|
|
|
|
Title: The Elegant Universe - Einstein's Relativity
Added: Jan 7, 2007
Author: eternal888B
Duration: 7:26
Description:
Einstein's General Theory of Relativity explained.
Related Videos:
Videos related to 'The Elegant Universe - Einstein's Relativity'
Channel: Howto
Tags: the elegant universe albert einstein relativity gravity newton physics astronomy space time brian green pbs
the elegant universe albert einstein relativity gravity newton physics astronomy space time brian green pbs
Youtube Comments: 4178
LeconsdAnalyse Says:
May 14, 2012 - 1/2CERN did not bother to recheck their experimental design, and wasted no time in publicizing their claims.If it were true that a moving material object exceeded speed c, then that would mean relativity is an incomplete physical theory. The belief that there must be some underlying greater all encompassing physical theory within which relativity is a special case.
LeconsdAnalyse Says:
May 14, 2012 - 2/2The first 4 dimensions of `string` theory is spacetime! But it didn`t happen!! No matter how hard they try, Einstein`s relativity triumphs again, and again, and again.
ertan sirandag Says:
May 14, 2012 - Awesome... Science leads human race to reveal the secrets of the universe. It makes human being appreciate the universe and its rules.
star1216furball Says:
May 15, 2012 - Hold ON, the speed of light is always the same speed: The speed of light. Yet, light moves the fastest in the universe. Then, he says that the "wave" of gravity flows the same speed. No, that isn't possible. Nothing other than light can reach the speed of light, right? Then how come gravity can?Also, ANOTHER question. If space time distorted to with a object's mass, won't time bend too? Sry, still a tween and my school hasn't taught me atronomy or physics ever! SRY no rude replies!
ertan sirandag Says:
May 15, 2012 - yes, time bends in complience with the density of the mass too... and concerning the speed of gravity, that is a really good question :))
theAcapellagambit Says:
May 15, 2012 - for your first question no gravity can travel at the speed of light, well gravity waves. what your saying is wrong, you can reach the speed of light just not exceed it, and by "you" i dont mean you the person, i mean that something like gravity, which is a force and thereby has no mass or energy can reach this speed. As for your second question, space and time are independent to each other but are also relative, mass affects space( causing gravity) but not time, or at least not as much
LeconsdAnalyse Says:
May 15, 2012 - 1/3Hold ON, the speed of light (in vacuum) is always c. Yet, light moves the fastest in the universe (In the denominator of the expression γ= 1/√(1-v²/c²) there is a square root, so that 1-v²/c²>0 (right?). Therefore, 1-v²/c²>0 ⇒ v²/c²<1 OR, v
LeconsdAnalyse Says:
May 15, 2012 - 2/3No, that isn't possible (YES. It is possible since gravitational waves are not waves of something tangible). Nothing other than light can reach the speed of light, right? (There are similarities between GR and EM). Then how come gravity can? (ibid)
LeconsdAnalyse Says:
May 15, 2012 - 3/3Also, ANOTHER question. If space time distorted to with a object's mass, won't time bend too? (NO. The LHS of the EFEs is a mathematical statement about the curvature of spacetime written as tensor fields, and the RHS is a mathematical statement about physical quantities like charge, energy, momentum, angular momentum, and stress forces also written as tensor fields [i.e., the components of the energy-momentum tensor]. There is no statement about time.).
star1216furball Says:
May 16, 2012 - Ok thx!
star1216furball Says:
May 16, 2012 - thanks :)
star1216furball Says:
May 16, 2012 - thanks for answering!
star1216furball Says:
May 16, 2012 - Woah thanks for the reply. I am just wondering, clearly out of curiosity, do you major science or something? I know that sounds sorta stupid and I don't understand much you maybe just be a high schooler but it sounds like u r very professional....
RiemannHypothesis2 Says:
May 20, 2012 - wait i'm confused. Let's say we have the sun. Planet's are orbiting, right? And than the sun vanishes. How do we know which direction (or what path like) the "sunless planets" will go? There's no gravity on the planet's anymore so why should they fall anywhere? IS IT LIKE ITS DONE BY FREE WILL THAN WOW THIS REALLY MAKES ME DAMN CONFUSED DOES HE GOD EXIST?
somegamer1879 Says:
May 21, 2012 - Newton's 1st law says everything will move in a straight line (OR stay still) forever unless a force acts on it. The planets would move in straight lines, but the Sun's gravity curves space and they're "pulled" inward. Imagine swinging a yo-yo above ur head in a circle, then cut the string. Which direction would the yo-yo fly? As for God existing, no one seems to be able to prove it either way right?
LeconsdAnalyse Says:
May 21, 2012 - Re: "..How do we know which direction (or what path like) the "sunless planets" will go?.."We don`t know. According to General Relativity after the Sun `vanishes` the local spacetime will be a perturbed flat spacetime creating a gravitational wave (which moves outwards with speed c). This will, in turn, perturb the tangential fly-off predicted by Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation.
deanmullen10 Says:
May 24, 2012 - What caused the existence of causality? It's a paradox. But then again if causality simply existed for no reason, that is also a paradox. Thus must we conclude that the origins of the basis of reality (i.e: laws of nature) is paradoxes. And if paradoxes are the tunnel, what is on the other end?
LeconsdAnalyse Says:
May 24, 2012 - Einstein was influenced by Maxwell`s equations. When the charge density & electric current are BOTH equal to zero, Maxwell`s equations reduce to the 3D homogeneous wave equation.In mathematics when we study the wave equation (e.g., Garabedian`s book) we learn about characteristic surfaces, and the domain of dependence & range of influence. These are NOT paradoxes.
deanmullen10 Says:
May 25, 2012 - What about the beginning of time? Time having a beginning is a paradox as there was no time before time existed and time just existing without a cause also defies causation and thus is a paradox? Where am I going wrong there?
LeconsdAnalyse Says:
May 25, 2012 - The reasons for the existence of certain things are far beyond the capabilities of the human mind. That does not make them paradoxes.
deanmullen10 Says:
May 26, 2012 - I know that but what about this one: if time had a beginning (that's a paradox) because there was no time before time to create time and if time simply existed without a cause that defies the laws of causation and thus is a paradox too. Are they both not paradoxes and thus either way a paradox lies at the beginning?
LeconsdAnalyse Says:
May 27, 2012 - How do you know that `time` had a beginning? In our day to day lives we are accustomed to performing tasks that have a well defined beginning and end. So we extrapolate our experience in our attempt to understand the large scale structure of our cosmos. That is not to say we are anywhere closer to a correct understanding. What you refer to as a paradox is really a lack of understanding. END.
deanmullen10 Says:
May 28, 2012 - Well I would have given you an answer but obviously you don't want to conceive that it is in anyway possible to understand time because you simply state "END" without hearing my response.
MnM4516 Says:
Apr 30, 2012 - They are not. That was a technical error, which has long since been resolved by CERN. They travel very close to, but not quite at, the speed of light.