This video is not available on this platform.

0

0

Advertisements

1606 days ago,
21229 views

King Menelik II of Amara ordered Oromo woman breast cut off in 1886.

Showing 1 to 10 of 65 comments.

commenter - 714 days ago

ok , show me the evidence and i will bring you justice , i also heard atse Yohanis Johnny killed 25 ,ooo muslims in wello ok show me the evidence and i will give you justice by giving you King Minilik's Palace as a compensation or yohanese's this myths are created by some of the weakest link minded people in our neighborhoods its done out of fear and survival and political reasons Mussolini the little Satan also used similar conspiracy theory to divide demonize and conquer so please stop playing the victim game and move on. viva oroomiifffaa

commenter - 1604 days ago

Don't be racist guys. That was the type of thinking in that period. Tewodrose, Yohannes as well as Oromos have beaten Gojjam in different period. This time no Gojjame is recognizing these. Oromo nationalists are still taking only the negative sides of history. This will hurt especially to the oromo it self. You should cool down and strive to do positive history than inciting genocide.

commenter - 1604 days ago

Guys this video was done by OLF during transitional period i Ethiopia 1983 ! It was just to creat hate between nations and bring support for OLF. But now TPLF posted it here as they r afraid OLF and G7 working together ! So it was rubbish story by OLF but a time bomb for TPLF

commenter - 1604 days ago

those who support this video are woyanne cadres, they are working hard to create conflicts. down with woyanne

commenter - 1604 days ago

ግን እውነት ነው ሃበሻ እንዲ አይነት ነገር ያረጋል? ከሆነ ጉድ በሉ

commenter - 1605 days ago

This is the work of TPLF,,PPl dont get tricked by such kind of post...OLF;ONLF ang G777 are working together which is a big threat for TPLF and this kind of post is one part of the media campaign to dismantle any trust among the diaspora community and opposition elites of different ethnic backgrounds....not only the this as well to bring fear among the followers two respected religions(CR an IS) so any one dont give a shit for such propoganda

commenter - 1605 days ago

this is sickness!!!! Thank God!!!i am Oromo but i don't think like this stpid guy who posted this....go street to hell!! i think you are belonge to hell.

commenter - 1605 days ago

ETHIOTUBE WILL BE HACKED SOON!

ETHIOTUBE WILL BE HACKED SOON!

ETHIOTUBE WILL BE HACKED SOON!

ETHIOTUBE WILL BE HACKED SOON!

ETHIOTUBE WILL BE HACKED SOON!

ETHIOTUBE WILL BE HACKED SOON!

ETHIOTUBE WILL BE HACKED SOON!

ETHIOTUBE WILL BE HACKED SOON!

ETHIOTUBE WILL BE HACKED SOON!

ETHIOTUBE WILL BE HACKED SOON!

ETHIOTUBE WILL BE HACKED SOON!

ETHIOTUBE WILL BE HACKED SOON!

ETHIOTUBE WILL BE HACKED SOON!

ETHIOTUBE WILL BE HACKED SOON!

ETHIOTUBE WILL BE HACKED SOON!

ETHIOTUBE WILL BE HACKED SOON!

ETHIOTUBE WILL BE HACKED SOON!

ETHIOTUBE WILL BE HACKED SOON!

ETHIOTUBE WILL BE HACKED SOON!

ETHIOTUBE WILL BE HACKED SOON!

ETHIOTUBE WILL BE HACKED SOON!

commenter - 1605 days ago

n general relativity, spacetime is assumed to be smooth and continuous—and not just in the mathematical sense. In the theory of quantum mechanics, there is an inherent discreteness present in physics. In attempting to reconcile these two theories, it is sometimes postulated that spacetime should be quantized at the very smallest scales. Current theory is focused on the nature of spacetime at the Planck scale. Causal sets, loop quantum gravity, string theory, and black hole thermodynamics all predict a quantized spacetime with agreement on the order of magnitude. Loop quantum gravity makes precise predictions about the geometry of spacetime at the Planck scale.

[edit]Privileged character of 3+1 spacetime

There are two kinds of dimensions, spatial (bidirectional) and temporal (unidirectional). Let the number of spatial dimensions be N and the number of temporal dimensions be T. That N = 3 and T = 1, setting aside the compactified dimensions invoked by string theory and undetectable to date, can be explained by appealing to the physical consequences of letting N differ from 3 and T differ from 1. The argument is often of an anthropic character.

Immanuel Kant argued that 3-dimensional space was a consequence of the inverse square law of universal gravitation. While Kant's argument is historically important, John D. Barrow says that it "...gets the punch-line back to front: it is the three-dimensionality of space that explains why we see inverse-square force laws in Nature, not vice-versa." (Barrow 2002: 204). This is because the law of gravitation (or any other inverse-square law) follows from the concept of flux and the proportional relationship of flux density and the strength of field. If N = 3, then 3-dimensional solid objects have surface areas proportional to the square of their size in any selected spatial dimension. In particular, a sphere of radius r has area of 4πr ². More generally, in a space of N dimensions, the strength of the gravitational attraction between two bodies separated by a distance of r would be inversely proportional to rN−1.

In 1920, Paul Ehrenfest showed that if we fix T = 1 and let N > 3, the orbit of a planet about its sun cannot remain stable. The same is true of a star's orbit around the center of its galaxy.[12] Ehrenfest also showed that if N is even, then the different parts of a wave impulse will travel at different speeds. If N > 3 and odd, then wave impulses become distorted. Only when N = 3 or 1 are both problems avoided. In 1922, Hermann Weyl showed that Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism works only when N = 3 and T = 1, writing that this fact "...not only leads to a deeper understanding of Maxwell's theory, but also of the fact that the world is four dimensional, which has hitherto always been accepted as merely 'accidental,' become intelligible through it."[13] Finally, Tangherlini[14] showed in 1963 that when N > 3, electron orbitals around nuclei cannot be stable; electrons would either fall into the nucleus or disperse.

Properties of n+m-dimensional spacetimes

Max Tegmark[15] expands on the preceding argument in the following anthropic manner. If T differs from 1, the behavior of physical systems could not be predicted reliably from knowledge of the relevant partial differential equations. In such a universe, intelligent life capable of manipulating technology could not emerge. Moreover, if T > 1, Tegmark maintains that protons and electrons would be unstable and could decay into particles having greater mass than themselves. (This is not a problem if the particles have a sufficiently low temperature.) If N > 3, Ehrenfest's argument above holds; atoms as we know them (and probably more complex structures as well) could not exist. If N < 3, gravitation of any kind becomes problematic, and the universe is probably too simple to contain observers. For example, when N 1, subatomic particles which decay after a fixed period would not behave predictably, because time-like geodesics would not be necessarily maximal.[16] N = 1 and T = 3 has the peculiar property that the speed of light in a vacuum is a lower bound on the velocity of matter; all matter consists of tachyons.[15]

Hence anthropic and other arguments rule out all cases except N = 3 and T = 1—which happens to describe the world about us. Curiously, the cases N = 3 or 4 have the richest and most difficult geometry and topology. There are, for example, geometric statements whose truth or falsity is known for all N except one or both of 3 and 4.[citation needed] N = 3 was the last case of the Poincaré conjecture to be proved.

For an elementary treatment of the privileged status of N = 3 and T = 1, see chpt. 10 (esp. Fig. 10.12) of Barrow;[17] for deeper treatments, see §4.8 of Barrow and Tipler (1986) and Tegmark.[15] Barrow has repeatedly cited the work of Whitrow.[18]

String theory hypothesizes that matter and energy are composed of tiny vibrating strings of various types, most of which are embedded in dimensions that exist only on a scale no larger than the Planck length. Hence N = 3 and T = 1 do not characterize string theory, which embeds vibrating strings in coordinate grids having 10, or even 26, dimensions.

[edit]Privileged character of 3+1 spacetime

There are two kinds of dimensions, spatial (bidirectional) and temporal (unidirectional). Let the number of spatial dimensions be N and the number of temporal dimensions be T. That N = 3 and T = 1, setting aside the compactified dimensions invoked by string theory and undetectable to date, can be explained by appealing to the physical consequences of letting N differ from 3 and T differ from 1. The argument is often of an anthropic character.

Immanuel Kant argued that 3-dimensional space was a consequence of the inverse square law of universal gravitation. While Kant's argument is historically important, John D. Barrow says that it "...gets the punch-line back to front: it is the three-dimensionality of space that explains why we see inverse-square force laws in Nature, not vice-versa." (Barrow 2002: 204). This is because the law of gravitation (or any other inverse-square law) follows from the concept of flux and the proportional relationship of flux density and the strength of field. If N = 3, then 3-dimensional solid objects have surface areas proportional to the square of their size in any selected spatial dimension. In particular, a sphere of radius r has area of 4πr ². More generally, in a space of N dimensions, the strength of the gravitational attraction between two bodies separated by a distance of r would be inversely proportional to rN−1.

In 1920, Paul Ehrenfest showed that if we fix T = 1 and let N > 3, the orbit of a planet about its sun cannot remain stable. The same is true of a star's orbit around the center of its galaxy.[12] Ehrenfest also showed that if N is even, then the different parts of a wave impulse will travel at different speeds. If N > 3 and odd, then wave impulses become distorted. Only when N = 3 or 1 are both problems avoided. In 1922, Hermann Weyl showed that Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism works only when N = 3 and T = 1, writing that this fact "...not only leads to a deeper understanding of Maxwell's theory, but also of the fact that the world is four dimensional, which has hitherto always been accepted as merely 'accidental,' become intelligible through it."[13] Finally, Tangherlini[14] showed in 1963 that when N > 3, electron orbitals around nuclei cannot be stable; electrons would either fall into the nucleus or disperse.

Properties of n+m-dimensional spacetimes

Max Tegmark[15] expands on the preceding argument in the following anthropic manner. If T differs from 1, the behavior of physical systems could not be predicted reliably from knowledge of the relevant partial differential equations. In such a universe, intelligent life capable of manipulating technology could not emerge. Moreover, if T > 1, Tegmark maintains that protons and electrons would be unstable and could decay into particles having greater mass than themselves. (This is not a problem if the particles have a sufficiently low temperature.) If N > 3, Ehrenfest's argument above holds; atoms as we know them (and probably more complex structures as well) could not exist. If N < 3, gravitation of any kind becomes problematic, and the universe is probably too simple to contain observers. For example, when N 1, subatomic particles which decay after a fixed period would not behave predictably, because time-like geodesics would not be necessarily maximal.[16] N = 1 and T = 3 has the peculiar property that the speed of light in a vacuum is a lower bound on the velocity of matter; all matter consists of tachyons.[15]

Hence anthropic and other arguments rule out all cases except N = 3 and T = 1—which happens to describe the world about us. Curiously, the cases N = 3 or 4 have the richest and most difficult geometry and topology. There are, for example, geometric statements whose truth or falsity is known for all N except one or both of 3 and 4.[citation needed] N = 3 was the last case of the Poincaré conjecture to be proved.

For an elementary treatment of the privileged status of N = 3 and T = 1, see chpt. 10 (esp. Fig. 10.12) of Barrow;[17] for deeper treatments, see §4.8 of Barrow and Tipler (1986) and Tegmark.[15] Barrow has repeatedly cited the work of Whitrow.[18]

String theory hypothesizes that matter and energy are composed of tiny vibrating strings of various types, most of which are embedded in dimensions that exist only on a scale no larger than the Planck length. Hence N = 3 and T = 1 do not characterize string theory, which embeds vibrating strings in coordinate grids having 10, or even 26, dimensions.

commenter - 1605 days ago

The geometry of spacetime in special relativity is described by the Minkowski metric on R4. This spacetime is called Minkowski space. The Minkowski metric is usually denoted by η and can be written as a four-by-four matrix:

where the Landau–Lifshitz space-like convention is being used. A basic assumption of relativity is that coordinate transformations must leave spacetime intervals invariant. Intervals are invariant under Lorentz transformations. This invariance property leads to the use of four-vectors (and other tensors) in describing physics.

Strictly speaking, one can also consider events in Newtonian physics as a single spacetime. This is Galilean-Newtonian relativity, and the coordinate systems are related by Galilean transformations. However, since these preserve spatial and temporal distances independently, such a spacetime can be decomposed into spatial coordinates plus temporal coordinates, which is not possible in the general case.

[edit]Spacetime in general relativity

In general relativity, it is assumed that spacetime is curved by the presence of matter (energy), this curvature being represented by the Riemann tensor. In special relativity, the Riemann tensor is identically zero, and so this concept of "non-curvedness" is sometimes expressed by the statement Minkowski spacetime is flat.

The earlier discussed notions of time-like, light-like and space-like intervals in special relativity can similarly be used to classify one-dimensional curves through curved spacetime. A time-like curve can be understood as one where the interval between any two infinitesimally close events on the curve is time-like, and likewise for light-like and space-like curves. Technically the three types of curves are usually defined in terms of whether the tangent vector at each point on the curve is time-like, light-like or space-like. The world line of a slower-than-light object will always be a time-like curve, the world line of a massless particle such as a photon will be a light-like curve, and a space-like curve could be the world line of a hypothetical tachyon. In the local neighborhood of any event, time-like curves that pass through the event will remain inside that event's past and future light cones, light-like curves that pass through the event will be on the surface of the light cones, and space-like curves that pass through the event will be outside the light cones. One can also define the notion of a 3-dimensional "spacelike hypersurface", a continuous 3-dimensional "slice" through the 4-dimensional property with the property that every curve that is contained entirely within this hypersurface is a space-like curve.[11]

Many spacetime continua have physical interpretations which most physicists would consider bizarre or unsettling. For example, a compact spacetime has closed timelike curves, which violate our usual ideas of causality (that is, future events could affect past ones). For this reason, mathematical physicists usually consider only restricted subsets of all the possible spacetimes. One way to do this is to study "realistic" solutions of the equations of general relativity. Another way is to add some additional "physically reasonable" but still fairly general geometric restrictions and try to prove interesting things about the resulting spacetimes. The latter approach has led to some important results, most notably the Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems.

[edit]

where the Landau–Lifshitz space-like convention is being used. A basic assumption of relativity is that coordinate transformations must leave spacetime intervals invariant. Intervals are invariant under Lorentz transformations. This invariance property leads to the use of four-vectors (and other tensors) in describing physics.

Strictly speaking, one can also consider events in Newtonian physics as a single spacetime. This is Galilean-Newtonian relativity, and the coordinate systems are related by Galilean transformations. However, since these preserve spatial and temporal distances independently, such a spacetime can be decomposed into spatial coordinates plus temporal coordinates, which is not possible in the general case.

[edit]Spacetime in general relativity

In general relativity, it is assumed that spacetime is curved by the presence of matter (energy), this curvature being represented by the Riemann tensor. In special relativity, the Riemann tensor is identically zero, and so this concept of "non-curvedness" is sometimes expressed by the statement Minkowski spacetime is flat.

The earlier discussed notions of time-like, light-like and space-like intervals in special relativity can similarly be used to classify one-dimensional curves through curved spacetime. A time-like curve can be understood as one where the interval between any two infinitesimally close events on the curve is time-like, and likewise for light-like and space-like curves. Technically the three types of curves are usually defined in terms of whether the tangent vector at each point on the curve is time-like, light-like or space-like. The world line of a slower-than-light object will always be a time-like curve, the world line of a massless particle such as a photon will be a light-like curve, and a space-like curve could be the world line of a hypothetical tachyon. In the local neighborhood of any event, time-like curves that pass through the event will remain inside that event's past and future light cones, light-like curves that pass through the event will be on the surface of the light cones, and space-like curves that pass through the event will be outside the light cones. One can also define the notion of a 3-dimensional "spacelike hypersurface", a continuous 3-dimensional "slice" through the 4-dimensional property with the property that every curve that is contained entirely within this hypersurface is a space-like curve.[11]

Many spacetime continua have physical interpretations which most physicists would consider bizarre or unsettling. For example, a compact spacetime has closed timelike curves, which violate our usual ideas of causality (that is, future events could affect past ones). For this reason, mathematical physicists usually consider only restricted subsets of all the possible spacetimes. One way to do this is to study "realistic" solutions of the equations of general relativity. Another way is to add some additional "physically reasonable" but still fairly general geometric restrictions and try to prove interesting things about the resulting spacetimes. The latter approach has led to some important results, most notably the Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems.

[edit]

Advertisements