Erik Verlinde: Gravity Doesn't Exist | Big Think

Gravity Doesn't Exist??
New videos DAILY: bigth.ink
Join Big Think Edge for exclusive video lessons from top thinkers and doers: bigth.ink/Edge
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a study that asked 515 people why they went into a hookup, 50 percent of women and 52 percent of men reported that they hoped to trigger a longer relationship.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ERIK VERLINDE:
Erik Verlinde is a theoretical physicist and string theorist and the Institute of Theoretical Physics at the University of Amsterdam. The "Verlinde formula," which relates to conformal field theory and topological field theory, is named after him. In a paper called "On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton," published in January, 2010, Verlinde introduced a new approach to the idea of gravity, positing that it is not a fundamental force but an "emergent phenomenon."
Verlinde's idea that gravity doesn't exist was featured in Big Think's "Month of Thinking Dangerously.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIPT:
Erik Verlinde: Gravity, of course, is something that have, well, many people have already thought about. It’s something that we see every day and it’s not like it’s not existent in our ordinary life. But what I mean by that it’s an illusion is that one would eventually like to know where it comes from, an explanation. Up to now we have, well, descriptions, I mean, Newton, of course, is the one famous for first writing down a theory of gravity and he described why apples fall and why the moon goes around the earth using the same basic equation for gravity, but he described it. He had to assume that gravity was there and then had to write down a law that described that when two masses are a certain distance, how they attract each other.
But he was also not very happy with the fact that we should just, well, assume that these things, these objects, attract each other and without even anything in between. So if there are two masses and empty space, there’s no, nothing that really happens between them, but still, they’re attracting each other. And he thought that was kind of mysterious and that it was something he would have liked to explain in a better way.
So later came Einstein and Einstein, with his theory of relativity, eventually realized that also gravity has to be described in a different way. And it took him quite some years, but eventually he wrote down a theory where he thought about space and time together and then his explanation of what gravity would be is that there’s masses which curve space, and time. And then motion of planets and of the earth around the moon, or the moon around the earth is then described by thinking about moving in this curved space-time and how then objects are, well, making their orbits. And the reason they go around then in circles is that space and time itself is curved, in the sense that things don’t move in straight lines anymore, they go around. So that was his explanation, but he had to write an equation for it, which again, assumed that gravity was there because he basically wrote down matter curves space-time.
So in a certain way that’s still a description or what, I should say is, well, one would like to understand again why this description sort of, well, how you can understand it from a more basic point of view. So what I’ve done in my paper is try to start from a, well, from a point of view where you don't assume gravity to be there, they would like to explain it by seeing how you can derive it from a more microscopic set of equations where gravity itself is not assumed, but then just follows from a certain logical reasoning.
Question: How should we think about the forces that exist to create the illusion of gravity?
Erik Verlinde: If you think about particles, very tiny particles, and it turns out that things like positions and velocities are not very precisely defined, you have to take into account the fact that there’s an uncertainty in when we look at something, we may influence the measurement, but I mean, also just, there’s a fundamental limit on how precise you can understand the position or the velocity of a particle. They cannot be all, not both described infinitely precise.
So taking gravity into account then gives us a bit of a problem because then we have to talk about space-time and then these quantum certainties gives us another way of looking at space-time at the short distances. So this led to problems... and string theory is another way of also looking at gravity and quantum mechanics, which I’ve been working on quite a bit. So people have studied the problem of quantum mechanics in gravity from various perspectives-from string theory, but also was thinking, for instance, about black holes, what happens with black holes.
Read more on Bigthink.com

[@buddhaofhollywood]

99% of titles on KZbin are misleading click bate. This should be correctly named "We don't know what gravity is"

[@billhesford6098]

Or why things fall? It is misleading and it is deliberate. Chuck out the PC!

[@ricflair5956]

*bait

[@dizzyseventy9557]

@If you laugh you sub!takes one to know one!

[@Maricarmjolo]

Because gravity is invented to describe things. There is no gravity in some places of the earth. U can google it

[@Maricarmjolo]

@If you laugh you sub! Nope. There is a lot of videos and its a fact where gravity doesnt make sense. Search it

[@lukethegreat101]

See those pixels at the bottom right corner? It's obviously a tear into the parallel universe where this guy came from.

[@makrabid]

:D

[@secl4673]

How did u

[@Grejegando]

Well, he pretty much believes in gravity and is working on finding out what gravity is but all he is challenging is the idea of gravity being one of the universal forces that exist on their own. He simply says gravity, just like temperature, is an emergent phenomenon that can be understood by studdying things on a molecular/atomic/subatomic level because it is probably the sum of other interactions or processes that take place on a smaller level giving rise to the phenomenon we describe as gravity. He says gravity doesn't exist in the way we understand it as an independent force of nature present all the time but rather is an emergent one just like temperature is.

[@SKMRify]

Excellent comment. Regrettably, the simple and profound wisdom of your comment will be lost on the many.

[@LuisAldamiz]

So much we understood, what we didn't understand is how he explains gravity as "emergent phenomenon akin to temperature".

[@thomassynths]

Emergent phenomenon still exist.

[@LuisAldamiz]

Just saying "emergent phenomenon" may make you look smart in sets of intellectually less gifted people but in reality it explains nothing. Protons are an "emergent phenomenon" with a well explained mechanism, inner workings inside (strong force and its associated particles), intelligence or the human mind is an "emergent phenonomenon" out of organized cellular life, but still needs some explanations not all yet achieved, saying "emergent phenonomenon" on its own explains nothing.

[@handrias001]

@@SKMRify exactly

[@chadd990]

This video is so old but I still somehow gravitated towards it

[@angelon3969]

He is not saying that gravity doesn't exist. He is saying that there is a problem to give an explanation of what we observe, experience and call gravity.

[@a-square4085]

Duidilijk 😉

[@arrynbeacon8077]

+Angelo N then he cannot know that gravity exists or not then lol

[@angelon3969]

+drexl spivey No What you've just said is simply stupid. In ancient times, people didn't know what a lightning was but they knew it was real.

[@a-square4085]

He's saying it's like centripetal & centrifugal forces. They aren't true forces of nature like the Nuclear, electromagnetism, the Strong, & the Weak forces. But the force exists nonetheless. It's an interesting idea because it raises the question of how gravity is manifest within matter. His theory will have predictions no doubt. If it proves to be true then maybe antigravity could become a reality. Personally I'm a bit skeptical. Because it doesn't explain Einstein Rings or Gravity Waves. Just saying Tot volgende keer. :D

[@arrynbeacon8077]

Angelo N no..youre the stupid one. lightning can be observed via many ways. gravity is just fiction which cannot. gravity does not exist

[@apburner1]

He convinced me that gravity does not exist. Now I'm stuck on the ceiling.

[@Vilverna]

I knew that was coming

[@lolo-om9rs]

but you are denser than air

[@jaredgarden2455]

Lotfi amv How does him being denser than air determine where his mass is located if there is no gravity. Think about it.

[@lolo-om9rs]

like how metal fall in water and helium rise in air and because gravity is a weak force i mean that the coupling constant of gravity is smaller than buoyancy ps i don't think that gravity doesn't exist

[@jaredgarden2455]

Metal doesn't sink in water without gravity and helium doesn't rise in an atmosphere without gravity. Think about it, if what you claim is the case then astronauts wouldn't be able to float in space. Gravity is the attraction of density but it is only felt on an extremely large scale. Also gravitational force is not the same as the weak force or weak interaction.

[@paulthompson9668]

Excellent video. You're the first person who's drawn an analogy between gravity and temperature. I'll have to search for more videos with you in them.

[@AFMR0420]

@5:08 he talks about Einstein’s theory and how it postulated the interaction of thermodynamics and black holes, so definitely not the first, even according to what he is saying himself. But maybe you just didn’t watch the video or understand it. Also, they allegedly have confirmed the discovery of gravitational waves since this video came out, disproving “big thinks” click bait title, but I don’t actually hear him say gravity doesn’t exist, unless I missed it.

[@AFMR0420]

Also, you should watch about MIT’s creation of the first BEC (Potassium BEC, if my memory serves) and the hyper interactive material phasing it created at a super low temperature. To me it seemed like hyper destructive gravity, which is postulated to exist at the event horizon of a black hole. I’m not arguing that temperature doesn’t effect gravity or isn’t the result of; but it might represent a parabola, paradox or an even more interesting Euclidean shape, I say this because the fact that planets’ North Poles are always the direction that the star is moving in, and stars’ North Poles are always the direction the galaxy is moving in, but are galaxies’ North Poles the direction the universe is moving or is there an intermediate system, non observed, containing galaxies but smaller than the entirety of the universe, or is the universe moving, or is the perception of universal motion caused by the flow of an object through time or time itself, that is shaped like a multidimensional ouroboros? Just curious, cause I can see it.

[@paulthompson9668]

@@AFMR0420 I should have said "the first person I've run across on KZbin". My mistake in not being precise enough.

[@vladocvijetinovic]

Bill Clinton is into physics now

[@sumguy835]

He never had sexual relations with “that woman” & gravity doesn’t exist...

[@kellyblake4594]

Lmao

[@charmainmnisi3697]

🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣

[@caratcranker5874]

He knows jumpers catch cum.

[@LaMalia35]

😂

[@TheLingrush]

Sleep is how you teleport to breakfast.

[@suppertime4125]

Stew Pidasso When Star Trek fans get past 80 years old, their toilet becomes their Transporter Platform and they teleport to it eight or nine times per night before breakfast.

[@guystokesable]

Fucking rich people, eating breakfast.

[@BlacksmithTWD]

Only when someone brings me breakfast in bed.

[@tarnopol]

Breakfast is how you teleport to sleep. Your turn.

[@guystokesable]

@Pedro Abreu 😜

[@AbeldeBetancourt]

This man is no Michio Kaku. He's actually brilliant.

[@alvinlam6975]

3:28 The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is a WHOLE DIFFERENT THING from the Observer Effect.

[@maddyohara4058]

youtube comments are my favourite place to explain how gravity is keeping your subscribers down

[@TheRealMake-Make]

The love child of Bill Clinton, John Travolta, and Chevy Chase. No disrespect, this guy is cool...just couldn't resist the celebrity look-alike thing.

[@KevinTheNoobie]

Who the fuck is Chevy Chase?

[@TheRealMake-Make]

kevin A goofy actor, hilarious in the 1980s. Caddyshack, National Lampoon's, Fletch, and Fletch Lives are probably his most well-known roles.

[@dareisaya]

kevin This question lost you cool points. Use Google.

[@BlatendCrude]

Make-Make Hahaha, I love to do that too....!!! This one was good, peace.

[@Mancavor]

Looks like the Police agent who teams with Dale in the Mask movie!

[@ogopolo]

So is he simply saying that there may be a smaller scale event that doesn't involve gravity, because it is what creates the event of gravity? Why are people disagreeing with this possibility?

[@Deantrey]

From what I have gathered in the comments, most people who are disagreeing fall into two classes, either think they have the answer, and so they disagree with him in an attempt to enlighten us on the ultimate truth about gravity and how it works, or they didn't watch the video and think he is actually saying gravity is just an illusion.

[@xkopp375]

Mishima Exactly. What he is really saying is that we really don't understand how gravity works at its core. He is not denying the existence of gravity or saying it isn't a real factor. It's just like primitive people looking at a rainbow. The rainbow is real. But it seems magical. We just couldn't understand why and how it was. We are still at that point with gravity: It's still sort of magical. Seems like an illusion. But someday we'll find it - the rainbow/gravity connection...

[@SussyBacca]

Mishima isn't he kind of saying it's an illusion? An experience we perceive is there, but is actually the product of something else, much different than what we perceive it to be?

[@Deantrey]

Nick Steele Yeah, specifically, he's saying our experience of gravity as a force is an illusion. We think of gravity as a force that pulls things towards other things. The problem is, this force can't be perceived at a certain level (at the microscopic level). So what happens to it? That's the question he is trying to answer. What he is proposing, is that gravity is the product, as you say, of things going on at that smaller level, which is why you can't perceive it once you get to that level, because it isn't a thing (a microscopic force) that exists independently of the things going on at the microscopic level, but a product of them (or an emergent effect). Gravity isn't, strictly speaking, really a thing at all. I mean, it's not a thing like nuclear or electromagnetic forces. It's just a statistical effect that results from the average of interaction of things happening at the microscopic level. Because we can't see things happening at that microscopic scale, we perceive it to be this cohesive force, therefore it is an illusion. That's, I think roughly, what he is saying (in my own unexpert words).

[@SussyBacca]

Mishima ahhh OK. I was thinking he meant something like that but I'm not familiar with him so thanks for the clarification. Do you happen to know the speed of gravity? Most places I see online say it's the speed of light, that if the sun exploded we wouldn't perceive it for 8 minutes in any way, including gravitational. But, our known universe is billions of light years across, and a delay like that should cause ripples that magnify over time but nobody sees that, and no source code for gravity simulation that I've seen applies it over light speed, it's always applied instantly, and those models produce correct looking simulations of galaxies, so I'm a bit confused; does anyone know this for a fact or is it a debate still?

[@bundleofperceptions1397]

Absolutely amazing, the guy talked for over eight minutes and didn't say a damn thing. That's talent.

[@paceyombex]

Politicians would be proud of him.

[@sunkid02]

he spoke for over 8 mins straight and you didnt understand a damn thing...... fixed it

[@jbombm8059]

That's funny, something like 7 years ago I had thought that Gravity doesn't exist in the same sense that other forces do, that it's an emergent phenomenon, much like consciousness. I tried to explain my idea to people at work but they just brushed it off, and I soon just let it go. Kinda nice to be somewhat validated after hearing that I wasn't alone in my idea.

[@davidrichardsonYT]

Lies

[@brainstemriff]

So gravity is an continually emerging state

[@SrValeriolete]

I'm more confident about gravity being an emergent phenomenon than consciousness. I always find funny when people give conscioussness as an example of an emergent phenomenon as if it the hard problem was already solved.

[@baloog8]

I had this feeling in junior high. It just seemed observed and they said Newton DISCOVERED it when an apple fell on his head.. no, he just observed it and made calculations based on observations. I was skeptical about anything regarding gravity from then on... and teachers and passively nodding students. Lol

[@HellsMascot]

This man is on the right track. The current paradigm of how we think and describe gravity needs serious remodeling and so you should all appreciate and consider what people like Mr. Verlinde have to say and contribute

[@r.williamcomm7693]

9 years later & your comment aged perfectly. To many physicists looking to build lucrative followings in a genre that entertains the public in a cerebral way & possibly inspires others to pursue careers in the field instead of contributing to knowledge that can be applied in real world applications.

[@DavidRaderII]

Wondering if people are watching this video before commenting. While the video title captures attention, he isn't saying "gravity doesn't exist at all"- he's saying gravity may not exist the way you think it does. Practically everything in science is theory anyway. E.g. The theory of gravity. It is amazing how science draws so many in with certainties when at the heart of science is uncertainty.

[@darkciqrian]

well said...

[@MrPaulCurtis]

So i guess this won't mean that we can stop the engines of a helicopter and everything will keep moving along just fine then?......ok got that one:)

[@kossmikham]

Obviously you don't understand what "theory" means in science. It doesn't mean what you think it means. It doesn't mean a "guess", as it does in your ordinary, every day conversations. In science, a "theory" is the highest status that a concept can achieve. A scientific theory is a framework that has the ability to explain all available data, contradicts none, and is able to make predictions. The moment a single observation, a single piece of data contradicts a theory, that theory will cease to exist as a theory.

[@MrPaulCurtis]

***** Then without the facts it's premature to speculate!

[@DavidRaderII]

***** I understand Fact > Theory > Hypothesis > Guess. Sometimes the line is blurred in common conversation. Sometimes too far, I contest. In common conversation I often interchange Theory and Hypothesis primarily because theory has half the number of syllables and is a far less common word. The word "hypothesis" may otherwise distract from the idea by way of time taken to say the word and attention diverted by way of curiosity to the uncommon word. I noted "everything in science is theory anyway," to remind people. To accept theory as fact can create an illusory wall between any theory reaching a fact. At this time in common culture, "scientifically proven" is too often used with the connotation of an "unquestionable fact." When looked at ardently, it's hard to leave a theory unquestioned, especially if it stands in the way of good progress.

[@RodrigoAlcoforado]

I think the key to understanding how forces interact with matter, and understanding how "gravity" works, is figuring out what space-time is made of. I believe that space-time is a kind of "super-fluid" and that it adopts different behaviors when it is close to big matters and when it is far away like in what we call a "vacuum".

[@mdd1963]

we do not understand it at all, we merely 'chart the observed phenomena' with equations...

[@88Doug]

True. To know is to no know. The only truth is the search. To "know" is to be "done looking".

[@Gryffixchannel]

As a fellow Dutchman, I recognize that accent 100% of the time. ;-)

[@KpxUrz5745]

Yes, it's interesting why everyone of a given nationality sounds alike in their accent. Like most stereotypes, it is true.

[@thedevilinside]

im american, living in belgium. im constantly assumed to be some sort of strange dutch hillbilly, due to my accent :D

[@toke102]

as a former stusent of midle scholl. i recognize fricking morons most of the time, erick is one for sure

[@5O4evr]

Danes Dutch and Finskis sound the same to me

[@emiel1976ep]

Hij is een Nederlander.

[@bobwilson2122]

Gravity: Erik Verdlinde doesn't exist

[@methylene5]

He doesn't exist, he's just the result of patterns of complex, microscopic phenomena.

[@fierce_foxx4633]

hahahah i think i just peed my pants :')

[@Smonjirez]

methylene5 As a solipsist I'm sure he's just a figment of my imagination.

[@coryleblanc]

Earth's center of "gravity" is up. The Tamarack Mine experiment proves this.

[@KaliFissure]

RyuDarragh funny you say that since the conclusion of that linked article is that in fact the earth is a rotating sphere

[@stag1528]

Why are people saying that gravity doesn't exist because buoyancy and density can explain it? Using buoyancy and density, can you explain why things fall towards the earth, and not upward? Also the equation to find buoyant force literally uses the variable "g" representing acceleration due to gravity. You cant use a concept that relies on the existence of gravity to say that it doesn't exist.

[@UncleDruncles]

No such thing as Gravity. Buoyancy and density dictate the behavior of all objects immersed in a fluid system!! No exceptions

[@silenthunter8254]

Release an object in a vacuum. What does it do? Why does it do that?

[@jameshatfield8410]

Uncle Druncles I agree

[@silenthunter8254]

@@jameshatfield8410 why do objects want to go towards the earth?

[@feitingschatten1]

@@silenthunter8254 They don't. The earth is blocking the particles from the "other side", depending on where. Think of gravity as all around you. A bunch of small particles, constantly pushing against things. The earth actually shields you from the pressure on the "other" side. In this manner, "Most" of the force heads towards "most" of the mass. You're still being pushed, in all directions, by gravity. I believe Tesla figured this out when he used a superconductor to block the particles. But I am unable to understand beyond what I told you, except for a few side effects of gravity particles, such as electricity, heat, the directions of those, and how they behave where mass and gas are separated.

[@silenthunter8254]

@@feitingschatten1 yes gravity pulls it down... I am unaware Tesla had access to superconducting materials back around the turn of the 20th century.

[@nihonbunka]

I like his voice. If gravity is an expression of quantum level energetics, does that mean we are more like to be able to control it, as we can control temperature? I want a land cruiser.

[@galhest1]

This guy seems so friendly. I give him 10/10

[@kossmikham]

Friendly, perhaps. Bright? Not very.

[@robinbongers9843]

***** Not bright? Have you read some of his work? Seen where he is at. You may not agree with him, but to say 'he is not very bright'? c'mon.

[@galhest1]

Chris Jenkins Lol! He even rated his own comment up xD

[@kossmikham]

Robin Bongers His claims have zero explanatory power. What he is offering is pure conjecture. A non-falsifiable conjecture, at that. When Einstein redefined gravity and published his theory of General Relativity, he created a rigorous mathematical framework on which the theory was based. And it was falsifiable. They theory has been verified time and again, many thousands of times, against any and all available data and measurement. The GPS navigation system cannot stay accurate for more than a few minutes from a starting reference point if it doesn't take relativistic effects into account. Verlinde offers nothing of the kind. And I made the "not very bright" comment for a reason. I can't have much intellectual respect for anyone, especially a physicist, who says "objects like temperature and pressure" (5:44).

[@kossmikham]

Chris Jenkins I quoted exactly what he said. Here's the full context, quoted verbatim: "... in terms of not looking at the individual motion of the atoms and molecules, but just by thinking about these objects like temperature, pressure and so on..." He clearly refers to temperature and pressure as "objects". You see, physics is an exact science. In fact it is the most exact science there is. It's not a subjective discipline like politics or religion or the arts where there are no real boundaries between "correct" and "incorrect", and where pretty much anything goes. And here we have a physicist, of all people, talking about... physics. I can forgive such a statement from a hairdresser or a bartender or a waitress, but not from a theoretical physicist. And please don't use that old "not a native English speaker" line on me. It's simply offensive. English is not my native language either. With that said, you missed the main point I made in my previous response and latched on to the most trivial part of my comments.

[@VersionBest]

After watching through the video, I have no clue what he was saying.

[@helpdeskjnp]

He has no idea of what he’s saying either. You can tell. If it were true he could explain it to the average person.

[@dustinirwin1]

try it again with the speakers on? lip reading ain't easy

[@danielfausto757]

Very bad speech skills for a theoretical physicist. If he cant give a perfect understanding speech how are we supposed to believe what he is proposing

[@melinabourne5954]

Im 1:10 in to the video and i myself dont know what he's talking about lol.

[@ejmtv3]

Gravity as opposed to Newton's belief is just an effect of objects curving space time according to Einstein.

[@sledge2742]

Its 3 days till my physics A level on gravitational fields and I'm watching this

[@shawncantsurf2891]

did you just go to class with a flat earth model and claim gravity doesn't exist and one cannot prove a negative, therefore automatic A +?

[@marienbad2]

@@shawncantsurf2891 hahaha. He just wrote that the pressure under the object is lower than the pressure above and that caused it to fall. Man, I have been watching way too much scimandan and conspiracycatz lately, I now know the FE explanations for stuff.

[@sledge2742]

@Marki Faux I don't have a flying shit what you're talking about

[@sledge2742]

@Marki Faux we didn't do that advanced fields, it was only one module of many. I didn't take physics further to university, im studying engineering

[@sledge2742]

@Marki Faux thanks

[@SimonGreensocialmarketing]

hmm at no point has Verlinde said gravity does not exist. Like most other theoretical physicists her just trying to decipher exactly what is occurring at it's smallest/finite scale.

[@markpointer2967]

Simon Green My point exactly. Surprisingly rubbish, especially from a Theoretical Physicist.

[@aservantofelohim]

He is saying gravity is an illusion caused by the interaction of things on a very small scale. We term the macroscopic manifestation of these collective interactions as "gravity." Basically, he is saying we have to start thinking about gravity differently.

[@SimonGreensocialmarketing]

aservantofelohim that's far enough but we still have empirical evidence of it's constant in relation to mass.

[@SimonGreensocialmarketing]

Mark Pointer not sure what part of it you think is rubbish. But irrispective of not quite understanding it at its microscopic/finite - we still have empirical evidence of it's function and its conastant in relation to mass.

[@Ptrrrrrrrr]

I think the 'illusion' take is just to get people watching. I think the word Verlinde uses is 'emergent', which is not the same, of course. Just like we can explain the behavior of gases because of emergent properties of the gas as a whole without having to refer to the individual molecules, so too does the gravity constant inform us of the operation of gravity on a large scale, without having to point towards the operations underlying it at the quantum level. It's not rubbish (@Mark Pointer), because this insight allows Verlinde to develop a new, revised theory of gravity, which is much more refined. The result is firstly that we won't need such (literally) nonsensical things as dark matter and energy, and secondly that it allows us to better speculate what happened at the 'beginning' of the universe.

[@a-square4085]

He's not advocating the stance held by the flat Earthers that gravity doesn't exist. He's Dutch & what he is trying to explain is that he simply has another theory along the lines of string theory about what gravity is. You flat brainers need to find yourself another hero. Ik spreekt ook Nederlands.

[@angelon3969]

+Flatlander 😉

[@mark-Vortex369]

+Flatlander wat wil je zeggen dan ? Dat de aarde een spinnende bol is die met debiele snelheden door de ruimte heen gaat ?

[@a-square4085]

Ik dacht dat ik had hier al wat gezegt. Maar nu zie ik niks. Oh well, Yes, the Earth is spinning like a bat out of hell through space. Round & around the Sun it goes, where & when it stops, nobody knows.

[@Cambridge792]

+Flatlander *Ik spreek ook Nederlands.

[@Paulmatthew22]

But he isn't HURTING the Flat Earthers at ALL,.Helping more like it

[@deryklamb]

We have measured gravitational waves. Theories ignoring gravity is like leaving your car keys on the counter.

[@kokopelli314]

Irritating questions like: "Does your research have implications for our daily lives?" Could be answered, "... for some today, for most in the future."

[@cherokeetears5813]

You're Goddamn Right! I hate those questions that are being asked. Those questions are asked to make this topic interesting for random people. Just like those "Clickbaits". Duh...

[@juliusdedekind]

It is obvious that some of the people commenting only read the provocative title and didn't actually listen to what the guy said. Lame.

[@JB-rl4ik]

It's fucking annoying.

[@JohnDoe-zh6cp]

Lots of flat Earth retards out here.

[@arazhajiyev236]

is that Richard Gere talking about the gravity? :-D

[@FormsInSpace]

in 1997 I took a community college philosophy class, and was reading a book about grand unifiied force theory. I went tot the physics department and asked the professor a question that was puzzling me "what is gravity?".. he said "we really don't know". I realized then as a teenager that man is still very naïve about the nature of reality and world we live in.

[@robertflynn6686]

I think your 100+% Erik, right on. It's more better understood in D. Bohm models of space

[@Earthad23]

This has been known since 1920 ish? People still don't get it. Objects move in straight lines through curved space, no force needed.

[@cutty02]

hahaha but the force is the actual curved space. Gravity curves space how? its not understood

[@LuisAldamiz]

Gravity does not curve space, Cutler, mass does ("how?" is the Nobel Prize winner question), gravity is how we call that curvature of space-time caused by mass.

[@steenpedersen8526]

The real problem of explaining gravity or any other force in nature is, that force is completely fundamental just as space is. Force is what nature is made of. Looking for a mechanism that creates force is like looking for the building blocks of space. What ever you would find is biting its own tail. As you cannot create space without using space, you cannot create force without using some kind of force. Therefore either space or force can be explained or understood logically. Mass bending space as an explanation of gravity also bites its own tail. My question would of course be - by which force does mass bend space? or how does space get the information that there is mass in it?

[@philliplowe7316]

Steen Pedersen I seriously have been wondering the same question.

[@LuisAldamiz]

Well, the electromagnetic force is caused by charge and carried by photons (i.e. the electromagnetic field(s)). This can be described in terms of "particles" (which are actually waves, occasionally distorted by entanglement=observation into pseudo-particles), how do we explain gravity then? Well, as a field (gravity field, known since Laplace and particularly since Einstein, who identified it with space-time itself) BUT: 1. we can't entangle it into pseudo-particles (no "gravitons" yet, not likely in the future) 2. crucially, time itself is being involved (bent), what does not happen with any other fundamental field (QM fields seem to respect time, gravity doesn't) 3. gravity also affects massless particles (photon), while QM "forces" (fields) only affect particles (wavicles, fields) with the same kind of field (neutrons are unaffected by electromagnetism, electrons are unaffected by the strong force, etc.), so Einstein's approach of considering the gravitational field identical to space-time is vindicated all the time (except maybe in what has to do with "dark matter", we'll see) So maybe gravity/mass is the master field? But why? And, if so, as mass is generated by the strong nuclear force/fields and the Higgs field, how are they related?

[@hm6638]

WHAT! NO WAT NO NO NO

[@Hydroverse]

I see gravity as an energy source. My reasoning is that the heat energy coming from friction during precipitation isn't the same heat energy that is observed during evaporation. Evaporation heat energy is traceable to a conversion of mass into energy like oxidation or fusion, but the heat energy that is released as water falls through the air due to gravitational acceleration being dissipated as heat isn't traceable to mass being converted into energy. Therefore, I see gravity as an energy source to explain where that additional heat comes from since evaporation heat isn't precipitation heat.

[@nelsonx5326]

I think when a person reaches the point where they understand the universe they disappear and all knowledge of them disappears and those of us left in the universe have to start wondering about all this stuff all over again like the breakthrough never happened.

[@Silver_dragon_uk]

Gravity is small black holes in space where it sucks in Space debris from its surrounding, and as the pressure in the centre is so high it then starts fusing partials together which heats up (that’s why the earths core is super hot), we can’t simulate the Level of pressure (Center of blackhole) to see how different particles react (heat up, divide to new particles...) without having access to an actual blackhole (a rip in space) Then over the years Layer up on layer of more debris piled up, as you go further and further away from the centre the pressure is less and less and then the heat reduces, that’s why we are able to stand on top of earth. The size of the black hole determines the intensity of the heat and earths black hole is the perfect size (not too big not too small) compare to the Sun’s black hole in its Center which is super strong and it fuses particles to a different level to the earths black hole that’s why there is more intense, endless amount of fusion in the sun. The rip in space is like an invisible “quick send” and one quick send can’t suck up another quick sand (it’s an anomaly in the time space)

[@adamhome7448]

Dragon D - your talking out of you blackhole

[@Silver_dragon_uk]

@Adam Home, Haha, very conservative comment, duly noted!!

[@phoenixcurrents91]

Dragon D when the fuck did he specify his political beliefs?

[@catkeys6911]

I just love the way scientists talk about gravity as something that was once mysterious, but that now they "understand" it as the "warping" of space-time, and that space-time is curved. I would LOVE to know how anything that is supposedly limitless can have a SHAPE? Well, didn't you KNOW that TIme is curved? -Um, uh, SURE I knew that! - PPfff! who doesn't KNOW THAT?? Space (which, by definition is NOTHING) - hell, THAT'S curved TOO!! It isn't anything, so of course, it HAS to have a shape!! By the way, I need a grant to further fund my sitting in a bath tub thinking about this, and how I can word it so that nobody can be sure whether or not I make any sense to anyone.

[@macicoinc9363]

entire scientific world torn asunder by a single youtube commenter

[@chuckhough]

If time and space bend how do you measure it? It's an oxymoron at its foundation. "Here, take this ruler that bends in space and time and use it to measure itself". Uh huh.

[@cdgt1]

Gravity is the density x capacitance x inductance, Described as an inversion m^3/Kgs^2. Capacitance measured as a farad (A^2s^4/Kgm^2), multiplied by inductance as a henry (Kgm^2/A^2s^2) = seconds squared. Multiplying this by the density of the object in question and then creating an inversion (1/(Kgs^2/m^3). Creates the gravitational constant 6.67 x 10^-11 m^3/Kgs^2.

[@billhesford6098]

Or, it could be crap.

[@romansfortunyr3882]

this guy is a freaking genius!!...what an amazing analogy that of the gravity to that of temperature....the devil (and the answers) are in the details (tiny tiny letter)....two thumbs up!

[@skyeangelofdeath7363]

I love comments sections that are full of laymen explaining how wrong the world class physicist in the video is about physics.

[@tarmogr5801]

umm show me one!

[@noahstutterin]

I love comments sections that include comments from people who find it noteworthy that different opinions exist.

[@iuliua]

You are also assuming in your comment that laymen cannot understand reality but only a certain class of people can.

[@skyeangelofdeath7363]

@@iuliua Understanding reality & understanding cutting edge physics are completely different things. Quantum mechanics are a great example. Extraordinarily hard to understand or explain; even for someone well educated in physics. The suggestion that laymen don't understand quantum physics is not some elitist claim. It is an acknowledgment of reality.

[@iuliua]

@@skyeangelofdeath7363 if you want to put yourself under the physicists and blindly trust them..you have that right...i believe that if they can understand it I should be able to understand too, at least the high level picture...if they tell me i can't because i'm not trained and i should just trust them...i become suspicious...so good luck with your approach..

[@laomark9583]

just to think outside the box and impartially and independently view things differently than the "status-quo-herd" is already a long way into the path of being brillant!

[@beatnix488]

It is ideal to imagine different scenarios by which we can begin to imagine effects that have not been popular or even considered. Some of the different dimensions and unknown forces in nature are not readily detectible in the present day, yet express themselves mathematically. It is good to think outside the box. Our main problem is we lack physical and math models to tell us of influences and realities which are beyond our instruments and are not detected by our senses. Only a few hundred years ago, individual gases that comprise our atmosphere were not known, and the idea of "ether" was thought to be the main component of the cosmos.

[@SolomonB117]

In short, Gravity is not a force but the process in which objects react and relate to each other through some sort of ununderstood fabric called spacetime.

[@ardorlur]

This actually makes a lot of sense. So the trick to antigravity, would be to essentially “hack” or trick molecules around an object into reacting like the molecules would with a gas, instead of a solid object.

[@nickname714]

i came here after flat earthers and scientists discussion

[@Kako_San]

Same

[@whiteliketar]

This is how I explain what gravity actually is to my friends. I hold both of my hands straight out in front of me .( palms facing downwards to the floor ). Next I drop my left hand a bit and at the same start tilting my other hand ( as if it is starting to turn over ) but not all the way. This I found is the easiest step in starting to get people to visualize how space time is displaced. By a heavy object like a planet. Of course Newton’s laws then come rushing in to explain how they remain in that circular motion. this is how I understand it after reading the topic.

[@MQartGallery]

Mohsen Qaddoura: PLAR Application- Topic 1 Gravity This video is 11 years old! So obviously, despite my admiration and applause of Erik effort to think out of the box regarding gravity, it did not get traction or develop into a full theory that replaces the two old, a century-old actually, theories of General relativity and quantum mechanics which scientists to this day still are taken hostage by, as they are unable to come up with something better to replace them or even know how!

[@kumonom1]

Yeah it's total click-bait. Typical of B I G T H I N C C

[@exillenssoundbender5851]

When you get into quantum dynamics to try explain anything then you're defacto getting into metaphysics. Gravity can keep a massive object like the moon thousands of miles away in earth's orbit, strangely not hurling into us, but still weak enough to allow us to jump up and down on the earth's surface. We fall down the sides of a mountain but not down the sides of a round planet. Good luck with this. At some point you're going to realize we're living in an electrical, mental projection and certain things just operate according to how the projector wants with no real consistent factors across the board

[@Psychonauticus6]

Gravity is clearly the result of a as-of-yet-undiscovered particle I'd like to call the "Gravioli". In all seriousness however this was a fascinating video, I never thought to look at the problem (and I do consider it a problem) of Gravity as emergent from the interactions of subatomic particles. However, I find another problem with this line of thought in that subatomic particles don't appear to be actual physical objects at their very core. In a very basic sense particles are merely the result of charge and spin values in a wave equation, which means nothing to us non-physicists/mathematicians and very little to physicists and mathematicians. How is it that something as fundamental to the function of the Universe as Gravity arises out of interaction of objects which don't appear to actually be "real"? I'm beginning to wonder if what we call Reality is itself an emergent phenomena...

[@iamTheSnark]

Gravioli sounds like something from the world of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[@LuisAldamiz]

An emergent phenomenon (singular, "phenomena" is plural) of what: of your mind on psychedelics? Seriously...

[@VeritasEtAequitas]

Think net dipolar effect.

[@Mikey-mike]

Professor Verlinde's idea here is a new direction in thinking as has further room for development.

[@AndrewWutke]

The biggest hindrance in physics is continuous belief that time actually exists as an independent component of reality. It is a tool. This is like saying that a car contains a factory which built it.

[@BBlueu2]

The more we think we know, the less we really do know.

[@jake1996able]

Just type the word gravity in your title and all the flat earthers will come like the flies into a open kitchen window...

[@nousautres8519]

why wouldn't they? wouldn't you be excited if there was more even of things that you believed were true?

[@jake1996able]

Nous Autres Sure. But sometimes they getting annoying as hell.

[@benc5077]

Bob Bob a

[@markpointer2967]

+Jake K. Yep. Well put. How sad though...

[@harrytoyshirt4146]

Maybe a bit judgmental. Have faith. Somehow we must believe that these idiots have a purpose. Maybe their mother loves them.

[@bhangrafan4480]

What I have long wondered is: what if the laws of gravitation we have from Einstein are inaccurate because the true form of the gravitational law only becomes apparent at extremely large scales such as a major fraction of the size of the universe? Then this would explain why it has been so difficult to reconcile quantum mechanics with gravitation because we have the wrong model of gravitation. Einsteinian and then Newtonian laws may only fall out of the true laws as you reduce the scale, i.e. short scale approximations.

[@rebokfleetfoot]

Newton did have a theory about how the physical mechanism of gravity can be explained. He did not publish it. He pondered there was an exchange of a certain type of infinity small particle. He went further to suggest that this particle was not bound by the constructs of linear time and may in fact underpin the physical process of time.

[@bluesque9704]

most scientists don really get relativity. I mean they set themselves to understand it, know the equations, then work off it.. but they can't really imagine it, have a grip where they could hurl it around.. rather they work at keeping their arguments consistent. So, if anybody is going to look beyond it going to come through collaborations of scientists, and we have got some stuff down beyond Einstein.. But I wonder if there is going to be another genius who is going to dig something unfathomable.

[@disregardingsanity2890]

If you choose to read the "expert" commentary below, proceed at own risk. Reading to their opinion put you at risk for aneurism, stroke or brain cancer.

[@sammyidriss7524]

I have a question. How the mass curved the fabric empty space

[@drakekay6577]

The correct way to phrase this is...... The effect we are witnessing is real, the word and definition we use to describe it are inadequate!

[@danieljust295]

Not a word about why gravity does not exist.

[@a-square4085]

Shhhhh, I'm having fun reading these crackheads comment on gravity. Groovy dude.

[@MarcCastellsBallesta]

It's a sensationalist title to attract viewers. Gravity ovbiously exist, they are searching where does it come from.

[@fountainofwisdom169]

no it does not. How do you measure gravity? you have to believe in black magic dark matter to believe in gravity. Gravity derive from buoyancy and density. Gravity is made up to fit the globe earth.

[@MarcCastellsBallesta]

Fountain of Wisdom Gravity can be measured with a scale, with a spring, by throwing something to the floor... No black magic involved. Newton's laws are not derived from buoyancy & density. The question "why apples fall but the Moon does not" is not answered with buoyancy and density. Gravity is not made up, it is a description of how masses interact between them.

[@fountainofwisdom169]

Marc Castells Ballesta by using a scale, spring or throwing something to the floor that is not gravity that is demonstrating weight. When something is weightless it floats. Gravity is totally different , it is a force of attraction between 2 objects with mass in any direction. Weight always points downward, gravity is in all direction.

[@firstdog4]

Tesla explained that it is magnetics. He was thorough and correct..

[@_John_Sean_Walker]

Interesting. Can we meet?

[@_John_Sean_Walker]

Darn.

[@_John_Sean_Walker]

Darn²

[@JohnDoe-zh6cp]

No he didn't.

[@wernertrptube]

I have not found the explanation in Erik courses where he calculate the range of low gravity constant going from 1/r2 (squared) to 1/r by the value below 0,00000000012 m/s² .. In this region the Newtons law is corrected from squared decrease to linear decrease.

[@gujuriddler9513]

The temperature, Kelvin is a fact yes. And the sense of Time and Space as Well. But the microscopic sphere might going to change as well if the area is getting pressured too high over a decade or something

[@MiguelBaptista1981]

Clickbait videos don't exist.

[@TasteMyStinkholeAndLikeIt]

This dude cured my insomnia in 5 minutes

[@shawncantsurf2891]

neither does jailbait

[@ohaRega]

1. why is the video titled that? whoever put the title did not comprehend the doctor's point. 2. is the comment section populated by apes?

[@cdygwu]

+ohaRega judging by the thumbnails and the comments, yes.

[@mathiasrryba]

HArry Beaver becayse f lattards think for themselves xD Relying on videos made by just as deluded people as yourself who haven't accomplished anything in life.

[@mathiasrryba]

Harry Beaver creating a world of ignorance to science and delusion in your head doesn't mean you've changes it you moron.

[@LuisAldamiz]

1. Verlinde is saying that gravity doesn't exist. He does not provide any alternative for gravity but rants about temperatures of gases. Maybe a better titl would be "the warm fart of non-existent gravity?" I found this video and others of Verlined mighty annoying: he does not seem able to explain anything. 2. Of course: I know of no non-apes who can type. Trying to teach my cat but still a long way from reaching any sort of coherence: he can't even type "meow" correctly, go figure!

[@benoNetanya]

Oh, now I understand everything.

[@randallperry6774]

I want to know who is behind the curtin controlling what to hold down,and what to let up at various rates, what to keep in place, what to let fly all at different times and different rates of speed, God the questions run so deep.Any answers?

[@SteakSchmidt]

Facts

[@philbarbone6534]

he looks like a sort of Portuguese Bill Clinton

[@greatarabia8091]

😂

[@christopherellis2663]

Difference A: difference B, homeostatic flows in temperature, pressure, &. ....?

[@fstim82]

I'm wondering if gravity is more what I'd call "space-time drag". Imagine a log moving past a star, one end close to the star and the other far. Each end is moving through the star-warped space time such that one end is moving through more or less space at any given moment, due to the bend in space-time. One end would in a sense, be moving faster. Since each end is obviously connected to each other, the slower end "drags" the other end back, effectively pulling it toward the star as each end fights each other. Spacial-ly speaking, anything 3D would be affected, which realistically, everything is. Some might say "But what about an object that doesn't move? It still gets pulled by gravity." You have to remember, you're still "moving" through space-TIME. It's not just a spacial concept. In my head, the only issue is that I'd expect the end closer to the star to be the faster end which would pull the opposite direction than what we see. I think this part may be counter-intuitive though, if you could say any of this is intuitive at all. It's hard to imagine how these space-time bends actually work... Anyone follow that or have counterpoints?

[@cristopheralexander1583]

If gravity doesn't exist then why is there a movie called gravity?

[@cristopheralexander1583]

@goranco abovski so you believe that gravity is fake?

[@cristopheralexander1583]

@goranco abovski sorry for the late reply I just came out the shower it's like 4:22AM were I'm at 😂😂

[@evaschrevelius]

That Dutch accent. I recognized it immediately

[@Chemistchannel22444]

+Anonymous Triceratops Me too, but I´m dutch so ;D. But, anonymous triceratops. i have got a question for your, what do you want to study? because i don't know if you live in america or in europe or anywhere else on the globe. if you happen to live in america, do you know how the school system in europe works? i'd be happy to explain. but that aside. what would you want to study. you shouldn't think in term of '' well i like that but i'm probably not smart enough' but just ANYTHING. I would like to hear it from you. if you answer me i will know. Thank you in advance.

[@evaschrevelius]

Denise Veldhuis Well I'm Dutch too! I really want to become a video-editor or something that's creative. :) I do know how the school system in Europe works, but thank you for your lovely offer! :D

[@Chemistchannel22444]

Cool! wil je zegmaar op een flmset werken, voor televisie of om bijvoorbeeld evenementen later te monteren? ik vind video editing ook leuk, wij moeten dit vaak doen tijdens CKV, daar behandelen wij het gehele jaar film. Aan welke opleiding ben je bezig of heb je gehad?

[@evaschrevelius]

Denise Veldhuis Hah, ik zit nog op de middelbare school. Wij behandelen nu ook film tijdens CKV. Ik zou graag de beelden willen monteren enzo. Op een filmset werken lijkt me opzicht ook wel leuk. Wat wil jij later gaan doen?

[@Chemistchannel22444]

ik zou graag scheikundige willen worden. En dan het bedenken van nieuwe stoffen en medicijnen lijkt me vooral heel leuk. Op een filmset lijkt me ook wel leuk maar wat zou de dan willen doen op de set, de props verzorgen, filmen of iets anders?

[@markasmichmel]

I would recommend watching Ken Wheeler's (Theoria Apophasis) videos on field theory, and to read his book Uncovering the Missing Secrets of Magnetism. Pretty solid explanations on what "gravity" is, and oh my it's it's so simple and so divine.

[@markasmichmel]

@goranco abovski can you send me something that might explain gravity in a better fashion ? You seem to know the answers!

[@Dina_tankar_mina_ord]

Energy concentration. energy flows where attention goes. Get two hypothetical boxes with the same amount of space inside. Use different amount of particles swirling around, one box with a huge amount one with less. More action in one box would equalize with more time passing in that box. Hens distance would shrink. Time and temperature is as equally intimate as electricity and magnetism. cold slows down time and expand space-time. Thats why you can slow down light in an Bose-einsten condensate. The space inside of it expand enormously compared to the energy of the photon. Gravity is time and temperature timepreassure.

[@stillsurfin101]

Apparently, you aren't thinking big enough.

[@Imafungi123]

Linking time and space as a single fabric was a mistake in Einsteins theory, the truth of the matter is most likely space is some sort of Aether.

[@MARKCREEKWATER1]

Mark CreekWater "EPOLA" IS "ELECTRON-POSITRON LATTICE" --- THIS IS THE "some sort of Aether" TO WHICH Imafung123 REFERs, ABOVE

[@MARKCREEKWATER1]

Mark CreekWater PLUS: BY 1920, EINSTEIN HIM-SELF CAME BACK AROUND TO ACCEPT-ING THE EXISTENCE OF "AETHER" ... HE SAY'D, IN A LECTURE IN LEIDEN, NETHERLANDS, IN MAY 1920: "SPACE WITHOUT ETHER IS UNTHINKABLE ... IN SUCH SPACE THERE ... WOULD BE NO PROPAGATION OF LIGHT" [p.318, EINSTEIN: HIS LIFE AND UNIVERSE (2007), BY WALTER ISAACSON

[@Polaf3456]

Time and space as a singular entity actually makes alot of sense, particularly when you think of time as a secondary product of interactions between physical matter and energetic forces in space. I have no clue what you mean by "Aether" although from what I have read, this was a rather archaic belief explaining the material that made up the "heavens above". I would equate its legitimacy with the possibility of an actual heaven existing, in other words, none at all. Also Mark CreekWater, fix your fucking capslock.

[@Imafungi123]

Ian Walker It depends first how you define space. If you are defining the supposed melange of fundamental fields as they exist on average, of average density and base quantized mass, or if you are defining space as a conceptual tool, a background grid of nothingness which from your chosen reference frame you can then plot all 'stuff' that is interacting in your frame of reference and view. So why time would be chosen by a man or men to fundamentally become linked to whichever definition of space you choose, is peculiar, and not in a, 'I am so stupid what I dont understand appears peculiar to me' but a 'lets see you logically try and prove the validity of this activity, because to me the lack of logic involved in such an accepted concept is peculiar'. time being a 'secondary product' kind of sounds weird to put it, I understand what you mean I think, but I dont know about the use of the term product, I dont think time is a product, I hardly know if it can be considered a quality, I consider the most simplest comprehension of what the word 'time' means, and is in essence 'pointing to' is the fact that; Stuff exists. Stuff moves. In order for stuff to exist you need some concept of 'space' and continued with stuff moving. Still I dont think the linking of the two concepts, is a representation of some fundamental physical truth of reality, because the comprehension and use of the term 'time' becomes skewed, when seen in this matter, and this I think has had an affect on things like, nature of light speed, nature of meaning of time dilation, nature of light being considered massless. So I think particles move, and interact, but I dont think the space they exist on necessarily is 'a fabric of space time', I think it may be useful or convenient to use a grid or graph, to compare the way particles move, and then like one would use a ruler, can say I can to some degree measure qualities about a particles motions. What I am saying is, I think space-time is more of a statement about a tool, then it is about a fundamental nature of reality, and that people maybe get that mixed up, or without thinking, believe that they are equivalent or congruent.

[@xaythor]

Mark CreekWater I don't know if Einstein accepted the existence of aether, i could not find: "p.318, EINSTEIN: HIS LIFE AND UNIVERSE (2007), BY WALTER ISAACSON" online. But i can say that this looks a AWFUL lot like a quote mine. Can you give us the full citation without the [...]s? I have no problem with taking out unimportant parts of his lecture but this looks to; "cut and pasted" for my taste: "SPACE WITHOUT ETHER IS UNTHINKABLE ... IN SUCH SPACE THERE ... WOULD BE NO PROPAGATION OF LIGHT". Also did he say AETHER or ETHER?

[@refusoagaino6824]

Time must be the erroneous "constant" that we've woven into all the theories. I'm hoping to learn more, when I die.

[@SpectatorAlius]

How can people claim this video means Verlinde does not believe gravity exists? By 1:16, he has *already* admitted that it exists, *several times* even! What he is talking about is something different, whether or not it is an "emergent phenomenon". But this does not contradict the obvious and well known fact that it exists.

[@alvinlam6975]

3:20 It's position and MOMENTUM.

[@elbu2968]

Newton never explained gravity. He was able to calculate its effect. Einstein explained gravity through curvature of space under influence of mass. His spacetime theory is different from explaining gravity.If you just did not mix every bussword used in science into one seemingly coherent story. It might have made sense.Now it does not.It does not seem you realy touch the edge of knowledge, but merely touch upon many topics.

[@jeffreybonanno8982]

How can you calculate the effect of something you haven't provenBy being friends with the church and helping hide their secrets.

[@elbu2968]

Jeffrey Bonanno This is the typical answer of the uneducated. You do not need to explain and understand gravity to know, that you fall when you jump off a building. Being able to reliable calculate it and even make predictions based on it still only requires the effect, without knowing where it is comming from. You can offcourse pray to a God, but that ha'sn't been proven either, it doesn't even have a observed effect.

[@jeffreybonanno8982]

You misunderstand and completely underestimate my education and cognitive ability. You may not need to "know what made you fall" but you need to have an explanation for it that involves proof or reasoning for your assertions when constructing an entire theory of contrived and admittedly "hypothesized mathematical formulae". Unfortunately just because you have this thought about why things are heavy and decide call the reason for it by one name when you personally ponder it, does not mean you are the originator of the idea or that you can just presume yourself to be correct because there isn't any conflicting information at present. Newton took to the idea of equations, formulas, and algorithms being replacements for physical data and zetetic proofs. This is just the start of his error but I haven't much time to waste on such elementary level thinkers such as Sir Isaac "Know Nothing" Newton. Good luck with trying to call strangers uneducated and meeting your comeuppance. Buh-bye now.

[@elbu2968]

Jeffrey Bonanno Nice salad of words. Unfortunate, not much logic in it that even touches the initial remark

[@Ptrrrrrrrr]

I think what you're saying is wrong. Einstein did explain gravity with the theory of relativity, and that is not what Verlinde is contesting. What Verlinde is saying is that Einstein could not relate gravity to quantum mechanics, thus there was a breach the theories that explained micro physics and macro physics. Verlinde's work consists of trying to close that breach, and the result is a ground-up theory of gravity, which is much more accurate on the macro-scale (thus making nonsensical postulates like dark matter and energy unnecessary). I don't think it is generally a good idea to accuse a prof. dr. of theoretical physics of not being knowledgeable about theoretical physics. It makes you sound silly.

[@gujuriddler9513]

Only micro yeah. So times flows lower as well. The space changes fundamentally

[@ThePinkus]

I really like Prof. Verlinde's ideas on gravity. I'd also like to see if there's a chance that the gemetrodynamics-thermodynamics link extends to entanglement-decoherence...

[@cheslumpkins589]

Hi

[@sebs29]

5 years of engineering gone down the drain,so it's not longer g=9.81 as g doesn't exist :(

[@SuperPersianLord]

That's correct, the force is properly called space.

[@anewman]

SuperPersianLord How is space the force, space is what's being manipulated by matter.

[@anewman]

that's the force of gravity as a constant when used for acceleration. It only works with Earth gravity given that a larger mass would yield a stronger gravitational pull

[@goldjoinery]

Austin Burnam I've been telling this fuck for far too long how space isn't a force.

[@SuperPersianLord]

Jake Lai Gravity is an illusion that has caused continued turmoil among physicists, or at least among those who profess to understand it.

[@theunpossiblefile]

That's why you see ads in the back of magazines, "Science cannot explain gravity, it's just a theory... find out what is timeless & goes beyond your tiny temporal inversions..." or something like that. Actually Einstein does a pretty good job. What's his name asks the ?, "is religion just failed science?" Let me pray on that one... Also why do smart ppl have good complexions & shiny noses? Is the man who is tall happy?

[@hrafn7936]

what the actual fuck are you on about friend

[@theunpossiblefile]

We'll friend-o, ah don't rightly know... But IS the man who is tall happy? (It's a movie) Do you have a shiny nose? (Who cares) Sam Harris is the guy who asks, are religions failed sciences? To your right>>>>>

[@hrafn7936]

i love you

[@Rellikan]

theunpossiblefile wow nicely done

[@rambojhon8319]

Isac Norling Guy above me is soo Gay !

[@fekete-kiss-sandor]

Good, its time to question these things in the mainstrem

[@milkmanman]

Well .... With discovery of wavelengths and gravitons this whole video and your comment is now moot

[@suzesiviter6083]

We know time slows down as we approach the centre of a Black hole, that time runs faster at high altitudes on Earth, when we throw a ball up, the ball goes through a time gradient-from slower to faster time gradient causing the ball to fall. So higher mass means slower time. mass is composed of Neucleus and electrons, so it must be the density of Proton and Neutrons causes time dilation? So although unmeasurable, denser materials experience more time dilation, lighter material time runs reletively faster. Does that also mean smaller creatures perceive time to be running slower than us, hence the smaller creatures also generally have shorter life spans?

[@harrisontaylor-zimmerman6620]

The universe is an illusion

[@ActionParsnip]

Harrison Taylor-Zimmerman possible but using the information we have and can collect we have to assume (at present) that it isn't.

[@0ooTheMAXXoo0]

"Forces" are results rather than causes.

[@beetjeafvallen6584]

Could you make a new video about the newest discoveries about gravity? this one is about to be a decade old already

[@larryjeffryes6168]

Okay - time flows in the opposite direction of space expansion. How fast must it flow to account for the “gravitational constant”? This would have gravity as an effect, not a force. It’s the momentum imparted by mass moving through time/time flowing around mass. How fast does time flow?

[@AustralienGuy]

There is no Gravity.... The Earth sucks!

[@sysconfig]

All the flatearthers: "This is what we have been trying to say all along!!" Me: "No." "Not even close."

[@helmutschramm2320]

Daniel Gundersen lmfao bahhhh. bahhhhhhhh. you're a fucking idiot. stay in your barn

[@thefoxamongwolves9843]

@helmut schramm found the Flat Earther!

[@zaquanamar]

They only cared about density =P

[@chentepacololo5759]

Yo bro Earth is indeed flat Barny

[@squiggly_lines]

came to this video with wtf on my mind, left this experience with more wtf on my mind.

[@meljon777]

We don't know what gravity is, but hypothesise on some of the effects that can be observed, that "might" be connected to it and then declare it as science fact. Gravity explains everything we can't explain. Totally makes sense to me!