Physics 10 – Lecture 23: Relativity II
October 6, 2010 by Actaphysica
Filed under Archive
Physics 10: Physics for Future Presidents. Spring 2006. Professor Richard A. Muller. The most interesting and important topics in physics, stressing conceptual understanding rather than math, with applications to current events. Topics covered may vary and may include energy and conservation, radioactivity, nuclear physics, the Theory of Relativity, lasers, explosions, earthquakes, superconductors, and quantum physics. [courses] [physics10] [spring2006] Credits: lecturer:Richard A. Muller, producer:Educational Technology Services
Video Rating: 4 / 5
![The Dark Matter & Dark Energy [1/5]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/rLmcbjLVPKc/default.jpg)
Einstein is a genius.
[Reply]
I love lectures.
[Reply]
Relativity is truly beautiful
[Reply]
Nikola Tesla made earthquakes in Alaska from Colorado Springs in 1899. Throughout his life he had many accomplished discoveries and incredible inventions in electrical
engineering, but this one event that took place on three different days changed not only the map but ALL ELSE along with it. After one hundred and eleven years with the
dawn of two new centuries,
[Reply]
I announce an achievement which will amaze your entire universe, and which eclipses the wildest dream of the most visionary scientist. It was
so good he made you the entire world look the other way, WHAT’S THAT OVER THERE! NOT THE GROUND THATS WAVING BUT THOSE MARTIANS UP IN THE SKY THE
MARTIAN ONES YOU KNOW ONLY NOW DO NOT EXIST.
[Reply]
Communication, he asserted, from out the great void of space: a call from the inhabitants of Mars, or Venus
knowing full well he would be ridiculed but CONFIDENT and CONTENT in the fact that he had just made the GREATEST and MOST DANGEROUS discovery of time divine.
The magnificence of the three, the six and the nine… of September in 1899.
[Reply]
Also, if there is no force but we imagine the particle going into the hole anyways, and as stated the particle doesn’t “steer”, it should normally keep going along the line it entered the hole and get out of the hole along the same line, I don’t see any reason why a particle should deviate from that line. That line can be distorted but it recover its shape after the hole so so should the particle trajectory too…
[Reply]
I don’t like the analogy about the distorted gum table because supposedly no force is needed for the particle to change its course near a source of energy/mass but in this example what really changes the course of the particle is still the gravity… no gravity in the table’s classroom, no attraction, the particle would just never enter the hole and keep going horizontally in a straight line (fly above hole), so really not a good example IMO cause it doesn’t help picturing gravity without force.
[Reply]
amazingly good, I want more…
btw if no measurement can tell the elevators apart, it means that the acceleration on the rocket elevator is lower in the top and higher in the bottom (as gravity acceleration decreases with distance)… How is that possible, in my understanding, acceleration in a rocket should be equal everywhere and if not: how?
also, I guess the fact that earth spins doesn’t change my question…
[Reply]
@lobo25usn During the big bang, we, as meaning us as we measure time now O.K., were not born yet. Float or stay stationary as we should then, meaning we do have elements and e’s and so on. We are not sped up or slowed down. That’s why a lot of experiments are done in space. Not on Earth because a lot of debris in there unlike space. That’s were the .00000001 comes into play. The rocket ship is acting as it shall. With elements we don’t have. Constant. Unviersal.
[Reply]
fuck off………………..
[Reply]
41:35 Well, for that to be accurate the earth would have to be at constant acceleration of 10m/sec2, well, we are not, we are at a constant speed but not acceleration, The so call rocket ship can only cause the G effect while accelerating at the named speed, as soon as the rocket slows it’s acceleration everything start to “float inside of it” and that’s a fact.
Fancy but incorrect interpretation of relativity.
Any one care to elaborate
[Reply]
not literally, comparatively we can prove einsteins gr of relativity but not yet can we legitimately prove darwin right .
[Reply]
No, seriously… What holes?
[Reply]
haha
[Reply]
Huh? What holes have I not seen?
[Reply]
ahahah
[Reply]
i don’t know i understand it, I know what einstein was trying to imply one thing he’s saying is the speed of light is the universal “speed limit” in the galaxy since nothing is the speed of light because it would take an infinite amount of energy to travel that speed also it would not be able to stop at the speed of light G.R is an extremely hard concept to grasp most of the physicists of einsteins time did not have a clue what he was talking about but evolution(darwins) has too many holes in it
[Reply]
“it’s a theory like all physics is just a theory”…
[Reply]
1:04:30-ish… Yes, Uranium-235 is fissile.
I love correcting teachers! XD
[Reply]
Well…
G.R. isn’t really expressed: “R=GE”.
I would’ve expressed it like:
G_μν+Λg_μν=8πG/c^4 T_μν
But that’s because I’m going to become a physicist, not a puny president!
I don’t know, however, how the energy of rotation turns into energy in the form of waves. – Grav.waves aren’t really that experimentally confirmed yet, wait for LISA! She’ll help us out in 2011!
[Reply]
Its not about belief, its about the amount of peer-reviewed articles supporting it and how much criticism it has survived.
If anyone knows how to check this, I’d be pleased – if you checked it, that is…
[Reply]
Eeeh… A quote from 0:10:35-ish:
“G.R. is probably more established than evolution”…
I would disagree. We pretty much KNOW that creatures have evolved and are evolving, whilst many scientists (including Mordechai Milgrom, Vera Rubin and Jacob Bekenstein) think that G.R. needs to be modified to explain the speed of outer stars (sigma) in rotating galaxies.
Anyone else have thoughts on this?
[Reply]
“just a theory” I hate that term. It’s the perpetual cry of the ignorant. Anyone who asks of some scientific theory: “is it just a theory”, has proven to have a basic misunderstanding of what science is. Maybe our elementary or junior high schools need to have an essay test that is mandatory pass in order to pass the generic science course with one question: in science, what do we mean by theory?
[Reply]
if R=GE
Then wouldn’t that rule out Gravity waves? If you had a Sun, and it went supernova and it’s mass changes, the energy would not change quickly enough to detect a gravity wave unless the energy was able to displace in a way to form a gravity wave.
[Reply]