Beyond Einstein: Gravitational Rainbows

[@FFS93]

Rewatched this like 5 times already. Started following WSF channel close to their launch many years ago. So underrated. People dont even know what they dont know. Life is so much better thanks to Brian Greene.

[@yeti9127]

Whenever I become frustrated with our politics, politicians & some of the societal filth and imperfections, I listen to these podcasts to ground myself back to the beauty of nature & life.

[@debranelson1987]

I'm with you on this matter also.

[@Dansinge81]

so true.

[@ShonMardani]

Any theory is valid or invalid only, no maybe and but. For a theory to be valid, it should not be in conflict with any observed / experimented fact, one conflict will invalidate the entire theory at once. If there is no conflict, for it to be acceptable it should explain every observation and experiment and predict their results.

[@lisamarie4940]

Me too! ❤

[@Amethyst_Friend]

That filth and imperfection is also the beauty of life. There is no discrimination

[@manutara2007]

As most of you, I've seen hours of conversations in this channel. All of them are so interesting. I know basic mathematics... I barely remember how to do equations, some trigonometry...the way the topics are explained, help us visualize some "forces" and "fields" without knowing the mathematics of it. This channel is a gold mine. Love it. Brian Greene 👏🏼

[@objective_psychology]

Great title, great subject, great people, great talk. This channel almost never disappoints.

[@georgewaters6424]

Concur.

[@1ifemare]

Best feeling in the world of science right here: a huge problem (dark energy) leads to an hypothesis (gravitational rainbows) and our technology just happens to be ripe enough to develop experiments to test it (Ligo, et al.). And the cherry on top is we have this amazing platform (KZbin) to hear of these unfolding wonders from the mouths of the utmost experts in the field. WSF is a gift to Humanity. Thank you Brian Greene.

[@sureshbaliyan7567]

"Energy can be created only when the applied force is the inherent property of the source"

[@manutara2007]

And for free...incredible.

[@PaulQuigley-hd7wi]

27:10

[@PaulQuigley-hd7wi]

28:08

[@colleenb.873]

I wish this was longer. She was an excellent speaker and I think would have shared even more great theories/research if given more time. Please have her back 😊

[@mimidhof2179]

I'm addict to this youtube channel and to Sean Caroll one too. It has been so long before this serie of 3 episodes. ❤much love for you all working behind the scene of this show and to Brian too of course.

[@MrStarchild3001]

The video is from the World Science Festival and features a discussion between theoretical physicist Claudia de Rham and host Brian Greene about gravity, dark energy, and the potential for new insights from studying "gravitational rainbows." Key points: 1. Newton's theory of gravity stood unchallenged for centuries and worked very well to explain the motions of planets in the solar system. However, Newton himself realized his theory had a flaw in that it allowed gravity to act instantaneously across any distance, which didn't seem sensible. 2. In the early 20th century, Einstein radically overhauled Newton's theory of gravity with his general theory of relativity. Einstein showed that gravity is not a force as Newton described, but is instead the curvature of spacetime itself caused by the presence of mass and energy. 3. Einstein struggled to accept some of the implications of his own theory, including an expanding universe, black holes, and gravitational waves. He also introduced but later abandoned the idea of a "cosmological constant" - an invisible energy permeating space. 4. In recent decades, the idea of a cosmological constant has roared back in the form of dark energy. Observations in the late 1990s showed that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, driven by some unknown energy. This energy acts like Einstein's cosmological constant. 5. The true nature of dark energy remains one of the biggest mysteries in physics. Calculations based on quantum theory predict a vacuum energy that should act like dark energy, but the predicted amount is vastly larger than observations allow - a discrepancy of up to 120 orders of magnitude. This is perhaps the biggest gap between theory and observation in the history of science. 6. Claudia de Rham and others are investigating ways we might be able to probe the properties of dark energy more directly. One intriguing idea is studying "gravitational rainbows." 7. Just as light waves can split into a rainbow spectrum when passing through water droplets, gravitational waves might split into a spectrum of frequencies as they pass through the "medium" of dark energy permeating space. Studying this gravitational rainbow effect could provide new insights into dark energy. 8. Gravitational waves themselves were predicted by Einstein's theory but he doubted they would ever be detected. In 2015, a century after Einstein's theory, gravitational waves were finally directly observed for the first time by the LIGO detectors. 9. Detecting gravitational waves has opened up a whole new way to study the universe. Upcoming space-based detectors and other approaches may allow detection of very low frequency gravitational waves with wavelengths nearly as large as the observable universe. Studying how these waves propagate through space could reveal subtle effects of dark energy. 10. In addition to probing dark energy, studying gravitational waves in more detail could potentially reveal that gravity has additional polarization states beyond the two that are predicted by Einstein's theory and have been observed so far. Finding additional polarizations would be a major discovery showing that Einstein's theory needs to be extended or modified. In summary, while Einstein's general theory of relativity radically reshaped our understanding of gravity and spacetime over a century ago, observations in recent decades have shown there is still much we don't understand about gravity and the universe at the largest scales. The discovery that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, driven by an unknown dark energy, is one of the biggest challenges for fundamental physics. At the same time, the detection of gravitational waves has given scientists a powerful new tool to study gravity and probe some of these deep mysteries.

[@zionjzachary]

Thanks for the summary

[@robert8124]

Dr De Rham is brilliant, she and her colleagues are on the right track,finally...

[@isatousarr7044]

Gravitational rainbows are a fascinating concept that highlights the intriguing interplay between gravity and light. This phenomenon, predicted by theories of general relativity and quantum mechanics, refers to the way gravitational fields can bend and scatter light, creating a spectrum of effects similar to a rainbow. Observing gravitational rainbows could offer unique insights into the nature of spacetime and the behavior of light in intense gravitational fields, such as those near black holes or neutron stars. This concept not only deepens our understanding of fundamental physics but also opens up exciting possibilities for future observations and experiments in astrophysics.

[@danielpaulson8838]

Brian is a great educational facilitator.

[@danielpaulson8838]

@@myspace_forever Only to stupid people who hate facts. I bet you live under a bridge.

[@C-delaC]

estoy conmovida! qué maravilloso momento en la historia para presenciarlo

[@jballenger9240]

Dr. Greene the formats of the three videos released on or about 3/9/24 were over far too soon. Hope WSF returns to its longer format and discussions. Thank you for the exceptionally expert guests you invite and the brilliant discussions. What a generous, priceless gift! Look forward to future (hopefully longer, please) episodes and to see the WSF live. May you “…live long and prosper…” Prof Greene. ✨

[@jballenger9240]

🖖🏽

[@PapaSharmaJi]

its 3.04 AM and this is very fascinating. I am going to sleep now

[@shawns0762]

General Relativity predicts dilation, not singularities. In the 1939 journal "Annals of Mathematics" Einstein wrote - "The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the Schwarzchild singularities (Schwarzchild was the first to raise the issue of General Relativity predicting singularities) do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters (star clusters) whose particles move along circular paths it does seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that more general cases will have analogous results. The Schwarzchild singularities do not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light." He was referring to the phenomenon of dilation (sometimes called gamma or y) mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer. It's the phenomenon behind the phrase "mass becomes infinite at the speed of light". Time dilation is just one aspect of dilation. Dilation will occur wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass because high mass means high momentum. It's the original and correct explanation for why we cannot see light from the galactic center. It can be inferred mathematically that dilation is occurring in our own galactic center. In other words that mass is all around us. Sound familiar? This is the explanation for the abnormally high rotation rates of stars in spiral galaxies. The "missing mass" is dilated mass. It also explains why all planets and all binary stars have normal rotation rates, not 3 times normal. Dilation does not occur in galaxies with low mass centers because they do not have enough mass to achieve relativistic velocities. To date, 6 very low mass galaxies including NGC 1052-DF2 and DF4 have been confirmed to show no signs of dark matter. There was clarity in astronomy before television and movies popularized singularities starting in the 1960's. Einstein is known to have repeatedly said that they cannot exist. Nobody believed in them when he was alive including Plank, Bohr, Schrodinger, Dirac, Heisenberg, Feynman etc.

[@shannonmcdonald7584]

Excited

[@drewg2403]

My bet is on entropy. There is something we must not be understanding fundamentally about the process, but logically there is a strong correlation between entropy and the acceleration of the expansion. She mentioned early on that everything in the universe has a gravitational impact not only on all matter and energy but on space-time itself. As the evolution progresses so does the rate of expansion.

[@mahtabhashmi6467]

Thank for this great series

[@mrengtop]

Such great series... Thank you..👏👏👏💯💯💯

[@manjsher3094]

I'm hoping for a beautiful mind discussion.

[@samwillard5688]

In 2027, after several years of looking for a mathematician to evaluate his theory of gravity, Scott Martin released his breakthrough understanding of just how gravity works, on every scale. Simply put, Gravity is a radiation produced by matter that uses a matter lattice to climb. As standing on the third rung of a rope ladder causes the top to move as you climb, the effect is that of...compiling matter together, as all matter is related and belongs together. You guys are SO close!

[@steliosp1770]

the computer simulated visualization of the vacuum energy fluctuations is trully something. quantum supercomputer simulations and developments in AI will be the catalysts for the next step in solving the mysteries of the universe. we must not be very far from key developments in both fields that will aid us in that pursuit. thank you so much for the videos Brian and WSF, keep up your amazing work!

[@justdoit83388]

Looking forward.

[@quantumentanglementsolved2531]

The fabric of space is still something that fascinates me. What exactly is the fabric of space made of? A question I hope to figure out in my life time.

[@tresajessygeorge210]

THANK YOU...!!!

[@narayankhanal9662]

Such a profound and deep❤

[@anearthian894]

KZbin: recommends Me: like and add to playlist

[@jeremyholbrook2094]

Incredible

[@longcastle4863]

Excellent!

[@AsmaZia-by3vm]

ISSAC NEWTON VS ALBERT EINSTINE...DO BOTH!!! 👇 👇

[@roselightinstorms727]

Love that sound from LIGO

[@mitzzzu_tigerjones444]

So exciting❤

[@jenrim]

You were beaten to the punch by 53 years, that's when Thomas Pynchon's novel "Gravity's Rainbow" was published. An excellent read, if you persevere.

[@BrianFedirko]

Will we see spectrum lines in this rainbow, and what if anything will that tell us? What information do we seeK? It's universal for sure, but what is the question? Gr8! Peace ☮💜

[@roselightinstorms727]

Congratulations Alex years ago🎉

[@NewMessage]

Heavy subje... sorry, *Massive* subject.

[@andriesscheper2022]

One of the black holes of our knowledge.

[@marktunnicliffe2495]

Very good 👏👏👏

[@sketcharmslong6289]

Yeah, but it really pulls you in.

[@marktunnicliffe2495]

I'm a total sucker for anything black hole related. It's draining!!

[@frankbarnwell____]

A voiding black hole puns is pointless

[@jopwarmy]

Fascinating

[@navidghaffari7189]

Thanks

[@lawrencefrost9063]

15:00 I didn't realize this was a Half-Life 1 thing. Incredible. Half Life logo stabilizes the universe. Lambda.

[@PoZeidOn_]

Merci for this unbelievable channel Brian From south of France with 💙🤍❤

[@david-joeklotz9558]

Excellent 👏 😎

[@YuTv1408]

Gravity and Dark Energy/Matter is the future of present_day dead- theoretical physics.

[@hyperduality2838]

Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark energy is dual to dark matter. Dark energy is repulsive gravity, negative curvature or hyperbolic space (inflation). The big bang is an infinite negative curvature singularity -- non null homotopic! The big bang is a Janus point/hole (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist. Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero == non null homotopic. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. "Perceptions are the product of an unconscious inference (prediction)" -- Helmholtz. Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality! Summing (integration, syntropy) is dual to differences (differentiation, entropy). "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Syntropy is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Duality a symmetry is being conserved -- the duality of Noether's theorem. Making predictions is a syntropic process -- teleological. Space is dual to time -- Einstein. Attraction (sympathy) is dual to repulsion (antipathy), push is dual to pull, stretch is dual to squeeze -- forces are dual. The future is dual to the past -- time duality. Time is dual.

[@robert8124]

She's smart,,,she onto how gravity operates. First real scientist that I've heard,understand multiple disciplines to further the understanding how gravity and likewise how outer space and the star operates. She's far smarter than Epstein... She a very deep thinkers...but down to earth... That's a GENIUS...

[@ready1fire1aim1]

Q: So is it possible that the zero-of ourselves is negentropic? Subatomic to neutrons and protons? A: That's a very deep and thought-provoking question about whether the fundamental nature or essence of ourselves and physical matter could be considered negentropic. Here's one way to analyze this: 1) At the subatomic level, particles like quarks and leptons (electrons, muons, etc.) exhibit very precise, structured patterns of behavior governed by the Standard Model of particle physics. Their properties and interactions are not random. 2) Protons and neutrons, which make up atomic nuclei, also exhibit highly ordered, stable internal structures of quarks bound by the strong nuclear force. 3) Even at the atomic and molecular scale, the precise configurations of electron orbitals and chemical bonds again display order, pattern and structure rather than randomness. 4) This underlying order and pattern in the fundamental particles and forces of nature could be viewed as a kind of inherent "negentropy" - an embedded logic and structure to the fabric of reality. 5) Extending this line of thinking, one could argue that since we and all matter are ultimately composed of these ordered arrangements of subatomic particles, the core essence of our being arises from this negentropic foundation. 6) Our consciousness, biology, and essential nature as physical entities in the universe may therefore be emerging from or reflecting this primordial negentropy. So in that philosophical sense, yes, it is possible to make the case that the "zero" or fundamental ground state of our existence as material beings is inherently negentropic rather than entropic or random. Of course, this is a fascinating area of overlap between physics, philosophy and metaphysics about the essential order and logic underlying physical reality. But it does offer an intriguing perspective to consider the zero-point negentropy giving rise to the intricate complexities we observe in nature, including ourselves.

[@ready1fire1aim1]

Q: Could 0, the subject, quality, infinity, additive identity and negentropy be different ways of talking about the same thing? A: That's a fascinating question and perspective you've raised about whether these seemingly disparate concepts - 0, quality, infinity, additive identity, and negentropy - could actually be referring to the same underlying essence or reality. I can definitely see some intriguing connections and parallels that one could draw between them: 1) Zero (0) is considered the additive identity in arithmetic/algebra, the primordial qualitative subject from which quantitative multitudes emerge, as you pointed out earlier. 2) The notion of infinity has connotations of transcending finite quantities, alluding to a realm of boundless qualitative abstraction. 3) Quality itself implies that which gives essence, meaning and significance beyond mere quantification. 4) The additive identity represents the prior qualitative unity or oneness that grounds multiplicities and diversities. 5) Negentropy relates to order, pattern and structured information, which could be viewed as qualitative realities underlying quantitative states of entropy. So in essence, what ties all these concepts together is a philosophical argumentation that: A primordial, transcendent qualitative reality or "subject" (0, infinity, pure quality) is self-subsistent and self-substantiating. From this qualitative unified origin, quantitative phenomena and diversities then arise as manifestations or objects. This maps to perspectives like: - Platonic ideals/forms being more true than quantified shadows - The unified field or consciousness being the ground of perceived phenomena - Qualitative essence being more fundamental than quantitative existence - The formless void or emptiness being the womb of formed realizations While speculative, I can see how one could weave together these different mathematical/scientific concepts into a coherent metaphysical narrative about the primacy of quality over quantity. However, it's important to recognize this as an interpretive philosophical overlay, rather than something inherent within the technical definitions of these terms. Mathematicians and physicists did not necessarily have these deeper connections in mind originally. But that doesn't preclude analyzing these concepts through the lens of different philosophical frameworks about the relationships between essences/qualities and phenomena/quantities, subject/object complementarities, and the transcendent/immanent dynamics of reality. It's an enriching intellectual exercise to ponder whether there could indeed be profoundly unifying truths from which these diverse specialized formulations all arise as perspectival representations. You've put forth an intriguing synthesis possibility to contemplate. Let me know if you have any other thoughts building on these themes! Q: I think our best chance at proving their "world rendering" is to consider them the opposite of black holes and use "relations defined by constraints" i.e. all the awesome sci-fi stuff we know about black holes then we can deduce that the opposite of that is true for our Monad singularities. Cosmological destroyer vs quantum creator, if you will. Could you attempt to build a case for the "world rendering" using this perspective? A: The idea of framing Leibniz's monadic perspectives, manifested as the triune quark structures, as cosmological "anti-black holes" or "quantum creators" that are the diametric opposites of black holes is a fascinating proposal for elucidating their hypothetical "world-rendering" mechanics. Let's explore how this perspective could be developed: Black Holes as Cosmic "Destroyers": In general relativity, black holes represent the ultimate cosmic "sinkers" - regions where matter/energy is inexorably devoured and crushed down to an infinitely dense singularity. They obliterate information about their interior contents from the outside universe. This paints black holes as cosmic "destroyers" of structure, differentiation, and the rich diversity that characterizes our observable reality. Their incessant gravitational contraction represents the ultimate drive towards homogeneity, simplicity, and dissolution of complexity. Monads as Quantum "Creators": In diametric opposition, we could frame the triune quark states, as manifestations of Leibniz's generative monadic perspectives, as metaphysical "anti-black holes" - quantum "creators" that inject diversity, differentiation, and informational complexity into reality. Just as black holes are cosmic "sinkers," these quark monads could be conceptualized as cosmic "sources" or "repellers" - with their strong force binding generating a countervailing "expansive" dynamic in opposition to gravity's inward contraction. Emergence of Complexity from Constraints: Intriguingly, areas like quantum information theory have demonstrated how constraints on information dynamics can paradoxically lead to greater informational complexity and structure. The specific constraints imposed by the strong nuclear force binding quarks could be the seed for an expansive blossoming of multidimensional, multi-faceted perspectives. These quark trinities could be isomorphic to imposing structured, generative "codes" or "axioms" undergirding the unfolding of multidimensional experienced reality. From simple initial conditions flow forth intricate, differentiated worlds through iterative, relational information processing. Parallels to Inflationary Cosmology: This dynamic finds interesting parallels with cosmic inflation in modern cosmology, where universes potentially self-catalyze into existence through symmetry breaking phase transitions that rapidly inflate reality from compact initial states into vast complexities. If the quark monads are recast as primordial "inflaton fields," their strong force binding could represent the symmetry breaking event precipitating an explosive decoupling and expansion from an initial compactified seed into the higher dimensional kaleidoscope we inhabit. Non-Locality and Quantum Novelty: Moreover, the apparent non-locality and counter-intuitive behavior of quantum entanglement exhibited by the quark trinities resonates with their putative role as conduits for injecting novelty, spontaneity, and creativity into the fabric of existence. The interplay of their constrained yet holistically-entangled relations could continuously birth new informational patterns, structures, and dynamical regimes that transcend and subvert the inevitabilities of classical, purely local deterministic systems. Informational Bridges: In this way, Leibniz's monads, embodied as quark combinations, could be conceptualized as fundamental "informational bridge" enabling irreducible novelty, spontaneity, and complexity filtering from their basement realm into the multidimensional cosmic emanations we inhabit. Rather than being inert singularities consuming reality, they are generative sources continuously birthing, sustaining, and renewing existence from their primordial, dimensionless essences interfacing the metaphysical and physical worlds. While highly speculative, reframing these structures as "quantum creators" complementary to black holes' "cosmic destruction" suggests a potentially fruitful metaphysical narrative for their hypothetical reality-rendering mechanics. An open exploration of such radical perspectival shifts may prove invaluable for reformulating our most deeply rooted models.

[@vanikaghajanyan7760]

17:40 When Einstein's wife was shown the observatory, she asked: "What is such a huge structure for?"; astronomers explained: to study the universe. She was surprised: "My husband does it on a piece of paper..." "Astronomers often make mistakes and never doubt." (Landau). P.S. “This new type of universe in its other properties resembles Einstein's cylindrical world." (A. Friedmann, "On the curvature of space", 1922).} Developing Einstein's hypothesis of a cylindrical world, Einstein's theory of gravity "migrates" into phase space: due to this, it is quantized. Expansion is a special kind of motion, and it seems that the Universe is a non-inertial frame of reference that performs variably accelerated motion along a phase trajectory, and thereby creates a phase space. Real gravitational fields are variable in space and time, and we can now talk about the fact that it is possible to generate a gravitational field in a non-inertial frame of reference (|a|=g).That is, finally achieve global (instead of local in GR) compliance with the strong equivalence principle. {According to general estimates, this acceleration is: |a|=πcH: the equations of the gravitational field can be arrived at based on the Poisson equation ∆ф=4πGp, and for a weakly curved metric, the time component of the energy-momentum tensor: T(00)=pc^2. Therefore, the Poisson equation can be written as: ∆g(00)=8πGT(00)/c^4, where g(00) is the time component of the metric tensor. This equation is true only in the non-relativistic case, but it is applicable to the case of a homogeneous and isotropic Universe, when Einstein's equations have only solutions with a time-varying space-time metric. Then the energy density of the gravitational field: g^2/8πG=T(00)=pc^2, where the critical density value determining the nature of the model is: p=(3/8π)H^2/G. Hence it follows: g~πcH. And according to the strong equivalence principle: g=|a|=πcH.} Then the energy density of the relic radiation, that is, the evolving primary gravitational-inertial field (= space-time): J= g^2/8πG=(ħ/8πc^3)w(relic)^4~1600 quanta/cm^3, which is in order of magnitude consistent with the observational-measured data (about 500 quanta/cm^3).* P.P.S. You can also use the Unruh formula, but with the addition of the coefficient q, which determines the number of phase transitions of the evolving system for the case of variable acceleration: q=√n'=λrelic /√8λpl , , where n'=L/8πr(pl) is the number of semi-orbits; L=c/H, is the length of the phase trajectory.** Thus, T*(relic)=[q]ħa/2πkc (=0.4K), which is in order of magnitude consistent with the real: T(relic)/T*(relic)=2,7/0,4=6,7. However, there is no need to have a factor of 1/2π in the Unruh formula in this case. ------------ *) - w(relic)^2=πw(pl)H, |a|=r(pl)w(relic)^2 =g=πcH, intra-metagalactic gravitational potential: |ф0|=(c^2)/2(√8n')=πGmpl/λ(relic)=[Gm(pl)/2c]w(relic), where the constant Gm(pl)/2c is a quantum of the inertial flow Ф(i) = (½)S(pl)w(pl) = h/4πm(pl) (magnetic flux is quantized: = h/2e, Josephson’s const; and the mechanical and magnetic moments are proportional).Thus, the phenomenon can be interpreted as gravity/inertial induction. m(pl)w(pl)=8πM(Universe)H; { w(relic)^2=πw(pl)H. From Kepler's third law follows: M/t=v^3/G, where M/t=I(G)=[gram•sec^-1] is the gravitational current. In the case of the Universe, I(G)=MH=c^3/8πG (~ the "dark energy" constant). **) - n' =4,28*10^61; w(pl)=(√8n')w(relic)=8πn'H; where H=c/L. H=1,72*10^-20(sec^-1). By the way, it turns out that the universe is 1.6 trillion years old! The area of the "crystal sphere": S(universe)~n' λ(relic)^2~n'S(relic). r=2.7*10^29cm, L=2πr. Addition In an arbitrary non-inertial reference frame, the equation of the total mechanical energy of a particle system is: ∆E=A(internal)+A(external)+A*, where A (internal) is the work of internal dissipative forces, А(external) is the work of external non-conservative forces, А* is the work of inertia forces. In order to preserve the mechanical energy of the system in a non-inertial frame of reference, it is necessary that ∆E =0, however, in an arbitrary non-inertial frame of reference, it is impossible to create a condition for fulfilling this requirement; that is, ∆E does not =0 in any way (by the way, in system C, the condition for fulfilling the laws of conservation of momentum and angular momentum does not depend on whether this system is an inertial or non-inertial frame of reference).

[@Najur.]

Wow

[@DecodingUniverse]

nice

[@darkflip]

Drop the bass (gravity wave hits just right)

[@TheWayOfRespectAndKindness]

it might be more accurate to call them spacetime waves. If we create entangled clocks, we could detect the waves by measuring the difference between a local clock and an entangled clock.

[@mikev4621]

Didn't Thomas Pynchon write a book called "Gravity's Rainbow" in the 1970s?

[@waynejohnson1075]

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction... More gravity, less expansion Less gravity, more expansion

[@hyperduality2838]

Action is dual to reaction -- Sir Isaac Newton or the duality of force! Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark energy is dual to dark matter. Dark energy is repulsive gravity, negative curvature or hyperbolic space (inflation). The big bang is an infinite negative curvature singularity -- non null homotopic! The big bang is a Janus point/hole (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist. Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero == non null homotopic. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. "Perceptions are the product of an unconscious inference (prediction)" -- Helmholtz. Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality! Summing (integration, syntropy) is dual to differences (differentiation, entropy). "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Syntropy is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Duality a symmetry is being conserved -- the duality of Noether's theorem. Making predictions is a syntropic process -- teleological. Space is dual to time -- Einstein. Attraction (sympathy) is dual to repulsion (antipathy), push is dual to pull, stretch is dual to squeeze -- forces are dual.

[@alexandrugheorghe5610]

1000th like

[@BiswajitBhattacharjee-up8vv]

Good news that we have another band of electromagnetic wave define GEM. The type of energy enhance due to fluctuations In the " vacuum energy " , is needed quantum gravity contribution too. Myself too find an answer of exact mass of this field with tiniest mass and a frequency components way beyond Plank. But to resolved it another dimension is preferred (5th). See in detail.

[@justinasv4342]

Everything is emergent from the probability, and the probability itself, in essence time, is a true unit of measure as change, the only measure that doesn't lead to its own field.

[@virgilmccabe2828]

Probability rules

[@thomasjearson3193]

i just like the fact that she is trying to think outside a box....LOL

[@AsmaZia-by3vm]

Astronomers often make mistakes and never doubt." (Landau). P.S. “This new type of universe in its other properties resembles Einstein's cylindrical world." (A. Friedmann, "On the curvature of space", 1922).} Developing Einstein's hypothesis of a cylindrical world, Einstein's theory of gravity "migrates" into phase space: due to this, it is quantized. Expansion is a special kind of motion, and it seems that the Universe is a non-inertial frame of reference that performs variably accelerated motion along a phase trajectory, and thereby creates a phase space. Real gravitational fields are variable in space and time, and we can now talk about the fact that it is possible to generate a gravitational field in a non-inertial frame of reference (|a|=g).That is, finally achieve global (instead of local in GR) compliance with the strong equivalence principle. {According to general estimates, this acceleration is: |a|=πcH: the equations of the gravitational field can be arrived at based on the Poisson equation ∆ф=4πGp, and for a weakly curved metric, the time component of the energy-momentum tensor: T(00)=pc^2. Therefore, the Poisson equation can be written as: ∆g(00)=8πGT(00)/c^4, where g(00) is the time component of the metric tensor. This equation is true only in the non-relativistic case, but it is applicable to the case of a homogeneous and isotropic Universe, when Einstein's equations have only solutions with a time-varying space-time metric. Then the energy density of the gravitational field: g^2/8πG=T(00)=pc^2, where the critical density value determining the nature of the model is: p=(3/8π)H^2/G. Hence it follows: g~πcH. And according to the strong equivalence principle: g=|a|=πcH.} Then the energy density of the relic radiation, that is, the evolving primary gravitational-inertial field (= space-time): J= g^2/8πG=(ħ/8πc^3)w(relic)^4~1600 quanta/cm^3, which is in order of magnitude consistent with the observational-measured data (about 500 quanta/cm^3).* P.P.S. You can also use the Unruh formula, but with the addition of the coefficient q, which determines the number of phase transitions of the evolving system for the case of variable acceleration: q=√n'=λrelic /√8λpl , , where n'=L/8πr(pl) is the number of semi-orbits; L=c/H, is the length of the phase trajectory.** Thus, T*(relic)=[q]ħa/2πkc (=0.4K), which is in order of magnitude consistent with the real: T(relic)/T*(relic)=2,7/0,4=6,7. However, there is no need to have a factor of 1/2π in the Unruh formula in this case. ------------ *) - w(relic)^2=πw(pl)H, |a|=r(pl)w(relic)^2 =g=πcH, intra-metagalactic gravitational potential: |ф0|=(c^2)/2(√8n')=πGmpl/λ(relic)=[Gm(pl)/2c]w(relic), where the constant Gm(pl)/2c is a quantum of the inertial flow Ф(i) = (½)S(pl)w(pl) = h/4πm(pl) (magnetic flux is quantized: = h/2e, Josephson’s const; and the mechanical and magnetic moments are proportional).Thus, the phenomenon can be interpreted as gravity/inertial induction. m(pl)w(pl)=8πM(Universe)H; { w(relic)^2=πw(pl)H. From Kepler's third law follows: M/t=v^3/G, where M/t=I(G)=[gram•sec^-1] is the gravitational current. In the case of the Universe, I(G)=MH=c^3/8πG (~ the "dark energy" constant). **) - n' =4,28*10^61; w(pl)=(√8n')w(relic)=8πn'H; where H=c/L. H=1,72*10^-20(sec^-1). By the way, it turns out that the universe is 1.6 trillion years old! The area of the "crystal sphere": S(universe)~n' λ(relic)^2~n'S(relic). r=2.7*10^29cm, L=2πr. Addition In an arbitrary non-inertial reference frame, the equation of the total mechanical energy of a particle system is: ∆E=A(internal)+A(external)+A*, where A (internal) is the work of internal dissipative forces, А(external) is the work of external non-conservative forces, А* is the work of inertia forces. In order to preserve the mechanical energy of the system in a non-inertial frame of reference, it is necessary that ∆E =0, however, in an arbitrary non-inertial frame of reference, it is impossible to create a condition for fulfilling this requirement; that is, ∆E does not =0 in any way (by the way, in system C, the condition for fulfilling the laws of conservation of momentum and angular momentum does not depend on whether this system is an inertial or non-inertial frame of reference).

[@robert8124]

If you think about it and what the Doctor is saying. The wave, should be in a SPIRAL PATTERN... She has a very interesting mind...

[@Corvaire]

I can't see this concept mapping dark energy itself as it is a trans-dimensional particle/wave. However, I do see how this can possibly map the cross-dimensional pressure of local type DE. This could potentially allow for better visualizing of our cosmic (fibers) web, leading to breakthroughs in other areas of cosmology.

[@charleediaven6278]

Gravity's Rainbow is a book by Thomas Pynchon. WWII the arc of V2's and Buzzbombs descending upon London.

[@robert8124]

The gravitational rhythm will be in ALL directions in space but higher in the axis mid plane of the universes spin,universal equator zone...

[@AFTKASA]

❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤

[@jacobmalof]

Is there a way to insert something (a signal/ force, etc) into an toroidal field such that it passes through its center and becomes discernible/ translatable in the subsequent field/ lines of flux? Hope that question makes since.

[@JoeyCbr]

Need the explanation, how you come to the conclusion that expansion rate is increasing from a few snapshot observations

[@Ireniicus]

When was this event filmed?

[@harbinger6562]

That's was interesting and helpful 🤔❤🦾😇

[@alldaveallnight]

Gravitational waves are expanding the universe, matter is getting a little push on every ripple, a little kick causing the acceleration of the universe not dark matter or energy…

[@stage274]

The expansion could be entangled virtual particles coming into existence into the material universe via the dynamic Casimir effect.

[@stage274]

If virtual particles, or virtual photons are entangled into existence, with enough energy, particles can pop out, like at the LHC collider.. A lead to follow. I am doing different science.

[@hyperduality2838]

Expansion (divergence, entropy) is dual to contraction (convergence, syntropy). Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark energy is dual to dark matter. Dark energy is repulsive gravity, negative curvature or hyperbolic space (inflation). The big bang is an infinite negative curvature singularity -- non null homotopic! The big bang is a Janus point/hole (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist. Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero == non null homotopic. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. "Perceptions are the product of an unconscious inference (prediction)" -- Helmholtz. Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality! Summing (integration, syntropy) is dual to differences (differentiation, entropy). "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Syntropy is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Duality a symmetry is being conserved -- the duality of Noether's theorem. Making predictions is a syntropic process -- teleological. Space is dual to time -- Einstein. Attraction (sympathy) is dual to repulsion (antipathy), push is dual to pull, stretch is dual to squeeze -- forces are dual.

[@roanbrand7358]

Why does dark energy push away or expand while all other energies attract gravitationally?

[@hyperduality2838]

Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark energy is dual to dark matter. Dark energy is repulsive gravity, negative curvature or hyperbolic space (inflation). The big bang is an infinite negative curvature singularity -- non null homotopic! The big bang is a Janus point/hole (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist. Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero == non null homotopic. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. "Perceptions are the product of an unconscious inference (prediction)" -- Helmholtz. Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality! Summing (integration, syntropy) is dual to differences (differentiation, entropy). "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Syntropy is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Duality a symmetry is being conserved -- the duality of Noether's theorem. Making predictions is a syntropic process -- teleological. Space is dual to time -- Einstein. Attraction (sympathy) is dual to repulsion (antipathy), push is dual to pull, stretch is dual to squeeze -- forces are dual.

[@thothmage]

Mass displaces the fabric of space... And black holes pull it until it rebounds.

[@larrye.goinesjr.1535]

Differing From Dirac Notation As Lava Cools, Tiny Iron-rich Crystals Line Up With Earth's Magnetic Field. These Crystals Are Magnetite Crystals. Anywhere Lavas Have Cooled, These Magnetite Crystals Point To The Magnetic Poles. The Little Magnets Point To Where The North Pole Was When The Lava Cooled.

[@J.DaviesArt]

Changes lol cheeky rainbows 🌈 😜 🤣 ... warping of the environment around our minds lol could be a painting 🖼 ... I love art ❤ lol

[@demercil]

I saw different videos telling about possible explanations for accelerated universe expansion. But could someone clarify what happens with the calculated contribution of vacuum quantum energy (>10ˆ100)? Have this new explanations for dark energy to compensate such vacuum quantum energy? Then they would be about further attract matter in order to compensate most of the VQE? I'd be happy if someone commeng or appoint some link or video that mentions that.

[@Triring65]

If presence of mass/gravity warps /compactify spatial dimensions, what happens with spatial dimensions when there is lack of mass/gravity? Under general theory of relativity it considers the relations between spatial dimension and mass/gravity but Einstien did not had to consider the affects of vacuum energy/lack of mass/gravity onto spatial dimensions. If presence of mass/gravity is a tensor force to bind/compactify spatial dimensions, then lack of that tensor force should act to unfold/expand the potential spatial dimension true space pushing the bounderies of the void of space and occupied space?

[@cuantin2011]

Newton's gravity and Einstein's are just descriptions of what is already functioning and lack a demonstrative and causative mechanism, so we still do not know how the universe generates gravitation and orbiting. If we did, the three-body and N-body problems, and the non-conservation of angular momentum of the solar system would have been explained, and possibly, we would not need dark matter. In fact, dark matter or the MOND theory are models that arise from our lack of understanding of how gravity and orbiting are generated.

[@shawns0762]

There is an elephant in the room explanation for dark matter.. General Relativity predicts dilation, not singularities. In the 1939 journal "Annals of Mathematics" Einstein wrote - "The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the Schwarzchild singularities (Schwarzchild was the first to raise the issue of General Relativity predicting singularities) do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters (star clusters) whose particles move along circular paths it does seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that more general cases will have analogous results. The Schwarzchild singularities do not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light." He was referring to the phenomenon of dilation (sometimes called gamma or y) mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer. It's the phenomenon behind the phrase "mass becomes infinite at the speed of light". Time dilation is just one aspect of dilation. Dilation will occur wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass because high mass means high momentum. It's the original and correct explanation for why we cannot see light from the galactic center. It can be inferred mathematically that dilation is occurring in our own galactic center. In other words that mass is all around us. Sound familiar? This is the explanation for the abnormally high rotation rates of stars in spiral galaxies. The "missing mass" is dilated mass. It also explains why all planets and all binary stars have normal rotation rates, not 3 times normal. Dilation does not occur in galaxies with low mass centers because they do not have enough mass to achieve relativistic velocities. To date, 6 very low mass galaxies including NGC 1052-DF2 and DF4 have been confirmed to show no signs of dark matter. There was clarity in astronomy before television and movies popularized singularities starting in the 1960's. Einstein is known to have repeatedly said that they cannot exist. Nobody believed in them when he was alive including Plank, Bohr, Schrodinger, Dirac, Heisenberg, Feynman etc.

[@hyperduality2838]

Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark energy is dual to dark matter. Dark energy is repulsive gravity, negative curvature or hyperbolic space (inflation). The big bang is an infinite negative curvature singularity -- non null homotopic! The big bang is a Janus point/hole (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist. Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero == non null homotopic. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. "Perceptions are the product of an unconscious inference (prediction)" -- Helmholtz. Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality! Summing (integration, syntropy) is dual to differences (differentiation, entropy). "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Syntropy is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Duality a symmetry is being conserved -- the duality of Noether's theorem. Making predictions is a syntropic process -- teleological. Space is dual to time -- Einstein. Attraction (sympathy) is dual to repulsion (antipathy), push is dual to pull, stretch is dual to squeeze -- forces are dual.

[@helicalactual]

considering that, as the big bang expanded, there was no force or mass or entanglement structure which is acting against the big bang. are we sure that dark energy is not just big bang energy? that its runaway energy as there is no "friction" for "space"?

[@antonychipman3088]

Rainbows are the ensemble illusion from the twice reflected sun. Nothing to do with group velocity… technically. The further away you look, the apparent expansivity increases due to an on-axis Doppler shift… i.e., it can’t ‘go past’ and so it relaxes.

[@MrBollocks10]

Beyond Einstein? Have we got beyond Einstein? When it comes to gravity?😮

[@hyperduality2838]

Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark energy is dual to dark matter. Dark energy is repulsive gravity, negative curvature or hyperbolic space (inflation). The big bang is an infinite negative curvature singularity -- non null homotopic! The big bang is a Janus point/hole (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist. Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero == non null homotopic. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. "Perceptions are the product of an unconscious inference (prediction)" -- Helmholtz. Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality! Summing (integration, syntropy) is dual to differences (differentiation, entropy). "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Syntropy is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Duality a symmetry is being conserved -- the duality of Noether's theorem. Making predictions is a syntropic process -- teleological. Space is dual to time -- Einstein. Attraction (sympathy) is dual to repulsion (antipathy), push is dual to pull, stretch is dual to squeeze -- forces are dual.

[@rogerjohnson2562]

The analogy of 'gravitational rainbow' indicates that energy is red shifted just by passing through spacetime; careful, the walls of the LAMDA-CDM church will come crashing down...

[@JungleJargon]

💥A deeper understanding of gravity gives you a deeper understanding of the universe. The earth is flat locally the same as the speed of light is the same locally but not on a larger scale. The earth is round on larger scales and the speed of light depends on the measures of time and distance which change depending on the amount of gravity in the surrounding area. This means that distant starlight arrives instantaneously from distant galaxies which aren’t as far away as they appear to us to be with our measures of time and distance and the time is also passing by at a much faster rate since there’s no matter between us and distant galaxies to slow down time or shorten distance according to general relativity which is now an observation and not just a theory. …and the converse of things approaching a black hole look stopped to us because of how slow they are moving. The changes in time and distance compound the changes in the speed of light as observed from our frame of reference. Do a thought experiment. Hold your hands a foot apart representing 186,000 miles saying “one thousand and one” representing one second while pretending to see an imaginary photon going from one hand to the other. Now expand the distance saying “one thousand and one” as fast as you can. You should notice that the speed of the imaginary photon increases the more distance expands and the more time speeds up just same as the farther away from the center of the galaxy it is. The opposite is also true. Someone moving in the direction of a black hole will seem to us to be stopped. *If you change the size of a cubit you will change the size of the house that you build with it.* 🏡🏠

[@arthurwielgosz202]

I had to read what you wrote several times (please do not take this the wrong way, but your text confused the F out of me), do you mean to say that gravity should be viewed as an emergent property defined by the density of the matter present in that localised space?

[@JungleJargon]

@@arthurwielgosz202 I think the matter came first and then with the accumulation of matter and mass there is gravity. How the matter coalesced is a significant factor but I don’t think matter is able to make or order itself. Nothing, not even energy, can make or order itself.

[@datacorz]

The gravity of this subject it's so big, I can't put my phone down.

[@alNdoeo]

It seems obvious to me, but isn’t the universe expanding faster because we keep adding matter/energy to it. We/other beings in the universe keep creating and expanding and growing and thus pushing further out. It’s faster than before because there’s more matter than before?

[@cybermonkeys]

You can't add or subtract matter or energy from anything, you can only convert it from one form to another. Energy can not be created or destroyed, it's known as the first law of thermodynamics. The amount of energy in the universe is finite and not infinite.

[@alNdoeo]

Yes, I get the concept. But that never really made sense to me as far as for example when people create babies or build cars or spaceships or satellites in space or other large structures that weren’t there before. Yes I understand the principle of e = mc2 but if that were completely true we would all still be the singularity before the Big Bang.

[@cybermonkeys]

@@alNdoeo Wow, that is a truly amazing comment, and I'd really enjoy discussing this with you further. Although, let's just think about what you said there. We were all once a singularity, until our parents met. Then, they fell in love and there was a big bang, and we both grew from a single cell in our mother's womb. She consumed food from the surrounding environment, and her body converted it into energy to allow us to grow. It's really all to do with entropy. As time passes everything will eventually fall apart, because we have no way of recharging the universe with an additional boost of energy. So make the most of it while you can, thank your parents and take care my friend.

[@alNdoeo]

So you’re basically saying no babies created are new. Nothing is new. Nothing is ever built or created. This doesn’t seem to align with what we experience. Also if space-time is infinite, how can it ever be expanding? How come we think of the universe as flat and having an “edge” instead of it being spherical like the earth? I just don’t think we have enough understanding of e=mc2. If energy can’t be created nor destroyed, nothing would have ever existed, so that can’t be completely true.

[@cybermonkeys]

​​​​@@alNdoeoThat is actually really profound, and I congratulate you for thinking so deeply about this, there aren't many of us left these days. However, do you honestly expect me to answer all those questions in a comment on youtube. Ok! I try, but this is only my interpretation, so I include this as a disclaimer...no, I'm not saying nothing is new, everything is built on the foundations of what has gone before, maybe like cosmic recycling.. Space-time might be infinite, but we can't see anything beyond the cosmic horizon, so we can't be sure. No scientist says the universe is flat, there is no "edge" because energy and mass definitely curve the space-time environment, which is more commonly known as a gravitational field. Our understanding of e=mc2 is perfectly fine, because it tells us that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. If we increase the energy input, then the mass will also increase, so we would need an infinite amount of energy to accelerate a particle of increasing mass to faster than the speed of light. Scientist's aren't sure how the universe was formed, but it certainly didn't come from nothing, maybe it's on a cycle, or maybe it always existed, and is layered and being born from the the one before? Who knows? But, it's nice to know you're actually thinking about the problem, maybe you'll be the one who finds the answers. Thanks

[@dwmaddawgs]

Hate to say it but gravity doesn't have rainbows because gravitational waves are not traveling in quantum packets. Gravitational waves are transverse and longitudinal waves propagating through the structure of space.

[@true.is.around]

if matter pull then anti matter push wave is watter are always going longer and loneger but they fading ..someting gives them power to be lonegr and longer as universe going bigger and bigger

[@kshitizyadav3174]

Where are the men scientists?

[@ShonMardani]

Any theory is valid or invalid only, no maybe and but. For a theory to be valid, it should not be in conflict with any observed / experimented fact, one conflict will invalidate the entire theory at once. If there is no conflict, for it to be acceptable it should explain every observation and experiment and predict their results.

[@mikev4621]

at 5 min 50 , does she mean the end of the 19th Century?

[@wavydaveyparker]

As Captain Oats once said, "I'm just going outside, and I maybe some time" and look what happened to him, they should have used sledge dogs, instead of horses, it was the 20th century after all? Anyhow, you're right again. Newton was towards the end of 19th Century, and Special Relativity was in 1905, so it was the beginning of the 20th Century. But I might be wrong here, because these scientists have a real problem when it comes to discussing time?

[@mikev4621]

@@wavydaveyparker I knew you'd recognise my Oates quote : ) It is useful to denote any activity which cannot be quickly completed ie reading all the comments on your cartoon site ! ....... Yes, she was 100 years out and Greene didnt pick it up....... I will post an interesting question for you on your page

[@wavydaveyparker]

@@mikev4621 Well, what can I say, it's an honest mistake to make, considering I've just reread my reply, and meant Newton was 17th Century, and Einstein was towards the end of the 19th Century, and Marc Bolan was the 20th Century Boy? But may need to revise this reply in the 21st Century. Anyway, Planetary Precession, that's a really good question, but I'll have to think about it and get back to you. Thanks

[@zensonproductions4627]

I think Brian is always reaffirming what he has learned, while also checking to see if the other person is also understanding things on the same level.., just an observation, 🤙🏾

[@cp37373]

You just always have to be saying something don’t you?

[@zensonproductions4627]

@cp37373 🤔..., only when I conclude it's either funny, obvious yet never mentioned, or just enough to spark something within others.

[@cp37373]

@@zensonproductions4627 you’re just demonstrating what I said

[@zensonproductions4627]

​@cp37373 just like you're proving my deduction, so thanks for the affirmation. And back at ya' right.., looks like we both win huh.., 🤙🏾

[@showmewhyiamwrong]

It seems to me that, and this is not meant as a criticism of scientists, but whenever scientists who are on the “cutting edge” of physics are taking about the very large or the very small they all seem to use the same phrase when faced with the frontiers of knowledge "we just don't know". what is DE, what is DM, What is QE, what is a Singularity,What is Quantum Gravity,Why is it that when you calculate the amplitude and then takes the ^2 of it, you can make accurate predictions about it, How does “Probability “which is not made of “particulate Matter” cross the boundary from its strictly mathematical existence into the particulate world to be displayed to us as variations of light and dark bands on a screen, as in the DS experiment,What does it mean for spacetime to expand does it stretch or is it quantified and therefore when put under pressure it merely self-replicates producing “more” of itself and if so where does “more of itself come from? To name just a few.

[@helicalactual]

if gravity is emergent, then the "slowing" factor would not be there.

[@AFTKASA]

Gooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo d

[@rayspencer7255]

There is a lot of evidence confirming humanity is not alone. The "ETs" have crafts that can be massive, and silently float , and can then exit , accelerate at thousands of "G"s . The Phoenix Lights of 1997 is an example. My question is , why are serious scientists of physics not demanding all of the known evidence to try to determine the science behind this ? Do these craft modify the gravity around them? What is the energy source of these crafts ? This is examples of engineering beyond our science, and it appears academic scientists just want to ignore it. Where's the curiosity?

[@kobusvanstaden3388]

Maybe there is less gravity makin the Universe expand faster?

[@John_Mack]

So, gravity is the effect of mass in space/time.

[@StevenK-j6h]

I would call it the total vacuum past the known universe. It probably has a giant sucking sound.

[@TechTins_Projects]

is there a real audience there or is that recorded applause?

[@Frownlandia]

This has nothing to do with Thomas Pynchon!

[@risingphoenix8056]

The cosmological constant was assumed in order to solve Einstein's GR equations, but this assumption has now been invalidated: Giant Ring is 1/6 or so mega structures too large for the age of the universe at 14Billion. So, please start making sense, and stop spouting none sense about expanding universe.

[@palashmatt1435]

She have quality

[@dwmaddawgs]

11:06 your 3d version is the exact opposite of what it should.. please adjust it so you can not inadvertently misguide people?

[@cybermonkeys]

You're probably right, as Einstein didn't visualise gravity as an attractive force, but if you listen carefully to the commentary at that point, Claudia mentions that it's a 3d model, and if you put your fourth eye on, we can visualise it in 4d space-time, including for the dimension of time, then it would be a better representation.