I agree, it was oddly dizzying and unnecessary. It's a lecture, no need for frequent camera angle changes... it doesn't enhance the otherwise wonderful quality of the information being presented.
Motion seems like the most fundamental "thing" in the universe. Why does spacetime resist changes in motion? Is mass "inwardly accelerating motion"? So many questions
Thank you for this. It was very informative, and explained some very difficult concepts with clarity. I learnt some new things for which i’m very grateful. You gave me fresh perspectives on this subject, which have helped to deepen my understanding.
Oh, please stop that irritating wobbling between cameras! Each change pulls me out of focus from this otherwise very interesting and educational video, and I lose track of what is being said. :'-( Apart from that, thank you, anyway! :-)
@@TheGreatCourses WHY AND HOW ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity, AS E=MC2 IS NECESSARILY F=MA: TIME DILATION ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that E=mC2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. INDEED, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS E=mc2 is F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. E=mc2 is F=ma. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. (Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE.) Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. Great !!! Gravitational force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=mc2 is F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=mc2 is F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. The Earth AND the Sun are CLEARLY E=MC2 and F=ma IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. GREAT !! By Frank DiMeglio
Bravo a brilliant talk on general relativity the only one that mentions the 1st world war stopping the measure of deflection. I have no exams or degrees but an interest in things scientific have learned from other sources that time runs slower on earths surface than higher up (as brilliantly exampled in this course) and this is the main cause of gravity. All material things want to get to the lowest energy level hence an apple falls to do so and even with humans the time difference between head and feet is enough to do this. Hence you always have an acceleration and time runs differently for an accelerating body the whole thing entirely self consistent. What you feel is a constant acceleration on the soles of your feet or equivalently the earths surface accelerating upwards.
This was well done. I have watched many but this guy did the best job, on this video, about this matter and lots of details no one else bring us. I agree that Einstein explains accurately, correcting newton, about what gravity is. Gravity waves another matter. I'm not yet cionvinced about the time issue despite the common GPS example. anyways this was so good RELATIVE to many others who try hard. I'm trying to find other vids by this guy. thanks from Canada.
I see gravity as an energy source. My reasoning is that the heat energy coming from friction during precipitation isn't the same heat energy that is observed during evaporation. Evaporation heat energy is traceable to a conversion of mass into energy like oxidation or fusion, but the heat energy that is released as water falls through the air due to gravitational acceleration being dissipated as heat isn't traceable to mass being converted into energy. Therefore, I see gravity as an energy source to explain where that additional heat comes from since evaporation heat isn't precipitation heat.
Sometimes you feel that when a lecturer explains an advanced subject he tries to ease it by simplifying and giving examples. Such an "eloquent" example is the "geometry on a spherical surface", but I have an objection here and there: The Euclidian geometry works perfectly on a spherical surface, because we OF COURSE know that it is NOT a plane, flat surface! But as a explanatory comparison it is brilliant.
no, its not brilliant, its simply a big lie. Einsteins theories are nonsense. the non Euclidean geometry of the imaginary Spacetime, is just pure Mathematics. Now tell me how a Mathematics equation about an imaginary condition called "Spacetime," can possibly cause an apple to fall to the ground? Spacetime itself is a nonsense idea. Space is simply areas between objects where there are no other objects, and Time is just the comparison between rates of change of motion of differently moving objects. So like many other aspects of modern life, we are being deceived and controlled by a elite group according to their plan, yes, its a conspiracy.
The famous physics experiments (Fiseau and M-M), the explanation of which led to the invention of TR can be explained simply and intuitively, through the coupling of light with the density field of the transparent medium, in motion, or with the density field emanating from the mass the earth. Because in the component of the dynamic structure of the photon there is the magnetic induction Bf whose square makes the mass density of the photon. Density that is coupled with the mass density of the transparent medium or with the mass density emanating from the mass of the earth. Mass density also given by the square of the magnetic induction starting from the level of nucleons.
In Galileo system, x=vt, if only if dx/dt is constant. Lorentz transformation goal is distances (x, x’) x=f(v,t)and x’=g(c, t’) are mathematically equal in both systems with symmetry. So c is not Galileo or classic velocity, and t’ is not classic time. In Galileo, v varies, t is uniform at any point in space; whilst in Lorentz, t’ varies, c is constant in space. c =eu , is really the property of the space, or medium, or Ether. It is not velocity in Galileo.( v, C),(t,t’), they are (Apple, Orange), (Peach,Grape) in two math systems. People are still thinking they are same things. That causes confusion. Saying 1) if an object moves at speed of light, time stops. Moving object slows clock, etc. That’s wrong. It should be said t’ in Lorentz stops, or equal to 0. In Galileo, t is uniform, it doesn’t stop or slow. 2). Speed of light C is constant from any observer at different speeds. That is wrong. c in Galileo changes from observers, C in Lorentz as the property of space is constant. Then there is no ambiguity, confusing, both accurate in their own system for/from measurements. Time dilution, space-time curvature, etc. are all bogus by mixing concepts in two systems. If you use Fourier series to express a signal S, it is not the signal in time domain, it’s amplitude A in frequency domain. Nobody treats A-S as “signal dancing”. But sigma of all these series by frequency goes back to the value of signal in time domain. They are just mathematically equivalent, not necessarily physically same. There are many ways to do it mathematically, too. Relativity is just another way of measuring of the nature using electric magnetic wave in Lorentz system. It has advantages over Galileo system in Astronomy, because Maxwells equations describe electromagnetic wave in vacuum with eu as constant, which is the space property and its value equals to speed of light in Galileo. In Algol events (visit Algol website) proves the speed of light wave in Galileo system changes with observer’s or earth’s motion.
..the gravity probe b experiment proved that spacetime is attracted to the mass of the earth, even causing a rotating vortex of spacetime that rotates at a fraction of the Earth's rotation, which would mean that there is some type of coupling to spacetime and least that gravity is a mechanism that involves force...
Hello! This is lecture two from the course "What Einstein Got Wrong" You can watch the entire course here: www.thegreatcoursesplus.com/what-einstein-got-wrong
i was under the understanding that general relativity stated that an object will travel in a path of least resistance. i did not understand that to mean it travels in a straight line ?
IMO it's not matter that attracts matter. It is the existence of matter that causes matter to attract matter. In combination with the expansion of the universe. It has been proven that the universe is expanding constantly at every point in the universe. What happens when you have multiples of the universe? Or when the universe is squeezed together? A black hole is so dense it is literally outside of the universe. Meaning, the area that the BH takes up is made up of nothing but matter. So where did the universe go, that was previously there? It naturally is now in multiples around the BH. We have multiples of the universe around the BH, and the universe is constantly expanding. So we have multiples of this expansion now. THIS causes gravity. Depending on how much of the universe is displaced, and how dense the matter is and the size of the matter, determines the strength of gravity. The displacement of the fabric of the universe (because of matter) is what allows gravity to reach out so far across the universe. When the universe is displaced, this ripple effect reaches out great distances from said objects. When two objects ripples come into contact with each other, their paths are altered to now travel towards each other. This is also why a bowling ball and a kick ball, being the same size, falls at the same speed. The balls are traveling through the expansion of the universe, virtually not moving. If matter attracts matter, wouldn't the bowling ball, with more mass, fall faster?
Honestly, who produced this video? The content is amazing, the presenter is incredible but the production with the presenter turning to face different cameras every 2 minutes is so distracting and takes away from the content. Photos intermixed with the presenter stationary, some animation…anything but making him spin. It is horrible! Please provide producers contact info so we can chastise him profusely!
Please follow the camera, don't lead it. You should only change your view *after* the camera changes, as though we're the ones making the change, and you're just keeping up. Turning before an upcoming camera change is extremely disorienting. Over and over and over and over... I was also hoping for a more sophisticated explanation of relativity and gravity than the tired rubber sheet analogy (which explains trajectory bend, but not attraction).
Yeah I'm stuck to the floor because space is bent , my clock runs slow and It just looks like a pulling force . Might as well include all forces in that then , minus the clock slowing thing .
Nice story for kids. It seems when it comes to relativity definitions go out. The window. We have straight lines that curve when by definition straight line is a line that never curves. We have spacetime that curves but only objects curve . Space is a void , empty, with nothing there and time is a concept . In relativity it seems adding a concept to nothing gets you an object . According to relativity if i walk next to a mountain in a straight line i should somehow end up around the mountain. If space is curved around massive objects and we are orbiting thinking we are moving straight , how is navigation in space possible? How would we know what direction to go when all directions end up in an orbit?
Aside from the GPS system lasers and photovoltaic cells are based on equations 1st written by EinsteinAside from the GPS system lasers and photovoltaic cells are based on equations 1st written by Einstein
It’s not what Einstein Discovered, it is what Einstein didn’t discover. Einstein most importantly discovered that the only component of the Universe is Energy. Energy in many different forms, but Energy just the same. One of those forms of Energy is Matter. Einstein determined that there must be a relation ship between Matter and Gravity and he proved that Matter can bend light/Energy, and complexifying falling apples and light being bent around the sun he determined that the mechanism of the effect of Gravity is that Matter curves space (and time depending on what you think is important). What Einstein didn’t discover is HOW does matter bend space. The best answer to date is that it just does! Gravity is everywhere. If you stop and think about it what is matter other than more space, space with a tiny Quantity of energy concentrated in it. How can that bend space. I am going to tell you (argue) that matter doesn’t “bend” space, it is the Energy of the Nucleus of particles that alters the Energy Intensity Gradient of the Higgs Field that is the true mechanism of Gravity. “Moving due to the force of Gravity” is in fact the Nucleus Energy of particles pushing against the Universal Field, the Higgs Field, that causes particles to move, and they move in the direction of the highest field energy. They also move instantaneously as influenced by the Higgs Field Energy Intensity Gradient. How does the Nucleus of matter particles apply energy to the Higgs Field? The Higgs Field does many things. One of them is to limit the passage of Energy through it to the speed of Light. The harder you push against the Higgs Field near the speed of light, the more energy that must be applied. This is what happens in the Nucleus of particle, the energy in the quarks is trying to escape through the field but the field energy intensity is such that it cannot. It is this Energy that we call the Strong Nuclear Force, but is in fact the highly energized Higgs Field, and that Energy dissipates (elastically) away from the Nucleus as the square of the distance to where at the surface of the earth the sum total of that Field Energy is what we experience as Gravity. Gravity is the Matter Energy of of the Protons and Neutrons pushing against the Field Energy of the Universe and where the next effect of that push is towards the greatest/nearest Body of Matter.
Nothing can move THROUGH space faster than the speed of light, but there might be a way to move AROUND spacetime. If gravity warped spacetime so much, could it punch a hole through it? Maybe learning to control the theorized graviton is the key to intergalactic travel.
The chamber is the earth expanding at 16 feet per second constant acceleration; that is gravity. Too simple for the modern brain. Newton, Einstein and all the rest are historical curiosities.
I have a question which drives me nuts. Is a satellite in orbit around a large body of mass, moving in a straight line through curved space? I can contrast this with a car driving around a circular race track, and thus experiencing centrifugal force. ie. You know you are in motion in the car due to the feeling of being pushed out to the side, but you would feel no force in a stable orbit, as the observation of constant velocity of your forward momentum depends entirely on a frame of reference, and the only other motion is that of falling into a gravity well. To slightly complicate matters, I understand most orbits are an ellipse, and velocity does increase at points where you are closer to the mass you are orbiting around. So back to my original question, is an orbit, even an elliptical one, to be regarded as moving in a straight line through curved space, or is that the wrong way to think about it.
i dont understand it either, but what youre missing is that spaceTIME is curved. we keep trying to picture it as if space is just curved, but thats not the case and our brains really cant imagine whats going on, but you should search up videos about how its curved time that is mostly responsible for orbits and even why were stuck to the ground, i still dont fully understand it but we have to keep trying
I appreciate the response, but I do understand (or at least acknowledge) that space is actually "spacetime" and that in GR you can't really talk about one without the other. So it was sloppy wording, but I should have said spacetime, not space. That being said, the central question remains. From everything I have managed to learn, I think a body of mass in orbit around another body of mass can be said to be travelling in a straight line through curved "spacetime" -It is simply following the most direct path, given it's forward momentum. For example, if the large body of mass were to just disappear, then it would start moving in a straight line, as described by Euclidean geometry, and be subject to the much simpler rules of special relativity. So unless someone tells me this reasoning is wrong, that's what I'm going with :)
@@upsbZiPH thx, Eugenes videos are great. ps. It pretty much confirmed my speculation. An object in orbit is moving in a straight line through curved spacetime. It's really just Newtons second law of motion but with the addition of gravity as curved spacetime taken into account.
It's not a good to think about gravity (planetary orbits moving in a straight line). The correct was is to think of them as moving inertially, i.e. without any force. This motion is called geodesic and geodesic motion in flat spacetime is a straight line. Some people refer to geodesic motion as the "straightest" line but I don't see how this is helpful. Note: You cannot physically experience centrifugal force as it does not exist, but you can experience centrifugal force as a psychological interpretation of the vector sum of centripetal forces.
@@MrBendybruce You can talk about curved space and time separately in terms of the metric components, e.g. the time and radial metric coefficients being functions of the coordinates. If a large central body disappeared the orbiting body would continue to orbit until the gravitational wave of the disappearing object reached the orbiting object.
Gravity is not a force in the sense that it cannot produce a physical acceleration. Gravity is a Fundamental force as it is an irreducible phenomenon that shapes and organizes the world. If should be noted that the neither the Weak nor Strong forces are physical forces either.
Gravity has to do with acceleration but in different approaches related to space-time, Gravity can change both the geometry of space and time, the main mistake is the lack of differentiation between the existence of both Gravitational field and the property in each atom regarding gravity (there is a property in each atom independently interacts with the gravitational fields) that's the secret of many phenomena such as all objects free fall at the same rate of acceleration regardless of their mass or lack of gravity in the outer space....etc. Einstein theory does work somehow because it is a kind of wrapper. This way of thinking in addition to changing the current concept of space-time will lead to a quicker approach to solve the mystery of Gravity that will change human history forever.
Thinking of Sun Mass and Earth mass, in sunlight and dark. Equal and opposite, we are in a static orbit of influence. We have to have our rotation speed to keep the effect from changing. But without consideration of any effect on the Sun by Cosmic energy changes. Not in our realm of influence. Like Rome lost Empire , influence of others to change the onboard security of its power.
@@donthesitatebegin9283 Both mass types are measured using Sir Isaac Newton's second law. Inertial in the horizontal plane and gravitational in the vertical plane. When it is found that the inertial content of a mass and the gravitational content of the same mass measure exactly the same, the obvious conclusion is that mass is simply mass and that there is no such thing as either inertial mass or gravitational mass. There is an inverse square law constructed around mass. Newton said he didn't know what the construct was there. Just said it is. Putting the word 'gravitational' in front of mass does not solve Sir Isaac's dilemma. With inertial mass, uniform motion is quantified by multiplying velocity and mass together. That perfectly explains uniform motion. The placing of the word inertial in front of mass does not. A resistance to a change of a state of motion is born when the force causing the change is born. Neither exist prior to each other. If you are lost in Einstein you won't follow all that but it's just simple logic. There is only the mass type of mass.
Albert Einstein is the greatest scientist of all time. Douglas Stone, Rhodes Scholar and head of applied physics at Yale, argues that Einstein should have won at least 7 Nobel Prizes. Most science historians are in agreement. He solved the tea leaf paradox in his spare time while creating quantum theory. Einstein was the first to predict the LASER, the Boson, and countless other achievements. Einstein was unparalleled in his scientific intuition and every physicist after him has been left in awe. To quote Sean Carroll: "Albert Einstein understood quantum mechanics better than anybody." To quote Douglas Stone: "Einstein is the greatest physicist to ever live and probably the greatest conceptual genius to ever live."
You are wrong about many things here. Einstein had little to no contribution to Quantum Mechanics infact he was a rebel to Copenhagen Interpretation which is widely accepted today. Einstein had his winners but he had many losers too.
los relativistas que están a la vanguardia de la ciencia y muestran el camino NO ENTIENDEN EL EXPERIMENTO DE MICHELSON-MORLEY , ¿ puede un tipo como Einstein ser el líder de la ciencia si no entendió lo que era la gravedad ni la dilatación del tiempo ?
It is TOTALLY UNTRUE that special relativity cannot be applied in case of acceleration! Acceleration is simply the derivative of velocity over time. And you can ALWAYS calculate such rate of change.
At the end of this video, I could not figure out "what is gravity" which is the title of the video. What, in your opinion is gravity? this is what I would like to hear, not to know all these equations.
please pick a camera, all the shifting from one to another for no reason is very distracting and seems artificial and silly
I agree
+1
Maybe the constant change of cameras was the result of some non-scientific boss thinking this would demonstrate the mysteries of gravity.
🤣😂🤣
Great as a podcast; vertigo inducing when watched as a video.
Simply and elegantly explained so that an intellectual light-weight like me could (mainly) understand it. More of this please!
I'd get dizzy if I had to look at a different camera every 10 seconds
The director evidently didn't realize the gravity of this distracting approach.
@@jps0117 This is very good. I doubt that you understand the Gravity of your comment.
OMG, I was just gonna make the same comment. Love the series, hate the choreography!
Plus his annoying over-articulated voice and non-stop pointless hand gestures.
Recannize?
One of my favorite lecturers.
Beautiful and informative video. There is no need to change framing with such a regular pace: it is too repetitive.
I agree, it was oddly dizzying and unnecessary. It's a lecture, no need for frequent camera angle changes... it doesn't enhance the otherwise wonderful quality of the information being presented.
i appreciate giving us the history behind general relativity...cheers🙋♂️
Excellent content. My only criticism is the incessant, and immensely distracting, jumping from one camera to another.
Interesting and worthwhile video.
Motion seems like the most fundamental "thing" in the universe. Why does spacetime resist changes in motion? Is mass "inwardly accelerating motion"? So many questions
That switching between cameras every few seconds is distracting from an otherwise good presentation.
Excellent video, information-wise. But the constant camera angle changes are dizzy- ing. Horrible.
honestly ive been searching youtube about why we move upwards and this video is the only one i understand easily
Love the video and knowledge. Just the constant changing camera was a bit jarring.
Brilliant lecture! Enjoyed thoroughly
what's with the camera angles? Can't this guy stand still?
LOL
I am only a few minutes in and can't stay with these camera changes.
An excellent presentation. Thank you.
What's up with using the 2 cameras?
Love the series, hate the choreography! 😳
Thank you for this. It was very informative, and explained some very difficult concepts with clarity. I learnt some new things for which i’m very grateful. You gave me fresh perspectives on this subject, which have helped to deepen my understanding.
M my mcpnn Maz ncco mi c BBB bo BBB. Un h N sdbho b v N r
Awesome video!! Thank you.
TKNR .THANKS for the CLEAR EXPLANATION Of GRAVITY.
Excellent explanation, but why the constant camera angles? If nothing else, it seems so staged. (And unnecessary!).
Oh, please stop that irritating wobbling between cameras! Each change pulls me out of focus from this otherwise very interesting and educational video, and I lose track of what is being said. :'-(
Apart from that, thank you, anyway! :-)
Thank you for your feedback, we will share your comments with the right team.
@@TheGreatCourses WHY AND HOW ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity, AS E=MC2 IS NECESSARILY F=MA:
TIME DILATION ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that E=mC2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. INDEED, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS E=mc2 is F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy.
E=mc2 is F=ma. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. (Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE.) Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. Great !!!
Gravitational force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=mc2 is F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=mc2 is F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. The Earth AND the Sun are CLEARLY E=MC2 and F=ma IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. GREAT !!
By Frank DiMeglio
Bravo a brilliant talk on general relativity the only one that mentions the 1st world war stopping the measure of deflection. I have no exams or degrees but an interest in things scientific have learned from other sources that time runs slower on earths surface than higher up (as brilliantly exampled in this course) and this is the main cause of gravity. All material things want to get to the lowest energy level hence an apple falls to do so and even with humans the time difference between head and feet is enough to do this. Hence you always have an acceleration and time runs differently for an accelerating body the whole thing entirely self consistent. What you feel is a constant acceleration on the soles of your feet or equivalently the earths surface accelerating upwards.
The world war one thing is mentioned on other videos.
Great video. Thanks!
What a mistake to change cameras so often!
This was well done. I have watched many but this guy did the best job, on this video, about this matter and lots of details no one else bring us. I agree that Einstein explains accurately, correcting newton, about what gravity is. Gravity waves another matter. I'm not yet cionvinced about the time issue despite the common GPS example. anyways this was so good RELATIVE to many others who try hard. I'm trying to find other vids by this guy. thanks from Canada.
❤Thank you very much for this helpful article
Please, this camera swapping dynamics is a bit nauseous. Can we just have a static camera? I thought I was going to puke at some point watching it.
I actually liked it..
I kinda like it. But different strokes for different folks.
I see gravity as an energy source. My reasoning is that the heat energy coming from friction during precipitation isn't the same heat energy that is observed during evaporation. Evaporation heat energy is traceable to a conversion of mass into energy like oxidation or fusion, but the heat energy that is released as water falls through the air due to gravitational acceleration being dissipated as heat isn't traceable to mass being converted into energy. Therefore, I see gravity as an energy source to explain where that additional heat comes from since evaporation heat isn't precipitation heat.
Sometimes you feel that when a lecturer explains an advanced subject he tries to ease it by simplifying and giving examples. Such an "eloquent" example is the "geometry on a spherical surface", but I have an objection here and there: The Euclidian geometry works perfectly on a spherical surface, because we OF COURSE know that it is NOT a plane, flat surface! But as a explanatory comparison it is brilliant.
no, its not brilliant, its simply a big lie. Einsteins theories are nonsense. the non Euclidean geometry of the imaginary Spacetime, is just pure Mathematics. Now tell me how a Mathematics equation about an imaginary condition called "Spacetime," can possibly cause an apple to fall to the ground? Spacetime itself is a nonsense idea. Space is simply areas between objects where there are no other objects, and Time is just the comparison between rates of change of motion of differently moving objects. So like many other aspects of modern life, we are being deceived and controlled by a elite group according to their plan, yes, its a conspiracy.
The camera changes are cheesy
fantastic writing
Very distracting production. Over use of camera angles and camera movements although the speaker and content is good.
The famous physics experiments (Fiseau and M-M), the explanation of which led to the invention of TR can be explained simply and intuitively, through the coupling of light with the density field of the transparent medium, in motion, or with the density field emanating from the mass the earth. Because in the component of the dynamic structure of the photon there is the magnetic induction Bf whose square makes the mass density of the photon. Density that is coupled with the mass density of the transparent medium or with the mass density emanating from the mass of the earth. Mass density also given by the square of the magnetic induction starting from the level of nucleons.
The looks of the whole thing is so 90s.
that's the effects of time dilation
Great info. Less dancing around.
Wonderfull explanation
In Galileo system, x=vt, if only if dx/dt is constant. Lorentz transformation goal is distances (x, x’) x=f(v,t)and x’=g(c, t’) are mathematically equal in both systems with symmetry. So c is not Galileo or classic velocity, and t’ is not classic time. In Galileo, v varies, t is uniform at any point in space; whilst in Lorentz, t’ varies, c is constant in space. c =eu , is really the property of the space, or medium, or Ether. It is not velocity in Galileo.( v, C),(t,t’), they are (Apple, Orange), (Peach,Grape) in two math systems. People are still thinking they are same things. That causes confusion. Saying 1) if an object moves at speed of light, time stops. Moving object slows clock, etc. That’s wrong. It should be said t’ in Lorentz stops, or equal to 0. In Galileo, t is uniform, it doesn’t stop or slow. 2). Speed of light C is constant from any observer at different speeds. That is wrong. c in Galileo changes from observers, C in Lorentz as the property of space is constant. Then there is no ambiguity, confusing, both accurate in their own system for/from measurements. Time dilution, space-time curvature, etc. are all bogus by mixing concepts in two systems. If you use Fourier series to express a signal S, it is not the signal in time domain, it’s amplitude A in frequency domain. Nobody treats A-S as “signal dancing”. But sigma of all these series by frequency goes back to the value of signal in time domain. They are just mathematically equivalent, not necessarily physically same. There are many ways to do it mathematically, too.
Relativity is just another way of measuring of the nature using electric magnetic wave in Lorentz system. It has advantages over Galileo system in Astronomy, because Maxwells equations describe electromagnetic wave in vacuum with eu as constant, which is the space property and its value equals to speed of light in Galileo.
In Algol events (visit Algol website) proves the speed of light wave in Galileo system changes with observer’s or earth’s motion.
..the gravity probe b experiment proved that spacetime is attracted to the mass of the earth, even causing a rotating vortex of spacetime that rotates at a fraction of the Earth's rotation, which would mean that there is some type of coupling to spacetime and least that gravity is a mechanism that involves force...
General Theory on overuse of multiple cameras.......
God doc but too many camera movements. Gets irritating to watch.
What is the name of this course. Looks like a new realease.
Hello! This is lecture two from the course "What Einstein Got Wrong" You can watch the entire course here: www.thegreatcoursesplus.com/what-einstein-got-wrong
I believe gravity is an effect more than it is a force. Mass bends space and time and the effect is gravity.
Excellent presentation, way too many advertisement interruptions though!
i was under the understanding that general relativity stated that an object will travel in a path of least resistance. i did not understand that to mean it travels in a straight line ?
Do not turn too much. Its a distraction
IMO it's not matter that attracts matter. It is the existence of matter that causes matter to attract matter. In combination with the expansion of the universe.
It has been proven that the universe is expanding constantly at every point in the universe. What happens when you have multiples of the universe? Or when the universe is squeezed together?
A black hole is so dense it is literally outside of the universe. Meaning, the area that the BH takes up is made up of nothing but matter. So where did the universe go, that was previously there? It naturally is now in multiples around the BH.
We have multiples of the universe around the BH, and the universe is constantly expanding. So we have multiples of this expansion now. THIS causes gravity.
Depending on how much of the universe is displaced, and how dense the matter is and the size of the matter, determines the strength of gravity.
The displacement of the fabric of the universe (because of matter) is what allows gravity to reach out so far across the universe. When the universe is displaced, this ripple effect reaches out great distances from said objects.
When two objects ripples come into contact with each other, their paths are altered to now travel towards each other.
This is also why a bowling ball and a kick ball, being the same size, falls at the same speed. The balls are traveling through the expansion of the universe, virtually not moving.
If matter attracts matter, wouldn't the bowling ball, with more mass, fall faster?
Honestly, who produced this video? The content is amazing, the presenter is incredible but the production with the presenter turning to face different cameras every 2 minutes is so distracting and takes away from the content. Photos intermixed with the presenter stationary, some animation…anything but making him spin. It is horrible! Please provide producers contact info so we can chastise him profusely!
Thank you for your feedback, we will share your input with the right team.
This lesson is just for university .Let find a way to make everybody understant
G is the Gravitational field, they talk the same language so it is nearly impossible to tune in their....
real Dilemma!
there seems to be a precession of the perihelion of the camera angles
Please follow the camera, don't lead it. You should only change your view *after* the camera changes, as though we're the ones making the change, and you're just keeping up. Turning before an upcoming camera change is extremely disorienting. Over and over and over and over...
I was also hoping for a more sophisticated explanation of relativity and gravity than the tired rubber sheet analogy (which explains trajectory bend, but not attraction).
Hold still, I'm getting dizzy...:-)
Great knowledge, get a new director. Changing camera angles was distracting and unnecessary
Yeah I'm stuck to the floor because space is bent , my clock runs slow and It just looks like a pulling force . Might as well include all forces in that then , minus the clock slowing thing .
how annoying and pointless to spin around to look at the different camera. what is supposed to mean, wow they have 2 cameras?
So glad Einstein won that race against Hilbert!
What if the passage of time is causing the effect we call gravity. The past resisting the future. JUST A THOUGHT.
Interesting
Good
Dizzy dizzy
Nice story for kids. It seems when it comes to relativity definitions go out. The window. We have straight lines that curve when by definition straight line is a line that never curves. We have spacetime that curves but only objects curve . Space is a void , empty, with nothing there and time is a concept . In relativity it seems adding a concept to nothing gets you an object . According to relativity if i walk next to a mountain in a straight line i should somehow end up around the mountain. If space is curved around massive objects and we are orbiting thinking we are moving straight , how is navigation in space possible? How would we know what direction to go when all directions end up in an orbit?
The scientists are right. You are wrong.
Mountains are too small for their distortion of space-time to be appreciable.
Aside from the GPS system lasers and photovoltaic cells are based on equations 1st written by EinsteinAside from the GPS system lasers and photovoltaic cells are based on equations 1st written by Einstein
It’s not what Einstein Discovered, it is what Einstein didn’t discover.
Einstein most importantly discovered that the only component of the Universe is Energy. Energy in many different forms, but Energy just the same. One of those forms of Energy is Matter.
Einstein determined that there must be a relation ship between Matter and Gravity and he proved that Matter can bend light/Energy, and complexifying falling apples and light being bent around the sun he determined that the mechanism of the effect of Gravity is that Matter curves space (and time depending on what you think is important).
What Einstein didn’t discover is HOW does matter bend space. The best answer to date is that it just does! Gravity is everywhere. If you stop and think about it what is matter other than more space, space with a tiny Quantity of energy concentrated in it. How can that bend space.
I am going to tell you (argue) that matter doesn’t “bend” space, it is the Energy of the Nucleus of particles that alters the Energy Intensity Gradient of the Higgs Field that is the true mechanism of Gravity. “Moving due to the force of Gravity” is in fact the Nucleus Energy of particles pushing against the Universal Field, the Higgs Field, that causes particles to move, and they move in the direction of the highest field energy. They also move instantaneously as influenced by the Higgs Field Energy Intensity Gradient.
How does the Nucleus of matter particles apply energy to the Higgs Field? The Higgs Field does many things. One of them is to limit the passage of Energy through it to the speed of Light. The harder you push against the Higgs Field near the speed of light, the more energy that must be applied. This is what happens in the Nucleus of particle, the energy in the quarks is trying to escape through the field but the field energy intensity is such that it cannot. It is this Energy that we call the Strong Nuclear Force, but is in fact the highly energized Higgs Field, and that Energy dissipates (elastically) away from the Nucleus as the square of the distance to where at the surface of the earth the sum total of that Field Energy is what we experience as Gravity. Gravity is the Matter Energy of of the Protons and Neutrons pushing against the Field Energy of the Universe and where the next effect of that push is towards the greatest/nearest Body of Matter.
The whole switching between cameras is utterly ridiculous. Just keep one camera on the man.
Nothing can move THROUGH space faster than the speed of light, but there might be a way to move AROUND spacetime.
If gravity warped spacetime so much, could it punch a hole through it? Maybe learning to control the theorized graviton is the key to intergalactic travel.
The chamber is the earth expanding at 16 feet per second constant acceleration; that is gravity. Too simple for the modern brain. Newton, Einstein and all the rest are historical curiosities.
Is Gravity, Space-Time extracting Space-Time from Matter ?
25:40 Gravity is not merely a force but, rather, the result of the shape, or geometry, of space and time.
Camera nonsense ruins this video for me. No need.
7:17 well I coulda guessed that
I have a question which drives me nuts. Is a satellite in orbit around a large body of mass, moving in a straight line through curved space? I can contrast this with a car driving around a circular race track, and thus experiencing centrifugal force. ie. You know you are in motion in the car due to the feeling of being pushed out to the side, but you would feel no force in a stable orbit, as the observation of constant velocity of your forward momentum depends entirely on a frame of reference, and the only other motion is that of falling into a gravity well. To slightly complicate matters, I understand most orbits are an ellipse, and velocity does increase at points where you are closer to the mass you are orbiting around. So back to my original question, is an orbit, even an elliptical one, to be regarded as moving in a straight line through curved space, or is that the wrong way to think about it.
i dont understand it either, but what youre missing is that spaceTIME is curved. we keep trying to picture it as if space is just curved, but thats not the case and our brains really cant imagine whats going on, but you should search up videos about how its curved time that is mostly responsible for orbits and even why were stuck to the ground, i still dont fully understand it but we have to keep trying
I appreciate the response, but I do understand (or at least acknowledge) that space is actually "spacetime" and that in GR you can't really talk about one without the other. So it was sloppy wording, but I should have said spacetime, not space. That being said, the central question remains. From everything I have managed to learn, I think a body of mass in orbit around another body of mass can be said to be travelling in a straight line through curved "spacetime" -It is simply following the most direct path, given it's forward momentum. For example, if the large body of mass were to just disappear, then it would start moving in a straight line, as described by Euclidean geometry, and be subject to the much simpler rules of special relativity. So unless someone tells me this reasoning is wrong, that's what I'm going with :)
@@upsbZiPH thx, Eugenes videos are great. ps. It pretty much confirmed my speculation. An object in orbit is moving in a straight line through curved spacetime. It's really just Newtons second law of motion but with the addition of gravity as curved spacetime taken into account.
It's not a good to think about gravity (planetary orbits moving in a straight line). The correct was is to think of them as moving inertially, i.e. without any force. This motion is called geodesic and geodesic motion in flat spacetime is a straight line. Some people refer to geodesic motion as the "straightest" line but I don't see how this is helpful.
Note: You cannot physically experience centrifugal force as it does not exist, but you can experience centrifugal force as a psychological interpretation of the vector sum of centripetal forces.
@@MrBendybruce You can talk about curved space and time separately in terms of the metric components, e.g. the time and radial metric coefficients being functions of the coordinates.
If a large central body disappeared the orbiting body would continue to orbit until the gravitational wave of the disappearing object reached the orbiting object.
I’m pretty confident I’ll never have any field equations named after me
6:42 ha ha yeah right!
Distance+time+space+gravity=maybe illusion
Are you telling me that the effects of gravity do not move at the speed of light?
Stop moving please ...in the past 🤔
Quit moving from camera to camera
seems contradictory to say that gravity is not a force if it can alter space and time.
Gravity is not a force in the sense that it cannot produce a physical acceleration. Gravity is a Fundamental force as it is an irreducible phenomenon that shapes and organizes the world. If should be noted that the neither the Weak nor Strong forces are physical forces either.
Gravity has to do with acceleration but in different approaches related to space-time, Gravity can change both the geometry of space and time, the main mistake is the lack of differentiation between the existence of both Gravitational field and the property in each atom regarding gravity (there is a property in each atom independently interacts with the gravitational fields) that's the secret of many phenomena such as all objects free fall at the same rate of acceleration regardless of their mass or lack of gravity in the outer space....etc.
Einstein theory does work somehow because it is a kind of wrapper.
This way of thinking in addition to changing the current concept of space-time will lead to a quicker approach to solve the mystery of Gravity that will change human history forever.
When we discover a quantum theory for gravity.
@@Heartbrayk. We are never going to discover a quantum theory of gravity. (For several reasons).
Gravity is too weak a force.
I made it to 16.29, then I had to go lay down.
Gravity is different
Thinking of Sun Mass and Earth mass, in sunlight and dark. Equal and opposite, we are in a static orbit of influence. We have to have our rotation speed to keep the effect from changing. But without consideration of any effect on the Sun by Cosmic energy changes. Not in our realm of influence. Like Rome lost Empire , influence of others to change the onboard security of its power.
Is Matter and Gravity = Anti Space-Time ?
everything is a circle
Probability. Random converge ratio.
what if there is only the mass kind of mass?
@@donthesitatebegin9283 Both mass types are measured using Sir Isaac Newton's second law. Inertial in the horizontal plane and gravitational in the vertical plane. When it is found that the inertial content of a mass and the gravitational content of the same mass measure exactly the same, the obvious conclusion is that mass is simply mass and that there is no such thing as either inertial mass or gravitational mass.
There is an inverse square law constructed around mass. Newton said he didn't know what the construct was there. Just said it is. Putting the word 'gravitational' in front of mass does not solve Sir Isaac's dilemma.
With inertial mass, uniform motion is quantified by multiplying velocity and mass together. That perfectly explains uniform motion. The placing of the word inertial in front of mass does not. A resistance to a change of a state of motion is born when the force causing the change is born. Neither exist prior to each other. If you are lost in Einstein you won't follow all that but it's just simple logic. There is only the mass type of mass.
Albert Einstein is the greatest scientist of all time. Douglas Stone, Rhodes Scholar and head of applied physics at Yale, argues that Einstein should have won at least 7 Nobel Prizes. Most science historians are in agreement.
He solved the tea leaf paradox in his spare time while creating quantum theory. Einstein was the first to predict the LASER, the Boson, and countless other achievements. Einstein was unparalleled in his scientific intuition and every physicist after him has been left in awe.
To quote Sean Carroll: "Albert Einstein understood quantum mechanics better than anybody."
To quote Douglas Stone: "Einstein is the greatest physicist to ever live and probably the greatest conceptual genius to ever live."
Pity he invented absolutely nothing.
You are wrong about many things here. Einstein had little to no contribution to Quantum Mechanics infact he was a rebel to Copenhagen Interpretation which is widely accepted today. Einstein had his winners but he had many losers too.
I love Einstein and Relativity, but he's not the greatest scientist of all time. He may the most best in the 20th century.
Have you read: How Do Physicists Lose Touch with Reality?!
Gravity is NOT instantaneous. It travels at the same speed as light.
Gravity don't travel, it's just sitting there as a fundamental property of the Universe holdin' it all together.
vacuum or empty space there is nothing to do with geometric
los relativistas que están a la vanguardia de la ciencia y muestran el camino NO ENTIENDEN EL EXPERIMENTO DE MICHELSON-MORLEY , ¿ puede un tipo como Einstein ser el líder de la ciencia si no entendió lo que era la gravedad ni la dilatación del tiempo ?
2 parallel lines cannot cross by simple definition yet you say they can in special cases. Yes when they are not parallel.
in euclidean space they do not cross. in curved space they do.
It is TOTALLY UNTRUE that special relativity cannot be applied in case of acceleration! Acceleration is simply the derivative of velocity over time. And you can ALWAYS calculate such rate of change.
My God.. 3 ads in the first 5 mins... unwatchable
At the end of this video, I could not figure out "what is gravity" which is the title of the video. What, in your opinion is gravity? this is what I would like to hear, not to know all these equations.
@22:59, "Einstein received a copy of Hilbert's paper" so he cheated?
you explain very well but your movement is distractive.
GR