Erik Verlinde: A new explanation of gravity

Interview with Dutch physicist Erik Verlinde (professor theoretical physics, University of Amsterdam) about his revolutionary theory on gravity.
Language Dutch , English subtitles
Interview: Jan Lepeltak, camera & editing: Leo Enzlin
Camera and editing: Leo Enzlin

[@ElegantSolutions]

A new explanation of gravity or a chat about how great it is traveling as a physicist?

[@SeaJay_Oceans]

Wonderful to have a job-for-life, where you can enjoy the hobby you love, call it 'work' and get paid vacations that are tax deductible work expenses. Life as a University professor is Wonderful.

[@provoketruth7716]

Great speech. This man is quite expressive. Amazing how much he develops ideas following a single stream of thought. Truly articulated. Its intriguing his observation on the reason he is not collaborating with anyone, while trying to come up with a new approach to theoretical physics. He keenly points it out that true ideas are perceived as false when first heard. I will ceirtainly want to hear more from Dr. Verlinde. My first impression, he surpasses many science celebrities.

[@brandoloudly9457]

all sounds good but this guy was completely wrong. it was a nice try though

[@gerrynightingale9045]

"All of the matter and energy that existed still exists. Matter does not create energy of itself. It is the actions of matter the enable energy to become manifest".

[@tainguyenquoc4534]

Hi Eric Verlinde, Exactly! as he had said, the force of gravity is not a fundamental force, it is only the result obtained from a different principle.

[@linz8291]

Yeep, there are some researches suggested gravity is a side results or phenomenal by quantum mechanics, but gravitonic force is alternative content.

[@Aerospaceman]

I love your explanation. In my minds eye I see a huge circle with a detailed model of our solar system. Now, if you could visualize a bubble solution moving away to the rear as the circular moved forward...wouldnt you get a real basic perception of the gravity curves of each planet? I guess you have to add in the magnetic/electric wave moving towards the model as we are spinning around a galaxy. I look forward to the day you finish your work regarding gravity. Former student aerospace engineering, Spokane Valley WA USA.

[@tuomashamm5227]

Very nice Mr. Verlinde - it is just so hard so get in touch with you - because I have the quantum space/time dynamic explaining how gravity is emerging - On my side the math is missing but the explanation is complete - and it is a background independent string-theoretical explanation close to Bohm´s mechanics and it also doesn´t need any dark ingredients to explain the cosmos even not in the very beginning (filament structure)

[@BrilliantDesignOnline]

It has been 7 years since this video. What new insights have you developed?

[@Marzano15]

Feel free to tell me I dunno what Im talking about here, I wanna know if my line of reasoning is easily proven wrong by something I havent yet read about or considered. But Ive always wondered if maybe gravity or even dark energy are the result of the universe itself vibrating in some fashion. This vibration would be a certain "wavelength" for the lack of a better word as Im not sure if the fundamental waves that make up various forces we know about can be bigger or "taller" instead of just longer. Like ocean tsunamis compared to ripples... but I digress... So my thought is the distance between objects determines if the vibrating universe "wavelength" goes between or around them. Pushing them closer or apart. Perhaps there are multiple "wavelengths" that like organize things into a hierarchy of systems. Every particle is where the wavelength is too big to fit between what makes it a particle so it goes around and crushes it into a nucleus and so on up the list of bigger systems like planets and then galaxies. So if Im not talkin outta my ass here, and I probably am.. the main waves are like at atoms and all the subatomic parts then we get to the macroscopic wavelength which is anywhere from a pebble to a supermassive star. It just depends on how much stuff is close enough by to be pushed together. Thennn.. we get another size wave at the galactic scale. This wave finds it easier to just go around galaxies rather than through them. But by doing so it compacts them and also pushes them farther away from each other. Maybe the bigger wavelengths emerge as the smaller ones combine. And stable orbits and curved space time are like where waves interfere with each other and cancel each other out allowing it to exist in stability rather than be constantly pushed toward the star. To my layman youtube ass, just looking at shit we do know about and assuming all forces and systems more or less behave in the same mechanical way... this seems to make perfect sense. You have the steel plates being separated by the width of a hair or an atom being pushed together by space itself... and of course galaxies being shoved apart. Isnt this basically what they already think the big bang is? Energy itself vibrating waves in all directions until these waves either combine or cancel each other and then condense into matter and so on? Seems to me to be a natural line of reasoning to assume that eventually that initial energy would start to organize and then separate things into various sized systems. But then again I dont even know what 9x8 is cuz I was too worried bout ninja turtles and ghost busters and then eventually girls in school to learn math. Im just putting puzzle pieces other people discovered together without fully understanding the principles that led them to discover them.

[@GateMessenger]

Quote from universe today article 74015 "what causes gravity". "Gravity still remains one of the biggest mysteries of physics and the biggest obstacle to a universal theory that describes the functions of every interaction in the universe accurately. If we could fully understand the mechanics behind it, new opportunities in aeronautics and other fields would appear." You were owned!

[@jbakhos63]

I would like to ask that you consider the following alternative gravity theory as regards dark matter. At the bottom of the page given in the link, there is also a discussion of gravitational lensing and how this theory deals with it. I think that at a certain galactic distance, gravity reverses and the galaxies begin pushing against each other. This would do away with cosmological expansion, dark matter, and dark energy. This is a claim that can be easily tested: A revised gravity equation looks like this (I have made an adjustment compared to my last version): F = (1.047 X 10^-17) m1m2 [-cos(Θ)] / r^2 where tan Θ = r / (1.419 X 10^22) By playing with the constants, this equation can be fitted and tested against the data of galactic motion. It means that at a certain distance, gravity will reverse and the galaxies will be pushing against each other. This pressure against each other does away with the need for dark matter or dark energy in cosmology. So the equation can be tested against current data to see if it fits. This equation also predicts that galaxies near the edge of the universe will be deformed -- concave with the concavity pointing towards the center of the universe. This equation also predicts the existence of isolated galaxies that are far away from other galaxies, that would behave normally without the need to posit dark matter. An example of this type of galaxy is NGC1052-DF2 . Talked about in this article: www.nature.com/articles/nature25767 So what I am asking is very precise, very narrow, very testable: Someone please test this equation to see if slight adjustment of the constants will account for galactic motion or not. If it does, then proceed to the rest of the theory. If it cannot, then the theory can be dismissed. Either way, I would like to know -- but I would not be convinced with a simple "absurd!" or dismissal unless it has been tested out. If it is true that the motion of galaxies can be modeled in this way, I would ask that you take a look at the explanation in this theory: www.reddit.com/r/MyTheoryIs/comments/87pcgq/what_dark_matter_is/

[@aaronhill5963]

A better question, what is mass?

[@jessstuart7495]

So, non inverse-square-law gravity at large distances???

[@SeaJay_Oceans]

I always believe the flaws in Relativity Theory have held back humanity for decades, and as we replace it with improved theories, humanity will unlock faster than light travel.

[@frun]

Yes, but FTL - unlikely

[@korth66]

I'll too quote from universe today about what Einstein stated: "Einstein hypothesized that space and time were one and the same and served as the fabric of the universe. He stated that gravity was simply a curvature in space-time created by a mass object pretty much in the same way a piece of cloth would be curved if it was stretched out and a heft object was placed on it".

[@alanmalcheski8882]

Danke vel!

[@davidwilkie9551]

The transition from certainty of position/singular identity in spacetime is "beside" in strings of vibrating uncertainty , so the gravitational field is a field of proportionate "uncertainty" . Solid certainty, liquid uncertainty and gaseous combinations of both in concentric strata of probability, which becomes mass, inertia and momentum by degrees of motion, ie the laws of motion. Gravity is a name for quantum phase transitions of spacetime. _____ Eg: The operating principle understood to be acting in Lasers, the pumping of frequency modulation that's superimposed on the crystal/coherent synchronicity of the device, is the same principle as inflation/gravitation modulation of Timing-spacing in Quantum "Computing" Fields Modulation QM-Time imaging. (The theoretical brane of the Observable Universe is equivalent to the leaky conductivity states of multi-phase devices)

[@timm4811]

One of the definitions of entropy is lack of information.

[@frun]

It is also the reason for quantum physics

[@waldieschmidtke9630]

All the energy expelled from stars where does it go?

[@vicalcabasa8724]

gravitational wave spectrum starts with the smallest particle to the biggest galaxy cluster. its broadband spectrum is wider than the electromagnetic wave. so partially he is correct. when galaxy forms a gravitational wave would emerge from it with a wavelength proportional to its size.

[@randykubick]

The title of your video is incorrect.

[@maesterwillyofthehouseofboink]

This was before the FE & ME reality we're experiencing now... Wonder if he adapted his 'theory'?

[@MichielSlegten]

Yes 'everything is one' means: the oneness between emptiness and form. That is the way I see Erik Verlinde explains in physics terms that empty space is full of form. This old universal spiritual concept was always based on inner experience. That means empty space doesn't exist, it is one with form. We can verify this theory in our experience. You can't find (experience) total or real emptiness. The real manifest form of nothing is a knowing of emptiness/nothingness/empty space. Who is it that knows? Its is not the human, it is not an empty consciousness. Everything that exist knows! In this way we can search for an explanation of gravity.

[@alanmalcheski8882]

Michiel Slegten you have been paying attention! I agree!

[@chromabotia]

Too metaphysical. But I do like Buddhism.

[@martinhirsch94]

I'll first say that I believe there may be higher or greater forms of life than what we usually consider to be forms of life - in other words, I think its entirely possible that the earth and other celestial bodies might very well be alive and have a conscience. But I also feel the saying that 'anything beyond our understanding is considered to be magic' is just another way of demonstrating the notion or requirement that religion and/or greater beings must be at work. In actuality though, I think the true nature of things probably goes beyond the notion of either one, magic or religion. I don't know that we'll ever figure it out though... not only where the universe, but where God or Magic (all the things that we don't understand) comes/came from.

[@reneebluejay]

Waarom is het vandaag in het nieuws, 5 jaar later? Wat is er vandaag nieuwer dan dit filmpje van 2011? Of komt het elke 5 jaar terug?

[@arisoda7497]

omdat hij nu denkt dat zn theorie echt af is

[@seb10wijngek]

Emcee Renée omdat de wiskundige onderbouwing er nu is

[@allistairneil8968]

Natuurlik

[@rkreike]

Q: Einstein never agreed with bigbang-theory and he never refuted his idea of a universe that began as an infinite emptiness? To explain the origin of gravity Einstein assumed an interaction between that emptiness and spacetime, that caused space to bend into matter and gravity, while time throughout the universe can be relative?

[@jamesprince9041]

Time, you can only go forward in time, the flow of time is always towards the center of the mass of any body in space. Without mass, time wouldn't exist. In a universe without any mass all frames of reference would remain and be the same. Mass gives rise to time and you can only travel forward in time. Hence what you perceive as gravity is actually you being carried by the flow of time towards the origin of time, which begins at the center of the mass of any body in space.

[@jamesprince9041]

Citizen Science Leonard Susskind, how about you, just out for your evening troll?

[@TheErraticTheory]

James Prince wow! you are really close!

[@MrConformation]

@ James... Only go forward / towards or away? Maybe we are currently going backwards in time and it is an illusion of what we humans call "going forward"? Who is to truly make the call of how "consecutive-nows" are experienced by humans or any collection of electrons? If one is in a car, on the freeway going from Florida to Calif doing 1k MPH, are you going fwd or backwards in your travels? Direction & speed may only be relative to ones environment as a comp.

[@jamesprince9041]

blindwillie99 nope, it's called time dilation, the closer the proximity to the center of mass the slower the clock moves forward

[@jamesprince9041]

To quote from ‘Time, Gravity and Quantum Mechanics, by W. G. Unruh’; “A more accurate way of summarizing the lessons of General Relativity is that gravity does not cause time to run differently in different places (e.g., faster far from the earth than near it). Gravity is the unequable flow of time from place to place. It is not that there are two separate phenomena, namely gravity and time and that the one, gravity, affects the other. Rather the theory states that the phenomena we usually ascribe to gravity are actually caused by time’s flowing unequably from place to place. archive.org/stream/arxiv-gr-qc9312027/gr-qc9312027#page/n1/mode/2up

[@Eun2k]

I think he might be saying something similar to what I predicted a few years ago. Unfortunately, I am a nobody in the physics world, so I am happy that the theory of gravity is getting another look by someone new who knows what they are talking about.I look at gravity like this...space is like a vast ocean filled with something (call it Dark Energy or Aether or whatever you'd like). It is my theory that when you displace this ocean with matter you then get gravity (and potentially other affects). The more you displace the more gravity you get. So rather than matter creating gravity on its own, it is the two working together who create the action of gravity. I think this way of looking at it helps to explain some things better. I believe whatever this energy is it is very minute, and because it occupies such small space it isn't necessarily affected by all matter all the time. This Is how a black hole would be able to generate more gravity than things occupying more space than it. The black hole is more dense matter and therefore displaces more of this energy and in turn creates more gravity. So to test my theory, one would simply need to identify this energy here on earth, because according to my model there is no way that the density of earth and its atmosphere has displaced all of it. In other words, its all around us all the time flowing through us and seemingly unaffected by anything but matter. The problem I faced was knowing how to search for this "energy".Anyhow, just a theory I wanted to share because I think Erik is onto something...

[@alanmalcheski8882]

seedstyl yes Tesla called it aether. Dr. Lawrence Krauss, phD, has videos on KZbin about it. What you are doing is using your brain, and instincts, to see that which cannot be seen.

[@donfarlan214]

Instead of the individual mistake it's the mistake that points to individuality as seen through the mistake

[@doubleja]

Maybe you should tag "entropic" somewhere on here. It's kind of annoying to search entropic gravity and NOT find Verlinde.

[@GateMessenger]

The effects of gravity are known and can be predicted. Surprisingly, the cause of gravity is still a mystery.

[@ramonecampbell1268]

Remsey I've solved the enigma of what causes gravity!

[@iteerrex8166]

VERY much like the video "newton's fall: new theories of gravity".. good talk and in this case interview but the titles Very misleading.

[@binra3788]

Wright's Push gravity is more interesting as an explanation of gravity. Theory is a symbol for Theos. But the word and story we give out, is the determiner of the result we get back. Russellian and Electric/Plasma Universe aligns more with a sense of A whole in all its parts than separated of thing in nothing.

[@surearrow]

>>-------------------> He never gives his "new explanation of gravity" in this video. Misleading title! It's just basic talk about physics 101.

[@xemy1010]

surearrow Exactly, a bit disappointing

[@NavAK_86]

He does. He states that it's an emergent phenomenon, not a force in itself. Analogous to gas, when you study gas you're really studying its microscopic molecules, but gas emerges from those molecules which acts ''like' a force - or water, the molecules of water aren't wet, but the combination of particular molecules become water. Gravity is similar to the emergence of water/gas, the constituents are what emerge gravity to be so.

[@epaulk1969]

If this is correct where does that leave the light bending observation or the gravity probe b experiment? Such experiments confirm the warping of spacetime. The pound-rebka experiment confirms gravitational redshift. I cannot believe any theory that doesn't explain these experiments. Its great that he can derive the formulae of modified Newtonian gravity but it's unfortunate that modified Newtonian gravity is falling out of favor recently.

[@builderman912]

I have a question, hopefully someone way smarter than me can answer: Is gravity an infinite force? meaning if for instance you measured the suns gravity with and without jupiter in orbit, does this affect the amount of gravity the sun has, or possibly different amounts of gravity on the other side of the sun?

[@builderman912]

Is gravity a "one-way" force?

[@builderman912]

Maybe you answered but i will re-ask anyways. If jupiter were removed, the gravity(force) that was focused on jupiter is now spread upon remaining objects?

[@christianfarina3056]

Jody Wilson No. The earth, for example, experiences the same 'pull' from the Sun, whether Jupiter (or any other object) were removed. However, the total pull that the earth would experience would be obviously different because it would not be pulled by Jupiter anymore.

[@builderman912]

Ok, let me cut deeper then, just for fun. If there were 20000 earths in the same orbit as the earth encircling the sun, does this affect the sun due to multiple gravitations happening from the earths? Is sun gravity then divided upon the earths? Would the distances from earths to sun change?

[@christianfarina3056]

Okay, let us assume what you stated above. The pull experienced by the sun will be different, due to more objects exerting a force on it. But the force that each single earth experiences, due to the sun, is still the same. In other words, the force depends on the mass of the object that you are pulled by, not on the mass of the object being pulled.

[@ChuckNorris-pz3dy]

couldn't have said it better myself.

[@miguelstoryteller4422]

He says water isn't wet at the molecular level. How can this be proven? When you get enough molecules together they suddenly transform into something else? I suspect they are still wet but at a threshold that is beyond our perception.

[@alanmalcheski8882]

Mike Trapp it is like saying matter is not solid at micro level, but merely concentrations of energy, i think.

[@MichaelHarrisIreland]

It's the way they interact that causes the wetness. Individually they are not wet. It's the same with heat, the molecules themselves are not hot, it's bumping into each other creates what we feel as heat.

[@christianstiltner1104]

I can dig most of what's he is saying, but to argue that looking at the microscopic environment as a clue to the macroscopic environment is flawed simply by the fact that the only microscopic environment we can observe is our own, which is woefully too isolated to any comparison available to us. Maybe if we could travel light years away and perform those same microscopic observations, then I'd agree with the idea.

[@alanmalcheski8882]

Christian Stiltner we may not be able to examine micro space far away, but we can observe, and just like an experiment, if the results of many observations are consistent, then they are a source of research data. We have lasers and telescopes which can see and create reactions far away, so there are some experiments that could be done.

[@williamdwyer5439]

I agree. Tell us something we don't know!!

[@ndl9764]

Hi Erik. Als je de tijd laat oscilleren van jouw observed object en die van jouw observing object ook, dan heb je plotseling een Transformatorfunctie f(Phaseverschil) van een stralende punt naar een dipool achtige string! Zo kun je de ene Theorie in de andere uitdrukken. Als je dan ook nog de tijd op het Complexe vlak en de velden zich daardoor heen bewegen, kun je ook zonder dark matter terecht. Probeer eens! Wel interessant wat je zegt trouwens. Kun je mij bij jouw hamiltonians helpen?

[@GateMessenger]

@1:15 Einstein did not believe that gravity was caused by the curvature of space & time. He clearly said that the curving of space & time was caused by gravity not vise verse. If gravity were located in particles then two like particles could orbit one another. Gravity is not there until a solid spherical object reaches almost 50 miles in radius. At this point gravity begins to influence other objects, gravity birth. Need a formula to calculate a materials radius for gravity birth?

[@TheSkoteinos]

How gravity can't be related to space and time? The inflation of the space time is just a ilusion no related to gravity?

[@Andronicus87]

dark matter is all the other matter in the universe that is set a different wavelength frequency than our observable part of the universe. think of the universe as layers upon layers of universes. we can only interact with matter that is attenuated to our "universe station" dark matter is all the other matter that attenuated to other "universe stations" that's why in actuality the universe is actually almost completely full of matter there is no true empty space. any matter our atoms are not attenuated to we walk right through and can barely if ever perceive it. sometimes electromagnetics interfere with the attenuation and you may see another person or "ghost" from a different attenuation of the universe pop in then back out of your perception. and vice versa for the person who popped in, they just saw you briefly as well.

[@alanmalcheski8882]

Ryann Navin what you're saying reminds me of the Philadelphia experiment. Einstein was apprehensive and worried about the effects of nuclear devices. I think he knew what you're describing, and worried that being too close to certain man-made fields could result in a fate... different than death.

[@liamatkinson410]

any matter with rest mass produces gravity ! including dice.if you drop an apple the earth moves slightly towards it,just not enough to notice.

[@1800levso]

so what happens when gravity meets matter??? you get energy!!! so we get energy out of nothing?? it looks like space itself is gravity, and energy is the reaction of space when it meets matter. and mater is just the connection between the two of them, space rushes into matter maybe because space is a high concentration of some type of energy or force, this case gravity, when it sees matter it rushes like air out of a balloon with a tiny pin hole.

[@christiandanielsson7151]

+kicsimoe Hahaha 😁

[@MrConformation]

Always contradict yourself. A self induced parodox, Then solve for X as we humans realize most (if not all) our current science is flawed & limited..

[@MrConformation]

Math is good for 25 % of the equation. Emotional, Mental, Physical & Spiritual factor must be accounted for to have a complete & true form of "math". Few are schooled in Meta-sicence as well as Meta-physics. Anything not taught in government subsided or accredited schools claim B.S. to anything that not taught or approved by peer reviewed and peer approved repeatable actions. The laws of existence are NOT accredited. Humans have a looooooong way to go to see a complete picture of universal energies we claim as "science".

[@alanmalcheski8882]

i like what you're thinking but he and others have already thought that. if you study this theory more, you will understand where that energy is theorized to originate from, and why energy, which is matter, affects the space around and IN it.

[@1800levso]

yeah, you are right about that, they keep studying their whole life and probably they already thought about that already, but I'm based on their saying (not his , other people) that space is pushing us against earth, if that's the case it should be space/gravity itself the creator of all energy, but I don't know I'm just assuming something I don't know.

[@klnine]

why would the fundamental of matter be a frickin "string" weird idea to begin with ! One wold suggest it might be a sphere or even a force?

[@alanmalcheski8882]

mike .D they thought the world was flat too. They have to go with what the data tells them, like feeling around in the dark. Until someone lights a candle.

[@kennethchow213]

Gravity is nothing other than interaction between electromagnetic charges (in matter or objects). In Newton's time little was known about electromagnetism: only William Gilbert's book on magnetism, and Von Guericke's demonstration of a sulfur ball rubbed by dry hands which produced electric sparks. Coulomb, Volta, Ampere and Faraday, etc. were in Newton's future. Newton was scientific minded. He would not make any firm hypothesis in the absence of experimental evidence,even though as gleaned from his intuitive remarks on gravity, he strongly suspected that gravity is in fact electromagnetism( "On the Shoulders of Giants", 2007 edition, p.1146).

[@nonameforyouokpeterrodney9051]

Perhaps the beginning of the universe started with a Big Bloom, rather than a Big Boom! (Big Bang).

[@GateMessenger]

Do you think that the star was always 10 miles in diameter or did it shrink after it accumulated mass via accretion? Dice do not produce gravity. They each hold a static charge, not gravity. The two forces are completely separate! NASA reported that the effects of gravity upon a satellite are not measurable on asteroids less than 50 miles in radius. I predicted it with a formula that calculates the "birth" of g with the mass of any element. The g of pure iron begins at 37.12 miles in radius.

[@carlosantuckwell]

Something I got from Thunderbolts Project clips - gravity is instantaneous, it is 'felt' instantly, not at the limited speed-of-light. The Earth is 9 light-minutes from the Sun. If gravity were also propagated at 'c', there would be no stable orbits, because the Earth would be feeling the 'tug' of the Sun from where it was 9 minutes ago.

[@carlosantuckwell]

+Steve Bergman "Typical nonsense from that pseudoscience site" - is not scientific argument, it's just an emotional put-down, merely your OPINION. "...geometry of space" - is another mere assertion. How can nothing be curved? And, you are saying the affect of mass on the geometry of nothing is instantaneous. When it suits you, there is something faster than light (or, light speed was faster in the past - something else dreamed to save "The Big Bang" hypothesis). How petty to make a point that I was out by only not quite 8% about the light-time between the Earth and the Sun. I mean, that's really petty. "So now..." NOTHING - just a pompous long-winded emotional opinion about a group who says things that you don't like! Finally, after all your emotional venting you make a valid point - that "...the Earth moves through only 0.006 degrees of its orbit in 8.3 minutes. ..." What a shame you put people off-side by your pompous aggression - which is only deep-seated fear on your part to debate the issues calmly and in a friendly way, which you are obviously too immature to do. The "gravity waves" detection is based on a lot of ASSUMPTIONS. Your aggressive BELIEF in Majority-Opinion "Science" (as if objective truth could be determined by a show of hands - how very Stalinist!) reveals you NOT as an honest seeker for truth, but merely a pseudo-intellectual dumb-jock bully.

[@MrConformation]

The Earth is in a stable orbit because of more than just the sun. It is a collection of (unnamed) energies (mostly unknown) all working collectively to cause what we call "orbit".

[@ROBMCKISSOCK]

whats funny is how NASA will take knitting needle into orbit and give them a slight charge and water droplets immediately orbit the needle and behave exactly like what we observe in planetary orbits but trust us "NASA" there is no connection because we know the planetary orbits are the result of this stuff called gravity that we know nothing about except it needs dark matter and dark energy to explain how galaxies stay together while rotating ? lets create 3 forces to explain what we all observe in outer space even though electromagnetism could do it easily, Just keep looking ! those dark forces will turn up someday even though we just invented them in our heads, Lol science fiction !

[@ROBMCKISSOCK]

you are an idiot, those aren't gravity waves , those are dark energy waves ! everybody knows that ! how can you know what gravity waves are you don't know what gravity is, and no they did not put an end to that, as if you'd know. you can't use theories to prove theories factual ? man you can't see how stupid your understanding of reality is ? maybe if i show you a math equation to prove it ?

[@JustineBieberxoxo]

Kom op met die video's.

[@billiam32100]

Ok I am no scientist. but it seems to me that what we percieve as gravity is merely the pressure of the vucuum of space acting upon the matter of the universe. IE where there is more space on one side of an object there is more pressure pushing it toward an area of less space another object. We do not feel the pull of gravity rather we feel the pressure of space. Like a beachball is pushed out of the water by the water pressure. Matter is constantly being pushed through space by the inherint pressure of space. When two bodies are near there is less pressure of space between them and they are drawn toward one another. thoughts on this are appreciated.

[@doodelay]

This is absolutely brilliant. Einstein did determine that space pushes matter through space but the way you've described it in terms of objects falling toward parts of space with less pressure is flawless. I am not sure if this is new or not, it seems to be Einstein's thoughts exactly but for you to have concluded it on your own is pretty amazing to see.

[@paulfitzgerald4933]

+billiam32100 I'm not trying to start an argument.. What if we're all told to apply rules to something that we accept and spend all our time making them fit instead of saying let's look at it "all existing rules aside." Imagine a remote village of people who've never seen modern life. And a plane carrying a 4 TV's in it's cargo. It crashes. The villagers may try reassembling from parts and edges and surmise that the TV's belong in the broken window holes because both have glass, which they've never seen before. Let's observe this without "rules" we're told to accept and it changes your mind. About your matter being pulled by vacuum.. You can only have things move if there's a direction that it's going. So unless there's a wind with an opening and an exit, or an area that like a river is "downhill" through space, you won't have anything moving at all. You can toss two leaves into a creek and you won't see them rush toward each other. if you put two feathers into a jar and pull a vacuum on it, they won't pull toward each other. The vacuum has nothing to do with anything. Matter isn't being pushed or pulled by vacuum or pressure. This is why the theory of space / time being bent is beyond impossible, it's comical. Put two softballs into a ladies' stocking. Notice that the "Elastic fabric" much like they say space / time is displaces and as such it wraps on all sides, therefore the two softballs remain at the equal distance, and only by the elasticity of the material will they pull closer, but NOT pull through to touch each other. nor do they push the fabric away from them and travel "through" the stocking. The theories we're being told are nonsense. The idea that dark matter makes things stay where they are, while gravity has a pull on everything but only large bodies, however you can't stick a grain of sand to the side a bowling ball where gravity should be measurable, but they say it's only large bodies, THEN add to that saying well, it's not just that, but it has to be big enough to displace time / space. So therefore the theory says in earths atmosphere time and space isn't existent, thus we can't stick that sand to a bowling ball. If a bowling ball isn't big enough, a battle ship is. Why won't the sand stick to the side of that? because the earth's pull is greater? But why isn't all matter trying to jump up to everything else. The "gravity" theory would actually mean if everything has gravity it would seek equilibrium and in doing so mice in new work would be pulled closer to the buildings as they walk. Technically if you drop a few items they should try to pull closer to each other. So how is it gravity is strong in the collective grouping of matter of the earth but stuff isn't jumping up at you. Even mold spores fall to earth as mold tests often involve a piece of tape on a nearby surface for a sample. Now they tell us 400 or so years after the world used to be flat that "space time" is flat. And that's why bodies push into it and displace it, causing other objects to "roll" into each other. This comes after telling us that all objects had gravity. Notice how they cleverly say gravity doesn't pull bodies to each other anymore? It's not that at all now, it's the space time displace / roll effect ? So if gravity doesn't pull objects toward each other, maybe gravity isn't responsible for that grain of sand not sticking to the side of the USS Nimitz. And then we go back to the stocking / softball example. Logically once enveloped without something forcing it toward each other, it's just not going to move. Flat Space/Time.... Yeahhhhhh ... No!

[@paulfitzgerald4933]

Steve, yes I'm confused! Thanks for your response and all the math. the thing that really gets me is is the common sense factor. But I feel if you actually allow me to explain it in "common sense" it will baffle you to the point of seeing it in a new light. let's ask this question in a simple way. Is the moon held in orbit by the Earth's gravity, OR by the moon's gravity? AND if we're to assume the moon's orbit is "falling" but missing the earth, then we're told to believe the earth and moon are attracting one another if they were placed in nearness to each other. You agree? So people like yourself do great math on finding the gravitational field. BUT show me the field ratios at distances. Meaning the earth and sun would have a strong pull if they were closer, just like Pluto and earth would, but because they're so far apart earth and pluto aren't really trying to meet one another. SO there must be a formula for the distance between. OR if the gravity field is simply a given at full force no matter the distance from objects then we're being pulled to Andromeda as hard as toward the sun. Simply put, by understanding ratios of gravitational attraction at given distances we can better understand "perceived" weight of an item by a body attracting it. Because I still find it strange that I can't pick up a boulder but I can pick up sand and BOTH of these are affected by EARTH's gravity. And earth's gravity should be so strong sand nor boulder should be able to be lifted by tiny humans walking on the surface. So how is it possible that humans are so strong to be able to pick up anything off of a 9000 mile ball that would hurl itself into the sun if it wasn't in orbit partially due to it's own gravity. Technically we shouldn't be able to lift even a grain of sand if we're fighting a 9000 mile ball.

[@paulfitzgerald4933]

ok, but you're calculating the "gravity" of the objects, Can I ask you to make me a spread sheet, or at least check one if I make it. Something that has the formula built in where I input object 1, object 2, and the distance between and get the gravity. The reason it's baffling is if we're talking earth's gravity and the gravity of a grain of sand, then the SAND is "Light" If we're talking the earths gravity and the gravity of a dump truck thus the dump truck is "heavy" But by percentage... 26,000 miles x 5280 = 137,280,000 feet. Sand would be 0.006 feet. So .006 / 137,280,000 = .00000000004371 the circumference of the earth. Dump truck would be 16 feet thus 16/137280000 = .00000011655012 the circumference of the earth. So, what shocks me is why is gravity only evident in the objects in relation to earth and not the weight of the earth to the objects. Again, something the size of earth should have a gravitation pull that doesn't allow sand to be picked up by ants. Also ponder this. How is it possible that sand piled upon sand for miles deep will create rock. Strange how the weight of sand, sediment to become rock through pressure, but again it's only in relation to the weight of the object with earth instead of the earths attraction to pull the objects. So why would a grain of sand be so compressed by the sand above it? shouldn't the earth as big as it is have little affect of "weight" on objects for miles off the mantle because of it's "gravity"? Something the size of earth with it's gravity calculated shouldn't allow even a grain of sand to be picked up unless we're truly super beings.

[@paulfitzgerald4933]

let's also understand that we're told planets are formed because of particles having collected because of gravity. But if there's such a force then wouldn't EVERYTHING including the entire planet below the grain of sand I pick up prevent me from pulling it from the gravitational bond all those items have against this grain of sand I hold?

[@Jason-gt2kx]

My novel hypothesis that dark matter is just distortions in spactime by which the curvature alone is the cause of the gravity. Spactime has been observed to react like a fabric by warping, twisting, and propagating waves. These properties have been proven with observations of gravitational lensing, frame dragging, and recently gravitational waves. Fabrics can be stretched, pressured, and/or heated to the point of deformation losing elasticity. Such extreme conditions were all present during inflation, so it is plausible that spacetime’s elastic nature hit its yield point and deformed. Therefore, if gravity is the direct result of warped spactime, and fabrics can be deformed, then a deformation of spacetime could create a gravitational effect independent of mass. Dark matter may simply be a particle of the spacetime’s structure, instead an exotic particle sitting in spacetime causing the warped geodesics.

[@brianpatterson8407]

is space a vaccuum? no. pressure. pressure even though very very low i believe has the ability to act as force and given the unquantified amount of space in the universe it is the greatest physical force upon us.

[@pronounjow]

Isn't it force that can exert pressure? Besides, force is kg*m/s^2 or Newton, and pressure is Newton/m^2. (using the base units of kilogram, meter, and second, anyway) EDIT December 9: I originally said pressure is kg/m^2, which is wrong and I'm sorry for that.

[@MrConformation]

When a body (planet, star, atom) occupy space. Which in turn can be classed as a form of pressure, energy expelled to reclaim said space. If space is expanding / contracting that can cause vast areas to be high or low pressure areas. A vacuum is only relative to what we humans wish to compare it to, to get a reference point. Maybe space is neutral, not a vacuum or pressurized.

[@pronounjow]

MrConformation I'm not too clear on what you're talking about. Could you elaborate, please?

[@MrConformation]

What happens when a planet / star occupies a section of space to exist? A lot to convey in a small space.. A good start would be this link.... Read & expand from there. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time%E2%80%93space_compression

[@pronounjow]

MrConformation That page seems to be introducing a philosophical sociological topic and/or context for spacetime. An interesting page, though.

[@peter6649]

Everything we see in the observable universe is a form of energy...empty space has energy just like planets and stars have energy. SO it one big soup of energy that come in different forms. The word gravity represents the physical bend the other three forces have on space. Why you ask? because objects with mass have much higher energy than objects without mass. Therefore its all different forms of energies interacting. the entire universe is one fabric of energy.

[@bernd_the_almighty]

But what is energy itself? Isn't it excited state of matter?

[@peter6649]

alexgrinkov No...matter is condensed energy and they form a perfect circle in their transition from one to the other...so its energy to matter to energy to matter to energy ad infinitum with evolution because new configurations of matter and energy and new information period is constantly being generated. The general template and big picture seems to operate, however, in a circular fashion and thus is mathematical in nature.

[@peter6649]

alexgrinkov There does seem to be a fulcrum that drives this universe from its birth to its death. Just like a galaxy's black hole is responsible for both the birth and death of its respective galaxy.

[@jamesprince9041]

Time and gravity are flip sides of the same coin. What is perceived as gravity is actually a time wormhole caused by the mass of the object at its center. It is time and gravity that are linked, not time and space. Time and Gravity both flow in the same direction, forward. You can't travel backward in time, so a body in free fall towards another body is moving in the natural direction of time. It is time dilation that gives the appearance of light bending, not a curvature in space. Recent observations of the nuclei of atoms by theoretical physicist observed that the nuclei of atoms is pear shaped not symmetrical or loaf shape, and the pear shaped bulge of all the observed nuclei point in the same direction as the flow of time. Hence the nuclei of all the atoms that make up the mass of any given body all point in the same direction, this is what causes gravity and the direction of time. Without mass in the universe there would be no time as all frames of reference would be identical

[@alanmalcheski8882]

James Prince brilliant deduction, Sir. Really outstanding. A great explanation of curvature. But is it fair to say that time doesn't exist without the gravity of something? The something would not perform the act of gravitation without the presence of time. Please write more, whether my novice question interests you or not. Again, great synopsis!

[@alanmalcheski8882]

James Prince brilliant deduction, Sir. Really outstanding. A great explanation of curvature. But is it fair to say that time doesn't exist without the gravity of something/anything? The something would not perform the act of gravitation without the presence of time AND space. Please write more, whether my novice question interests you or not. Again, great synopsis!

[@jamesprince9041]

Well thanks, you're too kind "But is it fair to say that time doesn't exist without the gravity of something/anything?" Short answer Yes, if gravity and time dilation are the same, without M there would be no time. Time dilation is the product of one body in orbit around another, the orbiting body's clock runs at a lesser speed of the body being orbited. The greater the amount of atoms the greater the amount of time dilation (gravity) produced, graduating up to the largest bodies in the universe, planets orbiting stars, stars orbiting black holes or other stars and galaxies orbiting other galaxies. It all starts with the atom. An electron orbits the nucleus of the Hydrogen atom at approx 22,000 km per second, or approx 1% of the speed of light. Here's a simple GIF illustrating the mechanics of time dilation. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/Nonsymmetric_velocity_time_dilation.gif

[@alanmalcheski8882]

cool! I think of time and space as two equal forces, let's say spherical in nature, and there is time, as a force, which exists outside of our 3D space. Same with 3D space- it is only 3D in the universe, but there is a total force of "space" that is greater, mixing with our conventional concept of time. I will study dilation. The explanations I've seen are not palatable, because of the way they demonstrate a spherical object casting a shadow over a flat plane. Flat? i think not. hahaha

[@alanmalcheski8882]

if you have any KZbin channel suggestions, or other links, i will study them. thanks!

[@johnmpjkken3261]

Gravity was explained many years back by Tesla. He stated that it was no more than a force effected by Electromagnetic Energy. He was correct. EM ENERGY has always existed throughout the universe or universes if there are more. It is also in and the absolute basis for everything in existence both physical and spiritual. Nothing would exist without it. This is a fact that is already known. It is the absolute basis for the overall mechanics of the universe which includes all star systems and galaxies. This also includes black holes within all galaxies. It also governs the status or positions of all bodies throughout the universe, their revolutions and orbits. It is also well recognized that it is infinate. I like to call it the God Partical.

[@korth66]

You're wrong. Einstein said that the curving of space and time was caused by mass and as a result of that the effects of gravity appear.

[@kotyto]

"Apple" my ass, Newton said "crow shit" :-)

[@TheKevphil]

It's interesting to me how "inferential" our understanding of how gravity works may be, without having a very full understanding of what gravity actually IS. BTW: Sean M. Carroll thinks this man is full of $#it, which is alone good reason to give Mr. Verlinde theories have a fair hearing.

[@frankdimeglio8216]

THE ULTIMATE UNDERSTANDING OF SPACE AS ELECTROMAGNETIC/GRAVITATIONAL (IN BALANCE): A PHOTON may be placed at the center of THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), as the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the SPEED OF LIGHT; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. The ability of THOUGHT to DESCRIBE OR RECONFIGURE sensory experience is ULTIMATELY dependent upon the extent to which THOUGHT IS SIMILAR TO sensory experience. THOUGHTS ARE INVISIBLE. E=mc2 is DIRECTLY AND FUNDAMENTALLY DERIVED FROM F=ma. F=ma AND E=mc2 PROVE that ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS ALL of SPACE is NECESSARILY ELECTROMAGNETIC/GRAVITATIONAL (IN BALANCE). This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND describes what is possible/potential AND ACTUAL IN BALANCE. Indeed, energy has/involves GRAVITY; AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent WITH/AS what is BALANCED ELECTROMAGNETIC/GRAVITATIONAL FORCE/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ACCORDINGLY, gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. SO, GRAVITATIONAL FORCE/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. THEREFORE, "mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ALL of SPACE is NECESSARILY ELECTROMAGNETIC/GRAVITATIONAL (IN BALANCE), AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. It ALL makes perfect sense. GREAT !!!!! Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ACCORDINGLY, a given PLANET (INCLUDING WHAT IS THE EARTH) sweeps out equal areas in equal times; AND this is THEN consistent WITH/AS F=ma, E=mc2, AND WHAT IS PERPETUAL MOTION; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ACCORDINGLY, the rotation of the Moon MATCHES it's revolution. It is PROVEN. It ALL makes perfect sense. Therefore, objects fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course); AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Very importantly outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is FULLY INVISIBLE AND black. Get a good LOOK at what is THE EYE. NOW, the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. GREAT. GRAVITATIONAL FORCE/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. This ALSO explains the supergiant stars, the cosmological redshift, AND the black hole(s). "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ALL of SPACE is NECESSARILY ELECTROMAGNETIC/GRAVITATIONAL (IN BALANCE), AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. It ALL makes perfect sense. MAGNIFICENT !!! F=ma AND E=mc2 PROVE that ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT. Points are POINTS. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. THINK about it ALL. Beautiful. By Frank DiMeglio

[@k.ganesanganesan6825]

Forget all energy.. Restart gravity energy Gravitational wave force.

[@Midwestllc]

That was a lot of talking with very little information.

[@skyfairy1959]

painfully little!

[@frankdimeglio8216]

Ask Verlinde about Frank DiMeglio.

[@vidhyasagarvidhyasagar8762]

I am an atheist I always thought things are not what humans see,there is something else,I support u!!

[@bonnie_gail]

"water is wet but its molecules are not ...."

[@donfarlan214]

What's that mean wetness than derived from what tension of molecular binding of atoms of different natures

[@danki2000daniel]

very, very interesting. the first black president, and now the " theory of everything "....all in my life time....that would be so awesome. 2 things I never thought I would see in my life time.

[@danki2000daniel]

We have had presidents Like Trump before, so no surprise

[@kebilfree17]

Thanks for adding to the discussion re: gravity, physics, and Verlinde's theory. Your deep insight and acute arguments helped me understand the theoretical framework presented. What I am unsure about is whether your ranting is because Obama is black, or because he is not "black enough". As for the idea that everybody hates him, well, he is currently far more popular than the president-elect. I imagine that once the Trump voters realize that the only part of his political platform that he really believed in was hatred of immigrants. As for draining the swamp and all the rest, he could care less.

[@liamatkinson410]

you said "surprisingly,the cause of gravity is still a mystery." mass causes gravity,WHY mass causes gravity is the mystery !

[@econogate]

The ability to perpetually glean information from the environment is energy-dependent. Thermodynamic cycles of protein biosynthesis and degradatiion link the innate immune system to supercoiled DNA, which protects all organized genomes from virus-driven entropy.

[@fudgedogbannana]

Best theory I ever heard was the "Gravity Driven Universe Theory" tho it was presented by the worse speaker in the world still I understood it, make all the sense in the world (universe). it works for me. "Gravity Driven Universe:" by Roy (the worse speaker in the world) Masters..... basically it starts with gravity as property of the universe and not just of mass and goes from their. (if you are gonna ask how can you have gravity before mass then you are screwed).

[@fudgedogbannana]

Shit now I got my blood boiling, I wanna tell more....This guy Roy M. says that gravity is (I dont think he said particle) a "non-thing"....not a nothing, a "non-thing", its so small that anything smaller would be "nothing", it fills the universe, and that it blows across the universe at bazillions of miles per second, it carries everything at a speed according to its weight, a photon of light is carried at the speed of light, a commit is carried at the speed of a commit according to its wieght, an entire galaxy is carried at the speed that a galaxy travels, everything in the universe is in this non-stuff stuff, and everything in the universe was made by this non-thing that Roy M. says is GRAVITY. ....don't fuckin bother me with that "how can there be gravity before any mass. I am saying that he proposes that gravity is a property of the universe and not just of mass. gravity between the Sun and Earth would be a "local" gravity, but the universe is filled with this gravity if there were a Sun, Earth or not.

[@MrConformation]

@ Sub... Gravity / mass is only known as we limited humans fathom it. Everything can be divided by 2. Even NOthing is a form of a universal "thing". How can there "BE" something when humans fail to understand? Understand and one know how a parodox can be, then one may understand TRUE universal science. Maybe we are all correct, maybe we are all wrong (at the same time).

[@MrKorrazonCold]

Wave fronts dividing one unit of space multiplied by one unit of time. The greater the mass/energy density inward spherical waves generating heat by multiplying electrical potential along cubic dynameters compressing the wave amplitude now, the shorter the expanding transverse waves dividing gravity from its source. Energy compression pi +1=mass. de-compressing constant C2 (forming an inward acceleration or gravitation) from plains of zero curvature t=0 wave front by wave front as time unfolds."

[@alanmalcheski8882]

Seamless Robe you sewed that up nicely.

[@sipkebergsma669]

1-1=0 and gravety=-1

[@spiritualanarchist8162]

polish up the next Nobel price Sweden...;-p

[@michaelrapley7378]

Atomic Expansion Theory

[@luisbud5356]

First you have to prove that the dark mater really exist, nobody knows what gravity is up until now.

[@ronaldderooij1774]

I am not a phycisist but I disagree with your reliance on maths. With math it is the same as with computers. If you put rubbish in, rubbish comes out. Math is just an instrument for a logical test. Nothing more.

[@johnmpjkken3261]

Absolutely correct. A number of physicists have attempted to manipulate math to support or meet their logic. Even Einstein admitted making mistakes which included his equations. Many equations are used and manipulated as a means to an end rather than an absolute answer.

[@GateMessenger]

Then why do scientists say that the cause of gravity is still an unknown? Apparently you do not understand physics. Research the cause of gravity. There is no known cause!

[@emeraldgate1994]

Gravity opposite to Levity. Shared orbit in appropriate atomic shell.... A 150lb man only interacts with 150lbs of earth. That is why he weighs 150lbs. We learned this 5000+/- years ago. Why do you struggle now?

[@amoses7178]

They think you can actually move through space.

[@antosiahaan1984]

does he (erik verlinde) believe in God?

[@ROBMCKISSOCK]

what ever you do, don't use electromagnetism to explain anything, it's just so much more fun to make up things to explain our reality than use real forces that surround us.

[@rayagoldendropofsun397]

If GAS BONDING is a fact, Gravity/Black Holes are not ! All downward falling motion including Newtons apple begins when rising gas molecules becomes trapped gas molecules, known as GAS BONDING, which take on a state of solid mass, blocking out it's electrons motion, it's fire power, thus becomes ENERGY LOCK lifeless gas molecules, and falls downward in real time, following it's electrons unlimited potential velocity, at the speed of light connecting with the earth ENERGY CONSERVATION SYSTEM, establishing a downward falling path for trapped lifeless gas molecules/solid objects only. Equating the above fact with the physical universe same as Einstein E = MC2 equates with the physical universe. E = ENERGY = MM = MOLECULE MOTION = Molecules in motion within star flames earth gases birds and balloons plains and rockets, even us humans rise from molecules in motion creating an ENERGY FLOW, the ruling force of the universe. M = MASS = GB = GAS BONDING = Gas Binding take on a state of solid mass with trapped gas molecules that always falls downward. C2 = LIGHT SPEED = E = ELECTRONS = Electrons Unlimited Potential Velocity, at the speed of light connects with the earth ENERGY CONSERVATION SYSTEM, establishing a downward falling path for trapped lifeless gas molecules/solid objects only. This they should've known, it's only grade school science ! Gravity is a mythical concept mentally applied, with guaranteed result to it's point of origin, the BRAIN !

[@GateMessenger]

I did not say Einstein got it completely wrong. In fact I understand his relativity equation. I even understand why Einstein ended his relativity equation with the symbol for tension! He didn't get it wrong he simply did not finish the formula. For if he had he would have known the real cause of gravity. I'm sure Einstein knew what caused gravity but failed to reveal it for fear of being a laughing stock! The same reason I will never publish or convey the data which would finish his equation.

[@sar_nas]

Let's put it straight, time doesn't exist. Humans invented time in order to measure movement in space, and space is unlimited by the way 😨

[@jamesj5696]

Nobel Prize? Gravity is like temperature. We can measure it, but that does not tell us what is causing the thing being measured. Gravity is an effect not a cause.

[@markusantonious8192]

So, apart from telling us that his 'new idea' involves macroscopic emergence from microscopic processes (and, presumably, between other *unknown* and *unproven* forces)...he doesn't actually tell us anything. Sigh.

[@12388696]

Wonderful idea. But why are here so many dumb comments?

[@alanmalcheski8882]

12388696 because people aren't all geniuses yet.

[@xkguy]

Math is not science, it is a way of expressing ideas. Science requires observation and experimentation. All math gets us in modern cosmology is more fantastic creatures like neutron stars. I expect to see unicorns before I see a neutron star. String theory and the best mathematicians will only get up more impossible creatures. I hope there are more experiments to disprove such nonsense. It is far cheaper to disprove that to prove and create new ideas.

[@MichaelHarrisIreland]

A nice guy but he'd tell you nothing.

[@UniversalAl1]

That was just a teaser that gravity is not a force but it appears that way, and possibly offering new ideas in his new work. Then half of scientist reject that right away, other near half would say hmmm and 1-2 actual people would develop it further later on (say it is a bs or true or develop following hypothesis, folow up), you know usual exiting science.

[@maureenfitzgerald9544]

Michael Harris The Apple going up

[@CharlieUlivarri]

As a general rule, if you don't want to share your idea, then shut up about it until you are ready to do so.

[@TheKevphil]

It must be a real balancing act to not give away too much, but still give enough hints to bring glory to your institution and its board.

[@antosiahaan1984]

yeah, it could be something amazing that a nowadays physicist at his level believes in God..

[@MrWolynski]

face it. You have no clue what causes gravity. Keep space/time warping and you will forever be lost.

[@elfodd35]

GateMessenger you are confused. Go back and read your physics textbook, everything you said is incorrect. And to claim that someone with a PhD got it completely wrong is rather ignorant.

[@ScottMana]

Too much mathematical experimentation, not enough experimentation with the universe in question.

[@31337flamer]

teslas idea...

[@akkafietje137]

12 minutes talking without saying anything

[@HunterAtheist]

@MrWolynski You have no knowledge of physics, do you?

[@TheHassleFreeZone]

One of the most unsatisfying science videos ever. There's no detail. And he's got no collaborators! To me it's all a big nothing. I could upload something as convincing myself. If his great idea is so revolutionary and he can't stand the prospect of initial criticism given to a revolutionary idea before all the details are worked out, he should shut up and keep his head down like Andrew Wiles did...

[@alanmalcheski8882]

Bob Firth sounds like reverse psychology. I'd imagine Verlinde doesn't react to mind games.

[@GlynWilliams1950]

Lots of talk about irrelevant information, but no substance. Like a politician beating around the bush.

[@the5fingerofdeath]

He didn't explain nothing.

[@alejandropenaniwid2502]

NADA DE IDEAS,,,,,,,,,,,,,ONLY PRIDE

[@Marzano15]

Feel free to tell me I dunno what Im talking about here, I wanna know if my line of reasoning is easily proven wrong by something I havent yet read about or considered. But Ive always wondered if maybe gravity or even dark energy are the result of the universe itself vibrating in some fashion. This vibration would be a certain "wavelength" for the lack of a better word as Im not sure if the fundamental waves that make up various forces we know about can be bigger or "taller" instead of just longer. Like ocean tsunamis compared to ripples... but I digress... So my thought is the distance between objects determines if the vibrating universe "wavelength" goes between or around them. Pushing them closer or apart. Perhaps there are multiple "wavelengths" that like organize things into a hierarchy of systems. Every particle is where the wavelength is too big to fit between what makes it a particle so it goes around and crushes it into a nucleus and so on up the list of bigger systems like planets and then galaxies. So if Im not talkin outta my ass here, and I probably am.. the main waves are like at atoms and all the subatomic parts then we get to the macroscopic wavelength which is anywhere from a pebble to a supermassive star. It just depends on how much stuff is close enough by to be pushed together. Thennn.. we get another size wave at the galactic scale. This wave finds it easier to just go around galaxies rather than through them. But by doing so it compacts them and also pushes them farther away from each other. Maybe the bigger wavelengths emerge as the smaller ones combine. And stable orbits and curved space time are like where waves interfere with each other and cancel each other out allowing it to exist in stability rather than be constantly pushed toward the star. To my layman youtube ass, just looking at shit we do know about and assuming all forces and systems more or less behave in the same mechanical way... this seems to make perfect sense. You have the steel plates being separated by the width of a hair or an atom being pushed together by space itself... and of course galaxies being shoved apart. Isnt this basically what they already think the big bang is? Energy itself vibrating waves in all directions until these waves either combine or cancel each other and then condense into matter and so on? Seems to me to be a natural line of reasoning to assume that eventually that initial energy would start to organize and then separate things into various sized systems. But then again I dont even know what 9x8 is cuz I was too worried bout ninja turtles and ghost busters and then eventually girls in school to learn math. Im just putting puzzle pieces other people discovered together without fully understanding the principles that led them to discover them.

[@Marzano15]

I want to add more puzzle pieces that make me delusional enough to think I might be onto something. Electron orbits only being in specific distances from the nucleus is one. That seems to mesh with my idea. As my idea suggests their is a hierarchy to the sizes n distances between all objects or systems... some fundamental vibrations or waves dictating where an electron can be and can ONLY be makes sense right? Or no? Also seems like theres always an upper limit to how big things can get until they become cut off and are just apart of a group. Atoms are only so big. Stars are only so big. Galxies are only so big. Otherwise the universe would just be one big atom or star right? Or a homogenous cloud of fluid. However the band of wavelength(s)we inhabit on our human scale must be truly rich in all different sizes due to molecules and organic compounds forming n shit like that. Like we truly are in a goldilocks zone on this planet. Like we have enough interference patterns to cancel shit out to allow molecules to form and take off into complex organisms haha... I can almost see some physics major gritting his teeth while reading this nonsense. So what am I not understanding? If everything came from the big bang.. the big bang was the initial source of all energy... literally EVERY single feature and property of the universe comes from the big bang... why isnt everything we see just some emergent combination of that initial vibration establishing a hierarchy of various sizes of vibrating, wavy spacetime combining to create matter and interfering to create empty space.. which then explains all forces and sizes and distances and so on? Why are there so many mysteries? Id really like to know. Id like to think Im an Einstein-y, thought experiment master genius... his successor minus the math to back it up... but something tells me Im probably not.

[@MrKorrazonCold]

Time is shorter at Ones Feet +1=0 now -1 than at Ones Head +1=0 now -1.. . .Gravitational systems are the ashes from prior electrical systems -1.. . .Rather like your in the water receding from the seashore (Universe) into the bass of each wavefront forming +1=0 now breaking from the crest of time -1 resulting in the production of continuous expanding bubbles independent of the motion of its source.. . .Because every instance of C has an anti Compression. . ..Time is inverse multiplying energy compression +1=0 now -1 dividing expansion like frequency and wavelength.. . .Tap the side of a round bucket of water. . ..Because everything is made of just Two Spherical Sine Wavefronts Compressing 3D Wave Centres of Energy +1=0 now -1 de-compressing Two Opposing Spiral Vortices.. . .From Virtual Pair's of Plasma, to Gases, Liquids, and Solid Fibonacci Fractals.. . .Only difference is their 3D Wave Centres Time Dilating Rate of Vibration, or Volume now at the centre of their Own 3D centred ref-frames within the One Infinite Universe.. . .The greater the Energy Compression, or Mass the shorter the expanding spiral wavelengths and the time period relative to the perspective of an outside observer.. . .Now space is a division of Solidity into entropy as time unfolds C2 the second law of thermodynamics.. . .But also in the future E2 will equal a multiplication of Volume +1=0 now at the expense of gravitational potential -1.. . .E2=M2 C4+P2 C2.. . .With antimatter positive Energy Compression +1=0 now -1 de-compressing momentum forming the Mass and Acceleration equivalence principle F=ma.. . .Therefore as objects just free fall towards the greatest Energy Compression, relative to their Own energy compression generation of any information exceeds radiation during the first half of the cycle +1=0 now -1 radiation exceeds generation during the second half of the cycle as the constant outward momentum of electromagnetic radiation repels like charged particles absorbing energy input +1=0 now -1 emitting the density from the two previous vectors spiralling out the Fibonacci sequence seen almost everywhere in nature.. . . From 2pi Spiral Radians 360 degrees, to Spirals of Elements, DNA, Seashells, Spiral Galaxies, and even living cells.. . .

[@alexanderisakovGyro_6DoF]

+Seamless Robe I understood nothing. It that?

[@MrKorrazonCold]

Its just Two Waves.. . .