Yeah he's an amazing narrator Even I understand it somewhat 😂

I'm a 3-months old infant and understood it on my first watch.

I'm a 9 y.o. panda and don't even understand the idea of human communication and articulation, I still was able to comprehend most of the things he talked about. Cheers!

ship

Ok boomer

Very helpful. Thanks

@@geoffb1418 THE ULTIMATE, TOP DOWN, BALANCED, THEORETICAL, AND CLEAR MATHEMATICAL PROOF OF THE FACT THAT E=MC2 IS F=MA: The BALANCE of being AND experience is essential. Consider what is BALANCED BODILY/VISUAL EXPERIENCE. (SO, think about what is THE EYE.) The orange Sun is lava ON BALANCE !! THINK. Think about what is THE MAN who IS standing on what is THE EARTH/ground. Think about TIME. NOW, think about what is THE MAN who IS in what is outer "space". (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.) Think about what is THE SUN. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Carefully consider what now follows, as E=MC2 is CLEARLY and NECESSARILY proven to be F=ma ON BALANCE. Time dilation ultimately proves ON BALANCE that E=MC2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Time is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity ON BALANCE. Gravity is ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. Great !!!! QUANTUM GRAVITY !!!! E=MC2 IS F=ma. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. What are THE EARTH/ground AND THE SUN are CLEARLY E=MC2 AND F=ma IN BALANCE. Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. It does ALL CLEARLY make perfect sense. GOT IT !!!! THE SKY is BLUE, AND THE EARTH is ALSO BLUE !!! Great !!! NOW, think about WHAT IS THE MAN who IS standing on what is THE EARTH/ground. Perfect !!!! Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY proven to be F=ma ON BALANCE; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity is ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. It all CLEARLY makes perfect sense. (Balanced inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is fundamental. Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE.) "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY; as E=MC2 is CLEARLY proven to be F=ma ON BALANCE; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Accordingly, ON BALANCE, objects (AND WHAT IS the falling MAN) fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course); as E=MC2 IS CLEARLY F=MA ON BALANCE !!!!! It also makes perfect sense that the PLANETS move away very, very, very slightly in relation to what is THE SUN. (The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky.) Great. E=MC2 is CLEARLY proven to be F=ma ON BALANCE. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Great !!!!!! Carefully consider what is THE MAN who IS standing on what is THE EARTH/ground. Touch AND feeling BLEND, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Magnificent !!! E=MC2 is CLEARLY proven to be F=ma ON BALANCE !!! By Frank DiMeglio

TIME dilation ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. This necessarily represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE !!! Indeed, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity ON BALANCE !!!! Great !!!! By Frank DiMeglio

Thanks for this That was exactly the point in the video where my brain went into a loop trying to figure out the statements

Oh really? So what did he prove in one sentence? You gonna tell me or not?

Or... perhaps... the explanation just wasn't that good (given your starting knowledge).

Exactly..

dude, its relative XD

@@potencjau6571 🤣

@pyropulse That's pretty cool man!

Its relative, but the faster you watch it the more confused u will be.

y times if you run at the speed of light ... I've tried it

@Justa Fool 0/10000 troll, matey

jonskowitz I thought the EXACT same thing!!! I’d certainly require some upfront education before I’d even attempt it

A great deception in physics started with Lorentz, no doubt ... but it is the whiskery troll who's trolling physicians for 100 years now

It will always be confusing because relativity is bullshit.

@@dreamdiction why the fuck you even decided to open a video with "relativity" clearly written on the thumbnail and title .If you think it's bullshit then don't come here . Go and make "theories" with your flat earther buddies .

@@dreamdiction Thank you for having brain. Finally someone. Eight billion people on the planet and only a dozen of them have brain. Yes, relativity is bullshit. And I like to visit places that "explain" relativity and call it bullshit. Just to interfere with the propaganda. Science should equal to truth. But it has turned into propaganda. That's not real science.

@@cinegraphics "I'm too stupid to understand it therefore bullshit."

@@cinegraphics So when did this turning into propaganda happen? With theory of relativity being over 100 years old and you writing this on a computer or a phone thanks to science and all...

lol

Ah, the triplet paradox raises its hand.

@deadringer-cultofdeathratt8813 😂😂😂 ❤

Lol.

@Laceykat66 Yeah, when I was younger I went through a rebellious phase where a I did a lot of sloppy physics. It's not something I'm proud of.

@Laceykat66 But you were right, weren't you? This video doesn't prove anything.

Abolutely knew this comment would be here.

Haha

F

ajajajajaja

Is that because you experienced time dilation and he didn't?

RIP your pal

I mean it was clearly written on the slide, he just said it wrong but it should click ,his explanation was marvelous as it cleared a lot of misconceptions

Question...as it's being professed as REALITY...what examples are there of this effect in nature? In nature, the faster I travel through space...will always reduce my time of travel...theoretically, time dilation works, but realistically...it doesn't

​​@@LemarFrencheverywhere. astrophysics, gps, satellites etc all require time dilation to be taken into account every day and satellites adjusted otherwise none of them would work. within a day all gps would be out of sync and accuracy anything travelling fast or over great distances usually anything in space man made or natural

ThoughtShaman I think a further communication problem is the lack of direction given in the tone of voice. Often the words and labels are less important than the intonation to help the listener follow the arguments.

But that's not the right way to say it. T sub 1 is the right way.

Ron Class There is no right and wrong way to say it. He makes a valid point. The word “sub” adds no helpful meaning to the explanation.

Zero-G it’s the proper way to say it.

@@melgross What is "proper" depends on your goal. If you goal is to be pedantic, then sure, but in the context of educational content such as this your goal should be to be as easy to follow as possible. Everyone can follow the formulas on screen without the excess use of the syllable "sub".

If you expect to watch a 10 minute video and understand relativity and time dilation which is one of the most tricky and complicated topics in physics, then you need to recalibrate your expectations

wow she runs fast

So there's just wife jokes everywhere for this time thing huh.

"wife jokes" are another channel, bro...

@Martin willemse No one read that, if you truly understand it Then you can explain it shorter

@Martin willemse plz make shorter version

I've always struggled with coordinate transformations. I think the use of the standard configuration (1 space dimension instead of 3) adds additional confusion for beginners. It isn't obvious to me how you would extent this back to the 4-D world. Can you just treat each velocity as the component velocities directed along the x, y and z directions? Does the time Lorentz equation depend on just the magnitude of the velocity? Or are the velocity components combined in a different way? Granted, I've never taken a course on Special Relativity, but I think most students are fed a dumbed-down version of special relativity, which actually makes it harder for people who really want to dig into the details to follow the math and understand what is going on.

Jess Stuart I'm pressed for time in real life, wanted to cover some tips, and don't want you to feel like my curt responses are condescending - just in a hurry over here. Dumbed down? Maybe. But more like just getting the degenerative cases clear first. Courses I took always stressed the importance of that because as you add conditions, the gotchas come fast and strong unless the basics are crystal clear. Over the years I've had to return to the basics myself - it's amazing how quickly you can overlook something if you take for granted that you remember the basics. I see at least three questions in your overall question about positioning (and fwiw, I think you are asking the right questions). Let's concentrate on 3D motion in space (in 4D with time). One of the most basic things to remember is that cases such as the one in this video must not include acceleration for the observers, only constant velocity relative to each other. You can believe that you are (relatively) stationary even if you are at a constant, uniform velocity but if you are accelerating in any way, you can look down at the inertial navigation unit that I installed by your clock and then know that you are accelerating - the case shown here does not apply to you. Next case - ok, you are not accelerating. From your point of view, you are not moving. If the one you are observing is moving in 3 space dimensions relative to you and is on a straight line - turn your head. You're a point, they're on a line, by definition you must both share a common plane so there can be no third spacial dimension to worry about. If they are accelerating along that line, the constant velocity form shown here does not apply. If you cannot fit yourself and their track of motion along a single plane, change in direction must be occurring. Change in direction means by definition that there's an acceleration involved. Either acceleration means that the case shown here does not apply. Getting spacetime world lines right is a pain in the neck - three space dimensions become a single dimension describing change. I recommend the 3blue1brown math channel to really help with visualizing coordinate transformations. It creeps into a lot of his videos and you'll probably get hooked, watch them all, and not miss anything. Then you'll have a whole new set of questions lol. The good Dr. here always tries to either point out or at least remind that he's working with simpler forms. Sometimes it can go by quickly, but it's there, and you are right, these cases are simplified so that only a few terms in more complex relativity math can be brought into focus. But that's OK because you gotta start with the basics and even the basics can get you into heavy lifting in no time. Don't discount the possibility that I screwed something up in this long but hurried response. Hopefully someone will chime in quickly if I did - otherwise, I think I have you pointed in the right directions even though I probably didn't answer anything in detail. (And yes, the inertial navigation unit I installed is magical - it is convinced that it's stationary so long as there is no acceleration on any of the three axes and it's doing that without the gyros drifting or showing it to precession and it's immune to the local gravity because you're not on a planet - you're on a plane in Imagination Land so it's OK for the nav unit to be a little magical. Whether magical or not, real world or not - you can measure to determine if you are accelerating.)

I rewatched 3 times and planning to do another 10 times.

Jo Reven0]

Of course you're confused. It's not correct. It appears that observers have symmetric views on the other observer's clock... but they don't. Because when they meet up, one of them will have his clock really slower. So one of them was right. The other was wrong seeing the opposing clock slower. It's not symmetric. In reality, it's asymmetric.

@pyropulse it's not, it just was made unfunny by the amount of laugh track used in later seasons. Also you sound like an insecure pedantic asshole

actually in somewhere around half of film all become a bit clearer

pyropulse I’m willing to bet you came here to the comments section just to try to find someone like this guy who admitted to not understanding the concepts in the video so that you could leave a stuck up comment like that and feel good about yourself. Grow up man😂 it’s comments like yours that make youtube comment sections such a mind fuck to read.

What aGuy For real, fuck pretentious assholes.

I thought Dons early videos were excellent.

If you think that the subject of the right application of the concept of time dilation is simple, then you just don't undestand it.

@@control21 It may be detailed, but it isn't really complicated. You just need to keep your p's and q's straight.

What he explained ain't so simple dude concepts dude, he cleared s big misconception a lot of beginners encounter in theory of relativity

Same problem here

@@manthansingh8036 and analyzing some Observers SUBJECTIVE view point of some remote event is NOT doing Physics. Physics is OBJECTIVE, not experiential, and subjective. Two real Physicists doing any experiment MUST always make sure that BOTH observers use the same standards, same have pre agreed origins and synchronized timing etc. All this talk about who is moving should never enter into any actual experiment in Physics.

@@xiaoxiao-kg5np Does the word "relativity" ring a bell? Observations will always depend of your frame of reference .

@@JohannBaritono Subjective Observations might depend on your physical conditions, but the actual motions of physical objects do not depend on who is watching from what location and what HIS own motion may be. "Frames of Reference" are 100% imaginary, and play NO PART at all in the actions of physical systems.

​@@xiaoxiao-kg5np Just as seeing a 6 or a 9 depends on your position, the same is true for physical phenomena. One easy example: The strength of a magnetic field will depend on your distance (or the distance of your frame of reference) with respect to the field. Seeing an object in motion or at rest, will totally depend on your movement with respect to the object. And to make it even more complicated, if we use quantum mechanics, the existence or not of an entity or phenomenon, will totally depend on the observer, not the entity itself.

Watching Wikipedia's animation of the Lorenz transform helps too.

Yes, be mega mega careful and remember it's super subtle. He's easy to joke about, but he's pretty good too.

So, basically, everything is moving, even if it doesn’t seem so from our perspective. It’s all relative. So this explained time dilations due to speed, but what about time dilations due to gravity? The closer you are to a massive object, the slower your clock moves, even if both locations appear stationary. The clock on GPS satellites runs faster than clocks on the ground, and must actually be adjusted to stay accurate. Even though they are in Asynchronous orbit, and stay stationary over the same spot on the ground.

Does that mean that time speeds up the further away from a massive object you are (earth for example), so does that mean you'd age faster the further away from a massive object?

@@nicolez581 Yes, but that's as seen by an observer on Earth. You would still age at your usual rate in your frame of reference. It's just that if you compared your age with people on Earth (who would also age at their usual rates in their reference frame) they would seem to age slower, when observed from your reference frame. Anyway the difference would be trivial in the case of the Earth (not enough mass).

Or the twin brothers paradox is not a paradox if you consider that all your internal functions are also altered by gravity and velocity so one can age way slowly than others depending on those factors.

This actually helps a great deal, Joseph. Thank you.

@@chrismcgraw2112 kzfaq.info/get/bejne/qdyniq6antm3cXU.html

So you're saying its relative? MINDBLOWN

​@DolphinsWIthIgloos Thanks, it makes sense to me that in the twin scenario, the reason that the traveler ends up younger has to be related to the change in his situation (acceleration, force, kinetic energy, or whatever). Otherwise you could just say that they each traveled away from each other and then back together, from their respective points of view. But this video didn't really explain that, right? Or did I just not follow it (which is likely).

Reality is what you can perceive and measure... If I hit you with a shrink-ray, I'd say that I remain unchanged and you shrunk to a small size. But you, with your tiny shrunken measuring sticks, would say the you were normal and that I (and the rest of the universe) had grown large. We'd each see the universe in different, apparently contradictory ways ("I'm normal size and you are tiny," says I; "No, I'm normal and you are huge," says you). Yet, our interactions will all be consistent. So it is with Special Relativity. A moving thing (whether it is a person or a rock) becomes time-slowed, shrunken in its direction of travel, and is moving relative to the space through which light travels at a constant speed. That means that if I (who are stationary and normal) saw you moving past me all shrunken, time-slowed, etc then I'd know that the way you perceive and measure me and the universe would be distorted. What would perceive (i) yourself, (ii) the speed of light, and (iii) me (and the universe) looking like through your distorted eyes and measuring devices? It turns out (when you do the sums) that: (i) You see/measure yourself as normal sized and normal timed ((no big surprise there, since the clocks you are carrying with you are time-slowed the same amount as you, and your measuring sticks are likewise shrunken)). (ii) You see the speed of light as the same in all directions ((a little weirder, but if I do the sums using your slow clocks, short measuring sticks, etc that's what you get)) so you consider yourself as stationary. (iii) You perceive me (and the rest of the universe) as coasting past you with the same velocity that I saw you going, but in the opposite direction, AND you measure me to be time-slowed, shrunken, etc. To summarise: I know that I am normal and stationary, and that you are moving and distorted. But when I do the sums to work out how you see the universe through your distorted eyes and measuring devices, it turns out that YOU think your are normal and stationary instead, and that I am distorted!!!

@@corwin-7365 the problem is measurement itself. Humans agreeing on a standard of measurement doesn't make that standard truly objective. The example you give would play itself out much differently if you could isolate a human from inflation. The universe would expand around them & they would objectively stay the same size while the universe objectively expanded around them. So in that context the shrinking person would be objectively correct & the subjective perception of those expanding with the universe would be objectively false. 😊

The differently-moving observers have different ideas of what simultaneity is. In everyday physics you are accustomed to different observers disagreeing on where two events at different times happened in the same place. If I'm on a moving train traveling rapidly north and tap on the north edge of the window then the south edge, I think the second tap is south of the first tap. An observer outside will measure the tapping position relative to the ground and because the second tap was a few seconds later the second tap actually 100m *north* of the first tap. We disagree on which event happened north of the other because we are moving at different speeds and the events were at different times. Relativity keeps that but also does the same thing with time and space swapped: observers can disagree on which event happened before another because they are moving at different speeds and the events were at different places. (Incidentally, if no-one is exceeding the speed of light, then if any observer sees the events happening at the same place then all observers will agree in which order they happened in time, and if any observer sees the events happening at the same time then they'll all agree which order the events are positioned in space.) I recommend you look at Wikipedia's animation of the Lorenz transform too.

@@SimonClarkstone We wouldn't disagree though, because to determine which was north and south, even in the train you'd have to first plot your position on a map, relative to when you tapped each time. Otherwise train-you is making things up without any frame of reference. Thus, we would agree which was north of the other.

May Physics always be one with you!

His job is to make the subjects of the video be as comprehensible as possible; a _"Teacher's"_ job is to make the simplest of concepts seem as incomprehensible as possible in order to make teaching it take weeks, rather then the hours it ought to take.

I cannot express the extent to which I agree with you.

Keep going. Leave bad teachers behind. They were not there to be followed. Every teacher somehow hopes that his students will be better than he was. That s why they teach in the first place. At least that's why I was teacher for 11 years, until civil war in former Yugoslavia interrupted it. I know what mistakes I made. Your teachers also know their mistakes, and they wish they never made them. But you are here to correct those mistakes on yourself. Go your way and don't worry about some previous steps on that road long time ago.

no you're just smarter than the average and a teacher need to move at the speed of the majority.

How does this explain it really well? He doesn't explain why he uses a different equation to represent each observer from their own perspective. Each observer should see themself starting with the same equation.

@@RIPxBlackHawk It has nothing to do with you seeing something in the literal sense. The two postualtes are simply put that a) all refrence frames are equal and b) speed of light is the same in all refernce frames Given just some very minor assumtions you can conclude the Lorentz transforms because of Maxwells euations for electromagnetism. Once you have the Lorentz transform time dilation is a necessity. The thing about how you see clocks came either from somone who didnt really understand relativity, a bad phrasing, or somone who wanted to explain it in a more easy to digest as an analogy.

Actually I think that you dont need Maxwells equations once you have postulated that speed of light is absolute. The absoluteness of c that comes from electromagnetism is a key point in relativity.

@@RandomPerson-yq1qk Generally relativity is political in accordance with maximum money making agenda “physics”. Galaxies disprove Einstein. Gravity is ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. Here is the proof. WHY IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SEPARATE inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, gravity, AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 IS clearly F=MA IN BALANCE: Gravity is not fully and accurately described or accounted for by the idea of “curved” “space”. Consider the man who IS actually in what is outer “space”. Think about TIME. Consider what is THE MAN who IS standing on what is THE EARTH/ground. E=MC2 is CLEARLY proven to be F=ma ON BALANCE, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity is ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. TIME dilation ULTIMATELY proves (ON BALANCE) that E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE, as gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites; as gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; as GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) what is inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. “Mass”/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, as E=MC2 is CLEARLY proven to be F=ma ON BALANCE; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is fundamental. Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. Carefully consider what is THE SUN. Think about TIME. Consider what is the speed of light (c). The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. It all CLEARLY makes perfect sense. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. Gravity is ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy ON BALANCE. By Frank DiMeglio ABSOLUTE MATHEMATICAL PROOF THAT ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity, AS E=MC2 IS clearly F=MA ON BALANCE: The balance of being and experience is essential. THE SELF represents, FORMS, and experiences a COMPREHENSIVE approximation of experience in general by combining conscious and unconscious experience. GREAT !!! Think. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity, as gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; as E=mc2 is F=ma. Accordingly, the rotation of what is the Moon matches it's revolution. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY is proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, as gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites; as E=mc2 is F=ma ON BALANCE. Carefully consider what is the speed of light (c). The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Accordingly, ON BALANCE, the PLANETS will move away very, very, very slightly in relation to what is the Sun. THE EARTH/ground AND what is the Sun are CLEARLY linked AND BALANCED opposites, as E=mc2 is F=ma !!! “Mass”/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is fundamental. Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. THE EARTH is blue, AND the sky is ALSO BLUE ON BALANCE. Gravity is CLEARLY proven to be ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy on balance. E=MC2 is CLEARLY proven to be F=ma ON BALANCE. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; as objects fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course). Gravity is ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. TIME dilation ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that E=mc2 is F=ma, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. INDEED, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; as E=mc2 is F=ma ON BALANCE; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity !!! It all CLEARLY makes perfect sense, AND BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. GREAT !!! By Frank DiMeglio

@@RandomPerson-yq1qk Q

u are not alone. Actually this guy has played a trick only. And actually what has he proved is that if a clock is moving opposite direction as the observer 2' clock (which is moving to the left w.r. to observer 1)) is seen faster rather been dilated. Anvd it's a weird conclusion this prof seems to have reached at. : - D. Einstein was clever to avoid such paradoxes,

@@IndicDarshan The key is: if your clock in your hand compares with clocks that are ticking in front of you, then it seems that the clocks in front of you are going faster. but if with synchronized clocks you see a particular clock that moves and goes from one clock to the next etc, then that clock goes slower.

​@@riraldi It is interesting you brought up the phrase 'seems to be' or 'appears to be' making SR some kind of illusion, However, one of the guys in motion w.r.t each other has to age actually slower or faster or equally w.r.to the other. As this Prof in video does not bring any history of acceleration then it's a symmetric problem. Whatever one guys sees for other's clock the other guy must see the same for the first one's clock. For example if one sees the oner's clock going slower then the other must see the same for the clock of the first one unless one uses the direction of motion top resolve or distinguish the two cases or break the symmetry because both guys can not age slower or faster w.r.to each other IR in other words both clocks can not go slower or faster w.r.to each other unless it's an illusion or time is illusory. My blame here is this prof is using the direction of motion of the clocks or of the two observer to break this fundamental symmetry (and hence the paradox) of SR. Most of the professors use history of acceleration to resolve this paradox but this prof is trying to do the same without invoking any acceleration.

Now coming to your explanation is also just avoiding the paradox by bringing in one more scenarios of what seems to appear with individual clock in front and the series of clocks synched in the other frame. Does it resolve the fundamental symmetry or the paradox? Nope because whatever the one of the observer seems to see about the other's clocks (both with clock in front of and w.r. to the series of synched clocks in the other frame) has to be symmetrically true vice versa for other observer about the clocks of the first one. Unless either you invoke the history acceleration or the direction of motion.

@@riraldi SO, as the prof in video resorted to the direction of motion to resolve this symmetric case of SR without or in absence of invoking the history of acceleration, You with your explanation will also need the same if at you seem to have broken the symmetry, like indeed only one guy will age faster than the other. If you do not claim to have resolved this symmetry i.e whatever one observer sees fo the clocks of one frame the other observer will also sees for the clocks of the first frame then we both are on the same page w.r.to breaking the symmetry. Provide that you are unnecessarily doing two type of comparison for each observer : one with the clock in front and the other withe series of clocks encountered. I have no objection with bringing two types assessment for each observer. My objection is that the same has to seen or seems to have been seen by other observer w.r.to the earlier one.

Atoms shrink and slow down, so anything made out of them does too.

The problem is that the explanation given doesn't really work as a regular person's explanation of what exactly is going on. It just says "this is why the math says it isn't a paradox," which can even have the undesired effect of making it all look even more esoteric and confusing. In that regard, it is pretty lacking in comparison to some other relativity videos, including some other Fermilab videos.

+Dejan A. Well, it is a matter of PERSPECTIVES. Both observers observe that their times are different as an intrinsic effect of their "displacement" in space. I do think that it is important to keep in mind that although SR makes sense mathematically, it become more understandable empirically ONLY in the light of GR. It's not that their clocks tick at slower/different rates, its more that they are traveling on different world lines in space-time.

Let me illustrate what I said in another comment about how relativity of simultaneity is the crucial feature that is ignored in this paradox. The moving clocks at 6:26, synchronous for the moving observer, are out of sync for the resting observer, which looks like this at t=0s (every number represents position and reading of clocks viewed by the resting observer, clocks at the position of the observers are in parentheses, negatives are black): 　➅　➂　🄞　❸　❻ 　Ⓞ　Ⓞ　🄞　Ⓞ　Ⓞ At t=2s (1s for the moving observer): 　　　➆　➃　⑴　➋　❺ 　➁　➁　⑵　➁　➁ Now you can check that time dilation is mutual. It is obvious for the resting observer looking at the moving clocks. To see that the resting clocks are ticking more slowly for the moving observer, simply notice that ➃ (moving) coincides with ⑵ (resting), so the moving observer sees the resting clocks ticking at half-rate. This is a depiction of the math from the video that solves the paradox and can be understood without manipulating the formulas of the Lorentz transformation.

I found this lecture indigestible, sorry to say. Remembered how Feynman once said in one of his lectures, and it gave me some comfort. Sometimes it's not the student that does not understand, it's just that the professor does not understand it either. Yet this Lorentz formulas seem to understand the twin paradox. Professor says the formulas solve the paradox. Well I still don't get it. It's confusing how one state the way about explaining the paradox. Because in this twin paradox, first it's the twin who travels around accelerating about all over, that's youthful. Then professor just throws the formulas on the table. That explains it. So now I'm looking at the formulas wondering why it's not the other twin that's youthful. I'm not very good at physics. Couldn't the professor point out certain factor in the formulas that solves this twin paradox. The youthfulness side of the equation, please.

Kasius Klej - that goes to show you didn't understand it and you have an inflated ego. Some things need effort on YOUR side to understand. And this video explained it correctly: both observers see time flow slower for the other party. That is what is happening. The flow of time is not a universal thing - it depends on the reference frame - hence the name relativity.

Have you come across any explanation video on youtube where *desynchronization* of clocks in moving frame of reference is discussed ? If not, I think this is a treasure of knowledge hidden in plain sight.

His professor was wrong and didn't comprehend the question, also he clearly knows about twin paradox already.

To bad the professor didn't make clear the distinction between special and general relativity. General relativity includes acceleration, special relativity is an inertial (constant velocity) frame of reference, no acceleration. The (non) paradox in this video is SR, no acceleration.

You got it right, the guy in this video knows there is a problem but again explains it wrong. The professor you talked to also explained it wrong. Did the same at about the same age and got from the professor at the unif in Hasselt a reference to a book that I should read. He to did not grasp time paradox not being possible. The simple truth is that when the rocket RETURNS relative time goes faster and that when the rocket goes AWAY relative time goes slower. It is the same thing as the sound frequency of a passing train with EXACTLY the same formula, Though everybody thinks it must be something different.

That is exactly how I resolve the twin paradox ; as electrical engineer, think about the Dopler shift of back/forth radio transmission. All the slow time when the rocket was flying away from earth is catching up when the rocket makes the U turn and the two twin meet again with not age difference... except the cell damage from drinking your own piss filtered with something.

@@moiquiregardevideo You misunderstand the physics. Take Don's advice and apply the Lorentz equation. One twin really does experience more years than the other, and truly is years older - his diary has more days in it - when his brother returns. Your model isn't all wrong, though. It's almost right for how the two twins SEE each other. But it's not right for how local time passes for each. What you're missing is the space dilation that goes along with time dilation. The fast twin sees himself travel a shorter distance than his stationary brother sees him travel. (That effects everything.) And they're both correct. And a third twin (triplets now) moving at a third speed would disagree with both his brothers, and he would be right too. Not just velocity, but also position. Stationary brothers at different places will measure everything their relative way (non-simulataneity), and no one is ever wrong.

Roc Ren Exactly

Pulled it out of their ass! Thats how they happened!

I hate these types of videos that try to popularize complexe concepts by using math. The ONE THIING I dont find intuitive in life is math. PLEASE use different exemples. Like you have to start where everyone can understand. You have to describe relativity but making comparisons to Newtonian physics because that is more what our intuition is like. It's a slow process. Its not gonna "click" like eureka!

@@Dislob Then it will be easy to understand, but wrong. There's no way to understand it without maths.

It can.

AMEN!

The maths behind the basic idea is actually simple. The simplicity is beautiful. A beauty that can only be expressed in one language. Math. Using words and analogies turns something beautifully simple into a complicated, confusing mess.

This confused me also. I didn't see the paradox initially. You have to look at it like the ship is stationary while the planet is moving. They say the person on the ship would see the planets clock slowing because of that. I never thought that because the ship is traveling faster than the observer on earth so it wouldn't happen. In my mind the ship would see the planets clock tick faster becsuse that is what is really taking place, but idk, lol.

The mere requirement that no frame of reference is "privileged" very strongly restricts the possible nature of the reference frame transformations. The assumption that further restricts it to Galilean transformations is the assumption that time is independent of space, or to put it another way, that the time component of the transformed time+position is independent of the original position. This is the intuitive assumption that special relativity breaks, which is why I call it the revolutionary concept of special relativity. Also, assuming you don't allow for the idea that accelerating enough would eventually make you stopped again (a pretty strange concept), then Lorentz transformations are the only other way to satisfy the first requirement I mentioned.

so to the point. Thank you.

Yes, but you've missed the point. Clocks actually 'LOSE' time, They don't just 'appear' to go slower then make the time up again. This is analogous to your 'leaning things' actually becoming permanently shorter.

What do you mean - "we each see the other's seconds as longer instead of shorter because of an odd kind of geometry" ? There's nothing "odd"? A second is longer, i.e. it takes more than a second to elapse

No, I want to see the math. I think the math is clearly explained in these videos. It makes me want to grab a pencil and play. People need to see the math on videos like this to start making the connections between those squiggly lines and how they relate to reality. It might not make sence the first time you see it, but with repeated exposure, things start to click. Just a portion of an idea here then another. That's how neuroplasticity works. "Dumbing" these videos down by eliminating the equations serves no one. There are plenty of other videos on the same topic on youtube that do just that. Sure, you can grasp the consept, but without the math, you don't understand. The math here is simple and to the point without being a full blown lecture on the subject. It fills a gap that youtube needs.

They do that to intimidate and seem superior. All of science is much simpler than these guys make it.

@@starrmusiclive Yeah that's why you have PhDs in mathematics and physics.

Daniel Starr it is actually a lot harder, this is an introduction for ignoramuses

@@olasek7972 The concepts are hard. But the way he's explaining things in this video is more convoluted than it needs to be (mostly because of notation choices, not physics). Basically there are 2 concepts in special relativity. Time dilation, and relativity of simultaneity. It "seems" paradoxical that each observer sees the other observer's clock ticking more slowly when you look at time dilation alone. But the paradox disappears when you understand that two events that are simultaneous in one frame, aren't simultaneous in the other frame.

Dont mean to bash your jokes but Im here cause Im a first year physics student and we are rambling through these things right now :D

@@jezz439 advanced math? Honestly i always felt there was a disconnect with the simple math. Understanding the theory without the math is profound in itself. Understanding the math seems to trivialize what you're mathemetizing

What he said was incorrect. Ignore this video.

It is not a dumb question...The answer is 'no'. It is relative motion regardless of direction that affects relative time. However, if acceleration/deceleration is involved it is the object undergoing acceleration/deceleration for whom time slows relative to an object with a constant speed or velocity.

I wonder is Isaac Newton would have appreciated Hallowed Be Thy Name...

now that you understand linear time can you answer questions in this clip? //kzfaq.info/get/bejne/jraaZJeL35fUZ40.html

Lol, but time doesn't even exist - how the hell can it dilate?

Are u putin really

No. You would have been more stupid than a child.

It was a good explanation you’re just a stupid kid

He explained the twin paradox in another video.

@@octavohombre2 I have checked. Its not explained.

Right, because the Lorentz transforms really just make the equations result in what we see (i.e. approaching light speed but not reaching it). Not that I'm saying they're *wrong* they just don't explain it.

Thank you for this comment.

But for people who are good with math it can be satisfying as the explanations

But for people who are good with math it can be satisfying as the explanations

I’m the opposite. The equations help me “see” things more clearly than using imprecise words. Math is an exact language for the most part and helps remove ambiguity.

Noted: Early will be late.

@@RichardWilkin Of course! It would be redundant if Tim Early arrived early.

Firstly it has nothing to do with the direction of your velocity, simply the difference in velocity. Secondly you would need a Lorentz factor of less than one. Which is impossible considering you would have to travel at a negative velocity, and sqrt of negative numbers are imaginary.

" I would be measuring my speed as distance/time and since my experience of time is slowed down, I experience my speed as being faster since I experience less time as I travel that distance? " You experience less distance as well, due to length contraction. This exactly balances the less time you experience, thus keeping the speed the same