-Confirmed-Einsteins-Relativity-ebook/dp/B07K63DV5M

@@bharath9019 yes and Einstein used calculus to solve his equations

They are not both completely wrong, their discoveries just have limitations

Yeah u r ri8 i m the upcoming einstein 😉😉😉

@@anwaarhassan7212 if you're the upcoming Einstein then that would make you EinsteinXI. :D

Huisbeest because that’s how we see the world right.. in 2D instead of 3D yeah? How’s your head?

His equations are still accurate and useful in environments with constant gravity, like Earth. They only fail at truly massive scales.

@@TheJaredtheJaredlong if something is not absolute then i guess it looses its credibility.

@@supratim17roy it's no that simple. Because it works in small scales is better and easier to give an introduction on the subject using Newton's while still getting results accurate enough. Them if you actually need to go deeper in this concepts over you career the required knowledge will be provided to you. But you already understand the basic concept because you got an introduction with an easier usecase and technique

Greg Scott gravity doesn’t bend it. The warped space acts as a lens that distorts the light traveling from behind the object.

@@sure1073 I get it; there's a difference between the lensing effect and the gravitational effect. I just offered an opinion about the gravity/bending idea.

gary22898 SOO TRUE!!! WE HEV AL BIN LIVING A LIE!! THSE FAKE SIGNTISTS ARE TRYINNG TO HIDE THE TRUTH 😡😡😡!

@gary22898 it's just a theory

Y'all a bunch of idiots people

Any scientist will tell you art and science go hand in hand.

Newton’s theory of gravitation is essentially a subset of Einstein’s theorem. It works perfectly well for our day to day lives but breaks down whenever relativistic effects come into play.

Sharal Bhandari and also a fake medium.

LOL what? This "experiment" is repeated practically daily. The gravitational lensing effect is used by scientists and telescopes on a regular basis. And GR as a whole is used much, much more often than that. You use it yourself on a daily basis -- the GPS system in your phone has to compensate for time dilation, a core concept of general relativity (and special relativity, of course.) GPS flat out wouldn't work if we tried to run those satellites using pure Newtonian mechanics.

Shut up lol

Luckily I voice and produce all of Seeker's Focal Point series! Watch more here: kzfaq.info/sun/PL6uC-XGZC7X6f-uzsDfxDXNuMMUZb3ljI - Lauren Ellis, Producer/budding ASMR talent