Yassein, you are quite literally disproving your point in your explanation. This is how time dilation is mathematically determined, that the path of a light beam would travel different lengths for different observers. Take time to learn about SR, GR, and QM.
@yasseindahshan3556
Жыл бұрын
I don't understand what you are trying to say? This video is made to show that atomic clocks would show a similar variation in time when traveling on a plane to the ones on earth, even without the theory of special relativity and hence showing why the Hafele-Keating experiment doesn't prove special relativity and doesn't contradict that it is wrong. I wasn't very clear in my explanations I am sorry. I am not very good at making videos.
@yasseindahshan3556
Жыл бұрын
My first video is the one disproving special relativity and the explanation is all in that word document. I also wasn't able to explain it well in video but if you read the word document you should be able to understand.
@Makayla-y3l
Жыл бұрын
You are a saint kind sir. Keep up the great work educating the masses.
@massimilianodellaguzzo8571
3 жыл бұрын
I don't think time dilation is a problem. (or rather maybe it's a problem for Special Relativity, and not for me) The Lorentz transformations are represented by a system of two equations with four unknowns. These two transformations are enough: a) x_1 = gamma * (x - v * t) b) x = gamma * (x_1 + v * t_1) With gamma I obviously indicated the Lorentz factor, I do not consider the other two Lorentz transformations because they depend on a) and b) Consider the system of two equations: a) x_1 = gamma * (x - v * t) b) x = gamma * (x_1 + v * t_1) If (x = v * t) and (x_1 = - v * t_1), we get the "useless solution" : x = x_1 = t = t_1 = 0. It is therefore shown that: If a frame F_1 is in motion at speed v with uniform rectilinear motion with respect to a second frame F, then the second frame F is not in motion at speed - v with uniform rectilinear motion with respect to the frame F_1 If a frame F is in motion at speed - v with uniform rectilinear motion with respect to a second frame F_1, then the frame F_1 is not in motion at speed v with uniform rectilinear motion with respect to the frame F c) If x = v * t (x_1 = 0), then t_1 < t. (v * t = gamma * v * t_1, t_1 = t / gamma) d) If x_1 = - v * t_1 (x = 0), then t < t_1. (- v * t_1 = - gamma * v * t, t = t_1 / gamma) c) and d) are mutually exclusive! If it is true c), it is not true d) If it is true d), it is not true c) Only one of the two frames moves with uniform rectilinear motion at speed v in the other frame! If x = v * t, then: (c * t)^2 = (v * t)^2 + (c * t_1)^2 , PYTHAGORAS' THEOREM (light clock) If x_1 = - v * t_1, then: (c * t_1)^2 = (v * t_1)^2 + (c * t)^2, PYTHAGORSAS' THEOREM (light clock)
@yasseindahshan3556
3 жыл бұрын
You are using Lorentz transformation to prove time dilation. Obviously then you will prove it. But the problem here is you didn't prove that Lorentz transformations apply to time and motion In the first place. Einstein's theory is that time and motion can be explained using Lorentz transformations and hence created special relativity and time dilation. You are now using the theory to prove the theory. You are saying that time dilation is correct because if we apply Lorentz transformations we will find it is correct. But that will obviously be true since time dilation is based on Lorentz transformations. Now the problem I am stating in the video is that Lorentz transformations don't apply to time and motion. I proved by proving that by showing that the reason they think Lorentz transformation explain time dilation, contradicts the Lorentz transformations and time dilation. More specifically, "Speed of light is constant for all reference frames" contradicts time dilation and special relativity. This is shown in the video by showing that compared to two different lights going in different directions time has to dilate differently for the same object for it to see the lights moving at the same speed. This obviously is not true since there can only be one dilatation for an object because only a specific amount of time should pass for that object when 1s passes for the other object. Time dilation in itself is also proven wrong because of the twins paradox, EVEN IF LIGHT IS NOT CONSTANT FOR ALL FRAMES OF REFERENCE.
@massimilianodellaguzzo8571
3 жыл бұрын
@@yasseindahshan3556 "This is shown in the video by showing that compared to two different lights going in different directions time has to dilate differently for the same object for it to see the lights moving at the same speed" Ok, I understand you. I think the problem is related to the relativistic composition of speed: v = N / D N = v_1 + V D = 1 + ((v_1 * V) / c^2) If v_1 = c , then v = N_1 / D_1 N_1 = (c + V) * c D_1 = c + V If V is different from -c, then v = c In my opinion there is a problem if V is equal to -c
@yasseindahshan3556
3 жыл бұрын
@@massimilianodellaguzzo8571 Yes and we know that we can see light moving in different directions. So there must be a problem with light being constant for all frames of reference. That is because objects can only diliate so that one of the directions of light is moving at the speed of light. According to the formula for time dilation this light is in the direction that causes the x component of the light to be moving at the same speed as the moving object. But that still means that for any other angle of light light wouldn't have the same speed as the speed of light. So the question is why is this angle of light that has x component equal to speed of object so special. Nothing!! So why do we believe that time dilation occurs just so that this angle of light stays moving at the speed of light.
@massimilianodellaguzzo8571
3 жыл бұрын
@@yasseindahshan3556 I think that in your proof you must also take this into account: Consider two frames F and F_1 in relative motion to each other with speed v, the frames F and F_1 are coincident at the initial time. (t = t_1 = 0 s) Frame F_1 moves "to the right" (with respect to frame F) and frame F moves "to the left" (with respect to frame F_1) The point P (- d; 0) of the frame F_1 reaches the origin O of the frame F at time t = d / (gamma * v) The point Q (d; 0) of the frame F reaches the origin O_1 of the frame F_1 at time t_1 = d / (gamma * v) THIS IS THE SYMMETRY OF THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMATIONS. This is true both if the frame F_1 moves with uniform rectilinear motion at speed v in the frame F, and if the frame F moves with uniform rectilinear motion at speed - v in the frame F_1. This is true both if x = v * t and if x_1 = -v * t_1. Don't think about x = v * t, (and don't think about x_1 = - v * t_1) Do not think about either of the two uniform rectilinear motions. (otherwise the symmetry of the Lorentz Transformations breaks) Just think of two distances moving relative to each other at speed v, the two distances both have length d (in two different frames) and the two distances "overlap". In a previous post I told you that (x = v * t) and (x_1 = - v * t_1) are two "mutually exclusive" options. If we know that the frame F_1 moves with uniform rectilinear motion at speed v in the frame F, the origin O of the frame F moves in the frame F_1 at speed different from -v. (if we know that x = v * t, otherwise we cannot say anything) If we know that the frame F moves with uniform rectilinear motion at speed - v in the frame F_1, the origin O_1 of the frame F_1 moves in the frame F at speed different from v. (if we know that x_1 = - v * t_1, otherwise we cannot say anything) If we know that x = v * t, the motion of the origin O of the frame F is not represented by x_1 = - v * t_1. The motion of the origin O is represented by x_1 = - gamma * v * t_1, because the origin O reaches the point P at time t_1 = d / (gamma * v) , the two distances moving relative to each other at speed v and the two distances "overlap". Now consider a photon in vacuum moving at speed c in the frame F. (with uniform rectilinear motion) The photon starts from the origin O, to reach the point Q at time t = d / c. The motion of the origin O is represented by x_1 = - c * gamma * t_1. (in the frame of the photon, in the frame F_1) c * gamma is an apparent speed, the distance PO has moved with speed c in the frame F, and the distance OQ has moved with speed - c in the frame F_1. Let me know if these considerations can be useful to you.
@massimilianodellaguzzo8571
3 жыл бұрын
@@yasseindahshan3556 If we consider a photon moving at speed c with uniform rectilinear motion in the frame of the Earth, the problem is that t_1 = 0 (even if t = d / c) and therefore c * gamma * t_1 is an indeterminate value. (if v = c) If v is very close to c, -c * gamma * t_1 is very close to -d.
@nobigbang825
3 жыл бұрын
When Herbert Dingle (British astrophysicist) realized the irrational inconsistency of special relativity he turned from a promoter to became the most ardent critic of the theory. An unsolvable theory which cannot be falsified neither proven and yet beholden cosmology from moving and progressing an inch. The fact that A moving away from B yet both are stationary and moving at the same time relative to each other should be considered a mere mathematical trolling rather than anything else.
@relational7832
2 жыл бұрын
*"The fact that A moving away from B yet both are stationary and moving at the same time relative to each other should be considered a mere mathematical trolling rather than anything else."* Except. . . you can't escape that kind of conclusion no matter what absolute frame you make up. If I see the car moving away then from the perspective of the person in the car they will see me moving away from them. Its completely relative and no amount of scoffing will suddenly make that relative fact suddenly false. . . that is. . . without you being the one who makes the contradictory conclusion. *In that you assert* that they are moving away from each other respectively but at the same time they also. . . aren't moving away from each other. This is the case in Classical mechanics. . . in SR. . . and follows from our experiences on a daily basis. What would make such relative motion not "real" when it is obviously occurring?
@massimilianodellaguzzo8571
3 жыл бұрын
I think that (in resolving the TWIN PARADOX) there is confusion in considering the exact time dilation. I propose this solution: massimilianodellaguzzo.medium.com/the-solution-to-the-twin-paradox-3ae83ddb7be4?source=friends_link&sk=5f9463d7213b38bf98d3b90db3bd1ac0 I don't think Einstein was wrong, but anything is possible!
@yasseindahshan3556
3 жыл бұрын
Did you watch the whole video. The twins paradox is not the main problem it is just my explanation of why their explanation of the twins paradox is wrong. The main problem is at the end when compared to different angles of light different times will pass for the moving observer so that light stays constant. But only one time can actually pass.
@massimilianodellaguzzo8571
3 жыл бұрын
@@yasseindahshan3556 Yes, I have seen that the twin paradox is not the main problem, there are many of you discussing the second postulate of the theory of Relativity. For me the second postulate is right but, as I told you before, you might be right!
@yasseindahshan3556
3 жыл бұрын
I don't see how length contraction would change anything. First of all there is no way any of the objects would know who is the one who is actually moving. Secondly if length contraction contracts the moving object so that it still sees the light moving at the same speed, then no time dilation would occur since already the constant speed of light is explained by length contraction, so time dilation would only produce more error.
@massimilianodellaguzzo8571
3 жыл бұрын
@@yasseindahshan3556 The astronaut twin moves in the frame of the Earth to reach a star, he knows that the Earth-star distance in motion is smaller. (A moving distance is contracted and therefore the star arrives in less time in the frame of the astronaut twin) For me the contraction of the lengths is fundamental (if we know that one of the twins moves in the frame of the Earth and travels a certain distance) The solution of the twin paradox is however indeterminate, if the two twins both start (one to the left and the other to the right) they are both younger than the Earth. (and if the velocity module is the same they are the same age) In the frame of each of the twins the other is in motion but no one is younger, they are both the same age! To solve the paradox we need to know in which frame one of the two moves, otherwise the solution is indeterminate. (indeterminate yes, but not impossible)
@massimilianodellaguzzo8571
3 жыл бұрын
@@yasseindahshan3556 I believe that the Lorentz transformations are exact and that there is a connection between the phenomenon of length contraction and the phenomenon of time dilation. massimilianodellaguzzo.medium.com/temporal-expansion-and-the-second-transformation-of-lorentz-55e937fbd425?sk=3b3030dd3ee5a9f04ab0a8900469e04a
@kingofthegreens5450
3 жыл бұрын
Title: Learn how are yoyo tricks done for beginners Yassein Dahshan: Literally shows off like hundreds of moves that I can't do
@heftyjorts672
3 жыл бұрын
here’s something that einstein was not wrong about: hamood spelt backwards is still hamood! if you think this is wrong please correct me! big fan!
@yasseindahshan3556
3 жыл бұрын
Obviously hamood spelt backwards is still hamood. Even Einstein can have common sense sometimes 😅😅
@heftyjorts672
3 жыл бұрын
@@yasseindahshan3556 wait. i’m revoking my fan status this was pure bait anybody in the world would know what hamood really is backwards and you agreeing with me really shows the lack of knowledge you have. Where did the information from this video come from??? google 🤣 this is very laughable any intellectual person would use google scholar! if you want to prove that the information you have given us was your own intellectual property please provide the correct answer to what is hamood backwards because only people with brains would know what it really is backwards. I look forward to your correct response to be able to give you my fan status back. Thank you.
@yasseindahshan3556
3 жыл бұрын
@@heftyjorts672 No need for google or google scholar I spent all my intellectual power on this difficult question and decided it was best to test it. By arranging the letters from the end to the beginning I immediately realized that it is still hamood. Try it your self I know it is a bit of a difficult question but for sure you can figure it out. After all even Einstein was able to.🤣😂🤣😂
@yasseindahshan3556
3 жыл бұрын
@@heftyjorts672 And After you figure it out leave a like and subscribe on my video. I am trying to get more people to watch it
@heftyjorts672
3 жыл бұрын
@@yasseindahshan3556 unsubscribed. thanks for wasting my time
@cricketwithhimanshu8232
3 жыл бұрын
👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
@davidkiimcyimungofficial2917
3 жыл бұрын
wow
@kingofthegreens5450
3 жыл бұрын
Why should I know Einistien stuff when I'm 12 lol, also I prob spelt the name wrong
@yasseindahshan3556
3 жыл бұрын
It is not very difficult first of all. Second of all you will lose nothing by knowing the general idea so that you can understand it in the future.
@jacksonwhite5948
3 жыл бұрын
Can we get a yo yo trick shot video?
@yasseindahshan3556
3 жыл бұрын
Yes at some point probably 😅
@Salafiyahisthehaqq
2 жыл бұрын
@@yasseindahshan3556 and you did it! Haha
@yasseindahshan3556
3 жыл бұрын
I am going to make a continuation video soon. So stay tuned😉.
Пікірлер