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

25 Responses to “GH General Hospital 12/24/13 ~ FULL EPISODE , Today Night”

  • Dan Koppel:

    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.

  • jim dogma:

    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.

  • Anand kumar Arumugasamy:

    Susskind is very good at explaining.

  • Mohamed F. El-Hewie:

    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

    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

  • Raymundo Lizarraga:

    Relativity Masiaca

  • Mohamed F. El-Hewie:

    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

    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

  • Mohamed F. El-Hewie:

    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

    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

    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.

  • Monkey Turtle:

    You’re probably right

  • DonFuego1:

    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.

  • Elliott X:

    well said

  • Alien Weirdo:

    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.

  • Alien Weirdo:

    Far be it from me to interfere as long as you get what you pay for and are
    happy about it.

  • Alien Weirdo:

    …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.

  • Evan Siegel:

    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”.

  • Sidionian:

    I always feel like eating a subway, every time I see Susskind’s half-eaten
    scraps on his lecture table…

  • chris r:

    Yes but what’s the difference between the two types of d’s?

  • Evan Siegel:

    Wish the camera would stay on the whiteboard and not follow the lecturer.
    Makes me dizzy.

  • Evan Siegel:

    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.

  • Evan Siegel:

    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.

  • Evan Siegel:

    He’s basically laying the chain rule in multiple dimensions on you.

  • René Plougsgaard:

    I just love to wach his videos.

  • Connor Moore:

    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.

Leave a Reply