GH General Hospital 12/24/13 ~ FULL EPISODE , Today Night General Hospital PREVIEW 12/24/13 HD – GH 2013 General Hospital Sneak Peek for 12/24/13 – GH 2013 p…
Video Rating: 4 / 5
(September 24, 2012) Leonard Susskind gives a broad introduction to general relativity, touching upon the equivalence principle. This series is the fourth in…
Video Rating: 4 / 5
I think the professor left out something in talking about the “angular
coordinates” question from the audience member. It’s not just polar
coordinates. It’s the fact that it’s a rotating platform. In other words,
the coordinates are r and theta, where theta equals the polar coordinate
angle + omega*time (which provides the rotation like a merry-go-round).
Then you get centrifugal “force” and coriolis “force”. He forgot to mention
the whole reference frame is rotating.
Also: another question from the audience was “isn’t it possible for the
rockets to be of different strengths at different heights and thus you get
a tidal effect even though space is really empty (no real gravity). The
professor did not really address the concern. The answer to the question is
that it’s not about differences in the field for someone “glued” to the
accelerating coordinate system. It’s about differences for someone who is
*free-falling”. I think that would have answered the concern. And no matter
how weird your coordinate system (with lots of fake gravity), if you
free-fall you won’t feel any tidal forces.
I don’t care if he won the so-called “black hole wars,” I don’t think he
knows what he’s talking about here because he’s so inefficient at
explaining the contra and covariant transformations. This isn’t any better
than his last GR series. Feynman said that if an instructor can’t
communicate an idea to a reasonable intelligent person, they don’t
understand it themselves. I’m afraid this may be one example.
Susskind is very good at explaining.
Let us consider the greatest blunder by Einstein, which is making time a
relative variable.
Initially, Lorentz suggested the dependence of time on velocity in order to
remedy the symmetry of the law of conservation of momentum in two inertial
frames.
Lorentz relative time did not imply time dilation nor length contraction,
but rather relative optical simultaneity.
As a result of Einstein’s blunder, a clock placed at the North Pole will be
different from a clock placed at the equator of the earth.
Of course, Einstein believed in his own blunder, even thought, relative
time was initially meant relative optical simultaneity.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Why is Einstein’s relative time a blunder?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Because time has never been proven to be as tangible property in nature.
(1) We cannot prove that time passes at the same rate in remote parts of
the universe.
(2) We cannot prove that time passed in the same rate a century ago or a
thousand years ago.
(3) If our universe was moving at the speed of light in the absolute space,
we will never feel it and will never know it, as long as it was uniform
motion. Thus, we cannot assume that the speed of light was absolute
constant everywhere in the universe.
Mohamed F. El-Hewie
Relativity Masiaca
This is lecture one of many lectures that will leave students and teachers
both lost in no man’s land.
Our genius professor Leonard Susskind, who is acting like our genius
Einstein, will never explain to students how celestial objects rotate, or
why celestial orbits assume the ellipticity, or why the sun has axial
symmetry, or how the first seed aggregate of mass developed in nebular
gases.
Initially nebular gases were hot, spread over vast space. So, how do those
gases got to form giant masses when there was no center of gravity anywhere
in the universe.
Neither would this professor explain nor have references on how the nuclear
fusion inside the sun balances gravitational forces.
Simply, this courses with cram the brains of students with arcane physics
about 4D geometrical representation of Newton’s second law F = ma.
There is no such thing as Einstein’s gravity, and no such evidence that
mass can bend light rays, as Einstein claimed and his hired scientist
fabricated the results to claim that the sun bent the light. In fact, that
orphan experiment ignored the solar corona, and ignored the fact that
refracted lines over thousands of miles away cannot be detected for shift
of wavelength.
Mohamed F. El-Hewie
Author of
Atomic, Molecular, and Nuclear Physics: Personal Study Notes
Our dear Leonard Susskind squanders the time of his youthful students by
fabricated physics that will never do them any good.
The mania of detached professors in teaching physics that will never
achieve any good science led to many youth avoiding the study of physics.
This man knows well that no scientists or physicist will ever use
relativity in any application, theoretical or experimental.
Since 1905, no science ever evolved from relativity and the rumors that the
GPS does are just desperate efforts to vindicate Einstein.
All those garbage on the board were achieved by Einstein without having to
go to school and could be left to students to learn by reading Einstein’s
papers.
None of Einstein’s special or general relativity advanced any good cause.
The E=mc² needed no relativity, and the constancy of the speed of light was
already proposed by Michelson–Morley experiment and Lorentz transformation.
The irony of all those delusional professors is that all matters dealt with
by Einstein were limited to either remote space where we cannot verify
gravitational lensing of light, or in the precession of the perihelion of
Mercury which cannot be fruitful, or twin paradox which cannot be proven or
the increase of mass as v approaches c, which defies all common sense.
But, the Jewish mania about Einstein’s Godly attributes dismisses the
impotence of fictional science.
The only good shot that Einstein made was not the invention of
photoelectric effect, but in using Planck’s constant h to explain the law E
= Eo – ħυ. That got Einstein the Nobel Prize because he got Max Planck the
Nobel Prize.
So, why did Leonard Susskind waste students ‘ time in his delusional
science?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Because this man has nothing else to do.
He is not doing good physics. He is selling courses to students who will
never use general relativity or special relativity, like all other
scientists have already given up on Einstein’s detachment.
Einstein froze in time and never succeeded in supervising any graduate work
all his life.
I ask families of students of physics to get this man to explain his
purpose in squandering the futures of their kids in his delusional physics.
Mohamed F. El-Hewie
Author of
Atomic, Molecular, and Nuclear Physics: Personal Study Notes
Gravity is the bent space time done in the presence of a mass according to
general theory of relativity. Only impressive math skills you have to have.
Tensors, derivatives, fields. Imagine a rubber sheet the Sun a cannon ball
and the Earth like a marble rotating around it. There is not an attraction
force per say like Newton thought although is very intuitive, but rather
the Earth moves on curved space-time geodetic lines that Sun bends. It’s
like it always chasing a valley.
Einstein intelligence sends chills on my spine…how a human mind can come
up with this counter intuitive ideas of curved space-time fabric…waw.
You’re probably right
Well I did mean to insult you, but I’ll take it back. Still, these people
1.) will sit through any kind of “confused sentences” to learn from
Susskind 2.) will pay any price to learn from Susskind and 3.) are not
expending substantial financial resources, it’s more of a continuing
education class than a real course they need to graduate. All of these
people probably have the money to blow, and should not be pinching pennies
worrying about “confused sentences” when they can learn from the greats.
well said
I actually came here to see if his sloppy lecture on black hole entropy was
an exception. It wasn’t. If you don’t notice yourselves, then I guess this
is for you. But I can’t help but think you’d get less confused by reading a
short text on the subject instead.
Far be it from me to interfere as long as you get what you pay for and are
happy about it.
…Okay, Don. We don’t have USA level colleges here, and University courses
are actually challenging. Judging from this course, I feel my doctorate
says I’m not really that stupid.
You’ll have to go look at a good calculus textbook. I can’t post a link,
but go to the Khan academy and search under “partial derivatives”.
I always feel like eating a subway, every time I see Susskind’s half-eaten
scraps on his lecture table…
Yes but what’s the difference between the two types of d’s?
Wish the camera would stay on the whiteboard and not follow the lecturer.
Makes me dizzy.
Partial derivative. The rate of change of the dependent variable with
respect to the dependent variable indicated in the “denominator”. Or google
it. Or look it up in a good calculus textbook.
This lecture has been eye-opening in its clarity. Wonderful job. And…
Love his snacking out on coffee and cake while plowing into his topic.
He’s basically laying the chain rule in multiple dimensions on you.
I just love to wach his videos.
It’s a physics lecture. If you don’t like his presentation or don’t agree
with the content, then watch something else. Nobody is forcing you to watch
this particular lecture.