no, it doesn't mean you're wrong, he said it's good in calculus, but not to evoke in physics. That's because weird shit happens in the world when you calculate with infinity. like weird weird shit.

By infinity the Energy goes to infinity but somehow mass will be dissipating into imaginary plane.

The math says the centre of a black hole should be a singularity, infinitely small with infinite density. Unfortunately we have no way of finding out if, in reality, this is right or wrong.

Newton's Law of Gravitation can go into infinity. Then General Relativity rescued it, but even that can get blown to hell in a Black Hole.

@@cjflipper weird shit, like black holes

A bit misleading: YES

The problem I see is that he is just misleading as well. Videos like this produce the misconception that energy doesn't contribute to the gravitational field.

@@johnrubensaragi4125 clickbait: YES

aDBo'Ch 1 The Speed of Light is an Absolute Universal Constant, right? What's the use of squaring the speed of light, when the result is the speed of light without squaring it? Einstein's equation isn't wrong, Einstein's most famous equation is a physical contradiction. It's pseudoscientific nonsense.

@@jasonfrome6012 Yes it can. In Vacuum. But they teach us there is no bigger speed than light, right? Therefore squaring the speed of light is nonsense. Nobody has ever measured the speed if light. In order to measure the speed of anything, you must have determined the distance between point A and point B, first of all, and after that stopwatch in how much time the object travels from A to B. If you don't know the distance between A and B first, you have nothing to be stopwatched.

Apparently we'll have superluminal velocity by last year according to Heather SandStrom :)

at 0:53

@@CPaulButler thanks 🤗

@@mb-3faze RElativity is an illuminati plot

Bellatrix Braojos is literally clickbait

No! it's not a clickbait . Special case of a theory is not considered as the theory.

Dr. Messi it’s not a special case it’s showing how it’s misused, not wrong

@@atanu7279 da fuk u meen do

@@marthagomezdeibarra1708 broken english lol

Special relativity is weird but something you can wrap your head around easily and with basic algebra. If they tried to teach you general relativity first, most people would give up and never learn even special relativity. Are you a maths genius by any chance? What you say is total nonsense or you're just trolling.

so who are you?

spelunkerd that's all you got in a few years? Wow, man, you should go to other courses, this one is not going good for you XD

P that doesn’t make sense at all. How can you jump into understanding relativistic gravity if you don’t understand how to deal with things like spacetime, velocity, acceleration, energy, etc in a relativistic context? Further, all GR is about is taking apart different spacetimes into infinitesimal flat spacetimes where you can do special relativity, and then piecing them back together.

Agreed. I'd teach set theory first and quickly progress to modeling reality at each juncture (algebra, trig, geometry, calculus, etc.) making math practical from the start. Eventually students should experience the practical need for each math ''tool'.

U still alive?

Know exactly what you mean. One lifetime isnt enough any more.

@@Yopiwastaken Idiot

@@kroneexe problem?

@@Yopiwastaken one.day u will be old if your lucky...it aint.fun. And.it.is painful unless u are in CONGRESS because they are not subject to the same laws u must.obey..u can.IMPORT drugs illegal.to use in america using.tax payer planes and money. And YES they have been.caught doing it .most.well known was.Reagan who.got.drugs.for his.dimentia just like Bejing biden.and PELOSI ARE.DOING

William Garton people should actually watch the video before commenting.

William Garton مح

Can we apply the e=(gamma)mc2 equation in order to calculate the energy released by the exploding inbox?

+fergal You should know by now that most people don't do that

@@wolfgangbuck841

Energy increases as speed increases. Mass stays constant. That’s what the γ in E = γmc² means.

_Energy_ increases with increasing speed. _Mass_ stays constant. That's what the γ in E = γmc² is telling us. A lot of people (even text book authors and lecturers!) call γm "relativistic mass" but that's very misleading.

@@rclrd1 But if the applied equation for photon is E = pc , doesnt that mean that mass is still involved? Knowing that p = mv and in that equation mass is still involve.

@@nukepacifista9188 p of a massless particle is h (plank constant) divided by wave length. Simplifying E = p*c to be E = h*f where f is frequency. I think this is true, I could be wrong, been a long time since my modern physics class. Ended up as a RN instead of a high energy physics like I dreamed of.

@@rclrd1 TIME DILATION IS FULLY EXPLAINED, AS THE ULTIMATE MATHEMATICAL UNIFICATION OF PHYSICS/PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE IS CLEARLY PROVEN: A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY; AS E=MC2 IS F=MA. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. (The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky.) Time DILATION ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, as C4 is a POINT that is ELECTROMAGNETIC/GRAVITATIONAL (ON BALANCE) as SPACE; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. E=mc2 IS F=ma. A planet AND a star thus constitute what is A POINT in the night sky. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. ACCORDINGLY, I have ALSO fully explained the MATHEMATICAL UNIFICATION of Einstein's equations and Maxwell's equations (GIVEN THE ADDITION OF A FOURTH SPATIAL DIMENSION); AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. The Sun AND the Earth are F=ma AND E=mc2. Great. SO, ultimately and truly, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. AGAIN, time DILATION ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that E=MC2 is F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Great. Indeed, this NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. (E=mc2 IS F=ma.) Therefore, INSTANTANEITY is thus FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper UNDERSTANDING of physics/physical experience; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. SO, 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. Accordingly, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. MOREOVER, a given PLANET (including WHAT IS THE EARTH) sweeps out equal areas in equal times consistent WITH/AS E=MC2, F=MA, AND what is perpetual motion; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS E=MC2 IS F=MA; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT !!! It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand. Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. E=mc2 IS F=ma. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED ELECTROMAGNETIC/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. (Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE.) E=MC2 IS F=ma. Objects fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course), AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. E=MC2 IS F=ma. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. Magnificent !!! By Frank DiMeglio

haha

Very good! Also that's a neat way to remember the equation

He was a cad

Married cousin SQUARED, meaning he married twin cousins.

So, Your Point?

I’m really thrilled to read you are serious about your studies. If you find enjoyment in physics because of the sheer content then my friend I have some great news for you although this is not physics which simplifies the world into letters and numbers and use scorpion looking formulas. The book of our lord Jesus Christ will bring you much more joy and enlightened you on the truth about how the world you live in got here.

Yeah, I’d like more of an explanation on that as well. I just assume it’s there for conservation of momentum to work.

+

Conspiracy or not, a theory that gives physical characteristics to the concept of "time"...is at least imaginative.

Not too long ago I would have thought such a proposition to be absurd, but actually, it is not far from the truth. Essentially, our whole theory of gravity is wrong, and people still venerate Einstein so much they refuse to admit it. There really is almost no evidence that supports General Relativity, and Special Relativity is provably incomplete as a theory. It is time for scientist to wake up and realize this, but academia is just stuck in its dogmatic ways more than ever before in history. Einstein himself would never have gotten his theory published in today's academia. The arrogance of modern academics just oozes from every modern academic's being. It is a really sad time for academia. It is time for a *major* revolution in how we do things in academia. That is the only solution.

Can you provide some evidence for the theory of gravity, or relativity being wrong? I don't think anyone in the right mind is going to trust a stranger on the internet with no evidence, compared to the entire world's best scientific minds.

nice way to memorise it!

@@krrishmaheshwari4860 its very easy

The Dude I agree, he is a great teacher.

@Bantham Nobilis God forbid a human being ever being wrong.

@Bantham Nobilis When he is wrong he has bunch of highly acclaimed colleagues from his work to back him up. There is a difference between watching amateur science channels and a Fermilab one.

a derivative of Schrödinger's equation is an expansion of Einstein's equation by adding the momentum component. e=(m^2*c^2)+(p^2*c^2).

SpaghettiToaster Thank you for raising this point .. very valid feedback. It should have been covered in this video.

Yes. I've been trying to work this out. He says "...momentum, which is the measure of the motion of a particle." But in Newtonian physics, momentum involves mass, not just motion. So he touches on it there, but doesn't develop it. I seem to have understood that the switch from Newtonian momentum to quantum momentum comes down to Lagrangian and Hamiltonian equations in which momentum is described without mass? No? But looking at these equations and their explanations in Wikipedia etc, I can't get it. (In my uneducated misunderstanding of these equations, it looks like mass is snuck in there as a slowing--inertial resistance--of motion.) Thought from the title there might be something helpful here, but I'll keep working on it.

Thanks because I was wondering about the momentum p. So what exactly is h? Also if momentum is not m*v then what does it denote here?

ToadInTheWoods Would not motion be associated with direction of movement, while velocity with speed? Momentum = Mass * Velocity.

light is both a wave and a particle. So, not only does it have a momentum, it also has a wavelength. We relate these two quantities using something called the de Broglie wavelength: p = h / lambda.

A constant or quantity which never changes or a fixed value the problem is with the constant value these holds true for certain conditions and to certain limits the day we come to know about how things works above these limits and conditions whole physic and mathamatics will change and problem like time travel and transportation will be solved

¹E ²= ³m ⁴c² Perhaps that is why Dr. E simplified things by saying Energy "(E)" equal mass times the speed of light squared (c²)

Even that will fail for massless objects like photons.

@@enysuntra1347 TIME DILATION ultimately proves ON BALANCE that E=MC2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. News flash ! Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy, AS E=MC2 IS F=MA. The Earth (A PLANET) is a MIDDLE DISTANCE form that is in BALANCED relation to the Sun AND the speed of light (c), AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY !!! By Frank DiMeglio

Is it also the spatial contraction observed between moving reference frames?

@@skierpage TIME DILATION IS FULLY EXPLAINED, AS THE ULTIMATE MATHEMATICAL UNIFICATION OF PHYSICS/PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE IS CLEARLY PROVEN: A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY; AS E=MC2 IS F=MA. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. (The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky.) Time DILATION ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, as C4 is a POINT that is ELECTROMAGNETIC/GRAVITATIONAL (ON BALANCE) as SPACE; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. E=mc2 IS F=ma. A planet AND a star thus constitute what is A POINT in the night sky. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. ACCORDINGLY, I have ALSO fully explained the MATHEMATICAL UNIFICATION of Einstein's equations and Maxwell's equations (GIVEN THE ADDITION OF A FOURTH SPATIAL DIMENSION); AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. The Sun AND the Earth are F=ma AND E=mc2. Great. SO, ultimately and truly, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. AGAIN, time DILATION ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that E=MC2 is F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Great. Indeed, this NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. (E=mc2 IS F=ma.) Therefore, INSTANTANEITY is thus FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper UNDERSTANDING of physics/physical experience; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. SO, 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. Accordingly, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. MOREOVER, a given PLANET (including WHAT IS THE EARTH) sweeps out equal areas in equal times consistent WITH/AS E=MC2, F=MA, AND what is perpetual motion; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS E=MC2 IS F=MA; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT !!! It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand. Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. E=mc2 IS F=ma. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED ELECTROMAGNETIC/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. (Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE.) E=MC2 IS F=ma. Objects fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course), AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. E=MC2 IS F=ma. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. Magnificent !!! By Frank DiMeglio

Not gonna read this coz it’s too long but yes whatever you said I agree

Are Photons massless?? I think.. Photons have mass but so so small that scientists could not measure it.

Even Einstein had to hire a mathematician to get his calculations and proofs checked. Your curiosity is enough to let you moving in physics

@@barbossablink2969 thanks

I'm so glad you noticed that! You are a smart cookie, because that is not a coincidence at all. In Euclidean geometry, distance is given by this: d² = x² + y ² + z² . In special relativity, there is a distance called the spacetime interval. It's not three dimensional. It's four-dimensional, and it involves a negative sign. It looks like this. s² = -ct² + x² + y ² + z². Or like this: s² = ct² - x² - y ² - z². Either is true depending on your sign convention (as long as you stick with it). It's kind of a hyperbolic geometry, rather than Euclidean. Minkowski commented that you could think of time being imaginary space or vice versa (remember that the imaginary number is the square root of -1, so the imaginary number squared is -1). Regardless, the point is there are things similar to a distance in special relativity, and they are agreed upon by every observer (just like a distance is universally agreed upon in Euclidean geometry and Newtonian physics). If you're familiar with vectors, you would know what a dot product is. Well, a vector dotted with itself gives it's own length squared, which is what we're going here, except instead of the usual dot product, it's a pseudo-dot product (usually called the Minkowski inner product). In the case of the second energy equation, that is exactly what we are looking at, just with terms rearranged. Here is the equation given: E² = (mc²)² + (pc)² But here is the equation written in terms of the Minkowski inner product: (mc²)² = E² - (pc)² So the square of the length of the energy-momentum four-vector (as it is sometimes called) is actually (mc²)². I know it feels weird to write it like that with the negative sign, but it's there for a reason related to the hyperbolic nature found a lot in special relativity. As for where that sort of hyperbolic nature comes from, he showed some of it with the gamma factor graph. The gamma factor, 1/√(1 - (v/c)², has hyperbolic behavior as v increases.

ct² should have been c²t²

@@EliteTeamKiller2.0 Wowwwe. Someone in KZfaq comments with coherent thoughts. May you go far, be rich, and get fat.

Hey dude, it is scalar. like a scale value.

Equatiom for force, remember that from high school. Mass × acceleration

That's because even if you're the smartest person in the world, no one would take you seriously if didn't look like you know what you're talking about. Humans are a visual species.

thats me!

Almost nobody who knows either equation (and that's almost nobody) understands what it means or how to apply it. Like Neil Tyson says, we need more scientific literacy.

@@harryscrotum007 Yeah, it's Newton's second law.

Exactly

yes they do I think Mr. Faraday was the guy who demonstrated that experimentally by making thin foils of some material rotate by incidenting light on it...

YES a photon is a mass less particle but can have impact to other particle such as electron and cause effect on its momentum. See compton effect.

p = E/c

Yes, it's a pure force particle (it's a boson) and it doesn't experience time, so it's massless.

Don't fall for that. Flat is justice!

Yes it's not flat, it's bulky. We have mountains. Proof finished.

Einstein's E=mc2 formula really wrong brother, it's alternate formula is Energy= m-(m÷10) one Indian scientist find it , also mathematically proved it, you can Google search by sree debasish Dasgupta Nasa , or sree debasish Dasgupta mendeley data of sree debasish Dasgupta google etc... and read his articles, specially his "A Story Of Latest Scientific Discovery" article

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣respect, follow and find the fault. It is only possible to find wrong from things if you invest your time in that. He has invested lots of time in Einstein's theory that is why he got his fault. In the same time by investing time he became a fan of Einstein.

No he wasn't trying to explain Einstein was, rather than conception that people have of the equation because many people are uneducated and stupid. You proved his point

@@Anonymous_self no, he did not find a fault. That is not what he meant with this video. He does not literally mean that E=mc^2 is wrong.

me too

Energy = mass x (speed of light x speed of light)

You are doomed!!

You must be a kid

Did you not go to school?? Tf

*medium

Dia Betus extra smalln't

you need to recalculate for tea and sucgar in shape of black cube of Saturn

Wow u need weeds

Coffee *

This is what I understand, I might be wrong though. Red shifting ---> power becomes less, but time dilates. More time X less power = same amount of energy. But I don't know how that works for photos. I mean if a photon is passing around and it is getting red shifted, what has happened to its energy? Good question though.

There is no direct relation. Redshifting is the result of different observers looking at the same electromagnetic wave. I'm relaxing in my chair while observing the wave, while you try your best to travel along with an electromagnetic wave, say. Of course you can't keep up with the speed of light, but you can move with a speed v less than c in the same direction as the wave is propagating. Relative to you the electromagnetic wave is still moving with the speed of light according to a basic postulate of Special Relativity, but its energy (as observed by you) is less than the energy I observe. For you the wave has shifted to a redder part of the spectrum, compared to my view of the wave. Conservation of energy applies to isolated physical systems, and it means that the sum of all the energy in the system does not change with time. This is a law of nature, and hence is independent of the state of (uniform) motion of the observer. In Special Relativity this is only possible if momentum is also conserved, because the energy found by one observer is a mixture of the energy and momentum found by another observer who happens to be moving uniformly relative to the first observer.

think that way, the energy of the sound of a car passing besides you changes? or just its distance relative to you?

Very, very interesting question !

What about redshift due to the expansion of the universe?

Yes! Indeed! All sciences are inexact by the very nature of "science". From a chemist / physicist.

Thinking about same problem

Absolutely - he warned against using the "relativistic mass" construct.

It's almost as if we got all this shit from him. Think about it. It's mindblowing, really.

have you been there

@@Ole_Rasmussen Actually we didn't. He was by far the main contributor for general relativity, but this isn't general relativity; it's special relativity. Special relativity is the brainchild of dozens or more physicists, with a few in particular being very important. Lorentz probably most of all, along with Poincaré, with Einstein making the key insight all his colleagues were missing that completed the theory (but it's such an important insight that within a decade or so his name became the one attached to special relativity, even though the truth of the matter is that it was a collective effort). The key insight Einstein made was the the previously figured out equations and physics weren't just "apparently true" results, or results that only applied in the rest frame of the aether, or some other special frame, but that they were simply the real, physical result of space and time being exactly what the equations said they were. Using this insight, that the results of special relativity were exactly as they appeared to be, he derived special relativity with the two main postulates we now associate with it (the speed of light is the same for all inertial observers and the principle of relativity holds for all inertial observers).

@@pibroch well relativistic mass was first proposed by him then he through it through for a couple weeks and went back on that shit if i remember right

It's manageable. \gamma is kind of a "time dilation"; you have to stop seeing velocity as length/time, but as a fundamental value given in relation to c. sqrt(1²-(v/c)²) is an absolute value that negates direction. Dr Lincoln doesn't say WHY this is so, just HOW to calculate; the real "spice" nobody understands is in this "why" part. However, in recalculating the equations, some signs seem to be unwilling to be what I want them to be...

@@enysuntra1347 ummmmm ok sure.... 😉😉😉

@@andrewstoll4548 kzfaq.info/get/bejne/fq-BaMuf0pyVfIU.html might help. Going to revisit it in the morning, too.

"don't boo me I'm right!"

if both of you and the object moving in the same direction at the same speed, object isnt moving with respect to you the observer... of course if there is such a thing that an object or you not moving? when you are not moving on earth, means you are moving/spinning and spiralling along at the galaxy/universe at the same speed as earth's speed/rotation etc... so technically both are stationary respect to eachother...

some interesting mathematical anomaly happens for objects that are just beyond our observable bubble that is ~14 billions light years, which means they are speeding away from us at the min at c speed! which makes the equation a bit weird? because v>=c? so gamma goes to infinity or negative "i" territory maybe alternative dimension appears?! maybe we will find about it in stranger things season 3 when upside down comes alive again :)

@@mytester6208 hi

The following is the perspective (likely incomplete) that I've gained looking at explanations of the equation over the last couple years. Mass and energy should be viewed as separate measurements. The mass (resistance to acceleration) of an object at rest is a measure of the total energy confined within the object. Einstein is predicting not only that confined energy resists acceleration but that it is the only thing that resists acceleration. One can view mass as an emergent property caused by confined energy. If you measure the mass of an object to be m, then mc2 is a prediction of the total amount of energy within the object. However, it does not tell you how much energy is kinetic vs potential, where the energy is located, or give any clue as to how to find it. It was only in the 1960s and ‘70s with the development of the quark theory of nucleons, QED and QCD plus techniques for solving their equations, along with the proposal of a Higgs mechanism that physicists were finally able to explain exactly where all the energy was located that Einstein predicted in 1905.

no because it is a fallacy through and through

According to Sir Thomas Beeching, "Try everything once - except folk dancing and incest".

It violates the laws of the State of Minnesoat.

mass does not increase with speed and this was what he was kinda trying to convey with this video, the formula E=mc^2 makes a conceptual error. i've already written out a full response to another comment so i will just repost it here. original comment: I thought that as speed increases that mass literally and physically increases, is this not true? not really, this is why adding the gamma into E=ymc^2 is important, when an object is at rest y=1 as the object gains energy it is gamma (y) that is increasing ( remember gamma is 1/(1-(v/c)^2)^1/2 ), since v increases y also increases. the mass does not change, however it is somewhat easier to explain to people and easier to solve physics problems if you think of it as "relativistic mass" where you group y and m together so that y*m=relativistic mass. this can help make the problem more intuitive and mathematically works, the universe does act as if the object has more mass, like for instance is something with 1 gram of mass was moving at sqrt3/2 c then its "relativistic mass" would be 2 grams, if i were to apply an impulse 100 N*s on this object, the objects velocity relative to me would change as if it had 2 grams of mass instead of one and would speed up by half of what it would if the object was at rest with a mass of 1 gram. this is because when things are going faster relative to you, you need to put more energy into them to speed them up. simply put, it's inertia has increased but its mass has not. i hope this helped

I wouldn't call it clickbait but a slight troll to get people to learn something. I have no problem with that.

@@jakethemistakeRulez positively charged troll lol

@@jakethemistakeRulez still its clickbait. People clicked this video thinking that he was talking about why it is wrong. Yet it isn't.

Since it is apparently only right in certain circumstances, and not the rest of the time, the title is valid rather than clickbait.

In Special Relativity the convention is that mass always refers to a stationary measurement relative to the object being measured. So the E in the non gamma equation always refers to the mass energy of the object - in other words the energy of the object at rest relative to the observer / measuring system.

What math?? Can u tell me..

Pythagorus Theorem.

I believe it's one of Einstein's

Minute physics

Compton Scaterring

Patricia Lauriello this is physics

Tony Le and your point is?

A rarity when one can describe such complex physical concepts in a manner understandable by grade school level minds. All college professors should be able to portray this level of understanding to students however most of them simply lazily point you to the math with very basic explanations of it instead of relating the math to physical properties in an intuitive way.

How did you comment that 6 days ago?

How could you comment 6 days ago if the video was uploaded yesterday?

Space Time Inter-dimensional Travel, "STIT".

Coincidence? I think not!

In his inertial system uploading of the comment and the video happened simultaneously. He is traveling in a very fast space-ship.

We can either know the energy to get p=E/c or find the momentum from p=h/lambda where h is planck's constant and lambda is the wavelengths of the photon. This also directly relates it to E=hv, where v is the frequency. Since c=v*lambda and c/lambda=v we get E=h*(c/lambda)=hv.

Exactly what I thought. I watch semi regularly and always enjoy his explanations and enthusiasm - and his t-shirts, too.

Because photons are not true particles. They are a small packet, so to speak, of energy. A wave manifestation of electro-magnetic force.

Photons, not protons. Photons are massless particles. Their energy comes from the process creating them, like all other particles. You might as well ask where electrons get their energy from to stand still. After all, they have mass, and therefore they have energy. Howard, photons are particles in the same way as every other elementary particle is a particle.

😂😅😆 I died a sec.

In relation to you, the person doing the measuring. If someone else was doing the measuring, and they were in a different reference frame, they'll get a different answer.

to the point of reference. that's the whole point of relativity theory.

I agree, the universe is actually split into me and everything else.

That’s the relativity part Pasca

I dont think it matters even if you were spread over 10 miles, the point is that the thing is not moving relative to you, assuming of course you are not somehow moving relative to yourself and therefore the thing being measured