In the formula F=ma, a has a time variable which means F = 0 when time = 0 and Force can not be calculated unless you provide time duration. The parameter a Acceleration is due to the Gravity and Gravity has a set vector / direction, 0 to 180 degree, in other words there is NO Acceleration if there is NO Gravity, and in Gravity direction and Time needed. Force is 0 (zero) unless you give a non zero time. This is what scientists have been hiding and the space time scam is to explain a flawed formula using the gang leader einstein. E=mc2 is also False since you can change the constant 2 to 3 or any other number, it has no effect because E has no Unit. Also all the formulas mentioned as the successor to E=mc2, has the Time variable with the value 0 (zero) which makes all the calculated Forces, Energies and Vectors Zero. Additionally einstein never wrote and published any of these formulas and no other scientist wanted to claim Fallacy.

Òòòòòò ll òo 2:40 😮go gl4r6

Would Ri consider a series of videos with Michio Kaku with the Ri giving him a series of topics to discuss without interruption or others on stage just him by himself..

​@ShonMardani maybe this is why Einstein never got the Nobel for his Relativity😢

Einstein was an bad actor who had relations with both of his cousins, hence his equation... Einstein = Married Cousins x2 .

Mesmerized, Wow

Veritasium on youtube is fantastic. Math and physics. Outstanding

God bless him

I had a really good math/physics teacher in high school. Then I studied at the Royal Institute of Technology and he went there too to do his PhD.

If you ever find yourself saying "made advanced physics accessible to the masses", you're working with an inaccurate definition of either "advanced physics" or "masses".

@@davidhand9721 I'd like to know what's wrong with my comment as English is not my first language. General Relativity (and the whole series called "The Biggest Ideas in the Universe" by Sean Carroll) is not exactly basic physics, that's why I used the word "advanced". By "masses" I mean ordinary people, those who don't have a high degree of education in physics, or any other field of science for that matter.

@@candidobertetti27 Then you just need to define accessible :-)

I understand the comment and maybe could be better expressed by "comprehensible by the average individual"

@@ImrePolik My bad then, I thought my comment was clear. By "accessible" I mean, as explained in another user's comment, that he made understandable to the average people essential points at the foundations of certain theories. In the series of videos by Sean Carroll that I mentioned earlier, he covers topics that, until now, only a student of a master's degree in Physics would hear about. For instance, he talks about field quantization, renormalization, the work of Kenneth Wilson, as well as symmetry groups, general relativity and so on. But he goes beyond words and provides heuristic, yet correct, mathematical descriptions. The main prerequisite to understand the level of those lectures is basically high school mathematics. In my opinion, this work deserves more media attention because these are very specific topics that rarely find a place in popular science.

I had a head injury at the age of 10. So the side effects dropped me from the top of the class, to the bottom, and eventually had me dropping out of school altogether. Teachers basically thought of me as the dumbest person in the class, due to me now having difficulty retaining long term memories. However, despite me having no physics education what so ever, I still managed to independently discover the special relativity phenomena, and how this phenomena is created, along with deriving the special relativity mathematical equations at the same time. Have a look at how I did it, if interested. Anyhow, never let brain injuries hold you back.

It's all bs... maybe you are a zombie and don't realize it.

@@kwimms meaning?

@@thomasdaniel100 he's an asshole, ignore him and always believe that you will make a comeback. Sometimes as they say reality is stranger than fiction

Keep up the good work. The brain is always working to overcome injuries. Be vigilant, and your brain will respond

Read QED by Richard Feynman and watch his lectures and videos. The video Fun to Imagine is great.

@@JRush374 Totally agree, it’s a great book and you really have to concentrate - well I did! Feynman is a hero of mine and I think I have all his books. I remember the BBC Horizon documentary when it came out and have a VHS copy somewhere. But thanks to UKposts anyone can see this extraordinary man talk about jiggling atoms and flowers.

I agree totally too. I'm not daft or particularly intelligent.. I can think like this now too, appreciate possibly more than understand incredibly brighter minds more than ours. I wonder how many possible, probable almost genius minds have been missed, shunned or ignored at schools? Young men especially, develop and mature intelligently years after Girls...

Actually I totally agree with you being an old person, very old person.

Wow!!!👍 Thank you!!!

This is great to hear! And a huge thank you to you for joining our UKposts channel membership and supporting science 😀

Thanks so much for joining as a member! We're very glad you liked Sean's latest video, he's definitely one of the best when it comes to explaining scientific concepts.

Agree. I wish my college professors would have spent a bit more time on the history of science as well, rather than endless formulas. It (1) would have helped put things in perspective / allowed me to connect the dots better and (2) I would have realized that certain concepts didn't just pop up one day in someone's super-smart brain, but literally took centuries to be developed / discovered.

There’s a certain similarity between Sean Carroll and James woods. James woods has a 180 iq (or so the internet says) and I would bet Sean Carroll is near that . He’s great at illustrating his point on complex subjects in a simple and understandable way.

I agree. He's great. Fantastic communicator and such a nice guy with a sense of humour. Pity he's wrong about quite a lot! For example, his Many Worlds Interpretation is complete nonsense.

​@@MI-qj6xrJames Woods definitely does not have an IQ of 180 (at least not in any meaningful sense). This for a multitude of reasons. Mainly because no well established IQ tests have any reliability in that range and a score that high on a typical IQ test (which are unreliable outside 2 standard deviations of the mean, i.e. outside 70-130) is basically meaningless. Part of the same rumors was that he was a member of MENSA, or that MENSA was the source of this oft quoted score, something that MENSA quickly denied (they were also stonewalled by Woods and his publicist when they tried to reach them about the rumors, since some sources implied that Woods himself might be the original source of the claims). He did supposedly score very high on his SAT, but his score was not on par with the 1 in 20 million that an IQ of 180 is (I couldn't verify his SAT score either, but it's a far less extreme claim and the guy did supposedly get into MIT based on his SAT and I couldn't find any repudiation of this from MIT). Basically, nobody seems to know where the 180 figure really comes from (and it's often quoted as 184 or 160 as well). It seems to have started as tabloids, gossip bloggers, and clickbait sites bouncing the rumor back and forth, though the rumor also seems to have had a resurgence in right-wing media in the last couple of years. The guy might at some point in time have taken a test that gave him a score of 180, but so did most everyone who has access to the web in the early 2000s. I remember that I scored over 200 on some of those ridiculous tests floating around the web back then. Another popular claim is that Woods has an IQ higher than Leonardo Da Vinci, and this one might actually be true. However, this is not really a meaningful claim either. If we extrapolate the Flynn effect that far back, a lot of us probably have an IQ higher than Leonardo, maybe most of us. And even if we ignore the Flynn effect, there is basically no reliable way to estimate the IQ of someone living that far back. And since we do know that the Flynn effect is at least true in the last century and thus that IQ scores change significantly over time, someone living that far back can't be meaningfully compared with someone living today. Don't get me wrong, the guy might be super smart. There's just no reason to believe any specific claims that high unless there is very strong evidence from a reputable source.

Maybe on your words but 99.99% of us did not understand ANYTHING he said ... Most of us were just amazed any human could dream this up...

One of the best liars in Science.

The step that follows is teaching the basics of relativity and quantum mechanics to 10 year olds. And start teaching the accompanying maths at about 14yo, when there's a little algebra and geometry knowledge. Maybe :) And maybe that's not for all children, but my youngest nephew of 10yo loves it and has a very quick understanding of complex abstract physics because of his intuitive and creative mind that has no problems with thinking of spacetime as four dimensional curving geometry or how probability would lead to a particle to potentially end up on the other side of a barrier. He just sees the barrier as a wall that holds back part of the probability wave as it would a water wave, but if the wall is thin enough some of it might leak through, especially if you consider that most of the wall is empty space. But the point is that children can understand a lot more than we think they can. I'm guessing that we think that they can't because the maths is difficult and we're usually taught such things when we can understand the accompanying equations and maths, but that's entirely unnecessary for the basics of physics. You can easily show a relation between push and acceleration without making a child calculate it. If you push harder, there's a larger acceleration. A child can see that easily. We don't have to know the exact ratio to understand the principle.

And so profoundly desperately needed!!!

He is, hands down, one of my favorite presenters. He can make a droll topic interesting.

Indeed. On the enterprise in engineering they turned knobs =ing the short hand way to communicate to the computer the shorthand of what to do; as the computer could read the equation showing also people who built it knew from us today that Eventually, man did figured how to be as smart as the equation itself :)

You're wright. A well deserved 'excellent too' second is the one on quantum fields. Try it.

That happened to me almost 10 years ago when I finally figured out what the symbols of differential equations meant. remember solving the same physics problems again and again in that summer at the beach struggling with all the d's and coming up with my own boundary condition problems. Up until then I was performing terrible at math courses. Then, it finally clicked. From that moment I fell in love with math again.

A bit too simple.. He forgot to explain why the theory, like all Einsteins theories are nonsensical. He forgot to mention that little gem.

@@everythingisalllies2141 A "little gem" that only science deniers could say, which he's not.

@@candidobertetti27 I'm not "denying science", that is real science, I'm calling out liars who spread nonsense dressed up as science.

@@everythingisalllies2141 Yeah, because of course you know better than Einstein.

@@candidobertetti27 I don't need to be "better" than Einstein or anyone else, I only need to examine his claims in his hypothesis and weight them up to the accepted standards of rational analysis and Logic. And unfortunately for Einstein his claims do not make the grade in any way. In fact, it would be fair to say that he seems to have based his hypothesis in a purposeful deception, in other words he lied by telling half truths mixed in with truths in order to deceive. It worked well on you is seems, because you have never bothered to read his hypothesis with a scientific mind set, that of being skeptical. If you did read his paper, it would have been form the point of view of a fawning, awe struck worshiper.

Gravity is NOT a Force at All Einstein Said Sean is totally lost Very disappointing He says Gravity is a Universal force🤣🤣🤣

Definitely check out his biggest ideas in the universe podcast series, it's excellent

That'll be the next book (this lecture is based on his latest book in case you weren't aware, with the second book in the series, "Quanta and Fields", due in May of 2024). And as @maxproph says, the books themselves are based on a set of UKposts videos he did over the pandemic called "The Biggest Ideas in the Universe" - a bit less polished but still utterly fascinating (and available now on his UKposts channel). (or if you're comfortable with some not _too_ crazy maths you could also check out either "A Student's Guide to the Schrodinger Equation" by Daniel Fleisch or "The Quantum Cookbook" by Jim Baggott in the meantime)

Meow

He's done on on this channel before exploring and explaining that

So glad you enjoyed the talk! The Q&A for this event is available as a UKposts channel member exclusive here - ukposts.info/have/v-deo/q39mlZqZjZWe1mw.html

@@TheRoyalInstitution Got it. Thank you.

Weather is pretty hard.

@@DrDeuteron Yes, it can be. But for some reason I understand weather way better than this material. Which is one reason I enjoy Sean's presentations so much.

@@TheWeatherbuff "for some reason"--- the reason is that you haven't been exposed to it enough. Once you get familiar with all the stuff, it becomes easy.

I remember that

Melina meric 1:25

Maliva meric 2:09

He's a clown that believes there are more than two sexes in humans.

He runs his own podcast: Sean Carrolls Mindscape, where he comes to speak every week.

Yeah, it seems like that we call "gravity" has more to do with how we are given the illusion of acceleration through each 3D "slice" or "moment" we experience, even though the universe described would seem to indicate a static 4D spacetime where everything has already "happened".

It's the same way centrifugal force and coriolis force are not technically forces. We still call them forces sometimes because they act like forces if your reference frame is spinning. Likewise, gravity looks like a force if your reference frame is accelerating. A reference frame fixed to the ground is really accelerating upwards, so it looks like there is gravity accelerating downwards. It's useful to think of it as a force because it's useful to use a reference frame fixed to the ground, it matches how we usually experience the world.

The confusion lies within GR's particular framework, and the way Newton is 'carved out' of the geodesic equation and Poisson's law out of the EFE; however, this is far from an universal necessity: yours truly, for instance, has constructed a theory in which gravity is simply viewed as a force in the traditional sense, and yet one can still draw observational conclusions comparable to GR's. Oh, and before you dismiss that as some ramblings from a rando who doesn't know what they're talking about: currently under peer-review - in a fancy journal and everything 😉

@@BlazeOrangeDeerthe coriolis and centrifugal forces are just gravity in GR.

@@thstroyur Ooooh neat! What's the journal, I wanna read it when it comes out!

> basic principle that time ... is imaginary It is not, in fact.

@@alexleibovici4834 It is, in fact. That many don't know or understand it does not negate its truth.

@@themcchuck8400 You confuse the nature of the time variable with the fact that a pseudo-Euclidean metrics can be transformed in an Euclidian one by substituting -t^2 with (it)^2

@@alexleibovici4834 And yet the math works out the same, while my version has explanatory power. I believe the equivalence principle applies to this discussion. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

@@themcchuck8400 > And yet the math works out the same Oh, I see: you don't know what is a pseudo-Euclidean metrics !

We've got some incredible lectures coming up, that can be watched online from anywhere in the world - www.rigb.org/whats-on?type=6

@@TheRoyalInstitution Thank you so much for your reply and the link. I really appreciate that. Yours truly, a 70-year-old science geek!

That is not a simple looking equation by any means. It just hides the complexity to those who don't know what the symbols mean. He pointed that out in the talk, by the way. Whether it's foundational is not known. It's just one version of an infinite number of similar equations that nature may also follow in the classical approximation. It just happens to be one of the most simple versions of all possibilities. We have, so far, not found any deviations from it, but that's mostly due to the measurement errors that we are limited by. The bigger issue is that it has a distinct thermodynamic form... which may be an indication that gravity is a thermodynamic remnant (rather than a quantum mechanical one). Or that's just coincidence. People have been wondering about that for the better part of a century. The limited success with direct quantization of gravity might be a hint that we are missing a thermodynamic layer there.

What are names of his books ? I dont see on ebay