ignoring the acceleration being a part of the game, and the fact that some objects are unaffected by speed changes, there are several things that are still suboptimal the length contraction makes all coordinates contract, so not only would the objects become thinner, the gaps between them would do so as well next up is time dilation for moving obstacles: their speed of movement should depend on player speed as well (which would account formthe distances between objects getting squished / stretched when you change speed) another issue is probably the collision detection, but if you are doing instant loss on any non-ground collision and only have one object affected by player inputs it might not be terrible, in the actual world collision information can't propagate faster than the speed of light so any non-zero size object wouldn't be truly rigid the easiest way I know of imagining it is drawing out your whole game on a graph, let's think aboud a 1d game with a time duration, so all points of all objects moving at a constant rate would be forming straight lines, then for a particular player location and velocity you would center the diagram on the player, apply the transformation (new time and new x) to get the reference frame attached to the player and then draw on the game the intersection of the result with axis t=0 if you manage to do so for any one given point moving at a constant rate, you could apply this to all the meshes in your world point by point to get a good idea, the player would remain unchanged since they are always stationary in their own system (assuming they are rigid, which, as stated above is actually kinda impossible) but I also get that the point of the project isn't to make an accurate physics simulation, so... discard everything I said ig
I'd love to see this in a more open-world setting, with control over your acceleration and all terrain affected by contraction appropriately. The mechanic of being able to pass through a thin enough surface if you can contract its length below zero makes for a very interesting premise of playing as something like a subatomic particle moving very near the speed of light
I've honestly wanted this kind of thing for years. The closest I came was a demo for a spaceship pilot school where the space between planets contracts the faster you travelled, but with the ship appearing to travel at the same speed from the player's perspective.
Interesting idea, gonna steal taht and put on shelf of cool ideas. But the game itself doesn't seem that unique as it could be. Maybe let the player control the speed of a vehicle? Also you can add color blue-red shift to indicate the speed of it.
@@jan_sipiki I mean, the contraction is on the left-right axis specifically when the vehicle is strafing left-right, so it seems right to me. The vehicle's forwards speed is constant except for the pickups, and the thickness of the walls on the front-back axis isn't very visible to begin with, so you're not gonna notice that much really
One note on the description of simultaneity not being a given in SR/GR: It's a bit misleading to suggest that it's the time-of-flight difference which leads to the observer on the train saying the two lightning bolts occurred at different times. When we say two events occur simultaneously to some observer in SR/GR, we do _not_ mean that light from those events would reach an observer at the same time! We mean that the events which _emitted_ said light occurred at the same time in the frame of the observer. In other words, the relevant times we're discussing, regarding simultaneity, are the times an observer would say an event occurred, rather than the time when they see it occurring (i.e., they already account for the time it takes the light to reach them, and the distance they travel in that time). I mention this, because this was a misconception I had for ages regarding SR. Just a small note!
While your observation is correct, all effects of SR rely heavily on the way simultaneity is defined, that is, how clock synchronisation is achieved. _"When we say two events occur simultaneously to some observer in SR/GR, we do not mean that light from those events would reach an observer at the same time!"_ - two events are simultaneous, if light from the two events reaches the middle point at the same time. That is how simultaneity is defined.
Simultaneity is based on when the events happen in a given reference frame, not when the events are witnessed. All observers in the same reference frame (due to having the same velocity) should agree on which events are simultaneous. If you try to use light, you end up getting messy results where the simultaneity of events is determined by where the observer was when they witnessed the events. The spacetime region where and observer could witness the events simultaneously would take the shape of a hyperbola, with the two events being the foci.
@@tachrayonic2982 _"Simultaneity is based on when the events happen in a given reference frame"_ - correct. But how do we define "when" (at what time) events happen? _"All observers in the same reference frame (due to having the same velocity) should agree on which events are simultaneous."_ - and they do agree on that. Two events are DEFINED to be simultaneous, when light from the two events reaches the MIDPOINT between those events at the same time. All observers in the same frame agree on that definition, and can check whether that happens. And it is how multiple clocks in the same frame are synchronised with each other. That is,.that definition of simultaneity defines what "when" means in a reference frame. Because the observer on the train is located at the midpoint between the two events, he can simply check whether the light from the events reaches him at the same time.
@@renedekker9806 Would you say that an observer standing on the midpoint of the train, and an observer standing at the rear of the train would have the same reference frame? As they have the same velocity, I would say they do. The Observer standing in the middle of the train will witness the event at the front of the train first, then the event from the rear. The Observer standing at the rear of the train will witness the event at the rear of the train well before the event at the front of the train. A Third observer in the same reference frame could stand on the train at the point where the light from the events will collide, such that they appear simultaneous. All three observers can then calculate, using the speed of light and the distance to the events, the time that the events occurred relative to one another and perfectly agree on this time, that the event at the front of the train occurred first. You can do the same thing on the ground with an observer at the rear event, midpoint and front event. The order they witness the events will differ, but they'll all calculate the events to be simultaneous. I will say that it is possible to witness events simultaneously, when the events occurred at different times. But the events being simultaneous is determined by the time when they occurred, as measured by a given reference frame. The ability to witness events simultaneously only lines up with simultaneous events when you are at the midpoint between said events. In SR, Simultaneity describes when the events occurred, now when they are observed.
@@tachrayonic2982 Everything you said is fully correct. The only understanding I added to that, is that the definition of time in a reference frame depends on the definition of simultaneity in that frame. To setup time in a frame, all clocks in that frame need to run in sync with each other. The judgement whether two clocks are in sync relies on the whether they reach 12 o'clock simultaneously. And the definition of simultaneity stipulates that two events are only simultaneous if the light pulses traveling from those events meet each other at the midpoint between the locations of the events. In the train example, the observer on the train sits at the midpoint between the events, and is therefore the natural judge for the simultaneity of those events. This understanding that the definition of time depends on the definition of simultaneity, which in turn depends on the speed of light, has deeper consequences. For example, it makes it theoretically impossible to measure the speed of light in one direction.
Have you played "Velocity Raptor" or "A Slower Speed of Light"? They're very different from your racing game, but both demonstrate length contraction in-game.
A good effort, although both world and player would contract, a too narrow gap would remain too narrow regardless of how fast you travel. Also things ahead and behind would also be distorted (kind of like doppler, what you see behind you occurred further in the past) and the red and blue shift, that would be fun modelling too. The idea of a true special relativity game is certainly an interesting one, but far from trivial to implement.
I have not watched the video but the title made me think of a theoretical game that would be crazy to play. A racing game using quantum mechanics. There would be obstacles and paths that change every time they go off screen leading to randomized paths and shortcuts that rapidly change as you go leading to confusing moments that really fuck with your mind.
Interesting idea! I think the length contraction would be more apparent if the vehicle didn't move at a constant forward speed, because then things would get closer and farther away from it.
1:35 I can see what you've got wrong here. To both observers the lightning bolts appear simultaneously. However, because the train-goer is moving, they calculate the amount of time each lightning bolt would take to be visible to be different, thus they would calculate that the lightning bolts occurred at different times. Descriptions of this form of relativity often neglect the time it takes for light to travel from the events being measured back to the observer. A simple way to think about this; All the light that reaches a certain point in spacetime (The light that would be seen by an observer there) does not depend on the velocity of the observer. The Doppler Effect (Red Shift/Blue Shift) and the rate of time passing are the only velocity dependent things that would be perceivable through light. Only when you calculate back what the objects shape should be based on the light you're seeing and your velocity does the length contraction come into effect. That said, it's certainly interesting to implement the length contraction as a game mechanic.
Special Relativity relies heavily on the definition of simultaneity. Two events are defined to be simultaneous if light from those events reaches the midpoint at the same time. Clock synchronisation, that is, the definition of the clock time at which an event happens, is based on that definition as well. Imagine a long train, and the lightning strikes making burn marks on the roof of the train. The observer on the train is at the midpoint between those two burn marks, but the light from the front lightning strike reaches him before the light from the back lightning strike. Therefore, given the definition of simultaneity, they were not simultaneous for him.
@@renedekker9806 Interesting, I would describe Simultaneity as a relative measurement, of all events that occurred at a given time. This would not take into account the time light would take to reach the observer, so the events would appear at a time relative to their distance from the observer. As such, each observer would have their own line/plane/volume of simultaneity. (Depending on the number of spatial dimensions) By extension, I would not describe events that lie on your past light-cone as simultaneous, even if you would observe them happening simultaneously. With the train example, I'll correct my statement and agree that the observer on the train will witness the front lightning bolt before the point when they observe the lightning bolts is not the midpoint between them. However I don't think this experiment is the best for describing the effects of relativity. Instead, let's place the observer on the train slightly behind the middle such that they'll reach the midpoint between the lightning bolts at the same time as the light reaches them. Unfortunately I don't have the time to work this out at the moment, I need to include length contractions into this properly for it to make sense.
@@tachrayonic2982 _"relative measurement, of all events that occurred at a given time"_ - that is correct, The measurement itself does not take into account the time it takes for light to travel to any observer. But the question is: how do you determine whether two events occur at the same given time? For that, you could put a clock at the location of each event, that is stopped at the time the event occurs. But for it to be a valid measurement those clocks need to be synchronised beforehand. How do you determine whether two clocks are in sync? When the light of the clocks reaching 12 o'clock reaches the MIDPOINT between the clocks at the same time, then they are in sync. That is, the definition of simultaneity depends on the time it takes for light to travel to the midpoint. _"...is not the midpoint between them"_ - in the reference frame of the train, the observer on the train IS at the midpoint between the two events. So he can shortcut the whole two-synchronised-clocks thing, and simply check whether the light reaches him at the same time. After all, that is the definition of simultaneity.
@@renedekker9806 Alright, I've slept on it and I've got it sorted out. But first to answer your question, you can determine when an event happened in your reference frame by measuring how far an event is away from you when you observe it. From there you can calculate where+when it occurred in spacetime, and simultaneous events occurred at the same time in spacetime in your reference frame. Events being simultaneous will depend on the reference frame from which they're observed, although the events will always sit beyond the past and future light cones for all observers. However, all observers with the same velocity will be able to agree on their reference frame, and by extension whether or not events are simultaneous. In the typical experiment of special relativity, the precise location the person is standing on the train is irrelevant as we are not taking into account the time it takes for light to reach them. From there, an outside observer might witness the front of a train exit a tunnel at the same same time as the rear of the train enters it. From this outside reference frame, the train appears to the the same length as the tunnel. From the observer on the train however, the tunnel seems contracted. The front of the train exits the tunnel before the rear of the train enters it. The two observer's lines/planes/volumes of simultaneity do not align, the observer off of the train sees expect both events to be simultaneous and the observer on the train expects them not to be. And, to be clear, this does not depend on where each observer is standing, only that the observers have the same velocity as their objects. (The Train or the Ground) Once you take into account the speed of light from the event to the observer, your results will vary depending on where they're standing. Someone on the ground at the entrance to the tunnel will witness the rear of the train enter the tunnel before the front exits the tunnel, merely because the exit of the tunnel is further away. If they calculate how long it took the light from the end of the tunnel to reach them, they'll find the events were simultaneous. Similarly, it doesn't matter where on the train the observer sits. They will always be able to calculate the the event at the front occurred before the event at the rear, even if they're standing at the rear and witness it first.
That's a good point! It was a bit preemptive to say that's "special" relativity when it just introduces the idea that there is not an absolute frame of reference. Thanks for your comment.
While i enjoy the concept its really interesting that you could have made the same hame by putting up a impassable wall with a speed label that says you have to be "this speed" lol
the explanation of why time changes speed isn't perfect, because you're simultaneously talking about a different concept. Here: If you have a photon travelling up and down on that train, it traces out a zig zag pattern according to the outside observer (/\/\/\/\/\/\/\). That pattern is slightly longer than the purely vertical up-and-down motion the passenger sees (according to Aristotelles and Pythagoras). Since distance changed, and the speed of light is the same for everyone, the only thing that can balance out that inequality is if time was also changed a bit. In other words, if the s in v=s*t gets bigger and the v has to be the same, the t has to get smaller. So time is slower for the passenger.
You're showing length contraction from a single pov which is impossible. The whole point of special *relativity* is that those concepts act on different frames of reference than the current one. In the current frame of reference, everything will look normal to the observer.
_"In the current frame of reference, everything will look normal to the observer."_ - in the current frame of reference, everything that is moving will look length contracted. If you are moving yourself, then everything else is moving wrt you, and therefore everything else will look contracted.
So like, white underglow means your are controling the vehicles. While the brue underglow control the blue wall and green underglow control the green wall?
Hi thanks for the question, the underglow color shows the current "stationary" perspective, so when it's green the green walls are "stationary" and everything else is experiencing length contraction relative to them, and white underglow means the vehicle is stationary, etc.
Actually when I was developing this, I tried having the player also control the speed of light! At least with how I implemented it, it didn't add too much to the gameplay so I removed that feature, but I'm sure in some settings that could be an interesting mechanic.
I have slightly more subscribers than you, but your content is way better than mine. Very amazing and awesome. I wish I could give you all of my subscribers.
ignoring the acceleration being a part of the game, and the fact that some objects are unaffected by speed changes, there are several things that are still suboptimal
the length contraction makes all coordinates contract, so not only would the objects become thinner, the gaps between them would do so as well
next up is time dilation for moving obstacles: their speed of movement should depend on player speed as well (which would account formthe distances between objects getting squished / stretched when you change speed)
another issue is probably the collision detection, but if you are doing instant loss on any non-ground collision and only have one object affected by player inputs it might not be terrible, in the actual world collision information can't propagate faster than the speed of light so any non-zero size object wouldn't be truly rigid
the easiest way I know of imagining it is drawing out your whole game on a graph, let's think aboud a 1d game with a time duration, so all points of all objects moving at a constant rate would be forming straight lines, then for a particular player location and velocity you would center the diagram on the player, apply the transformation (new time and new x) to get the reference frame attached to the player and then draw on the game the intersection of the result with axis t=0
if you manage to do so for any one given point moving at a constant rate, you could apply this to all the meshes in your world point by point to get a good idea, the player would remain unchanged since they are always stationary in their own system (assuming they are rigid, which, as stated above is actually kinda impossible)
but I also get that the point of the project isn't to make an accurate physics simulation, so... discard everything I said ig
Can we just appreciate that we all are just of the few people's that got to know about this video
The select few who receive the knowledge
I'd love to see this in a more open-world setting, with control over your acceleration and all terrain affected by contraction appropriately. The mechanic of being able to pass through a thin enough surface if you can contract its length below zero makes for a very interesting premise of playing as something like a subatomic particle moving very near the speed of light
I've honestly wanted this kind of thing for years.
The closest I came was a demo for a spaceship pilot school where the space between planets contracts the faster you travelled, but with the ship appearing to travel at the same speed from the player's perspective.
Interesting idea, gonna steal taht and put on shelf of cool ideas. But the game itself doesn't seem that unique as it could be.
Maybe let the player control the speed of a vehicle? Also you can add color blue-red shift to indicate the speed of it.
you got the length contraction all wrong
yeah it shortens in the direction of travel not every other one
what should happen is basically scaling the screen in 1 axis
@@jan_sipiki I mean, the contraction is on the left-right axis specifically when the vehicle is strafing left-right, so it seems right to me. The vehicle's forwards speed is constant except for the pickups, and the thickness of the walls on the front-back axis isn't very visible to begin with, so you're not gonna notice that much really
@@warriorsabe1792 Exactly and everything else is just simply game design
One note on the description of simultaneity not being a given in SR/GR: It's a bit misleading to suggest that it's the time-of-flight difference which leads to the observer on the train saying the two lightning bolts occurred at different times. When we say two events occur simultaneously to some observer in SR/GR, we do _not_ mean that light from those events would reach an observer at the same time! We mean that the events which _emitted_ said light occurred at the same time in the frame of the observer.
In other words, the relevant times we're discussing, regarding simultaneity, are the times an observer would say an event occurred, rather than the time when they see it occurring (i.e., they already account for the time it takes the light to reach them, and the distance they travel in that time).
I mention this, because this was a misconception I had for ages regarding SR. Just a small note!
While your observation is correct, all effects of SR rely heavily on the way simultaneity is defined, that is, how clock synchronisation is achieved.
_"When we say two events occur simultaneously to some observer in SR/GR, we do not mean that light from those events would reach an observer at the same time!"_ - two events are simultaneous, if light from the two events reaches the middle point at the same time. That is how simultaneity is defined.
Simultaneity is based on when the events happen in a given reference frame, not when the events are witnessed.
All observers in the same reference frame (due to having the same velocity) should agree on which events are simultaneous.
If you try to use light, you end up getting messy results where the simultaneity of events is determined by where the observer was when they witnessed the events. The spacetime region where and observer could witness the events simultaneously would take the shape of a hyperbola, with the two events being the foci.
@@tachrayonic2982 _"Simultaneity is based on when the events happen in a given reference frame"_ - correct. But how do we define "when" (at what time) events happen?
_"All observers in the same reference frame (due to having the same velocity) should agree on which events are simultaneous."_ - and they do agree on that. Two events are DEFINED to be simultaneous, when light from the two events reaches the MIDPOINT between those events at the same time. All observers in the same frame agree on that definition, and can check whether that happens. And it is how multiple clocks in the same frame are synchronised with each other.
That is,.that definition of simultaneity defines what "when" means in a reference frame.
Because the observer on the train is located at the midpoint between the two events, he can simply check whether the light from the events reaches him at the same time.
@@renedekker9806 Would you say that an observer standing on the midpoint of the train, and an observer standing at the rear of the train would have the same reference frame?
As they have the same velocity, I would say they do.
The Observer standing in the middle of the train will witness the event at the front of the train first, then the event from the rear.
The Observer standing at the rear of the train will witness the event at the rear of the train well before the event at the front of the train.
A Third observer in the same reference frame could stand on the train at the point where the light from the events will collide, such that they appear simultaneous.
All three observers can then calculate, using the speed of light and the distance to the events, the time that the events occurred relative to one another and perfectly agree on this time, that the event at the front of the train occurred first.
You can do the same thing on the ground with an observer at the rear event, midpoint and front event. The order they witness the events will differ, but they'll all calculate the events to be simultaneous.
I will say that it is possible to witness events simultaneously, when the events occurred at different times. But the events being simultaneous is determined by the time when they occurred, as measured by a given reference frame. The ability to witness events simultaneously only lines up with simultaneous events when you are at the midpoint between said events. In SR, Simultaneity describes when the events occurred, now when they are observed.
@@tachrayonic2982 Everything you said is fully correct. The only understanding I added to that, is that the definition of time in a reference frame depends on the definition of simultaneity in that frame. To setup time in a frame, all clocks in that frame need to run in sync with each other. The judgement whether two clocks are in sync relies on the whether they reach 12 o'clock simultaneously.
And the definition of simultaneity stipulates that two events are only simultaneous if the light pulses traveling from those events meet each other at the midpoint between the locations of the events. In the train example, the observer on the train sits at the midpoint between the events, and is therefore the natural judge for the simultaneity of those events.
This understanding that the definition of time depends on the definition of simultaneity, which in turn depends on the speed of light, has deeper consequences. For example, it makes it theoretically impossible to measure the speed of light in one direction.
The legendary “small channel that makes better content than pretty much everyone else on the platform”
Also 69th sub 😎
Actually...
No.
More like: random guy that misunderstood a very complicated concept made a video exposing his misunderstanding.
Have you played "Velocity Raptor" or "A Slower Speed of Light"? They're very different from your racing game, but both demonstrate length contraction in-game.
I haven't but thanks for letting me know about them!
A good effort, although both world and player would contract, a too narrow gap would remain too narrow regardless of how fast you travel. Also things ahead and behind would also be distorted (kind of like doppler, what you see behind you occurred further in the past) and the red and blue shift, that would be fun modelling too. The idea of a true special relativity game is certainly an interesting one, but far from trivial to implement.
I have not watched the video but the title made me think of a theoretical game that would be crazy to play. A racing game using quantum mechanics. There would be obstacles and paths that change every time they go off screen leading to randomized paths and shortcuts that rapidly change as you go leading to confusing moments that really fuck with your mind.
Interesting idea! I think the length contraction would be more apparent if the vehicle didn't move at a constant forward speed, because then things would get closer and farther away from it.
1:35 I can see what you've got wrong here. To both observers the lightning bolts appear simultaneously. However, because the train-goer is moving, they calculate the amount of time each lightning bolt would take to be visible to be different, thus they would calculate that the lightning bolts occurred at different times.
Descriptions of this form of relativity often neglect the time it takes for light to travel from the events being measured back to the observer.
A simple way to think about this; All the light that reaches a certain point in spacetime (The light that would be seen by an observer there) does not depend on the velocity of the observer.
The Doppler Effect (Red Shift/Blue Shift) and the rate of time passing are the only velocity dependent things that would be perceivable through light.
Only when you calculate back what the objects shape should be based on the light you're seeing and your velocity does the length contraction come into effect.
That said, it's certainly interesting to implement the length contraction as a game mechanic.
Special Relativity relies heavily on the definition of simultaneity. Two events are defined to be simultaneous if light from those events reaches the midpoint at the same time. Clock synchronisation, that is, the definition of the clock time at which an event happens, is based on that definition as well.
Imagine a long train, and the lightning strikes making burn marks on the roof of the train. The observer on the train is at the midpoint between those two burn marks, but the light from the front lightning strike reaches him before the light from the back lightning strike. Therefore, given the definition of simultaneity, they were not simultaneous for him.
@@renedekker9806 Interesting, I would describe Simultaneity as a relative measurement, of all events that occurred at a given time. This would not take into account the time light would take to reach the observer, so the events would appear at a time relative to their distance from the observer. As such, each observer would have their own line/plane/volume of simultaneity. (Depending on the number of spatial dimensions)
By extension, I would not describe events that lie on your past light-cone as simultaneous, even if you would observe them happening simultaneously.
With the train example, I'll correct my statement and agree that the observer on the train will witness the front lightning bolt before the point when they observe the lightning bolts is not the midpoint between them.
However I don't think this experiment is the best for describing the effects of relativity. Instead, let's place the observer on the train slightly behind the middle such that they'll reach the midpoint between the lightning bolts at the same time as the light reaches them.
Unfortunately I don't have the time to work this out at the moment, I need to include length contractions into this properly for it to make sense.
@@tachrayonic2982 _"relative measurement, of all events that occurred at a given time"_ - that is correct, The measurement itself does not take into account the time it takes for light to travel to any observer.
But the question is: how do you determine whether two events occur at the same given time? For that, you could put a clock at the location of each event, that is stopped at the time the event occurs. But for it to be a valid measurement those clocks need to be synchronised beforehand. How do you determine whether two clocks are in sync? When the light of the clocks reaching 12 o'clock reaches the MIDPOINT between the clocks at the same time, then they are in sync.
That is, the definition of simultaneity depends on the time it takes for light to travel to the midpoint.
_"...is not the midpoint between them"_ - in the reference frame of the train, the observer on the train IS at the midpoint between the two events. So he can shortcut the whole two-synchronised-clocks thing, and simply check whether the light reaches him at the same time. After all, that is the definition of simultaneity.
@@renedekker9806 Alright, I've slept on it and I've got it sorted out.
But first to answer your question, you can determine when an event happened in your reference frame by measuring how far an event is away from you when you observe it. From there you can calculate where+when it occurred in spacetime, and simultaneous events occurred at the same time in spacetime in your reference frame.
Events being simultaneous will depend on the reference frame from which they're observed, although the events will always sit beyond the past and future light cones for all observers. However, all observers with the same velocity will be able to agree on their reference frame, and by extension whether or not events are simultaneous.
In the typical experiment of special relativity, the precise location the person is standing on the train is irrelevant as we are not taking into account the time it takes for light to reach them.
From there, an outside observer might witness the front of a train exit a tunnel at the same same time as the rear of the train enters it. From this outside reference frame, the train appears to the the same length as the tunnel.
From the observer on the train however, the tunnel seems contracted. The front of the train exits the tunnel before the rear of the train enters it.
The two observer's lines/planes/volumes of simultaneity do not align, the observer off of the train sees expect both events to be simultaneous and the observer on the train expects them not to be.
And, to be clear, this does not depend on where each observer is standing, only that the observers have the same velocity as their objects. (The Train or the Ground)
Once you take into account the speed of light from the event to the observer, your results will vary depending on where they're standing.
Someone on the ground at the entrance to the tunnel will witness the rear of the train enter the tunnel before the front exits the tunnel, merely because the exit of the tunnel is further away. If they calculate how long it took the light from the end of the tunnel to reach them, they'll find the events were simultaneous.
Similarly, it doesn't matter where on the train the observer sits. They will always be able to calculate the the event at the front occurred before the event at the rear, even if they're standing at the rear and witness it first.
This video is so good, how do you only have 265 subs?
I hope you continue this
What youve done here is make Frogger with the powers of the flash
Very nice! New video so fast, thanks so much for making it! I really like the topics you cover!
This was the first explanation of special relativity i actually understood
0:39 : The first example you just gave works just as well in Galilean relativity ?
That's a good point! It was a bit preemptive to say that's "special" relativity when it just introduces the idea that there is not an absolute frame of reference. Thanks for your comment.
While i enjoy the concept its really interesting that you could have made the same hame by putting up a impassable wall with a speed label that says you have to be "this speed" lol
the explanation of why time changes speed isn't perfect, because you're simultaneously talking about a different concept. Here: If you have a photon travelling up and down on that train, it traces out a zig zag pattern according to the outside observer (/\/\/\/\/\/\/\). That pattern is slightly longer than the purely vertical up-and-down motion the passenger sees (according to Aristotelles and Pythagoras). Since distance changed, and the speed of light is the same for everyone, the only thing that can balance out that inequality is if time was also changed a bit. In other words, if the s in v=s*t gets bigger and the v has to be the same, the t has to get smaller. So time is slower for the passenger.
You're showing length contraction from a single pov which is impossible. The whole point of special *relativity* is that those concepts act on different frames of reference than the current one. In the current frame of reference, everything will look normal to the observer.
_"In the current frame of reference, everything will look normal to the observer."_ - in the current frame of reference, everything that is moving will look length contracted. If you are moving yourself, then everything else is moving wrt you, and therefore everything else will look contracted.
219th subscriber i like this very much good job sir
So like, white underglow means your are controling the vehicles. While the brue underglow control the blue wall and green underglow control the green wall?
Hi thanks for the question, the underglow color shows the current "stationary" perspective, so when it's green the green walls are "stationary" and everything else is experiencing length contraction relative to them, and white underglow means the vehicle is stationary, etc.
@@Wunoumenal thanks. that is the only part I dont get. lol
Nice video, still waiting on your channel to blow up!
I'm sure it it will be a good either way, but will a sequel take into account Terrell rotation?
That's a good idea! I'm not very familiar with the concept but it would be neat to try out
Could you do variable speed of light?
Actually when I was developing this, I tried having the player also control the speed of light! At least with how I implemented it, it didn't add too much to the gameplay so I removed that feature, but I'm sure in some settings that could be an interesting mechanic.
@@Wunoumenal I was thinking of different areas having different speed of light, that might be cool for completing a track as fast as possible.
very cool!!
I have slightly more subscribers than you, but your content is way better than mine. Very amazing and awesome. I wish I could give you all of my subscribers.
That's too kind of you, I hope both our channels can continue to grow. Happy holidays :]
@@Wunoumenal Happy holidays! :D i promoted your channel in my community tab ua-cam.com/users/postUgkxQeKD5jXw89FI7R6A9PJKh7xdJoz2uq6Y
I know sone people yapped about stuff being qrong af. But lets admit, bro cooked
AMAZING VIDEO (i subscribed. im subscriber 54)