The Most Fundamental Problem of Gravity is Solved
Вставка
- Опубліковано 31 гру 2023
- If you are familiar with Newton's bucket, you may skip to 6:10.
Until recently, I had not realized the flash of genius of Dennis Sciama who linked inertia and gravity in a Machain way already in 1953.
Fay's paper: relativemotionorg.files.wordp...
Sciamas paper: academic.oup.com/mnras/articl...
See also: www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Lost...
Thanks to Jonathan Fay for pointing my attention to it: www.jonathanfay.com
Mind also my backup channel:
odysee.com/@TheMachian:c
My books: www.amazon.com/Alexander-Unzicker/e/B00DQCRYYY/ - Наука та технологія
This is Jonathan Fay,
I am very glad to see there is public interest in this topic and I am thankful to Dr. Unzicker for his enthusiastic presentation!
Publications on my end incoming in the not too distant future. Looking forward to further exchange of ideas & collaboration.
Looking forward to your publication!
ayyyy fayy whaddup dawg yo 2024 is gonna be lit fr
I subscribed to your channel, Mr. Fay. I hope you make some videos explaining your ideas.
Please let us all know when it is published. I would love to read it!
@@deezynar I'm planning to do that if I have the time! Also, I will likely make announcements on UA-cam when I publish something elsewhere.
In 1968, I wrote a senior thesis at Reed College "A Gravitational Analogy to Electromagnetism" that derived a Special Relativistic theory of gravitation using 4-vector notation and based on the generalized Lorentz force equation. It included the "G" and "Gamma" fields, equivalent to the E & B fields, with gravitational waves and the potentials. The theory produced several of the relationships derived from General Relativity, a Coriolis force inside a spinning mass shell due to the Gamma field, and as applied to the anomalous perihelion advance of Mercury, predicts 45.5 sec/century. In retrospect, I probably should have tried to publish it, but my advisor had no enthusiasm. If you have further interest, I would be happy to share it with you.
Glad if you get in touch via ChannelInfo-> email!
I treid to send you an email, but not sure it arrived...@@TheMachian
@rossbrown6649 you can still submit it for publication, even now.
To hell with your publisher. Release it, print it anyway !
This sounds like GEM but using the SR four-velocity in place of the 3-velocity?
Great video! This topic has been puzzling me for years... and I am glad that you have posted this. I hope Jonathan Fay will publish soon!
Read Robert Sungenis book and you will know the answers. Sciama is a great example, but that's not all.
I loved your enthusiasm, insightful comments, and honesty. It helped me appreciate how little we really know but must keep trying. Thank you.
I think this was pointing out how much we've known for a long time, but didn't recognize what we had! ;-)
an intelligent man knows that he know nothing
It's all starting to come together ... Well done Mr. Unzicker
As an 80-year-old lightweight mathematically, I cannot in fact fathom some (most) of the calculations. The conclusions, however ring true at some level of my incomplete understanding, and I can see why they would simplify some of the issues which confound our incomplete understanding of the evolution of the universe. Very enjoyable thank you.
Mr. Unzicker,I have never seen you happier!Congrats to Sciama and Fay!
I choose to believe that you are a wizard who can make their arms invisible rather than just emoting with your hands more than the greenscreen allows for.
@Name-ot3xw
-Honestly sounds like what he assumes physicist feel about the standard model...-
This is way ahead of everyone ua-cam.com/channels/HvRotcJ0RiCI1ypnQ0L_gg.html
The delay in imparting knowledge in physics is due to the inertia caused by the combined mass of authority. Many thanks for this stimulating information.
"I can understand the impatience of my friends who would like to learn as much as possible as soon as possible. However, the interest of the total work requires the interpolation of several years between the time a finding is made and its publication. This is an automatic safeguard against theoretical blunders. From the very beginning of orgone research it has proven valuable not to publish a new finding until it has developed into an essential new insight. The continued development to a new insight is a confirmation of the previous finding"
~ Wilhelm Reich in the introduction to Orgonotic Pulsation, The differentiation of orgone energy from electromagnetism ~ Presented in talks with an electrophysicist, International Journal for Sex-Economy and Orgone Research Vol. III, reprinted in Orgonomic Functionalism # 3, pp. 20-21
😂Very true and amazing comment!
Not really, it's and old argument that's almost impossible to test. My objection to Mach's principle is gravity force travels at C so it would take billions of years for it to have an effect on the bucket, if it is indeed possible - but can't anyhow as the universe is expanding.
@PrivateSi Just as light from billions of years ago is just now reaching us from distant stars, gravitational waves and field lines are also reaching us constantly from the distant stars. I'm not saying that proves anything, but there could at least be a mechanism there for interacting with the gravity of distant objects, even if it's gravitation from millions of years ago.
@@shizza3198 .. Yes, but it's supposed to be the whole rest of the universe causing local gravity but some parts of the universe's light/gravity waves/mechanism won't ever reach us so that seems to nullify the notion in its absolute form (due to expansion and gravitational wave experiments showing the speed of gravity and light to be equal, or near as damn it). The 'Machian Mechanism' requires instant communication at any distance, and between the entire rest of the universe and the bucket. It's a bizarre thought experiment and I can't see how to prove it. It seems to imply if objects spin around another object they would create a centripetal force on the object. Is this observed in the cosmos? Do planets rotating around a star have this effect? Could we even detect it?
Thank you for your great work and teaching!
I believe this was mentioned in the Upanishads and Vedas 1,000s of years ago.
Through this video, I discovered you channel and was really blown away by the profound deepness of its content. Inertial frames of reference seem so trivial at first glance, but this video made me realize that they are far from that. Thanks for making this, for me it was truly an eye opener!
Great to hear!
Thanks for sharing this paper, it's great. I'm adding this to my science playlist for sure.
Excellent podcast. Congratulations to the author and the presenter.
Details of Dr Unzickers explanations are definitely way above my pay grade. Mach's theory of inertia is what brought me here. Thrilling to discover the connections from Newton through Einstein, Mach, Sciama et al. Vast implications for Cosmology and our conception of the Universe. And ourselves! Looking forward to his book Einsteins Lost Key. Subscribed today. Thank you Dr Unzicker!
@@Igdrazil Thank you for your detailed reply to my post. Once again - unfortunately - largely beyond my comprehension. But I find three outstanding points: 1) Einstein as an 'imposter' and plagiarizer. 2) Mention of the infamous "aether", which - in my simple understanding - might correspond to the quantum field. And 3) scientists confusion of the "model" with the "reality" under study. Wherein enters the role of the human psyche.
I wish I had continued my studies in physics, whereby I might have a deeper grasp of these topics. Alas!
“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics, including the CAUSE of gravity. Sorry Mach and all the rest.
@@Igdrazil An accelerometer- slinkie, water balloon or phone app- experiment Proves the earth is expanding at 16 feet per second per second constant acceleration. It is well within your ability to do so for yourself.
@@Igdrazil True, experiments are “beyond the limits of scientific investigation” especially yours. Hypocrite. “He who will not read is no better than he who cannot read “, Mark Twain. A nineteenth century novelist knows more than a modern nimrod like you. Grow up. Laugh.
If you want to connect even more dots from Copernicus trough Mach up to our days, definitely read "Galileo Was Wrong, the Church Was Right".
Absolutely stunning result!
Thank you very much.
Another puzzle piece.
Have a wonderful New Year.
Brilliant research.
Well done sirs!
Another constant of nature crossed off the ‘Where does it come from?’ list.
Вселенная, чёрные дыры, гравитационные волны .., измеряются через опыт Майкельсона Морли 1881 - 2024 г завершенный на 50%… + 50% НОВЫЕ опыты возможно выполнить, с помощью некруглых катушек с оптическим волокном в 9000 м., в каждом плече. При габаритах 25 см, ГИБРИД гироскоп возможно применить в автотранспорте, при движении прямолинейно измерять скорость 20, 25, 30 м/сек.
Исходя из прямого 💯% опыта Майкельсона Морли возможно доказать постулаты:
Свет - это упорядоченная вибрация гравитационных квантов. Постулат 2. Гравитационные поля регулируют частоту и скоростью света в вакууме.
Мне нужна помощь в совместном реализации изобретения. Вы ведите переговоры с специалистами по производству оптоволоконных гироскопов. Техническая консультация по ГИБРИД - гироскопу и оплата стоимости тестового устройства с меня.
During my bachelor degree in Physics I was puzzled and fascinated by Newton's bucket experiment. I loved Mach's objection cause to me, the principle he derived, added "simplicity", an explanatory powerful idea that avoided adding forced ideas, like the presence of an absolute space, since eliminates the question of why there exists a special frame.
I searched also for a more mathematical grounded version of the principle, so to speak, glad I finally was able to have some reference to it. Good luck with your research, hope this will reveal as a good path to follow.
I recommend Ott Christoph Hilgenberg's sink theory of gravity with one contention: Wilhelm Reich's Orgone Biophysics unifies Hermann Fricke's Ether Physics with Antoine Bechamp's Terrain Biology and Marco Todeschini's Psicobiofisica goes one further.
Irregardless, relativity is Galilean, Classical Invariance.
In Germany they had Gunther Enderlein.
Antoine Bechamp is a French source, not widely translated. Same discoveries, different languages, independent of each other...
There has to be an absolute space and time; it is just unknown to us or anyone to measure such an 'absolute,' since we exist within the reference frame trying to do such measurements.
@@pyropulseIXXI Einstein claims a relative observation and interpretation! Reduces this claim practically to just one of the observations, phenomenons, effects: velocity („relative velocity“; and acceleration), and neglects that all other observations, phenomenons, effects, are relative to each other as well. This fails (or succeeds;-) by reducing the at least two (relative) observations by reducing the observers to only one! Without taking into account its already made mutual observations! A catastrophic methodological mistake!
From here, from his beginning of the formation of "relativity-theses", from the first step, every following thesis and equation is unscientific and nonsensical!
Again: A catastrophic methodological mistake! NO science! NO scientific "Relativity Theories"! NONsens!
> 100 years of relativity nonsens and millions over millions of "physicists" and "mathematicians" who have not become aware of this crap and will not, who BELIEVE in BigBangs, wormholes, dark matters and so on;-)
... A little methodological criticism and criticism of the development, history of "theory"-)
Mach must be wrong, because if the universe rotated, and gravitation is linear acceleration, not rotational (unless near a rotating black hole) no frictional interaction should occur. Friction , viscosity, and surface tension are all locally powerful, small scale forces causing interaction. Gravity is too weak, and too large scale, to do this.
IMHO...
Thanks Dr. Unzicker, Great and excellent work
Thank you for this most interesting account of this fundamental problem and its proposed solution. I appreciate your independent and critical approach to the domain of physics.
Mind boggling! The distant masses as rulers (gods?) of our little corner! Happy New Year!!
Absolute layman here; this blew my mind, fascinating lecture. The idea we now know how to calculate the cosmological constant is amazing and it was more or less discovered over 50 years ago. That's wild!
Stunning ... sitting in plain sight! This is truly groundbreaking.
It is very rewarding, exciting and wonderful to live in the internet era and be able to follow the development of science and knowledge in general in real time.
I would like to point out that there is another explanation for gravity that awaits discussion. According to Helmut Krause, he discovered it in January 1937. His findings are set out in the book "Der Baustoff der Welt". It is available online in German.
Thank you ( I'm going to buy that buy that book - hoping to learn the principles behind early German electrogravitics ( which was seized by the US right after ww2
And there's another one - gravity is a pushing force of ether. Local inhomogenities causes universal force to compensate for it and push from all sides but that of interrupting body's.
We discovered a lot more and an outline is in the 4D vector book I have shared on Facebook. There is a null point. You quote my favourite philosopher. (Ludwig Josef Johann Wittgenstein. You are right we need the 'big picture' as well. Collectively we ALL perceive the big picture and I feel we are all designed to freely share and obtain spherical view points.
Beautiful. Thank you for sharing, i.e. explaining.
This is beautiful and profound... inertia's cause has been a mystery for so long.
I found another paper that was based on Sciama's work by James F. Woodward called: FLUX CAPACITORS AND THE ORIGIN OF INERTIA. It includes experiments and results- not just a theoretical paper.
The answer was there all along. This looks very promising.
Rather than spending money on new accelerators, it might be best to feed some AI bots on some forgotten papers, (especially those predating the quantum period.) They may find some very interesting concepts. How we choose to process the results will be difficult, as some are still refusing to believe string theory isn't adequate.
It is very obvious to the layman that the celebrity physicist of today is championing impossible concepts, which are no better than a sci-fi paperback.
Very well said 👏
My objection to Mach's principle is gravity force travels at C so it would take billions of years for it to have an effect on the bucket, if it is indeed possible - but can't anyhow as the universe is expanding.
Wonderful idea! Thanks to LLMs this actually can be finally realized! AI reading all papers would also solve the problem of not ever being to able to know all published papers.
@@PrivateSiEven if there were a delay between distant objects spinning and the resulting effect on the bucket, you'd never be able to tell (if done correctly). A bucket in a frame that begins to rotate will appear the same as a universe that begins to spin in "shells", starting from the edge of the observable universe and kick starting a "twist" that propagates inwards towards the bucket at the speed of light, until the effect of all these staggered spinning shells reach the bucket simultaneously. Now, one would have to wonder if this gigantic whirlpooling twist would destroy everything in the universe, but ignoring all that, the bucket would observe everything spinning at the same time.
@@UnitaryV .. I know what you're saying but I don't agree with the forces reaching simultaneously and some parts of the universe never reach each other due to rapid, accelerating expansion so it can't be the entire universe for a start (unless gravity works at FTL speed / instantaneously, which is unlikely given the evidence so far but maybe not impossible).
--
The Magic Bucket would see itself as spinning at first glance, but would then notice its watery contents had not climbed the sides of the bucket so would conclude the rest of universe has got itself in a right spin... or left depending on your point of view.. Neither does it feel dizzy as the contents of its buckety inner ear does not slosh about.
Wow, I have long appreciated the problem, since my undergraduate physics days, but had no idea there was such an elegant explanation. Just wow!
Congratulations for the success of this video with such an interesting topic.
Great to see that the idea of G not being a constant is finally supported by the relevant formalism, I hope C will follow the same path. Now the big question in my mind is what determined the universe to have the mass it has, leading to this particular value of G?
Thanks for you work
if G is not a constant, neither T. and neither C but we cannot really know that , BUT that sticks and annihilate the idea of dark matter,
more matter - less time, the center of galaxies spins slower cause there is more matter.
if we move out of the galaxies, and stop moving, time spends faster. because yes there is motion and mass, we move away from it our clocks will not be synchronized.
and in my theory, according to this principle the big bang was a incredibly slow process, since the mass of the universe being dense, time itself was trapped, the age of the universe is a logarithm that tends to the infiinity.
i don't think G can have a real fixed value anywhere in the cosmos, we have our reference here on earth, it is like saying the earth is flat because *gets a level out* look the horizon!
@@Diamond_Tiara Isn't it that units of legnth are defined by units of time and c? This means c must be constant by definition.
@@hartunstart A "constant" and "we don't have the tools or capacity to measure accurately to see the changes" is almost the same thing in science.
@@hartunstartunfortunately yes, I dont agree with defining c as a constant, now know one will know if it has changed, what is agender in science it wrong
What ever Mass the Universe has it will lead to a value for G. You just may as well ask why the universe has any mass at all. G is merely an attribute of a Universe with its given mass. We have the current value of G because the Universe is what it is, no magic just that the Universe predicated G not the other way around.
Can someone sum up what the hell is he talking about
About 26 minutes 😀
Mostly about physicist day dreaming about weather the universe is spinning or thier head after having a few toman drinks from the punch bucket.
@@GSCt1000math and physics humor.😅
Thank All for your hard work to contribute for the human beings knowledge!
Super important aspect of cosmology explained wonderfully.
I'm a brazilian programmer with no college education but an interest in science and I got maybe 10% of this but sounds great, I get that it can be big. Cool video, congrats =)
I would appreciate if he could explain it in layers so those of us at the back of the class can follow along. All I heard was gravity is solved. As Forrest Gump would say: great that’s one less problem.,
@@Greg-yu4ij when we think of the gravitational constant G or any constant in general, the natural question is where does it come from?
An unsatisfying answer is to say that God, a programmer, or whatever set it to that specific value.
Or can we predict it?
So this video went through the theoretical framework of that process.
@@briannguyen6994No, it did not. It was just quackery at its finest.
@@candidobertetti27 I'm not saying it wasn't quackery
@@Greg-yu4ij he did explain it in layers.
Hi Alexander! Very nice. I wonder if these ideas might help to understand the reality behind conservation of angular momentum. I have been haunted by giroscopes behavior for years... As a teenager I found it sort of antigravitational stuff. I understand the equat6ions, but all those vectors equation seem to my kind of unreal and conviniently man made, as if we were sweeping under the mat. I don't get why the wheel goes one way instead of another once it doesn't fall if it is spinning.
Thank you for your videos.. I loved phisycs but I couldn't finish my degree. At least I learnt enough to enjoy some of the great ideas you show.
Thank you!!!
how come you didn't finish your degree? (coming from someone who also hasn't finished their CS degree either lol)
I remember the spinning iron disk on the end of a four foot steel bar the whole thing must have weighted around fifty pounds and a young boy lifted it up over his head like it was made of paper...
Well if you don't know how to derive all the vector equations from basic principles you are sure to fail in Physics!
there is no sweeping under the rug my friend :) Anytime you have movement, you have momentum.
The tone change at 17:32 to 17:33 is really-really meaningful, it reveals the true structure of our universe.
I like how profound and complex ideas in physics can be demonstrated by such simple demonstrations, like this and the double slit with light etc......😊
Dear Aleksander/Jonathan,
Please correct me if I am wrong, but according to this formalism, the gravitational constant itself would vary across space, as it depends on the proximity to the masses in the universe. Could this theory be tested using current astronomical data? Would such a test necessitate the knowledge of the distribution of masses in the entire universe, or can one construct a test relying only on local information?
This was one idea, yet the data were not good enough: arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0610028
@@TheMachian thanks a lot, I'll have a read :)
@@TheMachian so that may also mean that G is not constant across time, assuming an expanding universe, no?
And i didn't get that about the non-steady C, could that also vary across timescales, providing an alternative explanation for the redness of "old" photons?
@@ankostis The universe is not expanding. That's just Hubble's interpretation, not a fact. There are sixty different possible interpretations of redshift. Why do you think that only one of them must be true?
It's amazing to see how you can challenge mainstream theories with basic and easy-to-understand concepts. Thanks for the video, it reaffirms my belief that if a theory is too difficult to understand (current cosmology) it's probably wrong.
Loved this video. Thank you.
we did it!!! good job Jon!!
Nice find! How this was missed in my physics education (1980s), or anyone's education, is anyone's guess. What a brilliant and exciting piece of work!
Sciama teased that a 2nd paper is coming using tensors instead of basic math. That paper never came out, so the presumption is that he couldn’t get the theory to do what he wanted it to do.
@@timjohnson3913 then the correctness of this ‚presumption‘ can easily be tested.
I rather suspect that since Mach hypotheses hadn’t been anywhere near the center of the actual most popular subjects of theoretical physics at the time, Sciama turned to other subjects. He was one of the proponents of a steady state cosmology and that might have been enough for him of being ‚alternative‘.
@@dankurth4232 It’s tough to be certain, there are lots of things to research and so little time, but this idea seems big enough that he wouldn’t have let the idea slide if the tensor theory had merit. He also wrote a book on tensors, so it’s not like the math was too challenging for him.
@@timjohnson3913 Thanks! Then the tensor calculation should be done as soon as possible. The potential relevance of this machian input to the theory of gravity is breathtaking
@@timjohnson3913 Well, it is true that physicists have difficulty creating mathematical models, and mathematicians don't always create the best models due to their lack of understanding or just ignorance on the physicality of reality imagined by physicists (I've seen mixed units and incompatible units, that formulate & calculate well, but describe nothing).
There are scales in our universe that are so immense, it's understandable if we can barely grasp them. There's so much yet to learn in science. It's hard for us to comprehend dynamic chaotic systems. Especially vast systems. What if at those immense scales, we don't yet fully grasp how things fully work? Like density, mass, Electromagnetism, static charges, fluid dynamics, temperature, pressure, radiation, velocity, etc. *I think there is a lot left to learn about these behaviors on VAST scales throughout our cosmos? I hope we continuously try to improve our understanding of the cosmos over time because it would be foolish to think we fully understand these things. Especially when talking about scales of galactic filaments, multiple galaxies interacting, and many more cosmic bodies & structures. We are getting better & better but some things are just so vast it's understandable we don't yet fully grasp them yet. I'm curious to see where things go as we advance our ability to study these things.
Sometimes I allow myself to think of the universe as a little explosion of energy like a bubble of steam in the pot boiling water. A quick pop and it's all over; small tint, fast.
Just from where we stand inside the bubble it seams to happen so slowly :)
space is fake
Fascinating. Brilliant.
Interesting explanation of inertia and variable speed of light.
I wish we had this at least mentioned in school.
I love the history of science.
Has there been any challenges?
Sorry, the prevailing paradigm forbids it. There has to be the final collapse of science for it would allow alternative (which often means true) options.
WOW!!! WOW!!! I never thought we could gain any real insight into inertia!! This is really exciting stuff!!
FINALLY AN ACTUAL SCIENCE CANAL. I`VE JUST PUT MY INSCRITION. EXCELLENT VIDEO. CONGRATULATIONS FROM BRAZIL.
If you know professor Assisi, you should connect the dots with Robert Sungenis, there's a lot of science that awaits for its time.
Thanks for the video
Surely one could set up a Cavendish-like experiment to determine whether the rotating bucket is roughly similar to "rotating the universe".
Consider a liquid metallic mirror in a bucket placed at the midpoint of two large masses. A plane-wave signal is reflected off of the mirror and focussed at a pre-determined focal point. The intensity of the signal at the focal point corresponds to the concavity of the liquid metallic mirror. Spinning the liquid metallic mirror in a counter-clockwise direction should be equivalent to spinning the two large masses in the clockwise direction about the midpoint.
My guess is that the mirror has to be spinning very slowly relative to the two masses or that the masses have to spin very fast in order to produce similar effects.
Granted, it's not rotating the universe, but perhaps this experiment could produce a discernible result.
Let me know if this idea is incomplete, incorrect, or just not that well thought-out.
This discovery is beautiful, and the paper of Sciama is beautiful. I hope to understand more clearly this video and I hope you continue to develope this reserch, so that the scientist community can conclude that the problem is solved!
This is fantastic!
Great video! I don't usually get this excited over scientific papers but your presentation of it was exceptional.
On a side note, I love the name of your book but I know several people who could be interested in the topic but would never give it a second thought based on the title.
Hard to guess what people like but thanks for sharing your thoughts.
I am excited to hear of this remarkable discovery and in your presentation, great work, thank you. Now three ideas discussed caught my imagination, one is related to the sum of all masses and its relation to c^2. In that insight JWST is pointing to a crisis in cosmology, that mass production could be ongoing and the universe being infinite. I am wondering if this points at a new conceptual framework? Secondly was a hint at of explanation for dark matter and news paths to resolve mysteries of physics and the cosmos? Thirdly the idea of relationship between electromagnetic formulation and the derivation of gravity hints at very deep ideas that could be the genesis of new ground breaking science.
I am not a physicist but have been a bit stuck in a thought experiment on this lately. In that thought experiment none of it has to actually exist even though it does appear to. In essence nothing more than an expression of time which has no material substance in and of itself and as such does not have to actually exist anywhere in particular. So the universe can appear to emerge from nothing and ultimately may just be an illusion of the tension in time.
@@axle.student There is a good video by Susskind on theory of black holes and he does state that the reality we experience could be because we are in fact inside a black hole itself ua-cam.com/video/yMRYZMv0jRE/v-deo.htmlsi=vODTMleXnG2g1VU3
Fascinating! So Dr. U., what does this say for the dark energy problem? Does it mean we now have an explanation for the accelerated expansion of the universe?
I am trying to relate dark matter to these ideas, but it is not easy.
@@TheMachianDark matter is dilated mass. 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 one aspect of dilation. Wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass, dilation will occur because high mass means high momentum. Dilation is the original and correct explanation for why we cannot see light from the galactic center.
It can be shown mathematically that the mass at the center of our own galaxy must be dilated. In other words that mass is all around us. This is the explanation for the abnormally high rotation rates of stars in spiral galaxies, the "missing mass" is dilated mass.
Einstein wrote about dilation occurring in "large clusters of stars" which is basically a very low mass galaxy. For a galaxy to have no/low dilation it must have very, very low mass. To date, 5 very, very low mass galaxies have been confirmed to show no signs of dark matter. For the same reason binary stars will always have predictable rotation rates.
What we see in modern astronomy has been known since 1925. This is when the existence of galaxies was confirmed. It was clear that there should be an astronomical quantity of light emanating from our own galactic center. It wasn't until television and movies began to popularize singularities that the concept gradually became mainstream.
There is no dark energy problem since it does not exist. It was created simply to explain prediction by GR. Instead GR should have been thrown into a trash bin. The Earth is in fact the center of the universe and no, it is not just an illusion.
@@bogdank8284 Prove that the Earth is the "center" of the Universe.
Is it possible that time is slowing down, and as a result when we look into the distant past everything was moving more quickly because time was faster?
Just an idea. I have no fomal education in these matters, it's just seems contradictory to me that 90% of the universe is directly undetectable dark matter, holding everything together, meanwhile there is another directly undetectable force, dark energy, accelerating everything apart.
I have little or no clue what you are talking about, but couldn't help watching the whole thing anyway.
Your enthousiasm works contageous. I guess that means I'm happy for you in some Machian way.
Thanks for such great start in 2024. 🎉
This is fascinating. I'd love to hear more about the implications of this idea. It seems to mean that the gravitational constant has changed over the lifetime of the universe. I'd be curious how fast we should be expecting it to change today, and whether the rate is anywhere within a range we could verify with something like the lunar laser ranging mirrors. Would this also mean that inertial behavior has changed over the lifetime of the universe? Could this resolve things like dark energy and change how we backtrace the weird early-universe expansion? Does it imply anything about how we might measure G or inertia in different parts of the universe? Would love to hear more about possible implications like these.
Why do we call uit gravitational constant if it changes? Las I learnt those quantities that change we call them variables.
@@hqs9585 Did you watch the video? Sometimes science finds out that things we thought were constants actually aren't. The work being talked about here is one of those cases. Watch the video.
I am a physicist and of course I understand that. My comment was a bit sarcastics and jt for a laugh. Again If the constant changes of the lifetime of the universe, do you mean , continually changing, discreetly?, every so often? then of course in all seriousness, in sot e constant. Thanks for your comment indeed. Lastr, is the "constant changing": or is the metrology changing?
@@hqs9585 Well obviously if this is confirmed, we would stop calling it a constant now wouldn't we? And as far as I can tell from what was talked about in the video, if the size of G is inversely proportional to the gravitational potential of the universe, then I would expect this to mean that G has been shrinking at the same rate as the gravitational potential of the universe has been growing. TBH I would have thought you would have been able to understand this from watching the video if you are indeed a physicist.
@@billyte1265 given your last statement is apparent you are a light weight in this field. Do I will stop here: learn the subject and not just state sophomric statements . Thanks
There is a further reason why gravity is linked with the overall mass and size of the universe which I detail in my D Construction model - which explains exactly what gravity is, although alas without the exposition of the model it won't make too much sense here. Anyway, I am very pleased to see that the mathematical proof was here all along. Thanks again for your diligence and historical investigation in these matters - Fascinating stuff.
Good talk!
Unglaubliche Videos und "outside the box" thinking. Subscribed!
If you take this finding and add the postulation of Anthony Peratt in his Physics of the Plasma Universe, we see the non visible mass as dusty plasma we have then no missing mass, it is simply not visible in the visible spectrum.
This reminds me of the Huge Gravity book they make you read for Caltech undergrads.... yeah Gravity is very extensive micro/macro topic. I wonder if Ed Witten is aware of Sciama's theory??
Surely not. He is living his fantasies about how to explain the existence of gravity with strings. LOL.
@@TheMachianI know Ed Witten is atleast aware of this work of Sciama’s. There is a youtube video where a young Ed is talking with Sciama and 2 other highly regarded physicists and Sciama mentions that he used to work on Mach’s Principle, but doesn’t go into any detail. Somewhat relatedly, I’ve seen a talk where Ed is asked a question by the audience at the end and he talks about Dirac’s LNH. He says it was disproved by measurement but that there are some modern versions of the theory. He doesn’t go into much detail.
I found another paper that was based on Sciama's work by James F. Woodward called: FLUX CAPACITORS AND THE ORIGIN OF INERTIA. It includes experiments and results- not just a theoretical paper.
Great show friend
Great share!
If the universe rotated around me, would i still produce frame dragging effects?
what if the water/bucket was absolutely frictionless. how would that affect the results.
@carlosgaspar8447 possible loophole? Weakness in her theory? I have no idea. Possibly, the bucket would be too small in mass to have an effect
Congrats on these findings! I came to similar conclusion years ago but couldn’t prove it, just using logic. This means I may be able to provide explanatory/logical way of getting here, and maybe take the theory another step forward. Would be interested in collaborating with anyone researching this topic.
You will have luck for your next research. Try it and you’ll get it!!
Elaborate
Ernst Mach was a wonderful man, with a brilliant, interesting or creative new idea every day of his life.
Unforutnately, all his ideas were wrong.
Time after time, people would come along and say "Hey, that's great fun." Then they'd strip out the lunatic bits and what was left was relatively decent physics or mechanics.
If Mad Magazine had existed in his time, he could have been the German Alfred E. Neuman.
Thanks YOU TUBE FEED, for sending this wonderful result. Seems this also solves ZERO POINT ENERGY of space, since Mc^2 now includes space by way of potential energy, so subtraction of the mass energy sum/volume of space! Very good indeed.
What I find the most baffling is, in the past 4 days, I was intuitively coming to these exact same conclusions, without the maths, especially the last conclusions that gravity is simply inertia in a non homogeneous Universe. In my guts I could feel that it is correct. What I am the most surprised by, is that UA-cam suggested me this video, which is EXACTLY what I've been thinking about in the last week without talking about it to anyone, nor writing about it. Did UA-cam read my mind? This paper seems wonderful and could.possibly lead to more discoveries. I love it 🔥 Would there be a way to combine all the forces, hence let stuff 'fall' into all fields, and equate the sum of all the fields to be the total inertia? Would it be mathematically possible to do that to describe a unified field caused by the existence of the Universe? When I think about it, it would make sense that everything I decide to do is caused by an acceleration, which is caused by the combinations of all the fields, Gravity, EM, Strong and Week. In the end, making a decision and accelerating really is just letting myself 'fall' into all the force fields combined. Could that also explain how Gravity overtakes all the other forces on long distances? Their influence on the total sum might be high on short distances, but become really weak in comparison to gravity on long distances.
“It won’t help you weightlifting” 😂
I don't agree... This insight is highly motivating - so it helps me lifting weights, running farther and cycling longer
Thanks for sharing this immersive collaboration. I got interested of it and can see it very satisfactory, if G can be derived. Was the calculation done in some paper?
Hello Alexander. I am not a physicist or mathematician and know that I am missing what makes this compelling to you. I am however a pretty good philosopher and have some questions.
In looking at the motion of a pendulum, why does it not suffice to say that its motion is simply independent of other frames? Why can it not be understood as self referencing? I understand that it is important to correlate systems in their relative motion, but isn't it going from correlation to causation when we connect the motion of a pendulum to the motion and mass of the entire universe?
Is it also not sufficient when looking at Newton's bucket that we reference the mechanics of just that system where we can see all the local forces at work without referencing anything beyond them? Again, I understand the need to formulaically relate the motions of separated systems, but I wonder if there is not some kind of conceptual reification taking place when we find mathematical solutions and expect then seek their real instantiation in the physical universe.
The main problem that I have with the Mach / Sciama model is that it uses values for the size and density of the universe as though these are well known quantities. From what I can see, you can easily have many orders of magnitude difference in the estimates for these values. So, when the equations seem to give such accurate values for G, then it looks like someone is "cooking the books." Is there a better way of looking at this, to eliminate my concern?
I noticed he slipped in "observable universe" and was expecting him to at least address the issue but he skipped over it. There was some literal hand-waving in this video. let alone virtual. It's all very interesting to make the equations work mathematically but show me the actual data.
It’s not a stretch to assume the simplest thing that universe is isotropic and homogeneous (The cosmological principle), and thus has the same density as we see in the nearby galaxy. On large enough scales, this has proved true even though there are pockets of dense matter (galaxy clusters) and empty pockets (large voids). Of course, as you look back further and further into the universe, you are looking at a younger universe, which was more dense when the light was sent out, but you can extrapolate the actual density using the Hubble constant (more correctly often now called the Hubble parameter, because expansion is not constant but is speeding up).
@@kalliste23The observable Universe is the only part of the universe that can have causal influence on us locally, so not sure why you would think any other part of the universe could have inertial influence on local matter. Mach certainly never made such a claim (that the unobservable universe is causes local inertia).
Sciama is using G to calculate the theoretical density of matter in the detectible universe, not the other way around. His value didn't agree with the accepted value at the time (nor the values for our time as far as I can tell). It seemed to be more dense, but not beyond the realm of plausibility. He's proposing a better number based on a new framework. The fact that the densities are even in the same neighborhood is what stands out.
@@7even285 @timjohnson3913 etc. To answer variously: it's an assumption that the observable Universe is the only part that affects human measurements. Who knows what the real story is - especially if you try to understand what the String Theorists are up to. Using G to calculate the theoretical density of matter in the Universe ends up being a circular argument to my mind, since it's not clear to me how you propose to empirically measure the density of matter in the observable Universe. The void in the CMB suggests at least parts of the Universe are not the same as other parts, so the question then becomes whether or not that is significant in the overall picture. The bottom line is however you look at it although this is interesting that's mainly what it is, interesting. It's not like this is some kind of new understanding that's going to lead to engineers building interstellar capable spacecraft or something. In my mind it's a bit more likely to be closer to reality than String Theory but that's not saying much.
If one just imagine a hollow cylinder or sphere with walls infinitely thick and rotate it, what would general relativity say about a body inside it!? It would rotate and feel a centripetal force like this paper says!? Maybe both theory would agree... I dont know. It is just a guess
More than a good guess.
Papers exist calculating the equivalence of a suitably specified rotating cylinder of mass, to a rising observer in the middle experiencing centrifugal and coriolis forces.
Think of the frame dragging caused by a rotating black hole. The rotating hollow cylinder drags space-time within it.
Fascinating!
interrupted a political vid to hear from you
:-) Yea let's do science, politics is too annoying...
"The theories of Einstein, Heisenberg and Schrödinger appear very questionable if the existence of the ether can be verified, and it will not be an easy task to show the obsolescence of all those accepted physical theories. A coming re-evaluation will prove the truth of Max Planck's statement,
'A new scientific truth does not triumph by
convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.'"
Rho Sigma
Ether Technology
"Meanwhile, Back in Europe"
@@TheMachiantechnocrats are killing our scientists.
I have a long list were told they're before their time and then blacklisted, whitewashed and "deleted."
@@TheMachian
Albert Einstein's opinion about the interferometric experiments of Dayton C. Miller. A communication to "Science". New Series, Vol 62, N° 1596 July, 31 1925
THE Einstein theory of relativity must fall or at least require radical modification, if the experiments performed at Mt. Wilson, in California, by Professor Dayton C. Miller, of the Case School of Applied Science, are correct, is the opinion of Professor Albert Einstein himself, expressed in a communication from him to Science Service.
" If Dr. Miller's results should be confirmed," he says, " then the special relativity theory, and with the general theory in its present form, falls. Experiment is the supreme judge. Only the equivalence of inertia and weight remain, which would lead to an essentially different theory. "
...
Professeur Allais has proved that Dr Miller's experiments are valid.
See his article published in "La Jaune et la Rouge".
Then, the conclusion is done by Albert Einstein himself : the relativity theory falls.
Good call
this is actually predicted by general relativity. As the Earth rotating drags literally space with it. Space itself is being rotated by the earth’s rotation. so we might be in a rotating universe, and we would never know it. Because space itself is rotating with the universe.
No. You mean the Lense-Thirring-Effect, but it is not the same. Inertia is not explained by GR, not is G.
@@TheMachianwhat do you mean by "the coincidence of our dynamical and visual measurements of what it mean to be at rest"? If you mean GR can't explain why we feel at rest, it's because we are in an unaccelerated frame. The only force acting on us is an acceleration up from the ground because of the outwards pressure of the earth.
Your correct
dos3 • And what is "space" in REALITY by itself only? 😏
I did go to the video you gave the link to and the math was above my expertise in that branch of Mathematics. However, I got the gist of what was the essence of the calculations. It is actually explaining how the gravitational constant that was measured by the Cavendish experiment with the lead spheres can be derived. It is not an arbitrary "God given" value but rather a consequence of the sum total of the mass in the universe at large. This is very fascinating. And it ties gravity to inertia and the equivalence principal coming from a different direction than GR. I wish I was able to follow the math, but I have too much on my plate to try to bring myself up to speed on this branch of Mathematics to fully appreciate this. What an adventure your video has taken me to. A great revelation to know that the gravitational constant could have been calculated rather than learned from experimentally simply by knowing the speed of light squared and doing the math. You say it blows YOUR mind! Imangine what it is doing to my little mind! :-)
Fascinating talk, thank you for sharing!
The equations do not have a divide by zero error as the Lorentz Transformation does at v=c, I like that!
I'm slowly attempting to grasp gravity, and it does indeed seem to be on the surface of the earth a lot of velocity vectors of matter experiencing electro-magnetic forces just as a rotor of a motor experiences a dynamic electro-magnetic field.
It is amazing that our relative velocity towards "The Great Attractor" is over a million kilometers per hour.
I like the interesting idea that "G" may not be a constant (could also be that all "constants" happen to be very low frequency variables that can be calculated).
The question of absolute dimensions is like the dumbest question ever. Can you imagine people got robbed by taxation and those proceeds go to making up answers to irrelevant questions? Terrible.
You ARE very mistaken.
WoW! Tears came to my eyes reading that text below equation 86. What a profound understanding!
Many many excellent videos on theoretical physics. String theory is very interesting.
I saw these before going to sleep. Don't know if I will sleep at all...that is amazing, amazing solution!
When the water spins, from the water’s perspective it’s the fabric of the spacetime that’s rotating around it, hence the fabric gets distorted, adding to the distortion caused by earth’s mass,causing water to change shape. This phenomenon proves that the fabric of space time is something very real, empty space is actually an entity that can interact with physical objects.
At 13:00 centrifugal force (compression) is mentioned but there is another equalising force called centripetal and this is a pulling force creating a less dense centre. This is observed in tornadoes and whirlpool vortices.
As light (inductive perurbance in the Aether (tub water)) moves across the expanse it passes through these varying densities and slows down or speeds up therefore light does not flow through the galaxies and clusters at a constant rate.
I agree with possibility of the variable speed of light. We do not fully understand the extremely low gravity space outside of our solar system let alone in between galaxies, or outside of our galaxy. Or even the extreme gravity at the center of our galaxy! But we do know that light bends and attenuates as it travels though different media.
Wonderful!
Excellent.
thanks for this video. That's a very important information i would say
thanks, very interesting
Have I found what I was looking for, at last? This is such a great summary. I have to think it over deeply. But so far, this is the exact explanation I've always had on my own. Contrary to what I read in textbooks etc. Always disoriented by the fact that these fundamental questions were shrugged off or just omitted in textbooks. How come I didn't know about Sciama's work is unfathomable to me.
I have read or watched lots of explanations why the twin paradox is not a paradox, but a simple, logical consequence of something. None of them explained what they purported to. Most were contradictory to each other. Even Feynman failed here completely.
It's always stunned me. The absolute character of acceleration is just fiat. Without reason. Which however has to exist if we care at all about global symmetries. All justifications I met with were simply fake.
Some books hinted at the fact that there is a problem but only that.
Thank you for bringing physics back from crazy land back to reality.
Very nice. Professor mentioned 'slight offset.' Is it possible to expand on that? Currently, it is believed mass is constantly leaving the visible universe. Presumably therefore, that offset is in continual flux and occasionally approaches zero from time-to-time. If a slight-offset is required, what are the implications of zero-offset?
Thank you for your very interesting video. I wondered whether there would be an electromagnetic equivalent to Mach's principle. E.g. if we switch on an electromagnet then there is an initial surge of current and energy is stored 1/2Li2. Is this stored energy related to the fact that everything in the universe now has potential energy with respect to the electromagnet. And if we power off the electromagnet there is a back emf as this potential energy goes. The inductance is proportional to u0 and the configuration of the universe would be different in the past hence different speed of light.
Very interesting hypothesis.
With my A level physics, the maths was beyond my understanding. However, it is amazing to see a derivation of the Gravitational constant. Wow. Awesome. Very humbling.