Відео

are you there now????please post new vidoes

In 2024 was written the first ever peer review for Einstein's theory of relativity. Einstein did not pass it. The author of the review is Dmitry Bonch. After reading the review I see all the mistakes in your videos on the relativity. I recommend you to make new videos.

Sub atomic particles have DEFINITELY got variables/coding embedded in them. Just one example: how does a spider know how to spin a web? They don't attend classes. They just know.

Brilliant, thanks for explaining in detail.

Another possibility is that the probabilities aren't really a coin toss.

I understand the maths but not the phys

Splendid video!! Never saw such a clear and concise derivation in my life!

Does the order of the polarizers matter?

The reason given at 14:20 to take out the term (du/dv)T=const , is not valid. gas internal energy only depends on T, only when there is no work (constant volume process). Here when we talk about a general process, that argument cannot be valid anymore! Would you please clarify it?

Excellent lecture, but why does the electron wave around the proton have to be a standing wave?

At the end, you say the experimental result gives the same result "greater than 1/4 of the time". I think you must have intended to say simply "1/4 of the time". Because otherwise, your statement would not make much sense. Is that what you intended to say?

This is all well and good but what is a 'Margate'??? 😁 Sorry about that but I did want to thank you because, as old as this video is, it is still one of the best explanations of this subject I've seen (and I studied computer systems engineering in the 90's).

protons, much like everything else, cannot be monopolar. They do not have a positive magnetic charge, they have a magnetic charge that is on average positive. But there is a north and south to it's charge, it is not universally positive. For exactly the same reasons not all electrons are negatively charged, although they may be on average negatively charged. The negative and positive of the charge only comes up for the field and not the individual hadrons/leptons.

you can't go through 2 & 3 if they are at 90 degrees.

British accents should be forbidden in youtube videos. No matter how stupid the ideas are, if they are told in a British accent, people will believe.

The equation scale coefficient a(t) shouldn't be just a*t**{2/3}. It should be a*t**{2/3} + constant. The constant is undetermined and due to the prior phase (energy dominated). That constant is not defined because there isn't any estimate of how hot the universe was (infinitely hot, infinite mass, infinitely small volume). So, our Dr. is faking this presentation...:) based on a Fake Model.

the calculation of the time of last scattering is using 13.8E9 years, would result in 466,000 instead of 380,000...:)

c*t**{2/3) has no asymptotic limit...:) It is a crappy model.

Of course, explaining everything without Dark Matter and Dark Energy will cause problems with some of the billion dollars grants (that is the cost of a satellite telescope)... On the bright side, mapping hydrogen gas distribution and discovering it is uniform will be an achievement since that is what we saw in the CMB...:)

This is theoretical malpractice. I derived the laws of nature from first principles and showed that the Absolute Luminosity of type 1a Supernova has a G^{-3.33} dependence. This means that far away SN1a are intrinsically weaker than closer ones. This produces the absurd photometric distances "observed" using the Stellar Candles Hypothesis. With that simple explanation and the Lightspeed Expanding Hyperspherical Universe topology, I could fit the SN1a data with just two parameters. The other parameter is the 4D radius of the Universe (14.04 billion light years)., resulting in a universe that is 14.04 billion years old. The Hubble Constant is 69.69 km/(s.Mpc). The Surface of Last Scattering is 11.1 million years or a 4D radius of 11.1 million light-years. According to Occam's Razor, a simpler model is a better model. I explained that to Dr. Adam Riess, but he didn't bother to reply. So, what are scientists doing that they cannot reply to scientific results just because they come from someone in the PUBLIC...:)

🎉 amazing..excellent information with easy..thank you sir 🙏

Brilliant visual explanation

11:10

Thank you for the physics lectures which are hugely beneficial for me. I need one clarification. Just before discussing big bang, you showed a reaction that involves fusion of a deuterium with a tritium producing helium 4 , a neutron and 17.6 mev of energy. Subsequently, you discussed fusion of two tritium atoms producing helium 4 , two protons and 18.4 mev of energy. My question is 1. Are both these reactions occurring simultaneously in the sun? If not why not? And if yes, which one is more predominant and why.

Thank you so much Sir DrPhysicsA ❤

Me in 9th grade from india learning this to build the anywhere door. I will make it, just you wait and see. And thank you very much for this

Very pedagogical, thank you

Legend watching 2024

2024 may28.

You could have mentioned that the theta angle is also obtained from the vertex of the two right-angled triangles where the star is located, the distant point, in practical terms it would be more enlightening than pointing out the theta angle projecting from the vertex of the earth (90 - theta). They are equivalent, but you could have considered this detail, because in practical measurement, the theta angle will appear from the vertex where the star is.

❤

Watched this video a half dozen times over the last few years and I still don’t get it, but I’m coming along! Definitely the best explanation around.

thank you got my alevel physics tomorrow

Thanks alot now i got to know the concept on logic gates

Hi, I understand completly these operations and concepts. However, what I seem not to find/understand is how can I calculate the Young's Modulus if my input data has many times given Tensile Strength values and Tensile Elongation (in %) Would these "Strangth and Elongation" be considered "Stress" and "Strain" respectively? I am confused and don't know if i am doing it right.

Absolutely crystal! Thanks Dr P for clearing my headache🙏

5:50 How does that "lead to the conclusion that mass bends Spacetime"??

Brilliant ❤❤

I am a high school physics teacher and I have listened to a lot of UA-camrs derive Maxwells equations and you have done imho the best job that a high school student can understand

33:21

A beautiful of physics

Here is the explanation for galaxy rotation curves/dark matter SHORT VERSION - General Relativity predicts dilation, not singularities. Mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer. Dilation will occur wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass including the centers of very high mass stars and the centers of the overwhelming majority of galaxy centers. The mass at the center of our own galaxy is dilated, in other words that mass is all around us. LONG VERSION - Einstein is known to have repeatedly said that singularities are not possible. In the 1939 journal "Annals of Mathematics" he wrote - "The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the Schwarzchild singularities (Schwarzchild was the first to raise the issue of G.R predicting singularites) do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters (star clusters) whose particles move along circular paths it does seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that more general cases will have analogous results. The Schwarzchild singularities do not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light." He was referring to the phenomenon of dilation (sometimes called gamma or y) mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer. It's the phenomenon behind the phrase "mass becomes infinite at the speed of light". Time dilation is just one aspect of dilation, it's not just time that gets dilated. A graph illustrates its squared nature, dilation increases at an exponential rate the closer you get to the speed of light. Dilation is the original and correct explanation for why we cannot see light from the galactic center. Dilation will occur wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass because high mass means high momentum. There is no singularity at the center of our galaxy. It can be inferred mathematically that dilation is occurring there. This means that there is no valid XYZ coordinate that we can attribute to it, you can't point your finger at something that is smeared through spacetime. More precisely, everywhere you point is equally valid. The "missing mass" needed to explain galaxy rotation curves is dilated mass. Dilation does not occur in galaxies with low mass centers because they do not have enough mass to achieve relativistic velocities. It has recently been confirmed in 6 very low mass galaxies to have no dark matter, in other words they have normal/predictable star rotation rates. This also explains why all planets and all binary stars have normal rotation rates, not 3 times normal. There was clarity in astronomy before television and movies popularized singularities beginning in the 1960's. The concept of singularities was not taught in schools prior to 1960. Nobody believed in them when Einstein was alive including Planck, Bohr, Schrodinger, Dirac, Heisenberg, Feynman etc.

thanks sir

I got lost with the 8 combinations. There should be 9: Alice takes polarizer 1 and Bob takes the same or nr 2 or nr 3, which makes 3 combinations; then Alice takes polarizer 2 and Bob takes nr1 or nr2 or nr3, which makes again 3 combinations; Alice takes polarizer 3 and Bob takes nr1 or nr2 or nr3, which makes again 3 combinations. The whole makes 9.

Thank you. After all this time, I just understand now about CMBR. And more clear about what red shift means. It was always over my head how we can detect "light" from shortly after the Big Bang. I thought the photon was already far far gone. Somehow I always forgot that light is also a wave and in some sense, the leftover glow is still with us now and will never go away, though weaker and weaker and one day we won;t be able to detect it. It's funny that I found this video after I watched flat earther's claim that mentioned Olbers' Paradox.

❤

Sir, I have seen videos that proclaim that gravity is not a force and this is according to Einstein. Hence your assertion is conflicting.

What a mess

Wait they teach Feynman diagrams in UK schools? 😳

can these vids be used for OCR ?