Discovery That Changed Physics! Gravity is NOT a Force!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 ก.ย. 2022
- Discovery That Changed Physics! Gravity is NOT a Force!
► Subscribe: goo.gl/r5jd1F
Gravity is one of the four fundamental forces of nature in the Universe. But of the four forces of nature, it stands alone as different. In fact, gravity isn’t the force you think it is, and perhaps it's not a force at all.
If you think you understand gravity, then get ready to change the way you think about gravity…forever.
We are on social media:
destinymediaa
destiny.media.yt
The Destiny voice:
www.TomsVoiceovers.co.uk
Sourses: pastebin.com/raw/pcZGVx2S
![[4K] BABYMONSTER(베이비몬스터) “FOREVER” Band LIVE Concert “영원히” 베몬만을 사랑하게 되…💗 [it’s KPOP LIVE 잇츠라이브]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TQfC0xdpiw4/mqdefault.jpg)
All I know is that time and space are relative...the more time I spend with my relatives the more space I need
Me too
😅
😂😂😂😂
😂
Nice one 😆
Who else was watching closely in hopes the astronaut would drop the hammer and feather?! 😭
What is this you mean what is this context I cannot conceptualize
Anyway this really makes me think about Kerbal space program quite a bit all the math involved in rocketry pro grade pro grade retrograde and the other maneuvers associated with orbital mechanics where is a nice badass you I in third person orbital perspective which shows you in real time the coming advantage of such gravity well along with all the known capabilities in the game like that would be spectacularly revolutionary in the simulation if not even in engineer and scientists aboard a spacecraft traveling inter planetary
Totally!!! He never dropped it! Argg. That would have put all the hoax theories to rest but alas, they continue ! Stanley Kubrick shooting a theoretical experiment in a Hollywood studio ;, REM singing about what fools we are to believe
He really was blueballing ourselves there
He really was blueballing ourselves there
Newton's Principia: 1687; Einstein Theory of Special relativity: 1905. In this space-time continuum, those are not 400 years apart but 218 years...
Don't worry about small details like that.
Now we can guess how factual this whole video is...
This is the first time I followed an explanation of this. It is so different than the conventional perception of the force of a gravity field. Excellent work.
Its not true . They still have absolutely no idea of how gravity works.
Also, string theory doesn't work. It's wrong
@@BOBANDVEG Thanks. I did forget to retain skepticism, and there are contradictions with the explanations, but this has strong attention from me.
@@louf7178 I get ahead of myself sometimes and forget that Imagination in science leads to discoveries
@@BOBANDVEGGeneral relativity has survived every test we've thrown at it. We Kno it's probably incomplete but I wouldn't call it wrong.
@@mrjdgibbs I believe he's talking about Gravity, only gravity tho.
As a 90s kid from India i wished we had Internet and Smartphone while i was a kid ,i could've learnt much more that what school offers through YT
It's never late for education.
But you have it now…
@@jayvon1945 good morning sir, thank you for calling microsoft tech support.
honestly, it wud not change much. you’d be playing fortnite/pubg/roblox.
its the mindset, not the availability of it
there was no smart phones and internet was nothing special in the 90's
What are you talking about? This isn't a "new discovery", it's been realized that gravity isn't a force ever since Einstein published General Relativity.
You don’t understand the theory then
You act as if every single person should already know this information 🙄
@@Nave6W What do you mean by this? General theory of relativity is clear. Gravity is a distortion of spacetime by objects with mass.
@@Nave6W That the attraction between objects with mass is a consequence of them curving the space-time around them? Which part did I not understand, again?
@@corynn.l5146 And you act as if that was the point of my comment. The reason for my comment was the video title was misleading. It had "New Discovery" in the title, even though this idea has been out since 1915. Now the uploader sneakily changed it.
Einstein's paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" (aka Special Relativity) was published in 1905. His paper on General Relativity was published in 1915-1916.
Einstein was a plagiarist thief.
…and because of WWI, the experiments to verify the hypothesis weren’t carried out until 1919. The story of how the scientists had to drag heavy equipment in the most miserable conditions imaginable is a fascinating read.
Ross: You uh, you don't believe in gravity?
Phoebe: I don't know, lately I get the feeling that I'm not so much being pulled down as I am being pushed.
😂
She’s got it.
Damn cool you connected the dots! Amazing! 😀👍
In the future kids will be learning about gravity and they’ll look at us the same way as we look at those who thought the planet was a square or just flat
I thought we all agreed that the earth is flat. Did I miss the memo? Lol
@@JZ-se3ur I mean. The water on Earth is mostly not carbonated, so yeah it’s pretty flat
@@JZ-se3ur it is flat, for sure
@@JZ-se3ur I agreed that earth is a sphere, like a ball
The earth is flat it just exists on curved space
“You underestimate the power of the dark side of the force.”
underestimate or we have not yet reached there
It becomes more interesting when the fabric of spacetime is visualized in 3D, in this video it's been visualized in 2D
Physicist: Sorry Newtown we're now using special theory of relativity.
NASA: Sorry Einstein we're still using gravitational laws.
Thank you.
Its funny to think that absolutely no one else is recognized for the "discovery" of gravity like no one before him (or even him for that matter) never seen something fall or dropped something
It's poorly worded to say that Newton "discovered" gravity. He was the first to quantify its effects and come up with a mathematical formula for it that held true for 400 years. (and is still taught initially to school students since it's 'close enough').
@@nickllama5296 apparently your comprehension skills are as poor as you claim my wording is...i clearly put the word in quotation marks to signify lack of a better word...i obviously know he didn't discover it 😂
@@jaidamwhi4589 He wasn't referring directly to you when he said that's a poorly worded way to say that lol
Many people dropped things and we all see it fall but most of us never wonder why so we don’t ask the question. “It’s just something that happens” is everyone’s mindset. Many have probably asked, but they never went main stream with it.
@@silverkab1345 well i can definitely apologize when im in the wrong 😥
That's not a discovery but a hypothesis. That's a massive difference
Wrong. It’s more than an hypothesis. It’s a scientific theory. Which means there is massive evidence that has not been disproven
@@PoliticalSci was about to say the same thing 👍
Gravity is energy not force
@@BelaPuma it’s neither. Gravity is just a word to describe the affect that bending of space time has on mass.
You don't sound like you've even watched this video you're commenting on. General theory of relativity isn't just a hunch by a nobody. The warping of spacetime IS gravity. It explains several phenomena unexplained by Newton's concept of gravity and it's been experimentally verified hundreds of times in the century since Einstein published his 1916 paper, with new observations continuing to verify it as recently as a few short years ago. General theory of relativity is universally accepted among physicists my friend. It's one of the two pillars of modern physics along with quantum mechanics and the crowning achievement of the greatest physicist since Newton.
I learned the “stretched rubber flat plane” thing many years ago and it blew my mind. It made so much sense and was so simple
using gravity to explain,.... gravity?
Yeh but that is a 3d curve in a 2d plain, in the real universe it's a 4d curve in a 3d plane
7:42 'The gravitational acceleration at the Earth's surface is 9.81 meters per second'
Ehhh, you sure about that?
Hahaha, I get it now! You are saying gravity is not a force, but a momentum instead.
If you (Destiny) can't get your basic units right why should we believe anything else you say...
g=9.81 meters per second SQUARED
@@jimjones8736 this is your criticism? the units are wrong? Howbout the whole idea is wrong, using a magical undetectable 'super-stuff' ( and the precedent it set has become imbecilic ) to explain the failings in your theory.
@@sonpopco-op9682 lol, I was wrong. My post was meant to be an OP, not a comment.😀
Edit: I'm very humbled by your comment, but the theory is not mine😃
I am still exploring the space between my ears. My wife’s theory predicts that a feather and a hammer will fall at the same speed from one ear to the other when I am on my side and she is keen to try the experiment out.
one joke about the space between ears: aliens captured three people: american, russian and bosnian, and opened theirs heads: in american head are top electronic, chips.., in russian are bulbs from old tv and in bosnian is only steel wire between ears, aliens were confused, what is this, one of them suggested to cut that wire, and then ears fell off!
@phil: if I were you, I’d sleep with one eye open.
If it looks like a force, it acts like a force and it feels like a force then I will call it a bloody force.
Engineering logic is right every time: I can stop something from falling by applying a force
Also gravitons probably exist to transmit the gravitational force since gravitational waves exist/have been verified
For all practical purposes, that's the best way to do it, but when trying to explain theoretical physics, there's some modifications to the terminology that need to be made.
In conventional 3d space we can just call anything that changes the visible velocity of an object a force.
When you expand to 4th dimensional fucker though there's some weird quirks, like the shape of space being able to change what our monkey brains perceive as velocity, while likely preserving it in the time axis.
Ergo, not technically a force.
But, well, we live in 3d space, so yeah, if it waddles like a force, and quacks like a force, it's probably a force.
Or a duck
@@monty58 THe main problem we live in 4d world! We can’t sense others if even they are exists!
Even we can say thr gravity is the force of the space-time and not the mass…
But already there is holes in the space or space-time by the black holes! Soo!!!
Even there is the bigbang and before that event which mean there was no space-time matter and mass! So…
It’s magic? Sounds like cause already in that event the physic and reality is not existed… so it’s MAGIC!!! (Before the bigbang) 😵😵😵
In this case the magic sounds like more scientifical thing cause can explain the things and how it’s can be real! (I mean magic as a power or energy what can manipulating the reality)
@@gipsymelody1268 just want to let you know that none of that made any sense. At all.
@@monty58 yeah cause a space-Timeless massless and matterless forceless reality has sense right? 🧐
Here is the explanation I heard recently about gravity. As we all know, the universe is expanding. That means every object in it flies away. It is proven that all the galaxies are moving (we see Doppler effect which shifts stars light if the move to or away from us). Even our solar system isn't standing still. It always moves (around Milky Way's centre). Milky Way also moves during university expansion. And so each flying object warps space-time matter around them, as if a ball would bend a fabric where it lies. In fact, the ball is moving bending the space-time fabric underneath it. If some other ball would moving along the way, it would also bend the fabric. And if their warp on the fabric affect each other (due to proximity), they would shift towards each other and revolve around each other (smaller ball would revolve around bigger one, cause it's affect on the matter is lower and it does not affect the bigger ball similarly). That's what we have with our Moon revolving around the Earth. The Earth - around the Sun. Our solar system - aroundilky Way's centre quasar.
Essentially. I’m not sure there is a need to reconcile gravity and quantum mechanics, with quantum gravity. Since quantum mechanics deals with the fundamentals forces and energy while gravity is simply the fabric of space time.
I imagine a spider and its web. Gravity is the bending of the web as the spider moves.
I don’t understand what is the mystery. Scientists seem to be aware of this and still searching for some elusive graviton , quantum gravity theory. they should be trying to understand what is space?! Perhaps that is the mystery.
@@MugenTJright? All this searching for more, yet they still have no idea what is space all together. Or why any of it is as it is. If you know what I mean
it is not the way gravity is made ,,,by mooving masses,,,,the only thing hapening with the movement is the path around the main center object,,like the SUN,is,,,,,,some planets mooves and rotates faster then the others on our solar system,,very faster some slower,,gravity is in direct relation with the mass of a body,,,the more mass the more gravity pull,,,you know there mass, it is then easy to evaluate there gravity value,,,that is why we could send rovers to Mars,, people tend to forget ,,,gravity is not pulling down,it is attracting small masses toward it,s center,no matter where they initially stand,,,,🤔😉
@@robertpotvin8872 I didn't say gravity pulls objects down. I'm saying that gravity - is a bend of space-time matter caused by object's mass. And since all the space objects move all the time (due to universe expansion) the smaller objects start to be attracted (and because they move - to revolve around) bigger ones due to bigger affection on the space-time matter.
@@ElseYesley no way ,,the movement of masses as nothing to do with gravity,,gravity is in direct relation with the mass of the object,no matter if it,s not moviing or going very fast,,,the EARTH rotation has nothing to do with the gravity pulls that attrack everything toward it,s center,,,lol in space the only force acting on masses is gravity,so when something start to move nothing can stop it ,the only thing that can hapene,is the pull of gravity of a bigger mass in the specifique zone will have en effect on it,s path traveling in the empty space,,,if this object has anof speed it will start going in a almost circular path around the bigger one,, whitout being constantly going in a smaller circle that will eventualy have it swirling faster and faster and closer till it it the surface,,,,,scientist uses this attraction effect to catapult space craft,!! in the emty space ,inertia is conserve almost indifinitely,,,astronautes making space walks,, when they are oustside they follow the space station,due to their initial inertia,,,maybe a little correction is needed sometimes,,this due to their action neer it ,if they push them selfs they are going to be going away in that direction ,that is why they are tied to it,,,well it is more complicated then that maybe ,but this simple explenation is ok,,,🤔😉✌
Great video! Many who enjoy these videos are not fully aware of how much effort goes into them. Research, video clips, images, animations/audio & narration/ copyright concerns, and finally, editing. Excellent effort!
Great video. However, I need to point out an error at around 7:42: Acceleration is given in "meter per second squared". The written and said "meter per second" describes velocity. Not harmful in the given context, but still.
Yes, the video is full of holes. People should avoid making videos about relativity.
@@blueskies133 Or at least they should let an actual scientist write the script, rather than someone who heard an analogy from someone who heard another analogy from someone who didn't understand the scientist's explanation.
"Gravity well", for example, is a nonsensical term that annoyed me throughout the video. Gravity doesn't work because stuff falls into wells. Stuff falls into wells because gravity works.
@@9nikolaiGravity is needed to describe well of gravity, without gravity the ball will ignore well of gravity 🤣
i like how the explanations really explains what gravity is but doesnt actually make it for us to easily understand because of the terminologies 😂
i have yet to encounter the proper explanation for gravity on youtube, when it is so simple. Time moves more slowly the furthur away you get from the object. Beause of this, the slower moving particles at the tip naturally put a tension on particles at the base, which creates a downwards movement (this is a movement through time, not a true physical motion, but it CAUSES the physical motion). These videos explain what gravity does, and how to interact with it, but I never get this simple explanation to it that I love to tell. Keep learning!
@@Bonhh Oh thats how you got it . Mine is more on practical visualization.
Just think of a fabric, or cloth that is tensioned. Put a heavy object on it. The cloth will bend and the object will put a pressure on the cloth. Put a ball on it, see it goes to the center of the object. If you put a directional movement, it can even orbit.
The Cloth is the space
The Object is the planets or stars
The Ball is the smaller space body like moon or asteroid.
The Bend is the gravitational pull.
Now that model is a 3D perspective of 2D world.
Now imagine that model is thesame but a 4D perspective of our 3D world.
This is how i got it . It looks easy to me to understand but for other people they might find it hard. maybe people learn on different methods. and this is my method
Agreed. The video just keeps throwing words and pictures that really don't do anything but describe the word just said "Gravity is a push...see this line pushing the ball, now on to the next word" - but there isn't any attempt to show what is really happening to the viewer.
@@Bonhh I prefer the simpler hypothesis that gravity is simply matter being forced from more dense space, to less dense space. Kinda like inverted floating.
@@nojukuramu That's just a model. It's not how gravity actually works.
A small error: At about 2:05 in the above video, you say that Einstein presented his General Theory of Relativity in 1905. Nope. It was his Special Theory of Relativity that Einstein presented in 1905. Special Relativity deals with objects moving at a constant velocity and makes no mention of accelerated motion and gravity. His General Theory of Relativity came 10 years later in 1915. But you are right that it is General Relativity that deals with gravity, interpreting it as a warping of space-time.
The video also says that there was a 400 year gap between Newton's theory of gravity and Einstein. Less, I believe.
There is also an error where it is said in the video that earth doesn't have enough gravity to pull down the moon, but it does. If the moon wasn't in orbit and revolving around the earth at a velocity fast enough to remain stable in orbit and "miss the earth" so to say, it would have collided with the earth by accelerating towards it.
@@elimalinsky7069 last I heard the moon was actually slowly moving away from Earth and would eventually escape it.
@@davesunhammer4218 Yeah, but that's caused due to tidal interactions between the earth and the moon. If the moon stopped in its place it would have paid the earth a visit very quickly.
Everything is pushed into place like a bubble. Dark matter pushed everything into stars, dust, planets, moons and it all spins around expanding.
this as to be consider ,,,I am thinking in that way,,gravtity could be the fact that the bigger the mass the more the dark matter compresses the matter toward it,,,,,,🤔😉✌
If history were to repeat itself (like that ever happens, right?) and in 300 years someone solves the bridges general and special relativity, I got a feeling that would unlock so many secrets and then we may finally get to travel the cosmos.
Yeah
In this aged of TikTok😂 kids dancing, pranks videos, asmr😂😂
@@fixme.96 haven’t seen that since 2019 but go ahead
First the Big Bang never happened. Then the immortal Queen dies. Now the force of gravity is not a force. This month is pretty crazy.
😳
hasn't been since 1915 when einstein published this theory
7:40
He said gravity isn't influenced by the core whatsoever because the fabic of space-time is misconceived as a 2D plane with the strongest point being the very bottom of the planet. It's put like that for simplicity but it doesn't explain how gravity affects every single point of the earth and other celestial bodies at an equal spacing. No one place has more gravity than another (unless there are special conditions) and this because
A. Space-time isn't flat, think of the grid as a big cube with gridlines inside. Now think of the core in the middle warping the gridlines to it and getting weaker as it goes out
B. Gravity being at the bottom of a 2-d spacetime model helps to simplify the actual nature of gravity itself and helps to comprehend how black holes can be explained, but black holes aren't fully understood. Nearly nothing is known about them except that they're gravity is unfathomably strong. Therefore, most other variables are just unknowns to us.
That "plane" is multi-dimensional (ie., 11). Einstein didn't conceive of >3 dimensions.
And I've never seen the whole 2-D sheet as anywhere near a scientific explination of what is happening. Indeed, it's rather stupid and suggest people who want to rely on it really cannot visualize what they are talking about but want to sound smart.
It’s been so convenient since this discovery. I just leave the car in the garage and fly everywhere now
The explanation just given for gravity is circular reasoning. The narrator basically said gravity works by a warping of spacetime creating a gravity well, pulling objects down into the well. But what is pulling the objects down into the gravity well? Gravity? If so then that hasn’t answered the question of how does gravity work, you’ve simply stated that gravity works by a warping of spacetime pulling objects into a gravity well by gravity. In other words, just like Newton asked why the Apple fell down instead of sideways or upwards, or fell at all, the same question is still left, why did the object fall into the gravity well instead of away from the well or not at all.
Cái giếng không phải là nguyên nhân vật rơi vào. Vât chỉ rơi vào giếng khi có sức hút của trái đất, nếu không có sức hút đó thì dù thời gian có méo mó thế nào, giếng có sâu bao nhiêu cũng không mảy may làm cho vật di chuyển được.
2:41 So astronaut Scott just teased us for 33 seconds without actually dropping the hammer and feather.
In short, earth's just a magnet right ? The farther away the lower the pull force is and vice-versa.
It's literally just the mass of the object. Earths gravity is either more or less than another object in space, because of the density of it. Different spots of the earth, like mountains for example, may have more density to them. Therefore, there are parts of the earth that actually have more gravity or pull than other spots on earth. These changes in earths density aren't big or small enough to even detect the difference, while on earth.
So a magnet with no polarity, that is attracted to all other mass in existence, not just ferrous material.
So yeah, not really like a magnet at all.
I kind of like where you are going with this. Instead of trying to make you sound dumb, and myself just look like an ass hat, hear me out.
Going with the magnet idea, if you had two very large but identical bodies (planets) for example, that were close enough together that their gravitational fields I guess overlapped, would there be a point in which the gravity of one canceled out the gravity of the other? Like an event horizon type thing, where gravity was zero.....just asking questions.....probably dumb ones....but hey....i'm dumb!
No, the earth has magnetic properties, but the earth and a magnet have fundamental & distinct differences.
@@IamMrKato I’m not talking about anything to actually do with magnetic fields, or magnets. Just trying to use his comment about magnets as a spring board to things more “hypothetical”. Just trying to think outside the box, at least outside the box for me. Questions are a good thing…because honestly, there we still don’t know a lot about quantum physics. There are a lot of theories, and we are learning more everyday from CERN, but we also open up new questions with every new discovery.
Really enjoyed the video. However, I am also interested in where you got the startfield video... They look awesome!
Good explanation for my simple mind. And the word “Imagine” was never used. Now I’m thinking that this universe is an event that is travelling through this endless space time continuum. I’m beginning to see that the constancy of the continuum contains and what would otherwise be a completely chaotic universe. (Like dropping the custard on the floor) It buffers the ongoing chaos, which allows the universe to be as it is now.
Hello, with all due respect, I have to disagree with this view of gravity. I believe that gravity is a force, but a force of both attraction and repulsion, with the repulsion part of gravity being by a cloud of negatively charged monople particles called ' Harveytrons ', which fill every available empty space throughout the universe, and is the dark matter. The force of repulsion it creates is the dark energy, and is what holds all of the planets etc in suspension in space, and in their relative positions.
This forms part of an hypothesis for a radical alternative to the standard model of the atom that I have been working on. I would be happy to make a copy of the latest draft of my hypothesis, if you are interested. Kind regards,
Tony Marsh.
I definitely think you're on the right path, and if Gravity works in both ways depending on its interaction with certain particles and this also could explain why Dark Matter is so challenging to physicists, and also possibly change the order of the four fundamentals, meaning that gravity may indeed be a strong force? An example of this would be the great attractor, something this mindboggling powerful is drawing hords of Galaxies towards it, perhaps one of these clouds you mentioned with an abundance of charged particles that draws mass towards it. Or another suggestion is that it's a Black hole that's so unimaginably large it act's like a drain because of the gravitational mass it preduces.
@Dawson Davis Hello Dawson, thank you for your reply. What you say, is partly the point I am making, and explains why in general all of the planets etc are held in their relative positions. In my hypothesis, I explain that all of the atomic or physical matter such as the planets etc, is comosed of positive and negatively charged monopole particles, but beyond the nucleus of each atom there only exists the negatively charged monopole particles that I describe. The positive charge of the physical matter, has a slightly stronger force than the negative, that is why gravitational attraction increases with increased mass. If you would like to know more, I am happy to explain. Kind regards,
Tony Marsh.
@@tonymarshharveytron1970 bruh. How high are you? And are you sharing that?
@@TheLastStarfighter77 Hello Luke, thank you for your reply. Yes I believe you are right about ' Dark Matter , and the reason why it is hard or impossible to detect, is that the particles that I propose are so incredibly small. At the present time, I don't think we have equipment that could detect them.
The Negatively charged monopole ' Harveytron ' particles I propose in a cluster, make up the electron as described in the standard model. The description of the electron in the standard model has never made sense to me. After all, how is it possible for the electron in a hydrogen atom to form a cloud, and be in every place in the atom at the same time?. No, I believe that the electron as a fundamental solid particle does not exist, but is composed of a cluster of the particles I propose.
I also propose that all of the particles making up the table of particles in the standard model are all composites of the positive and negatively charged particles I propose. This makes much more sense when read as part of my complete hypothesis, which explains the interactions that logically explains how the atom is constructed and works, which follows through to classical physics and cosmology. I can explain more if you are interested. Kind regards,
Tony Marsh
@@the-guy-on-your-moms-couch Thank you for your reply. Could you be a little more specific, you are asking a question, what exactly would you like to know. Kind regards,
Tony Marsh.
Respect for the people failed in class while not answering gravitation as force. They were 400 years ahead 🙏😛
Gravity is a force. Stop automatically believing these YT videos. Stop being gullible.
i get curious if people in the future can really teleport with this gravity theory i think it's gonna work
the physics of space and warp holes or black holes, seem to be very similar to what happens in a bath tub when full and also when the plug has been pulled. the water moves faster the closer it gets to the drain and moves real fast as its going down/through the drain.
and things going down a drain are because of a force. So not an acceptable eplination of how gravity isn't a force by an example of force.
"A Hundred-Year-Old Discovery That Changed Physics! Gravity is NOT a Force!" would have been more accurate... But then I guess that would take away the "ooh so important" click-bate effect. Someone please explain to me why we all seem to just roll over and submissively take this, instead of demanding in unification that this nauseating algorithm be rewritten.
@Dawson Davis Both you and I know that nothing in life is never ever that simple. Some TH-camrs strive towards being genuine while still making catchy thumbnails, and some just don't give a shit anymore.
YOU will always be able to find shit which you personally can find more important to worry about than other's shit. It also occurs to me that worrying about shit is a rather strange choice of hobby... unless of course you have some sort of sewage problem.
No, the importance-level of shit doesn't enter into this. Against my better judgment, I still gave it a chance, got disappointed, which added to my already accumulated frustration with what YT is turning into. Giving people chances and falling for their scams is not the same thing. One results in a daft looking dunce, the other is a conscious choice with eventual consequences attached.
This YT algorithm is rewarding hustlers and pseudo-science over those who are actually trying to make something substantial and genuine... Becoming slaves to a rather short-sighted Artificial Imbecile (algorithm) may not seem as important as your everyday life. But it might just be important for YT and the users of the next generations of social media on the horizon... that, my friend, would be our children... and what is more important than them?
Just to clarify; I'm NOT inferring that this channel is amongst those hustling pseudo-science. It is just regurgitating the same old same old, maybe adding one tiny spicy peppercorn now and again.
@@Zhixalom This "go with the flow" mentality is becoming a real worrying problem indeed. It may start with smaller things, and you're brought to think it's no big deal, but, unfortunately, it doesn't stop there.
It sets a pattern.
And the ones who will ask you "what do you care?" are the same ones that will agree we live in efed up times, failing to understand that one helps explaining the other.
You have about as much power to 'change the algorithm' as you do to change the color of the sky.
@@vicc6790 I'm sorry Vic, but that has to go on the list of some of the stupidest things I have ever heard.
- The people who wrote the algorithm obviously also have the power to change it.
- And if we continue to pump greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, the color of the sky will eventually change. Probably to something not much unlike the atmosphere of Venus.
- The only constant in the universe is change.
And the comments pushing back are all of us just ignoring the problem?
You've got an error in the video. At 7:46, you say that the acceleration of gravity is 9.81 meters per second. Meters per second is a unit of speed, not acceleration. Acceleration is the *change* in speed over time. So, the acceleration of gravity (called capital G in physics) is actually 9.81 meters per second *squared*.
Do you really expect accuracy on this channel?
@@captaincluck8129 That is the one thing I learned!! That we demand inaccuracy!
@@davesunhammer4218 Well accuracy and reliability is my motto 😎
this guy sounds like kurzgesagt, but on more "grown up" in nature. I love it
One of the most interesting video I've ever watched, so didactical and quick to learn if you have basic physics knowledge! Congrats!
So the question that I've never seen answered about GR. Exactly how does mass/energy warp space-time? by what mechanism? And if space-time is "warp-able" doesn't that imply that it has some-kind of physicality?
Dear friend, space time creates a higher dimension which is somewhat inexpressible by using laws of 3D physics.. like your are inside a paper imagining a sphere.. But, good ol' Einstein's theory of relativity expressed that space time can be bent, if we conduct speed higher that that of light; and after the discovery of equivalent speed and matter, a mass with sufficient density can warp space time phenomenon... I hope you will read the theory of general and special relativity to understand this furthermore..
About your second question, it does not implies mechanism, it is the bending of a dimension itself, I know reality is spooky.
About your last question, your depiction of physicality is not sufficient to understand the pact of space and time.. Indeed, it is not a matter, it is the home where matter lives.. if space and time can be compacted into a singularity, which happens inside a black hole, a dimension outside the observable universe may open in respect to wormhole theory
and sorry for such a big comment.. you may also see other videos if my opinion is illogical, I am just a 14 yr old traveler of cosmology and astrophysics.. thank you..🙏
@@rumiscreation9111 if you're only 14 I definitely applaud you 👏🏽!
@@rumiscreation9111 you do know space and time are infinite right ? 😐
@@jettmthebluedragon space and time are extremely large, not infinite. if they are infinite, that would mean that the universe is infinitely large, and therefore age of the universe would also be infinite.. but, it violate the theory of Big Bang, hence universe is not infinite so does space time, but very large
@@GUNGYOWTHEHARDCORECASUAL thank you bud..
As soon as someone shows me a photo of the Space-Time "fabric", I'll believe it. Until then, I'll assume that, like gravity, this "fabric" is just another transient mathematic model to be further defined at some later date.
Amen!!!
Yes indeed! Also, space time being represented in 2D does not make any sense at all.
Go support Ukraine lmao
have you seen a good photo of the air yet, without smoke or water vaper yet?
I saw a video on G.R being shown in a 3D model. U could watch that. It's probably our best explanation of reality, of course with its limitations and shouldn't be conceived as reality itself as there's further ground to ve made
Years ago in advanced physics lab we were required to measure the charge on an electron, the speed of light AND MEASURE THE FORCE OF GRAVITY. The force of gravity was measured between two large lead balls and two small lead balls as they were brought closer together using a measured torsion spring. The force of gravity is only measurable to a few decimal places because every other mass around interferes with an exact measurement.
Yea, nobody wants to talk about this. And nobody wants to talk about the times Einstein has been proven wrong by what is actually happening in the universe.
For example, if you actully read his book he is always talking about a closed two-element system and trying to explain a system with trillions and trillions of elements.
But he sold it on the "smart people will believe me because they are smart" con.
Wow this is hands down the best video I have seen on the subject
Great video i enjoyed it but i wish there was a even simpler way to describe it for the dummies like myself.
Amazing Video..👍😍
Very good video 👍
Matter "warps spacetime" by displacing the fabric of space and causing the fabric of space to then be in multiples around said object.
In combination with the constant expansion of the universe. Because the object now has multiples of the fabric of space (spacetime) around it, the constant expansion of the universe is multiplied. Causing gravity.
The more mass and density of an object, the more fabric of the universe that is displaced. Equalling into stronger gravity
Science was not a subject for me at college level, but despite that I have developed some interest in knowing about that. As a layman, my views are given. Force is a Thrust that can come/can be given in any manner from any corner. It can come/can be given from above, horizontally, from below (moving/pushing upwards), can push vertically even at 90° or at 45° or in between, thus to be precise, from anywhere in between 360°. Gravity is only pulling down. Force is not Gravity. But at the same time, in a sense Gravity too can be termed as a part of Force/some sort of force exerted (pulled) downwards, viz., Gravitational Pull. If Gravity is countered, it can be only upwards. Please bear with me if my above text is incorrect in any way. V.GIRIPRASAD (69 Years)
This was very elementary I don't even know where to begin lol
Force is an imaginary concept invented as part of an attempt to explain behavior.
Force = mass times acceleration; F=ma
Although this equation solves for force, it can be rewritten to solve for the other two values.
m=F/a
a=F/m
When looking at fractions in physics equations, values in the numerator (above the line) are "directly" proportional to what is opposite the "equals" sign; values in the denominator (below the line) are "inversely" proportional. Take the last equation, for example -- a=F/m, or "acceleration equals force divided by mass."
Force is directly proportional to acceleration; using more force causes faster acceleration. However, "mass" lies in the denominator. Mass is inversely proportional to acceleration; a heavier object will accelerate more slowly than a lighter object being propelled by the same force. The video is about how this conflicts with the traditional idea that gravity is a force; a feather and a hammer have wildly different masses, but the moon accelerates them at the same rate. Thus, it's more helpful to think of "gravity" as a field rather than an interaction between two bodies. kind of... in essence...
I wouldn't call force "thrust," though. Thrust produces force as a result of Newton's third law, "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." When you throw a ball, your hand exerts a force on the ball for as long as the ball remains in contact with your hand, being pushed. While your hand pushes the ball, the ball exerts force on your hand as well, resisting motion as a consequence of inertia. Inertia is essentially the above concept of "mass is inversely proportional to acceleration." Objects with mass resist changes in motion. And the reason your body remains still and the ball doesn't actually push you backwards is thanks to the leverage against the ground provided by your legs.
Because the human body is mechanically complex in this example, it may be more helpful to understand the recoil of a gun. When a bullet is fired, expanding hot gas from burning chemicals push the bullet out of the barrel. Once the bullet clears the muzzle, it's like the ball leaving the palm of your hand; The barrel allows the high pressure gas to push the bullet, but once the "cork" is removed, the hot gas expands to create the "fireball" visible from powerful weapons. It is important to note that just as the hot gas pushes the bullet out of the barrel, until the "cork" pops, the bullet casing, bolt, and slide are pushed in the opposite direction with the same force--toward you. This is newton's third law, but while the powder charge sends the gun into your shoulder with the same force as was pushing the bullet, the bullet's mass is tiny compared to that of the gun. If you were to fire a gun in microgravity, the recoil would push you backwards, and if someone were to catch you from behind, they would be moving at the same speed as they would if they caught the bullet (assuming no friction and elastic collisions). Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
When you talk about gravity being "countered upwards," this is referred to as the "normal force." The normal force is equal to your weight. Remember F=ma; gravitational pull forces you toward Earth, but the ground resists this force by pushing upwards on you with equal force. More specifically, the negatively charged electron clouds surrounding the atoms that make up the ground and those on the bottoms of your feet repel each other--like repels like. Standing still, you experience no acceleration; the net force is zero--two equal values in opposite directions as you float on a cushion of electrons approximately .0000003 millimeters thick.
Force can be pushed or pulled in any direction, depending on how the force is applied
A magnet always pulls metal. It is still a force even though it is only one direction
@@behcherry9815 Most metals are not attracted by a magnet. And a magnet--as with gravity in the video--produces a field, not a force. Where a magnetic object is in the field determines how the force is applied, and the direction and strength in which the force is applied would change should the object's position in the field change.
Since reading about relativity I've always believed that gravity is not a force but an effect on matter/space. That both matter and space create a condition in which both can amicably exist. There a various probabilities, for example, matter does not occupy space but instead squeezes "between" space and the area between space and matter becomes a multidimensional hole, obviously the bigger the matter the bigger the hole. Something to think about.
_"Since reading about relativity I've always believed that gravity is not a force but an effect on matter/space."_ That would be wrong.
_"There a various probabilities, for example, matter does not occupy space but instead squeezes "between" space and the area between space and matter becomes a multidimensional hole"_ So if you had two identical black holes and inserted a sun exactly between the two black holes, how could the sun exist if that space was squeezed?
@@nathanwoodruff9422 "That would be wrong" I see you're having trouble being open minded. Something to think about.
@@pattipotvine1073 _"I see you're having trouble being open minded. "_ Same with you. Something to think about.
If try to combine relativity with big bang theory wouldn't it'll be a mess. I mean that singularity had so much mass nearly infinite so gravitational pull between objects should be more but it expand (probably got blast with more velocity to get rid of it)
@@rajeshkhajuriya8772 I emphatically assure you, you do not have the mathematical or intellectual sophistication to contribute to this conversation. You need a background in Quantum Physics and Theoretical Physics to make grounds here. Patti is correct and we're not going to wast our morning going through 6 Uni courses on why most of you should just tune this stuff out and enjoy the widgets.
Amazing work.
The ending of this video reminded me of the deeply disappointing experience I had looking through someone's telescope. They had it pointed at the horsehead nebula. I recognized the unmistakable shape, but something was wrong. It looked the same color as all the other stars. I had always thought it was purple. When I found out that astronomy pictures use false color in their images, I felt lied to and betrayed.
Now that Hawking's gone, who's next in line to be the next genius in the spotlight? Who can live up to Einstein, Maxwell, or Tesla?
u
Ian Leary
@@Lanzwillan thank you for this great honor
There is always another standing on their shoulders and ready with revelation
6:34 - Misconception here, mass is measured in kg whereas weight is measured in N.
Which is why people shouldn't trust dumb videos with fancy accent presenter.
Thank you, the assertion drove me insane too.
Kilograms is a measure of mass. If you are made up of 100 kg of matter, you are made up of that same 100 kg on Earth, in orbit, or while falling into a black hole.
This means that on Earth you weigh approx 978 Newtons / 220 lbs. In orbit you would weigh 881 Newtons / 198 lbs - if there was a tower from the planet's surface to support you. But there isn't, so the speed at which you're traveling laterally is equal (in a Pythagorean sense that I don't want to derive rn) to the the acceleration downwards, meaning you are weightless. So the "real" answer is you weigh 0 (anything) in orbit.
And it still gets worse, because the whole video is about how weight doesn't exist, only mass which curves spacetime. Talk about missing the forest for the trees.
A final parting shot, though I included pounds, the only way to discuss this is in metric. The UK exchequer's standards of 1826 actually uses metric grams as its mass unit, ironically (if I understand correctly). British imperial measurements really need to die, America (& Liberia, Myanmar). Base 10 is better in all cases.
Thank you for giving me (temporal) confirmation od my theory. I can finaly support my explanation with something understandable.
Positive and negative charge on sub atomic particles is "spooky action at a distance" like Newton's force of gravity. I have resolved how to solve this charge problem but have I been beaten to it? Maybe the producers of the video could do one on that topic. Or, if anyone wants to publish my theory, throw me a contact?
Id think putting your theory out there would be more important but hey make money off it if you can as well lol
Cringe
@@Elliotofficial why?
@@treyhebert426 It is only a page and a half, but that is too much to post here.
@@wadegielzecki8373 I gotcha, I’m still interested in the theorem you have going
I particularly like how this theory is basically informed by gravity to explain gravity and people act like it has to be true despite the obvious circular reasoning.
Mass tells space-time to curve, space-time tells mass to move. This is how I understand gravity. There is no gravitational force whatsoever, rather "gravity" is the illusion we get from the interaction of mass and space-time, save "gravitational field" which I do not know anything about. However, even this theory does not have to be TRUE. Yet as a model it is helping a lot in many ways, for example in GPS accuracy and in explaining the orbits on the planets better than Newton's classical model. Concluding with a famous quote 'all models are wrong, but we stick with the least wrong one' :)
@@yarednigussie7630 , I'm sure it does have some use, otherwise it would have been largely abandoned, but that aspect is still weird to me. As you say, mass curves space-time then moves according to space-time's curve. Is that not just mass propelling itself when it has no internal process that allows it to do so? It is treated like a complete explanation when it should really be treated as an incomplete placeholder. Enough is known to utilize it, of course, but it doesn't feel strong enough to state unequivocally that gravity isn't a force. It's just a more complicated way to say we still don't know how gravity actually works. Talking about 'curving' space-time is pseudoscience, like alternate dimensions or everything just being a massive simulation, because it can't be tested or proven. It is an interesting thought experiment that may potentially lead to some useful applications, but it shouldn't be treated as a fact.
@@SgtSupaman Right, although one should avoid the slur “pseudoscience,” or rather maybe you are one of the few to use that term in a useful way.
So I agree with you, but I don’t buy your implied premise that only provable knowledge is significant, that seems a massive and faulty assumption. E.g. acceleration existed before it could be measured.
@@SgtSupaman Albert Einstein with help of Minkovski I think had to invent a new area of mathematics called 'differential geometry " to support Einstein 's theory. Differential geometry is now a huge field in mathematics, taught in almost all decent graduate schools So calling it "pseudo science" is quite unfair to be honest. Also astronomy supports Einstein s theory by observing the shift of location of stars, there are lots of supporting scientific discoveries, ...
@@SgtSupaman The existence of space-time has been confirmed through a wide range of experimental and observational tests, including the observation of gravitational lensing, the detection of gravitational waves, and the precise measurements of atomic clocks.
I was told by the simplification that earth was like giant magnet, made sense since the cores are molten metals, hence the magnetic field must be gravity, is this a valid analogy? since gravity is the distortion in the fabric of space and time, does the magnetic earth viewpoint have any connection with earth attracting things towards it? i'm confused please enlighten me.
I’m starting to realize the gravity of our situation. 😊
Spock!
It's a heavy subject. Or a light hearted one. Depends on your relative level of knowledge.
I never understood this theory in regards to being on Earth itself, and thus no funnel type effect. So, it seems now that the black space/mass is pushing down on me on the surface, but the land stops me from moving down.
The funnel is a poorly drawn metaphor.
Educational physicists need to take courses in CGI.
There is a study about two black hole making a warp thingy. With the google quantum computer they created two black holes and they tried to make something pass inside one black hole and come out from the other. And it worked
Apple Force is a force that is without mass and of invisible kind! But object to be standing still is absent of the Apple Force, only! Apple Force accelerates at the same speed depending on the specific planetary compactation requirements.
When Stanley came to a set of two open doors, he entered the door on his left.
/proceeds to dig straight down.
Okay, but would it be possible for a spacecraft to use the gravitational field of the universe to reach a velocity or Warp 10?
no
not even 1/1000,1000 warp lol,
Thank you.!!
Enjoyed this. A minor correction at time 7:47: Acceleration due to gravity has units of Distance/(Time)^2. You have this as a velocity.
If two things are close the space in between doesnt expand too fast. Far away and it might expand so fast light cant travel between. Is there a middle where the two objects can move toward each other but because the space is expanded they dont move any closer?
They would get closer but it would seem as if they aren't but eventually they would , tho they might get closer to each other in a dimension we can't or don't know how to perceive
while i guess technically possible that two objects might have a speed equal to the rate of expansion towards each other it probably wouldn't last as anything disturbing either one even slightly would unbalance the system causing them to each slowly get closer or further apart.
I call my dad gravity...he keeps pulling me down :(
Time is constant and can’t be measured… irregardless of what physics allege …. Some days seem faster than others and some days seem slower because it is, hence ,man has given us time….. We are still learning and we must continue learning and take off our horse blinders .
Actually we can mesure time dialation
D. Scott actually did a photography shoot with an older gentleman that I roommated with. Scott's only comment about his trip to the Moon was the amount of equipment he had to leave up there.
Absolutely brilliant video ! Amazingly clear and beautifully enunciated. Thank you for this !
Think about microgravity this way:
If you leave the influence of earths gravity well far enough, you’ll be under the influence of the suns gravity well and move along side the earth around the sun.
We're under the influence of the Sun even on Earth. We all orbit the Sun after all.
@@TheMule71 true but on earth you are part of the earth. If you are nearer the sun than the earth on space, where will you gravitate to?
@@kibetronoh2376 I don't know what you mean by "being part of". Anyway, satellites including the Moon are under the influence of both the Earth and the Sun, and orbit both of them. It's not like the Sun affects the Earth and the Earth pulls the Moon around the Sun. Actually all three bodies attract each other. Just like I attract the Earth.
Two masses are attracted to each other. If there a big difference in size (like the Earth and me) we tend to say the big one attracts the small one - but that's inaccurate. It's just that the small one moves more than the big one. When I'm falling, the Earth is also falling towards me. It's just I move a lot, the Earth moves so little that it's impossible to measure.
E.g. the Moon doesn't orbit Earth. Both the Moon and the Earth orbit the center of mass of the Earth-Moon system. It's just that Earth is so big that the center of mass is so close that is inside Earth. But it's enough off center that we can measure it.
good question
Science Teacher here. If I taught this to my 8th graders... they'd fail their state standardized testing which still treats gravity as a force.
yes! most textbooks are too out of dates today...
Gravity is indeed a real force, but not in the traditional sense. In other words, gravity is not a direct, classical, action-at-a-distance force between two objects. However, in the broader sense, gravity is indeed a force because it describes the resulting interaction between two masses.
So is it only stretching/compressing space or is it doing the same to time?
time is relative
It's cuz light is also bending
I can't imagine anything changing time but
I can imagine the amount of object movement
can be increased/decreased by more/less space
being present in the same volume.
The theory states mass stretches time AND space. This can be demonstrated eg in satellites orbiting the Earth where the time drifts from the Earth surface time (Earth mass modifies satellite time). So much so that the satellite clock needs to be sent instructions regularly by the satellite operator to re synchronise its time with earth surface time.
better check with the YOGA teacher, they can tell you exactly about stretching | compressing space in a small mat | and for the time for sure
I've never thought gravity was a force, I think it's the result of something else we don't yet understand .
mass...... its not a force but an attractor
@@greedydabull8356 and how does something 'attract' something else exactly? By exerting a force.
I think it’s because some particles we haven’t found yet attracting each other. Like how protons attract electrons.
@@vicc6790 magnets dont exert any force.... they just attract lol
@@yogesh13 very possible .
Good information 😊
The thing about Albert's theory that I don't understand is that it's known that there are gravitational effects of planetary/celestial bodies
outside our solar system that are influencing the overall motion and direction of our solar system. If this is true wouldn't be neccesary
to include their effects in any equation that got into gravitations effect?
Surprised that Newton never thought of gravity while pooping.
The whole Newton Apple thing is a lie. Witnesses say Newton hit the Apple first.
Sometimes I wonder what if gravity is an energy and we just need to figure out how to harness gravity, cause i feel we do not try to see it that way and seeing things differently has helped us reach this far.
Hope you know how absolutely right you are man! Actually this wise premise is right on our faces with quantum physics, in other words, perception, observation; conscious mind affecting directly reality.
what if we could bend space so we can travel 1 million lightyears in just a second?
@@ParaAkula yup, maybe if the aliens "or higher intelligence beings " are real they use it?
Gravity is just waves. Everything is a wave in this conscious quantum hologram. Whoever set up this hologram used a code. Quantum entanglement can't be explained, it just is. Gravity just is, what it is. We just know how it works. Unless we can get into different dimensions, we can't explain quantum entanglement. How can something communicate instantaneously across the universe. We're trying to explain gravity and quantum entanglement using our law of quantum mechanics in the 3D world and it just DOESN'T work.
Bro I'm 7 mins into the video and Completely bamboozled at 3am . Thank you ... but your voice is so satisfying though
Qs for you guys:
Imagine a magnificent giant grabbing our sun and pulling it out of our solar system, far far away to a point of no influence. What would happen?
1. We will comtinue getting light and the image of the sun for several minutes (around 10?).
2. Here is the Qs.: Would the planets including earth go in disarray immediately, following their own tangents in some random direction? Or will this happen about at 10 minutes as well?
3. Would the planets attract each other forming a monumental planet without a sun and start floating in space?
4. Are the effects of gravity timeless? Or are the effects produced at the speed of light?
5. How does the earth know that there is a sun out there and vice versa?
6. Is information sharing at real time the foundation of Gravity?
Very nice explanation of GR. I'd never heard the concept of space pushing down on an object rather than the "force" of gravity pulling it down. It opened up a whole new set thought experiments. Thanks
This whole push down on objects is weird. Why isnt it pulling?
Actually neither is correct. It is both objects of a configuration of Mass moving towards each other seeking out the null point which is between them both, where the two fields merge into one. Gravity is the same thing as magnetism, except magnetism is point sourced while gravity is not. Just as a laser is point sourced light. Gravity is the universe conserving space, and so it is the universal characteristic of space-time.
@@Michael-A Please stop making up your own physics. People who don’t know better are reading this.
@@jaredf6205 Heh heh heh, you must be a teacher. So you may ignore my statements, but those who follow me shall end up well inside the truth; and KNOW IT. Maybe current physicists should put down the calculators for awhile and focus their observation on what Nature does every day! Then all the crackpot BS they make up (like dark matter) to fill in the holes in their hypotheses might stay where it belongs; in imagination rather than text books.
@@Michael-A The Dunning-Kruger is strong with this one.
This moves us closer to treating gravity as a fluidic system of small (undetectable) particles.
you are some what near I agree to your statement that gravity as fluidic system of particles, this idea should also support to quantum particles as well
This is the best explanation I have seen of gravity
At 7:45, it should be "9.81 m / s / s" (or "9.81 m / s^2") and not "9.81 m / s". Speed is distance per time unit, while acceleration is speed per time unit, i.e. distance per time unit squared. Aside from this, it's an informative and well-explained video, thanks.
I’m rolling with Newton on this one..
wait I just thought of something, if relativity means objects can only fall so fast regardless of how large they are, then the concept of using planets or the sun to sling shot a spaceship to make it faster shouldn't actually work, or am I missing something?
The way I’m looking at it is that on planets or masses this is true as you are in the “well” when slingshotting around a mass it is like the coin thing at mall they spin around and around and as it reaches the center it gets faster until it reaches the well and falls.
It's not a limit on speed, it's that they accelerate at the same rate.
Planetary slingshot maneuvers are less acceleration, and more manipulation of existing velocity. At least as I understand it.
We're spinning around the sun, the galaxy, and hurtling through space, so when we slingshot things, we're using the gravitational effect to redirect that velocity into a direction that we want it to be in.
I think another factor that makes it work is if you include the 4th dimensional movement in this. Nothing's actually accelerating, it's simply using 4th dimensional geometry to change the vectors of movement.
For a nice easy 3 dimensional analogy. When you're driving a car and you steer, the math is done as if you're accelerating, but what you end up doing is chaging the manipulating the vector without manipulating the speed.
Orbits and gravity are doing this, changing the vectors, while the speed is bound by the speed at which everything moves through time, which is constant.
No idea of that will make any sense, I've been trying to figure out how to explain 4 dimensional BS for a bit now.
Slingshot using gravity is for altering acceleration and deceleration. It does not increase your speed beyond what you entered with.
6:36 If something is 100 kg on earth, it’s still 100 kg in space… kg is a unit of mass, and it’s all well and good to treat it as a weight on Earth’s surface where the acceleration of gravity is relatively constant, but as soon as gravity changes, that convention falls apart
Fun fact - every Force has slowly been demonstrated over timme not to be a Force at all (or at least not how we were taught in school).
E.g. Friction, Magnetism, Buoyancy etc are not Forces in and of themselves, but rather the result of fundamental "Forces" of Gravity, Electromagnetism, and the Strong and Weak Nuclear Forces.
Perhaps in time, even these four "Forces" will be shown to be something else. For example, quantum fluctuations, string theory, variations in Space-Time and/or the holy grail of the Grand Unifying Theory as the origin of all "Forces". In other words, it may be that only one single Force really exists.
The weak force and electromagnetism are the same thing.
Now, create gravity without mass.
Negative gravity with black object in universe.
Gravity and magnetism are both the same force but one is positive and attracts but the second is negitive and repeals it. So that when both come into contact the object is pulled into the magnetive field but due to mass is pulls until it repelled and forced to move away due to speed. If it .is too slow it will be pulled into magnetic field and hit the bigger object.
This is so wrong it hurts
Hmm, fanciful!
Gravity = Mass, The heavier an object is, The faster it spins, The more gravity it generates. End of lession.
superb explanation
Anyone ever think about the stuff that takes up most of the universe? ( The blackness that surrounds everything? ) I always wondered what that was. Like dark matter or dark energy sure, but in my mind, I always though every form of matter is in some type of hyper fluid or hyper liquid of some sorts. Idk it just makes sense to me
That "blackness" is LITERALLY nothing. Empty space is just that, empty, there's a reason its also called "the void" lol. Dark matter maaaaayyy exist but the jury's still out on that one
what is a 'hyper fluid'? Saying words without defining exactly what you mean by saying them is meaningless.
I’m saying hyper fluid cause In my head it’s not some regular state of liquid. There’s no way the “blackness” is nothing because that would imply, ‘nothing’ exists between regular matter and other forms. It has to be the most abundant, most undetected form of material in the universe for it makes up almost everything we can see.
@@Tony-jl8li it's emptiness. A void between objects. Maybe there's cosmic dust flowing throughout, but who cares? Why can't there be nothingness between objects?
I guess the real question is "what is space?", specifically the area occupied by matter. Does space exist to hold matter or does matter define its own space by its existence, that "space" is an aspect of, and inseparable from, matter? What is this thing that apparently exists but is not a particle?
A massive object in a tiny size results in a black hole. Does black hole's energy increases as it consumes light and other matters / particles?
Or, as there's no gravity at the center of Earth, would there be no gravity at the center of black hole too?
Then black holes are not singular, right? It's a massive object of which light cannot escape but is also not a true singular entity, right? I still want to think deeply to understand it, but cannot figure it out.
Well, both of those things can not be proven or disproven with the technology of our current age.
It would be difficult to establish what the "center" of a black hole--aka the point occupied by the singularity--is like since all physics including space-time itself kind of breaks down there. Unfortunately, we'll never know for sure since no information can ever escape from that point.
I believe gravity is an outside push, connected to the “universe expansion “ theory, kind of like water pressure at great depths, pushing in all directions, and since the space between atoms is “empty” the quantum parts are the ones that feel that push and are moved.
Wait, if not a force, what is gravity again? I kind of missed that.
The gravity that is affecting you is not a force, it’s the result of space time being curved and warped by your mass and the mass of the earth. That’s how I understood it anyway 😅
Gravity is a symptom of the universe's cohesiveness. If it spins, it pushes and pulls. Centrifugal force and the corliosis factor are amazing. I think black holes are more like an exhaust system and engine. They keep the cosmic objects dancing in unity, imo.
A blackhole is a collapse star , a star is a blackhole that has hit critical mass
So is gravity still a theory or a proven fact?
A very late Hello and great comment, I like your reference to gravity as a "symptom of the universe's cohesiveness" Ms.GreenJeans. I believe Einstein's theories of special relativity and General relativity are correct in explaining the current effects we observe and experience but he didn't go deep enough into the whole of Alice in Wonderland. Our physical and observed reality has many other di-mensions, tri-mensions, etc.. . We forget that everything is connected, is moving or is in motion (directly or indirectly), we are on the surface of our planet, our planet is in motion in the cosmos, so even though we seem to be standing or sitting still doing our daily yoga or meditation session we are moving through the cosmos and so our matter is being affected in some manner whether detectible or not. but in the same manner our body might seem to be still, our bodily matter components are still in motion, cells producing and reproducing, blood cells moving, our other smaller matter, atoms, molecules, etc.. doing their thing in time and space of our micro, micro space and time. So, to answer one of your replies questions, "Is gravity still just a theory or is it a proven fact?" Yes and no, here on our planet yes it has been proven, just don't go jumping off anything higher than ground level, a tall building, a mountain cliff, or jumping off a flying object with out a parachute or special equipment to help you fly and navigate your journey back down to the Earth's surface. So you see to me it is not merrily a case of space time but depending upon what scale of your observation's are being made from, the factors of your different forces, energies, size of matter, whether micro or macro, one has to be thinking as an observer in those different extremes, so I believe Issacs Asimov had it right when he said the secret to the Universe and Life itself is the scales of extremes. And I belief also that this goes for our understanding of the multi Universe or alternate reality theories. But since our discovery of the massive black holes here we say our theories of gravity are still not conclusively proven yet.
What If We Cancel Gravity Somehow ? Like What If We Remove The Heavy Objects That Bends The Fabric But Others Keep Orbiting .. What Will Happen