I’ve been watching this guy occasionally. He’s got great visualisations, a great passionate delivery - he uses his voice really well, it’s very engaging - any his explanation style is just superb.
This video below blew me away. How could gravity not be a force but a curving of spacetime, as relativity says? It’s always boggled by mind, but he explains it pretty well I think:
What’s so great about his explanation is that he follows a principle that’s central to all great explanations: meet your audience where they are and then guide them to where you are. That’s a hard thing to do at times, but he does it well here I think.
I am an Einstein. I discovered space-time curvature on my own. When you think about gravity, the natural next-step is to assume space as “curvature”. Although I wouldn’t use the word “curvature”, because a “volume” cannot have “curvature”. The way I would put it is that planets “warp” space towards them.
This is the natural next-step to Newton. It doesn’t take a genius to imagine that gravity is from planets “warping space”. Einstein was a genius though, but not because of that. Its something any ordinary human can do.
What takes a genius is explaining more details about the curvature and why planets move the way they do, why objects respond to gravity, and what quantum physics is. Still crickets from anybody on that.
So some important things takeaways from the video.
Time is a physical “thing” that propels objects through space. Time is a form of inertia that causes gravity. Planets “warp” space, but warped space doesn’t explain gravity. You need to explain where the motion comes from. Time explains where the motion comes from. Time is a physical thing, a form of inertia, causing gravitational motion.
It still doesn’t explain what “Time” is. Why is “time” inertia? Why is “time” moving forwards? There may be no explanation. Because we live in VR reality and that is just want the programmer put as the program. VR reality explains quantum physics as well.
And also. The earth is not “accelerating” towards us. That is what he and einstein got wrong. They are quagmired in the outdated acceleration definitions. Its best to just re-evaluate what acceleration is completely. Obviously the earth is not expanding, enlarging, or accelerating like that.
Space-time cannot be “curved”. Volume is not “curved”. There is a density gradient of Aether that is causing gravity, and it matches Einstein’s equations of “space-time”. Either the aether is more dense towards earth, or it is less dense towards earth (the equation will work either way, as long as the math curve is the same.) And molecules, atoms, etc, “speed up” depending on the aether density, resulting in what looks like “gravity”.
Now there are other theories. Higher dimensional theories that treat space not as a 3D volume, but a curved manifold. And other theories to explain quantum physics, that are beyond 3D.
Those theories of course disobey Occam’s razors. VR reality is more of an Occam theory.
If you are interested in non 3D theories I would look into Thad Roberts theories. I don’t fully understand his stuff but the numbers he produces seem uncanny.
No. There is no “aether”. The Earth accelerates towards us because it’s ‘moving’ to resist its own gravity. If it doesn’t do so, it collapses under its own weight (so to say).
no the earth is not moving like that. I notice you use the word ‘moving’ in quotation.
When you put something “in quotation” it means its not literal. So you are saying its moving without it really moving. Its undefined. Science needs things to be defined. Not vague.
of course the earth is not literally moving, or expanding upward, to cause gravity.
the problem is from our conventional notion of acceleration.
What’s more likely? The earth is continuously, magically expanding, but nobody can see it or measure it, and it magically doesn’t touch other planets even though it is always expanding. Or B. Our conventional notion of acceleration is confused. Occams razor.
So back to aether. Michelson Morley in space. All i’m saying.
There has to be a quantum aether for quantum wavefunctions to form waves.
We know from quantum that light doesn’t act normally and newtonian. Failure to detect aether in Michelson Morley on Earth experiment, could just be another unintuitive quantum property of light.
It’s not just moving, its accelerating. In other words, it’s not moving in a straight line at a constant speed. And yes, I also meant ‘moving’ in the metaphorical sense of ‘move to [do something]’. But let’s start with the literal sense. Not moving is mathematically equivalent to moving in diametrically opposite directions at the same speed at the same time. This is what the Earth does in all directions, and not just moving—at a constant speed—, but accelerating.
Who said anything about expansion? Please specify which type of scientific expansion you mean:
no its not accelerating. acceleration = change in motion.
if earth was accelerating towards everybody then it would be expanding.
its like the Demon said. Modern science is a religion. Spacetime is a religion.
You can’t measure a “space-time”. You can’t define what a “space-time” is. In all the videos, space-time is shown as some artificial 3D Grid. Nobody actually knows what a “space-time” is or can define what a “space-time” is. That’s why its always depicted as some artificial 3D Grid.
If you can’t measure something, if you can’t define what it is, then its a religion. Occam’s razor.
With relativity, things in free fall follow what’s called a Geodesic. On earth’s surface, the geodesic path of any object (including any piece of ground) is a path leading 9.8m/s/s towards the center of the earth. The ground is being pushed upwards by the ground below it (and the ground below that and the ground below that) counter to its geodesic, so that the surface of the earth doesn’t fall in at 9.8m/s/s.
So the “acceleration upward” is the force pushing any bit of the earth upward so that it doesn’t follow it’s geodesic downward to the center of the earth.
The critical issue for muh modern sciences is the completely subjective experience of time by the individual. That is what needs to be ‘eliminated’ in order to understand Physics in its objective, “mechanical” Nature. Time is a measurement of Change. But what if no Change happens? Furthermore, how can the measurement of time be Objective, when the experience of time is Subjective?
When it comes to Gravity, it seems to me, based on Electromagnetic forces inherent within Mass. The more massive the object, like Planet Earth, the more Electromagnetic force it produces, with respect to its Spin. The faster the object spins, the more ‘Gravity’ is produced. This is the same phenomenon within Alternating Currents and Electromagnets. Gravity’s “Acceleration” effect is produced by its spin, combined with its electromagnetic mass, upon the subjective experience of the individual (human).
The “Genius of Einstein” is that he uses the subjective experience of Time and turns it into an Objective thing. According to the video Flannel Jesus posted, Einstein explains gravitational motion by explaining gravity as “curved space-time” and that Time, itself, is a physical dimension. Time converts into motion along 3d space. Conscious perception of time, physically moves objects along a geodesic. Without conscious perception of time, there is no propulsion to actually move objects along the path of least resistance, geodesic.
However, there are some fallacies with the video and his theory.
First and most obvious: The earth is not accelerating. This is probably the most comical assertion humanity has ever made. Humanity has a long history of these kind of comedic science assertions, such as “the earth is flat”, “objects in motion naturally come to rest”, “the earth sits upon an elephant” and “the universe revolves around the earth”. However, this one takes the cake for several reasons. 1. it is unintuitive 2. it is nonphysical 3. it is demonstrably false 4. it is modernity so people already should know better. We’ve already moved beyond “the flat earth sits upon an elephant” phase of humanity.
Second fallacy is not so obvious. It is the part where the falling man “proves” einstein correct about acceleration. But that is the fallacy. The falling man proves actually nothing. Doesn’t prove einstein right but doesn’t prove him wrong, either. You see, when you accelerate in a car, there is a lag because the seat of the car pushes you but atoms have to wait for the speed of sound to move. This can be felt as a force of acceleration. Because some atoms are putting force and pressure on other atoms, to get them to move.
However, in a theoretical field, it is possible that the field causes every atom to accelerate uniformly. Then a person, or an accelerometer instrument, would be unable to measure the acceleration. You could only measure the acceleration visually. However, the video glosses over this completely.
Occam’s Razor: What’s more likely? A. A field causes uniform acceleration, this is the gravitational field, and therefore an accelerometer cannot measure the acceleration. B. An invisible geometry called space-time, combines space with time, time causes physical inertia of objects to move through space along a geodesic. Noone knows the cause of the geodesic or what space-time is, its just there. Noone can measure it. And magically, the earth is physically moving towards us in every direction, yet magically does not expand physically.
The problem is in the English language, how scientists define acceleration. The first type is a visual type of acceleration, Newtonian acceleration. We don’t need an ‘accelerometer’ to measure it. This can be measured visually. Then there is another type of acceleration, like a car pushing a rider forward, this is what an accelerometer measures. It is a specific type of acceleration where atoms push other atoms at the speed of sound. So, both have an end result of the same thing: an acceleration, but different causes. The video or Einstein tries to mix it up.
There is a third fallacy too.
Also… I say “according to the video Flannel Jesus posted”, instead of “according to Einstein”. Because there are a lot of videos that claim to “teach Einstein”, but they fumble what he actually was saying or believed, and I’m not 100% sure what he believed. The AI told me he actually didn’t believe in 3D theory and believed multi-dimensions were necessary to explain space-time. And that he believed in some kind of aether but not classical aether.
The æther, by my interpretation, is simply cosmic radiation / lightwaves that are beyond human perception, such as infrared and ultraviolet light. There is never “nothing” in existence, especially in “vacuums” (deprivation of mass).
