Nice explanation, though perhaps the video should have been titled "Perturbation Theory" to give people a more accurate description of what it is about.
Your pronunciation superb! Your presentation wonderful! Your action vivid! The animation extreamly helpful. You deserved the title...great professor!!!!
One of the favourites, because "perturbation" is close-equivalent in concept to QM, but without the focus of "infinite zoom". (Ie what the topic of the video is about) If perturbation technique is applied to a computational universe, then Experimental Physics is Read Only Memory, our senses and perceptions are Random Access Memory and locating data, navigating the context of the mathematical universe is perturbation theory in action. Ie it's all built in, so most of what is taught is RAM nomenclature.
Great video! I really, REALLY liked the factorial approach. I've first encountered a somewhat decent take on perturbation theory in Susskind's book on classical mechanics "The Theoretical Minimum" where he used derivatives for the sine wave.
@@billschlafly4107 F=MA is the definition of force, which is never wrong. The values you plug in might be wrong, or they might be approximations. The approximations might be wrong as well.
Not wrong proper definition is derivative of momentum with respect to time and such if we let them be the four momentum and four force vectors than it is in agreement with special relativity
in case of anyone is wondering where that sin function comes from , its a taylor series approximation of the sin function with x0 =0 (maclaurin series)
The major geometric bulges of Earth can be extremely significant, but it's amazing how the "textural" elements (the buildings, the mountains, the canyons, etc) are so tiny compared to the size of our planet. When I was a kid I read that if you were to shrink Earth to the size of a billiard ball, Earth might actually be smoother than that ball. I don't know quite what tolerances are necessary to give an 8 ball its characteristic sheen, but it's a good model. If I've done my math correctly, then scaling Earth to a billiard ball, the difference between the Mariana Trench and the peak of Mount Everest would be about .0035 inches or less .09mm. And they're not even next to each other. Major deviations would appear to be about half that, at most. Optically, I don't think this gives a mirror finish, but it probably wouldn't cause tactile imperfections or significant shadows. So if you drained all of the oceans (increases the variety, less "cheating") and turned Earth into whatever a billiard ball is made out of (I think most pool-hall cue balls indeed have a magnetic core, not a permanent magnet, but still), it would look quite smooth and roll quite nicely (that is, it would wobble a bit but wouldn't make the rumbling noise of, say, a rolling hand grenade), though it might look a little matte. Or it might not. I really don't know.
Fictitious doesn't mean it doesn't exist, though! It just means that it arises as an interaction between an object and its reference frame, rather than two objects as is the case for most forces seen. Deriving Newton's laws of motion in a rotating reference frame causes a centrifugal force term to appear without a problem!
Centrifugal forces are "fictitious" ? How about all the people using D'Alembert principle in mechanics? Inertial forces are treated as any other force in the free-body diagram. Also, please check the definition of "diameter" of a compact set
You've got to check out Carl Bender's lectures on mathematical physics (also on you tube). When it comes to perturbation theory and asymptotic analysis, he wrote the book (literally, with Steven Orszag - look that up too). This is not your father's mathematical physics course!
So does this approximation thing works in every situation? If so, then when my math teacher asks me an answer, I'll just gonna say: 'It's a number' and if she/he asks to be more particular, I'll say: 'It's a decimal number' and so on until the lesson is over :D
I'm a bit late to the party but you could add some really poignant examples of the spherical approximation of the earth by using examples of the position of different lat/longs using different SRIDs (GPS/WGS84 vs some more precise local datum for example).
Are you not misusing precision and accuracy? I believe the last chemistry textbook I read stated that precision was how closely two or more measurements agreed with each other and accuracy was how close a measurement was to the true value.
+One way Ticket Get yourself a decent textbook on general physics as a starter. There are several ones, that are extremely easy to read and can be used for self-study, e.g. Tipler, Physics for scientists and engineers, or Giancoli, Physics for scientists and engineers or Serway, Physics for scientists and engineers. All 3 are in principle ok. After you've gotten the basics, I'd suggest an initial textbook on each of the 3 following topics: quantum mechanics, general relativity and particle physics. (References in your initial textbook will help you select one). Thereafter you'll know enough to be able to dive deeper into the areas you are especially interested in. In case you are from the US: intimate knowledge of calculus is absolutely essential, even on a basic level. So if you are not familiar with it, that's also on your to do list.
+ScienceNinjaDude : don't forget that you need to be able to "handle" the error term (this can be difficult) and not have a pole in your approximation ;)
I'd like you to post a couple of uft equations along with an English translation of the math, so mathematically challenged people like myself can understand it. Thank you.
Can you tell me something more about this super awesome "formulae of everything"? Why isn't it as simple as physicist think a fundamental formulae like this should be?
Sir if fictious forces (like centrifugal and others) which come into play during conditions like these (i.e. rotations) are not there then how can we define the effect of these forces which we see.
For goodness sake - Don't keep forgetting ULTs goodbye cake at 2:30!!! They keep missing it for years and years. (Hint look over his shoulder on board)
I noticed that the movement of the continents seem break up along the equator. Is the distortion of the Earth a known cause for Earths land distribution?
@@AlcyonEldaraThe Big Bang never could have happened. That's the point. Here's why. Consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE. Consider WHAT IS E=MC2 ON BALANCE. CONSIDER WHAT IS OUTER “space” ON BALANCE !!! There was no “Big Bang” in relation, ON BALANCE, to/WITH what was a timeless nothingness !!! Consider what follows: THE PROOF THAT I AM THE GREATEST SCIENTIST ON THE PLANET: You have to understand all of the following. It's fundamental. Consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE. What is GRAVITY is, ON BALANCE, an INTERACTION that cannot be shielded or blocked. ON BALANCE, this CLEARLY (AND MATHEMATICALLY) proves WHAT IS the FOURTH DIMENSION. ABSOLUTE AND CLEAR MATHEMATICAL PROOF THAT FRANK MARTIN DIMEGLIO HAS SURPASSED NEWTON AND EINSTEIN: The following is true consistent WITH the fact that (or because) this is FULL DISTANCE. Logically AND CLEARLY, two AND three dimensional SPACE (in fundamental equilibrium AND BALANCE, that is) IS (necessarily and by definition) invisible AND VISIBLE SPACE (in fundamental equilibrium AND BALANCE). Again, this IS FULL DISTANCE. Great. Consider WHAT IS THE EYE ON BALANCE. Great. Therefore and accordingly, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. Great. Now, ALL of the following is CLEARLY proven to be true (ON BALANCE): WHAT IS GRAVITY is, ON BALANCE, an INTERACTION that cannot be shielded or blocked. INDEED, INSTANTaneity is fundamental. AGAIN, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. (BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand.) GREAT. ON BALANCE, WHAT IS E=MC2 IS what is GRAVITY AS SPACE !!!! Regarding WHAT IS E=MC2, c squared CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY is proven to represent a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE. This, in fact, mathematically AND CLEARLY proves what is the fourth dimension !!!! TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. Magnificent !!!! ON BALANCE, WHAT IS E=MC2 IS what is GRAVITY AS SPACE. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE. Great !!!! Again consider what is the FOURTH DIMENSION ON BALANCE. INDEED, consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE. Great. WHAT IS GRAVITY is, ON BALANCE, an INTERACTION that cannot be shielded or blocked. The density of what is pure WATER IS HALF of that of what is packed sand/wet packed sand. Notice what is the TRANSLUCENT AND BLUE sky ON BALANCE. (THE EARTH is ALSO BLUE !!!!) Notice what is THE EYE ON BALANCE. Great. Regarding WHAT IS E=MC2, c squared CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE. Indeed, consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE. This mathematically (AND CLEARLY) proves WHAT IS the FOURTH dimension. WHAT IS GRAVITY is, ON BALANCE, an INTERACTION that cannot be shielded or blocked. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. Great. INDEED, consider what is THE SUN ON BALANCE. SO, ON BALANCE, WHAT IS E=MC2 IS what is GRAVITY AS WHAT IS SPACE !!!! AGAIN, THIS CLEARLY PROVES WHAT IS THE FOURTH DIMENSION ON BALANCE. TOTALLY INGENIOUS. By Frank Martin DiMeglio Consider what is THE SUN. INDEED, consider WHAT IS E=MC2 !! Consider, ON BALANCE, what is outer “space” !!! Consider TIME. Outstanding. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). Magnificent !!!! I have CLEARLY AND MATHEMATICALLY proven what is the FOURTH dimension !!!! Consider, ON BALANCE, why and how it is that there is something instead of nothing. Excellent. Indeed, consider what is THE SUN; AND consider what is THE EYE ON BALANCE !!!! NOW, consider what is THE EARTH/ground AND (ON BALANCE) consider what is the visible BODY. Consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE !!!! INDEED, ON BALANCE, WHAT IS E=MC2 IS what is GRAVITY AS SPACE !!!! Again, ON BALANCE, I have proven what actually constitutes the FOURTH dimension (ON/IN BALANCE). (BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand.) THINK !!!! TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). Magnificent !!!! I have CLEARLY AND MATHEMATICALLY proven what is THE FOURTH dimension !!!! Great. THINK !!!! By Frank Martin DiMeglio
Nice explanation, though perhaps the video should have been titled "Perturbation Theory" to give people a more accurate description of what it is about.
Well, it was just an approximation :-)
Just a tad?
Hey Eugene, you seem like an intelligent guy; mind taking a shot at my theory?
ua-cam.com/video/exq2yEeEt1k/v-deo.html
Title only "Perturbation Theory" doesn't attract people :)
Your suggestion perturbs me
lol, if you want to know the volume of the earth just put it in a full glass of water and measure how much water is pushed out of the glass.
That's a rare jewel of logic.
Blackwater Park
Archimedes and Plato together
HEUREKA!
Maybe someone already tried it, and that's how the story of Noah's ark got started?
MIT: nigga u want scholarship?
'... A kilometer, or about half a mile' ... Perturbation theory applied to units conversion.
sleepy314 its irrelevant to know the exact value of miles cuz the emperial system is trash and just ridiculous
Thank you Dr. Lincoln, for all your educational video! I love physics and love to learn more about it.
Your pronunciation superb! Your presentation wonderful! Your action vivid! The animation extreamly helpful. You deserved the title...great professor!!!!
I cannot state good enough on how I enjoy these videos. Great work Mr Lincoln.
You're the best Dr.Lincoln
The pear joke was pretty funny.
aducksecho As one quark said to another, most charming.
@@jamespurks1694 Well that's STRANGE! I have to look it UP to get to the BOTTOM of the matter.
To understand the mechanisms of the world better, it seems helpful to watch and understand all your videos...
Your videos are great, Dr. Don, thank you!
"Throw some Math skills at it" lmao
you are a good motivator. you really make me believe that i can be a particle expert..
One of the favourites, because "perturbation" is close-equivalent in concept to QM, but without the focus of "infinite zoom". (Ie what the topic of the video is about)
If perturbation technique is applied to a computational universe, then Experimental Physics is Read Only Memory, our senses and perceptions are Random Access Memory and locating data, navigating the context of the mathematical universe is perturbation theory in action. Ie it's all built in, so most of what is taught is RAM nomenclature.
Great video! I really, REALLY liked the factorial approach. I've first encountered a somewhat decent take on perturbation theory in Susskind's book on classical mechanics "The Theoretical Minimum" where he used derivatives for the sine wave.
Love watching this. The pear joke was hilarious!
This seems like a very useful theory. I do this fairly often when I am solving equations.
Differential Equations by Pollard & Tenenbaum beautifully explains perturbation theory.
This channel really deserves more subscribers :)
Fun and informative- thanks Don. I'm addicted to the series.
Nice, slipping us a Maclaurin Series!
F=MA is a perturbation. It ignores general the special relativity. It's still genius.
***** A perturbation is an approximation. F=MA is wrong even though it's close enough for most calculations. So, thanks for agreeing with me.
@@billschlafly4107 F=MA is the definition of force, which is never wrong. The values you plug in might be wrong, or they might be approximations. The approximations might be wrong as well.
Thomas Hoover force is relative
@@grandpaobvious nah the definition of force is F=dp/dt my brother 😂
Not wrong proper definition is derivative of momentum with respect to time and such if we let them be the four momentum and four force vectors than it is in agreement with special relativity
Please upload more mathematical explanations of particle physics fundamentals in upcoming video ..Great Work ....
Thank you Don for your very educational demonstration.
I watched the videos. May I have my degree now?
+ScienceNinjaDude LMAO
Hah best UA-cam comment of the year.
ScienceNinjaDude MAN YOU DID IT LMAO
You're degree is about 37 Celsius
@@derivativecovariant2341 Your*
Aha, the super position state of those |kat> are very interesting, Diane.
THANK YOU PROFESSOR LINCOLN...!!!
in case of anyone is wondering where that sin function comes from , its a taylor series approximation of the sin function with x0 =0 (maclaurin series)
Dr. Lincoln: "Now that you are an expert on mathematical perturbations..."
Me:
Wait, the Earth isn't flat?!!?
The universe is flat not the Earth
Mad Genius The universe is a lot of things.
+FfejTball The universe is all the things.
+FfejTball ofc it is, and the universe is electric, scientists are just lying to you
Mario D. Zmaj And now, for something completely different www.mccelt.com/the-one-inch-equation-to-explain-all-physical-laws.php
The major geometric bulges of Earth can be extremely significant, but it's amazing how the "textural" elements (the buildings, the mountains, the canyons, etc) are so tiny compared to the size of our planet. When I was a kid I read that if you were to shrink Earth to the size of a billiard ball, Earth might actually be smoother than that ball. I don't know quite what tolerances are necessary to give an 8 ball its characteristic sheen, but it's a good model. If I've done my math correctly, then scaling Earth to a billiard ball, the difference between the Mariana Trench and the peak of Mount Everest would be about .0035 inches or less .09mm. And they're not even next to each other. Major deviations would appear to be about half that, at most. Optically, I don't think this gives a mirror finish, but it probably wouldn't cause tactile imperfections or significant shadows. So if you drained all of the oceans (increases the variety, less "cheating") and turned Earth into whatever a billiard ball is made out of (I think most pool-hall cue balls indeed have a magnetic core, not a permanent magnet, but still), it would look quite smooth and roll quite nicely (that is, it would wobble a bit but wouldn't make the rumbling noise of, say, a rolling hand grenade), though it might look a little matte. Or it might not. I really don't know.
Thanks for sharing that key trick....
Cool stuff with the Earth's shape and sine wave approximation. Thank you for sharing this video! Very good and clear pronunciation by the way!
Fictitious doesn't mean it doesn't exist, though! It just means that it arises as an interaction between an object and its reference frame, rather than two objects as is the case for most forces seen. Deriving Newton's laws of motion in a rotating reference frame causes a centrifugal force term to appear without a problem!
The average radius of the Earth as given at 2:00 is 6367 km = 3956 miles, not the 3884 stated in the clip.
Centrifugal forces are "fictitious" ? How about all the people using D'Alembert principle in mechanics? Inertial forces are treated as any other force in the free-body diagram. Also, please check the definition of "diameter" of a compact set
Thank you Dr. Don!
You've got to check out Carl Bender's lectures on mathematical physics (also on you tube). When it comes to perturbation theory and asymptotic analysis, he wrote the book (literally, with Steven Orszag - look that up too). This is not your father's mathematical physics course!
but how do you know that this is a good approximation if you can't solve the first equation?
Fermilab vids are very good. Can you please check your recording system. There was a lot of hiss on this
What I should learn from the video: the concept of perturbation theory.
What I learned: Earth is THICC
wonderfully explained !
Love the knowledge you give here.
I think I seen Edison off to the side on your flashback clip.
The south Indian mathematician Madhava (1200 AD) was the originator of the perturbation theory.
While physics may be the simplest, mathematics is the most central of all branches of human knowledge.
Nice explanation sir !!
Amazing video great explanation
great video!!! lots of good information.
we all love yu Don......:)))
please can you make a video explaining the equation shown at the beginning, breaking down each part like you did with the Feynman equation, thank you.
calling earth flat is also very close approximation.
Best explanation
Good Don ☺️
Sir, your video is more educative with funny expression.. that makes me, more concentrated with video.
So does this approximation thing works in every situation? If so, then when my math teacher asks me an answer, I'll just gonna say: 'It's a number' and if she/he asks to be more particular, I'll say: 'It's a decimal number' and so on until the lesson is over :D
Very eloquent!
5:51 is that a taylor series approximation for sin x?
WHERE CAN I GET THIS SHIRT ALREADY !
great vid btw. Love your videos, keep them coming
***** Thanks a lot :)
I'm a bit late to the party but you could add some really poignant examples of the spherical approximation of the earth by using examples of the position of different lat/longs using different SRIDs (GPS/WGS84 vs some more precise local datum for example).
like not being able to tune a guitar well...close enough for rock n roll!
Are you not misusing precision and accuracy? I believe the last chemistry textbook I read stated that precision was how closely two or more measurements agreed with each other and accuracy was how close a measurement was to the true value.
What is the different between mathematical physics and theoretical physics?
hello Dr. Don, I'm an Economist and I loved physics since I was a little child.
but can give an advice of where to start in studying physics (ALONE)
+One way Ticket
Get yourself a decent textbook on general physics as a starter. There are several ones, that are extremely easy to read and can be used for self-study, e.g. Tipler, Physics for scientists and engineers, or Giancoli, Physics for scientists and engineers or Serway, Physics for scientists and engineers. All 3 are in principle ok. After you've gotten the basics, I'd suggest an initial textbook on each of the 3 following topics: quantum mechanics, general relativity and particle physics. (References in your initial textbook will help you select one). Thereafter you'll know enough to be able to dive deeper into the areas you are especially interested in.
In case you are from the US: intimate knowledge of calculus is absolutely essential, even on a basic level. So if you are not familiar with it, that's also on your to do list.
Is the equation to difficult because of the variables or the operations?
So are these type of calculations like pi? Just keeps going and going?
I love all of your videos but I'm grumpy today and I would like to correct your first sentence because I believe it to be mathematics.
you did it again :) any chance graviton has small mass and isnt same time like quantum physics offer?
So, if for every term in the nasty equation you could find an equivalent, calculable, converging infinite series, you would be done?
+ScienceNinjaDude : don't forget that you need to be able to "handle" the error term (this can be difficult) and not have a pole in your approximation ;)
can you post a link to your lecture mentioned around 1:25?
I'd like you to post a couple of uft equations along with an English translation of the math, so mathematically challenged people like myself can understand it. Thank you.
Unified Field Theory (which is incomplete at the moment).
You're the best
How not to love this guy
Can you tell me something more about this super awesome "formulae of everything"? Why isn't it as simple as physicist think a fundamental formulae like this should be?
Just a heads up guys, it's not horrible or anything but the mic you're using is picking up some kind of background/static. Voltage going in maybe?
Hi sir I am from India and I finish my m. Phil this year next year take to go abroad for an PhD programs in UK
What's the name of that Lagrangian at 7:30 ?
VERY NICE
But for real, can I get that certification at the end of the video?
Sir if fictious forces (like centrifugal and others)
which come into play during conditions like these (i.e. rotations) are not there then how can we define the effect of these forces which we see.
Is there a way, a non genius like myself work at Fermilab with just 4 years of applied science? :(
They're always in need of human subjects for radiation exposure experiments. Length of employment can vary widely.
Morpheus for fermi, I'd love to be a guinea pig. blast me away.
I'm sure they need people to clean the bathroom, sweep the floor etc
Einstein said that everyone is a genius, you are no exception
Yes but your example had empty Mass for the Earth is mostly full Mass it wouldn't distort as much if I'm correct in thinking
For goodness sake - Don't keep forgetting ULTs goodbye cake at 2:30!!! They keep missing it for years and years. (Hint look over his shoulder on board)
yeah! taylor's series! (I just learnt it at high school)
How are you going to use perturbation on QCD (and you know what Energie-like QCD I'm talking about :) ) ?
So, is there no analytical solution to the equation or do we just don't know it?
great¡¡¡¡ thanks doctor
Nasa picture - earth is a sphere ,no one doubt about it.
Flat earthers- wait a minute .
How will to meeting you sir??
where do i get this t-shirt?
I’d like to see an animation of the shape of the sun, stars, black holes
If Earth were a perfect sphere, would you weigh more or less at the equator than at the
poles? Explain
I noticed that the movement of the continents seem break up along the equator. Is the distortion of the Earth a known cause for Earths land distribution?
no. most mass is. on the northernhemisphere..
The good thing is that today computers are strong enough to approximate the solution of almost every equation using Monte Carlo simulations
is the answer 42?
The answer to the true and correct equation to describe all of physics is larger than our universe.....
You will be a particle expert... with a smile on his lips. Are you kidding. ;)
I wonder if the factorial approximation tends to the sine wave to infinity. It is an elegant approximation :)
Thank you Dr !
+ScienceNinjaDude : the convergence is not uniform but only pointwise (for obvious reasons at large numbers) but yes it does ;)
@@AlcyonEldaraThe Big Bang never could have happened. That's the point. Here's why. Consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE. Consider WHAT IS E=MC2 ON BALANCE. CONSIDER WHAT IS OUTER “space” ON BALANCE !!! There was no “Big Bang” in relation, ON BALANCE, to/WITH what was a timeless nothingness !!! Consider what follows:
THE PROOF THAT I AM THE GREATEST SCIENTIST ON THE PLANET:
You have to understand all of the following. It's fundamental.
Consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE. What is GRAVITY is, ON BALANCE, an INTERACTION that cannot be shielded or blocked. ON BALANCE, this CLEARLY (AND MATHEMATICALLY) proves WHAT IS the FOURTH DIMENSION.
ABSOLUTE AND CLEAR MATHEMATICAL PROOF THAT FRANK MARTIN DIMEGLIO HAS SURPASSED NEWTON AND EINSTEIN:
The following is true consistent WITH the fact that (or because) this is FULL DISTANCE. Logically AND CLEARLY, two AND three dimensional SPACE (in fundamental equilibrium AND BALANCE, that is) IS (necessarily and by definition) invisible AND VISIBLE SPACE (in fundamental equilibrium AND BALANCE). Again, this IS FULL DISTANCE. Great.
Consider WHAT IS THE EYE ON BALANCE. Great. Therefore and accordingly, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. Great.
Now, ALL of the following is CLEARLY proven to be true (ON BALANCE):
WHAT IS GRAVITY is, ON BALANCE, an INTERACTION that cannot be shielded or blocked. INDEED, INSTANTaneity is fundamental. AGAIN, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. (BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand.) GREAT.
ON BALANCE, WHAT IS E=MC2 IS what is GRAVITY AS SPACE !!!!
Regarding WHAT IS E=MC2, c squared CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY is proven to represent a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE. This, in fact, mathematically AND CLEARLY proves what is the fourth dimension !!!! TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. Magnificent !!!!
ON BALANCE, WHAT IS E=MC2 IS what is GRAVITY AS SPACE. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE. Great !!!! Again consider what is the FOURTH DIMENSION ON BALANCE. INDEED, consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE. Great.
WHAT IS GRAVITY is, ON BALANCE, an INTERACTION that cannot be shielded or blocked. The density of what is pure WATER IS HALF of that of what is packed sand/wet packed sand. Notice what is the TRANSLUCENT AND BLUE sky ON BALANCE. (THE EARTH is ALSO BLUE !!!!) Notice what is THE EYE ON BALANCE. Great.
Regarding WHAT IS E=MC2, c squared CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE. Indeed, consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE. This mathematically (AND CLEARLY) proves WHAT IS the FOURTH dimension. WHAT IS GRAVITY is, ON BALANCE, an INTERACTION that cannot be shielded or blocked. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. Great. INDEED, consider what is THE SUN ON BALANCE. SO, ON BALANCE, WHAT IS E=MC2 IS what is GRAVITY AS WHAT IS SPACE !!!! AGAIN, THIS CLEARLY PROVES WHAT IS THE FOURTH DIMENSION ON BALANCE. TOTALLY INGENIOUS.
By Frank Martin DiMeglio
Consider what is THE SUN. INDEED, consider WHAT IS E=MC2 !! Consider, ON BALANCE, what is outer “space” !!! Consider TIME. Outstanding. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). Magnificent !!!! I have CLEARLY AND MATHEMATICALLY proven what is the FOURTH dimension !!!!
Consider, ON BALANCE, why and how it is that there is something instead of nothing. Excellent. Indeed, consider what is THE SUN; AND consider what is THE EYE ON BALANCE !!!! NOW, consider what is THE EARTH/ground AND (ON BALANCE) consider what is the visible BODY. Consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE !!!! INDEED, ON BALANCE, WHAT IS E=MC2 IS what is GRAVITY AS SPACE !!!! Again, ON BALANCE, I have proven what actually constitutes the FOURTH dimension (ON/IN BALANCE). (BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand.) THINK !!!! TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). Magnificent !!!! I have CLEARLY AND MATHEMATICALLY proven what is THE FOURTH dimension !!!! Great. THINK !!!!
By Frank Martin DiMeglio
If someone's allergic from math, they probably won't be watching this video.
Damn, I laughed at the pear-shaped joke during a physics lesson about cheating with mathematical placeholders. Oh mighty Atheismo, forgive me! ;-)
How the heck does a huge expansive universe star from basically Nothing then?
The pear joke was hilarious