not that your video is bad, it is good. i commented a bunch of times, important to read all of them to understand my objection. if you contend im wrong, do a deeper dive, and make a video on the fizeau experiment and MM experiment if you like, and perhaps the ether theories they refuted, and perhaps why special relativity is superior in either case. the truth is, that special relativity is built on a bunch of assumptions made to comply with what is seen in experiment, based on other peoples work in ether theories, and it is empty of any physical explaination for any of the assumtions. einstein assumes relativity first and then he derives lenght contraction, there is no a priori reason to choose that in the first place. however if you want to understand why lenght contraction happens, it is not because "it has to for relativity to work" as it is justified in relativity theory, it because of the equal times, or rather equal times equates to equal pressure and equal radiance. or whatever else you might want to invoke. for example, if we fill an elastic cavity with some gas or light or whatever really with some pressure, when it is moving with respect to the ether, the propagation of light inside the cavity will become anisotropic, from that we get a different transverse 2 way speed and longitudonal speed of propagation. i'm sure you know how that works, i looked at your channel and saw some videos about it, and it is basically a high school math derivation assuming light clocks moving in different orientations in a medium. the key insight is that the shape the cavity must take to have equalized the pressure across unit areas of surface, is an ellopsoid contracted in exactly the way that produces equal times of proagation back and forth longitudinally and transversely, for intermediate angles it is a bit trickier to compute the pressure in such a case, but it is generally true. from such types of analysis of elastic materials and solitons in them or cavities with pressure inside or whatever else, you eventually reach the conclusion that potentials caused by radiation of little particles being emitted or shielded, or waves emitted or shielded, or pressure mediation or whatever other realistic mechanical model of the mechanism of a force with a 1/r^2 potential, also will get lenght contracted in the same way, a stress gradient similar to that on the surface of a trampoline, would also get lenght contracted if it travels across its medium, it is a simple fact about elastic deformation of solitons in motion in a medium. it is then quite ridicollous to prefer a theory that has to wave its hands to get an effect that is basically the most generic effect in dynamical theories of emergent matter, that you can even find, it is almost impossible to get rid of it. the moral of the story is, mathematics and ad hock reasoning is tempting and works sometimes, but it has to work in somecases for nature to be particular, no matter the origins of its dynamics. to the confidently and arrogantly dismiss mechanism in favor of cheap mathematical sophistry is folly and only a liar a theif or a fool would lean too heavily on it.

another super important thing to understand about the fizeau experiment is this, since the MM experiment has a null result, there is no way to know whether the water is moving with respect to the ether or not. the speed effecting the result in the experiment in special relativity or indeed in an ether theory with lorentz symmetry in its resultant dynamics, is that it is the motion of the water relative to the rest of the experiment that produces the effect, you should be able to add any linear velocity to the experiment as a whole even assuming such an ether theory is true and that there is a constant velocity there, and get the same result. and you can, because it isnt about draging the ether at all, even if it is there.

then go try to calculare what happens to the michaelson morley setup when you rotate it in a plane of rotation intersecting the earths surface, instead of being tangen to it, basically turning the experiment on its side, i think you will be kind of surprised.

its not your fault, but please try to go through how the fizeau "drag" is explained in special relativity, and how lenght contraction produces a null result in an ether theory with constant ether velocity, and you will perhaps understand why the structure of the argument your video alludes to is incorrect, and is based on two key assumptions, one that the fizeau experiment shows such a drag on ether of a medium like water, which is not the case. and two that such a velocity of the ether is observable in realistic ether models, which is not the case either. to make this argument work you must assume both, and that means assuming incorrect theories of ether, where no contraction occours, and the fizeau delay is caused by ether drag, both are just not valid assumptions.

nono how does special relativity deal with the contradicton? you say there is a contradiction but there is no such contradiction. you go up to the point of adressing a contradiction and then you say a theory equivalent to an ether theory without drag and with no spatial gradient in flow which just means a constant velocity everywhere, namely special relativity and something like lorentzian ether, will resolve the issue. so the next statement doesnt make any sense at all, how can special relativity solve the problem when it is just the kinematics of a kind of ether theory? and then ofc you dont explain anything about that. ofc this is a short video, but cmon man, that is some nonsense. not blaming you, nobody ever gave a satisfactory account of the difference between special relativity and an ether theory with constant ether velocity with lenght contraction, with respect to these issues. any derivation in terms of electrodynamics in special relativity automatically works for an ether theory, and other dragging effects are equivalent to the dragging in GR for instance in black holes, these effects are very weak around planets and stars so essentially everything is happening more or less as if the ether has no spatial gradients in flow. the fizeau experiment just shows light has a different speed one way vs the other because of the motion of the medium to a very small degree, the way this is explained using electrodynamics has absolutely nothing to do with ether drag. so for the purposes of detecting an ether drag, the experiment is more or less irrelevant. the argument i think you buy into is that since mediums dont drag the ether, you should see an ether velocity in the MM experiment, this is false. if matter contracts by the normal factor based on equal 2 way times for light, (which btw translates into deformation from pressure mediation, whether it is light in a cavity, stresses in a soliton or whatever, it is pretty well a universal phenomena of elastic deformation, lenght contraction that it, and is completely natural and derivable), and the result of MM is null because of that, then the emergent laws from the ether, with the lorentz symmetry, would be free to explain the fizeau experiment. this has absolutely nothing to do with disproving the ether, the hypothesis that there is no ether, does absolutely nothing to resolve the so called paradox you point to, only lenght contraction and electrodynamics does. relativity assumed lenght contraction, it isnt derived, it assumes isotropic light propagation, instead of deriving it, and from there you rebuild the symmetry you get naturally from physical phenomena such as lenght contraction in a properly crafter ether theory. it is just nonsense, and it is kind of sad that millions of people interested in how the world works run around buying into such nonsense.

How can I get this very understanding?😢

Thank you very much for the video! Helps me a lot <3

Thanks a lot!! This has helped me understand VQ-VAE.

And why he says at 5:35 'Bob moves much faster than Alex'?

im really struggling to understand at 4:13 where you say that our main goal is to find the joint distribution P(x, z). why is this our problem? i thought our problem was to maximize P_theta(x). sorry, im pretty new to this so i apologize if this is a really silly thing to ask.

Finally a good one! Thank you!!

awesome

great video,u deserve more likes.

confusing !!!!!

Excellent explanation

why is light in the direction of the ether-stream "slowed down more than it is being sped up"?? lots of unwarranted - or at least unexplained - assumptions here... / the answer might/will be: because the speed of light is much higher than the ether-speed. so the ether can break but not speed up.

"it (the earth) won't completely drag the ether with it." you say confidently. ok. then I say: "it won't drag its atmosphere with it. neither its oceans. not even its mountains..." and start my experiments and their interpretation (!) on this assumption...

I was reading einstein’s relativity writing for laypersons like me, and I couldn’t figure out why the writing kept using plus signs in the equation when I kept getting the minus-sign version. But this video explains the difference simply thanks

❤❤🎉

what if my D(x) is 0.52-0.54 for increasing epochs, but the discriminator losses are higher than generator losses, does this mean convergence?

great video, thank you!

非常感谢你的视频，以及可视化的内容！！！

I am about to do oral exam for my phd . my main project involves the deployment of GANS and VAEs ,,your videos are amazing

Could I suggest an idea for your next video? Consider using a train and a platform, each equipped with synchronized clocks along the entire length of the travel path. This setup could effectively demonstrate the time dependency on distance, which is surprisingly counterintuitive. The scenario becomes especially fascinating when Bob's train changes direction. To avoid any confusion arising from General Relativity effects, you could assume that each of Bob's train cars is powered by its own engine. I’ve subscribed to your channel, and I’m looking forward to seeing this video. I’d love to learn more from your analysis

Great Explanation, are the later versions of YOLO able to increase the accuracy to surpass Faster RCNN ? Also what are the basic differences between the later versions of YOLO (like v8a and v10) and YOLO v1 ?

If the train were moving away from the tree, would it be elongated instead of being contracted?

So I guess they found out that light travels at the same speed no matter which direction they were looking at, despite the earth clearly not standing still?

Matrices in this case is absolutely evil, it needs a lot of efforts to obscure such a simple idea from 0:56 to 3:00 Thanks for great video

7:50 'say we have a neuron i connected to every neuron k in the following layer': proceeds to calculate dL/dyi ??? How does the output yi depend on the next weights ??? A few minutes before with the first example, you calculated dL/dyj ?

I have a doubt. At 5:30 of this video, will the light ray path change by 90 degrees or less than 90 degrees (as shown in the diagram)? If it changes by 90 deg. then the length remains L.

YOLO to this video!, great explanation.

Thanks for the clear step-by-step explanation!

That was awesome, extremely helpful. Thank you!

That is extraordinary and clear! This video and another one of yours I saw recently have really clarified special relativity for me. Thank you! I'm going to save these so I can watch them again later. Hopefully at some point it will stick.

4:42 also at 18:10 - Small correction: Not N(0, I), but N (0,1). This is a multivariate unit Gaussian: Center at the 0-vector and unit standard variation of 1, not capital I.

Absolutely amazing video! Honestly, perfect explanation!

What would happen if Jack were going fast enough to make the ladder shorter than the barn, and once he's inside, the barn doors shut, and jack instantly stops?

This makes a lot of sense.

Thank you! You did such a great job explaining this! I've finally understood how all these terms and concepts come together. <3

Unduly complicated. Uses the stupid third twin

If we consider mu meson from upper atmosphere, they shower on earth from all sides. In a way we can compare it to go and return journey of one single meson. There is no reversal acceleration, yet there is time dilation in both directions. This meson would see 16th generation of meson in earth's lab. So time dilation must be due to absolute motion and not relativistic. In multidimensional astronomical motion with comparable speeds it is difficult to say which one is faster in absolute sense but a mu meson with 99.8 % speed of light is faster compared to celestial bodies in whatever direction we consider. This would answer twin's paradox I hope.

Chad

one of the best explanations of VAE..👌

perfect

Can w be considered as vector that represents all adjustable parameters? I.e., not just weights of one linear transformation matrix from input to hidden layer but all of them + bias values. So when you compute gradient of L with respect to w, you compute a vector for which each entry is a the partial derivative of L with respect to w_i?

Pleasure to watch

Nice, will revisit this because the maths is overwhelming right now

From where to study Probability for Deep Learning ? Specifically the one used in here? I have studied probability but not this much. If anyone can give resources it will be very helpful

Your videos are amazing to understand the subject of relativity! Unfortunately, I have no background in physics and mathematics so I often struggle to understand a few things. One question I have from the video is: I can grasp that the Michelson e Morley’s experiment proved that there is no special medium in relation to which light would be propagating. But, how does it also prove that light’s speed is constant in relation to all other things including that which emitted it? Did the experiment also move the light source in relation to the detector? If the frequency of the interference remained the same even when the emitter and the detector were in movement with relation to each other, I think it would be a more straightforward way to guarantee the the fact that light’s speed remain constant regardless of relative velocity. Sorry if that’s a stupid question, but I’d really like to understand the subject.

At 8:46 why is joint probability tractable? Why are others not tractable?