Constants of Nature: Newton's Big G - Where does the Gravitational Constant Come from?

Measured more than a century after Newton's discovery by Cavendish, big G remains a mystery to this day.
Mind also my backup channel:
odysee.com/@Th...
My books: www.amazon.com/Alexander-Unzicker/e/B00DQCRYYY/

[@Senshidayo]

It’s really nice hearing a contrarian view. There are so many bold pronouncements by mainstream physicists and yet we see nothing similar in practical results similar to the early 20th century. It is, as Sabine Hossenfelder has said, that much of physics is stuck in a rut, and chasing grant money rather than scientific truth.

[@nichtvonbedeutung]

My explanation: The gravitational constant is only measured with one big and another negliable small mass. This circumstances are only valid in solar systems and galaxies like NGC-1052-DF2. You can ask now why are the speeds at outer rims of other galaxies are to fast for this constant, but also you can ask, why the rotationspeeds of solid disks (binding force is near the Coulomb constant there) is proportional to it's radius (hint: take a look at agular speeds instead of rotation speeds). We don't have solid disks as galaxies, but if we would, we would see, what happens there: The binding force of rotating systems depends on their density. Stir in a dumpling soup while adding more and more dumplings... soon you'll see, what I mean. G is the lowest border of constants for a binding force and the Coulomb constant is the highest. This also explains, why the gravitational and Coulombs law look similar. They have got the same origin. You won't need black matter anymore.

[@mackenziecopley8413]

Thank you for making this video. I think it should be retitled, though, to ~“…a History of the Research Into Big G” because ~“Where Does It Come From” made me think you would explain its deeper meaning. That’s what I wanted at least, and maybe you know. If so, a video on that would be awesome ❤️. Off to watch the G c connection video now and hope you have a great day! :) Thank you

[@atticuswalker]

the experiment to find g. never stopped moving completely. no free suspended object does. the 6.67408 we use is the centre of the movement. the 6.67439 and 6.67377 are the range of gravity as a wave. the .00031 difference is the ark of the wave. two arks make a circle with a circumference of 62. and a radius of 9.87 the distance all mass moves as it vibrates along the centre of the wave. at different frequencies. the higher frequency mass has longer seconds.

[@SkyDarmos]

Unzicker made this video about two weeks after I sent him my paper about my research on the gravitational constants of different materials. Starting from minute 3, he starts talking about the huge discrepancies in the measurements. Then he mentions possible temporal variations. I was hoping that he would mention material dependency. While he did mention a bit what materials have been used, which is already great, he did shy away from directly talking about the material-dependency that me and Fischbach have discovered (me in a meta-analysis of ALL G-measurements, and Fischbach in Eötvös' freefall experiment from 1922). However, he does look like he might bring himself to mention this material-dependency in the future. However, if he does, it will be a very big step, because this is a very fundamental change. It is a gigantic paradigm shift, and it would be unnatural if Unzicker follows that paradigm shift lightly.

[@marcv2648]

Can you link your paper? Or at least give the title so I can look it up.

[@SkyDarmos]

The title is “Bringing order into 200 years of chaos in gravity”.

[@marcv2648]

@@SkyDarmos Thanks, I'll check it out.

[@GamesBond.007]

Well, if thats true that only shows that G is not a constant at all, and that the Newtonian equation for gravity is a bit wrong, or partially correct. I believe that the reason is that while he correctly describes gravity as a mass effect, he treats all masses the same...which is wrong because a mass of iron has different properties than the same mass of helium for example. So if gravity is a force generated by the atoms of the masses involved, you have to take into consideration the actual structure of the atoms, the number and distribution of electrons inside the atom etc.

[@SkyDarmos]

@@GamesBond.007 Describing gravity as a mass effect is wrong. If it was a mass effect, then the material would be irrelevant, and it would only depend on how many kilograms something weighs. The reason iron has a higher G value than water is that iron has a lot of negative nuclear binding energy. This means that more protons and neutrons fit into one kilogram, because the mass is reduced by this negative energy. If we can increase the mass without increasing the number of protons and neutrons, then we can generate extremely low g-values. That means we can build a gravity-manipulating aircraft.

[@arandomguy777]

They come from our imagination. We just create models to understand nature. Whats the meaning of "why a constant is" you can explain with a principle, but why the principle?

[@christophershelton8155]

there is a TED talk video on youtube called 'exposing scientific dogmas' and it talks about how during the years 1928-1945 the 'constant' of light differed among old physics textbooks by up to 20 km/s...

[@michaellindemann6592]

see: Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion BANNED TED TALK

[@dinf8940]

oh, thats only small part of the story, one could say it only explores the first _metre_ of that rabbit hole^^ until length unit was redefined in 1960 - to depend on.. [drum roll] c, value of c was fluctuating and you needed up to date 'table of physical 'constants'' to do precise(?)^^ calculations

[@AmbivalentInfluence]

There is no such thing as the gravitational constant. The strength of gravity as any given point depends upon the density of spacetime (vacuum) at that point. We can calculate a value for G simply because the density of spacetime is largely uniform across the universe producing the illusion of a constant. This is the same problem as we have with c, exactly the same.

[@nagendragoud3312]

It is true that fundamental constants are mapping to something unique physical process and we are failing to map them, by suitably defining natural units.

[@michaellindemann6592]

I appreciate the discussion, but do not feel you addressed the topic: Where does the Gravitational Constant Come from? I found more information on this by reading the comments section. Perhaps you would consider adding to this video. Thank you.

[@eonasjohn]

Thank you for the video.

[@user-yc3fw6vq5n]

How are physicists able to make predictions of the motions of bodies in space without an accurate value for G?

[@sillymesilly]

They use Keplers laws

[@davidrandell2224]

G calculated from first principles- the hydrogen atom- in 2002. A proton is a collection of 1836 expanding electrons and add a bouncing expanding electron makes a hydrogen atom. F=ma where a=X( subscript A) R, R is atomic radius and “a” is expansion per second each second. X(subscript)A= 0.00000077. “The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon. Unzinker just doesn’t “ get it.”

[@TheMachian]

Indeed, what is needed is the Kepler constant GM/4pi^2 which is known with much greater precision.

[@user-yc3fw6vq5n]

@@sillymesilly Oh that makes sense

[@davidrandell2224]

@@TheMachian Facts trump ‘ models.’

[@mkjn5092]

Another interesting video. Good job 👍

[@buddysnackit1758]

Actually. There is no gravitational constant. It changes. This is why physics is searching for dark matter. Around our neighborhood (galaxy), it is fairly constant. But around black holes? In other galaxies? If you wait long enough the constant will increase slightly. Or will it? It depends on how you would measure it if other things also changed proportionally. One way to do this is to look at light from nearby and from far away. The shifting of the light isn't a change of the waveform but a change in "ether" density. Our space is being filled with more and more ether ever so slowly. This increase in density is causing atoms to run a bit faster. Causing gravity to be a bit stronger. Causing C to increase in speed. Are these increases proportional to one another? Unknown. What I do know for certain is that space isn't being stretched and that the increase in ether (Base Level Matter) density has a very small effect which takes a long time to detect. How long? I actually know how to find this out. You observe "nearby" objects and check for red-shift. The distance at the first detectable red shift is our smallest detectable value. Of course, this can be reduced as technology allows more sensitivity. The ability to detect a G change is hindered by the question of the change of time, gravitation, and light speed as the ether field increases. If they scale exactly then we will never be able to measure a change because we change along with what we are measuring. My guess is that they drift apart slightly, which means a change in G will be very difficult to detect. But lucky for the world, I exist. I know that sounds narcissistic, but it is true. Maybe somebody else has designed a machine that can make its apparent weight increase by modifying the local gravitational field. If so there is a backup for me. I am writing a book that will sound like a fairy tale made up by a story teller. But it is completely based on F = M * A interactions at our scale of perception all the way down to sub-atomic particles. No magic pulls, no magic dark matter, no anti-particles and "energy". It is momentum exchanges through mass. Oh yeah, no massless anything except for space. If it has force it has mass. The force is momentum. All energy is momentum. It is just tiny momentum that you can't see or measure directly. But enough rambling. To answer where it comes from? I actually know the answer. It is the amount of force removed from other nucleons from a nucleon's shadow in the field of BLM(ether). Therefore the density of the ether field changes the value of G. P.S. I can give you the full gravitational answer...but you'll need to help me with the advanced math notation. I can do the math in the notation of a C program but not how a math guy can. I used to know how 30+ years ago but don't remember it and don't care to, as I express it in software. I know concepts, not syntax.

[@robertmarcenko8881]

I would love to have a copy of your book sounds interesting.

[@TheMachian]

feel free to email me ChannelInfo...

[@sravankumarjr]

@@TheMachian why Newton used G in the first place in equation y not F=mm/r²

[@pdaniel97675]

I just had a thought: permittivity and permeability are related to the inverse speed of light; though it is not possible (as I understand it) to have a Permittivity < 1, Permeability can be less than one in some cases, meaning the potential for both a greater and lesser value for the speed of light, which in turn would mean a greater G value. Maybe this a potential answer for why we have seen fluctuation in the measured value of G over the years, if its possible for a Change in G to be a localized phenomenon, and not purely dependent on the total Universal Mass and total Universal Radius (from our perspective).

[@andrewbrodis1239]

In my perspective, gravity is proportional to the number of neutrons. I believe in a matrix of expansion. Protons exist in synchronization with the expansion matrix but neutrons offset this balance, creating localized deformations of the matrix (gravity).

[@piusthegler2382]

sorry for the very unrelated question but are you by any chance related to chess grandmaster Wolfgang Unzicker?

[@ozymandiasultor9480]

I don't think chess has much in common with physics.

[@TheMachian]

Yes, my father. He died in 2006.

[@shrunkensimon]

Have you looked into plasma cosmology and the electric universe theory?

[@ozymandiasultor9480]

Oh, pseudo-science... I bet he devotes a lot of attention to the "plasma cosmology" "electric universe", "flat earth", and turtles that hold the Earth...

[@shrunkensimon]

@@ozymandiasultor9480 Pipe down you tryhard

[@shrunkensimon]

@@ozymandiasultor9480 For the record, plasma cosmology was created by Hannes Alfven, nobel prize winner in physics. Try harder next time or shill elsewhere.

[@ozymandiasultor9480]

@@shrunkensimon Argument of authority is not a real argument. Try learning proper science and stop thinking that just because someone got the Nober prize that someone has to be right. Back at school and stay away from pseudo-science.

[@shrunkensimon]

@@ozymandiasultor9480 Lmao. 'Proper science'. Yeah ok. Try initiating a conversation again when you reach adulthood.

[@andycroucheaux4568]

I like watching your video's, but how do you explain very large dinosaurs that weigh say 40 to 50 tons . That means each footprint would press down on earth somewhere between 10 to 12.5 tons apiece.,they would have to have a very large foot to spread out such forces, but we know from fossils that was not the case. Was gravity different back then ? Could you explain this quandary for me please.

[@GamesBond.007]

Why is it said that gravity is an inverse square law ? If we write mass as density*Volume, where V of sphere=4Pi R^3/3, the equation g=G*M/R^2 becomes g=4Pi* G*Density*R/3. So now its a direct non square law. Which tells us that the gravitational acceleration/force increases with Density and Radius of the spherical object (earth, planets, stars, etc). And also the 'gravitational constant' now becomes 4Pi*G/3. But of course this is a simple transformation based on highschool physics Im sure you and mister Schrodinger have thought about this already.

[@jonasgunnarsson5747]

That's how the gravitation increases from the center of the earth (or from any object) out to its surface (if constant density), according to Newton. It's called the shell theorem. Outside of the surface the gravitation falls off as an inverse square of the radial distance, since there is no more increase of mass with increasing radius.

[@GamesBond.007]

@@jonasgunnarsson5747But we can imagine this as a virtual sphere whos density is calculated from the mass of earth divided by virtual volume based on the extended radius from its surface (V=4/3Pi(R+r)^2, and while the density decreases, because the radius increases, and the volume increases, its still a direct non inverted square law in the form of g=4/3Pi*G*Density*(R+r). It just depends on what units you use to write it. If you use mass, it is an inverted square law, if you use density, it is a direct non square law.

[@carultch]

@@GamesBond.007 Gravity is an inverse square law OUTSIDE the astronomical body causing it. Inside the astronomical body, is another matter entirely, because there is a continuous mass distribution that is contributing its own gravity, every time you consider a slightly larger radius. The inverse square law is a property of a vector field from a spherically symmetric source, once it is outside the source and has zero divergence. It's a consequence of the total gravitational flux, always adding up to the same value, once outside the astronomical body. Distribute that gravitational flux across a larger sphere of influence, and its corresponding field strength diminishes in an inverse proportion to the square of the radius of that sphere of influence. If you consider how gravitational fields change inside an astronomical body, for the idealized case of uniform density, the field is proportional to the distance from the center. But this ceases to be true, once you get to the surface, and you no longer accumulate more mass to cause more gravity.

[@GamesBond.007]

The units of G are those because they come from newton's equation. g=GM/R^2 so G =gR^2/M which in units is m/s^2*m^2/kg= m^3/kg*s^2. I think its a futile exercise to try to link those units to something else, when its clear why they are so. And the number comes from it too, so if you know the gravitational acceleration, the radius, and the mass, you get a value of G which is not even a constant, since there are different measurements of G. Probably because they are taken at a different radius, since the earth is not a perfect sphere.

[@PrivateSi]

Dark Energy and Dark Matter look like two sides of the same coin. There is a finite amount of 'gooey space glue' out there mass steals it away from voids when mass forms so voids expand and mass contracts space. This results in intergalactic space goo gradients, with Dark Matter explained by space goo thinning out further away from galactic centres so it takes less energy to accelerate a mass further out. I haven't done the maths but it looks like varying G would be one solution. If it can be tied in with the cosmological constant that would be better I think.

[@johnconcannon3844]

Could gravity be caused by broken symmetry of the superposition of electric charges due to their relative distribution in matter. This broken symmetry attraction could behave like gravity between objects.

[@thesciencebeyond]

The issue is not really about mathematical value of the G. It works only in theories. In real life most mechanics evolves experimentally.

[@tims5268]

That isn't true at all. Do you think they just build planes and hope they stay in the air or build bridges and hope they don't fall down?

[@thesciencebeyond]

@@tims5268 G is taken into consideration as planning parameters whereas exact designs have evolved through actual trials rather than mathematical designs. Also bridges and planes are given safety margins which include failures of any kind including errors of design parameters. Let's not forget cycle mechanics and not mathematicians or theoretical physicists flew the first plane.

[@tims5268]

@@thesciencebeyond Tell that to rocket scientists.

[@thesciencebeyond]

@@tims5268 They already seem to know that from their practical experience. Whether they acknowledge or not satellites, space missions, rockets and projectiles require constant corrections to maintain desired path and trajectory. It is never fire and forget scenario except where undirected journey beyond a particular stage is planned such as in the case of Voyager Missions. Nature or consciousness provides guidance to birds in flight without knowing any mechanics or mathematics of anything. And Nature does a good job out of it.

[@tims5268]

@@thesciencebeyond Are you really trying to say that rocket scientists do not use the value of G in engineering and orbital mechanics?

[@wcsxwcsx]

In this modern day and age, it seems bizarre that we still have to rely on crude physical experiments like Cavendish's to measure G. I would love a purely mathematical equation that would generate G. Maybe a physics equation that would relate G to other properties and constants of the universe. Given the units we've chosen to use, why is G the number it is instead of some other number? We need to see a deeper connection between G and other properties of the universe.

[@gonegahgah]

The more important constant is the "super" gravitational constant. Not sure how you work that out when you have to dig under so many issues such as spin vs adhesion shape, spin force redirection and cancellation, and area vs volume ratios parallel with resonant harmonics, that effect the subatomic world. The math for these may just be too complicated.

[@realphysics5137]

Origin of the Gravitational Constant: kzbin.info/www/bejne/mGGyiGOMn5JsZq8

[@derndernit8275]

SOMEONE IN THE KNOW, PLEASE ANSWER - Light is something that exists. Is it something that exists prior to charges accelerating and nucleai fusing, which is hidden and then shown (As a baseball exists, in a glove, prior to being thrown) Or is it something that does not exist; particles interact, and then it does exist (As a cake does not exist, until the ingredients that form a cake interact in a certain way) Or; does relatively not moving light exist everywhere, and when particles interact with each other and the relatively not moving light in certain ways, moving light is detected and it is then said moving light exists (As a nearly completely still pond can exist, and waves can potentially exist on that pond, but interactive qualities are required for water waves to exist, for instance material object (rain, rocks, insects, windy air) must interact with the water in order for the waves to exist)

[@danmiller4725]

Why is pi irrational when it can easily be made rational. Draw a unit line 0,1. Bisect it. Circumscribe a circle with the 0,1 line as diameter starting at 0 and ending at 0. The perimeter is the circumference terminating at 0. It can't be irrational. C/d = 3.14.

[@rossholst5315]

I have always struggled with irrational numbers. They seem as illogical as perfection. When you think that between any two numbers there is always at least 1 rational number between them. And rational numbers get arbitrary small to essentially where there is only an infinitesimal space between them and in that infinitesimal space exists the irrational number. It never lies perfectly on any rational number but it is arbitrarily close to an infinite number of rational numbers. But in real life our space is not infinitely shrinkable. At some scale the meaning becomes lost. And perfect circles likely do not exist. All drawn circles will only have a rational number of measurable increments. Perfection can work fine in mathematics, but it’s not really observed in nature. And irrational numbers are never fully calculated. We might have the first billion digits of pi, but that’s roughly 0% of the total. But you can also think about a circle. If you keep zooming in on the circle the shape that takes up the remainder of your screen is approaching that of a straight line. So at some infinitely zoomed in scale the circle becomes a straight line. Meaning points adjacent to each other or in close proximity, are at 180 degrees which implies no curvature. Yet we know we started with a circle, so it must have curvature. So when I see objects traveling in a circular paths to me that is just a straight line. Even an elliptical path could be thought of as a tilted circular path. And pi is the ratio of circumference to diameter, but what are the unique pi value(s) for ellipse(s)? The circle is just the ellipse that changes 1:1 what values for pi do you get when you start messing with that ratio?

[@frun]

Doesn't the problem disappear in the case of use of natural units G=h=c=1?

[@joonasmakinen4807]

You cannot set G to 1 in natural units, can you? (At the same time set electromagnetism to 1 as well.)

[@frun]

@@joonasmakinen4807 Yes, you can. From the Wikipedia article on Planck units: "The four universal constants that, by definition, have a numeric value 1 when expressed in these units are: the speed of light in vacuum, c, the gravitational constant, G, the reduced Planck constant, ħ, and the Boltzmann constant, kB."

[@joonasmakinen4807]

@@frun Thanks for quick reply! :) So that’s called Planck units (a set of natural units), and we can choose which to set to 1. But I googled at it seems gravitational constant G and electric constant eps0 cannot both be 1 at the same time. We still need an explanation for 10^40 ratio between those forces.

[@frun]

@@joonasmakinen4807 Do you know what double copy is? kzbin.info/www/bejne/l3vOnKGjnqiliJY

[@arandomguy777]

@@joonasmakinen4807 we can always set a constant to 1, but it impacts the value of the other variables. What matters are the ratios. We will never explain why the universe is like it is in my opinion. You can try to find principles, but u cant explain them.

[@plainsroamer405]

@themachian some have claimed the US govt. possesses electro magnetic frequency engines used for aircraft. Do you believe such things are possible? And, would it be susceptible to an EMP attack? If such tech existed, imagine how it could revolutionize modern teansportation.

[@arthurrobey7177]

Rupert Sheldrake reports that the Gravitational constant isn't a constant. It is fickle. Megafauna are shown to be impossible. Even if their necks were made of steel they would fail, therefore we can confidently say that the gravity in their day was significantly weaker. I think that the mathematical theoreticians have incorrectly assumed a gravitational constant in order to make their mathematics possible. And if gravity is not a constant, what other constants need to be explained? Until Maxwell physics was in the business of simplifying, now it is becoming very messy. I suspect that a Kuhnian revolution is afoot.

[@Mikey-mike]

Good video.

[@beardandflipflops5424]

G is not fundamental, it is lp^3/(mp*tp^2) [Planck Constants] or alternatively can be calculated directly from the properties of the ground state electron.

[@TheMachian]

I would not call l_p fundamental.

[@naringrass]

where could I find more information about the experiment, and its electronic version? maybe you could expand on that??

[@TheMachian]

Cavendish torsion balance experiment, see wikipedia. modern versions Gundlach + Merkowitz, Eöt-wash group.

[@matterasmachine]

there is connection between Hubble constant and mass of electron. G will somehow appear from Hubble constant too.

[@davidrandell2224]

G calculated from first principles- the hydrogen atom- in 2002. “The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon.

[@matterasmachine]

@@davidrandell2224 how he made you post his book?

[@derndernit8275]

The question (regarding the mystery of the existence of light) boils down to; does (an almost infinite number of) waving light just happen to exist on its and of it's own, Or is it caused to exist by the interactions of non light particles. (And if caused to exist by the interactions of non-light particles; how is it caused to exist by such) If light does not exist besides by the interactions of non-light particles; this would imply space is an ocean of relatively non-moving light, which is made to particularly wavely move via interactions of non light particles. If waving/moving light somehow came into existence as things existing caused independently of the interactions of non-light particles, than there are a number of moving light particles that are bounced and richochetd around by non-light particles and there is no need for light field/medium. But then it would need to be explained how every star happened to coalesce and form around a patch of a quigillion gagillion light particles, and then spend it's life tossing them away. Or explained how only absolutely non-light inputs react and output light, what exactly is the light and where exactly is it coming from, how exactly would light come from the interaction of non-light objects, what of the non-light objects possess the capability of producing, what light is, and what is light

[@danmiller4725]

Are you sure it's exactly 6.673? When it comes to Plancks constant the decimal expansion is around 8 with no sign of terminating or repeating making it irrational.

[@alphalunamare]

no sign of terminating just means that you are impatient, it says nothing about its position on the real line.

[@danmiller4725]

@@alphalunamare Being patient won't help you write down the decimal for 1/3. It's .33333333... on and on forever...........Is this really rational? You can divide by thirds rationally but we realize it can't be exact and certain. The dimension on a blueprint is exact. But if you measure the length or height you have to guess at what that blueprint number was.

[@alphalunamare]

@@danmiller4725 Trying to write one third down in decimal shows that not all exact fractions can be actually be written that way, It is a limitation of that particular system. Whether written in Decimal or as a Rational the position of 1/3 on the real line is exists.

[@carultch]

@@danmiller4725 It is unrealistic to expect constants of nature to be perfect rational numbers, whether they are ending decimals or repeating decimals. Big G is a constant we know, only from measuring. And since we can't measure it to infinite accuracy, we can't define the kilogram, meter, and second to make it be exactly a rational number. We defined the meter and second prior to knowing the speed of light, and now since we can measure the speed of light more accurately than we can manufacture a metal meter stick, we defined the speed of light to be a 9-digit integer, while keeping it consistent with legacy definitions of the meter. We now have the kilogram indexed to Planck's constant, the meter indexed to the speed of light, and the second indexed to the Cesium atom. Unless there is a reason for any of those to be connected to the Cavendish constant, there's no reason to expect the Cavendish constant to ultimately be a rational number. Throw a dart at the number line, and you are pretty much guaranteed to land on an irrational number. Rational numbers may be nice for us to work with, but they are the exception rather than the rule, when it comes to how common they are among the entire spectrum of numbers.

[@daemonnice]

Here is a crazy idea. Perhaps gravity has nothing to do with mass, but everything to do with surface area. If two objects with dissimilar mass but similar surface area fall with similar velocity, does that not suggest that surface area is an important consideration?

[@ozymandiasultor9480]

If two bodies have the same surface area but dissimilar mass their gravity will be very different. Imagine a balloon bis as the Earth...those two, that balloon and the Earth will have very different gravitational fields. Gravity depends on mass, not on the surface area.

[@alphalunamare]

That fallacy has led people to believe that you can differentiate Volume to get area etc .. trouble is it only works with platonic solids, it is total rubbish in general topology.

[@peetsnort]

I see gravity simply as kinetic energy. The spinning of the earth combined with the rotation around the sun will be pushing you to the ground. What i cant understand is how it keeps going like a perpetual motor and we all know they always run down out of energy

[@carultch]

Here's the problem with that. The spinning Earth would repel you from its surface, and not attract you to it. The centrifugal effect of a rotating body causes you to flee the center, instead of move toward the center. This is a real factor when it comes to gravity on Earth, but it really is just a drop in the bucket, that isn't even a pound for an average person. Gravity has to be something entirely different than the centrifugal effect, and significantly stronger than it, to explain what we experience on Earth's surface. And it has to have a spherically symmetric nature to it, rather than a cylindrically symmetric nature like the centrifugal effect.

[@musicsubicandcebu1774]

It's just a fancy two thirds. This ratio is where modern physics ends (quarks). It was also a mathematical constant used by the ancient Egyptians. Humans spend one third of their life sleeping and the other two thirds in the dark!

[@davidrandell2224]

G calculated from first principles- the hydrogen atom- in 2002. “The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon.

[@user-yc3fw6vq5n]

Uh okay

[@levansaginashviliskidney8726]

You make intriguing and interesting videos. Unfortunately the channel also attracts pseudoscientific cranks

[@gonegahgah]

Of course, but so much of today's lauded theoretical physics is just that as well unfortunately, and should be considered every bit pseudo science, just as Alexander is pointing out.

[@frun]

It is a fortune, not a downside. I support what the previous commenter said.

[@gonegahgah]

Sadly, believing authoritive psuedo science is not going to make it so.

[@koenraad4618]

Why is big G the most important constant of all? Mach's principle, distances in the universe, all the mass in the universe: does Schrödinger's model predict a value of G? Btw, Cavendish and Michell did not conceive of their experiment as an attempt to measure G. The formulation of Newton’s law of gravitation involving the gravitational constant did not occur until the late 19th century. The experiment was originally devised to determine Earth’s density, 5.48 grams per cubic centimeter. The Cavendish experiment proved that gravity exists also between much smaller masses. What is gravity exactly? Why did Einstein abandon his idea to associate gravity with variable speed of light? Did he plagiarize Hilbert's tensor theory of covariance in order to save his SR theory (since David Hilbert's tensor covariance gravity theory is such that we can maintain c as a constant value), which was also plagiarized? A variable speed of light indicates there is an absolute space frame based on an aether. Pilot wave theory is further elaborated by the concept of superluminal longitudinal aetheric waves: a Pilot wave that guides a particle is a standing wave pattern of back and forth traveling longitudinal aetheric waves. Gravity is explained as a density (or even temperature) gradient of aether. An astrophysical body has a denser aether 'atmosphere' around its surface that becomes less dense further away from the body. This denser aether 'halo' slows down the speed of light, but also slows down the superluminal longitudinal pilot waves that interact with elementary particles, that are present in the aether density gradient. An aether density gradient distorts the spherical symmetry of the Coulomb field around each elementary charge. This distortion is equivalent with a small electric force that acts on the particle in the direction of denser aether, which is independent of the sign of electric charges. The result is an accumulative net force (gravity) in direction that acts on both negative and positive charges in the same way. A physical process is slower if it happens in a denser aether, and a physical process is faster if it happens in a less dense aether, because the velocity of waves in the aether determines the rate of physical processes. QM information entropy can be associated with the frequencies of superluminal aetheric waves that are exchanged by massive objects, such that the QM 'information' entropy gets higher for a falling body. Verlinde's entropic gravity theory is also true, but the way Verlinde based his original discovery on standard (Copenhagen) QM and even 'superstring theory' makes it very hard to understand. I prefer quantum realism (pilot wave theory) and superluminal longitudinal electrodynamic waves.

[@TheMachian]

You are right about the original title (earth density) but it is pretty much the same.

[@koenraad4618]

@@TheMachian I agree. First G has to be determined to calculate the earth’s total mass and mass density (earth radius was already known, and small g as well). This was not obvious to me initially, you are right. Thank you.

[@trumanburbank6899]

I've always wondered why I've never seen the simple equation F = (KqQ - GmM)/r^2 .

[@carultch]

You do, if we're talking about bodies who have an electrostatic and gravitational force that are comparable to each other. This is extremely rare. For subatomic particles, gravity isn't even close to being relevant. And for astronomical bodies, charge tends to add up to zero, or extremely close to it, that electrostatics isn't significant. This is a concern when it comes to either reproducing Coulomb's experiment or the Cavendish experiment with macroscopic bodies, as electrical charge can be an unintended factor in the Cavendish experiment, and vice versa.

[@johnnym6700]

Big G is easy to derive! Why would you say "big G remains a mystery to this day"?

[@afazzo]

For me, G, or better to say, G/c^4 is the constant before the stress-energy tensor in the equation with the Einstein Tensor (a contraction of the tensorial "divergence" of a 4 metric field). In poor words, the constant that says "how much the energy density bends the space". I don't think it is possible for someone different from God to calculate this dimensional constant. But anyway, before it would be necessary to understand *why* the energy density bends the space metric, and this Opa Albert never told us. I have an half idea about it, but I never found the time to follow it, and probabily I'll never do. 😊

[@TajeddineBoukhrais]

the man is freezing

[@Domi2gud]

no way... the G?

[@eytansuchard8640]

There is a problem today, especially with theories such as String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity which cannot derive any constant of Nature or reach any new unification between measurable quantities. That alone is a strong sign these theories are not great predictive models of the physical world. My approach is that of Dr. Sam Vaknin from 1982, that time is fundamental to reality and not particles, mass, charge and other measurable quantities. This approach is diametrically opposed to the ones which try to show time is an illusion or to derive the geometry of spacetime from endless particle matrices. The idea of a universal scalar field and not a coordinate of time is not new. It can be seen in Robert Geroch's Splitting Theorem. A maximal proper time from any event back in time to a submanifold a.k.a Cauchy Surface of spacetime is such a scalar field t. It is not a 4-coordinate because more than one curve, which cross an event z, along which the same time t can be measured, is possible. If in a neighborhood of an event z in spacetime, the gradient of such a scalar is not geodesic, then it means that a physical clock experiences non-geodesic motion, i.e. experiences forces. A Geroch function can therefore encode forces and thus matter. In some specific cases such as Big Bang manifold, the Geroch time scalar field is the maximal measurable time from the big bang as a limit from a shrunken Cauchy surface with limit 0 volume. A scalar field of time emerges out of minimum action on the bending of the gradient of the scalar (Reeb vector action for 1,2,3 Reeb vectors, for Reeb vectors refer to Georges Reeb articles 1948-1952 ) minus the Einstein - Hilbert action. One of the results of the model is that not only inertial mass generates gravity but also electric charge does with plus generating extra-gravity and minus generating weak anti-gravity. Charge is coupled with non-geodesic bi-vector and thus does not behave as expected from inertial mass. Only the divergence of the entire energy-momentum tensor is zero. A direct outcome is that the hot, positively charged ionized gas of the Bullet Cluster, must manifest a Dark Matter effect. Electrons on the other hand are light-weighted, are accelerated to relativistic speeds and escape the galactic pull. As intergalactic negative charge, they generate a repulsive Dark Energy effect. The edges of galactic arms are between external negative gravity from outside and extra positive gravity due to positively charged gas from inside the galactic disk. This causes a Gravitational Dipole push inwards and an increased Dark Matter effect. The conclusion is that not all "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy" effects are due to particles. As a student of Professor Nathan Rosen from ER/EPR, it is my duty to continue his legacy that reality is geometrical. Dr. Alexander, you can read my paper in ResearchGate . It had undergone a lot of corrections and progress since the 2017 peer reviewed publication.

[@robertferraro236]

Big G is ONLY valid for Earth. It was originally calculated from Earth’s density. It cannot and should not be fallaciously be applied to calculate the mass, density and gravity of another celestial body. This is circular mathematics. Any physicist who cannot see this needs some lessons in basic logic. Using G to calculate gravity for other objects only defines that gravity relative to the Earth’s as a base reference. The flaws in big G and the true gravitational constant (not in the literature anywhere) will be revealed in a paper I will submit about midway through 2023.

[@carultch]

That's a misunderstanding of the history behind its measurement. It wasn't calculated *from* Earth's density, it was measured and calculated for the APPLICATION of measuring Earth's density. Cavendish's experiment didn't directly consider this constant, but it effectively relied on measuring it, even if not the objective of the experiment. The idea of calling it Big G, and promoting N's law of gravitation from a proportionality to an equation, came after Cavendish's death. Still, the results of Cavendish's experiment, provided the information to find its value.

[@ZeroOskul]

Gravity is a Newtonian concept that was debunked by Einstein with General Relativity.

[@mattewgeorg2799]

The explanation of origin of the gravity constant it means theoretical deduction of its value that we know by experimental measurements only. For this we need at list to say (to explain) what are itself elementary particles of matter that we don’t yet know. And to be understand the essence/origin of elementary particles we need at list to explain first (theoretically deduce) the value of another more important constant; a=1/137 (that also attractively has presented by doctor Alexander.) And, to have understand all these things we need to forget (let say for temporary only!) our/yours’s physics (which is unable to solve basic questions) and to study somewhat another knowledge. And; we need to overcome our psychological complexes and to show some enough patience to do this. I would like just say that all these problems are solved and are freely presented in below works that you can find by google. And; this is not only some cheapest advertisement. - The Fundamental Science Which Lost … Its Own Fundament! - Modeling the Electron as a Stable Quantum Wave-Vortex: Interpretation α ≈1/137 as a Wave Constant - Rethinking the Formal Methodology (I): Wave-Vortex Essence of the Substance - Rethinking the Formal Methodology (II): Cognitive Content of Relativity (On the Centenary of General Relativity)

[@mattewgeorg2799]

By the way, from above particularly becomes clear that gravity constant actually is a relative "constant" only; its value is variable by exponential law (interconnected with the time course/interval.) And the "time course" itself corresponds with the energy's density (that slowly goes down.) Then it become clear, for example, that the problems with dark energy/matter easily goes out from our agenda ..

[@BigNewGames]

Warning, long winded informative comment. Tell me what you think. Am I wrong? Gravity is not really related to the distribution of mass in the universe. Gravity is local. It only occurs appears to occur with large spherically shaped bodies. It doesn't seem to happen to small matter. I believe gravity is a reaction to the production of energy deep inside of large spherically shaped mass. When energy is added new to the universe by the large sphere it radiates outward from the center of the sphere in every direction. That becomes an action. For every action there is an equal yet opposite reaction. So the action of energy constantly entering the universe new, radiating away from matter in every direction causes small matter not able to produce the same energy to be attracted. Energy causes motion. Energy can be extracted from the motion produced by energy. Example. The sun's energy heats up the air, which the air molecules can't create their own energy so it causes the air to move. Energy = motion. then we can use a wind turbine to extract the energy produced by the wind. The same thing happens with gravity. Gravity causes water to run downhill which a hydroelectric generator can extract the energy produced by the motion of the water. A car can't produce it's own energy so we use the energy stored in the refined oil to make the car move. In every instance energy is required to cause motion. Thus the logical conclusion; Because gravity is a constant then energy has to be constantly created new in order for gravity to be a constant. This explains why space expands between large bodies producing gravity. This explains why space between large concentrations of matter, like old galaxies increases called a Hubble Constant. It explains why the Hubble constant is not a constant. It explains why the distance between hundreds of galaxies accelerates faster than the speed of light with great distance called dark energy. It explains the motion of stars and galaxies blamed on dark matter. It explains the anomaly in Earth's gravity the GRACE satellites discovered several years ago. It explains why the G-02 gas cloud was unaffected when it got close to the supermassive black hole, Sgr A* in the center of our galaxy. It explains the rapid dispersion of matter in galaxies. It explains why stars form close to the supermassive black hole. It explains the Doppler image of Sgr A* by ALMA radio telescope released in October of 2019. It also explains why the CEERS survey discovered CEERS 1749 to have a redshift of z17, indicating it's located some 17 billion light years away while containing a supermassive black hole weighing an estimated 1 billion solar masses, about 240 times larger than the Milky Way galaxy. It also explains why gravitons can't be measured at the quantum scale when smashing atoms together. This also explains why the center of gravity can be in a different spot than the center of the largest mass, often located outside the two bodies. It explains why dark matter doesn't affect the motion of the planets, moons and other small bodies in our solar system yet cause our solar system to move extremely fast, more than 500,000 mi/h too fast. It also explains the rapid motion of our Milky Way galaxy moving towards what's called The Great Attractor at nearly 1.4 million mi/h. It appears to explain all the observations of motion happening to matter throughout the universe, and makes several predictions to boot, too many to go over here. Gravity and energy go hand-in hand as one and the same, gravityenergy. Just like space and time or spacetime is one and the same. The gravitational constant comes from the energy of electromagnetic fields being 1x10^36 times stronger than gravity. Gravity is the weakest because it's not a force, it's a reaction. Dark energy and dark matter are reactions. Energy is the action and motion is the reaction. I believe it happens when matter accumulates into a large spherical shape. The sphere then produces free energy surface tension, producing constant pressure and heat. This is what causes the action of motion pinned on gravity. Gravity isn't an action. That's why it's not very strong and why it doesn't happen to atoms. Atoms don't have the surface are required to create heat and pressure needed to sustain the constant flow of energy radiating away from the sphere to cause motion. It is because of the shape, size and surface area, along with it being suspended in the cold vacuum of space then causes space to react to the opposite heated and compressed matter. Think about it, space and the sphere are completely opposites. The center of the sphere is under extreme pressure and is extremely hot. Space is a vacuum and is extremely cold. This produces the matter to move in a completely opposite manor when energy radiates away from the sphere in every direction. Similar to the cold air and warm air moving in opposite directions to equal out. So the energy stored in matter force it to move in the direction where most of the energy originates, deep in the core where the blunt of all the energy is being produced. Trust me, I know this violates the laws of thermodynamics claiming energy and matter can't be created. Yet that's not what the accelerated expansion of space, faster than the speed of light indicates. The universe is not static. In order for the space or distance between matter to increase, accelerate exponentially with distance, against the pull of gravity energy, and lots of it has to be constantly added new to the universe. Take the particle accelerators as an example. In order to accelerate a charged particle up to the speed of light an infinite amount of energy² has to be applied to the EM fields. That's to accelerate a single charged particle up to the speed of light. What then does it take to accelerate the mass of entire galaxies away from us in every direction faster than the speed of light? It requires an infinite amount of energy² times an infinite amount of energy² to be constantly applied or added to the EM fields in the universe. Meaning, the observation of galaxies accelerating away from us in every direction faster than the speed of light is empirical evidence energy and matter is constantly being added new to the universe. So, where does all this new energy and matter come from if energy and matter can't be created? Observations are not wrong. The laws of thermodynamics is wrong. Besides, if energy and matter cannot be created then where did all the energy and matter in the universe come from? It's oxymoronic for beings made of matter and energy to believe energy and matter can't be created. All the evidence indicates energy and matter can be created. Am I the first person to acknowledge the laws of thermodynamics is wrong?

[@ozymandiasultor9480]

Gravity is something that appears to any matter, if that is your vernacular, "appear". It is not important how small some object is or the shape of the object. "What then does it take to accelerate the mass of entire galaxies away from us in every direction faster than the speed of light?" Galaxies don't accelerate, the space between them is expanding, and that is causing that wrong appearance that they move even faster than light in a vacuum. Space can spread faster than the speed of light, bodies, material bodies in space can't reach the speed of light, In particle accelerators particles are moving fast, but never reach the speed of light. "The center of the sphere is under extreme pressure and is extremely hot. Space is a vacuum and is extremely cold." That has nothing to do with gravity.

[@derndernit8275]

Space is material. Celestial bodies move amidst this material; There is a proportional relation between the mass of the bodies, their various motions, and how such moves the material of space. Celestial bodies are material A Space is material B A1 moves B Moving B moves A2

[@derndernit8275]

Constants cause constants. If G is a constant it is caused by constants. What are the constants that might cause it? The Sun and the Earth's mass are (it may or may not be said, roughly for each of these) constant The Sun and the Earth's linear velocity is constant The Sun and the Earth's rotational speed is constant The local material quantities and qualities of space is constant The constant interaction of these constant variables each likely have some percentage of responsibility that constantly causes the constant of G to be measured consistently

[@ozymandiasultor9480]

Nonsense. You said absolutely nothing.

[@derndernit8275]

I don't think it has been proven impossible or unlikely that the phenomenal effect of gravity and the phenomenal effect of light are 2 sides of the same coin, the material of space. When matter clumps together to form macro clumps of matter, celestial bodies; it macroly influences the local materiality of space. The macro body of the Sun moves local regions of material space macroly. Light is a micro interaction of the materiality of space. The materiality of space is called "light field" and gravity field". The materiality of space may be the "gravity-light field". Light doesn't have mass, it can't be stopped, because it is a vibration of the materiality of space. Light follows the macro clumps motion of the materiality of space caused by mass, because light is the materiality of space. Maybe. If not, there are 2 unique material components all throughout space, as the materiality that is called space, one which warps and swirls and curves and bends and wakes in the presence of the motions of massive celestial bodies, and another which waves and vibrates in the presence of the motion of micro bodies. And the latter does not influence the former, but the former influences the latter.

[@ozymandiasultor9480]

@@derndernit8275 Nice word salad. Try learning proper science.

[@derndernit8275]

@@ozymandiasultor9480 reply to one of my points, believe it or believe it, the salad is parseable, and at least 1 point can be selected and intellectually honestly attempted to be commented on, I beg you and dare you to try.

[@AmbivalentInfluence]

....and if that is true then you have the same problem with mass. Mass, gravity and time, well I never. The three things that QM does not understand all related to one another in spacetime.......hmmmm.

[@paulmanuse2353]

It would help if there was gravity.

[@davidwilkie9551]

Physics is in trouble, they say, so the usual way to "fix" problems is to rename the identities in terms a different authority has theorised. But the definition of Measure, of Galileo's Musical Mathematical comparison-collation harmonic wave-packaging sight-hearing Instrumentation, the precision clocks that can detect differences in the rates of off-harmonic "attraction" at changing heights above the ground, these are the physical machinery of true Measure-ment, of direct WYSIWYG QM-TIME resonances. The Calculus of Time Duration Timing resonance bonding and proportioning holography, constant creation interference dimensionality, ..Logarithmic e-Pi-i sync-duration Time @.dt Absolute Zero-infinity reference-framing is "pure-math relative-timing pulse-evolution ratio-rates", aka "Measures" of quantization cause-effect oscillation. GD&P Actuality analysis is the interesting thing to study, as it always has been, by Observation.

[@ozymandiasultor9480]

Physics is always in trouble, it would be bad if it isn't in trouble, it is science, and science is producing theories, not universal unchanging truth. Every science is always in trouble as it should be, that is the core of science.

[@phyarth8082]

Gravity is fictitious force, Coulomb law of electrostatics is real force that coincidence has same mathematical expression as Gravity force only constants ratio is 10^20 more stronger. Cavendish experiment slight torsion could be caused by ether blockage. Same as moon tidal. Shame that present theoretical physics can not explain how tidal bulge happens with moon side and in opposite side of the moon. Quote Conventional science can not explain such phenomena. Ether is media where light and electrostatic fore propagates all scientist from Thomas Young, Newton, Maxwell used ether to explain light (electromagnetic waves) also magnetic and electric fields propagation through ether media. I think for Cavendish even ether not required to make errors what if lead balls in experiment had slightly electrically charged maybe these difference was insanely small but Coulomb constant is 10^20 more powerful than fictitious gravity force constant and that scalar of 10^20 can be enough to create torsion force in experiment, even lead is non-conductive (still lead is much more conductive than rubber and other organic materials), but one lead ball can have slightly bigger electrical charge reminder than another lead ball and this tiny difference can create electrical attraction force that shown as small value of Gravity constant. Unification of theoretical physics can not be possible until this fictitious constant exist: it will give dark mater, dark energy (with negative pressure value that causes universe expand, only where? LoL) gravity force give nonsense conclusions: black holes, special relativity. And that just basic, shallow level physics problems that can not be solved.

[@ozymandiasultor9480]

Conventional science, real science can explain why is there a bulge on the opposite side of the Earth, and that is done a long time ago. On the far side of the Earth, inertia dominates, creating a second bulge. In this way, the combination of gravity and inertia creates two bulges of water. If you are pushing what is called " electric universe "theory", that is just pseudo-science or at best a weird hypothesis.

[@phyarth8082]

@@ozymandiasultor9480 < inertia dominates> ? - Moon motion is constant, thus no abrupt moon stooping or intense acceleration, bulges follows very precise pattern. Electric universe sustain Okams razor principle. General relativity theory was created to gap holes inconsistences in special relativity, quantum gravity theories that goes nowhere because quantum gravity are incompatible theories, graviton particle made out if thin air to explain how gravity works, dark matter created to explain milky way non-gravitational motion, dark energy to explain missing mass etc., "planet" motion over non visible object can be explained simply by electric force but new theory requires black holes (non-shining stars), never ending line of theories to explain "unexplainable".

[@ozymandiasultor9480]

@@phyarth8082 If you are so interested in such a mundane thing, why is there a bulge on the opposite side of the Earth, you have the internet, so I don't have to teach you such a basic thing. We learn that in secondary school and it is very easy for understanding. Occam's razor is a rule, not a law, so pulling it is not really a strong argument. Besides, Occam's razor is not an argument for the electric universe idea, because the theory of relativity explains things much better and is grounded in actual experiments, observations, and can be used as a tool for prediction, and nothing of that is true for that "electric universe" idea. Theories that you claim that are not correct are claiming that gravity is what makes gas turn into stars, nuclear fusion is the force that makes stars shine and repels the enormous gravity and the same force is what makes all elements in the universe, and when the nuclear fusion is no more, the star becomes black dwarf, supernova or a black hole. According to that "electric universe" idea NOTHING of that is correct, gravity does not make gas from start, nuclear fusion is not involved in powering stars so nuclear fusion is impossible and Einstein's general theory of relativity is false, black holes are not real, pulsars do not exist, dark matter does not exist and so on... According to the "electric universe," gravity is not the force that governs the universe, electric force is, in some mystical and not really explained way...Does that "electric universe" explain how we can use Newton or Einstein to send satellites with such precision if the theory of gravity is not correct? Or if you think gravity exists but has to be combined with electric force to explain things, shouldn't that be demonstrated and proven? I can use old Newton to explain why things fall on Earth and the speed without implicating electromagnetic force. And if electromagnetic force is important, then why do objects with different charges fall at the same speed? Why do ferromagnetic, diamagnetic, and paramagnetic objects fall at the same speed that Newton discovered? With your "electric universe," you can't explain things that are explained with General Relativity as perihelion precession of Mercury, gravitational lensing, black holes, neutron stars, basically all that is so well explained with the accepted scientific theories. Sure, theories are not perfect, that is why we are calling them theories, but existing theories are based on experimentation, observation, and math, are falsifiable, and can predict things. The electric universe is based on some phenomenons that are very dubious and are not exactly what proponents of that idea claim, for instance, that craters on the moon are made by lightning, and is based on pseudo mythological gobbledegook, some ancient symbols that at first glance resemble some astronomical objects. That is pseudoscience or at best flimsy hypothesis. But, hey, I am open-minded, if there is a grain of truth if something will be proven correct according to that "electric universe" I will check it again... Sorry for my bad English, it is far from being my first language.

[@ozymandiasultor9480]

Oh, by the way, science knows gravity and electromagnetism almost equally well... Electromagnetism is 10 to the 36th power stronger than Gravity. That's 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times stronger! HOW can you describe things that science explains with gravity by using force that is so much stronger? That is absurd.

[@ozymandiasultor9480]

By the way, dark energy is not something that is to explain missing mass, dark energy is the energy of a vacuum, the energy that makes space spread, the mysterious force that accelerates the spreading of the universe. Sure, both dark energy and dark matter are still hypothetical, they serve as an attempt of solving certain problems, but still, they are way more substantiated as phenomenons than anything that the electric universe idea has to offer.

[@KryptonitePhysics]

I would say, gravity is not a constant, you need to define what it is? Lots of descriptions on what it can do, none on what it is. Ask Tesla! Electricity and magnetism. Earth has a negative charge at a changing value. All else has a positive charge at a changing value. Foil helium balloon, applying a charge, you can make it rise and fall. Gravity.

[@davidrandell2224]

G calculated from first principles- the hydrogen atom- in 2002. “The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “,Mark McCutcheon.

[@ozymandiasultor9480]

Sure, ask Tesla, an over-prised engineer who wasn't able to understand that luminiferous ether does not exist. Big bodies have no charge because all big bodies are made of almost an exact number of particles with opposing charges that cancel each other. Helium balloon goes up because Helium is lighter than the atmosphere not because of some charge.

[@KryptonitePhysics]

@@davidrandell2224 The final theory looks like an interesting read. Absolute motion is discounted, due to reference frames, that's nonsense, all motion counts, unless acted on by an equal and opp force. Rotating reference frames don't work. That's why astrophysicists don't use them. It shows the model to be false.

[@KryptonitePhysics]

@@ozymandiasultor9480 Tesla over praised. Humm. Helium is lighter, I stated adding a charge to a foil balloon, you can manipulate the buoyancy. You state theory's, with no proof. ether not exist? Everything has a charge, EVERY THING.

[@ozymandiasultor9480]

@@KryptonitePhysics Everything has a charge, huh? Like what, a house, a building, a mountain, a planet? Big bodies are made of particles that are charged, but they are made of many particles with both charges so the overall result is that big objects have no charge. You missed that lesson in basic school or you like that pseudo-scientific "theory called "electric universe" that has the same scientific merit as flat earth? And yes, Tesla is overpriced, he invented a few things and said many stupid things, such that pyramids are some kind of machines or that ether exists. .kzbin.info/www/bejne/bGSWYn2Oq7SIfbs...kzbin.info/www/bejne/nWGbkIRtac1qb8k

[@derndernit8275]

To say that light is energy is pointlessly beating around the bush, many things are energy, when I ask about light and what light is, to say light is energy, is to not really say much about light. What is water, what are plants, what is gravity what are rocks, energy, energy, energy, energy, what is light, energy. How is light made, how does light exist, how does light move, what is light before it is disturbed/generated/emitted/propagated/produced Energy There are things that exist. And things that exist move. Things that exist are called material, substance, physical, matter, stuff, something, things. Movement of things and possible movement of things is called energy and potential energy. What else is there or could there be, besides Stuff and it's motions? Light is a type of stuff with types of motions. The question is, is light a type of stuff that exists prior to it's motions being detected. Light is called energy, because it is detected and it cannot be stopped, it's detection is the detection of Something moving, but the Something of light cannot be stopped and held, the light that is detected is constant movement. But it is somethingness, and that which is moving as light does exist. So there is a quantity of stuff that cannot stop moving (as fast as anything can move), is it just ricocheting off everything. Did galaxies, material particles form around pockets of light and contain the light like a room of mirrors. The question boils down to does waving light just happen to exist, Or is it caused to exist by the interactions of non light particles

[@kasperlindvig3215]

This explains what gravity is : kzbin.info/www/bejne/j5y6mnWujM6Yh7c At 38 min in.

[@alphalunamare]

ok 1 whole minute to get to the point. 3 minutes and still waiting. 4 minutes no further except there are different measurements ..still no sign of where it comes from. Seriously, the best part of your videos is the excitement and promise of the click bait title and then the music. But then you bumble on referring to this and that ad finitum in between your many videos of the same ilk. For crying out loud say something straight for once. I do happen to believe that you have something but you blur it under inconsequential videos of little merit. Make a video synopsis of one of your books instead of waffling in the wind.

[@TheMachian]

I do not want to repeat too much. A hypothesis about the origin you find in my VSL playlist.

[@Igbon5]

I have just started watching your videos. I have watched quite a few. Very interesting. However, you mention God quite a bit. Do you believe in God? I certainly hope not. It is funny and sometimes enjoyable watching otherwise intelligent people fall into gibbering idiocy when trying to justify any notion of God and cohere that notion into a realistic worldview. The mental gymnastics are the amusing as is the inevitable crash into the the harsh ground of reality. But in the end stupidity and ignorance should be condemned.

[@AhmedMahmoud-km6zd]

عجيب كيف أنك صرت تعتقد دينا حيث تعبد فيه ملذاتك و رغباتك و تكفر فيه بالله تعالى .. سبحان الله خلق على أروع صورة و أجسام بأبدع نظام و كون بأدق التفاصيل و يعتقد الحمقى أن المادة وجدت بلا موجد و لا خالق .. و الله ما تضرون إلا أنفسكم .. جمعتم بين الجهل و الوقاحة

[@Igbon5]

@@AhmedMahmoud-km6zd No one worships their pleasures and desires, they just have them and try and attain some. Worship id a pedestal unrightly set aside for fooling untrue notion. There is no god or creator. Material does exist independently of a creator. All the harm is coming from the erroneous religious beliefs and the radical savagery that follows closely. Savagery and ignorance.