Aahahaha ever since I got introduced to inertia concept and relative movement I thought about these issues. When I called out teachers and fellow students, their only reply was "you are crazy" or "you are overthinking". I never once heard of this fellow "Mach" until now. I feel vindicated after all these years. Reality is stranger than fiction. Many thanks!
Hi, just found your channel. I've been put on a journey of discovery. And in that time I've learnt Physics since 1927 is a lie. Looking forward to seeing what you have to say. -Big bang never happened -Gravity is not a force and the big G was never a constant -Speed of light is not a constant -Standard model is a joke -Cosmology is no longer science thanks to the SM Science in general is subverted and broken. More akin to Scientism legions of new students are being taught lies. (and yes i use the term lies rather than falsehoods, the deception is deliberate)
I don’t see the links for the Hoyle/Narlikar Cosmology videos. Was hoping to watch them but gave up after searching through your playlist for 10 minutes. On the positive, I saved a few playlists that I’m looking forward to watching.
There is also an issue with rotational momentum in classical physics: if an object is spiraling inwards or outwards along a forced path (such as if a stone on a rope is wrapping around a pole), it will increase in velocity before it hits, due to preservation of rotational momentum. This is more or less the principle being exploited in Nikola Tesla's turbine. When you ask physicists about this, they become irrational and try to explain the issue away.
Please take a look at last Leonard Susskind's theorie that gravitation is given through instant-connected wormhole-entanglement to all other particles ..
@@hannybenny7632 and how would that be falsified? And how would we even test for that? That theory unless im missing something. Is right up there with dark matter "96% of the universe consists of pink fluffy invisible unicorns" -actual scientists "Gib me money to find these invisible unicorns" -actual scientists "we cannot find these unicorns, need more money" -actual scientists
Explanation for this "ballerina hands paradox" seems to resemble the twin paradox explanation in relativity: it is only during the change of the reference frame, during the 'acceleration' or transition between standing and rotating, that we get any work done. If there is a force that makes an object rotate, its arms will go up, but once you remove that force, they stay in one direction (in free space) or just fly away in opposite directions with constant velocity (if nothing connects them). Also, i think the claims "if ballerina stands still and universe revolves around, her arms will be outwards" and "if ballerina and universe spin at the same rate, her arms will not be pulled outwards" are just not true. I may be wrong, but these are my initial thoughts. I am not a physicist.
You are correct. Ballerina can spin herself but she can't spin the entire universe. Physicist are so obsessed with nonsense that they forgot basic dynamics.
@@NextLevel-kv5knno, of course the ballerina cannot spin the entire universe. The point is that in general relativity and observer can always claim that it is they who are at rest, and that it is their environment (in this case the entire universe) that is moving relative to them. And so, as all motion is relative, this should be true of the ballerina, too.
You are thanking him for a piece of crackpot physics. There is no known low of physics that will lift ballerina's hands if universe rotated around her.
@@HitAndMissLabcome on dude. If the rest of the universe spins around you, it is equivalent to you spinning while the universe is at rest. Your arms should lift
I have dug a lot on the Machian Principle. It is not instinctive, it is quite deep even for practiced physicist. This is the 1st great presentation i was able to find, thanks to TH-cam! Thanks to you!
Yep, it took me a few encounters with Mach's principle to see the magnitude of the question it contained. This plays particularly well with some graph models...
@Gilles Lalancette Alexander Unzicker on his channel Unzicker‘s Real Physics relates to Mach‘s Principle in various videos. In one of these videos he emphasizes on the Variable Speed of Light ansatz
Thank's a lot for this explanation and for presenting Hoyle/Narlikar Cosmology, it's a very interesting way to incorporate action at a distance. I have a hint that massless particles, the ones that "move" at the speed of light, are THE "actions at a distance", and particles with mass, that are persistant in time, which is a kind of its own inertial reference, receives and emits those "actions" (the massless particles, in torrents perceived as their charges), definig their movement in reference to their neighboring interacting massive particles (widest definition of neighborhood possible, please). In fact, spacetime can be defined exclusively by those point of interacions between those massive particles, in any number of dimensions, and this can be used as a framework to fit the other theories.
Difference between massless and massive particles is in interaction with Higgs field. That's it, they are not completely different classes of particles.
Well to put it another way, while there is no ground in space, we are lucky enough to have a ground on Earth to reference off of wrt electrical, thermal, and mechanical attributes.
Sciama's theory is on to the right path, especially because it involves rotation. My theory of time shows that this rotation is the time itself. The key component that all other theories are missing is the size of the observed system.
thanks, this much more fundamental mental conflict is much more comfortable to think about, than 'trying to conform to normality' while also believing normality is wrong.
This is an interesting theory that I hadn't heard of. That said, I'm very interested in you producing a video on the variability of the speed of light. This is the principle that I'm currently applying to my research as there is significant evidence proving its correctness. I look forward to your take on this matter. Thank you
I tend to think of the universe as existing in a medium. Light is the propagation of a disturbance through that medium. Masses are "knots" in that medium, with inertia being akin to Lenz's law.
Look into the work by Professor Torres, and the Weber Force, within a charged shell, point charges act as if affected by an inertial force. Do we live in a charged shell? Well, we live between at least two of them.
That seems to be effectively what Ron Hatch says. Like Tesla, he claims all matter is permeated by an ether. Tesla's claim is that matter or charged particles are condensers of that medium. The Earth's magnetosphere is roughly 3 times the diameter of the Earth as is the sphere of influence of a proton 3 times its diameter. This seems a more scalable phenomenon than Newtonian or GRT mechanics. We define energy based upon mass function 1/2 mv^2, from momentum assuming a constant mass in mass function. This is the basic problem with e=mc^2 being manipulated by the SRT invariance postulate. But in reality, energy or momentum is a constant and the medium density and c vary based upon that density, just like sound travels slower in a denser medium. So, Hatch says momentum or energy is a function of medium density instead of mass. Hatch basically defines gravity as buoyant force in that density gradient. Hatch calls it the Lorentz gauge theory. So, when the ether density or magnetic flux density increases the orbital radius will decrease, when medium density decreases, orbital radius will increase. This is the error introduced by Newtonian, spooky forces at a distance, and GRT mass function. That error is what leads to the willy-nilly application of dark matter to defibrillate the Newtonian/GRT models. It is also the basic error that leads to a 7.5 km/sec velocity from the Michelson Morley experiment vs 30 km/sec using a Superposition of Waves Principle. Back EMF and clock speed is due to magnetic, or dielectric, density variations not SRT.
@@t00by00zer Sound does travel faster in a solid than in a gas. That is a function of rigidity differences. But in solids, liquids or gases, ASSUMING the same molecular makeup, AND the same state of matter, sound travels slower in a denser medium and faster in a less dense medium. AKA sound travels faster in less dense air than in more dense air.
Matter is 1% particles and 99% ether. Matter is a condenser of the ether medium. So, the ether medium will be denser in matter than in a vacuum. Because of the condensed ether in matter, light will travel slower through an optical lens than through a vacuum. Likewise, light will travel faster through a vacuum when the magnetic or dielectric flux is less dense. Light will travel slower through a vacuum when the magnetic or dielectric flux is denser.
Here is the Observable difference between actual cause-effect phenomenon and the truth in labelling conflict resolution due to contradiction in reference-framing terminology.., all-ways all-at-once sync-duration holography dimensionality coordination in relative-timing compositions of potential positioning possibilities in i-reflection containment Principle. Whatever the prize is for clarity and concise content, this video earned it.
Thank you Gareth! There was one statement that I found to be particularly thought provoking.... at 17:55 to 18:03. I suspect there is a LOT hiding in this concept.
I always thought that the reason that a spinning person's arms would be drawn outward was not due to the relative mass surrounding the spinner, but rather, the relative distance and direction of movement from the axis point of the spin itself. 🤔
Fill a sink with water, pull the plug. Centrifugal force is exerted. Why? I submit that when fluid moves, it will always find the least resistance. When filling an area of less density, and when fluid is left to move itself, through an area that is significantly smaller than its own area, water self organizes into a vortex. Or put another way; A vortex is the fastest way for information to travel through space. A fluid will always self organize into a vortex when it is forced(by pressure differential) to move. A vortex can only be created in fluids of differentials in density. When a fluid has no compressibility, a vortex becomes a toroid. Therefore a toroid is the most efficient way for fluid to travel in an incompressible medium…..the vortex is analogous to transverse, the toroid analogous to longitudinal.
_"Fill a sink with water, pull the plug. Centrifugal force is exerted. Why? "_ The mass of the water is spinning faster horizontally than the speed it is dropping vertically, forcing the water outward from the center of that spin. That spin is induced by the rotation of the earth even as small as it is. Don't believe that, then go to the opposite hemisphere of the earth that you are on and see the change in direction of spin. _"When filling an area of less density, and when fluid is left to move itself, through an area that is significantly smaller than its own area, water self organizes into a vortex. Or put another way; A vortex is the fastest way for information to travel through space."_ Wrong. The fastest way for that water to move is the direction towards the largest mass and in most cases that would be toward earth or what is giving off the most gravity. _"A vortex can only be created in fluids of differentials in density."_ Well, false. Go have a talk with a tornado or a hurricane or even a Dyson Vacuum. _"Therefore a toroid is the most efficient way for fluid to travel in an incompressible medium…"_ What kind of weed is that or is that from a vape pen?
@@nathanwoodruff9422 you are missing my point. Yes of course gravity makes the water travel, we are certainly in agreement. If water is made to “push” through a hole that is smaller than the total mass of water, it will always form a vortex when there are more than one density of fluid, I.e. water and air. Let me clear; Water is “choosing” to move in a vortex, it is self organizing into a “funnel geometry”. It’s a phi ratio funnel. Please refer to all the books and material from Viktor Schauberger on exactly what a phi ratio funnel is about. So, water is self organizing, and it chooses to organize itself into a vortex, why? I submit that a vortex is the fastest way for a fluid to travel, and that is why water “chooses” that geometry. It is the same for kudu horns, if you run water through kudu horns, the faster you run the water, the less resistance will be in evidence, until the resistance finally reaches zero. It’s a fact, there are experiments already performed on these geometries and fluid flow. Research it, you will find it interesting. The question that is begged by the results is; Is the vortex a geometry that is a result of flow, or is the flow a result of geometry. Which comes first?
@@donaldbest7621 _"I submit that a vortex is the fastest way for a fluid to travel, and that is why water “chooses” that geometry."_ Water doesn't choose anything. Water has no thought process. Water is influenced by one thing and one thing only. Gravity, well and the spin of the earth. Moving in a downward motion toward a source of gravity(earth), what is above you is moving at a faster speed horizontally than what is below you. Water moving in a downward motion has to give off that speed it was traveling and since it is confined in a space traveling downward(vertically) usually in some kind of pipe, that speed that it was traveling horizontally has to be given off and usually results in a horizontal increase in motion in relation to the vertical downward motion, much like the arm spin. That increase in horizontal motion in a confined space will result in a rotation as that is the only way to give off that horizontal momentum. _"It’s a phi ratio funnel. Please refer to all the books and material from Viktor Schauberger on exactly what a phi ratio funnel is about. "_ I could also refer you to all the useless books on Quantum mechanics and point you off to thousands of different useless directions as well. But I am not going to as nothing would be gained. There is a reason why an airplane gains horizontal speed on a dive and looses horizontal speed on an incline. Same thing happens with all mass, including water. Fastest way for water to travel is in a straight line, as with any mass. But mass influenced by gravity and the rotation of earth and synchronized with said mass either has to increase energy or shed energy the closer or farther away from the center of that mass. The only way to do that when approaching a vertical direction toward said mass is in ninety degrees toward that mass, as in start spinning, and thus the dreamed up stuff by Viktor that never understood what gravity was in the first place. That inertia in speed just doesn't disappear into thin air, it has to be dissipated somehow, again something Viktor never even dreamed about. That is also why satellites need to travel at ~7,000 miles an hour to stay in the same place above earth when we here on earth are only traveling at 1,100 miles an hour. A satellite traveling down to earth in a direct vertical path would have to shed 5,900 miles an hour of horizontal velocity to make it straight down. Now the satellite could do that by spinning and shedding that horizontal motion or it could pick a spot on the vertical axis towards earth and orbit around that spot all the way down shedding that horizontal energy. Water is doing the same thing. Water didn't choose anything, nor did the satellite. Best of luck.
@@nathanwoodruff9422 you missed the point again, in grand fashion. Didn’t even catch the quotes around”choose”…….these are for a different reason…lol. Best of luck to you as well.
@@donaldbest7621 _" Didn’t even catch the quotes around”choose”"_ I didn't need to catch that because I dismissed it as nonsense as everyone else reading your nonsense did as well. Good luck on your PhD of nonsense that is based on participation awards.
I sort of thought when they talk about motion being relative the word they really mean to use is velocity. Speed and direction, but not spin. Motion from spin is absolute.
Great video mate thanks so much for all your work. I am reading Worlds in Collision atm then i got Wal Thornhills Electric gravity to read. You have now given me a whole lot more reading to do. Still got alot more of the math to learn thanks again for the vids.
Well further than that, the concept of time is itself incoherent under relativity, see "Stephen Crothers: The Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory of Relativity | EU2017". General Relativity doesn't fix it either, it's as Feynman said, "Adding crap on top". It'd be better to dispense with Relativity as it's broken on many levels, and while unfortunate we have to use an older theory of mechanics, I'd rather not over complicate matters and add magical numbers.
Einstein's version of relativity or SRT postulates were pretty much debunked before he even plagiarized his works. In fact, there is an arXiv paper out stating that there is no evidence to support SRT over the previous relativity postulates. 'Experimental Basis for Special Relativity in the Photon Sector' Daniel Y. Gezari arXiv 0912.3818 Also Check out 'Ch 21 Einstein’s False Premises Regarding the Velocity of Light - Relativity of Light' "Einstein’s above described “constant emission velocity theory’” can also be characterized as a “ballistic” theory, because it assumed that the velocity of light was dependent upon the velocity of the light’s material source body[18] (Ibid). But if the velocity of light was dependent upon the velocity v of its material source body then how could light’s velocity always have a constant value of c in a vacuum, as Maxwell’s equations and empirical experiments demand?" Einstein invariance postulate means that for an observer moving at the same velocity as the source, to see the speed of light as invariant, means that light must be dependent upon the velocity of the source, which means that the speed of light cannot be invariant with respect to an inertial reference frame,. Multiple experiments contradict SRT and show that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the source but is dependent upon the motion of the observer WRT the inertial reference fame. Ron Hatch shows this in his works as well as several other GPS software companies. 'Hatch-Relativity_and_GPS-II_1995.pdf'
This is a very, very good question. Very deep. It took me some time but: (relative)velocity=(absolute)acceleration x (relative)time. Basically, we all agree on acceleration but we don't agree on how long this acceleration acted, because of time dilation, hence relative velocity. Note that acceleration of inertial frames is absolute 0.
@5:47 What would happen to the water if the bucket was spinning around a central axis counterclockwise while the bucket spun in a counterclockwise direction on its own axis of rotation? Would the water level out?
4:22 Viscosity helps transmit the centripetal force from the bucket wall into the water layers. Edge layer on the wall of the bucket rotates right (anticlockwise), say. Then each molecule rotates anticlockwise in the edge layer and gets dragged along. The next layer's molecules are induced to rotate by the edge layer the other way, so clockwise. So, we have counter rotation between 2 layers. Eventually, a 3rd molecule wanders between a pair of counter-spinning molecules. The pair imparts a force onto the 3rd molecule and it accelerates left, where another pair accelerates it again and so on, until there is a stream of molecules flowing anticlockwise. We have a stream on edge layer flowing clockwise. We have the next stream flowing anticlockwise. At each point of contact, each of the layers imparts friction/resistance on the other layer. The result is to redirect the motion of both streams up and down, but the down stream is countered by more pressure below. Therefore, there will be a tendency for streams near the wall to be accelerated upwards relative to bottom of the bucket. The reason this happens is because of gravity pinning the water down and pressure rebound from the bulk due to the other side, so that the pressure is higher the deeper you go and is higher as you get towards a wall. Clearly it's going to be a paraboloid shape b/c of pressures from the bottom surface and around the side-wall.
"Clearly" the universe isn't a bucket. Frame dragging is an observed phenomenon, so investigating a model using the big bang as the rotating walls of a sphere may be insightful.
@@Dan-gs3kg I think it is the medium of electromagnetic radiation (light) of which mass is made out of, working in a way similar to Huygens' theory of gravitation, that this agitated fluid matter will push mass to a center of movement.
Mind experiments whether they become accepted "theories" or not are interesting and often insane if one could only stand back a bit. Few theories seem to face the constant rigors of scientific method once people decide and become true believers or skeptics. Men are not reasonable in their approach but rather reasoning and will go to great lengths to affirm their subjective bias. Sometimes they are right and sometimes wrong, but once the die is cast and their ego or reputations are on the line they become exceedingly myopic for the most part. I don't excuse myself from bias, but I have nothing to prove or scientific reputation to uphold. I have however been blessed with an open and intuitive/analytical mind that sees patterns and flaws in in those patterns. I have enjoyed your channel and appreciate the work you put into it. Thanks. 😁
Thank you for this excellent coverage! It seems to be that the equivalence of gravitational mass and inertial mass is not a coincidence but is a strict consequence of Mach's principal.
I have been watching your videos for some time and I want to thank you now and I highly appreciate your work and effort. Great visualization and presentation of these complex theories. I studied philosophy and the paradigmshift, which is waiting, depends on people like you! The Electric Universe, which at the end might be just a thing of a fractured mind, is a great scale live thinking manifastion of a "myself" or "Me" creating a World. Space and time seem to be just concepts of experience and are whether fixed nor consistent in reality. Only the Point where you put the Zero give rise to their existence. And the Zero is nothing. Not existing. Yet it is the only value really existing in Nothing. Therefore it says not I am, but I is Nothing but the Source of Zero. I starts the time. I creates the space. Anyway😅 Great job!
So many ways to interpret general relativity, so much variety and ambiguity still, yet they try to rush off to a "theory of everything", when we may not have a theory of anything yet, that is truly accurate.
Watched this last night (I always have too wait until a time when I can sit down in front of the big screen to watch) Birkeland Currents is the only thing that makes sense of our continued place in a universe in motion
The only force or mechanism in existence is inertia and even itself isn't active but emanatory. Atoms are nodes of inertial dynamos. Their net inertia works like a multi axis gyro and refuses to move giving a feeling of mass. The nuclear forces are the resonances between these dynamos. Electricity is when the peripheries of these little whirlpools are polarized in sync. Gravity is when the mass, i.e. the dynamics of the muti-axis inertia that makes an atom, is arrayed. For example, if you were to dampen one or more of the axis of a 3-axis gyro, it will propel a certain direction.
You can't start spinning on top of a spinner (decoupled from Earth); if you do the spinner will rotate in the opposite direction (total zero angular momentum). Your arms pulled out minimize the distribution of energy, i guess (not an expert at this ... Lagrangian mechanics experts?), should be a local phenomenon. Foucault pendulum precession is more complicated; try to move the axis of a gyro: a "Lorentz force" (torque) ensues ... It's all about change of state (absolute states are not well defined, and need a reference frame, vector space etc.and inertial motion can be "gauged away") which is local in a "reasonably" closed system (weak interacting with the exterior) ... Very nice presentation and stimulating, Thank you!
The very real bending of light radiating from distant stars as this light passes by our Sun - or any (large) body - is NOT due to the so-called warping of so-called space-time, but this bending is due, rather, to nothing more than simple refraction, which refraction is due to the now very well known fact that the area around the Sun is significantly more dense - because it has a lot of ‘stuff’ present in it - than the other areas of space through which the light has travelled on its journey to Earth. Or to/from anywhere else. Simple refraction - one of the most well known of phenomena. The ‘junk’ around our Sun making the area significantly more dense than other areas of space were not known in Einstein’s day so the idea of simple refraction did not seem possible & didn’t even enter his mind. Big mistake. ‘Stuff’ around the Sun ? Free-floating &/or fast streaming atoms, ions, solar winds, dust, gases, space junk & all manner of cosmological debris - & neutrinos etc. Yes all this stuff is denser around large bodies which not only produce goodly proportions of it - as in ‘solar winds’ - but which space junk also streams into any cosmologically large body …. via Birkland currents … The ‘crisis in contemporary physics’ suggests that it’s time to switch to an Electric Universe … aka a plasmatic universe. ….
Look into Dowdey Jr's Extinction Shift, he does talk about how the lensing we see is the medium of a star's atmosphere. If someone brings up how the refraction is frequency independent... Do realise that we have a thing called broadband quantum frequency combs. So there is a possibility that there is some optronics shenanigans going on.
_"The very real bending of light radiating from distant stars as this light passes by our Sun - or any (large) body - is NOT due to the so-called warping of so-called space-time,"_ That is correct. _" but this bending is due, rather, to nothing more than simple refraction, which refraction is due to the now very well known fact that the area around the Sun is significantly more dense"_ That would be incorrect. The lensing that we see around our sun is due to the fact that the visible wavelength energy we see as visible light is affected by gravity. And what is not so hard to believe is that the more mass the sun has the more bending the visible light spectrum has up until the point that this bending, bends so much that the visible light spectrum starts to orbit the mass and that mass becomes what is known as a black hole. All the light passing by starts to orbit the mass until is it finally absorbed by the large mass. Oh and in falling into a black hole, one would eventually do a face plant into that mass, at somewhat close to the speed of light.
The simplest explanation would be that spacetime is a real "stuff" and that objects move relative to spacetime. This is closer to the idea of a fluid-aether (and defending that pov would be the end of your career in physics for some reasons).
Great...I am a big fan of Mach's Principle, and a relative space/motion rather than a container space. The connection of this to non-locality was fascinating, something I have been recently acquainting my self with in terms of David Bohm's non-local hidden variables theory. I do not like the idea that mass is intrinsic to an object, I feel that mass/inertia are a result that manifests in interactions.
So, to cut a long story short for us laymen, GToR is not entirely right and everything in the Universe is connected, so everything affects everything else
The real question is what is the grounds by which we live or walk? We live on Earth, but the things that Earth really cares about is what the Sun is doing, then the Galaxy. We haven't really figured out what is going on in interplanetary space, but I'm pretty sure there is more at play than gravity, given how common flyby anomalies are.
I don’t quite understand around 7:20. If there is no force on the object there is no acceleration. Why would the acceleration be indeterminate and the mass be zero? You can measure whether or not you are accelerating via inertial forces. Doesn’t make sense to me.
Matter is made of charged particles. Even the quarks in the 'neutral' neutrons in atoms are charged particles. If you look that the Abraham-Lorentz force, including 'radiation resistance', you find that accelerated charged particles suffer recoil. Since our bodies, our cars, our airplanes, etc. are collections of charged particles, the inertial drag we suffer when accelerating is a recoil effect, just like any charged particle under acceleration. The key is to look at what we know about so-called 'empty' space and try to create a model as to what the constituents of space might consist of. If you work at artificial gravity devices, coming to terms with how inertial drag works is very important. .
Light traveling through space is the aether in which you can measure motion. Your motion through space changes the wavelength of light, causing electronic devices to run at a different frequency. Atomic clocks are so precise, they can measure millimeters of changes in acceleration.
@1:50 but the stars are moving. The centripital force is relative to the earth, not the stars is it not? If you are spinning relative to earth you feel it, if you are not you are not. Furthermore I would argue that the centripital force is almost entirely due to the presence of a gravitational field. In deep space no matter how fast you are moving your arms will not feel a force outward, only if that spinning speeds up or slows down, and this force is only present during that acceleration. It is just very difficult to accelerate yourself outside of a gravitational field in deep space. I would go further and say angular velocity works just like regular velocity in that it is a meaningless quantity without a reference frame. I don't understand where the problem comes from Can you explain this? For now, I will watch further into the video. At 6:40. I think I either disagree with or misunderstand the idea of the two methods agreeing. The way I see it is that the reason they give the same result is because distant stars are so far away they appear to move very little due to parallax. I would say the two methods actually don't agree, and if you measured them to a high enough degree of accuracy or for a long enough period of time you would see this. One is not using any notion of an absolute space, but rather abusing gravity to measure a 360 degree turn. The second method uses the stars to determine when you are looking at the same part of the sky, which is also a 360 degree turn - but the stars move, the background moves, etc so it won't be 100% accurate like the other method over long periods of time. I still do not understand the dilemma. Further, I do not understand why the acceleration is indeterminate. It is zero is it not? acceleration = a = d/dx(dS/dx). We know there is no force so with F=ma -> 0=ma. With mass being a constant this is enough to say acceleration is zero, why would one conclude it is infact the mass which is indeterminate? is it because 0=0a -> 0/0=a -> a= indeterminate. This is not a physical reason, this is just how mathematics works! If I say x=3 and then do 0*x=3*0 -> 0=3*0 -> 3=0/0 so 3 is indeterminate. This is clearly nonsense. The fact that the formula can be arranged like this is simply a byproduct of mass being a constant and so could and would work for any number. There must be something else I'm missing here too?
I dont understand how "if the universe spins around the balerina her arms will be pulled outward" ? and this is avoiding the issue that in order for the "universe to spin about her" would require relative speeds exceeding c. This is a very deep and profound topic . Something tells me he means that if a person far away from the balerina was stationary with respect to the rotating universe (that is he is rotating with the stars around her) he would see the balerina spinning.. but how does that imply that her arms would be outward ?
Wow! Great informative video! I did not know about these alternates. Do you want the good news or the bad news? The good news is, I have solved this gnarly problem. The bad news is, I have written it up on Quora as a series of questions and answers. It starts with the nature of Galaxies and quickly moves to the nature of baryonic matter and the ubiquitous and persistent linkage between them. Mach and colleagues were all on the right track in their own ways, but none of them knew the galactic nature of all this. More later. Thanks.
One doesn't need to interact with the universe at large to have inertia. Inertia is an artifact of rotation and the prevention of path of least action. Centripetal force is all that's needed. Newton first law.
Would love your opinion on Dr Don Lincolns most recent video on the Twin Paradox. He says its resolved by multiple inertial frames and says its equivalent to Sabine Hossenfelders statements about acceleration, while The Science Assylum says that acceleration is irrelevant and gives what looks to be a good proof to me and says that is solved or resolved by Lorentz Transformations... But by my understanding you need to have a frame at rest or know motion relative to the universal background to do a Lorentz transformation without making assumptions....... But I'm honestly not good enough at math to play around and see how stuff may change dependant on the assumption correct or incorrect as to it being at rest.... It would leave me to believe that Einstein's field equations can't resolve the Twin Paradox and you would need Machian Math or similar to do it properly? It seems to me as though the paradox was made for this very reason to show the limitations of GR.... I hope that makes sense and would be extremely grateful for any light you can shed on the subject. If you could make a video on it I would be totally stoked (Stoked = Australian slang for super excited and grateful) ❤
Isn't it just your presumption what would happen if the whole universe rotated? There's a big difference between saying "I don't know which is moving" and "It is unknowable what is moving."
Movement has a stationary plane for all objects, and inertia has to do with the aether which surrounds each object. The Aether is made up from a stacking system of toroidal spins, and each torus has a hole. To cross a torus therefore means to move through a hole to the next torus as a spin. But you can rotate multiple torus to create a tube, and then you cross space over many segments at once before you have a stationary plane to spin inside. So the Aether has a relationship to your spin hole which makes you stationary. Each spin hole builds a particle, so all of your particles are inside their own spin hole. Bonding means to connect the holes at the centre of atoms, so those are the tubes that connect the torus together. Basically a movement is a teleportation through a tube to build your particles over a distance. By the way, your arms aren't pulled away, there is no such thing as pull in physics. You arms move towards the holes at the centre of toroidal spins in the aether. Holes are the area of least resistance in physics, so your arms move towards the area of least resistance where resistance is spin. That's not a pull force, and videos really need to be more precise.
Uhh this is not an issue in relativity. "Mach’s principle, in cosmology, hypothesis that the inertial forces experienced by a body in nonuniform motion are determined by the quantity and distribution of matter in the universe. It was so called by Albert Einstein after the 19th-century Austrian physicist and philosopher Ernst Mach. Einstein found the hypothesis helpful in formulating his theory of general relativity-i.e., it was suggestive of a connection between geometry and matter-and attributed the idea to Mach, unaware that the English philosopher George Berkeley had proposed similar views during the 1700s. (Berkeley had argued that all motion, both uniform and nonuniform, was relative to the distant stars.) Einstein later abandoned the principle when it was realized that inertia is implicit in the geodesic equation of motion and need not depend on the existence of matter elsewhere in the universe."
The water in the bucket has friction with the walls of the bucket. That is why it is 'crawling' up the inside of the bucket. Try using a bucket with zero friction.
_"The water in the bucket has friction with the walls of the bucket. That is why it is 'crawling' up the inside of the bucket. "_ Well, no. The water is 'crawling' up the bucket as the water wants to travel in a straight line. The water not on the walls is expressing force on the water on the walls. Since the water on the walls can't go farther outwards, the only direction left is up or down. Since it can't travel down, the only way left is up. The amount of water mass being forced up would be the mass of the difference in rotation speed to the radius to the wall divided by Pi.
Thank you so much for making this video!! just wondering if there any good explanations for why Newton's 3rd law works for 2 bodies in empty space. where does the equal and opposite force come from on the second body when exerted on by the first body?
It comes from the law of concervation of momentum! If one body is acted on by a force, it must create an equal but opposite force so that the change is momentum of the universe is canceled. No momentum is ever created and no momentum ever leaves in the universe.
Nice video, but it misses the solution provided by GR: in GR, inertia (and thus rotation) are local, i.e. defined relatively to the local field. This field includes all external effects that may propagate to the local point at the moment of the measurement. So if I spin a top on my table, the top "sees" the local field - not only Earth Gravitation - which is the embedding of all fields that propagate toward my top at any time...
Even today's time Newton is experimentally 16 Sigman level of results conclusion. Cancelling back ground to zero is a practice But it raise the same question as Newton has. It dose matter in a system who is early and late. In cosmology things are complex. In my understanding a pattern is governing the law I.e some distribution while the parameters are emerging from dynamics or the relativistic motions.. Deeping of levels of water in a rotating bucket 🪣 appearing when variables settle as constant. Very interesting channel.
IMO, Mach's principle is a red herring, based on the theory that inertia stems from mass. I believe the zero point field can be considered a non-moving reference frame. In addition, it seems intuitively apparent that inertia results from the inductance of all the charges in a body resisting any force that accelerates them all. Hence the mistaken assumption that inertia stems from mass. It actually stems from charge, not mass, and is intricately connected to the inductive magnetic field, and it's growth and diminution as a result of charge acceleration and deceleration.
That would only apply to bodies with a net charge or to polar molecules with residual net charges. A large percentage of bodies bear no net charge. Furthermore, in crystalline solids or in non--ionic molecules (or non-polar molecules), charges are all neutralized. Charge cannot be a general driving principle here.
Maybe is based on the same "timeless" direct interaction as in quantumphysics between entangled particles, also described recently by Leonard Susskind as base of quantum gravity
So…..to my knowledge gravity has never been produced in a lab. It doesn’t make a difference how much you squeeze stuff in a lab, you get no measurable gravitation. Electrostatic repulsion and attraction can be produced in a lab. let’s just leave gravitation out of the conversation for now, and bring in a Tesla quote; “What is magnetism compared to the repulsive and attractive forces of electrostatic energy? I can suspend tons in the air with the magnetic force, but I have yet to find the limits to the repulsive and attractive forces of electrostatic energy” Electron theory says static electricity has quanta that are not in movement. When the quanta of “static electricity” moves, magnetism is created. Please correct me, if I am incorrect, I am completely a novice at this. If it is true that the movement of the quanta of static charge is what creates magnetic fields, what would the implication of regular static electricity having a frequency of about 1 million or so per second? My simple mind would conclude that a magnetic field might be created from the movement of static electric energy units, but the frequency of those quanta would have to be greater than 1 million per second to bring about a magnetic field, since there is not a magnetic field around everything. Another implication is; there might be a stronger electrostatic field created at frequencies of one million or higher. Tesla said the electrostatic energy that is everywhere and all around us vibrates at one million per second. The reason we don’t know it’s there is each quanta of energy is with a fine super fluid of insulation. With out the consideration of fields and defining what a “field” is, the presentation here sounds like a nice story.
Page 9:00 Dennis Sciama 1953 is right in my opinion. That it arise as a result of the (interaction) of matter with the remaining matter of the universe. Coincidentally with what I advocated previously on TH-cam that gravity isn’t an intrinsic force. Instead it is extrinsic force origin in the vacuum space. Not in the form of a 2D fabric that Einstein had proposed but as 3D. That something reside in 3D vacuum space responsible for pulling all matter together in 3D but 2D. More importantly it (permanently adhere) to all matter in the (near field) and drag at equal speed where matter was is and will be. On the other hand, as attached to all matter, it also drag drift at another speed which we may consider as the quasi rest frame, since the local and far field are at extreme scales relatively. It’s speed may be taken as The Test Frame. Unless we attempt to model the entire universe. F=ma=0 is a net zero inertia state when an object and the rest of universe are being pulled by this gravity medium. Alternatively, the medium may be considered as a 3D rubber band adhere to all matter having a scalable spring constant constant k = g. For the lack of intuitive explanation. Inertia may be legislated in the following manner, in counting on the conservation of energy law. When an external force f acts on a body in a forward direction the medium force g in front of it is changed from g+f/2 and -g+f/2 giving an net f, for the duration of the external force is applied. The body is then consider to be inertially charged. Follow that the body drift a a new speed in the empty space of the universe. Until a second force in equal direction and magnitude and duration is imposed to it to cause back to its original speed, inertially discharged. Such medium adheres to and pulling all matter together has a name, which I call the Aether. As we all aware that this medium also responsible for light wave to be coupled to and from vacuum space. As described above, it drag with the interferometer in the near field also responsible for no fringe activities because of Aether wind paradigm is a false assumption.
Compliments on the nice video with inspiring ideas. Brans-Dicke can be ruled out though because its coupling constant that is supposed to be on the order of 1 has been shown to be larger than at least 40000, from observations. Likewise, Hoyle and Larnikar's cosmology has also been debunked by observations, see the last link in the Wikipedia entry on Hoyle Larnikar. A rotating Earth fits with the Kerr metric. By setting its asymptotic metric equal to that of an FLRW cosmological model you can explain why orbiting satellites orientate themselves to the universe (aside from a miniscule frame dragging component). I can see how that extends to gyros and Foucault pendulums. Our measure of spacetime is rooted in an FLRW cosmology after all, isn't it? Frames rotating relative to the universe are therefore not inertial (as Weinberg noted in his book). It explains one part of Mach's principle. I am looking forward to a viable theory that explains inertia as a result of mass/energy distribution in the universe because it makes sense, philosophically.
_"Does the mind go as fast as the speed of light?"_ Since our brain works off of electrical impulses, our minds would go as fast as the speed of light travels though nerve cells.
They have found large universal bodies that seem to move in sync, even though separated by hundreds or more of light years. This seems over my head without really too much effort right now. One thing that I’ve always wondered about is spinning an object on the end of a centrifuge. Does that create a separate or lesser gravity effect ? Comes from how to slow down after interplanetary or even interstellar travel without fatal G forces.
Newton: “not all motion is relative, consider this rotating bucket of water... it is moving relative to *everything”* Mach: “ Well what If the bucket is stationary and the entire universe is moving” Newton: “Hilarious Mach! Wait.. what! You’re serious? “ Modern scientist/ mathematicians: “Makes sense to me... oh and every time you make a choice a new universe is created.”
Newton changed it to two masses on a spring, or connected via a tether; if they are spinning, and you cut the tether, the two objects will move away from each other. This also supposes that a 'background universe' doesn't even exist and it is the two objects only. Some say that if the two objects are all that exists, then an absolute rotation is not even possible, since there is no background to rotate relative to; others say that the absolute rotation does exist and will cause a tension in the spring or tether
@@pyropulseIXXI The point I’m alluding to is, rather than accept that any absolute motion exists: a motion that is recognized as *in-motion* when viewed from every inertial reference frame, _they_ generate and embrace pure nonsense. Why? Because to admit the obvious would’ve required an abandonment of the sacrosanct postulate that *”all* motion is relative” So say goodbye to the baby ( logic or reason) because this nonrelativistic bath water has to go.
That ballerina would have to be really massive for the entire universe to spin or gravitate around her. Her mass would have to be bigger than the universe's !
What about an ‘Electric Universe’ ? Aka a plasmatic universe …. Plasma = the “Fourth State” of matter - actually the First State of matter …. Electromagnetism is 40 orders of magnitude more powerful than gravity & roughly equally more powerful than the power of merely kinetic exploding bits of matter. A universe in which the play of electromagnetic properties determines the outcome of interacting increments of matter & not just the almost impossibly weak by comparison, gravitational, kinetic & even thermonuclear properties of matter.
how about this: CHECK by spinning the spring connected weights in 2 opposite directions from the center point and gauging differences to correct for other outstanding rotation. See?
I am half of the video in and I already see that this will require some serious rewatching. Thanks for the upload Gareth!
Hope you enjoyed it!
Me too!
0 9th p MO 0 p 00000
Aahahaha ever since I got introduced to inertia concept and relative movement I thought about these issues. When I called out teachers and fellow students, their only reply was "you are crazy" or "you are overthinking". I never once heard of this fellow "Mach" until now. I feel vindicated after all these years. Reality is stranger than fiction. Many thanks!
Thank you for watching, links are in the description
Hi, just found your channel. I've been put on a journey of discovery. And in that time I've learnt Physics since 1927 is a lie. Looking forward to seeing what you have to say.
-Big bang never happened
-Gravity is not a force and the big G was never a constant
-Speed of light is not a constant
-Standard model is a joke
-Cosmology is no longer science thanks to the SM
Science in general is subverted and broken. More akin to Scientism
legions of new students are being taught lies. (and yes i use the term lies rather than falsehoods, the deception is deliberate)
I don’t see the links for the Hoyle/Narlikar Cosmology videos. Was hoping to watch them but gave up after searching through your playlist for 10 minutes. On the positive, I saved a few playlists that I’m looking forward to watching.
There is also an issue with rotational momentum in classical physics: if an object is spiraling inwards or outwards along a forced path (such as if a stone on a rope is wrapping around a pole), it will increase in velocity before it hits, due to preservation of rotational momentum.
This is more or less the principle being exploited in Nikola Tesla's turbine.
When you ask physicists about this, they become irrational and try to explain the issue away.
Please take a look at last Leonard Susskind's theorie that gravitation is given through instant-connected wormhole-entanglement to all other particles ..
@@hannybenny7632 and how would that be falsified?
And how would we even test for that?
That theory unless im missing something. Is right up there with dark matter
"96% of the universe consists of pink fluffy invisible unicorns" -actual scientists
"Gib me money to find these invisible unicorns" -actual scientists
"we cannot find these unicorns, need more money" -actual scientists
Love it! Bestest TH-cam channel hands down!
smashing sir...thankyou kindly
The leading science channel on Earth.
Explanation for this "ballerina hands paradox" seems to resemble the twin paradox explanation in relativity: it is only during the change of the reference frame, during the 'acceleration' or transition between standing and rotating, that we get any work done. If there is a force that makes an object rotate, its arms will go up, but once you remove that force, they stay in one direction (in free space) or just fly away in opposite directions with constant velocity (if nothing connects them). Also, i think the claims "if ballerina stands still and universe revolves around, her arms will be outwards" and "if ballerina and universe spin at the same rate, her arms will not be pulled outwards" are just not true. I may be wrong, but these are my initial thoughts. I am not a physicist.
You're right. This channel is pure pseudoscience. It's just conspiracy theorists who suck at physics and refuse to learn GE.
You are correct. Ballerina can spin herself but she can't spin the entire universe. Physicist are so obsessed with nonsense that they forgot basic dynamics.
@@NextLevel-kv5knno, of course the ballerina cannot spin the entire universe. The point is that in general relativity and observer can always claim that it is they who are at rest, and that it is their environment (in this case the entire universe) that is moving relative to them. And so, as all motion is relative, this should be true of the ballerina, too.
Love it! thank you Gareth!
Great video as always
Thank you for covering Mach's principal! I find it very fascinating but haven't seen anyone else cover it before.
Keep 'em coming!
You are thanking him for a piece of crackpot physics.
There is no known low of physics that will lift ballerina's hands if universe rotated around her.
@@HitAndMissLab electromagnetism??? wind??? potential energy???? none... really???
The Universe rotates around the prima ballerina. Therefore, her arms lift.@@HitAndMissLab
@@HitAndMissLabcome on dude. If the rest of the universe spins around you, it is equivalent to you spinning while the universe is at rest. Your arms should lift
Then what is the last case of both spinning? @@demotics2005
I have dug a lot on the Machian Principle. It is not instinctive, it is quite deep even for practiced physicist. This is the 1st great presentation i was able to find, thanks to TH-cam! Thanks to you!
Yeah to Cynical Skeptic, this is my 2nd watch.
Yep, it took me a few encounters with Mach's principle to see the magnitude of the question it contained. This plays particularly well with some graph models...
@Gilles Lalancette
Alexander Unzicker on his channel Unzicker‘s Real Physics relates to Mach‘s Principle in various videos. In one of these videos he emphasizes on the Variable Speed of Light ansatz
Very interesting indeed!
Thought provoking...mind bending...clear as mud...
Thank's a lot for this explanation and for presenting Hoyle/Narlikar Cosmology, it's a very interesting way to incorporate action at a distance. I have a hint that massless particles, the ones that "move" at the speed of light, are THE "actions at a distance", and particles with mass, that are persistant in time, which is a kind of its own inertial reference, receives and emits those "actions" (the massless particles, in torrents perceived as their charges), definig their movement in reference to their neighboring interacting massive particles (widest definition of neighborhood possible, please). In fact, spacetime can be defined exclusively by those point of interacions between those massive particles, in any number of dimensions, and this can be used as a framework to fit the other theories.
Difference between massless and massive particles is in interaction with Higgs field. That's it, they are not completely different classes of particles.
Love watching your videos mate, I learn sooooo much, top man!
Awesome, thank you!
Gareth is a champ!
You don't need to consider anything beyond the local aether gradient to determine the inertial frame.
Well to put it another way, while there is no ground in space, we are lucky enough to have a ground on Earth to reference off of wrt electrical, thermal, and mechanical attributes.
Matter is like a bubble in moving through aether, the resistance to aether flow change is the inertia.
@@whig01I like the ether theory. But how does it deal with the interferometer experiment that shows the speed of light is constant in all directions
@@jjmarcos You've misunderstood the experiment and its conclusions, which did not account for entrainment or rotating frames.
@@whig01 how would a rotating frame matter especially when the rotation is so much less than c
Mahe Ohna ✌️ Favour ALL, good hearing from you again, Gareth
Sciama's theory is on to the right path, especially because it involves rotation. My theory of time shows that this rotation is the time itself. The key component that all other theories are missing is the size of the observed system.
thanks, this much more fundamental mental conflict is much more comfortable to think about,
than 'trying to conform to normality' while also believing normality is wrong.
This is an interesting theory that I hadn't heard of. That said, I'm very interested in you producing a video on the variability of the speed of light. This is the principle that I'm currently applying to my research as there is significant evidence proving its correctness. I look forward to your take on this matter. Thank you
Cool stuff. Thanks for ypour efforts.
I tend to think of the universe as existing in a medium. Light is the propagation of a disturbance through that medium.
Masses are "knots" in that medium, with inertia being akin to Lenz's law.
Look into the work by Professor Torres, and the Weber Force, within a charged shell, point charges act as if affected by an inertial force. Do we live in a charged shell? Well, we live between at least two of them.
That seems to be effectively what Ron Hatch says. Like Tesla, he claims all matter is permeated by an ether. Tesla's claim is that matter or charged particles are condensers of that medium. The Earth's magnetosphere is roughly 3 times the diameter of the Earth as is the sphere of influence of a proton 3 times its diameter. This seems a more scalable phenomenon than Newtonian or GRT mechanics.
We define energy based upon mass function 1/2 mv^2, from momentum assuming a constant mass in mass function.
This is the basic problem with e=mc^2 being manipulated by the SRT invariance postulate.
But in reality, energy or momentum is a constant and the medium density and c vary based upon that density, just like sound travels slower in a denser medium.
So, Hatch says momentum or energy is a function of medium density instead of mass.
Hatch basically defines gravity as buoyant force in that density gradient.
Hatch calls it the Lorentz gauge theory.
So, when the ether density or magnetic flux density increases the orbital radius will decrease,
when medium density decreases, orbital radius will increase.
This is the error introduced by Newtonian, spooky forces at a distance, and GRT mass function. That error is what leads to the willy-nilly application of dark matter to defibrillate the Newtonian/GRT models. It is also the basic error that leads to a 7.5 km/sec velocity from the Michelson Morley experiment vs 30 km/sec using a Superposition of Waves Principle.
Back EMF and clock speed is due to magnetic, or dielectric, density variations not SRT.
@@JoeDeglman Sound travels faster in a solid than in a gas. Light travels slower in a solid than in a vacuum.
@@t00by00zer Sound does travel faster in a solid than in a gas.
That is a function of rigidity differences.
But in solids, liquids or gases, ASSUMING the same molecular makeup, AND the same state of matter,
sound travels slower in a denser medium and faster in a less dense medium.
AKA sound travels faster in less dense air than in more dense air.
Matter is 1% particles and 99% ether.
Matter is a condenser of the ether medium.
So, the ether medium will be denser in matter than in a vacuum.
Because of the condensed ether in matter, light will travel slower through an optical lens than through a vacuum.
Likewise, light will travel faster through a vacuum when the magnetic or dielectric flux is less dense.
Light will travel slower through a vacuum when the magnetic or dielectric flux is denser.
Clear explanation
Abandoning the ether was a catastrophic mistake.
Aren't quantum fields another name for it?
Here is the Observable difference between actual cause-effect phenomenon and the truth in labelling conflict resolution due to contradiction in reference-framing terminology.., all-ways all-at-once sync-duration holography dimensionality coordination in relative-timing compositions of potential positioning possibilities in i-reflection containment Principle.
Whatever the prize is for clarity and concise content, this video earned it.
I'm looking forward to your next video on changing c.
Thank you Gareth! There was one statement that I found to be particularly thought provoking.... at 17:55 to 18:03. I suspect there is a LOT hiding in this concept.
Keep up the good work!
I always thought that the reason that a spinning person's arms would be drawn outward was not due to the relative mass surrounding the spinner, but rather, the relative distance and direction of movement from the axis point of the spin itself. 🤔
You are correct.
You did an incredible job explaining this.
Fill a sink with water, pull the plug. Centrifugal force is exerted. Why?
I submit that when fluid moves, it will always find the least resistance. When filling an area of less density, and when fluid is left to move itself, through an area that is significantly smaller than its own area, water self organizes into a vortex. Or put another way;
A vortex is the fastest way for information to travel through space. A fluid will always self organize into a vortex when it is forced(by pressure differential) to move. A vortex can only be created in fluids of differentials in density. When a fluid has no compressibility, a vortex becomes a toroid.
Therefore a toroid is the most efficient way for fluid to travel in an incompressible medium…..the vortex is analogous to transverse, the toroid analogous to longitudinal.
_"Fill a sink with water, pull the plug. Centrifugal force is exerted. Why? "_ The mass of the water is spinning faster horizontally than the speed it is dropping vertically, forcing the water outward from the center of that spin. That spin is induced by the rotation of the earth even as small as it is. Don't believe that, then go to the opposite hemisphere of the earth that you are on and see the change in direction of spin.
_"When filling an area of less density, and when fluid is left to move itself, through an area that is significantly smaller than its own area, water self organizes into a vortex. Or put another way; A vortex is the fastest way for information to travel through space."_ Wrong. The fastest way for that water to move is the direction towards the largest mass and in most cases that would be toward earth or what is giving off the most gravity.
_"A vortex can only be created in fluids of differentials in density."_ Well, false. Go have a talk with a tornado or a hurricane or even a Dyson Vacuum.
_"Therefore a toroid is the most efficient way for fluid to travel in an incompressible medium…"_ What kind of weed is that or is that from a vape pen?
@@nathanwoodruff9422 you are missing my point. Yes of course gravity makes the water travel, we are certainly in agreement.
If water is made to “push” through a hole that is smaller than the total mass of water, it will always form a vortex when there are more than one density of fluid, I.e. water and air.
Let me clear;
Water is “choosing” to move in a vortex, it is self organizing into a “funnel geometry”. It’s a phi ratio funnel. Please refer to all the books and material from Viktor Schauberger on exactly what a phi ratio funnel is about.
So, water is self organizing, and it chooses to organize itself into a vortex, why?
I submit that a vortex is the fastest way for a fluid to travel, and that is why water “chooses” that geometry.
It is the same for kudu horns, if you run water through kudu horns, the faster you run the water, the less resistance will be in evidence, until the resistance finally reaches zero. It’s a fact, there are experiments already performed on these geometries and fluid flow.
Research it, you will find it interesting.
The question that is begged by the results is;
Is the vortex a geometry that is a result of flow, or is the flow a result of geometry.
Which comes first?
@@donaldbest7621 _"I submit that a vortex is the fastest way for a fluid to travel, and that is why water “chooses” that geometry."_ Water doesn't choose anything. Water has no thought process. Water is influenced by one thing and one thing only. Gravity, well and the spin of the earth. Moving in a downward motion toward a source of gravity(earth), what is above you is moving at a faster speed horizontally than what is below you. Water moving in a downward motion has to give off that speed it was traveling and since it is confined in a space traveling downward(vertically) usually in some kind of pipe, that speed that it was traveling horizontally has to be given off and usually results in a horizontal increase in motion in relation to the vertical downward motion, much like the arm spin. That increase in horizontal motion in a confined space will result in a rotation as that is the only way to give off that horizontal momentum.
_"It’s a phi ratio funnel. Please refer to all the books and material from Viktor Schauberger on exactly what a phi ratio funnel is about. "_ I could also refer you to all the useless books on Quantum mechanics and point you off to thousands of different useless directions as well. But I am not going to as nothing would be gained.
There is a reason why an airplane gains horizontal speed on a dive and looses horizontal speed on an incline. Same thing happens with all mass, including water. Fastest way for water to travel is in a straight line, as with any mass. But mass influenced by gravity and the rotation of earth and synchronized with said mass either has to increase energy or shed energy the closer or farther away from the center of that mass. The only way to do that when approaching a vertical direction toward said mass is in ninety degrees toward that mass, as in start spinning, and thus the dreamed up stuff by Viktor that never understood what gravity was in the first place. That inertia in speed just doesn't disappear into thin air, it has to be dissipated somehow, again something Viktor never even dreamed about. That is also why satellites need to travel at ~7,000 miles an hour to stay in the same place above earth when we here on earth are only traveling at 1,100 miles an hour. A satellite traveling down to earth in a direct vertical path would have to shed 5,900 miles an hour of horizontal velocity to make it straight down. Now the satellite could do that by spinning and shedding that horizontal motion or it could pick a spot on the vertical axis towards earth and orbit around that spot all the way down shedding that horizontal energy. Water is doing the same thing. Water didn't choose anything, nor did the satellite.
Best of luck.
@@nathanwoodruff9422 you missed the point again, in grand fashion. Didn’t even catch the quotes around”choose”…….these are for a different reason…lol. Best of luck to you as well.
@@donaldbest7621 _" Didn’t even catch the quotes around”choose”"_ I didn't need to catch that because I dismissed it as nonsense as everyone else reading your nonsense did as well. Good luck on your PhD of nonsense that is based on participation awards.
I sort of thought when they talk about motion being relative the word they really mean to use is velocity. Speed and direction, but not spin. Motion from spin is absolute.
Great content! Very insightful. thanks!
Thanks for staying brave and curious! :o)
I always wondered about this!!!
Great video mate thanks so much for all your work. I am reading Worlds in Collision atm then i got Wal Thornhills Electric gravity to read. You have now given me a whole lot more reading to do. Still got alot more of the math to learn thanks again for the vids.
Fascinating!!! This is my number 1 question about Relativity? How can acceleration be absolute when inertial frames (velocity) isn’t?
Well further than that, the concept of time is itself incoherent under relativity, see "Stephen Crothers: The Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory of Relativity | EU2017". General Relativity doesn't fix it either, it's as Feynman said, "Adding crap on top".
It'd be better to dispense with Relativity as it's broken on many levels, and while unfortunate we have to use an older theory of mechanics, I'd rather not over complicate matters and add magical numbers.
Einstein's version of relativity or SRT postulates were pretty much debunked before he even plagiarized his works.
In fact, there is an arXiv paper out stating that there is no evidence to support SRT over the previous relativity postulates.
'Experimental Basis for Special Relativity in the Photon Sector'
Daniel Y. Gezari arXiv 0912.3818
Also
Check out 'Ch 21 Einstein’s False Premises Regarding the Velocity of Light - Relativity of Light'
"Einstein’s above described “constant emission velocity theory’” can also be characterized as a “ballistic” theory, because it assumed that the velocity of light was dependent upon the velocity of the light’s material source body[18] (Ibid). But if the velocity of light was dependent upon the velocity v of its material source body then how could light’s velocity always have a constant value of c in a vacuum, as Maxwell’s equations and empirical experiments demand?"
Einstein invariance postulate means that for an observer moving at the same velocity as the source, to see the speed of light as invariant, means that light must be dependent upon the velocity of the source, which means that the speed of light cannot be invariant with respect to an inertial reference frame,.
Multiple experiments contradict SRT and show that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the source but is dependent upon the motion of the observer WRT the inertial reference fame.
Ron Hatch shows this in his works as well as several other GPS software companies.
'Hatch-Relativity_and_GPS-II_1995.pdf'
This is a very, very good question. Very deep. It took me some time but: (relative)velocity=(absolute)acceleration x (relative)time. Basically, we all agree on acceleration but we don't agree on how long this acceleration acted, because of time dilation, hence relative velocity. Note that acceleration of inertial frames is absolute 0.
@@NextLevel-kv5knyou *are* NEXT LEVEL! Thank you for that fascinating answer! It makes sense from that perspective!
@@enterprisesoftwarearchitect Haha, thanks. I made a video, not about details, but about the global picture, if you want to check.
@5:47 What would happen to the water if the bucket was spinning around a central axis counterclockwise while the bucket spun in a counterclockwise direction on its own axis of rotation? Would the water level out?
4:22 Viscosity helps transmit the centripetal force from the bucket wall into the water layers.
Edge layer on the wall of the bucket rotates right (anticlockwise), say.
Then each molecule rotates anticlockwise in the edge layer and gets dragged along.
The next layer's molecules are induced to rotate by the edge layer the other way, so clockwise.
So, we have counter rotation between 2 layers.
Eventually, a 3rd molecule wanders between a pair of counter-spinning molecules.
The pair imparts a force onto the 3rd molecule and it accelerates left,
where another pair accelerates it again and so on,
until there is a stream of molecules flowing anticlockwise.
We have a stream on edge layer flowing clockwise.
We have the next stream flowing anticlockwise.
At each point of contact, each of the layers imparts friction/resistance on the other layer.
The result is to redirect the motion of both streams up and down,
but the down stream is countered by more pressure below.
Therefore, there will be a tendency for streams near the wall to be accelerated upwards relative to bottom of the bucket.
The reason this happens is because of gravity pinning the water down and pressure rebound from the bulk due to the other side,
so that the pressure is higher the deeper you go and is higher as you get towards a wall.
Clearly it's going to be a paraboloid shape b/c of pressures from the bottom surface and around the side-wall.
"Clearly" the universe isn't a bucket. Frame dragging is an observed phenomenon, so investigating a model using the big bang as the rotating walls of a sphere may be insightful.
Fascinating
This all makes perfect sense with the ether.
Well yeah if you have a force, then you need a medium. To anger the Relativists... What do you think the Inertial Frame is?
@@Dan-gs3kg I think it is the medium of electromagnetic radiation (light) of which mass is made out of, working in a way similar to Huygens' theory of gravitation, that this agitated fluid matter will push mass to a center of movement.
Mind blown by all the theories and how 'scientists' refuse to even take a look! Thank you Gareth as usual for the fantastic work.
What do you mean by 'scientists'?
@@jonathanwalther Academics who get engraved information instead of understanding what is happening.
@@MrHichammohsen1 So, how many scientists and how many 'scientists' are out there?
Absolutely brilliant presentation of the most pressing, un-addressed topics in leading edge physics. Einstein does not adequately explain inertia.
Mind experiments whether they become accepted "theories" or not are interesting and often insane if one could only stand back a bit. Few theories seem to face the constant rigors of scientific method once people decide and become true believers or skeptics. Men are not reasonable in their approach but rather reasoning and will go to great lengths to affirm their subjective bias. Sometimes they are right and sometimes wrong, but once the die is cast and their ego or reputations are on the line they become exceedingly myopic for the most part. I don't excuse myself from bias, but I have nothing to prove or scientific reputation to uphold. I have however been blessed with an open and intuitive/analytical mind that sees patterns and flaws in in those patterns. I have enjoyed your channel and appreciate the work you put into it. Thanks. 😁
how do you know 0:38 is true did you try it?
Thank you for this excellent coverage! It seems to be that the equivalence of gravitational mass and inertial mass is not a coincidence but is a strict consequence of Mach's principal.
The strong equivalence principle is a strict consequence of maximum speed postulate. It's certanly not coincidence.
Why is mass zero at 7:11 ?
I have been watching your videos for some time and I want to thank you now and I highly appreciate your work and effort. Great visualization and presentation of these complex theories. I studied philosophy and the paradigmshift, which is waiting, depends on people like you!
The Electric Universe, which at the end might be just a thing of a fractured mind, is a great scale live thinking manifastion of a "myself" or "Me" creating a World. Space and time seem to be just concepts of experience and are whether fixed nor consistent in reality. Only the Point where you put the Zero give rise to their existence. And the Zero is nothing. Not existing. Yet it is the only value really existing in Nothing. Therefore it says not I am, but I is Nothing but the Source of Zero. I starts the time. I creates the space. Anyway😅
Great job!
Thank you 😊
I believe this observation is very much related to what I have come to understand what the core of Nihilism is. Brilliant!
So many ways to interpret general relativity, so much variety and ambiguity still, yet they try to rush off to a "theory of everything", when we may not have a theory of anything yet, that is truly accurate.
And the true understanding of this Machian principle and how to apply it could well be critical to a foundation for an accurate theory of anything.
Julian Barbour certainly thinks along these lines, and some others, its a fascinating area of interest.
Watched this last night (I always have too wait until a time when I can sit down in front of the big screen to watch)
Birkeland Currents is the only thing that makes sense of our continued place in a universe in motion
There is no absolute motion. Even Galileo understood that. General relativity answers every question here and does account for observed phenomena.
The only force or mechanism in existence is inertia and even itself isn't active but emanatory. Atoms are nodes of inertial dynamos. Their net inertia works like a multi axis gyro and refuses to move giving a feeling of mass. The nuclear forces are the resonances between these dynamos. Electricity is when the peripheries of these little whirlpools are polarized in sync. Gravity is when the mass, i.e. the dynamics of the muti-axis inertia that makes an atom, is arrayed. For example, if you were to dampen one or more of the axis of a 3-axis gyro, it will propel a certain direction.
You can't start spinning on top of a spinner (decoupled from Earth); if you do the spinner will rotate in the opposite direction (total zero angular momentum). Your arms pulled out minimize the distribution of energy, i guess (not an expert at this ... Lagrangian mechanics experts?), should be a local phenomenon. Foucault pendulum precession is more complicated; try to move the axis of a gyro: a "Lorentz force" (torque) ensues ... It's all about change of state (absolute states are not well defined, and need a reference frame, vector space etc.and inertial motion can be "gauged away") which is local in a "reasonably" closed system (weak interacting with the exterior) ... Very nice presentation and stimulating, Thank you!
The very real bending of light radiating from distant stars as this light passes by our Sun - or any (large) body - is NOT due to the so-called warping of so-called space-time, but this bending is due, rather, to nothing more than simple refraction, which refraction is due to the now very well known fact that the area around the Sun is significantly more dense - because it has a lot of ‘stuff’ present in it - than the other areas of space through which the light has travelled on its journey to Earth. Or to/from anywhere else.
Simple refraction - one of the most well known of phenomena.
The ‘junk’ around our Sun making the area significantly more dense than other areas of space were not known in Einstein’s day so the idea of simple refraction did not seem possible & didn’t even enter his mind. Big mistake.
‘Stuff’ around the Sun ? Free-floating &/or fast streaming atoms, ions, solar winds, dust, gases, space junk & all manner of cosmological debris - & neutrinos etc.
Yes all this stuff is denser around large bodies which not only produce goodly proportions of it - as in ‘solar winds’ - but which space junk also streams into any cosmologically large body …. via Birkland currents …
The ‘crisis in contemporary physics’ suggests that it’s time to switch to an Electric Universe … aka a plasmatic universe. ….
Look into Dowdey Jr's Extinction Shift, he does talk about how the lensing we see is the medium of a star's atmosphere. If someone brings up how the refraction is frequency independent... Do realise that we have a thing called broadband quantum frequency combs. So there is a possibility that there is some optronics shenanigans going on.
_"The very real bending of light radiating from distant stars as this light passes by our Sun - or any (large) body - is NOT due to the so-called warping of so-called space-time,"_ That is correct.
_" but this bending is due, rather, to nothing more than simple refraction, which refraction is due to the now very well known fact that the area around the Sun is significantly more dense"_ That would be incorrect.
The lensing that we see around our sun is due to the fact that the visible wavelength energy we see as visible light is affected by gravity. And what is not so hard to believe is that the more mass the sun has the more bending the visible light spectrum has up until the point that this bending, bends so much that the visible light spectrum starts to orbit the mass and that mass becomes what is known as a black hole. All the light passing by starts to orbit the mass until is it finally absorbed by the large mass. Oh and in falling into a black hole, one would eventually do a face plant into that mass, at somewhat close to the speed of light.
The simplest explanation would be that spacetime is a real "stuff" and that objects move relative to spacetime. This is closer to the idea of a fluid-aether (and defending that pov would be the end of your career in physics for some reasons).
@@paulthomas963
I guess there is still inertia even in QM, so the problem is still the same.
Great...I am a big fan of Mach's Principle, and a relative space/motion rather than a container space. The connection of this to non-locality was fascinating, something I have been recently acquainting my self with in terms of David Bohm's non-local hidden variables theory. I do not like the idea that mass is intrinsic to an object, I feel that mass/inertia are a result that manifests in interactions.
So, to cut a long story short for us laymen, GToR is not entirely right and everything in the Universe is connected, so everything affects everything else
The real question is what is the grounds by which we live or walk? We live on Earth, but the things that Earth really cares about is what the Sun is doing, then the Galaxy. We haven't really figured out what is going on in interplanetary space, but I'm pretty sure there is more at play than gravity, given how common flyby anomalies are.
Does our Solar System move around the Galaxy like a frisbee disc, or like a spinning shuttlecock ??
I don’t quite understand around 7:20. If there is no force on the object there is no acceleration. Why would the acceleration be indeterminate and the mass be zero? You can measure whether or not you are accelerating via inertial forces. Doesn’t make sense to me.
Matter is made of charged particles. Even the quarks in the 'neutral' neutrons in atoms are charged particles.
If you look that the Abraham-Lorentz force, including 'radiation resistance', you find that accelerated charged particles suffer recoil.
Since our bodies, our cars, our airplanes, etc. are collections of charged particles, the inertial drag we suffer when accelerating is a recoil effect, just like any charged particle under acceleration.
The key is to look at what we know about so-called 'empty' space and try to create a model as to what the constituents of space might consist of.
If you work at artificial gravity devices, coming to terms with how inertial drag works is very important.
.
bodies are made of more than one objects, therefore it's parts move relative to each other.
Light traveling through space is the aether in which you can measure motion. Your motion through space changes the wavelength of light, causing electronic devices to run at a different frequency. Atomic clocks are so precise, they can measure millimeters of changes in acceleration.
@1:50 but the stars are moving. The centripital force is relative to the earth, not the stars is it not? If you are spinning relative to earth you feel it, if you are not you are not. Furthermore I would argue that the centripital force is almost entirely due to the presence of a gravitational field. In deep space no matter how fast you are moving your arms will not feel a force outward, only if that spinning speeds up or slows down, and this force is only present during that acceleration. It is just very difficult to accelerate yourself outside of a gravitational field in deep space. I would go further and say angular velocity works just like regular velocity in that it is a meaningless quantity without a reference frame. I don't understand where the problem comes from Can you explain this?
For now, I will watch further into the video.
At 6:40. I think I either disagree with or misunderstand the idea of the two methods agreeing. The way I see it is that the reason they give the same result is because distant stars are so far away they appear to move very little due to parallax. I would say the two methods actually don't agree, and if you measured them to a high enough degree of accuracy or for a long enough period of time you would see this. One is not using any notion of an absolute space, but rather abusing gravity to measure a 360 degree turn. The second method uses the stars to determine when you are looking at the same part of the sky, which is also a 360 degree turn - but the stars move, the background moves, etc so it won't be 100% accurate like the other method over long periods of time. I still do not understand the dilemma.
Further, I do not understand why the acceleration is indeterminate. It is zero is it not? acceleration = a = d/dx(dS/dx). We know there is no force so with F=ma -> 0=ma. With mass being a constant this is enough to say acceleration is zero, why would one conclude it is infact the mass which is indeterminate? is it because 0=0a -> 0/0=a -> a= indeterminate. This is not a physical reason, this is just how mathematics works! If I say x=3 and then do 0*x=3*0 -> 0=3*0 -> 3=0/0 so 3 is indeterminate. This is clearly nonsense. The fact that the formula can be arranged like this is simply a byproduct of mass being a constant and so could and would work for any number. There must be something else I'm missing here too?
Are you going to talk about Torres, and the Weber Force?
DOES THE HIGGS MECHANISM SHOW HOW MASS IS BACKGROUND DEPENDANT?
I dont understand how "if the universe spins around the balerina her arms will be pulled outward" ? and this is avoiding the issue that in order for the "universe to spin about her" would require relative speeds exceeding c. This is a very deep and profound topic . Something tells me he means that if a person far away from the balerina was stationary with respect to the rotating universe (that is he is rotating with the stars around her) he would see the balerina spinning.. but how does that imply that her arms would be outward ?
Wow! Great informative video! I did not know about these alternates.
Do you want the good news or the bad news? The good news is, I have solved this gnarly problem. The bad news is, I have written it up on Quora as a series of questions and answers. It starts with the nature of Galaxies and quickly moves to the nature of baryonic matter and the ubiquitous and persistent linkage between them. Mach and colleagues were all on the right track in their own ways, but none of them knew the galactic nature of all this. More later. Thanks.
One doesn't need to interact with the universe at large to have inertia.
Inertia is an artifact of rotation and the prevention of path of least action.
Centripetal force is all that's needed. Newton first law.
But you **can** measure linear velocity against the background.
Creation is thru imagination 💭 plus feeling- if we don’t have any idea where we are goin, we won’t go anywhere.
Gyroscopic property of atoms
The (my) brain simply starts melting, when I try to "understand" what is being conveyed.
Would love your opinion on Dr Don Lincolns most recent video on the Twin Paradox. He says its resolved by multiple inertial frames and says its equivalent to Sabine Hossenfelders statements about acceleration, while The Science Assylum says that acceleration is irrelevant and gives what looks to be a good proof to me and says that is solved or resolved by Lorentz Transformations... But by my understanding you need to have a frame at rest or know motion relative to the universal background to do a Lorentz transformation without making assumptions....... But I'm honestly not good enough at math to play around and see how stuff may change dependant on the assumption correct or incorrect as to it being at rest.... It would leave me to believe that Einstein's field equations can't resolve the Twin Paradox and you would need Machian Math or similar to do it properly? It seems to me as though the paradox was made for this very reason to show the limitations of GR.... I hope that makes sense and would be extremely grateful for any light you can shed on the subject. If you could make a video on it I would be totally stoked (Stoked = Australian slang for super excited and grateful) ❤
Isn't it just your presumption what would happen if the whole universe rotated?
There's a big difference between saying "I don't know which is moving" and "It is unknowable what is moving."
Movement has a stationary plane for all objects, and inertia has to do with the aether which surrounds each object. The Aether is made up from a stacking system of toroidal spins, and each torus has a hole. To cross a torus therefore means to move through a hole to the next torus as a spin. But you can rotate multiple torus to create a tube, and then you cross space over many segments at once before you have a stationary plane to spin inside. So the Aether has a relationship to your spin hole which makes you stationary. Each spin hole builds a particle, so all of your particles are inside their own spin hole. Bonding means to connect the holes at the centre of atoms, so those are the tubes that connect the torus together. Basically a movement is a teleportation through a tube to build your particles over a distance.
By the way, your arms aren't pulled away, there is no such thing as pull in physics. You arms move towards the holes at the centre of toroidal spins in the aether. Holes are the area of least resistance in physics, so your arms move towards the area of least resistance where resistance is spin. That's not a pull force, and videos really need to be more precise.
Uhh this is not an issue in relativity.
"Mach’s principle, in cosmology, hypothesis that the inertial forces experienced by a body in nonuniform motion are determined by the quantity and distribution of matter in the universe. It was so called by Albert Einstein after the 19th-century Austrian physicist and philosopher Ernst Mach. Einstein found the hypothesis helpful in formulating his theory of general relativity-i.e., it was suggestive of a connection between geometry and matter-and attributed the idea to Mach, unaware that the English philosopher George Berkeley had proposed similar views during the 1700s. (Berkeley had argued that all motion, both uniform and nonuniform, was relative to the distant stars.) Einstein later abandoned the principle when it was realized that inertia is implicit in the geodesic equation of motion and need not depend on the existence of matter elsewhere in the universe."
Anecdotally, I myself have increased in mass with age.
So you’re approaching the event horizon? It’s a stretch at humor.🥴
@@DeathValleyDazed flying spaghetti monster says ... spaghettification is not the answer
at 2:04 its called the centrifugal force.
The water in the bucket has friction with the walls of the bucket. That is why it is 'crawling' up the inside of the bucket. Try using a bucket with zero friction.
_"The water in the bucket has friction with the walls of the bucket. That is why it is 'crawling' up the inside of the bucket. "_ Well, no. The water is 'crawling' up the bucket as the water wants to travel in a straight line. The water not on the walls is expressing force on the water on the walls. Since the water on the walls can't go farther outwards, the only direction left is up or down. Since it can't travel down, the only way left is up. The amount of water mass being forced up would be the mass of the difference in rotation speed to the radius to the wall divided by Pi.
A bucket with zero friction will spin around the water without the water ever 'feeling' any force, hence the water will sit still in the bucket.
Thank you so much for making this video!! just wondering if there any good explanations for why Newton's 3rd law works for 2 bodies in empty space. where does the equal and opposite force come from on the second body when exerted on by the first body?
It comes from the law of concervation of momentum! If one body is acted on by a force, it must create an equal but opposite force so that the change is momentum of the universe is canceled. No momentum is ever created and no momentum ever leaves in the universe.
Nice video, but it misses the solution provided by GR: in GR, inertia (and thus rotation) are local, i.e. defined relatively to the local field. This field includes all external effects that may propagate to the local point at the moment of the measurement. So if I spin a top on my table, the top "sees" the local field - not only Earth Gravitation - which is the embedding of all fields that propagate toward my top at any time...
Even today's time Newton is experimentally 16 Sigman level of results conclusion. Cancelling back ground to zero is a practice
But it raise the same question as Newton has.
It dose matter in a system who is early and late. In cosmology things are complex.
In my understanding a pattern is governing the law I.e some distribution while the parameters are emerging from dynamics or the relativistic motions..
Deeping of levels of water in a rotating bucket 🪣 appearing when variables settle as constant.
Very interesting channel.
IMO, Mach's principle is a red herring, based on the theory that inertia stems from mass. I believe the zero point field can be considered a non-moving reference frame. In addition, it seems intuitively apparent that inertia results from the inductance of all the charges in a body resisting any force that accelerates them all. Hence the mistaken assumption that inertia stems from mass. It actually stems from charge, not mass, and is intricately connected to the inductive magnetic field, and it's growth and diminution as a result of charge acceleration and deceleration.
That would only apply to bodies with a net charge or to polar molecules with residual net charges. A large percentage of bodies bear no net charge. Furthermore, in crystalline solids or in non--ionic molecules (or non-polar molecules), charges are all neutralized. Charge cannot be a general driving principle here.
Maybe is based on the same "timeless" direct interaction as in quantumphysics between entangled particles, also described recently by Leonard Susskind as base of quantum gravity
So…..to my knowledge gravity has never been produced in a lab. It doesn’t make a difference how much you squeeze stuff in a lab, you get no measurable gravitation. Electrostatic repulsion and attraction can be produced in a lab. let’s just leave gravitation out of the conversation for now, and bring in a Tesla quote;
“What is magnetism compared to the repulsive and attractive forces of electrostatic energy? I can suspend tons in the air with the magnetic force, but I have yet to find the limits to the repulsive and attractive forces of electrostatic energy”
Electron theory says static electricity has quanta that are not in movement. When the quanta of “static electricity” moves, magnetism is created. Please correct me, if I am incorrect, I am completely a novice at this.
If it is true that the movement of the quanta of static charge is what creates magnetic fields, what would the implication of regular static electricity having a frequency of about 1 million or so per second?
My simple mind would conclude that a magnetic field might be created from the movement of static electric energy units, but the frequency of those quanta would have to be greater than 1 million per second to bring about a magnetic field, since there is not a magnetic field around everything.
Another implication is; there might be a stronger electrostatic field created at frequencies of one million or higher. Tesla said the electrostatic energy that is everywhere and all around us vibrates at one million per second. The reason we don’t know it’s there is each quanta of energy is with a fine super fluid of insulation.
With out the consideration of fields and defining what a “field” is, the presentation here sounds like a nice story.
IMHO this topic is directly related to light (EM). There are still vast mysteries embedded within it.
Page 9:00 Dennis Sciama 1953 is right in my opinion. That it arise as a result of the (interaction) of matter with the remaining matter of the universe.
Coincidentally with what I advocated previously on TH-cam that gravity isn’t an intrinsic force. Instead it is extrinsic force origin in the vacuum space. Not in the form of a 2D fabric that Einstein had proposed but as 3D.
That something reside in 3D vacuum space responsible for pulling all matter together in 3D but 2D. More importantly it (permanently adhere) to all matter in the (near field) and drag at equal speed where matter was is and will be. On the other hand, as attached to all matter, it also drag drift at another speed which we may consider as the quasi rest frame, since the local and far field are at extreme scales relatively. It’s speed may be taken as The Test Frame. Unless we attempt to model the entire universe.
F=ma=0 is a net zero inertia state when an object and the rest of universe are being pulled by this gravity medium. Alternatively, the medium may be considered as a 3D rubber band adhere to all matter having a scalable spring constant constant k = g.
For the lack of intuitive explanation. Inertia may be legislated in the following manner, in counting on the conservation of energy law. When an external force f acts on a body in a forward direction the medium force g in front of it is changed from g+f/2 and -g+f/2 giving an net f, for the duration of the external force is applied. The body is then consider to be inertially charged. Follow that the body drift a a new speed in the empty space of the universe. Until a second force in equal direction and magnitude and duration is imposed to it to cause back to its original speed, inertially discharged.
Such medium adheres to and pulling all matter together has a name, which I call the Aether. As we all aware that this medium also responsible for light wave to be coupled to and from vacuum space.
As described above, it drag with the interferometer in the near field also responsible for no fringe activities because of Aether wind paradigm is a false assumption.
Compliments on the nice video with inspiring ideas. Brans-Dicke can be ruled out though because its coupling constant that is supposed to be on the order of 1 has been shown to be larger than at least 40000, from observations. Likewise, Hoyle and Larnikar's cosmology has also been debunked by observations, see the last link in the Wikipedia entry on Hoyle Larnikar. A rotating Earth fits with the Kerr metric. By setting its asymptotic metric equal to that of an FLRW cosmological model you can explain why orbiting satellites orientate themselves to the universe (aside from a miniscule frame dragging component). I can see how that extends to gyros and Foucault pendulums. Our measure of spacetime is rooted in an FLRW cosmology after all, isn't it? Frames rotating relative to the universe are therefore not inertial (as Weinberg noted in his book). It explains one part of Mach's principle. I am looking forward to a viable theory that explains inertia as a result of mass/energy distribution in the universe because it makes sense, philosophically.
I hope you don’t mind I leave a comment / question, first before I watch the video:
Does the mind go as fast as the speed of light?
_"Does the mind go as fast as the speed of light?"_ Since our brain works off of electrical impulses, our minds would go as fast as the speed of light travels though nerve cells.
I suggest you try turning on the spot with your arms at your side, the result will be that you will fall over if you don't put your arms out.
They have found large universal bodies that seem to move in sync, even though separated by hundreds or more of light years.
This seems over my head without really too much effort right now.
One thing that I’ve always wondered about is spinning an object on the end of a centrifuge.
Does that create a separate or lesser gravity effect ?
Comes from how to slow down after interplanetary or even interstellar travel without fatal G forces.
“Mass will increase with age” seems very plausible when we see our selves in the mirror 😂
Newton: “not all motion is relative, consider this rotating bucket of water... it is moving relative to *everything”*
Mach: “ Well what If the bucket is stationary and the entire universe is moving”
Newton: “Hilarious Mach! Wait.. what! You’re serious? “
Modern scientist/ mathematicians: “Makes sense to me... oh and every time you make a choice a new universe is created.”
Newton changed it to two masses on a spring, or connected via a tether; if they are spinning, and you cut the tether, the two objects will move away from each other. This also supposes that a 'background universe' doesn't even exist and it is the two objects only.
Some say that if the two objects are all that exists, then an absolute rotation is not even possible, since there is no background to rotate relative to; others say that the absolute rotation does exist and will cause a tension in the spring or tether
@@pyropulseIXXI The point I’m alluding to is, rather than accept that any absolute motion exists: a motion that is recognized as *in-motion* when viewed from every inertial reference frame, _they_ generate and embrace pure nonsense.
Why? Because to admit the obvious would’ve required an abandonment of the sacrosanct postulate that *”all* motion is relative”
So say goodbye to the baby ( logic or reason) because this nonrelativistic bath water has to go.
That ballerina would have to be really massive for the entire universe to spin or gravitate around her. Her mass would have to be bigger than the universe's !
Allegedly measured the Mach effect - "Gravity and Inertia in General Relativity
WRITTEN BY James F. Woodward". What is the power?
I'm clinging on with my fingernails to comprehend much of this!
What about an ‘Electric Universe’ ? Aka a plasmatic universe ….
Plasma = the “Fourth State” of matter - actually the First State of matter ….
Electromagnetism is 40 orders of magnitude more powerful than gravity & roughly equally more powerful than the power of merely kinetic exploding bits of matter.
A universe in which the play of electromagnetic properties determines the outcome of interacting increments of matter & not just the almost impossibly weak by comparison, gravitational, kinetic & even thermonuclear properties of matter.
how about this: CHECK by spinning the spring connected weights in 2 opposite directions from the center point and gauging differences to correct for other outstanding rotation. See?
Aether.