Curved Earth, Curved Spacetime: Is Gravity a Force or Isn't it? | FLERFPRATT 10

[@Martymer81]

Grab Atlas VPN for just $1.83/mo + 3 months extra before the BIG DEAL deal expires: get.atlasvpn.com/Martymer 😊

[@John.0z]

That was very different to how I was introduced to Einstein in school, and I thank you for it. While it was too many years ago to be sure, I am pretty sure that none of those inertial frames of reference were mentioned; and they change a lot about the discussion. I am grateful for the re-introduction to something I never needed to use in my career.

[@Martymer81]

@@John.0z General relativity usually isn't, or is only barely, mentioned at high school or even undergrad levels.

[@Spyder_King]

No I don't think I will. You think I'm stupid just because I'm a southerner and I drink Jack Daniels. I'm sorry but you really need to educate yourself before you start profiling people like that it's very offensive. I know everyone else does it but be different. Be better. Or else go away. But please don't go away. I love your content

[@SardonicSoul]

The most hilarious answer I have ever heard from a flat-earther about why things staying on the ground was: Because of weight.

[@soriac2357]

I get something similar from flatties when I ask how "buoyancy" (that thingie that is supposed to be there instead of gravity, not much in common with actual buoyancy) knows which way is down. They usually don't give an answer, just mumbling "what do you mean? Down is down, buoyancy knows up and down because this (points towards the earth) is down. Are you stupid??" Of course they cant comprehend the prospect of "down" being just the direction towards the very big mass.

[@bobblum5973]

It's hard to explain something when you don't actually understand it in the first place. For Flat Earth believers it's the first, the second, and really anyplace they are at the moment. 🙄

[@KeplersDream]

Yeah, I've had the same kind of thing. I once asked a flerf why objects will still fall downwards in a vacuum, if it's just a buoyancy issue. The response: "We don't live in a vacuum chamber!" Accurate, but completely dodges the point.

[@parkerneilson6255]

​@@soriac2357 wot?

[@PlatinumAltaria]

I have absolutely no idea how a flat-earther or other physics denier would explain gravitational lensing, but surely they couldn't deny that it exists because we can directly observe it...

[@freddan6fly]

They boldly claim that *space is fake* Obviously without any shred of evidence.

[@MrRolnicek]

Oh yea SURELY they couldn't deny it! That would be ridiculous! You might as well deny every single photo taken from space ... oh wait.

[@dross4207]

@@MrRolnicekExactly. If you deny all other aspects of reality, what’s going to stop you from denying the last one.

[@sthurston2]

Easy. You can't see it with the naked eye and so THEM(tm) have super advanced technology that makes telescopes etc show globe/space stuff that doesn't really exist. With flerfs ANYTHING that says globe &/ Space is fake because they believe the Earth is flat. That belief was chosen because they were too ignorant to know better. Now they believe they know better than any glober and so are locked into their ignorance.

[@A-Milkdromeda-Laniakea-Hominid]

"Those are just lights in the sky, artifacts in the firmament." "The spherical billiard balls tells you nothing about the flatness of the table."

[@edisoncarter3841]

"Matter tells Space-time how to curve, and Space-time tells Matter how to move. The Heart of Gold told Space-time to get knotted, and parked itself within the inner perimeter of the Argabuthon Chamber of Law." Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy I've always enjoyed that quote since anything that attempts to move at or beyond the speed of light might as well tell space-time to F-off.

[@joeldriver-sp2rg]

Neptune was discovered in 1846 by astronomers who used the laws of gravity and simple mathematics after seeing a perturbation in the orbit of Uranus. After doing the math they looked to where they thought they should find what was causing it and sure enough there was Neptune. That's about as definitive a proof of gravity as you could ever find. I have yet to hear a flat earther even try to explain how this was possible if gravity wasn't real.

[@ianshaliczer]

Magic. It was possible because of magic. Not every FLERFer believes in magic, but most of them do.

[@shadowmax889]

They will probably say that Neptune does not exist because it cannot be seen with their Nikon P9000, or that the story is a lie

[@bjornfeuerbacher5514]

Well, there are a lot of possible excuses for that. E. g. lots of flerfers say that the stars and planets are only "projections" on the dome above Earth. So they could simply claim that the huge conspiracy behind the globe just started to project Neptune at the place where astronomers said it should be.

[@stefanlaskowski6660]

As soon as a flerf can explain how before sunrise the Sun can illuminate the bottom of clouds and the top of mountains, I'll believe he's right. Strangely, none ever has.

[@eproonils]

Newton made it all clear and understandable, then came Einstein and said "Hold by beer!"

[@mihaitha]

Einstein wasn't wrong about gravitational waves, he just underestimated our stubbornness to measure the tiniest warps in the fabric of space.

[@mamamheus7751]

(Apologies, this is longer than expected, but there is a point to it, Martymer. I want to describe how you make a difference to my life - no lie or hyperbole.) I watched the whole series (yet) again yesterday and I was hoping that you would give us another edition soon. Thank you! I really appreciate the effort you put into every video and you've taught me a _lot._ As someone who didn't do _any_ science after my third year in high school (this was in the '70s; they didn't care if girls didn't want to do science. I actually wanted to do physics, I was expected to do another language. Yet another one...), until I returned to the Open University this century after taking a decade off (kids. You know what that means lol. Funnily enough, I met hubby at OU summer school. 35 years ago. Dang, time flies!) I got a certificate in maths (my old maths teacher would have fainted 🤣. I'm now actually qualified to teach maths at the local college. It's not going to happen, but it tickles me pink to know it!), and did short courses in astrophysics and other sciences. After that, I did a few "proper courses" in the history of maths (and by some miracle the question in the exam regarding Babylonian maths helped me not only finally get base 60, but I could do the questions in it!), geology and other planetary sciences (year 2 out of 3 level). I started a related one, but took ill halfway through the year when it reached exobiology. (Something I still know next to nothing about.) All this twaddle is meant to show that despite an inauspicious start to all science, I have been determined to learn everything I can wrap my head around. Admittedly it's nowhere near your level, and never will be, but I am still learning for no reason other than I truly believe that a) a day without learning at least one thing is a day wasted, and b) I have no excuses for not trying to find out answers myself. Sometimes it's by going through books - I have had to switch to electronic ones because between hubby (also addicted to learning) and me, we've filled every shelf in the house with books and have run out of room for more! Other times I'll google something. More often than not I'll pick something up from you, Cool Hard Logic, The Living Dinosaur, Potholer 54 and many other great educational channels. I am unendingly grateful to you and the others for everything you do, regardless of the subject matter. If I, as a near housebound disabled woman pushing 60 (couple of years to go...), can find answers - logical, well-explained, extremely interesting answers as a rule - to questions which have no bearing on my life except to annoy me for not knowing them, these flattie muppets have no bloody excuse to be so ignorant! Btw, best ad for a VPN yet! 🤣

[@rloomis3]

I would say your paragraph that begins with "All this twaddle," in particular, is a sign of a life well lived. :)

[@bobblum5973]

The author Robert A. Heinlein said, through his character Lazarus Long, something to the effect that "a human being should be able to ride a horse, shoe it, dig a well, build a house, splint a broken leg, balance a bank account, etc. Specialization is for insects." (My apologies for not being able to quote him, it's been a while since I've read that exact line, but the second sentence is word for word. 🙂) What you described with your own path is simply living up to your potential when it comes to learning and growing. I'm happy for you; keep going!

[@lyndafjellman3315]

I like "enriched weapons grade stupid". We sure have a lot of that.

[@A-Milkdromeda-Laniakea-Hominid]

Just go to any Trump rally for examples. But wear a dosimeter and watch your time around enriched stupid. Hell on Jan6 there was a blue flash of light as critical mass was reached- one guy got 20,000 sieverts equivalent to 22 years in federal prison. Dangerous stuff.

[@mwperk02]

It's far to much unregulated stupid running amok.

[@grapeshot]

I know one thing if these flat-earthers ever jumped from a very high place they'll find out gravity is more than just a theory.

[@reinerhoch1357]

Ask Mad Mike how real gravity is...oh wait he died while trying to fly a rocket high enough to see the curve, he never made it high enough because some force ended his climb and ultimately his life....

[@capitalknockers666]

@@reinerhoch1357 From what I've read it seems unlikely Mad Mike was actually a flat Earther, he was just a guy who wanted to fly rockets and used the flerfs as a crowd funding source because they're extremely dim and gullible.

[@gilleruadh]

One of my life mottos is "Gravity Always Wins".

[@bobblum5973]

@Martymer81 An excellent video. What's funny is that for many, many years I've been able to visualize to some extent in my mind how space-time can be curved in multiple dimensions. Yet in your video where you diagram it to compare and contrast the two examples showing how the curved path in space relates to a straight path in curved space-time is one of the clearest explanations I've seen.

[@chrisdurhammusicchannel]

"Enriched weapons grade stupidity" 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@Tyler-rj7bq]

loving the resurgency of content from martymer81, now we just need some coolhardlogic uploads

[@EVUUL]

Hey martymer, glad you're back. It was your videos that got me over the "belief" hump. I was actually introduced to spirit science first and found your debunks. That said flat earth isn't very prevalent anymore. Would love to see your take on some of the apologists nonsense being spewed on this app

[@AnaseSkyrider]

I was around 12 years old when I got into "chi" and new age spiritualism. You can blame Newgrounds emails for showing me Crystals Part 1 (back when they were separate videos). It was the fact that I'd been listening to people like Matt Dillahunty on Atheist Experience for a couple years prior that, by age 14 after literally nothing special about 2012 happened, I realized I believed in nonsense. Not long after, I'd found Marty's videos, and it helped me crystallize (pun intended) why Spirit Science was (as CHL put it) Bollocks. Sometime later I even had a couple brief conversations with Jordan on Facebook. It was one of the most bizarre conversations I'd ever had. I think the chat logs I posted might even still be available in the comments of CHL's galaxies video. I'm 24 years old now, and I've been a self-identified atheist and staunch skeptic of superstitions for those last 10 years. I was always kind of like that, so I see the new age years as a lapse in judgment. I was a tween, after all. Btw if you read this, Marty, we once spoke on a livestream when I was around 16. My mom is not necessarily not anti-vax anymore, but she at least isn't so adamant that her "research" was very good. She's just too old to care anymore. And I got all my shots later (turns out she did let me have a few as a baby, even after my older brother had an allergic reaction to his).

[@contessa.adella]

The best small scale demonstration on Earth that ALL mass has gravity, I have ever seen, is the Cavendish experiment, which shows up close one mass ‘pulling’ upon another. Amazing.

[@babotond]

so ironic that flerf call out "inconsistencies" when they let alone as a group but most of them individually hold the most inconsistent beliefs about the earth, its shape and the world in general.

[@xtieburn]

What kind of bugs me though, is that saying gravity isnt a force on the basis of it being a product of a field we are sort of embedded in, and not a direct effect, seems to imply that there are no forces at all given the the current best model of the other 2/3 fundamental forces is particles embedded in their respective fields, right? It seems like itd be easier just to say our conception of a force has changed to something more emergent, rather than seemingly quite arbitrarily saying Gravity is now excluded because we are the subjects of it rather than say an electron?

[@synthetic240]

You're getting it; it's all just energy fields interacting with other energy fields, telling them how to move or change over time. The various forces are distinct, but some operate on smaller scales than others. Even deeper than that, it's all probabilistic on a subatomic scale. Waves of probability are affecting energy waves which translates into vibrations which translates eventually to what we'd call temperature or gravity or a magnetic field. Think about how little mass is needed in an atomic weapon. A few kilos of fissile material turns to energy and levels a city. You and everything around you is barely contained energy, compacted into incredibly tiny spaces, that wants to explode away at or close to the speed of light. Yet there are forces, energy fields, that keep it all contained. Our macro reality is held up by these forces, particularly electromagnetism. Without them, we're just smoke on the wind, blurred by photons.

[@APaleDot]

Gravity is not a force in GR because forces are what kicks you off of your current geodesic, and gravity doesn't do that. Gravity is when you follow your geodesic. You bring up quantum mechanics, but the two are incompatible, so the definitions from one may not work with the definitions of the other.

[@markhackett2302]

@@APaleDot However GR is a model of reality, not reality itself. Don't reify. GR is just a WHY gravity, by making a geometrical argument for how gravity operates, removing it and replacing it with "spacetime curvature", but what makes spacetime curve? Gravity? Similarly, a graviton is another WHY gravity, by making a particle argument for the force, the exchange of momentum causes a change in velocity, which is caused by what? Gravity?

[@bjornfeuerbacher5514]

@@markhackett2302 "by making a particle argument for the force, the exchange of momentum causes a change in velocity, which is caused by what? Gravity?" Huh? Exchange of momentum means that a force is exerted - that's by _definition_ of what momentum and what a force is. And if a force is exerted, velocity changes - that's just Newton's second law. Why do you bring up gravity here?

[@blikblok3716]

I'm taking a relativity course this semester so this was fitting timing. Great video as always.

[@ryantennyson7562]

Didn't Einstein write he did not cancel Newton's theory but added to his contribution?

[@markhackett2302]

Newton didn't HAVE an explanation. As far as he cared, it was a "force created by Angels". What Einstein did was invent a WHY gravity. By making a geometrical model. Gravitons are a way to have a WY gravity, but uses a force carrying particle (guess what force carrying particles carry...) similar to gluons or photons. GR fails in quantum theory, and gravitons fail in black holes, possibly ultimately. Much of what is attempted is to find a theory that applies universally, same as deBrogli's "wave particle duality" fixed, for a given value of fixed, the electron.

[@bjornfeuerbacher5514]

@@markhackett2302 Gravitons don't need the interpretation of gravity being a force. You can also see gravitons as the quanta of curved spacetime itself. "gravitons fail in black holes" Why?

[@WilliamTaylorIII]

Marty I gave a thumbs up before I watched ANY of your video for I know the content will be great. Persons that have problems with understanding "Gravity" have never taken or comprehended any Physical or Earth Science in their life.

[@SteveFrenchWoodNStuff]

Excellent video. Thanks for the great content.

[@KeplersDream]

The biggest hurdle with trying to educate flerfs is the simple fact that they can't listen. I imagine it's like Charlie Brown's teacher to them - you can give a whole presentation, but they're so fixated on their dogma, they only hear the words that fit. "Wah-wah-waaah, gravity wah-wa-waah wa-waah wa- wah pseudo force..." "Aha! Gravity isn't real! They're lying to us!'

[@olafdoesastro]

Marvelous video there! I tried explaining this to the flerfs quite a few times now, but it won't stick...

[@rickmartin7596]

As an Appalachian native who grew up with that accent ... I can say you are the only European to get it right.

[@theblackswan2373]

Great to see new content from you!

[@TheKorbi]

Cool background and cool shirt Marty! I would love to see more complex examples of gravity as curvature ^^

[@hyksos74]

Rather than saying "gravity is a force", it might be better to say "gravity exerts a force".

[@D-generon]

Wouldn't it be easier to explain gravity as "a physical phenomenon that can be viewed as a force or a pseudo-force depending on a particular theory"?

[@duncanmcneill7088]

Gravity is a “force” in the same way the Centrifugal Force is a “force” - it depends on where you are standing.

[@EnkiduIX]

And, what's in your way 🤷‍♂

[@doublecrossedswine112]

Nature loves throwing curve balls. Wait...

[@realcygnus]

Needing to be objectively incorrect publically is a hell of a malfunction but there you have it.

[@twocyclediesel1280]

Lol, love the drunk Atlas VPN guy! You should make him a regular guest. Guess you could just get any flerf tho :)

[@sonni.walkman]

OMG THE LEGWND IS BACKK

[@Dan_C604]

So nice to have you back!

[@HyperMoeMan]

The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you. Love this quote.

[@contessa.adella]

One of the major Flerf misunderstanding is the ground acceleration upward…without it moving! It’s resistance IS equivalent to the persistent force of your weight of course (otherwise you’d be sinking into it). So even without moving, the ground is countering the exact acceleration you are undergoing… Wider context: Gravity is not a force it is an effect. Here’s a thing, we can’t see that 4th dimension of Space-Time (ST), but you can imagine the deepening of time dilation from where you stand to a massive object ahead. Remember we are never stationary in ST. As you approach a mass, your space stretches increasingly (a little) into time and time points increasingly spatially toward the mass. The distance from you to the object increases in ST producing the dilation effect and taking longer to fall across what LOOKS spatially to be a closing gap. Pi increases near the object as a distance observer sees it until for a very massive object a lot of ST is being travelled for a tiny movement spatially. This is the hypersurface of a gravity well…a funnel you can’t see, and as your future tilts ever steeper to the mass it translates to the spatial movement orthogonal to time…sending you toward the mass. This is why in a sense, space infalls to mass, because the future element of ST rotated into space is still carrying you along with it…not only aging you..but physically moving you. So….while it is not technically perfect to say gravity is caused by time dilation, it looks like it. Gravity is more properly the partial rotation of our 4D manifold near mass.

[@Old52Guy]

Outstanding! This is the best explanation of the problem I have ever found.

[@MarkMichalowski]

Worth watching for the adverts alone!! LOL

[@markgiovannozzi642]

Nice video and great explanations. One nitpick... @12:55 space is not curved around the earth or sun, at least in the Newtonian regime where you separate spatial coordinates from time. Curvature and geodesics are a property of spacetime, not space.

[@cuross01]

Sounds like purple being a color but also a flavor

[@x1PMac1x]

This was super helpful in understanding some of these principles. Thank you for making great content!

[@markhackett2302]

The noun is "principles", the principals is a verb, the head teacher is a principal, not a principle.

[@anniebot_45-73]

marty: "gravity isn't a force, it's the effect of a force" me: "ahh, so gravity (according to the commonly understood definition) isn't real?" marty: "...and that's why gravity is real" me: "...oh"

[@ikazuchioni]

Holy crap, I was just wondering how are you doing. Then you drop this😅

[@bristleconepine4120]

Of course, general relativity is (most probably) an approximation of reality, too, but it's a better approximation than Newtonian gravity.

[@evildrkirby]

I remember Edward Current (as himself, not in his Christian parody persona) had a video explaining gravitational space-time curvature using a wooden apparatus and a rubber sheet, that was very illuminating on the topic. No idea if the video is still around.

[@valivali8104]

"as himself, not in his Christian parody persona" Am I too european to fully understand this?

[@JB_inks]

Edward Current is a parody character. The person who plays Edward Current made a video about gravity @@valivali8104

[@arcanics1971]

Edward Current made videos for many years as if he was a Creationist Christian, in order to parody the beliefs of Creationist Christians. Some Creationists even fell for it and agreed with his clearly comedic arguments! Then, he tired of all that, and began making non-parody videos about conspiracy nonsense etc. I don't think he ever went back to the parody persona. I hope this was of help. If it wasn't, my apologies for misunderstanding your question. @@valivali8104

[@evildrkirby]

@@valivali8104 He made a lot of videos parodying hardline Christian conservatives before he got bored of the character and made some more serious and direct videos.

[@markhackett2302]

@@evildrkirby "Checkmate Atheists!!!!". Edward's catchphrase, and still widely used even to this day by lots of people that don't know where it comes from, Ed's personae.

[@TheLithp]

But then what does it mean to say that gravity is one of the four fundamental forces, if it's actually a pseudo-force?

[@EnkiduIX]

I think the question is still technically out on that one. They've found the force-carrying particle for the other fundamental forces; the assumed graviton has yet to reveal itself. So, yeah, might not be a fundamental "force" in the universe, but it's properties are quintessential to the nature of reality. That's just my understanding, tho, and I have no relevant degree, so take what I said with grain of salt 🤷‍♂

[@sabbur15]

The "force due to gravity" is one of the four fundamental forces. While it is a bit "lazy" to just say "gravity", it makes it easy to learn.

[@markhackett2302]

@@EnkiduIX You're close enough for government work. Part of the problem is gravity is so very very much weaker, so any inference is hard to pin down as "proving gravitons", but graviton waves show a wave attribute, not a particle one, but then again, look at electrons or photons: they have wave attributes but also particle ones, so gravity waves don't disprove gravitons either. And so we have to "catch" a graviton doing particle things, and the relative force to photons is relevant: we found photons because of the photoelectric effect. What is the equivalent for gravitons?

[@bjornfeuerbacher5514]

@@markhackett2302 The equivalent of the photoelectric force for gravitons would be that a gravitational wave of a _fixed_ frequency can only deliver energy to matter in discrete packages. Unfortunately, there is no known source of gravitational waves which emit only one single fixed frequency - every known source emits a mixture of a lot of frequencies. Additionally, this discrete energy package would be so tiny that there is no hope that we could actually measure this in the near future.

[@Kilmoran]

Serious question. Why does something like an accelerometer still measure the upward force for the push instead of being net 0?

[@APaleDot]

What exactly do you mean? Are you talking about calibration?

[@Kilmoran]

@@APaleDot I am not entirely sure to be honest. I had gotten an app on my phone to look into this subject at the behest of the person who posted the video and simply having the accelerometer on a flat surface would detect the acceleration. Perhaps it was not calibrated. I just found it interesting that it would in the first place instead of being net 0. Maybe the app was faulty in some way. But this was also the claim of that video so I have just been curious as to why it wouldn't have zeroed out by default.

[@markhackett2302]

If it were to do as you posit, what would happen if you put your phone the other way up?

[@Kilmoran]

@@markhackett2302 you mean facing the screen down? I think I checked that (this was years ago) and it measured the same.

[@markhackett2302]

@@Kilmoran No, I said "if it were to do as you posit", not "if you turn your phone upside down". If you wanted it to register 0, what would it register upside down? Your problem is you aren't actually thinking. It's common, faster that way, and takes less energy, so humans were evolved to "not think" first, and only later, when things are calm and you put EFFORT into it, can you do thinking.

[@polok890]

If all the planets were flat, you wouldn't be able to see them when their edges were facing us

[@volodyanarchist]

Thanks for a video. Small question: I thought that Special Relativity resolved how come C is constant to all observers in the inertial reference frames, but field equations were what predicted that, since you have no 'from this perspective' in them. Am i oversimplifying or overcomplicating something... or am i just wrong?

[@markhackett2302]

SR is about simultaneity, see Carl Sagan's COSMOS series, ep 7, IIRC. THAT is why light has to be the same in every inertial frame, or at least "you don't add velocities to light", even if the speed of light is not the same. Eventually E=mc^2. GR applies the same desire for every inertial observer to get the same, invariant, physical laws (such as speed of light), to acceleration.

[@volodyanarchist]

@@markhackett2302That's my point though. SR (if i understand it at all) explains "why light has to be the same", but it wasn't the thing that explained "that it is the same". So it was after the reason, not the initial discovery of that fact.

[@markhackett2302]

@@volodyanarchist Speed of light being constant is why simultaneity has to exist, therefore SR. The speed of light is a physical law, so it has to be true under all inertial frames, and that is GR. So if you take "acceleration" it can seem they are two different things. If you take "speed of light is a constant", then they seem entirely related to each other.

[@DrWakeWalker]

i saw a video where the moon was blatantly smaller in space than from earth? i used to think that gravity has an effect on how close it looks, because it looked much closer when it is on the bottom of the horizon. idk if this is the case, i have never heard seen anyone discuss this, it was just something i assumed from the logic we had been taught.

[@PabloSanchez-qu6ib]

Optical illusion or the effect of lens length. You can easily see the first one by looking at the moon near the horizon and comparing it's size with the same moon near the zenith.

[@stephenolan5539]

​@@PabloSanchez-qu6ib If it was from space then the photo could have been taken from a much longer distance. So of course it would look smaller.

[@markhackett2302]

See Harvest Moon. If we don't have anything to relate it to, that half degree of the moon appears small. When stacked up against a distant tree, a quarter degree tall, the moon seems big. What, for the video you saw, was the field of view?

[@S1nwar]

7:01 even in this example gravity is not a pseudo force because when you look (while stayig in alices frame of reference) at another hypothetical rocket C on the exact opposite side of earth the hypothetical "upwardacceleration of earths surface that causes gravity" for alice would exactly negate gravity for rocket C. you only have a pseudoforce if there exists at least 1 reference frame that removes all possible instances of this force. (like changing out of a rotating reference frame removes all instances of the centrifugal force) since there is no reference frame you can choose to remove the downwardsacceleration of gravity from opposing sides of earth gravity is not a pseudoforce.

[@ReinoGoo]

Gravity is what happens with inertia in a curved spacetime: You get an acceleration. To change that acceleration you need an equal and opposite force, in the same way you need a centripetal force to balance a centrifugal force.

[@markhackett2302]

It is a centripetal acceleration caused by a centrifugal force. A ball is "spun" out by a fictitious force, a force that only keeps F=ma valid, and that force causes acceleration. But it only exists because you require F=ma. Martymer is almost right, but we merely DECIDED light speed is a constant. We COULD put space as constant, but light speed would reduce around massive objects, and nothing goes faster than light, so everything else goes slower too. It would be more complicated, but it is for OUR benefit, reality doesn't care if maths is hard or very very hard, it doesn't do sums, it does existence. Light goes as fast as possible to go. It doesn't CARE if that is a constant or not, to light.

[@richardfurness7556]

"Observation shows that planets have at all times an acceleration towards the Sun, which varies inversely as the square of their distance from it. To say that this is due to the 'force' of gravitation is merely verbal...'force' was the faint ghost of the vitalist view as to the causes of motions, and gradually the ghost has been exorcised." Bertrand Russell, 1941.

[@colinubeh1180]

I can still understand Newton but Einstein is way above me. Great video.

[@Hykje]

But -but -NASA has manipulated the clocks to make us think that time dilation exists.

[@soriac2357]

Welcome back Marty. And well done, I can't wait for the excuses, err, "explanations" of the flatties who will deny all this with the usual "nuh-uh" or other stupid 🙂

[@logandezeeuw1491]

We don't get FLERFPRATT often, but when we do there are ridiculous levels of oven mitt face palming and stupidity

[@Johnmyork23]

How come, even with bionoculars or a telescope, I can't see tbe many airplanes in the sky? I live under 10 miles from an airport so I certainly see one or two here and there but if the earth were flat shouldn't I be able to see hundreds?

[@Staingo_Jenkins]

Video interaction

[@o-key6297]

Great job!

[@mrandrat625]

But muh common sense!

[@ActiveAdvocate1]

Hillbilly Marty! Yay! Hey you, how are you? Now, I KNOW I don't know what you're talking about, but I do remember you telling me that anything that has a physical effect is physical. Time, for example: we can see its effects, so there doesn't HAVE to be some wibbly out-there kind of "principle" called time. I HATE the saying "it is what it is", but that applies in these cases. CORRECT ME, please, if I am wrong, but this would imply that, since time is as physical as space is, and since SPACE can bend/curve, TIME will, too?

[@yourguard4]

Yeah, space and time bend together as spacetime.

[@hermannhinterhauser1227]

Gravity is not a force, the gravitational force is!

[@markhackett2302]

You're a bit wrong too, because Newtonian is fine beyond Mercury, for astronomical terms. But "gravity is a force" is NOT only from Newtonian Mechanics, it is the same as ANY force: carried by a carrier particle under Standard Model. Electromagnetic force (electrostatic or magnetic is just one of a TYPE of electromagnetic force) is carried by photons, Gluons carry the Strong Nuclear force. Gravity is carried by gravitons. So unless SM force carry particles are proved invalid, gravity is a force, same as EMF is a force. ALL forces, under SM, is merely a momentum change via the exchange of bosons of the force carrying type. Special/General Relativity is a way to explain it using geometry. Gravitons are a way to explain it using force carrying particles.

[@LucTaylor]

I demand more hillbilly Marty!

[@George4943]

My view of gravity (which has nothing to do with flat earthers) in which space is flat but mass-density provides a force which can be accurately modeled considering space as curved is a point of view of GR (nothing quantum). There is a vector at each point in space which defines the "easy" direction -- downwards. Think of a gravity field in a flat 3-D space which has a density at each point. The direction which has the most mass determines the local down direction and contributes to the motion vector (gradient) of the thing right here if there were a thing right here. * This same density field contributes to the rate at which local physical and chemical reactions occur. To see this idea, consider 'time' as not the t coordinate but as emerging from each point in a 4-D universe (of 3 space dimensions and 1 gravity field density) -- proper time. Each observable universe expands at 1 sec/sec, it's just that that expansion rate varies by mass density. Bob, falling through the event horizon, is not aware that his clocks are running slowly because his biology has slowed, too. Alice observes Bob's clock (which is sending a message at 1 bit per second) has slowed so much that 1 second of his physical processes will take a hundred years of ticks on Alice's clock.

[@TheLodjur]

Is gravity a force or a curving of spacetime? Both Should be an answer short enough even for a flerf to grasp ;)

[@mwperk02]

Slightly longer answer. Gravity is a fictitious force which means you can perform calculations as if it's a force when in our best understanding of reality gravity is more so the curvature of spacetime. So when matter or other particles don't have external forces applied to them they follow the curvature of spacetime this to us looks like an accelerating force towards the center of mass

[@El_Grincho]

@@mwperk02And it varies depending on both latitude and what’s below you. (Gravity zones - quite impossible on flattardia)

[@TheLodjur]

@@mwperk02 Unfortunately, you've lost 99% of the flerfs right after "Gravity is". Only a few of them would get their two remaining brain cells to light up at "fictitious", which they would cling on to for dear life, repeating it ad nauseam. I, however, find gravity very interesting and I don't think you could make the answer much shorter than you did while actually explaining anything. 😊

[@TheLodjur]

@@El_Grincho I think one tried to fake an "experiment" to prove that those zones don't exist and failed badly. Would love to see them give the pressure gradient a go, but that would mean their beloved "vacuum needs a container" crap needs to go and we can't have that, can we ;)

[@mwperk02]

@@TheLodjur that's just my limited pay persons understanding as well if they really wanted to they could understand the basic concept but much like a creationist their little cult has prohibited beliefs.

[@Zift_Ylrhavic_Resfear]

Thanks for the video :)

[@KoRntech]

Hail NASA for showing us the melting ice cap and spotting hurricanes long vefore they appear over rhe horizon. 😊

[@robertcampbell6349]

As a resident of Florida, I approve this comment.

[@jasoncdebussy]

I'll get my coat....

[@rellen22]

Gravity can be simplified to a force, but loses nuance like time dilation, just like electromagnetism can be simplified into forces, but loses nuance like the particle wave duality in light.

[@tildessmoo]

Not... quite? This gets into some of the craziness of quantum mechanics, where forces are characterized as interactions with certain quantum fields. The electromagnetic force is caused by/another name for interactions with the electromagnetic field. And all quantum fields can be characterized as having waves of values shifting throughout spacetime. And anywhere those values are highly localized - eg: during interactions with other fields, such as the election field or the quark field - can be characterized as particles. But then they cause acceleration of the wave - that is, movement of values in the other fields experience a change in velocity - which can be simplified to a force acting on a particle. So, the electromagnetic force is still a force, it's just that the math needed to describe the force is more complicated in quantum mechanics. (TL;DR: Maxwell's equations not only can be derived from quantum electrodynamics, but can also be _applied to_ quantum electrodynamics, if you know the math to translate them into QFT terms.) Put another way, wave/particle duality isn't really relevant to whether a field is a force or not. It takes a large amount of highly-localized energy (or extremely short timescales, thank you Heisenberg uncertainty principle) for force fields to manifest massive particles (or, for gauge bosons of nonzero mass to exist), yet these forces still intact with matter particles (fermions) all the time. This is because the particles don't actually need to exist for interactions to take place: electrons and protons don't actually exchange photons to be attracted to one another, and electrons don't exchange photons to repel one another (outside of extremely high-energy interactions, anyway). They do interact with the electromagnetic force in the form of actual photons all the time as well - fluorescence, phosphorescence, emission and absorption spectra, and photochemistry all being obvious examples - but most of the time their interactions through the electromagnetic force are just number exchanges that affect the local values without creating new waves that could be localized to particles. Physicists tend to _model_ these interactions as particle exchanges because that makes the math (sometimes literally) infinitely easier, but no actual particles are exchanged. This is one of the two definitions of "virtual particles," particles that are modeled in the math to make life easier, but which don't actually exist. (The other is particle-antiparticle pairs that exist briefly due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle but manage to interact during their brief existence; the two get conflated sometimes, since the briefness of their existence could account for how they cause interactions without being observed, but photons appear to exchange momentum with both electrons and protons in a straightforward way, so this can't actually account for their attraction towards each other. So, nonexistent virtual particles model force interactions that don't _actually_ exchange particles, and briefly-extant virtual particles give rise to phenomena like the Casimir effect, where a force is created by differing numbers and wavelength limits to those particles on two sides of a metal plate.) The real question is why physicists who are looking to square the standard model with gravity still call gravity a force, and the answer is: What we call gravity in daily life is a pseudo force caused by the curvature of spacetime, but something has to cause that curvature, and whatever interaction mass has with spacetime to cause the curvature is what they're calling a force. EDIT: I realized I mentioned massive gauge bosons and then went on to talk about the electromagnetic force, which has massless photons for its gauge bosons. I used electromagnetic force as an easier, better-understood example, but this does also apply to, say, the Higgs force, whose boson is so massive it famously took an upgrade to the LHC to actually make one, yet constantly interacts with all fundamental fermions (quarks and leptons) and massive gauge bosons (W+, W-, W⁰ (aka Z), and the Higgs boson itself) to give them mass.

[@rellen22]

@@tildessmoo That's kind of what I meant. Simplifying all of that into a classical Newtonian force field removes all the nuance and makes light just waves in the EM field. Gravity as a force field is similar, just what is simplified away is very different. Perhaps it's my perspective, as I am not a fan of allowing space and time to be non-flat to simplify the model. I would rather see it defined as a surface in a higher dimensional flat space and time. Similar to how the earth's surface is called a spheroid and not a negative curved plane. They are mathematically the same, just different geometries. Now as I am unable to understand the math of hyperbolic geometry this is my problem. I have to use philosophical definitions of space and time which are flat and orthogonal, so a model of general relativity using orthogonal space and time, even of higher dimensions would be easier for me to grasp than the current model.

[@tildessmoo]

@@rellen22 Fun fact, that's kind of how relativity works. The math acts like there's a large number of infinitesimally small patches of flat spacetime at nearly but not quite 0° angles to one another to approximate a smoothly continuous curving spacetime! (Now if only I actually understood the math myself and wasn't relying on passing on the accumulated conceptual knowledge of a layperson reading and watching far more physics content than is actually useful in any way.) Otoh, it's not that spacetime being curved is a simplification; projecting 4d spacetime into a 5d space is actually the simplification (and the cause of the question "but what is it expanding into?" which is actually nonsensical in infinite 4d spacetime). It's not that spacetime is really curved either: on the largest scales, it's flat, or, at least, it seems to be flat enough that any major curvature has to be farther away than something like 20 times the radius of the observable universe. Gravity is specifically the result of _locally_ curved spacetime. To use the usual 2d analogies, a sheet with a few lumps from weights sitting on it is still overall flat, just with some non-flat spots in it. Close enough to the same thing for us non-physicists. And the distinction between space and spacetime is important, too; a lot of smaller effects like stuff falling to earth is more a result of time curvature than space curvature. You need to get to more extreme things like gravitational lensing and frame dragging (the reason relativity was needed to explain the precession of Mercury's orbit, and the reason the accretion disc of a rotating black hole moves so fast) for space curvature to be relevant. I get what you're saying, that it's approximations and simplifications all the way down, and that the simplification of calling everyday examples of the influence of gravity a force is just one example (and, presumably, that if flerfers understood that, then they wouldn't think of "is gravity a force or isn't it?" as a gotcha). Still, the way you worded it sounded like you were saying electromagnetism isn't a force, and, well, I'm that pedantic asshole who feels constitutionally unable to resist saying something when someone is wrong on the internet... Especially when that someone seems to be trying to accurately represent complex topics and only needs a slight correction, but the topic is so complex that the "slight correction" doesn't work without becoming a wall o' text. EDIT: fixed some typos including... how the heck did a bagel 🥯 emoji even get in there?

[@markhackett2302]

Martymer is wrong in claiming that there would be no gravitational lensing in Newtonian Gravity. It would, but it is about half, from memory, about 1.7 seconds of arc is observed in reality and if it were Newtonian only, it would be 0.8 seconds of arc. Because time dilation doesn't happen in Newton, but gravitational lensing does, so if GR were right, the light from the star would spend LONGER near our sun than Newton's theory would suggest, and therefore it would have more of an effect on its path.

[@tildessmoo]

@@markhackett2302 Eh, that works in isolation, depending how you do the math (you need to get a bit into the weeds, since the bare law is just a = g * m1 * m2 / r², so if one of the masses is zero (ie: a photon), the force is zero, meaning that you either need to translate into momentum terms or get a bit fancier with the math), but it requires that the speed of light not be constant, since the acceleration will affect not only the light's vector but also its speed. So, Newtonian gravity predicts some gravitational lensing (I'm not exactly capable of doing the math for relativity, but at a guess, Newtonian lensing is similar to relativistic lensing in 3d space rather than 4d spacetime?) only in the absence of Maxwell's electromagnetic field equations.

[@theuncalledfor]

Well yes but actually no but actually yes but actually no. It's complicated.

[@HectorTheCatVarietyChannel]

I buy my gravity off eBay 👍

[@PhysicsPolice]

Sometimes I close my eyes and imagine how standing on the Earth feels the same as riding atop a rocket accelerating at a constant 1g. If you stand still and listen closely, can you hear the engines roar?

[@mwperk02]

It's the best possible explanation for gravity on earth they could ever produce (even though with other observations it still fails miserably) yet flerfs almost universally reject that idea

[@MD-vs9ff]

The map is not the terrain. Gravity isnt a force or curved spacetime, butnits been modelled as those things. And when theories of quantum gravity progress physicists will surely find a new model that is even more accurate than the existing ones.

[@swinde]

Apparently, gravity is part of the space-time structure and is involved with light and magnetism. The "action at a distance" is what is troubling about all of this. I think this structure is physical in some way for both gravity and magnetism. Light is thought to actually be particles with practically no mass. Maybe gravity is something similar.

[@markhackett2302]

Apparently not, every claim there was nonsensical rubbish made up from "electric universe" "theory".

[@swinde]

@@markhackett2302 I do not advocate the "Electric Universe" and NOTHING in my comment suggest this. Well, what is your view? We know enough about gravity to use it effectively in navigating our planetary space probes, but really do not know exactly how it is manifested other than anything with mass creates a gravitational field.

[@markhackett2302]

@@swinde You do not avocate for reality, either. Nor do you advocate for cheese on pizza. There's a whole load you didn't advocate for. But your post was insisting reality was other than it really is, because you want it to be different and you to be special.

[@swinde]

@@markhackett2302 WTF are you talking about? I did not advocate any "reality". I like cheese on my Pizza and my favorite topping is sausage. So What? What is your view of what reality "really is"? There are many things we do not understand about gravity. Someday we will find out. Again: What is your view and why do you think mine is a different reality? My view is that there are things that are currently unknown and when we solve these "unknowns" our understanding will be better.

[@markhackett2302]

@@swinde Sorry, I don't speak dumb as fluently as you do. Let me try your language. Duh duh duuuuuh. Did you comprehend?

[@larryscott3982]

I can hear the Flerfs now. Nuh uh. That’s stupid. That’s impossible. You can’t prove it. It’s only a theory. Math isn’t reality. Show it in a lab. … perspective

[@davidosullivan9817]

Electromagnetism

[@larryscott3982]

Yeah another flerfism

[@MadApplesWA]

You Flerfs instantly lost at 2:34

[@davidmurphy563]

Fun fact: when the term gamma equals 1, which it almost does in everyday life, then Newton and GR are identical. Actually, was that a fun fact? Hmm. Very much doubt this will be the top comment. Hey ho, I've always found it interesting. It puts pay to the whole "newton was wrong" hyperbole as well.

[@DrDeuteron]

You also need the length scales to be much larger than the schwarzschild radius.

[@markhackett2302]

@@DrDeuteron You just slapped two sciency words and hoped nobody would notice. No.

[@DrDeuteron]

@@markhackett2302 not really. The Schwarzschild metric outside the event horizon can be expanded into Newton plus higher powers of (r/R), which has nothing to do with the Lorentz factor.

[@markhackett2302]

@@DrDeuteron No, really, stitching terms together randomly that are sciency sounding doesn't cause science to exist.

[@davidmurphy563]

@@markhackett2302 Yeah... I was talking about a situation where spacetime was flat and saying GR gives the same result as classical gravity. Obviously spacetime is anything but flat at r_s of a blackhole so I've no idea what he's on about. And "length scales" might have been a reference to dilation but, again, when the term gamma = 1, there's no dilation at all. So yeah, you called it.

[@ActiveAdvocate1]

I am, shall we say, innocent/ WHY do they want to be wrong/ I don't get it. More comfortable than learning? The point isn't comfort, the point is expansion, for God's sake! Live your whole life in the same room, you get depressed, and YES I am currently speaking from the experience of being pent up for three years. Thanks, antivaxxers: my mental health loves ya. But in the same way, I feel you can get INTELLECTUALLY sick, too. Smaller and smaller until you're, just...nowhere. And that's boring and cliché.

[@markhackett2302]

They want to be wrong because if the choice is between THEM BEING GOD BELIEVERS and reality, they will choose the former every time. A few flerfers are atheist, but very very few (many more are pantheist or woomancers), and those are either grifters or want to confer that feeling of "being special" to other flerfers, so for those few non-grifting non-religious/theist flerfers, the choice between "feeling special" and "reality" they choose the former.

[@Naomi_Boyd]

Okay, gravity is not a force. It's just curved spacetime. Now, why would spacetime curve if there is no force acting on it?

[@markhackett2302]

GR is a geometrical model of reality, in this specific case, spacetime. WHY it bends is "because there is energy to do it", and to an extent it is like asking "why does a proton have mass of its size?". Now, an ANSWER to that may be "because gravitons bend spacetime" or it may be "bent spacetime excudes gravitons, like lemon zest exudes spray when you bend it", or it may be "spacetime ISN'T ACTUALLY bent, this is the answer", because we know quantum gravity and GR gravity don't agree entirely, so we KNOW it must be "wrong" and a better explanation would cover the very small and the very heavy equally.

[@davidosullivan9817]

Jesus is standing on it

[@Kualinar]

While gravity, as far as we can tell, is the result of the curvature of the space-time continuum. It manifest itself as a force. It act as a force. So, we can, even must, treat it as a force. The Newtonian mechanics is more than accurate enough in all ordinary cases.

[@DrDeuteron]

It’s not good enough for interplanetary navigation, nor GPS.

[@Kualinar]

@@DrDeuteron Interplanetary navigation is done entirely using Newtonian mechanics. Unless you go near the orbit of Mercury, it's good enough, more than good enough. You never go fast enough. As for GPS... It would be good enough if we would be willing to have an accuracy of only about 1 Km, not enough for an accuracy of about 1m.

[@DrDeuteron]

@@Kualinar space trajectories are considered with what’s called parameterized post Newtonian, and post Minkowski formalism for various relativistic corrections.

[@markhackett2302]

@@DrDeuteron No, newtonian is absolutely fine for interplanetary work. We landed on Mars with it, we did both voyagers, etc with it.. The ACCURACY of GPS requires time dilation, but it would STILL work, just less accurately, without that adjustment.

[@markhackett2302]

@@DrDeuteron No, "space trajectories" is a word you just made up. Planets and human rockets, even asteroids, don't go relativistic. The orbit of Mercury would have a precession under Newtonian too, and gravitational lensing would still occur around the sun. But at about half the one seen in reality.

[@philhogan5623]

This whole flat earth movement has taught me a few things, such as the fact that they use the same tactics as other science deniers, whether it's anti-vaxxers or climate change deniers. By starting with such an idiotic conspiracy theory, you become better equipped to deal with less idiotic but more dangerous conspiracy theories.

[@DrDeuteron]

Are you an antichromer?

[@philhogan5623]

@@DrDeuteron I don't have strong opinions one way or another about chrome..

[@gaborhelesfai]

Great video! Conspiracy theory: flat-earthers do not exist, all of them are hired actors by Martymer so he could find excuses to make educational videos :)

[@angelgaray1977]

Man you are really funny!!!

[@DrDeuteron]

Gravity is a force. Gravitation is more complicated

[@markhackett2302]

Sort of. Both you and Martymer are sort of wrong. It is like you said "Light is a particle! Look at the photoelectric effect!!!" and Martymer was claiming "Light is a wave! Look at the double slit experiment!!!!". In the model of GR, there is no gravity, it is caused by spacetime curvature instead. In the model of SM particles, there is gravity, it is caused by gravitons exchanging momentum via a spin-2 boson (so always the same "exchange" unless you posit a tachyon FTL element.

[@DrDeuteron]

@@markhackett2302 I didn’t say graviton, it’s gravitation, which is a colloquial term for GR’s version.

[@markhackett2302]

@@DrDeuteron No, none of that was even coherent.

[@StormsparkPegasus]

Gravity is a fictitious force just like centrifugal force is. But the physics behind it is WAY over even most smart people's heads, let alone flerfs, where even kindergarten is over their heads. We can treat it as if it's a force for all practical purposes in our lives.

[@CGplay186]

@StormsparkPegasus Don't they learn not to use dot before words like "but" "and", is fk annoying taking break two times, I think you write that way because think look nicer with lots of dots and commons and make you feel smart

[@markhackett2302]

Gravity isn't a fidtituous force. It is not needed under the geometry of GR, but that is a model. Reality cares no more about the GR model than it cared about photons diffracting under the wave theory of light.

[@StormsparkPegasus]

@@markhackett2302 Um yeah, and GR is one of the most well proven theories out there. For all practical purposes, it can be considered a force in every day life (even for things like spacecraft trajectory), and the math is a lot simpler if you do it that way. But that doesn't mean GR isn't provably true.

[@markhackett2302]

@@StormsparkPegasus Um, yeah, the standard model is one of the most proven theories out there, your computer relies on it. So according to your insistence, that means gravitons are absolutely 100% real and not spacetime curvature. Or you are wrong in your insistence, just like you would be wrong to claim lenses prove photons don't exist.

[@windigo000]

😁

[@AlbertaGeek]

Definitely not first!

[@MaryAnnNytowl]

When I heard "wibbly wobbly" I perked up and wondered exactly how close to the Doctor's words you were gonna get! 😂 Anyway, enjoyable video as always, so here's a like and comment for the care and feeding of the Almighty Algorithm. 😊 •~•~•~•~•~•~•~•~•~•~•~•~• On a separate subject: Everyone, please take time to tell those dear to you you love them EVERY chance you get. Tomorrow is not a given; you're never promised the next sunrise. ~ ~ ~ ~ "And don't let it break your heart. I know it feels hopeless sometimes. But they're never really gone as long as there's a memory in your mind." _Hold On To Memories_ Dave Draiman, Disturbed 💔💔 Rest in Peace, son. Only 39 - way too young! 😭 Momma will miss you every day of the rest of my life! 💔💔

[@KoRntech]

Thoughts on Mike Buckner MBA and his alleged trip to the wall this weekend? Should we hold our breath on his efforts? 😂. Hilarious low curious American depicted 😅, pretty close to the majority of them.

[@Callibree]

A little water dew drop clings to a leaf. A rain drop clings to a window. A water drop clings to a shower curtain. It clings because of surface friction. If I add more water, it breaks its surface friction container and flows where the water will rest and level in a larger container. Let's create an experience. You can empirically see an experience and believe it. Let's take a cup. Fill it with water at the tap. Let’s observe the water. The water is level. The water is contained. An empirical observation. Do you believe what you see and experience? Let's repeat the experience. Let's fill a bathtub with water from the tap. What do we observe? The water is level. The water is contained. Let's repeat the experience again. Let's fill a large swimming pool with water from a tap or an alternative water source. What do we observe? The water is level. The water is contained. Do you believe what you see and experience? Let's make an observation. Let's visit a large lake on earth. What do we observe? The water is level. Topography contains the water. Let's make one more observation. Let's visit the oceans either on shore or on a vessel. What do we observe? The water is level. Topography contains the water. A general consensus is that earth'a surface is covered with water, 70% to 75%. Water seeks its own level. Logical deduction, the earth is flat. The earth is flat. There is no earth curvature. There is no gravity conforming water to a convex surface. Water naturally rests on earth's horizontal plane. The physics of water does not conform to a convex surface. Fill a cup full of water. Do you believe what you see and experience?

[@marcgenest]

Haha , you admit that we are in the reference frame ... our reference frame IS FLAT (to us ...in it)... Curved to an outside observer still, as you say. So, yes you are right space is warped, so we cannot measure it as being warped. WE ARE IN IT. All straight lines are inherently warped but not ______ie. flat ..(to us) The 8"/M^2 is not measurable. 1. IGLD,International Great Lakes Datum, Proves Flat 2. Zodiacal light east/westerly all night, Proves Globe 3. If 1./2. are true, Proves Blanet (Black Hole planet) The earth is Flat AND Spherical. Seemingly a paradox. Pandora’s box…Black hole earth🕳🌎 I laid out strong evidence for both being true giving credence to my final conclusion … earth is a black hole singularity. It’s flat if we measure but sphere as we observe the sky… you can’t have both unless … black hole… there are no flat planets and the universe does not spin around earth. Blanets exist, (black hole planet, also called a singularities). They say millions in our Milky way. Earth is one. we are on one, the science is clear, flat and ball paradox unless we are in/on/part of a black hole. (Black holes are matter wave information containers with 2D plane event horizon ) Facts as I see them , most logical, Occam’s razor 1. Earth measures flat optically and measurably. except 200′ drop at the poles. 2. Earth is spherical as all other sphere in our solar system, same type eclipse, seasons, etc. 3. We spin, around and revolve the sun, like every other body in our solar system. 4. Zodiacal light of sun on dust particles easterly westerly confirm it. 5. A paradox ensued, is it flat or is it not. Fact is, only black hole properties match/fit the bill. Note: In particle physics there is no matter, only wave, a closed wave(of information) is a singularity/black hole. IG @marc.genest kzbin.info www.flatearthresearch.com/2020/06/04/earth-is-a-black-hole instagram.com/p/CjCkS82u6H9/

[@markhackett2302]

Flat in geometry means parallel lines never meet. So if parallel lines meet (and they do here in Earth), then we aren't flat.

[@marcgenest]

​@@markhackett2302 Gravitational lensing is an example of reference frame. To the light it is going straight, It's space unimpeded, what is light but information , Matter is flighty ( millionth trillionth of a sec at a time), harmonics play in electric magnetic field, E= M. C is relative to its frame. To think we exist as 1D 2D 3D is akin to XYZ, Dimensions , Quantum leaps of genius, riding on mathematical laws of PRIME 1 2 3 4 , Harmonics within of Prime #'s, from de Broglie to Riemann, ElectroMagnetic Spheres form to electrical singularity form (a Ref. Frame). Information ..in-formation ..in field ..is everything, ..is relative to its ref. frame. Z is light/elemental carrier, See SHG THG as light in Raman shift fibre bends to reference frame oblivious to the outside bends, it is in its ref. field, You may be stuck in Euclidian world. The instrument body resonates harmonics Harmonics resonate instrument equally. Alpha Z Omega, Omega Z Alpha. Z is source information iAM z is source in-formation iam MACROCOSMIC Galactic Mind 🌌 ↑𝝰ζΩ↓ Entangled souls as one⚜ MicroCosmic HaloGraphic body😇 We commune via Quantum entanglement of self (𝝰 ℹam Ω) information ℹam body = [ℹ OUT ALPHA (𝝰+↑ζ↓-Ω) ℹ IN OMEGA] THE WAY Z✟ζ is a Galactic Stream loop to earth🌌 MℹND ℹnformation 𝝰ZΩ ⇆ 𝝰ζΩ 😇 body ℹn-formatℹon Lomonosov✟ "The ℹWAYζ" CHRiSTall

[@deathdealer312]

reported as spam

[@markhackett2302]

@@marcgenest Gravidational lensing is proof gravity exists, it isn't a "reference frame" and nothing about it could mean "reference frame".

[@bikramkalsi1]

Please, i have been waiting for this video like a psychotic. You are doing Gods work my friend.

[@clemstevenson]

It's like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey stuff, even if you blink, ⏰🕣🤣

[@JNET_Reloaded]

You don't need up arrows in ur example. Towards the center of earth 🌎 is enough