Chemical X Thank you! :) But in all fairness ... kzfaq.info/get/bejne/nr1nd7pqs6-zaYE.html

+Frame of Essence he talks way too fast

Yes, no matter which frame :)

@@frameofessence yyh

@@frameofessence THE CLEAR, TOP DOWN, SIMPLE, AND BALANCED MATHEMATICAL PROOF OF THE FACT THAT E=MC2 IS F=MA: E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM ENERGY IS GRAVITY !!! Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity !!! INSTANTANEITY is thus fundamental to what is the FULL and proper UNDERSTANDING of physics/physical experience, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma IN BALANCE; AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. THE SUN AND what is THE EARTH/ground are E=MC2 AND F=ma IN BALANCE. TIME DILATION ultimately proves ON BALANCE that E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. (The sky is blue, AND THE EARTH is ALSO BLUE. CAREFULLY consider what is THE EYE.) Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity !!! (THEREFORE, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution.) "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity !!! Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. ("Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. E=MC2 IS F=ma. Carefully consider what is THE EYE.) Objects (AND what is the FALLING MAN) fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course), AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Again, carefully consider that the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky !!! (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.) It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. SO, carefully consider what are the ORANGE SUN AND the fully illuminated and setting MOON ! Both are the size of THE EYE. Think LAVA !!! The Moon is ALSO BLUE on balance. Therefore, E=MC2 IS F=ma IN BALANCE !! It all CLEARLY makes perfect sense !!! Carefully consider THE MAN who IS standing on what is THE EARTH/ground !!! Great !!! E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE !!!! By Frank DiMeglio

Bahadır Onur Güdürü I'm later 😂

I heard this very often in my childhood, too. I think most people exaggerate because they have so much respect for SRT/ART and Einsteins achievements but relativity can be studied like any other physical theory it's just harder because it is not very intuitive and you need tensor calculus to do the maths. Nowadays we got thousands of physicists that certainly understand relativity and what it means for the universe but of course one can question at what point do you have really understand it in its entirety? As most theories you can study relativity your entire life and you'll always find new problems or connections to other fields of physics. But if you study relativity and do research on that topic for some years you'll certainly grasp what it means for the universe sooner or later. It's hard but you don't need to be a super genius to really understand it.

Neomadra Thank you, that is what I thought, but wasn't sure. I love cosmology and astronomy, but don't pretend to understand some of it, especially the math, lol. I read some published articles, but prefer more layman-friendly works like Cosmos(the book by Carl Sagan, especially). Thanks again for the informative reply :)

munstrumridcully The claim that only a handful of people understand relativity goes back to a statement made by a scientist (I think it was Eddington) during Einstein's time, and I think it was at about the time he introduced _general_ relativity, where the math is hard enough that even Einstein struggled with it. Einstein's name was new to the public then, and he had come up with so many breakthroughs in 1905 (special rel, photoelectric effect) that when he added gen rel (1915-20) I think it left other scientists feeling a bit dizzy (they were also trying to make sense of the strange new quantum physics then too). So it was easy for that idea- that Einstein's ideas were vastly beyond normal people- to take root then. I was shocked when I found out how easy the basic time-length dilation part of SR is. There's no reason it couldn't be taught in high-school physics.

Thank you!

+ching clint well 110 000 tonnes of TNT represent 10e21 J or 10 ZJ in its mass (this Z before the J stands for Zetta... i had to look for it on wikipedia ^^). But "only" 460 TJ in chemical energy. (according to the definition of a tonne of TNT which is equal to 4.184GJ) Sooo: 110 000 tonnes of actual TNT represents 2.363Tt of TNT "in its mass" O.o Which also means that it only uses 0.0000047% of its full unleashed potential of anihilation of the death. (this is 4.7e-6% btw ^^) yeah +BathMaster 2000 it might be tough.

Haha me neither XD

it has to be done -.-' and it was fun to do! ^^ you are both very welcome ;p

...so 110,000 tons of TNT would have the energy of an explosion of 2,340,425,500,000 tons of TNT XD

Yes. I think. Assuming I understand antimatter correctly. Of course, that would also require that said pencil be very rapidly and thoroughly brought into contact with regular matter, which could be difficult as the massive energy release upon contact may push away other regular matter preventing such a rapid combination of the two matters, meaning that it would react perhaps too slowly to be quite like a nuke. Of course, this is pure speculation from someone who only knows about antimatter from sources such as minutephysics.

Significantly MORE powerfully than a nuke.

Well, I don't think you would notice it, because of 2 factors. One: The pencils are gone and Two: You would die instantly by a gamma ray burst in your room. But our eyes do not see gamma rays, so, no I don't think you would notice. The room could survive, depending on the stuff your room was made of. If the walls absorbs gamma rays, it probably would evaporate or burn down. If it is made of glass, nothing would happen to the room, I think. Except that there would be a bit of ash in the room that was your body.

keep in mind that an antimatter pencil would annihilate a matter pencil, resulting in the full release of energy from TWO pencils.

Give that pencil to your teacher... Oh wait, you can't touch it either.

+Cihan Barnett haha yeah, the math went by a little too fast in this one. I'll probably slow it down in future videos.

+Frame of Essence Most videos don't explain the math behind SR. After watching so many explanations of the effects I am still unable to read Einstein's paper and understand past the fourth page. The math notation seems quite foreign but with some appropriate derivations it might make more sense.

+Cihan Barnett Noticed the same thing, but the youtube has a setting you can set the video speed to .5x

It's on my video idea list, so I might get to it some day. :)

Thanks! The 2 people would still detect each other moving slower than the speed of light. From the perspective of person A, person B and their ship have been time-dilated and length-contracted, so their relative speed is less than what you would expect (c). I like to think of it as the speed being "dampened" by the effects of special relativity.

@@frameofessence THE FULL, BALANCED, THEORETICAL, EXTENSIVE, AND REAL MEANING AND DERIVATION OF E=MC2 AND F=MA IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity: In carefully considering what is THE EARTH/ground, what is THE SUN, AND the fact that the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky, we know that E=MC2 is CLEARLY and necessarily proven to be F=ma IN BALANCE; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity !!! (Gravity is ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy.) Consider what is the speed of light (c) ON BALANCE. Great. Now, very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. Think. BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand !!! It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. E=MC2 is CLEARLY AND necessarily proven to be F=ma ON BALANCE, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity !!! Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; as E=MC2 is CLEARLY and necessarily F=ma IN BALANCE. Great !!! By Frank DiMeglio

+heaven eyes Take the derivative of p=gamma*m*v with respect to v. You need to expand gamma to 1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) .

There are two types of mass : Inertial and Gravitational. What you said is true for gravitational mass. However inertial mass does gain relativistic mass if it starts moving w.r.t. the observer.

The variable m_0 implies that the object can be in a state of rest. Since light cannot do this in special relativity, m_0 isn't defined and p=gamma*m_0*v doesn't apply in this case. Light's momentum needs to be derived in some other way.

If I sound stupid it is because I am only in 6th grade not a physicist

+Gavin Brown When you react oxygen and gasoline, the products actually weigh slightly less than the reactants. That lost mass went into the energy being released by the reaction. Though, this loss in mass is so small, that chemists often ignore it and say that mass was conserved.

+Frame of Essence that makes a lot more sense thank you

no problem :)

Good point. I didn't realize that.

@@frameofessence honestly I thinl they teach special relativity wrong even in uni a lot of times. Still great video!

Thanks!

When the rocket is at rest, the potential energy in the fuel is manifested as some mass. When the fuel is used up, that energy is now the kinetic energy of the rocket and propellant, manifested as the same mass as before, at least in the observer's frame of reference. The system as a whole never gets heavier, the energy just changes forms. It's kind of like the example in the video with the two rocks splitting apart, where one rock is the rocket and the other rock is the propellant.

Right, but you'll hear of objects getting "infinitely heavy" as they approach lightspeed. Where is this mass coming from? Surely to not violate energy conservation, they would need that energy in the first place, so it wouldn't make sense to say that they were "getting heavier".

The mass comes from outside of the system. A system can gain energy if you push it via an external force. This adds energy to the system, which increases its mass. So if you push an object "until" it reaches light speed, you would have added an infinite amount of energy to the system, so it will be infinitely heavy. An isolated system can't do this on its own, because it would need to create energy as you mentioned.

So a rocket can't "gain mass" by accelerating.

By itself? No.

Seamless Robe Yeah, that's muuuch easier.

Complicated!

Louie Lam I'll keep that in mind. Thanks :)

I hope you didn't learn sr from this.

+Mathias Plans It would be cool if fat people could do kamehame to lose weight.

+Mathias Plans and vice versa! could we create (build up) something out of energy??

Yeah, that's what things like the large hadron collider do all the time.

walliulla3

White stick figure is you, yellow stick figure is friend. The hit rock goes north east if it was initially traveling east and was then hit with a northward force. The rock did go directly north for the white stick figure. The split view shows two locations of a single perspective, not 2 perspectives at once.

thanks i got it.

@rent a shill r/whoooosh

monev I know... ('~') I plan to prepare a purchase for a pop filter. Thanks for watching!