@Bhavesh sinha We will talk about the different tensors yes, but not from a differential geometry point of view (we will see them as matrices)

Thank you for translating this it's a really good series

Thank you for your dedication to fulfil my intellectual appetite. Your efforts are much appreciated!

Teach me daddy :3 Can't wait for the next episodes!

@@alphalunamare Well it's the same idea as describing vectors by column matrices, you represent a geometric object by projecting it on your coordinates. I agree this is not the most elegant way to approach GR, but it's in my opinion the most efficient for beginners if you don't want to go deep in the formalisms of diff geo etc. The metric tensor is actually closely related to matrix calculus and vector algebra since it represents a quadratic form.

Ahah well spotted 😂

like that spongebob episode where he forgot his name and he panicked

Hahahahah good

Could be "forget the physical theories we learned before"

Just forget about Newtonian physics would be enough!

whenever I watch 3 Blue 1 Brown, it's just a matter of random time until I start hearing words without having any idea of what they were supposed to mean

@@ynntari2775 You should have patience. I watch them ten times until I get them.

This chanell is even better 🥰

@@omaralhafez5014 Yes, a monster has just born.

@@achyuththouta6957 that's spirit

It’s probably bs why are you so gullible

Why in the world would you think general relativity was BS? @@Vasectomyjohn

Fb: #lock3dinthesh3d

That is exacly what i had on mind to, i know i it is too early to ask for topic for another series, but when this series will be finished, good next step would be quantum mechanics or even quantum field theory, i need to understand it better. This was good worming up.😊

take a look at kzfaq.info to see what videos you can expect in the future

Let's not put pressure on the guy, not that I have any right to speak xD For now, I'd be grateful to have this series finished first

Your explanations are really the best. We all hope to learn not only the theory but also the maths behind them. Thanks for all the trouble.

The programmer in me would have been more pleased with 255.

@@RussellSubedi we don't want to start the HTML argument please lmaoo

@@mohammadelassal8079 Not the argument I had in mind, but let's not start any.

@@RussellSubedi 255 is not a round number, 256 is.

​@@stephaneduhamel7706 Well, it's the difference between 100 and FF. 100 indeed is round but FF is neat on it's own - as it is the biggest 8-bit number.

be like icebear

Ok icebear says Prateek Gupta

@@prateekgupta2408 Binod

good icebear

Icebear is happy to find more people who like quantum mechanics

A great start. Can't wait for more :)

how is it clear? It sounds like nonsense.

@@cecilmcintosh864 Up to now, ScienceClic just explains that objects travel not only in space but also in time. This travel is always present, sometimes they move more in time than in space and sometimes viceversa. Also that the time of the observer is different from the time of the object. The hard part is yet to come

@@MattiaConti I think these things are clear only if one chooses to accept them. However, i think when we use mathematics to model real phenomena we have to keep our assumptions logical in order for the model to be true. There is a philosophical element to discovering the truth to reality. It is how our theories progress toward ultimately provable realities. If you start off with the wrong logical foundation you will invariably lead to a wrong theory. I fear this is yet another case. I believe Newton's theory is more sound than Einstein's because all his assumptions are logical and provable, and although his theory may be incomplete in explaining phenomena that we do not yet understand, it is not because the logic of his theory is inadequate, but it is because the reliability of our measurements are inadequate as well as our understanding of our material world. Newton's law does not explain bending light, because we do not understand the true nature of light, but if we did it would follow Newtonian physics in my opinion. My struggle with the foundational assumptions with this theory is that we are taking a perception(time) and giving it a definite yet relative magnitude(a contradiction). When this does not exist in reality. With Newton's model, time only exists as a measurement and depends on the available equipment to measure. With general relativity it seems that we are giving time as an intrinsic magnitude to all matter. Well if that is the case then we should not be able to assume that time is intrinsically continuous. Because in the absence of matter that would suggest that time ceases to progress. And logically that should not be true if time is supposed to be a magnitude that must progress regardless of any other influence. So if time is to be used like a magnitude or a dimension of reality(rather than a measurement), it needs to have a physical explanation or causation. Otherwise we are conceptualizing the cart before the horse. Things do not happen because time is passing, but time passes because things are happening. So to assume that all matter is in motion through time continuously is to negate the reality that matter is in motion continuously and that this is the only reason there is any concept of time at all. Time is propagated by the events of the consecutive changes in matter, which is dependent entirely on the representation of matter within space. If energy states did not affect the relative position of matter within space then there would not be any time at all. Just like Einstein postulated that gravity is not a force since you cannot tell whether you are experiencing it differently on the face of the earth vs. within an accelerating box in space, you cannot tell whether time exists without matter changing position within space. And because at the quantum level we see that matter does not really move but actually vibrates on a wave pattern, time is not linear but is cyclical and actually cannot be deciphered. Since, at a certain level the positions of a particle could be equally at two different positions at the same 'time' of measurement, so the position is unknown and equivalent to not having moved which means no time is passing at all. This is why I believe this mathematical model appears to work, yet it doesn't. we will never be able to measure time in two different positions exactly the same, because we need to measure time with material devices. Space does not curve and neither does time, but the physical reality in an area densely populated with matter vs one that is sparse will have a gradient to it with regards to the experience of passing time. If you cool things down that is why you start to see some anti gravity like behavior. Though the matter is there, you start to see relatively low changes in material position relative to one another causing time to be experienced differently within that field of low temperature. I am trying to understand these things as best I can, but i simply cannot accept General relativity in its current form of explanation, and maybe that is just my limitation, or the limitation of people teaching it, but it remains the same. But i love to discuss it and hope someone can help me see what I am obviously not seeing. I am more apt to believe that the fluctuations in reality are memory based, as in the fabric of our universe is not space or time, but simply a record of information being registered as a data object, possibly a very complex tensor of information. At the quantum level this breaks down to an unknowable local, because it is in between the speed of transfer. Like when a computer program stores information the transfer rate is distinct and in between those time points the information could be any where and doesn't fully exist in a readable form. But at the poles it is either a 1 or a 0, which is eerily similar to a wave function. This fundamental limitation to the rate of transfer of information is what governs how we perceive reality. And i think there is a bandwidth to reality and the more matter that exists in a certain place the slower the rendering, which may lead to the differences in experiencing time and motion. In essence i don't think curving space has anything to do with gravitational attraction or trajectories. I think those things are functions written into this reality. Newton modeled the function, and we simply don't have a way to explain why it occurs the way it does, but his model is still the closest representation, in my opinion, to what is actually going on. There is an attraction between 'matter' registered with a magnitude of mass. I think this is still fundamentally true, and I don't believe General Relativity can replace that fundamental truth. And it may actually slow down our progress to think there is actually some mysterious fabric called space time that can be bent and manipulated.

@@cecilmcintosh864 man we are talking about a video on KZfaq ... not a universitary lesson!

@@MattiaConti I got no where else to talk about it. Just looking for new explanations of why people agree with this theory. Everyone seems to though, and I'm fine with being wrong until proven right. I just like to discuss such things when i see an opportunity.

They make money on the ads and spend it on improving the recommendations algorithm, to get more people watch stuff to make more money on ads.

@@milobem4458 "woah" - neo

Congrats on the physics degree. Do you have a BS?

@@dritemolawzbks8574 Thank you! and Yeah it's a BS. Most insanely brutal accomplishment I've done so far, especially considering my horrible math background. Do want to pursue a PhD soon, too

@@coach_tae_ No I'm an odd ball. I started out as a math and physics major during my freshman year ONLY, but I changed it, following career from my employer. I have a law degree, and work in intellectual property (patents, trademarks, and copyrights). In order to get licensed, I needed a background in STEM or relevant professional experience. My undergrad was in mathematical economics, so I met the requirements by getting a master's in engineering management and the practical experience working for in semiconductor manufacturing. I remember the requirements for a BS in Physics, so I have a lot of respect for anyone able to complete the mathematical requirements and the higher-level theoretical courses. In my case, I wanted to be an astrophysicist, but it's a very difficult subject. There's also a high demand and financial incentives for physics majors to be switch to Electrical Engineering or Engineering Physics. I didn't reach the senior-level courses but like you, I learned so much more about relativity (special and general) online from these videos and keeping my old modern physics textbooks. I'm pretty nerdy myself, so I love knowledge and even love learning more about advanced-level Newtonian Mechanics and Gravity, Lagrangian Dynamics, and Galilean Relativity. I don't see how people even attempt to understand General Relativity with mastering Newton's Principia first.

@@dritemolawzbks8574 That's wild, bro. I actually started out as an electrical engineering major and swapped INTO physics. Probably not my smartest move. I love physics which is why I did it but I'd be making good money and have my own place by now at a decent job. But there's another value in accomplishing a goal that makes you happy and surviving what I would argue to be the most difficult undergrad program out there. A BS in physics is essentially useless without anything else attached to it so that sucks. But my love is in the field so I'll have to make something work. I like to see your passion for studying it and it's people like you that I'm trying to reach out to for a website I'm in the process of making for self-learning math and physics. Hopefully to show people that it can be really enjoyable and rewarding as well as helping those already interested.

Speaking of lucid, the physics channel Science Asylum, hosted by Nick Lucid, is probably the best for learning Relativity.