Gravitational Time Dilation causes gravitational “attraction.”

Visualizing General Relativity. My Patreon page is at
/ eugenek

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

To see subtitles in other languages: Click on the gear symbol under the video, then click on "subtitles." Then select the language (You may need to scroll up and down to see all the languages available). --To change subtitle appearance: Scroll to the top of the language selection window and click "options." In the options window you can, for example, choose a different font color and background color, and set the "background opacity" to 100% to help make the subtitles more readable. --To turn the subtitles "on" or "off" altogether: Click the "CC" button under the video. --If you believe that the translation in the subtitles can be improved, please send me an email.

[@voodoodoll4960]

Thanks for French sub

[@anuragguptamr.i.i.t.2329]

Hi sir. You are requested to make a video on this: 1. When does the sun's magnetic polarity get reversed? 2. What impact will it have on the Earth? 3. Recently in 2020, the sun's polarity has been reversed, for the 25th cycle. When was the first cycle occurred? 4. Approximately when will the 48th (final) cycle occur? 5. What will happen, when the final 48th cycke occurs? 6. Whenever the first cycle had occurred, before that had no polarity reversal cycle ever occured on the sun? 7. Will the sun never ever change its polarity, after the 48th (final) cycle? 8. If the answer to question 7 is that the polarity will stilll be changed even after that, then why is the 48th cycle considered as the final cycle? 9. If after the 48th cycle, any new fresh cycle starts, then what will be different in the cycle? Why will be a fresh new cycle and not the 49th cycle?

[@y0uCantHandle]

This is the first time I have seen gravity caused by time. Every other text book, article I have read has said mass bends space-time. LIGO measured changes in distance. I’ve even seen gravity bends time. Descriptions of general relativity, The rubber sheet analogy and the resultant term “gravity well” alludes to space gradient being the significant component of perceived gravity, not the time gradient. If it’s true that it’s time, why is it not so widely taught as such?

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Tanner, the text books are correct when they say that mass bends space-time. However, the rubber sheet analogy is not accurate because it does not show the "time" component of "space-time." The curvature of space components relative to each other become very relevant when moving at relative velocities close to the speed of light, or when near a black hole. But for the type of situations which we normally encounter, where Newtonian physics is an accurate approximation, it is the curvature of the time dimension, relative to the spatial dimensions, which is the most important effect.

[@y0uCantHandle]

@@EugeneKhutoryansky I understand the analogy isnt perfect, hence it is an analogy and as stated it bends space-time. However you are stating that the time component is the most critical component? Is there a specific formula for this (I could not find within the special relativity formulas)? The way i understood it was newtonian physics only explains so much light curvature around a massive object as it only takes into account bending for space (for arguments sake lets say half the predicted outcome) whereas the Eddington experiment proved general relativity of bending space & time (the other half). Is it not 50/50 is it 80/20 or some other mathematical relationship?

[@bass9454]

this is better than drugs

[@mrnobody4147]

no drugs are good too mixed with this

[@peter.d.song95]

LMAO

[@aaronlewis4475]

For real this is fucking amazing

[@Shreymani2]

😂😂😂

[@johnburnham6239]

Can you help explain it to me? Hahah...

[@slipknnnot]

This is Physics for the soul.

[@werds1392]

Sergey Kislyak physics is the soul

[@frankdimeglio8216]

My ideas have become the ideas of others.

[@marcusw3541]

Yet another example of how underated this channel is

[@spirit-teacher]

You explain physics like none other in KZbin.

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Thanks for the compliment.

[@mcmtskate]

He's right, the way you explained time's role in gravity was so simple yet I'd never heard it before

[@bara734]

Because probably his intention is to really help and teach you and not confuse you like in academic environment. This is real science learn not commercial studies. Thank you. I'm not a fan of physical and quantum mysticism but this videos help me to improve my mental screen and imagination. Electrical or Natural science is behind all of this in our daily reality, you only have to have mind eyes to see.

[@ishworshrestha3559]

Yyu

[@johnburnham6239]

Can you help explain it to me? Having a hard time seeing why the object doesn’t just stretch in the time direction...

[@Kingricky76]

This hurts my brain so good.. Love it

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Glad you liked it.

[@DestWa]

I absolutely love all of these videos. Such amazing explanations, spoken clearly but not taking too long to get "to the point". Marvellous work!

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Thanks for the compliment, and I am glad that you like my videos.

[@fjoa123]

You videos have fed my imagination to the point of almost being able to wrap my mind around space time. Thank you kindly.

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Glad you liked my video. Thanks.

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

If you like this video, you can help more people find it in their KZbin search engine by clicking the like button, and writing a comment. Thanks.

[@UnforsakenXII]

Will do!

[@Joe11Blue]

I have to say you're getting better. Especially your pacing with the narration. Keep up the good work!

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

+Joe11Blue, many people actually prefer the slower pacing of my other videos. People who do not have a strong background in physics often need time to think about each point before moving on to the next one. Thanks.

[@alanmoses800]

You make some of the best physics videos. I especially love the attention to detail and the clarity of communication over the misconceptions conveyed in the common metaphors others use. To me, this is personally HUGE. I remember going through public school asking a bunch of questions whenever someone pulled these metaphors out and never could get a solid answer. I had a hunch they were not complete, how could they be, but because I was never given what was missing it was hard to see what I was getting wrong when I tried to actually use the metaphor as a mental starting point to understand. I wish you had been around back then, you'd have saved me hours of chasing my tail.

[@lewisdave5631]

Could you make a video regarding Hibrydization Theory?

[@mycofairbanks3321]

Gravity is a product or result of time dilation! Beautiful you have answered my life long question on physics. Thank you so much

[@skhotzim_bacon]

No, gravity is a result of the curvature of spacetime. You are confusing the apparent gravitational attraction caused by time dilation, which can also be caused by an accelerated reference frame, with actual gravitational attraction, which is only caused by the curvature of spacetime. To further understand the distinction between apparent gravitational attraction caused by time dilation and actual gravitational attraction due to spacetime curvature, consider the example of a rotating spacecraft. Imagine a large cylindrical spacecraft rotating about its axis. Within the spacecraft, there are astronauts standing near the inner surface. As the spacecraft rotates, the astronauts experience a sensation of weight, as if they are being pulled towards the inner surface. This apparent gravitational force experienced by the astronauts is not solely a result of centrifugal effects, but also arises from a combination of centrifugal effects and time dilation. When the spacecraft rotates, the centripetal force pushes the astronauts towards the inner surface, giving them a feeling of weight or apparent gravity. This is similar to how an object on a rotating carousel is pushed towards the outer edge due to the centrifugal force. However, it's important to note that this apparent gravitational force induced by the spacecraft's rotation is not caused by the curvature of spacetime. It is an effect of the centrifugal force and the resulting sensation of weight experienced by the astronauts. In contrast, actual gravitational attraction, as explained by general relativity, arises from the curvature of spacetime caused by mass or energy. It is the warping of spacetime itself that influences how objects move in a gravitational field. Therefore, while time dilation can create an apparent gravitational attraction, such as the experience in a rotating spacecraft, it is distinct from the actual gravitational attraction caused by the curvature of spacetime. Time dilation occurs due to relativistic effects like differences in motion or strong gravitational fields, while actual gravitational attraction is a result of the curvature of spacetime caused by mass or energy.

[@Grateful92]

In your apparent gravitational force's example, you added 'motion​' What Eugene described is the phenomenon which will occur if there is no motion in the dimensions of space. For example if a body is not moving at all, it is still evolving in time dimension and the speed at which it is evolving through time will cause an acceleration which will cause the gravity. What gets proved from this example is that if a body is not moving, it will still have weight and will attract other objects according to the intensity of its field of influence. I hope you will understand. English isn't my primary language so don't mind my bad grammar.@@skhotzim_bacon

[@Seaprimate]

Man, thank you for this. I feel like I almost have it visualized. Like I can almost make out the silhouette of the concept through the fog before it fades again. I think what's messing me up is the apparent rotation of the barbell object in the video It makes it seem like it would have to rotate spatially as it moves toward earth, but I know in reality it doesn't. I'm trying to picture how, say, a ball or point object would be made to freefall by time dilation, or how an object at rest on a surface of a planet is kept there by time dilation, and how that relates to the perceived acceleration upward by the surface. All I can picture is a stationary object at the same distance from the earth just aging differently, I can't see how it initiates the movement from that graph.

[@DavidHansen1]

I don't see how physical rotation can occur. One tip of the dumbbell would age faster than the other tip, but that alone could not "force" the dumbbell into any rotation.

[@jaredf6205]

I'm also stuck in the same spot. I keep seeing explanations of the space aspect, and others showing the time aspect, and after a long time, the both make sense. But I can't put them together! How does the time gradient relate to the earth accelerating up towards me but kept in the same spot my proportionally compressing space? I also get what you mean by the rotation aspect. Like I can visualize it for something far out in space then curving slightly towards earth, but not for something that you would drop straight down.

[@natanmortenfeld5813]

exactly 💯 , and there's another video on utube that tries to explain how gravity is created by time delation ... so what if an object ages in different rate at its 2 parts , how does this pulls him down?

[@hardikshah9891]

02:46 - Why would the closer end start moving towards the earth instead of the farther end simply overtaking it in its initial line of motion along time (as shown in the graph), eventually causing the object to break?

[@sylvainbrosseau6239]

By far, the best physics science channel. The flow of the explanation is not overwhelming like other channels which make it a race to 'keep your interest'. The classical music add a touch of calming sophistication as is the narrating. And the topic is always perfectly well depicted. Thank you. French canadianly yours.

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Thanks for the compliments. I am glad you like my videos.

[@mikailkhan9166]

These videos are great, helped me understand this a lot better

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Thanks. Glad my videos are helpful.

[@jmcsquared18]

Even though the visual really doesn't capture the fullness of why mass-induced time dilation causes gravitational attraction, that was an excellent video, and it illustrated something that is often misunderstood by relativity students. The rubber-sheet analogy is complete rubbish. The curvature of time causes the gravitation that we experience in the weak-field scenario. Bravo on this educational masterpiece, you earned a subscriber 👏👏

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Thanks for the compliment about my video and I am glad to have you as a subscriber.

[@mccrakn5]

I just wanted to say thank you Eugene. What you have done is deeply appreciated. People like you make the world a better place.

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Thanks.

[@RiadhBoukratem]

The mathematics equation of Time = 3D space and space = 3D time: (Tx1/Xt0)^2+(Ty1/Yt0)^2+(Tz1/Zt0)^2 = (Xt1/Tx0)^2+(Yt1/Ty0)^2+(Zt1/Tz0)^2

[@spirit-teacher]

You are amazing! Thank you for another video!

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Glad you liked my video.

[@blake301987]

Amazing video Eugene, Thanks for making it!

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Glad you liked my video. Thanks.

[@chinmayswain7696]

I am pursuing MSC in physics but still feeling tough to understand your video.

[@andrewshort6440]

You might like this alternate way of thinking about this: kzbin.info/www/bejne/h3-yd6ujmKp2hrM

[@zoganauiti]

I am addicted to your videos, and I'm not even on school or studying physics for any kind of test. I'm just curious about the understanding of the world around us

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

I am glad you like my videos. Thanks.

[@irontomato8361]

"DO YOU BELIEVE IN GRAVITY"

[@Elixir_JPGG]

*Yes* *Yes* *Yes* *YES*

[@elultimopujilense]

This channel is just pure gold.

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Thanks for the compliment.

[@jamescrawford1534]

This video was fantastic, I totally understand the concept of curved space time, I used to imagine the rubber sheet (gravity) more as a net/cage where hundreds of nets hand vertically and each net was linked to the one in front and behind to create a 'cubed' net, then depending on the mass of an object within the net, it was show how it affected gravity by how distorted the net and cubes were, but I never understood WHY, this really explains a lot of things, thank you for this

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Thanks. I am glad you liked my video.

[@Metaknightmare217]

What wonderful presentation! I'm so glad you can make concepts like these so understandable!

[@ocnus1.61]

"but different parts of the object will want to move through time at different rates" Why tho? Nothing is said about their velocities

[@fastend]

Different parts are differently distant to the massive object.

[@lucasqwert1]

i think this is no velocity in a classical sense. This is not a velocity that applies to the 3D Space, but the rate of the flow of time for the part of the object that is near the earth (because of the mass of the earth, the flow of time for this part of the object is slower) and the further part of the object (its flow of time is faster). Therefore, the whole object is "attracted" by the earth in the 3D space (known as gravity). But perhaps my interpretation is worng, I'm just beginning to wrap my head around this :)

[@fastend]

@@lucasqwert1 I agree and it was rather about time and not velocity, but of course the parts in different distances will also be accelerated by a different rate, which leads to different velocities and can explain tidal forces. There is so much happening at the same time that you can wrap around this:-) Letz WARP IT:-)

[@lucasqwert1]

@@fastend YES Let's try to understand the universe step by step :-D

[@fastend]

@Bồ Công Anh but are tidal forces not same thing as an attraction in different rates to certain parts of a body? Why different curvatures for each space and time?

[@rodrigoappendino]

I didn't understand. Why does the object move toward the Earth? Why doesn't it just "stretch" its time coordinate?

[@supertigik]

exactly my thought , hoping for an answer

[@thelethalmoo]

same question! if not stretch why does it cause rotations in thing falling in a vacuum? Is this the only way gravity attracts or is there a attraction due to gravity and this is just another side effect of the fact gravity bends time?

[@thelethalmoo]

+TheLethalMoo does it*

[@paulwedlock9788]

+TheLethalMoo As a thought to chew over: If you're in the mooood? Objects in motion want to travel in a straight line. The gravity of a different object will interact with the the first object & the sum of the numbers will influence the course of the objects. If the >milky< way gives you starry sk-eys ? Then our earth churns out to be a weight on your mind :-D

[@ACLozMusik]

The object does strech but up to a point because it will resist the streching (or break apart) Given that the forces have different magnitude, it will not just move in a straigh line but also rotate, resulting in a curved path

[@pranjalpatil9659]

best explanation with visuals i could ever find on all over the internet ! and what is more fascinating is that this all came from a mind of Genius and we are still trying to understand it 100 years later !

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Glad you liked my explanation. Thanks.

[@bakersbread104]

shouldn't the particle just start flipping over? Why does the force pull it in a direction other than forward in time (towards the earth)

[@theespatier4456]

Baker's Bread I think you’re confusing the time axis for a spatial axis. Still, I think this is a poorly done video.

[@bakersbread104]

@@theespatier4456 well they represented it as a spatial axis and if it worked as they were representing it i think the particle would have just flipped around and not moved in the 3D spatial axis.

[@ibrahimhussaini2701]

Baker's Bread I have same doubt

[@hinkles73]

@@theespatier4456Well, inside a black hole, time behaves like space (which means that you can now travel through time in 2 directions).

[@johnburnham6239]

@Baker's Bread I feel like it would be less of a flipping and more of a stretching... the body may be rigid in the x or y axes, but the difference in rates of motion along the time axis could very well be constant, and so the stretch-i.e. difference between positions of the body through the time dimension-would be as stretchy as you want. Like you recognized in your first reply, zero effect on the position of any parts of the body, since motion along the time axis is completely independent & orthogonal to the x & y. 2D spatial position would be given by a projection or shadow of the object straight down along time axis onto the xy plane. Since time has no effect on the position, it also does not strictly cause a rotation in this presentation, since rotation would imply motion in xy of the projection or shadow. But I agree-I can’t see how this time dilation causes attraction...

[@zimbabwe166]

this channel is just great, this is like a class but an awesome class, am a big fan of the music choices and the topics !! this is just great...

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Thanks for the compliment. I am glad that you like my videos that much.

[@Kugelschrei]

Does that mean I want to move through time faster than earth, which is why my geodesic wants to travel "through" the earth, but I get stopped by it?

[@ynntari2775]

The thing this video taught me the most is a thing the video does not talk about, why objects seem to shrink near black holes, that dumbell inclining in the time dimension gives the impression of being shrinked if you look from above in the 3D representation of the video.

[@MD-md4th]

This is the best visualization of time dilation/gravity relationship I have ever seen!

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Thanks for the compliment.

[@MikeLInNM]

25 years since my first physics class that touched on GR and this is the first time I've had it actually explained why objects attract gravitationally! Thanks!!!

[@graymancini4733]

It is amazing that people can visualize a concept as fundamental to us as our physical perception of the universe. It is soon to be that machines will operate continuously and without conscience to make the universe understood in HD.

[@Govstuff137]

This is a good moment to think about time as something else . We need a new name for it.

[@shehanchanuka15]

your explanation is the best explanation I'e found in entire internet by far.I guess you are born to teach otherwise these teaching skills cannot be taught only be born with .keep up!!!great great great work!!!

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Thanks for the really great compliment.

[@albericrex9005]

OMG a question i have been asking for 18 years and never had the answer now a 4 minute video just gave me the answer

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Glad my video was helpful.

[@albericrex9005]

@@EugeneKhutoryansky it was amazing ❤❤❤

[@Lucky10279]

This video is amazing! This is the first time I've ever had any idea what the idea of "least-time paths" actually means. Watching your new video on geodesics first and then this one actually has this concept a starting to make sense. Thank you!

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Thanks. Glad you liked my videos and that they were helpful.

[@yamansanghavi]

I don't understand why is this video not super famous among physics students. I always talk about these videos to all my friends. This is pure gold for a physics student.

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Thanks for the compliment about my videos.

[@daviddeavours4909]

If this is so, how does a photon experience gravity as it is moving at c and has no time component to dilate?

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

For light, the curvature of the three spatial dimensions relative to each other becomes important, as in the "rubber sheet" model. But, for the case of objects moving much slower than the speed of light (and not near a black hole), the description in this video is more applicable. Keep in mind that none of these analogies are perfect descriptions. For a full description, we need Einstein's Field Equations, which I discuss in detail at kzbin.info/www/bejne/i5e3mYmsd7yNrq8

[@unitt731]

What causes an object at rest to move through time? Why would the movement of time move something through space that starts out stationary in space?

[@BritishJuche]

Really useful, thanks a lot for making this!

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Thanks.

[@EvilDudeLOL]

Wait, so, at 2:40, wouldn't you just get a cross-section of the object at any given value for time? The 3D visuals for the object in 2 spacial and 1 temporal dimensions is also confusing: the argument breaks down entirely when you use a 2D render of the object instead. Also, what compels you to reason that the object would necessarily experience a torque? There is no force holding the object in the temporal dimension, so, wouldn't it just stretch? ALSO, what about the fact that massive objects curve space time, resulting in the rising of the Earth at 9.8 ms^-2 upwards while the object is inertial in spacetime? Isn't that the very first thing we learn about General Relativity, and isn't that line of reasoning much simpler? Would greatly appreciate it if you clarify these questions.

[@georgiaguardian4696]

The more I read and think about that time dilation causes gravity, it makes more and more sense!

[@JoeOvercoat]

It’s so obvious now that you illustrated it.

[@freshkryp69]

Thunderbolts Project explains gravity better than anyone. Everything is electric.

[@Hank254]

I never see Thuderbolts explain _anything_, all they do is try to bash the current theories. It's like 'If we can show you flaws in the current theories, then our theories must be right!' FAIL!

[@LuisAldamiz]

But it's not. They have a very sparkling theory but no evidence to back it.

[@khankbar]

My brains are officially fried. Thanks!

[@david21686]

I don't think this explanation makes sense, though. If you have a two-ended barbell at rest relative to the Earth at time t=0, and an observer stationed on Earth, then the observer would not experience time dilation relative to Earth. The observer would have no reason to believe that the barbell must fall to the Earth for physics to be consistent. From the barbell's point of view, I see no reason why each end of the barbell couldn't travel at the same relative speeds, experience different levels of time dilation, and still travel in the same direction without falling to earth. I'm trying to visualize this more rigorously with light-and-mirror clocks on each end of the barbell, but I honestly can't see any mathematical reason why the two ends of the barbell must be drawn to earth. This video really needed more effort put into it in order to prove such a thesis.

[@JohnDlugosz]

I agree. It has fancy animations, explains why it's wrong and what it should look like instead (without showing that), and then punts when it comes to the punchline. "Different ends of the barbell experience different time rates, THEREFORE it moves towards the slow end" is not an explanation but begs the question. Oh, it's not actually right either since it works for points! Sorry, this script needs much more work.

[@RoboBoddicker]

Well, imagine the barbell travelling along a ladder. The end of the barbell closer to earth experiences less time between each rung, which means it experiences less *space* between each rung. So the ladder becomes distorted, with less space between rungs on the side nearest earth. But the width of the ladder doesnt change (because its perpendicular to the distortion) - which means the ladder and the barbell's path must curve toward the earth. Makes more sense with pictures :)

[@david21686]

Copydot  Props for the visual aid. It definitely clarified the concept for me. But it still didn't persuade me that the concept is correct. First look at it from the perspective of the barbell closest to Earth. From the Earth-side end of the barbell, the rungs of the ladder on *both* sides decrease, while both ends of the barbell remain at constant velocity. Then look at it from the perspective of the barbell furthest from Earth. From the space-side end of the barbell, neither the rungs of the ladder nor the speed of either barbell would decrease as much. Therefore, if this explanation was correct, then no distortion would occur. ----- ***sigh*** I'm gonna put in a little effort for this. Sean Caroll's Lecture Notes for General Relativity derives the classical limit of general relativity (arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9712019.pdf, pages 105-106). I don't fully understand it, but I'll sketch out the math. In a weak, static gravitational field, the field strength is given by -GM/r. From this, and from some assumptions of linearity from a weak gravitational field, Carroll derives the g00 element of the metric to be g00 = -1 + 2*GM/r. From there, we can calculate the Christoffell connection, Gamma^u_00 (or however you would denote that), and then the acceleration of the particle is given by the geodesic equation d^2 x^u/dt^2 = -Gamma^u_00*(relativistic gamma). So now we have the equation of motion of a point particle depending on time dilation and on the Christoffel symbol, which depends on r. Let's assume that "r" is negligible because the ends of the barbell are so close together (thus, both ends of the barbell have the same Christoffel symbol)..... You know what? Fuck it. This is too damn complicated. All I'm going to say is that 1) even if both ends of the barbell have the same Christoffel symbol, it's the Christoffel symbol that causes the acceleration, and not the difference between the two relativistic gammas (as John Długosz said, if even point particles are accelerated, then this proof is nonsensical), and 2) Gamma^u_00 depends on the derivative of the time dilation factor (g00), which would support the OP's point, but it depends on a shitload of other stuff too. If there *is* a kernel of truth to what this video is saying, then equation 4.12 of arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9712019.pdf would contain it. But I gotta call bullshit.

[@RoboBoddicker]

+david21686 I think youre problem is youre thinking in terms of special relativity and not general relativity. Hes not saying that SR effects will cause the barbells path to curve, hes saying the compression of spacetime due to Earths mass causes it to curve. The barbell of course experiences SR effects too, but it also experiences a differential of spacetime cirvature across it due to the presence of the earth - so the closer end of the barbell is indeed in a different refence frame from the further end.

[@david21686]

Copydot The claim being made by this video is that 1) there is a general relativistic difference in time dilation between two ends of the barbell, and 2) that the difference in time dilation by itself is sufficient enough to create gravitation. Time dilation due to a gravitational field is a general relativity concept, but time dilation by itself can be handled by special relativity. And as I mentioned earlier, both ends of the barbell can experience time dilation, the barbell can still move in a straight line, and the universe can still be self-consistent. I'm still pretty convinced that he's wrong.

[@kjarrij]

Love it, the presentation, the animation, the voice explaining everything is so clear I just... had to write a comment about it

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Thanks. I am glad you liked my video.

[@scr4932]

What visualization accounts for the way gravity affects point particles if neither of these two does?

[@andrewshort6440]

I think this video might help, it speaks only in terms of warped spacetime: kzbin.info/www/bejne/h3-yd6ujmKp2hrM

[@letsgetshwiftyy]

I'm not a physicist or anything. But after watching dialect's video I knew something was up with it. He seems to be misunderstanding what this video is actually explaining. I don't think he understands that the effects of time dilation rotating an object is equivalent to say it's accelerating towards the Earth not actually rotating.

[@onemediuminmotion]

There is another spatial 'direction', or 'dimension' if you will, that is not yet recognized and incorporated as such by "the standard model". As convenience would have it, this turns out to be the 'direction' in which a spherical shock wave 'expands' - and an 'imploding' one 'collapses'. i.e. there is a '4th direction' in which momentum can be transferred "through-space-over-time". Note that if this "point-radial" (PR) direction has real physical significance, as described here, then the architectural feature of the actual (yes, non-Euclidean/non-linear) geometry of "space-time" is in fact the basis for the apparently "particle-based" architecture of the "material universe" - it is the "point-singularity" at the center of the 'horn torus' - i.e. the horn-toroidal "fluid vortex" in the physical counterpart of theoretically convenient "ideal fluid", which is, of course the SUM (scale-uniform 'super-(or 'hyper'-)fluid' medium), traditionally known (in its 'stationary' - i.e. not PR'ly acceleration-flowing - state) as "empty space"; and later "identified" by A. Einstein as "space-time". And note also that if this 'PR-dimensionality' is so, then a human being's entire "experience" of A.E.'s "space-time" universe could be 'manifested' - some might say "simulated", as in "generated by a 'simulator' software program running on a computer" - as the "standing waveform" interaction/interface between an individual 'outwardly expanding' momentum(or "acceleration")-pulse wave-front and a series of multiple "in-coming" (i.e. "PR''ly collapsing") momentum-"pulse" wavefronts... Note that (as the convenience of serendipity, and old Occom himself, would have it) the spherical shape of an expanding shock-wave in an ideal fluid is identical to what we are "intuitively" comfortable with as the shape of a "particle'". ... And as convenience would have it once again, the PR 'direction' is also the (some might even say "seemingly providentially") apt candidate for description of the ever-changing 'PR'ly expanding' wavefronts we call "particulate (as in "particle-based") mass-objects" (PMO's) as "time passes". ...

[@onesppiegel]

I'm here just to like the video and adding it to my watch later list, cause I'm in my job. I will watch it tonight!

[@IAmNotARobotPinkySwear]

Why didn't they teach us this in school, holy shit. The intuition here is off the charts

[@TheMijoAaron]

Hi I see you responding to newer comments which I really appreciate. I’ve been so fascinated by space and physics recently but now starting to get confused at all the different things being said and disagreed on in the study. I saw your comment on Dialect’s video on the “true cause of gravity” video. Someone here is wrong and don’t know what to believe.

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

All of these visualizations are only analogies and approximations. To understand the full story, we need to understand the mathematics of Einstein's Field Equations, which I explain in detail in my video at kzbin.info/www/bejne/i5e3mYmsd7yNrq8

[@troooooper100]

I could listen to these videos all day long

[@stuntmonkey00]

Spacetime brought me here. Cuz still wrapping my head around their video on this.

[@neer-do-wells5211]

“Ah this is a cool old school instructional video.” “Please subscribe to this channel.” “What”

[@Beerbatter1962]

Love all your stuff. You have clarified many things for me. I searched the video you recommended at the end on time dilation. Also great. But just so you know, it is "Gravity's Effect.... in title, not Gravity's Impact.... Thanks for creating the awesome videos.

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

And the end of this video, there should have been a link that appeared on the screen to the other video I was referencing, so there shouldn't have been a need to search for it. I am glad you like my videos. Thanks for the compliments.

[@reframer8250]

Interesting explenation! Is this explenation just an illustration or is it really correct in the sense of the mathematics of GR?

[@seanshubin2075]

Glad to see someone finally do something other than the indented sheet visualization. I had to imagine gravity pulling things into the sheet so the visualization was useless. I didn't realize what was going on until I managed to figure out that everything goes through space-time at a constant speed of causality. So if you are not moving through space, you must be moving through time. And if you are moving through space at the speed of causality, time is stopped for you relative to observers. This type of visualization would have helped me figure that out a lot sooner.

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Yes, there are a number of problems with the rubber sheet model, even though I have used it myself in many of my previous videos.

[@a3rial533]

So gravity is literally just a property of time? The fatalists are gonna have a field day with this

[@wndmier90]

Un poco de física antes de dormir :)

[@SciHeartJourney]

Great story! I've been reading, seeing this a lot lately; "gravity is not a force". It reminds me of an analogy explaining why light refracts: imagine several columns of soldiers marching towards a river, at an angle. One column is going to encounter the river mud first. They'll be forced to slow down. The other columns haven't got there yet, so they don't slow down. From a top view the soldiers looked like a straight line, until they hit the river banks. It looks like a bend in the line, just like refraction. When they get to the other side, the opposite happens. Then it looks like the line bends back. Again, just like in refraction. It's funny that high school refraction lessons could be the key to understanding how gravity works!

[@amcname494]

I feel like I grasp the basic concepts of special relativity through all the various thought experiment visuals out there. General relativity and space time is way harder. A four dimensional concept, space time just does not lend itself well to a three dimensional screen representation. This was easily the best visual out there. Space time as an x, y axis sliver of earth traveling through time on the z axis. Gravity producing time dilation as shown by the clocks (producing maybe not the best word here). An object falling to earth through the space time curve. I could see that, it made sense. Pretty awesome.

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Thanks. Glad you liked my visualization.

[@Эльдарен]

I'm not convinced that time does not exist, everything is in the cycle, not in time.

[@danielholta5721]

Looked at a curved spacetime diagram and how it affects objects gave me a really good idea of general relativity

[@zakirhussain-js9ku]

I think it is other way round. Gravitational attraction slows time. Moving clock also run slower. Force causes acceleration & deceleration of mass as per F= ma. Faster the speed slower the time & slower the speed faster the time. Increasing speed is acceleration & decreasing speed is deceleration. Faster time is acceleration & slower time is deceleration. This implies an object's acceleration decelerates its time & vice versa. Since Force causes acceleration & deceleration we can say Force affects flow of time.

[@Laff700]

This video blew my mind. I couldn't believe it. That's why I put it to the test in a simulation. I was not able to reproduce these results. I used Construct 2 to run this simulation. In it I made 3 objects. A planet and 2 balls. These balls where connected to each other using a joint so that they'd remain a constant distance from each other. These balls started on the same y/time coordinate. Every tick I set their individual velocities on the y/time axis to (1-1/distance_from_planet_on_x_axis)^0.5. I didn't modify the x axis velocities. The equation I used was the equation for gravitational time dilation((1-(2GM/rc^2))^0.5). I had M equal c^2/2G so I could simplify the equation to (1-1/r)^0.5. I made sure r was greater than 1 in the simulation for both balls to prevent complex numbers from appearing. In the simulation the ball farthest from the planet moved through time the fastest. It also started accelerating towards the planet. The ball closest to the plant accelerated away from the planet. These individual accelerations on the x axis were equal and opposite. As a result, the ball-ball system had no net acceleration towards the planet. This suggests that the theory used in the video to explain gravity is incorrect. Comments?

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

The two balls can't move towards each other, since then they would both be occupying the same location at the same time.

[@Laff700]

Physics Videos by Eugene Khutoryansky Good point. I've added in some calculations to simulate the repulsion between the balls. Still though, there is no net acceleration. I think the main issue here is the law of physics stating "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". There doesn't appear to be any way for this system of balls in a time gradient to accelerate in one direction due to this effect. It just rotates a bit until the repulsion of the balls equals the time gradient induced torque. Another issue with this model is that if both balls' x-coordinates are locked(like if the system is sitting on the ground), then the time coordinates of each ball would keep moving farther apart. This could put a strain on the bond between the balls making it so the ball moving slower in time would get sped up and the other ball would get slowed down until their rates through time were equal. Another possibility is that the bond could simply just break. BTW, I observed something interesting. The two balls are pulled closer together to minimize the difference in rates through time between them. This suggests they'd rather move(if the system could) to a location where the difference was smaller than it was before. I made a little crude equation that shows the relationship between distance from planet and differences in rates though time between the balls((1-1/(x+0.5))^0.5-(1-1/(x-0.5))^0.5). The difference gets bigger the closer to the planet you get and smaller the further away from it. This would suggest that the system would rather accelerate away from the planet if it could. This would be the opposite of gravity.

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

I think the issue is that the objects don't necessarily want to move "upward" in our graph, but in a direction that is perpendicular to the line that connects them. Therefore, the simulation would have to be modified to take this into account.

[@Laff700]

Physics Videos by Eugene Khutoryansky That would explain the very different results we got. If I had done that I would have probably had gotten the same result.

[@Laff700]

+Physics Videos by Eugene Khutoryansky Hey, me again, I forgot to tell you I went back to this idea and figured out how it could actually work since your explanation appears to be wrong. The proper way to look at it is to imagine gravitational time dilation as the refractive index of space and matter and photons both as photons traveling in the 4D medium. I remembered this when a user on the most recent PBS Space Time video asked another user about the validity of the concept shown in this video. I commented the quote below to them as a response and I thought I should show it to you too. Here it is: "You know how when light is traveling through a refraction index gradient its path bends towards the region where the refraction index is higher? Well it appears this exact same effect causes gravity too! You can imagine a black hole with the rate of time passing decreases/the refractive index of space increases as you get closer to it. If you where to shoot a ray of light near a black hole, the trajectory of the photon would be the same regardless of if you looked at it with a "gravity bends the ray of light" or "the refractive index of space bends the ray of light" perspectives. Now we've confirmed that gravitational time dilation causes gravity for photons, but what about matter? Well, you know that idea in relativity where light is thought of as moving at c through spatial dimensions while being still in the temporal dimension whereas matter is still in the spatial dimensions but moves at c in the temporal dimension? Also how moving matter moves through the spatial dimensions at speed v and moves through the spatial dimension at speed (c^2-v^2)^0.5? Well, with this logic matter is somewhat like light and can be treated similarly. Lets imagine that we take a 2D radial cross section of this black hole's refractive index and extrude it vertically to make it 3D. The vertical direction is the temporal dimension whereas the radial directions are 2 of the spatial directions. If we put some of our matter photon things in this medium, we'll find that the accelerations of these photons are the same as the gravitation accelerations matter would feel in the corresponding gravitational field when going at the same velocities. This proves(or at least strongly suggests) that gravity is caused by time dilation. I can show you some of my math if you'd like." Sorry for the delay with this. Have a good day. Also, you might want to redo this video.

[@IoDavide1]

when you explain a concept, i understand things that i never understood with other video or documentary

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Glad to hear that my videos are helpful.

[@milesakic3210]

Such a great channel. I know physics very well in theory but your vidoes help visualising it. You pretty much covered almost all physics fields and I would appreciate if you could make more videos about math. Keep up the good work :)

[@j.k.sharma3669]

Is this explaination for gravity approved??? Or is it your personal understanding to gravity? Plz reply me.

[@kiefxd-musicandcovers5903]

Am I the only one that watched this just to understand Pucci's stand?

[@donsorenoelchapogringo1182]

no.

[@frontech3271]

Do we move through Space and Time, or do Space and Time move through us? Oh, how clever, here in "Opposite World".

[@inertiaforce7846]

Eugene, please make a video on why freefall is considered an inertial, nonaccelerated frame of reference. This is the key to understanding gravity.

[@georgesimpson1406]

Cool. I basically described a similar analogy to a physics youtuber who used trampolines to say: stuff falls down holes in spacetime...and got called insane...but the usual trampoline indentation is misleading. Unless you say: the trampoline is moving at c through time, in a space that doesnt already have gravity, hence the lack of ability to tell difference between gravity and acceleration in the elevator analogy.

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Yes, the trampoline analogy is very misleading.

[@lchpdmq]

Thanks for these videos, all so well done and make complex subjects intuitive

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Thanks for the compliment.

[@ChibatZ]

Hey guys, interesting video, but why can't the objects simply stretch into the time dimension? The further away part could simply get older faster than the close parts, what constraints this stretch into the time dimension and therefore induces the rotation?

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

As stated in the video, this is an imperfect analogy, since a point particle with zero volume will still follow the same path. The issue is not that the particle is "rotating" but that a straight line in curved space-time follows this path. A straight line on a curved surface is called a geodesic. Perhaps the following video on geodesics would be helpful. kzbin.info/www/bejne/hJfUo3aads-codU

[@surfinch]

So you're saying gravity causes time dilation and then time dilation causes gravity ? The reasoning is a bit circular, no ? And what causes the object to actually leave its path ? Why didn't it just stretch ? Or if it doesn't stretch, why does it move towards earth and not away from it ?

[@letsgetshwiftyy]

The same is true of electromagnetism. A changing electric field causes a changing magnetic field and these two are responsible for each other because they are two descriptions of the same phenomenon. Though it seems circular, it is only explaining one half very specifically. Moreover, it is not necessarily true that gravity **causes** time dilation, because gravity is simply the curvature of spacetime, and not a force that acts within. Gravity does not curve space. Space curves around massive objects.

[@paulg444]

it might be better to simply show a single dimension of space, the radial dimension, r and time, t. So simply show t-r and then use the fact that time dt/dt' is positive where t and t' are clocks at either side of an object. Then apply the reduced form of GR to get the equation of motion.

[@wurttmapper2200]

Straight lines are the paths that would take you less time Gravity affects time flow Gravity bends straight lines Things that move in straight lines seem to be affected by a force.

[@CaminoaGaia]

Excelente video. Existe una forma mas intuitiva y rigurosa de visualizar la atracción gravitacional por dilatación temporal: -1 Representar el tiempo en la linea de tiempo del propio video. -2 En el eje z representar la "velocidad" a la que transcurre el tiempo, con valores desde cero (tiempo detenido) a 1 (velocidad 1segundo x segundo) -3 En los ejes X e Y representar dos dimensiones espaciales.

[@muskyoxes]

Imagine taking the time to animate an explanation of why the animation is wrong.

[@soxrox4093]

I love it. Helps to visualise difficult concepts. Thanks.

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Glad you liked it. Thanks.

[@alexneigh7089]

Brilliant vids, I will watch them all!

[@maxsamarin9002]

This helps people understand how curved spacetime causes gravitational attraction, but this model wouldn't work for point-like particles, which feel gravitational attraction too. An object's or particle's (which is at rest in its own frame of reference) world line is always perpendicular to space dimensions in its local coordinate system. As the curvature increases as it moves forward in its local timeand cllser to the massive object, from the outside it looks as if it's accelerating. The curvature of spacetime defines time dilation. Rate of change of that curvature will result in acceleration.

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Yes, I made that comment about point-like particles in the video. Thanks.

[@maxsamarin9002]

Sorry, didnt notice! Great video. Good introduction to gravitational acceleration due to relativity. Love your other videos as well! :)

[@marshawilliams1717]

Note dimensions on how when you measure space with 24 hr time format when sun and night time is where. Electric, sound, time. Measure space on how fast something orbit. If you can make signals you can create ways to travel Lightyear's. Everything os short distance when move speed of light it gets small. A telescope have eye sight on distance. Your eyes contrast speed with color. A fast color is yellow for light we have set as fast. Light is the sun we draw n color yellow. But frequency now vibrating has a pull tug. Sound is magnetic to space. Teleport machine is easy to make. Your whole body wouldn't move at the same time but will meet at the same time. Vision would be the light. Vibration would be the body. Sound would be your mind senses. Balancing frequency with the frequency attraction. Mini 1/2 negative micro magnetic atom. Made from breaking a 1 in a being behind on both sides. 3 dimension is 1 speed 2 sound frequency. Two atom planets look at they attraction and the pull tug. Rotation and magnetic gravity. What is space measured up on when our time measure how fAr in distance how long. When space is measured by how big and the shape of nothing but space. Space only duplicate in a rotating circle that put you on a Dejavu without you knowing you turned around and going back. Like a mirror reflection of space of you going straight but going back to backwards time while catching up to space hypnosis. Building on sound and frequency because it's everywhere. But mass is dark and light is around. What do space need the most. Contrast color. Sound frequency. Light is a sound frequency to provide color or rotation. Atoms could be a answer. If we are big in slow time atoms are small. Do you think atoms are bigger in earth space tim?Do everything rotate the same way? Scientists Katlin Watson think it's shortcuts to make a light years to be traveled in a blink of an second fast forward slow motion your body catches up with its self. Your 90% of your brain leave your 10% n u halusanate visually of your regular image when 90%of your mind is moved through a personality. Why do we use a certain personality or someone else way of speaking or dress. The attraction of they personality can cause a domino effect. Cant give you the answer. But if we can pull a light year frequency through the atoms magnetic attraction. Maybe the movement of the Black Mass contains a travel in space speed and distance. Black Mass could pull light because of the disenty of its invisible flow. I'm crazy. I been loving my theroies wrong or right. Think about it. If you can travel up a elevator on earth a ding on a planet.

[@jstorm05]

I adore this and all of your videos you're a godsend

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Thanks for the compliment.

[@realcygnus]

superb as always

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Thanks. Glad you liked it.

[@residual_soap]

If two flowers simultaneously appeared, one on Earth with proper nutrients and sunlight, and one flower millions of lightyears away with the same nutrients and sunlight, what one would grow faster due to gravitational time dilation?

[@lyfefx]

4am KZbin never fails me

[@MichaelLevyMusic]

Awesome description - without all the mind boggling maths! Would I be correct then, that an object's motion through time, (when there is a 'time gradient' in spacetime, caused by its proximity to a mass such as the Earth) causes the object's motion through the time dimension of spacetime, to translate into a motion through the space dimension of spacetime? If so, what is the 'mechanism' by which an object's motion through time becomes translated via this time gradient surrounding a mass such as the Earth, into an object's movement through space?

[@arnesaknussemm2427]

The ‘tilting’ of the object due the different parts moving at different rates through time reminds me of how the refraction of light is explained by wavefronts moving at different speeds through space . Is there a connection?

[@shadoflubs1553]

Do objects with large mass make time pass slower because they stretch space-time?

[@aidanwilliams4127]

Exactly! That's where the movie Interstellar makes a really good example.

[@shadoflubs1553]

Actually needed to know that for an essay about Interstellar hehe :P

[@LuisAldamiz]

Yes.

[@chiraayujain3486]

So only I got this in recommended in 2020.... OKAY

[@RyanNewell]

WHY does mass slow down time. We know it does based on observations and Einstein made some pretty equations to represent it but... how?

[@RyanNewell]

In all fairness you can't explain how time dilation is what we call gravity, then proceed to tell us if we want to learn why time gets dilated then watch the video on how gravity causes time dilation =) catch-22

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Let's just say that the two phenomena logically go together: Each of them imply the existence of the other.

[@inertiaforce7846]

Eugene, I like a lot of your videos. This one was alright. But its difficult to understand. If you could make another video that better explains it that would be great. Thanks for your work. I am trying to understand this idea of warped space time myself. I'm glad to see that you pointed out that the rubber sheet was bullshit. I always felt something wasn't right with it.

[@thechickenduck8377]

Yeah but "why" do clocks move slower close to large masses???

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

I cover this in my video at kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z3axnINmnZ2hd8k

[@thechickenduck8377]

@@EugeneKhutoryansky amazing video, I just watched it. Thank you.

[@PETERLINNAH]

Thanks. I've never liked the "rubber sheet" visualization of gravity since it only show one plane, when really it is an infinite number of planes surrounding the Earth that properly demonstrates gravity in that manner.