Einstein's Biggest Blunder, Explained

[@nathanbanks2354]

"If you don't want to make silly math mistakes like Einstein" is the best segue ever.

[@izaakthoms]

THATS HOW ITS SPELLED????

[@AnkitRathi7]

I typed the same comment then saw this one 🤣🤣

[@danimations1440]

rt tr no it’s right

[@danimations1440]

Izaak h that’s how it’s spelled

[@timezone5259]

@@AnkitRathi7 me too LOL

[@J.P.Nery.N.]

Einstein. The man who is right even when he's wrong.

[@chimponkoman]

*when he thinks he's wrong ;)

[@theaureliasys6362]

And wrong when he's absolutely sure of being right.

[@bishu6541]

Cause wrong and right are relative terms....something maybe wrong for one and it maybe the best thought ever for another.

[@raymondhu7720]

@@bishu6541 Ha. "Relative terms"

[@yourhighness7854]

Right and wrong are absolute terms regardless of what Humans think

[@pepperjacks]

Einstein wrong? *Universe changes to match*

[@Reydriel]

Sometimes I feel like that's actually what's happening lmao

[@nabplooyerver0.127]

Universe: Must Obey Einstein

[@obi-wankenobi5411]

69 likes haha

[@magicandmagik]

LMAO awesome comment

[@dakshkushwah5654]

literally the best comment ever XD

[@ayushshukla1438]

A bit more on it: The constant that Einstein added has had an effect on findings related to dark energy. I read it somewhere: Einstein's two biggest mistakes were: Adding that constant Removing that constant

[@arnoldo8642]

well that wasnt all that helpful if u dont mention how it relates to the findings :p

[@ayushshukla1438]

@@arnoldo8642 Search the same question on quora you may find an answer related to that.

[@RizkyMaulanaNugraha]

Not dark matter, they already know about dark matter. I think what you mean is dark energy (the factors that makes galaxies repulsive)

[@danielgutfleisch2431]

Yeah you either use the constant or you use dark energy. Fun Fact: since ρ of dark energy is constant and the universe is expanding we have more dark energy than when the universe was smaller.

[@JasonKerlin]

@@danielgutfleisch2431 Wow observations only see real "not dark" energy. Of course if the Universe is expanding and becoming less dense there would have to be more dark energy. It is so simple....

[@sam08g16]

Schrodinger's Einstein is wrong and right at the same time

[@ginnyjollykidd]

Schroedinger's cat is everywhere!

[@pranjalkumar4708]

Thats a real good joke 👏👏

[@ilke3192]

But we measured him, hence he turns out to be right. Unless... ...Unless he was actually wrong, but we changed the result by observing him O.o

[@christianhoffmann8607]

hahahaha this is brilliant :D

[@thanosattorneyatlaw4062]

@@ginnyjollykidd and not everywhere at the same time

[@joshlake3169]

Thank you, Henry, this is absolutely perfect for the capstone piece at the end of my cosmology class after students finish their Hubble constant lab. Beautifully explained as always! Your videos make my teaching so much more effective.

[@russdill]

I've had this explained to me so many times wrongly. This video is really refreshing.

[@steveoh9025]

Totally agree. Henry nailed it with this video explanation.

[@utetopia1620]

Whenever i see or hear the name Henry, i picture Henry Rollins doing an impression of William Shatner saying Henry's own name... kzbin.info/www/bejne/i2K1YpWEh8ajma8

[@aryamanmishra154]

When Universe respects you so much that it changes the whole game just to match your equation.

[@GauravThakur-hg3ic]

DIRAC SIR!

[@frankdimeglio8216]

It is absolutely impossible to separate gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. By Frank DiMeglio

[@shivammahajan303]

Damn Einstein pulled an Pandora on everybody (the character can manipulate reality on will).

[@loohpjames]

"If you don't want to make silly math mistakes like Einstein"... emm... . . . . . . I probably won't have the chance to even make the mistake...

[@avi8aviate]

Hey, did you know... You don't need the periods?

[@petersuvara]

Ahhh... blundering Mr E. Proven wrong by Georges Lemaitre, who really was the great mind.

[@racheline_nya]

trust me, you'll find a way

[@Aspiracy]

Hey You're right

[@rttr5777]

"if you dont want to make silly math mistakes like einstien" that went from 0 to completely unrelatable

[@SteelBlueVision]

This comment is at 42 upvotes, please do not touch it!

[@liquidminds]

I'm pretty sure that I will never achieve the level where I could make math-mistakes "like einstein" ... Even if I keep studying maths for the rest of my life, my mistakes will still be a lot worse. xD

[@kakyoindonut3213]

@@liquidminds how can I achieve a mistake like eintein if I'm not even onto space, I'm a programmer

[@AstroTibs]

Finally, someone correctly pointing out that Einstein did not "accidentally predict" dark energy, and that his error was only incidentally useful.

[@carazy123_]

You should use Brilliant so that you don’t miscalculate those trivial fundamental equations of the universe and such

[@ginnyjollykidd]

There's only one Fundamental Equation to rule them all in Calculus! BWAHAHAHA

[@TonyZhang01]

math that I know 0:05 what i thought math in school is 0:19 math in school: 1:02

[@lelouch1722]

Tensors are quite complicated ...

[@limpan9997]

@lelouch weird flex but ok

[@skyacaniadev2229]

Lelouch No, that is just the fabric of space-time, of course it is tensor.

[@pranavchopra_0075]

The man so badass that he got the right answer with the wrong assumptions

[@goldenfloof5469]

That's like making two mistakes in a formula that cancel each other out.

[@ekrotte8714]

Seems like me in calculus

[@renakunisaki]

That moment when a bug breaks another bug.

[@leftaroundabout]

@Melon Collie not really, it's more like providing an over-complicated solution to an homework assignment, more general than the teacher wanted, and getting points deducted for focusing on a different special case from the required one, but then finding out that the general solution _is_ needed in the final exam given by somebody else and your overpreparation ends up playing into your hands.

[@pleaseenteraname4824]

That's actually normal. A logical consequence "A-->B" is always true if A is false, weather B is true or false. Meaning that if you start from a false premise, you can still end up with a true conclusion

[@adamkey1934]

Einstein's blunder still contributes more to science than the rest of us mere mortals ever will 🤷‍♂️

[@GoTommyBoy]

Einstein was a mere mortal too.

[@JuHoCH]

@@GoTommyBoy no

[@JaytleBee]

einstein literally died though

[@vividandlucid]

What a hopeful way to look at oneself's future

[@flanbenflen9069]

@@JuHoCH insert surprised Pikachu face

[@SirBelchaloT]

Well as someone who’s about to go into their third year of a physics degree, after hearing that the field equations are actually a SYSTEM of TEN, PARTIAL. SECOND ORDER. DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS. You know I really just think engineering is more my thing after all

[@vaevictus4637]

Just think of it in terms of programming code and it gets a lot more acceptable.

[@nikkiofthevalley]

@@vaevictus4637..... I've seen mathematical equations translated into code. It invariably is an absolute mess that somehow maybe works.

[@TheRealGuywithoutaMustache]

Wait... I have to rewatch this because I lost him when he said "F = ma"

[@riccardoorlando2262]

I know right? Makes no sense! Force, mass and acceleration tied linearly just like that? And what, do bodies just attract each other instantly? What is this, spooky action at a distance? Also, photons are massless! So they can't have forces applied to them? Or do they receive infinite acceleration? Pah!

[@flanbenflen9069]

@@riccardoorlando2262 you better be sarcastic....

[@vgamerul4617]

@@flanbenflen9069 duh

[@Abdega]

Full = Metal*Alchemist

[@hammadibrahim39]

@@Abdega genius

[@reznovvazileski3193]

My QM teacher always told me that getting the right answer only means your mistakes canceled each other out. This would be the perfect example of such an occurrence :')

[@duchi882]

*When you realize* You are small brain and cannot understand big brain equations

[@MrDood-le8mn]

Anyone know a good explanation of the final equation?

[@wayfa13]

Then just keep trying until you do, if you would like to understand them =) How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time ;)

[@WarrMachine]

*2k likes inbound*

[@robertvorster8933]

Head over to brilliant 🤣🤣🤣

[@wayfa13]

@@robertvorster8933 Hahahaha I was about to edit my comment and suggest that xD

[@TaliesinMyrddin]

*Watches video* Hehe Einstein hair funny

[@ManojKumar-xo7on]

This is the 1st time i've seen a video on youtube on GT actually showing the full set of equations

[@Examantel]

He still had to expand out the Christoffel symbols in terms of the metric tensor, which would've roughly tripled the number of terms.

[@caesarcch3879]

"If you don't wanna make silly math mistakes like *Einstein*" Is it just me or is there something wrong with that sentence?

[@TheBiggreenpig]

Yes

[@peolesdru]

Wow! The cosmological constant is SO much more complicated and interesting than the short-hand version we always get in the scientific press. Thanks!

[@musik350]

Remember: If you don't want to do math mistakes, don't do math

[@lonestarr1490]

Legit statement. I'm a phd student in maths and can tell you for sure that mistakes are inevitable λ-almost surely.

[@mariovanderwal1695]

Remember: if you don't want to make math mistakes, just add a random constant

[@GRBtutorials]

TheCheeser And put a cool name to it, such as “cosmological constant”. It’s true, however, that there’s no evidence substantiating that this will cause you to not make math mistakes, even though it’s correlated.

[@skyechen2673]

Einstein: "Oops, I made a mistake, I will change my answer" Scientists a decade after his death: "Actually your first answer was correct shouldn't have changed it"

[@456MrPeople]

Sounds like me during a test

[@КрасимирНиков-п9к]

Doesn't matter still he gets the credit for it

[@78anurag]

BRUH RELATABLE

[@akash2514]

Always love your representation of Einstein. So minimal, yet succinct.

[@kiloperson5680]

Einstein high on Van de graff's combs

[@BothHands1]

I love this! I wish Einstein could come back to today, with all the knowledge of the current scientific community, and give another crack at solving this whole thing. He was such a unique individual that only comes around once every few centuries. I wish we could have had him for longer

[@thenotflatearth2714]

Time traveler: Dr Einstein your constant appears to be justified in the future Einstein: so u came from future Time traveler: Einstein: Einstein: say sike right now

[@dinamosflams]

E: "If so, how can you even be here in the first place?"

[@thehiddenninja3428]

Psych* It's short for "I psyched you out!"

[@TavartDukod]

@Ishmam Masud - Cuz I Can hey, particles don't take infinite amount of paths, they don't even have paths. They just have changing wave function. And many worlds interpretation doesn't really have those "many worlds". It's just that quantum mechanics is actually completely deterministic, and we perceive being entangled with some particle as a collapse of wave function.

[@euromicelli5970]

Thank you Henry! This might be the most balanced non-physicist explanation of the Lambda term I have ever seen. The simple clarification that the individual symbols are shortcuts to “this” system of differential equations makes all the difference to me. It clarifies that “yes, this equation is complicated, but it’s not witchcraft. Here’s what it actually looks like”. I don’t need to know how to manipulate the equation to be able to recognize what “shape” it actually takes. Even to the high school level person who comes in expecting that each symbol in a physics equation is a scalar, it at least demystifies the usual “this is the term that (hand-wave) represents curvature of space-time” description which is not much better than a magic spell. This video goes deeper than the usual layman explanations that try to keep it so simple that they don’t actually explain anything. At the same time, you are not requiring from us a deep understanding of Tensor Calculus; just hoping for a moderate familiarity with college-level mathematics. It’s the right mix for those of us who know what partial differential equations are, even if we don’t remember how to handle them.

[@sciverzero8197]

speaking of the warping of spacetime and such, this minute sure seemed about six times longer than I've normally observed.

[@DarkiCraft2005]

sees simple equation: Hmm interesting 0:58 Clever shortcut 1:03 Heart attack called 911

[@Ormek70]

This video makes me want to be a physicist like Einstein or Friedmann, so that I can find terms to describe the world. Or, a physicist like you, so I can at least actually understand the terms and their implications on the nature of reality. Very cool video!

[@kelvinc]

Thank you for explaining this in detail. There's a weird trope that dark energy somehow vindicates Einstein adding the cosmological constant, which is based on nothing more than arguing two wrongs make a right.

[@geniusmp2001]

It's always fun to see the assumptions embedded in our science. I have long thought that it's hilarious that we still call the parameter for the change in the expansion rate of the universe the deceleration parameter, and we make that parameter negative because the universe's expansion is not decelerating.

[@thorntontarr2894]

Full credit, Henry for showing that the GR equation is actually very complicated; the reason it took Einstein about 10 years with the help of his Maths colleagues to sort out. Finally, your viewers will see this issue. Now, how about a video on this issue: Einstein was guided in his GR quest by many issues like conservation of energy which the 'Bianchi Identities' ensure; yet, there is NO conservation of energy at large scales (RE:CMB) only locally as you DO point out in the video. How ironic that this assumption (energy conservation) guided Einstein mathematically yet it doesn't hold except locally like an inertial frame in Special Relativity.

[@PADARM]

Just imagine having that level of his genius that even when he's wrong, he's right

[@rajagopalank3446]

Excellent briefing! This serves good to anyone needing to prepare a notepad while going to the classroom to lecture on basics for graduate or post graduate students specializing in cosmology. A BIG THANKS!

[@jeanhayoz3543]

Hi, love your videos! Can't help but notice a mistake in your geodesic equation at 0:46: it's the second derivative of the mu-th component of the geodesic curve, not the first. Doesn't matter very much I guess in the end, but for the sake of correctness! Please continue with your great videos!

[@jecabreradc]

i hope you never stop making these videos! Thanks!

[@TheScienceBiome]

1:00, *damn* that animation was good. I can only hope that I can reach that level one day!

[@TheScienceBiome]

I can tell you’ve been inspired by 3Blue1Brown, because you actually took the time to explain the equations behind the models.

[@JR-iu8yl]

I'm subscribed to your channel great content by the way.

[@TheScienceBiome]

@@JR-iu8yl Thanks!

[@ericb.4385]

I think you got the geodesic equation at 0:45 wrong ;)

[@thehiddenninja3428]

Oh, wow, how did you spot that? I looked it up on wikipedia, and you're right! The first term should be a second-degree differential, not a first-degree

[@ericb.4385]

@@thehiddenninja3428 I'm a physicist, one see that quite fast if one know the formula^^

[@JamesSarantidis]

When your Physics professors are like "Your exam just needs fundamental knowledge about the subject. You will not need a cheat sheet. You have 1h and 30'. I started the coundown by accident while on my way. You have 45' left. Good luck."

[@Giacumein]

I would love to have more video like this one, where you show how physicists came up with solution to theoretical inconsistencies!

[@randomjin9392]

So... Einstein's equations don't conform to the Universe. The Universe conforms to them.

[@ismetcancelik5052]

underrated

[@ismetcancelik5052]

oh it was sent 13 minutes ago, ok then

[@vladimirjosh6575]

@@ismetcancelik5052 *It's been 7 hrs. Still underrated.*_

[@SinHurr]

Glorious Suzumiya Einstein

[@jezuconz7299]

Not rlly man

[@SamSverko]

This channel is the perfect example of where you can enjoy something you don't understand. I try to watch every video here, while only understanding maybe 1% of the content, but still enjoy it!

[@D_Winds]

Is this the equivalent of doing the work wrong but getting the answer right, or vice versa?

[@SinHurr]

Yes

[@mikki7522]

Kind of like doing the work wrong and getting the right answer in the end, as he assumed that the universe is static.

[@jakebruce11]

Is it really correct to say that he made a technical mistake in setting that differential term to zero? Isn't it more accurate to say he just assumed it was zero?

[@Legalmind2]

If you have no reason to set it to zero and it doesn't prohibit you from solving the equations to let it remain non zero then yes, I would consider it a mistake.

[@jakebruce11]

@@Legalmind2 Well certainly it turned out to be wrong. But calling that a technical mistake is to equate it with e.g. a mathematical error in a derivation. That seems a bit uncharitable.

[@Legalmind2]

@@jakebruce11 I'd agree that the comparison is definitely unfair, but nonetheless if I did that myself I would consider it a mistake.

[@nafrost2787]

You know I find something weird on the dark energy quiz on Brilliant's astronomy course. They showed in it a diagram thst shows that the measured expansion rate of the universe is getting larger the further you look at the universe as a proof that the expansion rate is accelerating. But that doesn't make any sense. Because light travels at a finite speed, when we look back in space, we look back in time, so we measure the expansion rate as it was in the past, and if it was larger in the past, that means it slowed down, to the current expansion rate. Also in the PBS Space and crash course astronomy episodes, they said that the measured expansion rate was smaller, which means it had to speed up to the current one. So I think that the people on Brilliant made a mistake there.

[@ginnyjollykidd]

No, there is part of the Universe we will never know because the light from celestial objects there will never reach us from their distance, which is increasing with the universal velocity that we are. We can only see what our most sensitive telescopes can see. Light farther away than the 15 or so billion (?) years ago will never reach us because the distance between us and those objects increases constantly. We might never know how big the universe is.

[@CorwynGC]

​@@ginnyjollykidd No. Nafrost was right, Expansion rate should be smaller at far distances.

[@nafrost2787]

Yeah I think you are confusing between expansion rate, and the expansion speed. Expansion rate is velocity the galaxy is moving away from us per unit distance, and the expansion speed is just that velocity. Expansion speed between us and a distance galaxy always increases with distance. But expansion rate which takes velocity per unit distance can decrease with distance.

[@atifyasir]

I love how the stickman with 6 strands of hair perfectly resembles Albert Einstein.

[@marcomoriconi7147]

On 0:44 it should be the second derivative of \gamma^\mu in relation to s, not first. It's a second order differential equation.

[@MrNerdpwn]

Correct! Henry made a slight error there. The first term in the geodesic equation is indeed a second order derivative of coordinates with respect to the affine parameter.

[@piotrrywczak]

5:10 This transition to brilliant’s commercial is so ridiculous it warrants a like on its own XD

[@jeiaz]

And the cosmological constant actually describes dark energy, innit?

[@General12th]

Yes. Possibly.

[@lonestarr1490]

Yes. Conceivably.

[@Mink510]

Yes. Potentially.

[@carazy123_]

Yes. Feasibly.

[@pendalink]

Yes. Perceivably.

[@auroravuitton90]

One quarter worth of cosmology course in 6 mins, well done

[@israellai]

is this good old minutephysics

[@enderwiggins8248]

How do you learn so much physics that you can synthesize a video like this?

[@T33K3SS3LCH3N]

I'm gonna trust Einstein on this. If he says there is nothing in the universe, then I don't exist.

[@BuleriaChk]

The silliest mistake is the equation of a circle r ^2 = x^2 + y^2 which cannot be derived from r = x ++ y, since r^2 = (x^2 + y^2) + 2xy; the equation of a circle assumes that the product xy does not exist. If one sets p = x + iy, one can get pp* = x^2 + y^2 with one term imaginary, which is wrong since 1^2 1 (Russell's Paradox) Not only that, but every number is prime to its own base: 1_n = (n/n) so n(1_n) = n R' = T + R R', R, T represent interacting forces) (R')^2 = (T + R)^2 = T^2 + R^2 + 2TR f := force f^2 defined as equal and opposite force; i.e., rest mass at an origin - (R')^2 = rest mass at a single origin (0). The definiton of lengeth requires two origins (x - 0 = x for x - x = 0 Fermat's expression (c^n) x^n + y^n is also true (even for n=2) by binomial expansion so STR "time dilation" equation is also wrong. So is trigonometry, geometry, and anything that professes to be a circle.... (wave functions , convolution, etc.) Much more to this story, but I don't have the space time to write it here. (Why is the traces of the relativistic EM field tensor 0 (along with two of the Pauli matrices)? Only the Shadow knows, but I will reveal enlightenment for a beer and pizza... :) "Just because you're schizophrenic doesn't mean the Universe isn't a figment of your imagination...." - Flamenco Chuck Sign at LLNL optics lab "Do not gaze into laser with remaining eye."

[@mohamedmoatyhassan5125]

Einstein: ops I made a mistake Universe: quick! We must obey the laws of einstein

[@saifel-dinmandour8670]

Brilliant, I am currently reading Einstein's biography by Walter Isaacson and I am now exactly at that point where he adds the cosmological constant to match with the conventional wisdom at the time of a static universe. Very well explained, I enjoyed the video

[@ommahajan1]

I like the way he draws Einstein.

[@Menstral]

I hope you are elbow deep in nerd supermodels. This was so good.

[@cipherxen2]

So he's in superposition of being right and wrong.

[@SinHurr]

No, he was right, just not yet.

[@gustavoshigueo]

Yes, it depends on the time you open the box... wait longer and the probability of him being right increases

[@gurneetsingh7952]

Einstein: Oops, made a mistake, maybe I should change my answer THE UNIVERSE: No need, I can change myself

[@swapless]

That one dislike is from Einstein himself.

[@wayfa13]

LOL

[@Mernom]

I'd think that he's like the vid, as it spreads good knowledge.

[@swapless]

@@Mernom yeah, that is true.

[@shubhankardasgupta4777]

NOPE

[@Metagross31]

1:06 the Capital Gammas (Upside down "L"s) are acutally also shorthands. And so is the index notation. If you write it out all the way it gets extremely messy!

[@maitland1007]

You said Einstein made a silly math mistake. Didn't he just lack the evidence that the universe was expanding? Adding a constant term seems like the smart thing to do to me... like you said, its value could always be set to zero.

[@lowlize]

No, the math mistake is the one written on the whiteboard.

[@maitland1007]

@@lowlize That's not a math mistake, that's a physics assumption that he made (density doesn't change with time) because he didn't have any evidence to the contrary.

[@lowlize]

@@maitland1007 It is a mistake, as that is not the correct expression, which is instead showed later including the factor sqrt(g).

[@jonpeterson1468]

That’s way it appears to me, a false assumption due to insufficient data

[@4or871]

I try to combine the cosmological constant and the schrodinger solution on the planck scale. I used planck units. At the end I went back to SI units to compare with the measured vacuum energy density (0.63 10^-9 J/m^3.) Combine: 1) Einstein, cosmological constant 2) Schrödinger solution 3) Planck units Result: - vacuum catastrophe solved? 1)Einstein, cosmological constant Λ = (8π 𝐺 ƐΛ)/(𝑐^4) Planck units: G=1 c=1 Λ (6.1871424 10^34)^-2 = (8π ƐΛ [planckEnergy/planckVolume] 1.1056 10^-52 (6.1871424 10^34)^-2 = 8π ƐΛ 0.001149 10^-120 = ƐΛ 0.1149 10^-122/ ƐΛ = 1 2)Schrödinger solution, n=1 (ℎbar^2 𝑛^2 𝜋^2) / (2𝑚𝐿^2) = E Planck units hbar=1 n=1 m= mplanck =1 L= Lplanck=1 0.5 𝜋^2= E 1= E/0.5 𝜋^2 3)Einstein, Cosmological Constant = Schrödinger solution 0.1149 10^-122/ ƐΛ = 1 = E/0.5 𝜋^2 0.1149 10^-122 0.5 𝜋^2= ƐΛ Eplanck Eplanck =1 0.1149 10^-122 0.5 𝜋^2= ƐΛ 0.567 10^-122 = ƐΛ [planckEnergy/planckVolume] 0.567 10^-122 1.9561 10^9 /(1.61625502 10^-35)^3= ƐΛ [J/m^3] ƐΛ = 2.627 10^-9 [J/m^3] Measured: 0.63 10^-9 [J/m^3] I am looking forward to your response.

[@schmetterling4477]

No. :-)

[@ridwansetiadi8393]

Einstein: "So I was right ?" MinutePhysics: "Yes, but actually no."

[@TheR971]

But actually yes.

[@TheScienceBiome]

1:05 Big Brain!!!

[@Laff700]

There are other possibilities if you consider cases where the universe has regions of negative energy density.

[@Excludos]

If I'm understanding this right, that's in all likelihood what the constant represents. Right now it's just there because we know we're missing something, but not sure exactly what. Dark/negative energy is a pretty reasonable hypothesis for it.

[@Laff700]

@@Excludos Dark energy is thought to have a positive energy density though.

[@NoahHornberger]

really like the content here but the audio is very 'crispy' on the top of the spectrum, almost hurting my ears on headphones. A slow rolloff eq to taper off the upper frequencies would help balance it out just a bit. There is also a de-esser that could help if used in moderation

[@pen_l]

So I still don’t know anything

[@pendalink]

That's the best thing to know

[@omsingharjit]

1:13 plz make video on it , why mercury orbital motion is different and why , and how explained it but Newtown didn't

[@Hecatonicosachoron]

When Einstein is right, he produces new and exciting physical models. When Einstein is wrong, his error produces new branches of physics. Really Einstein’s mistakes are as insightful as his theories that are correct...

[@johannesh7610]

Thaks for expanding the compactified formula. It is rare that this is done, and without it, one can't understand what it actually means

[@lagrangiankid378]

If you really want to know what it means, you have to study a lot of differential geometry and tensor calculus

[@ilayws4448]

His biggest mistake was thinking he was mistaken.

[@toranoshiryou]

Thank you for the video, you took a nice approach at explaining Einsteins error. But there is no need for distracting music, the content is interesting enough without it!

[@ImtheEntity]

Wouldn't it be fascinating to see Einstein's reaction to this video if he could watch it right now?

[@luispereira2354]

Yes let's build a time machine and bring him to our time, show him the internet and he will get porn addicted instead of beein genius 😂😂

[@tanaymody3390]

Please can you make a video explaining what exactly is TIME

[@Nls007]

The only thing Einstein was wrong about was being wrong!

[@Hokiesnumber1]

The audacity of your lead pitch to your sponsor is amazing!

[@ShadSterling]

"So that you don't mess up like Einstein" might be the worst way to advertise anything, ever.

[@AyanKhan-if3mm]

3 hours ago?

[@martinpusar6765]

@@AyanKhan-if3mm lol

[@AyanKhan-if3mm]

@Iter you decide.

[@ShadSterling]

I wish I could say that timestamp was an Einsteinian Error, but it's really just a Patreon Perk. But really, the ad should be more like "If you want to make your mistakes more like Einstein's mistakes, ..."

[@kay5967]

It's like when you make a calculation error in one step and another calculation error in another step and they end up cancelling each other out so you get the correct answer at the end without you even knowing about it.

[@viniciusceccon7755]

When you’re a genius and your biggest mistake was to think you’ve made a mistake

[@Mernom]

Nope. It's to think that you can't make mistakes.

[@ocayaro]

Two other mistakes: 1) in the Weiderman-Franz law relating thermal conductivity and electrical conductivity, where he introduces a factor of two. 2) In thermal oscillations, he assumed that all matter oscillates at one phonon frequency. Debye came and fixed this by assuming a density of oscillatory states.

[@rekieg9951]

Yeahh. At least i was good at high school physicss😍😂😂😂

[@divyammadhok9446]

He is the type of student who argues with teacher on a question and wins

[@Spookskiii]

Scientists: We think you may actually be wrong on this one. Einstein: 𝐧𝐨.

[@x2f01mick]

Thanks for drawing my portrait @ 0:58

[@man-with-a-plan]

*Einstein is right Even when he is wrong*

[@arpanpal7914]

best channel to understand the complex things.. just love u bro

[@SireCaracal]

so, was Einstein wrong? *Well yes, but actually no*

[@RovingPunster]

What he initially thought was a blunder turned out to be a profound reality that turned our understanding of cosmology on its head. He was right all along, even when he thought he was wrong.

[@Flexy59]

That rhymes

[@RovingPunster]

Today's puntastic brain bender: Is alliterative relativity special, or merely relatively alliterative ?

[@RemembranceRugGuy]

The most expansive thing in my universe is that I appear to be the most dense thing in it.

[@Sivah_Akash]

3:53, if deceleration is proportional to density, as the density decreases the deceleration rate also decreases. So the speed/velocity will reduce continuously but at a slower rate with time. So wouldn't that mean that the velocity never reaches zero in a finite time? And hence there is no chance for contraction.

[@rttr5777]

We should use this video to confuse gaurds in area 51

[@mastershooter64]

Einstein : makes a mistake with complicated differential equations and deriving equations that are super complicated me : gets the answer to how long it takes the projectile land as negative

[@gorillaman283]

Boy, I really hope someone got fired for that blunder.

[@DrRiq]

This was beautifully explained!

[@SwishSwoosh]

I read this in «Astrophysics for people in a hurry» by Neil deGrasse Tyson

[@christopher3790]

I've never been wrong, except for that one time. It was that one time where I thought I was wrong, but turned out I was actually right.