Discovery That Changed Physics! Gravity is NOT a Force!

[@nelsonclub7722]

All I know is that time and space are relative...the more time I spend with my relatives the more space I need

[@obiwanjaco]

Me too

[@annebeignatborde1832]

😅

[@arharshalpatwardhan1452]

😂😂😂😂

[@ooppies9623]

😂

[@hopegangmei1210]

Nice one 😆

[@jessedelprado3095]

Who else was watching closely in hopes the astronaut would drop the hammer and feather?! 😭

[@dustinswatsons9150]

What is this you mean what is this context I cannot conceptualize

[@dustinswatsons9150]

Anyway this really makes me think about Kerbal space program quite a bit all the math involved in rocketry pro grade pro grade retrograde and the other maneuvers associated with orbital mechanics where is a nice badass you I in third person orbital perspective which shows you in real time the coming advantage of such gravity well along with all the known capabilities in the game like that would be spectacularly revolutionary in the simulation if not even in engineer and scientists aboard a spacecraft traveling inter planetary

[@Elsie144k]

Totally!!! He never dropped it! Argg. That would have put all the hoax theories to rest but alas, they continue ! Stanley Kubrick shooting a theoretical experiment in a Hollywood studio ;, REM singing about what fools we are to believe

[@Noum77]

He really was blueballing ourselves there

[@Noum77]

He really was blueballing ourselves there

[@El-Rico]

Newton's Principia: 1687; Einstein Theory of Special relativity: 1905. In this space-time continuum, those are not 400 years apart but 218 years...

[@hunati31]

Don't worry about small details like that. Now we can guess how factual this whole video is...

[@louf7178]

This is the first time I followed an explanation of this. It is so different than the conventional perception of the force of a gravity field. Excellent work.

[@BOBANDVEG]

Its not true . They still have absolutely no idea of how gravity works. Also, string theory doesn't work. It's wrong

[@louf7178]

@@BOBANDVEG Thanks. I did forget to retain skepticism, and there are contradictions with the explanations, but this has strong attention from me.

[@BOBANDVEG]

@@louf7178 I get ahead of myself sometimes and forget that Imagination in science leads to discoveries

[@mrjdgibbs]

​@@BOBANDVEGGeneral relativity has survived every test we've thrown at it. We Kno it's probably incomplete but I wouldn't call it wrong.

[@sid5734]

@@mrjdgibbs I believe he's talking about Gravity, only gravity tho.

[@duck-fil-a3606]

The explanation just given for gravity is circular reasoning. The narrator basically said gravity works by a warping of spacetime creating a gravity well, pulling objects down into the well. But what is pulling the objects down into the gravity well? Gravity? If so then that hasn’t answered the question of how does gravity work, you’ve simply stated that gravity works by a warping of spacetime pulling objects into a gravity well by gravity. In other words, just like Newton asked why the Apple fell down instead of sideways or upwards, or fell at all, the same question is still left, why did the object fall into the gravity well instead of away from the well or not at all.

[@THAOLOAAMPLI]

Cái giếng không phải là nguyên nhân vật rơi vào. Vât chỉ rơi vào giếng khi có sức hút của trái đất, nếu không có sức hút đó thì dù thời gian có méo mó thế nào, giếng có sâu bao nhiêu cũng không mảy may làm cho vật di chuyển được.

[@BrightBlueJim]

Yeah, the writer doesn't understand it at all. He sees this three-dimensional demonstration of what's going on, without noticing that it's actually a four-dimensional phenomenon. The three-dimensional model only works as a visualization, where gravity IS a force. NOT that I understand this: I've been told that physical things made of matter can only move at the speed of light, but for the most part, when we are "standing still", we are moving (at the speed of light) in the direction of time. The "warping" of space-time means that as we get closer to massive objects, our momentum carries us in a direction that's slightly off the time axis. The higher the mass, the further off the time axis we go, where some of our momentum is transformed into 3-D motion. Which only leads me to another question, and so on.

[@mytub9]

I have the same thought. You can't use gravity force to explain gravity in terms of general relativity.

[@kaipu]

good question

[@coalscedether]

​​@@BrightBlueJim what? we move at the speed of light? I'm sorry, your post also as a whole kinda doesn't make sense. But no offence dude, honestly.

[@RafaelBenedicto]

What are you talking about? This isn't a "new discovery", it's been realized that gravity isn't a force ever since Einstein published General Relativity.

[@Nave6W]

You don’t understand the theory then

[@corynn.l5146]

You act as if every single person should already know this information 🙄

[@GlassOnion23]

@@Nave6W What do you mean by this? General theory of relativity is clear. Gravity is a distortion of spacetime by objects with mass.

[@RafaelBenedicto]

@@Nave6W That the attraction between objects with mass is a consequence of them curving the space-time around them? Which part did I not understand, again?

[@RafaelBenedicto]

@@corynn.l5146 And you act as if that was the point of my comment. The reason for my comment was the video title was misleading. It had "New Discovery" in the title, even though this idea has been out since 1915. Now the uploader sneakily changed it.

[@dimaisatree]

In the future kids will be learning about gravity and they’ll look at us the same way as we look at those who thought the planet was a square or just flat

[@JZ-se3ur]

I thought we all agreed that the earth is flat. Did I miss the memo? Lol

[@joshsmith159]

@@JZ-se3ur I mean. The water on Earth is mostly not carbonated, so yeah it’s pretty flat

[@Mikejr043]

@@JZ-se3ur it is flat, for sure

[@dimaisatree]

@@JZ-se3ur I agreed that earth is a sphere, like a ball

[@SunShine-xc6dh]

The earth is flat it just exists on curved space

[@1muth1]

Ross: You uh, you don't believe in gravity? Phoebe: I don't know, lately I get the feeling that I'm not so much being pulled down as I am being pushed.

[@sbrave6572]

😂

[@jeffcfbr]

She’s got it.

[@sabvrao]

Damn cool you connected the dots! Amazing! 😀👍

[@bryanmcdonald4351]

It’s been so convenient since this discovery. I just leave the car in the garage and fly everywhere now

[@AlwyneAvinash]

It becomes more interesting when the fabric of spacetime is visualized in 3D, in this video it's been visualized in 2D

[@averagejoe845]

Einstein's paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" (aka Special Relativity) was published in 1905. His paper on General Relativity was published in 1915-1916.

[@Americansikkunt]

Einstein was a plagiarist thief.

[@stevenslater2669]

…and because of WWI, the experiments to verify the hypothesis weren’t carried out until 1919. The story of how the scientists had to drag heavy equipment in the most miserable conditions imaginable is a fascinating read.

[@stewiesaidthat]

And a dinwitted patent clerk tool over physics. You do know that not a single experiment has validated relativity. That's because not a singje experiment has validated Newton's gravitational attraction. Mass is not an actionable force. F=ma. Force comes from Acceleration of the mass. Not the mass itself E=mc. Acceleration creates mass. Mass does no create acceleration otherwise the equation would be m=a. What is F=G(m1m2)/R2? Mass equals mass. What kind of nonsense is that? Where is the action. The acceleration. There is none which is dimwitted Einstein resorted to 'mass warps space' nonsense. You want to know how stupid Einstein and his theories are? Let's start with the light clock. Photon's travel in there own frame of reference. Or do they? Little Einstein, running alongside the light beam, seems to think he is in the same frame. Light either travels in its own frame or it doesn't. Make up your mind Einstein. Gravity. First he calls it a fictitious force. An artifact of Acceleration. Then he goes back to the flat earth model of mass attraction. Once again, Einstein gets physics wrong. Spacetime? The kid must not understand what a freezer does. The first gas freezer was invented in 1857 by James Harrison to store food, meat, and vegetables. Little Einstein invented his own freeze simply by accelerating the food in space? Where are the parents? Surely he was intelligent enough to file a patent on his greatest invention. Einstein was a fraud. Pure and simple. The fact you worship him as a god just goes to show how ignorant the human race is. How they need a god in one form or another to worship. Relativity = Religion. Relativists = educated idiot. You lack the capacity to think for yourself. The light clock. Where is the time-dilation occurring. Which frame. The photon's frame or the observer's frame.

[@honved_77]

First the Big Bang never happened. Then the immortal Queen dies. Now the force of gravity is not a force. This month is pretty crazy.

[@hananaazouzi3883]

😳

[@kiiturii]

hasn't been since 1915 when einstein published this theory

[@ElseYesley]

Here is the explanation I heard recently about gravity. As we all know, the universe is expanding. That means every object in it flies away. It is proven that all the galaxies are moving (we see Doppler effect which shifts stars light if the move to or away from us). Even our solar system isn't standing still. It always moves (around Milky Way's centre). Milky Way also moves during university expansion. And so each flying object warps space-time matter around them, as if a ball would bend a fabric where it lies. In fact, the ball is moving bending the space-time fabric underneath it. If some other ball would moving along the way, it would also bend the fabric. And if their warp on the fabric affect each other (due to proximity), they would shift towards each other and revolve around each other (smaller ball would revolve around bigger one, cause it's affect on the matter is lower and it does not affect the bigger ball similarly). That's what we have with our Moon revolving around the Earth. The Earth - around the Sun. Our solar system - aroundilky Way's centre quasar.

[@MugenTJ]

Essentially. I’m not sure there is a need to reconcile gravity and quantum mechanics, with quantum gravity. Since quantum mechanics deals with the fundamentals forces and energy while gravity is simply the fabric of space time. I imagine a spider and its web. Gravity is the bending of the web as the spider moves. I don’t understand what is the mystery. Scientists seem to be aware of this and still searching for some elusive graviton , quantum gravity theory. they should be trying to understand what is space?! Perhaps that is the mystery.

[@empty_seat]

​@@MugenTJright? All this searching for more, yet they still have no idea what is space all together. Or why any of it is as it is. If you know what I mean

[@robertpotvin8872]

it is not the way gravity is made ,,,by mooving masses,,,,the only thing hapening with the movement is the path around the main center object,,like the SUN,is,,,,,,some planets mooves and rotates faster then the others on our solar system,,very faster some slower,,gravity is in direct relation with the mass of a body,,,the more mass the more gravity pull,,,you know there mass, it is then easy to evaluate there gravity value,,,that is why we could send rovers to Mars,, people tend to forget ,,,gravity is not pulling down,it is attracting small masses toward it,s center,no matter where they initially stand,,,,🤔😉

[@ElseYesley]

@@robertpotvin8872 I didn't say gravity pulls objects down. I'm saying that gravity - is a bend of space-time matter caused by object's mass. And since all the space objects move all the time (due to universe expansion) the smaller objects start to be attracted (and because they move - to revolve around) bigger ones due to bigger affection on the space-time matter.

[@robertpotvin8872]

@@ElseYesley no way ,,the movement of masses as nothing to do with gravity,,gravity is in direct relation with the mass of the object,no matter if it,s not moviing or going very fast,,,the EARTH rotation has nothing to do with the gravity pulls that attrack everything toward it,s center,,,lol in space the only force acting on masses is gravity,so when something start to move nothing can stop it ,the only thing that can hapene,is the pull of gravity of a bigger mass in the specifique zone will have en effect on it,s path traveling in the empty space,,,if this object has anof speed it will start going in a almost circular path around the bigger one,, whitout being constantly going in a smaller circle that will eventualy have it swirling faster and faster and closer till it it the surface,,,,,scientist uses this attraction effect to catapult space craft,!! in the emty space ,inertia is conserve almost indifinitely,,,astronautes making space walks,, when they are oustside they follow the space station,due to their initial inertia,,,maybe a little correction is needed sometimes,,this due to their action neer it ,if they push them selfs they are going to be going away in that direction ,that is why they are tied to it,,,well it is more complicated then that maybe ,but this simple explenation is ok,,,🤔😉✌

[@gustavoc.novillo6695]

Qs for you guys: Imagine a magnificent giant grabbing our sun and pulling it out of our solar system, far far away to a point of no influence. What would happen? 1. We will comtinue getting light and the image of the sun for several minutes (around 10?). 2. Here is the Qs.: Would the planets including earth go in disarray immediately, following their own tangents in some random direction? Or will this happen about at 10 minutes as well? 3. Would the planets attract each other forming a monumental planet without a sun and start floating in space? 4. Are the effects of gravity timeless? Or are the effects produced at the speed of light? 5. How does the earth know that there is a sun out there and vice versa? 6. Is information sharing at real time the foundation of Gravity?

[@kennedychidi7012]

Physicist: Sorry Newtown we're now using special theory of relativity. NASA: Sorry Einstein we're still using gravitational laws.

[@davesunhammer4218]

Thank you.

[@fumble_brewski5410]

“You underestimate the power of the dark side of the force.”

[@prasadloke1980]

underestimate or we have not yet reached there

[@jaidamwhi4589]

Its funny to think that absolutely no one else is recognized for the "discovery" of gravity like no one before him (or even him for that matter) never seen something fall or dropped something

[@nickllama5296]

It's poorly worded to say that Newton "discovered" gravity. He was the first to quantify its effects and come up with a mathematical formula for it that held true for 400 years. (and is still taught initially to school students since it's 'close enough').

[@jaidamwhi4589]

@@nickllama5296 apparently your comprehension skills are as poor as you claim my wording is...i clearly put the word in quotation marks to signify lack of a better word...i obviously know he didn't discover it 😂

[@silverkab1345]

@@jaidamwhi4589 He wasn't referring directly to you when he said that's a poorly worded way to say that lol

[@dimaisatree]

Many people dropped things and we all see it fall but most of us never wonder why so we don’t ask the question. “It’s just something that happens” is everyone’s mindset. Many have probably asked, but they never went main stream with it.

[@jaidamwhi4589]

@@silverkab1345 well i can definitely apologize when im in the wrong 😥

[@mervinmarias9283]

If it looks like a force, it acts like a force and it feels like a force then I will call it a bloody force.

[@orendamusic7577]

Engineering logic is right every time: I can stop something from falling by applying a force Also gravitons probably exist to transmit the gravitational force since gravitational waves exist/have been verified

[@monty58]

For all practical purposes, that's the best way to do it, but when trying to explain theoretical physics, there's some modifications to the terminology that need to be made. In conventional 3d space we can just call anything that changes the visible velocity of an object a force. When you expand to 4th dimensional fucker though there's some weird quirks, like the shape of space being able to change what our monkey brains perceive as velocity, while likely preserving it in the time axis. Ergo, not technically a force. But, well, we live in 3d space, so yeah, if it waddles like a force, and quacks like a force, it's probably a force. Or a duck

[@gipsymelody1268]

@@monty58 THe main problem we live in 4d world! We can’t sense others if even they are exists! Even we can say thr gravity is the force of the space-time and not the mass… But already there is holes in the space or space-time by the black holes! Soo!!! Even there is the bigbang and before that event which mean there was no space-time matter and mass! So… It’s magic? Sounds like cause already in that event the physic and reality is not existed… so it’s MAGIC!!! (Before the bigbang) 😵😵😵 In this case the magic sounds like more scientifical thing cause can explain the things and how it’s can be real! (I mean magic as a power or energy what can manipulating the reality)

[@monty58]

@@gipsymelody1268 just want to let you know that none of that made any sense. At all.

[@gipsymelody1268]

@@monty58 yeah cause a space-Timeless massless and matterless forceless reality has sense right? 🧐

[@PenceS04]

Great video. However, I need to point out an error at around 7:42: Acceleration is given in "meter per second squared". The written and said "meter per second" describes velocity. Not harmful in the given context, but still.

[@blueskies133]

Yes, the video is full of holes. People should avoid making videos about relativity.

[@9nikola]

​@@blueskies133 Or at least they should let an actual scientist write the script, rather than someone who heard an analogy from someone who heard another analogy from someone who didn't understand the scientist's explanation. "Gravity well", for example, is a nonsensical term that annoyed me throughout the video. Gravity doesn't work because stuff falls into wells. Stuff falls into wells because gravity works.

[@pakarpintu4917]

@@9nikolaGravity is needed to describe well of gravity, without gravity the ball will ignore well of gravity 🤣

[@philmorris8862]

I am still exploring the space between my ears. My wife’s theory predicts that a feather and a hammer will fall at the same speed from one ear to the other when I am on my side and she is keen to try the experiment out.

[@makantahi3731]

one joke about the space between ears: aliens captured three people: american, russian and bosnian, and opened theirs heads: in american head are top electronic, chips.., in russian are bulbs from old tv and in bosnian is only steel wire between ears, aliens were confused, what is this, one of them suggested to cut that wire, and then ears fell off!

[@deepsleep7822]

@phil: if I were you, I’d sleep with one eye open.

[@markdavid7013]

So the question that I've never seen answered about GR. Exactly how does mass/energy warp space-time? by what mechanism? And if space-time is "warp-able" doesn't that imply that it has some-kind of physicality?

[@rumiscreation9111]

Dear friend, space time creates a higher dimension which is somewhat inexpressible by using laws of 3D physics.. like your are inside a paper imagining a sphere.. But, good ol' Einstein's theory of relativity expressed that space time can be bent, if we conduct speed higher that that of light; and after the discovery of equivalent speed and matter, a mass with sufficient density can warp space time phenomenon... I hope you will read the theory of general and special relativity to understand this furthermore.. About your second question, it does not implies mechanism, it is the bending of a dimension itself, I know reality is spooky. About your last question, your depiction of physicality is not sufficient to understand the pact of space and time.. Indeed, it is not a matter, it is the home where matter lives.. if space and time can be compacted into a singularity, which happens inside a black hole, a dimension outside the observable universe may open in respect to wormhole theory and sorry for such a big comment.. you may also see other videos if my opinion is illogical, I am just a 14 yr old traveler of cosmology and astrophysics.. thank you..🙏

[@GUNGYOWTHEHARDCORECASUAL]

@@rumiscreation9111 if you're only 14 I definitely applaud you 👏🏽!

[@jettmthebluedragon]

@@rumiscreation9111 you do know space and time are infinite right ? 😐

[@rumiscreation9111]

@@jettmthebluedragon space and time are extremely large, not infinite. if they are infinite, that would mean that the universe is infinitely large, and therefore age of the universe would also be infinite.. but, it violate the theory of Big Bang, hence universe is not infinite so does space time, but very large

[@rumiscreation9111]

@@GUNGYOWTHEHARDCORECASUAL thank you bud..

[@NotStarryVR]

7:40 He said gravity isn't influenced by the core whatsoever because the fabic of space-time is misconceived as a 2D plane with the strongest point being the very bottom of the planet. It's put like that for simplicity but it doesn't explain how gravity affects every single point of the earth and other celestial bodies at an equal spacing. No one place has more gravity than another (unless there are special conditions) and this because A. Space-time isn't flat, think of the grid as a big cube with gridlines inside. Now think of the core in the middle warping the gridlines to it and getting weaker as it goes out B. Gravity being at the bottom of a 2-d spacetime model helps to simplify the actual nature of gravity itself and helps to comprehend how black holes can be explained, but black holes aren't fully understood. Nearly nothing is known about them except that they're gravity is unfathomably strong. Therefore, most other variables are just unknowns to us.

[@richardotier6820]

That "plane" is multi-dimensional (ie., 11). Einstein didn't conceive of >3 dimensions.

[@davesunhammer4218]

And I've never seen the whole 2-D sheet as anywhere near a scientific explination of what is happening. Indeed, it's rather stupid and suggest people who want to rely on it really cannot visualize what they are talking about but want to sound smart.

[@rippleme870]

I was told by the simplification that earth was like giant magnet, made sense since the cores are molten metals, hence the magnetic field must be gravity, is this a valid analogy? since gravity is the distortion in the fabric of space and time, does the magnetic earth viewpoint have any connection with earth attracting things towards it? i'm confused please enlighten me.

[@zlejablko]

0:15 How the hell did you get that? I just checked my wait an hour ago and it was 55.7

[@Earthweep]

A small error: At about 2:05 in the above video, you say that Einstein presented his General Theory of Relativity in 1905. Nope. It was his Special Theory of Relativity that Einstein presented in 1905. Special Relativity deals with objects moving at a constant velocity and makes no mention of accelerated motion and gravity. His General Theory of Relativity came 10 years later in 1915. But you are right that it is General Relativity that deals with gravity, interpreting it as a warping of space-time.

[@GeoffV-k1h]

The video also says that there was a 400 year gap between Newton's theory of gravity and Einstein. Less, I believe.

[@elimalinsky7069]

There is also an error where it is said in the video that earth doesn't have enough gravity to pull down the moon, but it does. If the moon wasn't in orbit and revolving around the earth at a velocity fast enough to remain stable in orbit and "miss the earth" so to say, it would have collided with the earth by accelerating towards it.

[@davesunhammer4218]

@@elimalinsky7069 last I heard the moon was actually slowly moving away from Earth and would eventually escape it.

[@elimalinsky7069]

@@davesunhammer4218 Yeah, but that's caused due to tidal interactions between the earth and the moon. If the moon stopped in its place it would have paid the earth a visit very quickly.

[@Zhixalom]

"A Hundred-Year-Old Discovery That Changed Physics! Gravity is NOT a Force!" would have been more accurate... But then I guess that would take away the "ooh so important" click-bate effect. Someone please explain to me why we all seem to just roll over and submissively take this, instead of demanding in unification that this nauseating algorithm be rewritten.

[@Zhixalom]

​@Dawson Davis Both you and I know that nothing in life is never ever that simple. Some KZbinrs strive towards being genuine while still making catchy thumbnails, and some just don't give a shit anymore. YOU will always be able to find shit which you personally can find more important to worry about than other's shit. It also occurs to me that worrying about shit is a rather strange choice of hobby... unless of course you have some sort of sewage problem. No, the importance-level of shit doesn't enter into this. Against my better judgment, I still gave it a chance, got disappointed, which added to my already accumulated frustration with what YT is turning into. Giving people chances and falling for their scams is not the same thing. One results in a daft looking dunce, the other is a conscious choice with eventual consequences attached. This YT algorithm is rewarding hustlers and pseudo-science over those who are actually trying to make something substantial and genuine... Becoming slaves to a rather short-sighted Artificial Imbecile (algorithm) may not seem as important as your everyday life. But it might just be important for YT and the users of the next generations of social media on the horizon... that, my friend, would be our children... and what is more important than them? Just to clarify; I'm NOT inferring that this channel is amongst those hustling pseudo-science. It is just regurgitating the same old same old, maybe adding one tiny spicy peppercorn now and again.

[@comeasyouarent]

@@Zhixalom This "go with the flow" mentality is becoming a real worrying problem indeed. It may start with smaller things, and you're brought to think it's no big deal, but, unfortunately, it doesn't stop there. It sets a pattern. And the ones who will ask you "what do you care?" are the same ones that will agree we live in efed up times, failing to understand that one helps explaining the other.

[@vicc6790]

You have about as much power to 'change the algorithm' as you do to change the color of the sky.

[@Zhixalom]

@@vicc6790 I'm sorry Vic, but that has to go on the list of some of the stupidest things I have ever heard. - The people who wrote the algorithm obviously also have the power to change it. - And if we continue to pump greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, the color of the sky will eventually change. Probably to something not much unlike the atmosphere of Venus. - The only constant in the universe is change.

[@davesunhammer4218]

And the comments pushing back are all of us just ignoring the problem?

[@davidlarson7384]

You've got an error in the video. At 7:46, you say that the acceleration of gravity is 9.81 meters per second. Meters per second is a unit of speed, not acceleration. Acceleration is the *change* in speed over time. So, the acceleration of gravity (called capital G in physics) is actually 9.81 meters per second *squared*.

[@captaincluck8129]

Do you really expect accuracy on this channel?

[@davesunhammer4218]

@@captaincluck8129 That is the one thing I learned!! That we demand inaccuracy!

[@captaincluck8129]

@@davesunhammer4218 Well accuracy and reliability is my motto 😎

[@TomHendricksMusea]

Gravity = Acceleration? Does the Earth PULL the APPLE to the ground or Does the Sky PUSH the APPLE to the ground? Which is correct: GRAVITY is pulling matter together or ANTI GRAVITY, another name for DARK ENERGY, is pushing it together? Which is correct: GRAVITY, is inside MATTER somewhere, or ANTI GRAVITY is outside everywhere in empty SPACE? DARK ENERGY in physics is defined as a repulsive force that counteracts gravity and causes the universe to expand everywhere at an accelerating rate. My suggestion is that DARK ENERGY is ANTI GRAVITY. Most likely it is ZERO POINT ENERGY, The COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT and VIRTUAL PARTICLES too. My next suggestion is that THERE IS NO GRAVITY! My idea is similar to a universe wide CASIMIR EFFECT on all matter. Here, instead of two metal plates being pushed together, there are "plates" of matter and the expanding space around them, pushing them together. Dr Einstein said his breakthrough came when he imagined an analogy of an elevator in space. As acceleration increases, gravity increases. The person in the elevator can't tell if he is in an elevator traveling in space or one on Earth. BUT WHAT IF WE ARE BOTH RIGHT. Look at the drawing. There are two round elevators. The elevator on the left IS NOT accelerating. No acceleration = No gravity The force of empty space or anti gravity, pushes on all sides equally. The elevator on the right IS accelerating. Acceleration = Gravity. The force of empty space or anti gravity, pushes on all sides, but mostly from the front due to acceleration! The acceleration scrunches up the forces in front. They overlap each other from the elevator accelerating into them. These cumulative, empty space, forces, push back more and more as the elevator accelerates in that forward direction. This causes gravity. Acceleration = Gravity! More exactly the forces of ANTI GRAVITY cause matter to experience what we call gravity. So: acceleration of an object in space causes space to push back. This is what we have been calling gravity but is anti gravity. Some will say: But it's so obvious, the Sun goes around the Earth, and the apple falls to the ground. Yes they seem obvious. But both are wrong! My previous posts, part of a single paper covering all these ideas, suggested that before the Big Bang, there was a singularity of photons, an eternal dimensionless point of energy. Then the force that expanded out of the Big Bang and started the universe, and time space, was DARK ENERGY; a subset of the singularity of photons. So Gravity from stars and planets was never PULLING matter together. The opposite was true: Anti Gravity or DARK ENERGY from empty space was expanding and PUSHING matter together from all sides! THERE IS NO GRAVITY pulling anything together. THERE IS ONLY ANTI GRAVITY or DARK ENERGY expanding and pushing matter on all sides. This can explain acceleration in elevators, rocket propulsion; the rubber sheet analogy, why no light escapes black holes, space expansion, curvature of space, and why there is so little gravity in the quantum world.

[@tonymarshharveytron1970]

Hello, with all due respect, I have to disagree with this view of gravity. I believe that gravity is a force, but a force of both attraction and repulsion, with the repulsion part of gravity being by a cloud of negatively charged monople particles called ' Harveytrons ', which fill every available empty space throughout the universe, and is the dark matter. The force of repulsion it creates is the dark energy, and is what holds all of the planets etc in suspension in space, and in their relative positions. This forms part of an hypothesis for a radical alternative to the standard model of the atom that I have been working on. I would be happy to make a copy of the latest draft of my hypothesis, if you are interested. Kind regards, Tony Marsh.

[@TheLastStarfighter77]

I definitely think you're on the right path, and if Gravity works in both ways depending on its interaction with certain particles and this also could explain why Dark Matter is so challenging to physicists, and also possibly change the order of the four fundamentals, meaning that gravity may indeed be a strong force? An example of this would be the great attractor, something this mindboggling powerful is drawing hords of Galaxies towards it, perhaps one of these clouds you mentioned with an abundance of charged particles that draws mass towards it. Or another suggestion is that it's a Black hole that's so unimaginably large it act's like a drain because of the gravitational mass it preduces.

[@tonymarshharveytron1970]

@Dawson Davis Hello Dawson, thank you for your reply. What you say, is partly the point I am making, and explains why in general all of the planets etc are held in their relative positions. In my hypothesis, I explain that all of the atomic or physical matter such as the planets etc, is comosed of positive and negatively charged monopole particles, but beyond the nucleus of each atom there only exists the negatively charged monopole particles that I describe. The positive charge of the physical matter, has a slightly stronger force than the negative, that is why gravitational attraction increases with increased mass. If you would like to know more, I am happy to explain. Kind regards, Tony Marsh.

[@the-guy-on-your-moms-couch]

@@tonymarshharveytron1970 bruh. How high are you? And are you sharing that?

[@tonymarshharveytron1970]

@@TheLastStarfighter77 Hello Luke, thank you for your reply. Yes I believe you are right about ' Dark Matter , and the reason why it is hard or impossible to detect, is that the particles that I propose are so incredibly small. At the present time, I don't think we have equipment that could detect them. The Negatively charged monopole ' Harveytron ' particles I propose in a cluster, make up the electron as described in the standard model. The description of the electron in the standard model has never made sense to me. After all, how is it possible for the electron in a hydrogen atom to form a cloud, and be in every place in the atom at the same time?. No, I believe that the electron as a fundamental solid particle does not exist, but is composed of a cluster of the particles I propose. I also propose that all of the particles making up the table of particles in the standard model are all composites of the positive and negatively charged particles I propose. This makes much more sense when read as part of my complete hypothesis, which explains the interactions that logically explains how the atom is constructed and works, which follows through to classical physics and cosmology. I can explain more if you are interested. Kind regards, Tony Marsh

[@tonymarshharveytron1970]

@@the-guy-on-your-moms-couch Thank you for your reply. Could you be a little more specific, you are asking a question, what exactly would you like to know. Kind regards, Tony Marsh.

[@MohammadNasiir]

6:34 - Misconception here, mass is measured in kg whereas weight is measured in N.

[@srinivasramanujan4354]

Which is why people shouldn't trust dumb videos with fancy accent presenter.

[@quasinfinity]

Thank you, the assertion drove me insane too. Kilograms is a measure of mass. If you are made up of 100 kg of matter, you are made up of that same 100 kg on Earth, in orbit, or while falling into a black hole. This means that on Earth you weigh approx 978 Newtons / 220 lbs. In orbit you would weigh 881 Newtons / 198 lbs - if there was a tower from the planet's surface to support you. But there isn't, so the speed at which you're traveling laterally is equal (in a Pythagorean sense that I don't want to derive rn) to the the acceleration downwards, meaning you are weightless. So the "real" answer is you weigh 0 (anything) in orbit. And it still gets worse, because the whole video is about how weight doesn't exist, only mass which curves spacetime. Talk about missing the forest for the trees. A final parting shot, though I included pounds, the only way to discuss this is in metric. The UK exchequer's standards of 1826 actually uses metric grams as its mass unit, ironically (if I understand correctly). British imperial measurements really need to die, America (& Liberia, Myanmar). Base 10 is better in all cases.

[@nojukuramu]

i like how the explanations really explains what gravity is but doesnt actually make it for us to easily understand because of the terminologies 😂

[@Bonhh]

i have yet to encounter the proper explanation for gravity on youtube, when it is so simple. Time moves more slowly the furthur away you get from the object. Beause of this, the slower moving particles at the tip naturally put a tension on particles at the base, which creates a downwards movement (this is a movement through time, not a true physical motion, but it CAUSES the physical motion). These videos explain what gravity does, and how to interact with it, but I never get this simple explanation to it that I love to tell. Keep learning!

[@nojukuramu]

@@Bonhh Oh thats how you got it . Mine is more on practical visualization. Just think of a fabric, or cloth that is tensioned. Put a heavy object on it. The cloth will bend and the object will put a pressure on the cloth. Put a ball on it, see it goes to the center of the object. If you put a directional movement, it can even orbit. The Cloth is the space The Object is the planets or stars The Ball is the smaller space body like moon or asteroid. The Bend is the gravitational pull. Now that model is a 3D perspective of 2D world. Now imagine that model is thesame but a 4D perspective of our 3D world. This is how i got it . It looks easy to me to understand but for other people they might find it hard. maybe people learn on different methods. and this is my method

[@maamold]

Agreed. The video just keeps throwing words and pictures that really don't do anything but describe the word just said "Gravity is a push...see this line pushing the ball, now on to the next word" - but there isn't any attempt to show what is really happening to the viewer.

[@bigbengamer]

@@Bonhh I prefer the simpler hypothesis that gravity is simply matter being forced from more dense space, to less dense space. Kinda like inverted floating.

[@OriginalMergatroid]

@@nojukuramu That's just a model. It's not how gravity actually works.

[@muhammadislam5138]

Apple Force is a force that is without mass and of invisible kind! But object to be standing still is absent of the Apple Force, only! Apple Force accelerates at the same speed depending on the specific planetary compactation requirements.

[@Cbart23]

Everything is pushed into place like a bubble. Dark matter pushed everything into stars, dust, planets, moons and it all spins around expanding.

[@robertpotvin8872]

this as to be consider ,,,I am thinking in that way,,gravtity could be the fact that the bigger the mass the more the dark matter compresses the matter toward it,,,,,,🤔😉✌

[@dritarada]

Dark matter is light in diffetent wave length and gravity is light

[@aroundandround]

2:41 So astronaut Scott just teased us for 33 seconds without actually dropping the hammer and feather.

[@truerthanyouknow9456]

I’m starting to realize the gravity of our situation. 😊

[@sonyavincent7450]

Spock!

[@bigbengamer]

It's a heavy subject. Or a light hearted one. Depends on your relative level of knowledge.

[@vidyakumargv]

Respect for the people failed in class while not answering gravitation as force. They were 400 years ahead 🙏😛

[@HappyBuddhaBoyd]

Gravity is a force. Stop automatically believing these YT videos. Stop being gullible.

[@LucidDreamer54321]

Okay, but would it be possible for a spacecraft to use the gravitational field of the universe to reach a velocity or Warp 10?

[@maccaramon794]

no

[@robertpotvin8872]

not even 1/1000,1000 warp lol,

[@robertmontague5650]

If gravity is a manifestation of space-time curvature and not of force per say, why would we expect it to be described by quantum mechanics or even quantum field theory as part of the standard model?

[@nicoleuswhite2192]

Because the standard model is a direct observable effect of quantum mechanics. For example, the activity of individual cells in our body directly results in a much larger mechanism in our body.

[@SgtSupaman]

I particularly like how this theory is basically informed by gravity to explain gravity and people act like it has to be true despite the obvious circular reasoning.

[@yarednigussie7630]

Mass tells space-time to curve, space-time tells mass to move. This is how I understand gravity. There is no gravitational force whatsoever, rather "gravity" is the illusion we get from the interaction of mass and space-time, save "gravitational field" which I do not know anything about. However, even this theory does not have to be TRUE. Yet as a model it is helping a lot in many ways, for example in GPS accuracy and in explaining the orbits on the planets better than Newton's classical model. Concluding with a famous quote 'all models are wrong, but we stick with the least wrong one' :)

[@SgtSupaman]

@@yarednigussie7630 , I'm sure it does have some use, otherwise it would have been largely abandoned, but that aspect is still weird to me. As you say, mass curves space-time then moves according to space-time's curve. Is that not just mass propelling itself when it has no internal process that allows it to do so? It is treated like a complete explanation when it should really be treated as an incomplete placeholder. Enough is known to utilize it, of course, but it doesn't feel strong enough to state unequivocally that gravity isn't a force. It's just a more complicated way to say we still don't know how gravity actually works. Talking about 'curving' space-time is pseudoscience, like alternate dimensions or everything just being a massive simulation, because it can't be tested or proven. It is an interesting thought experiment that may potentially lead to some useful applications, but it shouldn't be treated as a fact.

[@teach-learn4078]

@@SgtSupaman Right, although one should avoid the slur “pseudoscience,” or rather maybe you are one of the few to use that term in a useful way. So I agree with you, but I don’t buy your implied premise that only provable knowledge is significant, that seems a massive and faulty assumption. E.g. acceleration existed before it could be measured.

[@yarednigussie7630]

@@SgtSupaman Albert Einstein with help of Minkovski I think had to invent a new area of mathematics called 'differential geometry " to support Einstein 's theory. Differential geometry is now a huge field in mathematics, taught in almost all decent graduate schools So calling it "pseudo science" is quite unfair to be honest. Also astronomy supports Einstein s theory by observing the shift of location of stars, there are lots of supporting scientific discoveries, ...

[@drprtk2904]

@@SgtSupaman The existence of space-time has been confirmed through a wide range of experimental and observational tests, including the observation of gravitational lensing, the detection of gravitational waves, and the precise measurements of atomic clocks.

[@-ns-8972]

In short, earth's just a magnet right ? The farther away the lower the pull force is and vice-versa.

[@05Framer82]

It's literally just the mass of the object. Earths gravity is either more or less than another object in space, because of the density of it. Different spots of the earth, like mountains for example, may have more density to them. Therefore, there are parts of the earth that actually have more gravity or pull than other spots on earth. These changes in earths density aren't big or small enough to even detect the difference, while on earth.

[@cmac3530]

So a magnet with no polarity, that is attracted to all other mass in existence, not just ferrous material. So yeah, not really like a magnet at all.

[@johnnycriscoa.k.atamesjayl5910]

I kind of like where you are going with this. Instead of trying to make you sound dumb, and myself just look like an ass hat, hear me out. Going with the magnet idea, if you had two very large but identical bodies (planets) for example, that were close enough together that their gravitational fields I guess overlapped, would there be a point in which the gravity of one canceled out the gravity of the other? Like an event horizon type thing, where gravity was zero.....just asking questions.....probably dumb ones....but hey....i'm dumb!

[@IamMrKato]

No, the earth has magnetic properties, but the earth and a magnet have fundamental & distinct differences.

[@johnnycriscoa.k.atamesjayl5910]

@@IamMrKato I’m not talking about anything to actually do with magnetic fields, or magnets. Just trying to use his comment about magnets as a spring board to things more “hypothetical”. Just trying to think outside the box, at least outside the box for me. Questions are a good thing…because honestly, there we still don’t know a lot about quantum physics. There are a lot of theories, and we are learning more everyday from CERN, but we also open up new questions with every new discovery.

[@jlvandat69]

As soon as someone shows me a photo of the Space-Time "fabric", I'll believe it. Until then, I'll assume that, like gravity, this "fabric" is just another transient mathematic model to be further defined at some later date.

[@lightninlad]

Amen!!!

[@pauly362]

Yes indeed! Also, space time being represented in 2D does not make any sense at all.

[@petersapountzis1576]

Go support Ukraine lmao

[@dunsel5887]

have you seen a good photo of the air yet, without smoke or water vaper yet?

[@skd6202]

I saw a video on G.R being shown in a 3D model. U could watch that. It's probably our best explanation of reality, of course with its limitations and shouldn't be conceived as reality itself as there's further ground to ve made

[@philipmartin2622]

Years ago in advanced physics lab we were required to measure the charge on an electron, the speed of light AND MEASURE THE FORCE OF GRAVITY. The force of gravity was measured between two large lead balls and two small lead balls as they were brought closer together using a measured torsion spring. The force of gravity is only measurable to a few decimal places because every other mass around interferes with an exact measurement.

[@davesunhammer4218]

Yea, nobody wants to talk about this. And nobody wants to talk about the times Einstein has been proven wrong by what is actually happening in the universe. For example, if you actully read his book he is always talking about a closed two-element system and trying to explain a system with trillions and trillions of elements. But he sold it on the "smart people will believe me because they are smart" con.

[@skatee99]

Great video! Many who enjoy these videos are not fully aware of how much effort goes into them. Research, video clips, images, animations/audio & narration/ copyright concerns, and finally, editing. Excellent effort!

[@avinashmurthy4690]

Absolutely brilliant video ! Amazingly clear and beautifully enunciated. Thank you for this !

[@swampcastle8142]

So is it only stretching/compressing space or is it doing the same to time?

[@prasadloke1980]

time is relative

[@Theanswertoall]

It's cuz light is also bending

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

I can't imagine anything changing time but I can imagine the amount of object movement can be increased/decreased by more/less space being present in the same volume.

[@AF-qg6er]

The theory states mass stretches time AND space. This can be demonstrated eg in satellites orbiting the Earth where the time drifts from the Earth surface time (Earth mass modifies satellite time). So much so that the satellite clock needs to be sent instructions regularly by the satellite operator to re synchronise its time with earth surface time.

[@kingmannu8777]

better check with the YOGA teacher, they can tell you exactly about stretching | compressing space in a small mat | and for the time for sure

[@naveenaryal1400]

Surprised that Newton never thought of gravity while pooping.

[@davesunhammer4218]

The whole Newton Apple thing is a lie. Witnesses say Newton hit the Apple first.

[@Chet-b1f]

Planets and other objects in space don’t warp space. They are like a submarine under water. They displace space. The bigger and denser, the more space that is displaced causing more pressure on planets or other objects increasing what we call gravity

[@dritarada]

Gravity is elektromagnetik radiation of light in different wavelength

[@delaware137]

The analogy of the grid of space-time only makes sense if you assume a Newtonian type of gravity keeping the object on the surface of the grid.

[@raphaelandrews3617]

Gravity and magnetism are both the same force but one is positive and attracts but the second is negitive and repeals it. So that when both come into contact the object is pulled into the magnetive field but due to mass is pulls until it repelled and forced to move away due to speed. If it .is too slow it will be pulled into magnetic field and hit the bigger object.

[@vicc6790]

This is so wrong it hurts

[@martynridley3671]

Hmm, fanciful!

[@Ms.GreenJeans]

Gravity is a symptom of the universe's cohesiveness. If it spins, it pushes and pulls. Centrifugal force and the corliosis factor are amazing. I think black holes are more like an exhaust system and engine. They keep the cosmic objects dancing in unity, imo.

[@BOBANDVEG]

A blackhole is a collapse star , a star is a blackhole that has hit critical mass

[@christisall100]

So is gravity still a theory or a proven fact?

[@mickymoto1]

A very late Hello and great comment, I like your reference to gravity as a "symptom of the universe's cohesiveness" Ms.GreenJeans. I believe Einstein's theories of special relativity and General relativity are correct in explaining the current effects we observe and experience but he didn't go deep enough into the whole of Alice in Wonderland. Our physical and observed reality has many other di-mensions, tri-mensions, etc.. . We forget that everything is connected, is moving or is in motion (directly or indirectly), we are on the surface of our planet, our planet is in motion in the cosmos, so even though we seem to be standing or sitting still doing our daily yoga or meditation session we are moving through the cosmos and so our matter is being affected in some manner whether detectible or not. but in the same manner our body might seem to be still, our bodily matter components are still in motion, cells producing and reproducing, blood cells moving, our other smaller matter, atoms, molecules, etc.. doing their thing in time and space of our micro, micro space and time. So, to answer one of your replies questions, "Is gravity still just a theory or is it a proven fact?" Yes and no, here on our planet yes it has been proven, just don't go jumping off anything higher than ground level, a tall building, a mountain cliff, or jumping off a flying object with out a parachute or special equipment to help you fly and navigate your journey back down to the Earth's surface. So you see to me it is not merrily a case of space time but depending upon what scale of your observation's are being made from, the factors of your different forces, energies, size of matter, whether micro or macro, one has to be thinking as an observer in those different extremes, so I believe Issacs Asimov had it right when he said the secret to the Universe and Life itself is the scales of extremes. And I belief also that this goes for our understanding of the multi Universe or alternate reality theories. But since our discovery of the massive black holes here we say our theories of gravity are still not conclusively proven yet.

[@nastybadger-tn4kl]

Gravity is not space time either

[@kpnamo]

This seems like an essay that comes in english exams and asks us a question like: 1) Explain in simple words what author was saying about gravity?

[@ericgardner5548]

Gravity is indeed a real force, but not in the traditional sense. In other words, gravity is not a direct, classical, action-at-a-distance force between two objects. However, in the broader sense, gravity is indeed a force because it describes the resulting interaction between two masses.

[@axeyouaquestion33]

If history were to repeat itself (like that ever happens, right?) and in 300 years someone solves the bridges general and special relativity, I got a feeling that would unlock so many secrets and then we may finally get to travel the cosmos.

[@Nagarathnasrivatsa-ul3fc]

Yeah

[@fixme.96]

In this aged of TikTok😂 kids dancing, pranks videos, asmr😂😂

[@sfgqk]

@@fixme.96 haven’t seen that since 2019 but go ahead

[@vgiriprasad7212]

Science was not a subject for me at college level, but despite that I have developed some interest in knowing about that. As a layman, my views are given. Force is a Thrust that can come/can be given in any manner from any corner. It can come/can be given from above, horizontally, from below (moving/pushing upwards), can push vertically even at 90° or at 45° or in between, thus to be precise, from anywhere in between 360°. Gravity is only pulling down. Force is not Gravity. But at the same time, in a sense Gravity too can be termed as a part of Force/some sort of force exerted (pulled) downwards, viz., Gravitational Pull. If Gravity is countered, it can be only upwards. Please bear with me if my above text is incorrect in any way. V.GIRIPRASAD (69 Years)

[@richardly1543]

This was very elementary I don't even know where to begin lol

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

Force is an imaginary concept invented as part of an attempt to explain behavior.

[@Ianx50]

Force = mass times acceleration; F=ma Although this equation solves for force, it can be rewritten to solve for the other two values. m=F/a a=F/m When looking at fractions in physics equations, values in the numerator (above the line) are "directly" proportional to what is opposite the "equals" sign; values in the denominator (below the line) are "inversely" proportional. Take the last equation, for example -- a=F/m, or "acceleration equals force divided by mass." Force is directly proportional to acceleration; using more force causes faster acceleration. However, "mass" lies in the denominator. Mass is inversely proportional to acceleration; a heavier object will accelerate more slowly than a lighter object being propelled by the same force. The video is about how this conflicts with the traditional idea that gravity is a force; a feather and a hammer have wildly different masses, but the moon accelerates them at the same rate. Thus, it's more helpful to think of "gravity" as a field rather than an interaction between two bodies. kind of... in essence... I wouldn't call force "thrust," though. Thrust produces force as a result of Newton's third law, "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." When you throw a ball, your hand exerts a force on the ball for as long as the ball remains in contact with your hand, being pushed. While your hand pushes the ball, the ball exerts force on your hand as well, resisting motion as a consequence of inertia. Inertia is essentially the above concept of "mass is inversely proportional to acceleration." Objects with mass resist changes in motion. And the reason your body remains still and the ball doesn't actually push you backwards is thanks to the leverage against the ground provided by your legs. Because the human body is mechanically complex in this example, it may be more helpful to understand the recoil of a gun. When a bullet is fired, expanding hot gas from burning chemicals push the bullet out of the barrel. Once the bullet clears the muzzle, it's like the ball leaving the palm of your hand; The barrel allows the high pressure gas to push the bullet, but once the "cork" is removed, the hot gas expands to create the "fireball" visible from powerful weapons. It is important to note that just as the hot gas pushes the bullet out of the barrel, until the "cork" pops, the bullet casing, bolt, and slide are pushed in the opposite direction with the same force--toward you. This is newton's third law, but while the powder charge sends the gun into your shoulder with the same force as was pushing the bullet, the bullet's mass is tiny compared to that of the gun. If you were to fire a gun in microgravity, the recoil would push you backwards, and if someone were to catch you from behind, they would be moving at the same speed as they would if they caught the bullet (assuming no friction and elastic collisions). Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. When you talk about gravity being "countered upwards," this is referred to as the "normal force." The normal force is equal to your weight. Remember F=ma; gravitational pull forces you toward Earth, but the ground resists this force by pushing upwards on you with equal force. More specifically, the negatively charged electron clouds surrounding the atoms that make up the ground and those on the bottoms of your feet repel each other--like repels like. Standing still, you experience no acceleration; the net force is zero--two equal values in opposite directions as you float on a cushion of electrons approximately .0000003 millimeters thick.

[@behcherry9815]

Force can be pushed or pulled in any direction, depending on how the force is applied A magnet always pulls metal. It is still a force even though it is only one direction

[@Ianx50]

@@behcherry9815 Most metals are not attracted by a magnet. And a magnet--as with gravity in the video--produces a field, not a force. Where a magnetic object is in the field determines how the force is applied, and the direction and strength in which the force is applied would change should the object's position in the field change.

[@terakiei]

Have any physicists ever thought that gravity maybe just the side effect of a pressure resulted by space expanding through matter? Seems like a pretty simple explanation, no complicated particles involved, just a simple action and reaction.

[@prasadloke1980]

how will one know if the space is expanding what's the proof for expanding space ?

[@mrjuanjuan]

this guy sounds like kurzgesagt, but on more "grown up" in nature. I love it

[@TomHendricksMusea]

The Problem with Gravity, The Growing Case for Anti Gravity: Gravity can't connect with the other forces in a theory of everything. Gravity cannot explain Dark Energy or Dark Matter that together make up 95% of the universe. Dark Energy is the most massive force in the universe, not gravity. Space expansion is much greater by far, than the supposed power of gravity connected to matter. The support for gravity can be explained in reverse by anti gravity. Everything that explains gravity from acceleration of matter, can be explained by anti gravity from empty space. Gravitons are not yet confirmed to be real. Cosmological redshift, where Galaxy light is redshifted. The galaxy is fixed in it's surroundings and it is the intervening space that is actually stretching. Casimir effect, suggests how anti gravity pulls matter together by pushing on all sides from empty space. Vacuum energy is massive and found in every part of space. Expanding space rule: anti gravity is not in matter but empty space around galaxies, galaxy clusters, etc. Newton's inverse square law in reverse works for anti gravity. Einstein's curve space supports anti gravity expanding in every direction. The rubber sheet analogy shows the rubber sheet, or empty space pushing like a cosmic net in on all sides. The idea for gravity though obvious may be wrong.

[@saifanj3m]

Think about microgravity this way: If you leave the influence of earths gravity well far enough, you’ll be under the influence of the suns gravity well and move along side the earth around the sun.

[@TheMule71]

We're under the influence of the Sun even on Earth. We all orbit the Sun after all.

[@kibetronoh2376]

@@TheMule71 true but on earth you are part of the earth. If you are nearer the sun than the earth on space, where will you gravitate to?

[@TheMule71]

@@kibetronoh2376 I don't know what you mean by "being part of". Anyway, satellites including the Moon are under the influence of both the Earth and the Sun, and orbit both of them. It's not like the Sun affects the Earth and the Earth pulls the Moon around the Sun. Actually all three bodies attract each other. Just like I attract the Earth. Two masses are attracted to each other. If there a big difference in size (like the Earth and me) we tend to say the big one attracts the small one - but that's inaccurate. It's just that the small one moves more than the big one. When I'm falling, the Earth is also falling towards me. It's just I move a lot, the Earth moves so little that it's impossible to measure. E.g. the Moon doesn't orbit Earth. Both the Moon and the Earth orbit the center of mass of the Earth-Moon system. It's just that Earth is so big that the center of mass is so close that is inside Earth. But it's enough off center that we can measure it.

[@prasadloke1980]

good question

[@CodeguruX]

Let's just not forget what really matters here: "This Change Everything".

[@maolivei7]

One of the most interesting video I've ever watched, so didactical and quick to learn if you have basic physics knowledge! Congrats!

[@jafco9]

You haven't presented anything in this video that contradicts or is not explained by Newton and Galileo

[@znhait]

Saying gravity is not a force is a stretch. It’s just not as general as originally thought. But for all intents and purposes, in the real world, we use Newtonian mechanics.

[@Physeggs]

6:36 If something is 100 kg on earth, it’s still 100 kg in space… kg is a unit of mass, and it’s all well and good to treat it as a weight on Earth’s surface where the acceleration of gravity is relatively constant, but as soon as gravity changes, that convention falls apart

[@wadegielzecki8373]

Positive and negative charge on sub atomic particles is "spooky action at a distance" like Newton's force of gravity. I have resolved how to solve this charge problem but have I been beaten to it? Maybe the producers of the video could do one on that topic. Or, if anyone wants to publish my theory, throw me a contact?

[@treyhebert426]

Id think putting your theory out there would be more important but hey make money off it if you can as well lol

[@Elliotofficial]

Cringe

[@treyhebert426]

@@Elliotofficial why?

[@wadegielzecki8373]

@@treyhebert426 It is only a page and a half, but that is too much to post here.

[@treyhebert426]

@@wadegielzecki8373 I gotcha, I’m still interested in the theorem you have going

[@vaishnavishirke346]

Amazing Video..👍😍

[@aldeeno7751]

Great video i enjoyed it but i wish there was a even simpler way to describe it for the dummies like myself.

[@stevechrismer5072]

Enjoyed this. A minor correction at time 7:47: Acceleration due to gravity has units of Distance/(Time)^2. You have this as a velocity.

[@jameskarl424]

3:00 not true. They "fall" at rate proportional to the mass of each to each-other. they "fall" differently in no atmosphere but it is hard to measure because the difference in weight between the moon and a hammer and the moon and a feather is a fraction of a fraction of a fraction.

[@AdaptiveDevelopementPlatform]

Here's something to think about. What if the Universe is swelling instead of inflating like a balloon. Swelling like magma chambers filling up and the ground swells up. What if from our perspective, the Universe just seems to be inflating? Maybe this swelling isn't universally constrained? Maybe gravity is a kind of swelling? Then I suppose... What is causing the swelling? I am not an expert lol. Heak, I am bad at math. But... I am not afraid to think outside the box.

[@starryeye6511]

Please look into toroidal fields, tube torus', and birkeland currents in the electric universe and plasma unvierse models. I think you'll really enjoy the knowledge and journey. I'm hinting that you're in the right frame of mind, but maybe picture an ant on a giagantic toriodal tube 1000 miles big, that's not expanding but flowing around itself like a current...

[@starryeye6511]

Look up the channels Thunderbolts Project, See The Pattern, and Randall Carlson for a baseline too

[@fineth9319]

Now, create gravity without mass.

[@alexlo7708]

Negative gravity with black object in universe.

[@JKDVIPER]

0:02 No... we need to think of space time as a LIQUID. Number one. Number two. Gravity is an object falling into a HOLE. A solid planet or a moon is solid to us, but to space, it has a HOLE IN ITSELF. It will shoot you to the other side. Well, to it’s center I suppose.

[@Non_Member_13]

I agree with number one.

[@vicc6790]

what predictions can be made by thinking of space time as a liquid and how do we test them? If you can't answer that, what you said is completely void of meaning

[@JKDVIPER]

@@vicc6790 good question! Ok. 1. SPACE IS LIKE A SHADOW .. it moves like liquid. So does TANG. So does sugar. A black hole is a liquid metal heavy elements in non Newtonian subatomic particle form. Space is low a shadow. It will slide it if you move over. The earth is a solid object to us. But to space. It is a hole. Pick something up n just let it go? It’s falling right? Ya. To the other side of space. Mass makes an IMPACT CRATER of GRAVITY that bends space around itself.

[@amorag59]

"Gravity is NOT a force!" 7:31 proceeds to call gravity a force 🤣

[@lastaviusdarby2771]

Science Teacher here. If I taught this to my 8th graders... they'd fail their state standardized testing which still treats gravity as a force.

[@ian9050]

yes! most textbooks are too out of dates today...

[@demothenes1904]

I've been saying this for a long time. Gravity is basically centrifugal force being exerted by the expansion of the fabric of the universe. Time and radio waves are also a symptom of this

[@illusionnl9237]

ok einstein...next time , stick with minecraft pls

[@jettmthebluedragon]

Gravity does NOT expand space😐gravity PULLS not pushes 😑it’s how planets and stars form 😐without gravity planets and stars would not form and evey explosion would just go away 😐also space is not expanding whatever you about their in the universe all ready exist it’s the fact we just don’t know it 😑just like the planets and galaxies were all ready a thing even during the dinosaurs it’s the fact we did not know about it 😐death is nothing but natures resetter after all of you can’t remember your past life what makes you think you will remember this one ? 😐

[@ParaAkula]

you are close to a nobel price. keep going!!

[@behcherry9815]

I’m just confused. I don’t mean to be rude You think the the whole universe is expanding and spinning and somehow makes us stick to earth even tho the earth is also spinning? If the earth is spinning without gravity then we go flying off. There has to be a force to hold us to earth Also how does time and radio waves get created by the universe expanding and spinning?

[@behcherry9815]

Example: Earth is a magnet. We are metal. The earth pulls us to it Idk much about magnetism or gravity but they are similar

[@drugsarebad97]

I learned the “stretched rubber flat plane” thing many years ago and it blew my mind. It made so much sense and was so simple

[@sonpopco-op9682]

using gravity to explain,.... gravity?

[@O5-hans]

Yeh but that is a 3d curve in a 2d plain, in the real universe it's a 4d curve in a 3d plane

[@jimjones8736]

7:42 'The gravitational acceleration at the Earth's surface is 9.81 meters per second' Ehhh, you sure about that? Hahaha, I get it now! You are saying gravity is not a force, but a momentum instead. If you (Destiny) can't get your basic units right why should we believe anything else you say... g=9.81 meters per second SQUARED

[@sonpopco-op9682]

@@jimjones8736 this is your criticism? the units are wrong? Howbout the whole idea is wrong, using a magical undetectable 'super-stuff' ( and the precedent it set has become imbecilic ) to explain the failings in your theory.

[@jimjones8736]

@@sonpopco-op9682 lol, I was wrong. My post was meant to be an OP, not a comment.😀 Edit: I'm very humbled by your comment, but the theory is not mine😃

[@damneddude8299]

Sometimes I wonder what if gravity is an energy and we just need to figure out how to harness gravity, cause i feel we do not try to see it that way and seeing things differently has helped us reach this far.

[@welsmind]

Hope you know how absolutely right you are man! Actually this wise premise is right on our faces with quantum physics, in other words, perception, observation; conscious mind affecting directly reality.

[@ParaAkula]

what if we could bend space so we can travel 1 million lightyears in just a second?

[@damneddude8299]

@@ParaAkula yup, maybe if the aliens "or higher intelligence beings " are real they use it?

[@ic5761]

Gravity is just waves. Everything is a wave in this conscious quantum hologram. Whoever set up this hologram used a code. Quantum entanglement can't be explained, it just is. Gravity just is, what it is. We just know how it works. Unless we can get into different dimensions, we can't explain quantum entanglement. How can something communicate instantaneously across the universe. We're trying to explain gravity and quantum entanglement using our law of quantum mechanics in the 3D world and it just DOESN'T work.

[@visualedtech]

Einstein developed his gravity theory due to the observation that light was being bent by passing another large celestial object in space. Since light was believed to have no mass, the mass of the object must wrap space. A simple conclusion. However electromagnetic waves are also bent by magnetic fields. This property of attraction and actually focusing electromagnetic waves are used for radar emitters and our old tube televisions. Is magnetism a force or is it wrapping space around it, yet only iron and electromagnetic waves are wrapped? Or are they subjected to an attractive force of magnetism? Their are two possibilities to explain the bending of electromagnetic waves by a mass in space, Either electromagnetic waves have a mass and subject to gravitational forces. Or are electromagnetic waves are bent by the magnetic force of adjacent mass of that celestial object. Either explanation is not dependent upon the warping space. I know that that is heresy. Perhaps. Yet the Big Bang Theory is also weak at this point.

[@empurress77]

I like the way you think.

[@rumiscreation9111]

or can the electromagnetic force have some kind of relation with gravitational force?!

[@Soutame]

In addition, as far as I know. People try to observe if the mass bends the light because General Relativity predict it. NOT Einstein develop the theory from that observation. Isn’t first observation happened in 1919 during the war to try to proof the General Theory of Relativity (1915)? If it has something to do with property of the electromagnetic wave. It maybe due to that experiment shows electromagnetic wave travel at constant speed but no one can tell why in the meaningful way.

[@Agarwaen]

err.. this is just wrong. einstein developed it PREDICTING it would mean mass would bend light, and this was proved rather much later. CRTs use electron beams, which do get bent by magnets, where light (in any of it's wavelengths) does not. and the entire reason for light appearing to be bent by mass, is not that it's being bent, but that space is warped and light continues to take a straight path trough that space. and no, the big bang theory isn't "weak" at this point, it's BASED ON IT.

[@f1at111]

Gravity is actually centrifugal force. That's why gravity is technically indistinguishable from rotational created centrifugal force. This means gravity actually proves that we are on a flat Earth because we would be in centrifuge. This explains how God separated the water from dry land in the first few days of Genesis. Centrifugal force gravity means that gravity is mechanically made and machines can be adjusted to increase or decrease. Fluctuating and a decrease in gravity explains all the odd events of the Jurassic period. For example the enormity of dinosaurs, bugs, and plants. The excessive volcanic activity. And most importantly, first flight happened during the jurassic period because gravity was less. Then, the dinosaurs all died at once. Perhaps the mechanical Earth sped back up, suffocating the dinosaurs like beached whales.

[@Alan-ez6ji]

Thank you for the good laugh... Try to get education, dummy.

[@stigandrmyrardalur5208]

Damn, proving how gravity is a force when trying to prove the oppsit 😂😂😂 Well done 👏👏👏

[@comproggi]

This moves us closer to treating gravity as a fluidic system of small (undetectable) particles.

[@prasadloke1980]

you are some what near I agree to your statement that gravity as fluidic system of particles, this idea should also support to quantum particles as well

[@bobbyrice2858]

I love the theory of Relativity. It shows a beginning to the universe from an exploding singular point in space. A point from nothing to something that science today still can't explain. Genesis does. :)

[@matswessling6600]

except that big bang is a quantum mechanical event and theory of relativity is not valid at that scale. And genesis doesnt explain anything, it just creates more questions: if there where a creator, where did that come from, etc.

[@bobbyrice2858]

@@matswessling6600 if there’s a creator, what gives puny specs like us the right to need to know that answer? if there’s a god, don’t you think we have bigger problems? Like sin and morality?

[@bobbyrice2858]

@@matswessling6600 if your interested in cosmic answers without a cynical nature try reading “Imagine Heaven”. Its about NDEs.

[@matswessling6600]

@@bobbyrice2858 You cannot argue, so you change subject instead...

[@matswessling6600]

@@bobbyrice2858 i'm not cynical, i just observe that you change subject instead of providing any argument.

[@rsummers1974ify]

I some times think gravity is more like static cling, electric driven charges. This seems possible when observing a static charged balloon pushing water away as it comes from a faucet. But what do I know.

[@rsummers1974ify]

@@SusanKay- ya polar and non polar solvent definitely play a role in all this its magnificent to see way out there.

[@al1383]

Matter "warps spacetime" by displacing the fabric of space and causing the fabric of space to then be in multiples around said object. In combination with the constant expansion of the universe. Because the object now has multiples of the fabric of space (spacetime) around it, the constant expansion of the universe is multiplied. Causing gravity. The more mass and density of an object, the more fabric of the universe that is displaced. Equalling into stronger gravity

[@grandpachas1267]

Can I say this stuff is 'mind-bending'?

[@hananaazouzi3883]

🤣🤣

[@Tony-jl8li]

Anyone ever think about the stuff that takes up most of the universe? ( The blackness that surrounds everything? ) I always wondered what that was. Like dark matter or dark energy sure, but in my mind, I always though every form of matter is in some type of hyper fluid or hyper liquid of some sorts. Idk it just makes sense to me

[@anguishedcarpet]

That "blackness" is LITERALLY nothing. Empty space is just that, empty, there's a reason its also called "the void" lol. Dark matter maaaaayyy exist but the jury's still out on that one

[@vicc6790]

what is a 'hyper fluid'? Saying words without defining exactly what you mean by saying them is meaningless.

[@Tony-jl8li]

I’m saying hyper fluid cause In my head it’s not some regular state of liquid. There’s no way the “blackness” is nothing because that would imply, ‘nothing’ exists between regular matter and other forms. It has to be the most abundant, most undetected form of material in the universe for it makes up almost everything we can see.

[@mjt1517]

@@Tony-jl8li it's emptiness. A void between objects. Maybe there's cosmic dust flowing throughout, but who cares? Why can't there be nothingness between objects?

[@pattipotvine1073]

I guess the real question is "what is space?", specifically the area occupied by matter. Does space exist to hold matter or does matter define its own space by its existence, that "space" is an aspect of, and inseparable from, matter? What is this thing that apparently exists but is not a particle?

[@michaelfercik3691]

I use the energy gravity as a gauge by pitting the power of gravity against the powering of the one-tenth ounce dowsing rod load attached at a predetermined location on the ELEVATED acetylene welding rod of the modern light weight ball bearing dowsing rod, which precisely gauges the dowsing of all edges, exact center, depth buried with angle of deposition, and most important GRADING of the sought element contained in the elemental mass that is being dowsed. All the physics involved in dowsing and how to build the modern light weight ball bearing dowsing rod is explained in the book, The Art of Dowsing - Separating Science from Superstition. You will become a professional dowser after practicing the book's dowsing lessons of buried pipelines and cables, tunnels and voids, precious metal placer and lode deposits, dowsing for treasure, dowsing for any element, amplified long distance dowsing from a moving vehicle, and dowsing on water from a boat. Thank you for reading this post and I hope you have a safe, healthy, good day.

[@101perspective]

I've always thought that gravity was a side effect of the expanding universe. I'm curious if anyone knows how we ever ruled that out... or did we? I have trouble finding anything on it. I'm not an expert on any of this. I just thought it made more sense... at least from my limited understanding. I mean, if it is a side effect of the expanding universe then it would put a limit on how strong gravity could be. That would probably get rid of the infinites in equations dealing with black holes and such. And that in turn might allow you to match up quantum physics with general relativity. That said, you might have to look at time differently.

[@prasadloke1980]

I don't believe universe in expanding, but one thing for sure is everything is set in motion, I rather imagine space as sea where water is the medium which creates whirlpools like the one we see in center of galaxy also hold everything which falls inside it, nature of these 2 things( water & space ) relate to each other quite well. Looking at gravity in another way would be, gravity can get created due to ripples made by particles flowing in space like the ripples in sea water, particle flow which i am referring to are the northern lights, what we are looking at is small part of a bigger thing which helps in generating gravity effect due to it's flow,

[@cantdance3077]

Nicely stated.

[@johneyon5257]

almost everything is a side effect of the expanding universe - at first there was the homogenous singularity - as it inflated - the singularity became less homogenous - and all the phenomena we see around us emerged - including gravity

[@101perspective]

@@johneyon5257 Not quite what I mean. I'm saying that the universe's expansion is what is causing what we perceive as gravity. Again, this is something I was thinking WAY back when I was younger so I'm sure there is a problem with the notion. Anyway, the way I thought it worked was this: 1) You have atoms, etc, which hold together with a force greater than the expansion. Aka, they aren't getting ripped apart or anything by it. 2) Because of 1) there is only expansion in the empty space between atoms and such. 3) Because of 1 and 2 you therefore have an imbalance in expanding space. Greater expansion (per "volume") away from the object than toward/within it, etc. It is that resistance to the expansion which I thought was gravity. The more dense the atoms are packed, etc, the more resistance. And at the point where there is no empty space to expand between the atoms you have maximum gravity (which would only occur in a black hole). However, it wouldn't be infinite gravity... just infinite resistance to expansion within it. Again, I'm sure this is comically dumb to someone who understands these things. Just saying how I always thought it worked. Probably just my mind trying to fill in blanks with whatever it can for stuff we don't have the answer to yet.

[@johneyon5257]

@@101perspective - i knew my use of expanding resulting in gravity didn't align with yours - it's not important since i wasn't even attempting to explain gravity - your notion intrigues me tho you're saying that we stick to the earth is cuz the space between our bodies and the earth is trying to expand - but can't due to some sort of resistance - and the density of a body of atoms plays a part in that resistance - (the density part elicits an "oh yeah!" - density refers to mass of the respective bodies - those play a part in newton's formulas) and Newton's idea of force sounds like your notion of expanding space - which occurs everywhere - forcing matter apart - whereas for newton - bodies of matter would separate only if some of the matter is set in motion - but the force of gravity might overcome that - or put up a fight doing so newton had no explanation for the force of gravity - he knew that was a failing (likewise - darwin knew he couldn't explain the mechanism of evolution) - but newton's formulas worked - - for force of gravity - you use resistance to expansion - can you describe the resistance you're talking about - where does it come from - etc

[@DavoShed]

You talked a lot about space and space-time but you didn’t mention how this effected time at all?

[@IITianDIVYANSHBHATT]

The answer for everything is the space ! The more we explore the more we will get to know

[@tknewyork18oo29]

Oh so it's kind of like taking your finger in a pool of water and staring it around to a vortex and watching things flow around it until it goes down.. wow cool

[@MxhiraAnimations]

No. Vortex wont be created. If you dip your finger on a flat water surface (as in flat space) it with creat a meniscus. You will notice, the water kinda sinks down like a bent space-time. But not as much because our fingers are obviously not as big as plants :). So when you see that, take a peck of a matter, ie dust or a tiny particle that will float on water. You will put it near your finger. (Make sure your finger doesnt ruinthe meniscus as wet finger will not create the perfect meniscus). After you manage this, observe the substance floating in unbent water until it meets the bent area ie meniscus. It will immediately attach to you finger. Sure it will not spin like plants around stars because the radius of vortex or meniscus is not large. But it gives an idea that the particle attracts to our finger because of the bent water

[@trebornoslo1951]

Ok, so gravity is not a force. My question is, by what ability does it, ie gravity, or mass have the ability to do the warping of space time? Seems that would require some sophisticated "force". Guess they haven't figured that one out yet.

[@joezingher4770]

Do we actually know that it is gravity that warped it? How do we know that it is not something other than normal space and time that has been warped by the effect of gravity? How did we exclude that possibility?

[@trebornoslo1951]

@@joezingher4770 Good question. All I know is this shit warps my brain! lol Could it be unicorn farts?

[@uropygid]

General relativity and space/time is a BS theory that only describes what gravity does. To this day, no one knows what gravity is. To say gravity is not a force is just stupid. Also, that stupid ball on the trampoline is a 2D representation of a 3D effect. It proves nothing. Finally, time is not a thing. Time cannot be manipulated. Until physics drops that nonsense, physics cannot advance.

[@joezingher4770]

@@uropygid Let's be like Einstein and try a mind experiment as he called it: Imagine you have a stick that is absolutely, perfectly rigid. It's solid. it doesn't bend at all. It's two hundred light years long. On one end is you. With a sledge hammer. On the other end, is a Robin's egg with an extra thin shell. It's right up against the stick. You haul off and whack the stick. What happens to the egg? How quickly does the energy make it to the egg?

[@uropygid]

@@joezingher4770 That is not Einstein. That is Newton. "An object at rest or in motion will remain at rest or in motion until an external force is exerted on it. If the mass of the hammer is greater than the mass of the stick, and if you can exert enough force with your swing, the whole stick will translate a certain distance, breaking the egg. The whole stick did not translate 200 light years, the whole stick translated a fraction of an inch. CONSTRAINTS: The only force acting on the stick is the hammer and the mass of the egg. There is no friction, no other gravity; nothing but your energy, the hammer, the stick, and the egg. I know you believe the energy must travel the entire length through the stick to break the egg. But go to the end of the stick with the egg and pull on the stick, same CONSTRAINTS. Do you have to pull the entire stick 200 light years or a fraction of an inch to break the egg? OK. Try this. An equal mass of matter and antimatter come together and totally completely annihilate each other into energy. What becomes of their space time gravity field?

[@jayb5596]

Have a look into node edging both weighted and unweighted. This will describe the weightlessness felt in freefall and what it relates to. Apply edges to the gluons connecting the quarks and apply weighted edges to our rest mass on earth and unweighted edges to our weightlessness in free fall in a gravitational field and know the weight at rest is determined by the strength of the gravitational field x the length of the binary string, which is applied to the body in freefall resulting in the weighted measure which is applied when you are at rest with the field. Quantum gravity will reach out and grab ahold of you when you do! If you cannot perceive it without seeing it. Go look up node edging weighted and unweighted and after that go look at the nuclei of the proton and apply weighted edging to the strings connecting the quarks knowing that the gluon field is in motion and applying the measured weight to your mass when its at rest in a field and when your in freefall your edges are in unweighted space. Once you understand node edging and weights and how they function it will open your eyes. The energy popping in and out of existence in the gluon field surrounding the quarks held held together is measuring and applying force to the vector.

[@karthikchand]

Can you explain me in the simple words I din't get the concept.

[@brentcombrink]

At 7:45, it should be "9.81 m / s / s" (or "9.81 m / s^2") and not "9.81 m / s". Speed is distance per time unit, while acceleration is speed per time unit, i.e. distance per time unit squared. Aside from this, it's an informative and well-explained video, thanks.

[@kansasnutt]

Wow this is hands down the best video I have seen on the subject

[@adriancoanda9227]

If you can zoom in to the subatomic level and not just by imagination but with sensors devices, then you can understand the space we have nano technology, but nano is big

[@kingmannu8777]

NANO is not big, it is a small car made by TATA MOTORS and yes I understand it has no space, and seats are like subatomic level.

[@ricardoorellana3350]

Gravity is the byproduct of the earth falling into to the sun but being pushed outwards bye solar winds and were those two forces meet Creates our orbit distance

[@francishubertovasquez2139]

Gravity is not a force ? A wave indentation ? Indent due to rotation ? How about the similarly charged particles which reversed orbits due to similar particles repulse and opposite particles attracts. How does the gravity field affected by such? In time ?

[@gadgetman_nz4092]

7:47 has gravity as a a velocity instead of acceleration.

[@ggkiss2023]

metres per second squared is the unit of acceleration

[@soilmanted]

Unless you can tell me what "warp" means, no statement that involves something "warping" has any meaning. The same thing is true about the "fabric" of the universe. What's that? It hasn't been defined here. I don't know what it means. I have not learned anything about gravity from this video. What I've learned is that there exist some pretentious "educators" who use vague language that does more to provide misinformation than to provide factual information people .