Thank you Alexander! Please continue making these videos. Your lectures are green island in the ocean of junk popular science produced solely to impress.
The Junk popular science you state is the, " Griffter class." Who would have to be able to produce real work if there was any positive work that actually moves the needle.
I think you have to slightly modify the equation you show at 16:58 in this way: G = c^2/(4.sigma(m_i/r_i)) = c^4/(4.sigma(E_i/r_i)), where E_i (Energy-sub-i) is the energy of each object in the universe using E = mc^2. This would imply that Einstein's Gravitational Constant would be = k = 1/(4.sigma(E_i/r_i)) with the dimension of L^2. This implies that the "curvature" of spacetime is dependent on the _area_ around the mass causing the curvature, and modification of this area can be used to counter gravity.
The curvature of the surface of water in a rotating bucket is caused by the addition of the force of gravity with the centrfigul force of rotation. If you strung a wire across the top of the bucket with a series of little pendulums attached, the angle of each pendulum would be perpendicular to the water surface below it.
The description of Mach's principle at 2:20 incorrectly states that "motion of the water relative to the bucket walls creates no noticeable centrifugal force" - you then proceed to stir a glass of water, demonstrating that _there is_ of course CF force when the water's rotating relative to the non-rotating glass. I don't understand what's so confusing here - linear motion's relative, angular is *absolute.* The reason _why_ is that while mass and inertia are taken as equivalent ("inertial mass vs gravitating mass" is a common misstatement of the dichotomy), this is only true in an incidental, circumstantial way for the case of linear motion; in rotating systems, angular inertia is a function of mass times radius _squared,_ thus possessing a degree of independence from how much mass, and thus gravitational weight, the system has.. So whilst doubling mass would double angular inertia *and* net weight, doubling radius would _quadruple_ it, yet without increasing gravitational weight. Thus a consistent definition of 'inertia' - resolving both linear _and angular_ forms - reduces to a measure of how much mass has been accelerated through how much space in how much time - those are its minimum dimensions, from a purely mechanical perspective. Thus the reason why angular motion is absolute is that CF force is either present or absent, and the reason why it exists, and why MoI squares with radius, is the increase with radius of how much space the mass is accelerating through. So the curving of the water surface when rotating is *not* mysterious as you suggest (!), but an inevitable consequence of the fact that any water at twice the radius is being accelerated through four times as much space in the same unit time for a given uniform rotation speed. I couldn't get past this broken predicate to make anything of the rest of the conclusions (sorry!) but just a heads-up - there's high-def, point-blank footage of UAP here on YT showing gravitational lensing effects more starkly pronounced than anything seen in deep-field astronomy, and on comparatively _tiny_ scales (some of these craft are surprisingly compact); to wit, we're seeing undeniable evidence of warp-field propulsion techs, along with copious Casimir radiation _and absorption_ at the curved / flat space interface (so whereas some UAP glow like suns, others appear as little floating black holes - not merely silhouetted, but actively absorbing energy). Hutchin's _Detection of Casimir Radiation from Our Sun_ (2019) _does_ move somewhat in the direction of tying inertia to the stars, if on a much-more local level (also pointing to a potentially-novel resolution of DE & DM), also encompassing variable c, and thus wavelength _and frequency-shifting_ effects. Mach's principle (even when correctly formulated) is for the birds; just as gravity _and time_ is a source and sink for momentum, so inertia and time is a source and sink of vacuum / ZPE energy under divergent inertial frames (eg. consider fixing the unit-energy cost of momentum from G*t to an RPM-invariant value, such that doubling system momentum only requires doubling the input work done) - proving the causal link between inertia and local vacuum / ZP energy. I've enjoyed the rest of your presentations thus far, but couldn't get over the bumps in this one..
I must disagree with acceleration being relative. It is a fact that all observers agree on accelerations. That is the opposite of relative. I don't think absolute change needs a reference board to be played upon for coordinates. I think they needed something to frame it in, but I think the ether is void of locations for coordinates. I also think that basic acceleration, being absolute, may be the source of all forces that we have named several other names to account for their presence. The Four forces may be manifestations of accelerations due to absolute changes by mass within space. Suddenly, the duality of mass and light starts to make causal sense.
Very, very good presentation of the VSL theory. One can clearly see the benefits of your efforts using appropriate illustrations and paper extracts. One small proposal: at ~8:24 you quickly explain the issue with missing variable wavelength. I have the feeling that a short illustration/animation would help the audience to understand the situation better (immediately), especially when they hear about this issue the first time. Apart from that, this presentation ist one of your best since long time!
The graphic that appears at 16:54 through 18:05 is very helpful. If there is a second edition of your book entitled Einstein's Lost Key (2015), that graphic would be a nice companion to pages 180-181: Getting Rid of the Gravitational Constant G. By the way, I appreciate the fact that you employ (on pp. 51 and 155) the rarely (!) seen REAL alpha equation: e^2/2hcɛ, namely, the version which is pi-free and which employs h instead of h-bar, in contrast to the popular version which includes an explicit pi and an implicit pi, hiding in h-bar, so that pi chases its own tail, canceling to 1. In the popular version , pi's presence can be somewhat justified by harking back to Sommerfeld and his modeling of the atom (in which the equation was born), but nowadays it comes across more as a kind of Promotion of the Pi Religion (superstition), so I think that version should be discouraged.
Hi, thanks for your interesting video. I wanted to point out two things regarding the nature of the gravitational constant. First I don't understand why we take G, i.e. 6.674... to be the gravitational constant since clearly this number is not pure. It contains also the residue of 4π coming from the geometric behavior of newtons law. To clarify, let's call the pure gravitational constant G'. Then newton's gravitation equation should look like this: F=G'mM/4πr^2 The logic here is the same like in Coulombs law: the force applied on mass m is proportional to it's own mass and to a second mass M, which influence is spread over a sphere surface with radius R. Then G', which is G'=G/4π should be the real, or pure gravitational constant. Another point I wanted to mention, that I heard from a physics professor, that we can treat the Planck length as a fundamental constant and then G is not a fundamental constant. So usually the equation for plank length is written like this: Lp = √(hG/2πC^3) This might fool us to think that the Planck length is an emergent property of h, G and C. But equations only show relations not causality. So we can write it also like this: G= 2πLp^2C^3/h Or if we use the pure gravitational constant I've suggested G'=Lp^2C^3/2h This way we can look at the gravitational constant as an emergent property of Lp, C and h. Philosophically speaking, by this view, Planck length is independent of Planck's constants and can represent the smallest component of a discrete space-time.
I have a friend who has an aphorism: "We don't even know what gravity is!". Now, I am aware that this friend's understanding of physics and math is somewhat limited, and he is saying that from a very different perspective than I could every hold, but I have jokingly responded that while he has a lot to learn about the subject, he is more right than he knows when it comes to that particular aphorism. I may have to revise my response in the future! As always, this was both shocking and informative, thank you.
If we substitute Mass with Energy (M=E/c^2) in Newton`s equation g=GM/R^2 we see that the speed of light naturally appears as a component of g, or G if we write it as G=gR^2/M. There`s no need to fantasise about it or artificially insert it, it is already there.
Many years ago I fell in love with fundamental physics. I still am. I remember that one of my first bewildering issues was the Mach principle. It still is. How come linear movement comes with a quantity called speed, which is meaningless unless I specify with respect to what, whilst rotational movement is absolute? Is it my ignorance or is it one of the most profound unsolved mysteries?
There is no such thing as linear movement. That's why this problem "seems" so confusing. Everything is rotating, and traveling a curve linear path at some scale.
@@paaao A scientist inside a laboratory with no windows only requires measuring how high the water climbs along the walls of a bucket in order to derive how many radians/second the laboratory is rotating. But rotating with respect to what?
@@enricolucarelli816 this is my point... If everything in the universe is moving with respect to any other part, and every part defined by an observer is connected to everything, ie, it's all one fluid ball of interconnected motion and change... then how do you quantify anything with respect to anything else? Everything becomes relative and dependant upon where the observer (also a part of the system as a whole) decides. Time and space in the end, are mere measures of these changes once referenced against each other. So, a scientist in a laboratory has no idea how quickly his laboratory is rotating until he defines it against another scale of space-time. Even then, it's meaningless. Like think about this, let's assume the cells in your body that eat and reproduce have some level of conscious thought. Yet, all those cells, living, eating, dying, and trying to survive, create you. Now zoom out way beyond the galaxy, and think of the universal web of energy and magnetic links between galaxies as neurons. Let's assume that this universe, is merely a fraction of a part of another cell. Now, we can safely say, for this larger entity to compose a single thought, galaxies would need to collide and be destroyed, releasing and transferring energy. So.. for this creature to experience a split second of time (existence), billions upon billions of years would need to expire from our perspective. This process is happening at all scales, all the time. Now define rotational movement, time, speed, etc... It's all meaningless beyond a certain scale of reference. It's completely subjective.
Variable speed of light: First I am going to assume that light is made of two parts since it has spin and since -/+ charges rotates 1 time with each wavelength. I am also going to assume that as wavelength increases that the distance between these two charges will also increase. Now as a photon approaches the EM fields of electrons and protons the energy and hence wavelength and photon amplitudes will also change and if the speed of light is the speed of each part, then as they get closer and further apart from traveling through the EM fields of a solid lattice then the paths of the two parts will increase from the zig-gag of the amplitude: hence slowing down the perceived velocity of the photon itself.
Check out Ray Fleming channel. He is all about variable speed of light affected by a mass to which it comes close to, depending on velocity as well. Have a nice day.
Makes sense to me. With gravity, everything pulls on everything proportional to mass and inverse squared distance, so when calculating the pull between two objects, divide the product of their masses divided by their r^2 by the sum all the other masses pulling scaled by the squared distances.
A problem with this view is that the sum of all other masses should cancel each other out. The universe as a whole has no center of mass. So there's no singular point to be attracted to. Even if we think of the universe as bounded, as opposed to infinite, a bounded 3D space is like the 2D surface of a sphere, which has no center on that 2D surface. Every point is a center. So the gravitational pull from everything should be equal in all directions, canceling itself out. However, if you're talking about what produces inertia, this equal force in all directions thing might play a part. I think that's actually what he was getting at.
@@KittyBoom360 Check out Newton-cartan theory. It's newtonian gravity dwelt with in a manner similar to GR. Spacetime is "curved" but regardless of interpretation or ontological implications this does change our understanding of inertial paths. Recall how in Newtonian mechanics Galilean transformations don't effect conserved quantities and therefore preferred frames are constant velocity ones. According to Newton-cartan theory in an infinite universe of point masses those infinite cancellation of forces actually gets you something interesting. . . rectilinear motion, including accelerations or higher derivatives of motion, locally conserved symmetries in the same manner as the Galilean transformation before. The catch? Rotation is still absolute but another paper I found seemed to imply that non-inertial rotational motion effects that appear can be treated as a gravito-magnetic field. Like how magnetic fields appear or disappear in Lorentz invariant transformations of Maxwell's equations. 🤔?
@@KittyBoom360 Can it cancel each other out also in a more less flat disc universe with one stable axis, with birkelands* currents, each circle zone with a different up-down down-up axis movement while mass rotating around in each bordering circle in opposite directions?
How to read Mach’s idea on g? P 2:52 I guess everybody have missed it. Mach and I think that g, rest or not, isn’t derived from within, is from without.
I hope someone researches more this interesting idea, maybe that is why everytime we use Planck's constant (containing G), our results are hierarchy problems such as the theoretical mass of the Higgs boson and the vacuum catastrophe
I don't think you need the VSL to do that, it works with a constant speed of light as well. Besides in order for Dicke's theory to work, you have to assume constant speed for the most part, otherwise the redshift becomes meaningless and you don't know the radius of the Universe. It does explain though, why c is a constant in the first place, which is what you want right? If you consider the whole Universe with a certain radius and mass, then it will create an overall gravity field everywhere that is the same or very close to the same. Then it means for long distances like inter-galactic distances, c will be constant throughout the whole Universe, only changing speed next to body masses, where it is changed locally. It's why he chose the geometric space he did, he needed an horizon, so that the local gravity would cease to apply or could be ignored with some justification. Now the interesting thing is the speed we calculate, might not be the right one, because we are slowed down as compared to the whole if you follow VSL. That's of course a problem that could not be solved if you don't assume something, so he assumed it stayed constant, but it's the measurements that change, thus the dilations and so on. c is needed to be constant to calculate distance in a non relativistic way. Otherwise all our calculations are wrong. They are just a point of view and everything's an illusion if you follow Dicke's model. The redshift is not real redshift, so can't be used to calculate distance on the cosmic scale, so you can't explain G either. I think Einstein conceptualized local gravity like this Mack bucket, so you would have many of them, all inside a bigger cosmic one. c should be able to be calculated from the big one just like G. It's a property of the whole Universe, which is why they are constant. You want to have the light change speed, Einstein at least in the end wanted the observer to change speed. This way they can all agree on something. VSL is interesting because it shows what's happening, but don't knock out the other interpretation, there is a reason he chose it.
Ether & Relativity - by Albert Einstein - University of Leiden - 5 May 1920: "The ether of the general theory of relativity is a medium which is itself devoid of all mechanical and kinematical qualities, but helps to determine mechanical (and electromagnetic) events." Albert Einstein in 1920: “To deny ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical quality whatever. The fundamental facts of quantum mechanics do not harmonize with this view.” Ether and the Theory of Relativity - by Albert Einstein - Methuen & Co. Ltd, London, in 1922: "How does it come about that alongside of the idea of ponderable matter, which is derived by abstraction from everyday life, the physicists set the idea of the existence of another kind of matter, the ether? The explanation is probably to be sought in those phenomena which have given rise to the theory of action at a distance, and in the properties of light which have led to the undulatory theory". "Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it" Mr. Tesla's vision: How the Electrician's Lamp of Aladdin May Construct New Worlds - by Nikola Tesla - New York Times - April 21, 1908: "According to an adopted theory, every ponderable atom is differentiated from a tenuous (fragile, vague) fluid, filling all space merely by spinning motion, as a whirl of water in a calm lake. By being set in movement this fluid, the ether, becomes gross matter. Its movement arrested (halted), the primary substance reverts to its normal state. It appears, then, possible for man through harnessed energy of the medium and suitable agencies for starting and stopping ether whirls to cause matter to form and disappear. At his command, almost without effort on his part, old worlds would vanish and new ones would spring into being. He could alter the size of this planet, control its seasons, adjust its distance from the sun, guide it on its eternal journey along any path he might choose, through the depths of the universe. He could make planets collide and produce his suns and stars, his heat and light; he could originate life in all its infinite forms. To cause at will the birth and death of matter would be man's grandest deed, which would give him the mastery of physical creation, make him fulfill his ultimate destiny."
On topic, the inverse concept of the Standard Model, whether it is variable or fixed is the Observable Eternity-now 1-0-infinity range of probabilistic limits and we are embedded at Singularity-point real-time realization of hyperfluid i-reflection, which could be identified as a QM-TIME Completeness Thought Experiment, ie another POV of Actuality is "Mach's Principle". The mathematical "Disproof Methodology Philosophy", which attaches the meaning of a limit to Infinity-eternity of 1-0 probability range is where-when the "Mathemagical" event of instantaneous connection cause-effect is identified, and corresponds to Eternity-now Centre of Time Duration Timing i-reflection containment = Superspin Superposition-point Modulation, this inside-outside sum-of-all-histories Conception of pure-math relative-timing matrix crystallisation. WYSIWYG here-now-forever continuous creation connection.
There is physical support for the variable speed of light. Einstein Rings or much more likely arcs show a color change between edges. This is more characteristic of refraction than bent space time.
How do we know light will bend as rocker accelerate on page 5:09? How do we know light propagate without Aether? M&M experiment tells us three scenarios but we failed to recognize all. a) there is no Aether b) there is Aether unattached to matter. c) there is Aether attached to matter. The interferometer result confirms either a) or c) may be true. In that regard we haven’t finished our research on Aether. Drawn from Maxwell’s equation that Aether is (e0*u0) and (e0*u0) = 1/c^2 Aether is regarded as a fluid that has no physical but electrical properties. A light source cannot induce bipolar e charge or displacement current into a void space unless vacuum is flood with Aether. That implies that Aether must be adhere with matter at the subatomic level and therefore drag with matter. Being able to adhere to all matter in the universe, Aether also exerts a tensile force pulling objects together that we misunderstood for gravity force. That tensile force is represented by A = 6.674*10−11 N-m2/kg2. Because Aether connects and pull all matter in the universe A can’t be blocked or shielded like electricity can. And this is why I said Mark and I think alike in the bucket water experiment. Given the above assertions I see that inertia is not a mechanical event but electrical. I’d leave that to another discussion.
I once saw a mathematical demonstration that causality implies that the speed of information, the speed of light, must be a constant for any observer, otherwise the order of events cannot be the same for all observers, which is a catastrophe in physics. This is the reason why spacetime is curved with a constant speed of light and not the other way around.
@@TheMachian Mathematics, logic and more particularly the principle of causality are the foundations of physics, if a physical theory is not logically true, it must be rejected. If a physical theory is not compatible with causality, it must be rejected. This is the case with a variable speed theory of light.
@@TheMachian I appreciate very much your work and there is much to discover concerning the relation between speed c of light and planck constant h. But, here, Mathematics, logic and more particularly the principle of causality are the foundations of physics, if a physical theory is not logically true, it must be rejected. If a physical theory is not compatible with causality, it must be rejected. This is the case with a variable speed theory of light.
But as per GR, with curved space time, the order of events can be different for different observers in different rest frames. I don't think fixed speed is needed for causality, and indeed quantum events, such as tunnelling and information exchange between entangled particles, can happen faster than light. Even the cosmological theory says the spacetime inflates faster than light propagation. Only lically, for relatively short distances and time frames, the speed of light to have constant speed is required for causality, not as cosmological scales, (and probably not in quantum scales either).
@@bulentkulkuloglu For any observers, its dt is always >0 then the order of events and the causality are always the same for any observers whatever the curve since the g00 term of their metrics has the same sign for all observers. Except in some particular controversial theoretical cases like inside a "black hole", the g00 term has, in theory, a problematic opposite sign whose the meaning is still unclear and that could exclude them from possible solutions but anyway, it doesn't matter, because these observers cannot communicate at all, anyway, useless to point out that these very theoretical BH are rather controversial because nobody can't observe them concretly. The faster than light communications between entangled particles are a pure joke as the inflation , big bang with its 95% of Black stuffs is also a pure joke. Inflation? I like very much these physicists talking the first minutes of the universe and unable to explain the dynamic of our own star, the Sun, in our own Galaxy the Milky Way. With its 200 km/s our Sun should take the tangential, our Galaxy has not enough mass to retain it, then why is it still in the Milky way? not a physicist can answer this simple basic question.
In relatvity, motion is relative, but acceleration is not. But rotation is just another form of acceleration, since motion is a vector. In an accerated frame of reference the magnitude of the motion increases but the direction stays equal. In rotation the magnitude of the motion stays the same, but the direction changes constantly. So, acceleration and rotation should be treated the same in relativistic mechanics. Doesn't that disproof Mach's principle?
Our current cosmological models are very Machian if you think about it. At galactic/universe scales the structure of the universe is determined almost exclusively by gravity and the mass that generates it. Our scale is in a rather exceptional balancing point in many ways so it is hard for us to see the universe scale perspective unless we think carefully.
I've always been fascinated by Mach's principle and I'm glad someone is still working on it. In the attempt of "explaining away" constants, I got lost... Here are my questions / doubts: Is it so that there are no "constants" in the sense that both G and c depend on masses and their distances? But still, the mass (inertia and gravitational field) itself is originating from other masses and their distances. How is this not a circular argument? Crazy thought: Can it be that the mass is originated by a sort of feed-back loop, which eventually reaches saturation?
Well Newton's bucket is obviously directing all the centrifugal force and water upwards because it has an inverted cone shape, that is a slope which makes the force vector dissipate and push the water in the up direction. If the bucket had a cylindrical shape, the centrifugal force would be directed perpendicular to the bucket walls, and the force exerted on the buckets walls by the rotating water will be much higher. So instead of wondering what would happen if the bucket was several miles thick, Mach should have just used a cylindrical bucket instead.
"How does the water know it should curve?" --> Using the same logic that it "knows" it should fall if poured out of the bucket! The water simply reacts to the acceleration that the rotation imparts on it (via centrifugal force) or the gravitational field (if poured out). Both are examples of acceleration. Which CAN be detected absolutely (even by lifeless water). The part I don't understand is : what do the external bodies in the rest of the universe have to do with inertia ?!? Or this particular experiment for that matter ? The fact that the water is pushed against the bucket walls has to do with the fact that the bucket is rotating around its axis, thereby imparting an outward acceleration to the water. Nothing to do with distant galaxies, as far as I can tell. And you've provided zero fact or argument to support that assertion. By the way, you shouldn't confuse UNIFORM motion (the subject of Special Relativity) which is in fact relative (as Einstein has shown) with ACCELERATED frames of reference, which is the subject of General Relativity. Proper acceleration (which would include centrifugal force and gravity) IS absolute, and can be measured by an accelerometer.
Admittedly he explained it poorly, but Mach's principle has to do with the absoluteness of rotational motion. While linear momentum is relative and different observers will not agree on its magnitude, every single observer will agree an object is rotating. This also implies that inertia is not just an artefact of the frame of reference, or at least that rotational inertia is different than linear inertia. We don't have a theory that can explain this discrepancy, GR does not deal with the problem.
If the concept of emerged reality floating on modern aether was understood, Einstein would have believed it, but it was not possible at that time. Virtual particles soup was mistakenly introduced in QFT as field excitement. It was a misconception, the supernatural soup of virtual particles is the same as ether. The virtual pressure of this soup ( needs whole world) is reminiscent of Mach's principal 😁
Mach's work also implies that vacuum space itself, is a quantifiable causal mass. Didn't Einstein talk about "The new Aether"? Your thoughts on this, Alexander?
@@TheMachian Thank you for the reply sir. I feel that Einstein's interpretation of GR is different than the mathematician's. I think space is a fluidlike causal mass at it's lowest energy state. It is quantifiable at the quantum (almost planck) scale as well. Perhaps the new ether.
3.17 the water don't have to know anything substitute water with ball bearings and the same happens and the same happens when a metal plate is fix on the circumstances and heated up in the middle, a curve will appear
The mystery of G: (1.536581547 x 10^-18m or the electron's actual radius) x (6.29 x 10^-12 m/s or the inertia speed of gravitation) ^2 / (9.109 x 10^-31kg or electron's mass) = 6.674 x 10^-11 M^3/kg s^2 or G, the gravitational constant. Hope this helps.
Omerbashich's expressing values of G via c on both quantum and mechanist scales (as Einstein hinted at in 1930s after stumbling upon a most remarkable relationship between values of gravity, g, and of velocity of light, c - but then forgot all about it) tells how quantum mechanics and gravity are conceptually unified. Furthermore, as Maxwell hinted in 1870: "[Maxwell's theory] denies action at a distance and attributes electric action to tensions and pressures in an all-pervading medium, these stresses being the same in kind with those familiar to engineers, and the medium being identical with that in which light is supposed to be propagated. [This theory and a theory of electricity by Riemann, Lorenz, and Neumann] are found to explain not only the phenomena by the aid of which they were originally constructed, but other phenomena which were not thought of or perhaps not known at the time; and both have independently arrived at the same numerical result, which gives the absolute velocity of light in terms of electrical quantities. That theories apparently so fundamentally opposed should have so large a field of truth common to both is a fact the philosophical importance of which we cannot fully appreciate till we have reached a scientific altitude from which the true relation between hypotheses so different can be seen." 134 years later, Omerbashich has succeeded in deriving the absolute velocity of light - in terms of gravity in a mechanical oscillator, showing the underlying engineering concept (of mechanical oscillators) with which all forces of nature can be unified, as Einstein, Maxwell and others hoped for. The Omerbashich 2005-2006 theoretical value of G, at 6.6750E-11, has been subsequently matched by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) 2013 value of 6.6754E-11. This BIPM value has been converging on the Omerbashich's since their previous experiments, so that the two are essentially identical now as shown by BIPM's Quinn et al. This is a direct experimental confirmation of the Omerbashich's epochal discovery by the World's leading authority on physical units and measures.
I have never understood Newton's bucket. It seems to me that the water piles up simply because you have applied a force to the molecules. They attempt to travel in a straight line but keep bashing into each other and thus pile up; the ones at the walls can't go further forwards so are pushed out of the way upwards, like a queue of people trying to walk forwards hitting a wall and thus spreading out either side. It just seems to me to be a trivial local effect and despite many attempts I can't grasp why it says anything about local or relative spaces. It doesn't seem any more mysterious to me than my dinner spreading out over the floor if I drop the plate. What am I missing?
Yeah, he didn't explain it well here, but the basic question is, how can we in say that one of the two buckets is spinning in an absolute sense if all motion is relative? What is our special frame of reference? How can we say for certain the bucket that appears to be spinning is really spinning instead of the world simply spinning around it? Well, we can tell because the water in the spinning bucket behaves as if accelerated, forming a pressure gradient from center to edge. Thus, it must be truly spinning. But with respect to what then? The common answer is then with respect to everything else, which seems to form an absolute background. I think the confusion arises because the answer is already intuitive. It's the setup of the problem that is unintuitive. One must suspend intuition for a moment and think about what relative motions might mean, or not mean.
Referring to your slide at t=18:05; The Weber/Maxwell solution presented 1/c squared=permittivity/permeability, clearly demonstrates that light is a wave just like any other, and that its propagation speed and behaviors are a function of the physical attributes of the medium . The macro scale analogy is represented by the speed of sound in a fluid which is derived by dividing the bulk modulus by the density of the fluid. As opposed to the approximation for Mach and crew, who use the concept of mass and gravity. Mass is not only undefined, but is a flawed concept which fails at the most basic levels of observation (think mass defect). Add to the fact that doing away with the aether as a concept created a universe of atoms that exist as closed systems, that have to do work on themselves by producing a gravitational attraction at the large scale, and strong and weak nuclear forces at the small scale but not the large scale, which still has to subsidized by stealing quantum energy from nowhere and postulating electrons that don't exist until you look at them in order to reproduce observations.
10 minutes in you say that index of refraction is 1+2 G m/(r c^2) but I am having trouble translating this into GR terms that I understand. Here's what I know: In the Schwarzschild metric, radial distance r is the point at which measured circumference is 2*pi*r. This conversion is necessary since space is squished radially, increasing travel time by a factor of 1/sqrt(1−rs/r) where rs is the black hole event horizon radius (this supposedly adds a factor of 2 to what you would get with a standard index of refraction formula, though I haven't gone through the calculation myself). In addition, time is slowed down by the same factor (or you could say that the speed of light is slowed down, which amounts to the same thing since everything moves and evolves in proportion to it). If you multiply these terms together and integrate, you can get the total travel time of light going towards the massive object and returning after bouncing off a mirror. Which "r" is the equation in the video referring to? How is radial space squishing dealt with? The only way I can think of is to make light travel slower radially than it does parallel to the surface. How is "frame dragging" dealt with? Thanks, Dustin Soodak
Hi. I would recommend Dicke's 1957 paper: journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.29.363. r is just the distance to the center of mass. keep in mind we a re not talking about a distorted spacetime, everything is Euclidean and just c varies. It is not useful, if possible at all, to reproduce all formalities of the usual GR by VSL. However, the tests such as light deflection are described by VSL without problems. Hope this helps.
@@TheMachian It's not possible to "reproduce all formalities of ... GR" via an Interpretation of QM alone, only a Model has such a capacity for validity. "In the CTMU, quantum mechanics is modeled rather than merely interpreted." C.M.Langan, Intro. to Mathematical Metaphysics Various celebrity theorists (along with their interpretations) attempt to be the Model, but invariably they don't have the legs for it.
I have a counterbalancing personal objection to putting personal names on the elemental e-Pi-i AM-FM sync-duration universe in Principle, ie "I Am you and you are me and we are all together" in factual Totality, there's no actual Ego personal thing in nature. So as we all cycle through our pulse-evolution, Spinfoam bubble-modes of events in events, we can settle on a conscious awareness of pure-math trancendental Conformal Field Correspondence and dimensionality coordination shaping and sharing information in common (social hive mind, community, whatever general recognition of inclusion matters personally) It is not a big problem if we all accept Sciencing Re-search critiques directly related to Observable Quantum Operator Logic Fields of Reciproction-recirculation Singularity positioning integration. (Think for yourself implies a balance of ego-self with the Universe in Principle) Mach, Einstein or anyone else do not own the Universe above anybody's shared existence, unless we are recognising their outstanding teaching example and contribution to the sum of our human knowledge. Quantum-fields Mechanism is a sum-of-all-histories "ghost" of Eternity-now e-Pi-i sync-duration relative-timing probability structural constraints (Spacetime, Math-Phys-Chem and Geometry) Interval. The property of Fluxion-Integral superposition axial-tangential orthogonal-normal instantaneous Singularity focus here-now-forever at the Condensate Centre of Time Duration Timing Modulation Mechanism tends to indicate nobody can be more than a transient identification of probabilistic correlations. One can understand lumping everything under a ONE-INFINITY Singularity or "god" type heading, but that is the inverse of possession. "I Am you and you are me and we are all together", temporary ego composed of wave-packaging formations in/of probability states in Quantum-fields of self-defining information In-form-ation, positioning-not-force.
"how does the water surface know it should curve?" This confuses me. As you spin it, the water is perturbed by the walls and bottom of the glass, resulting in this shape after a little bit, no? Am I misunderstanding the point?
Or you could imagine you have a round sink full of water not spinning or orbiting then pull the plug, or do it with any sink and watch what happens. Then think if that space is gone then what's replenishing it, and how could space be expanded when it's being deleted.
If the gravitational constant is defined by the distribution of matter in the universe, then the constant will be different, depending on where in the universe you are.
I'm very interested in the conceptual modeling in this presentation but something that bothers me about this presentation is that the door seems wide open to multiple alternative physical interpretations and two physicists can be talking about the same thing using different words, like what happened when Schrodinger showed that his wave mechanics was mathematically equivalent to matrix mechanics. I'm reminded of the relationship between Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism and the theory of the electron by Lorentz who also tried to model gravity with Maxwell's equations in 1900. Things this video brings to my mind: 1. The generalized Mach principle used by Dr. Mendel Sachs in "Quantum Mechanics from General Relativity" 2. Karl Kornacker's paper, "Heat, light and relativity (1969) - "a new interpretation of the radiation wave equation in which c^2 measures the statistical variance of velocity." 3. Gauge Theory Gravity on flat spacetime with Geometric Calculus and papers on it by Dr. David Hestenes such as "Gauge Theory Gravity with Geometric Calculus" by David Hestenes where Dr. Hestenes quotes Poincare “One geometry cannot be more true than another; it can only be more convenient." 4."Zitterbewegung structure in electrons and photons" by David Hestenes "The general idea is that gravity is about deformation of the vacuum due to presence and propagation of singularities described by the Dirac equation. The implication that all elementary particles and their interactions can be described by variations and excitations of the vacuum impedance promises closure to the search for a Unified Field Theory." 5. A.K.T. Assis and Relational Mechanics 6. Daniele Funaro's "Electromagnetism and the Structure of Matter" 7. Note on the absence of the second clock effect in Weyl gauge theories of gravity by Michael Hobson, Anthony Lasenby
Why does that bother you? To me, having multiple theories which are equivalent in some respects while being very different rhetorically can be a good thing, leading down multiple research paths. It's akin to putting your eggs in multiple baskets.
Thanks for your interesting comment. Unfortunately, I cannot cover everything what was written on Mach's principle. The approach/books by Andre Koch Torre de Assis are very interesting and so are Hestenes' papers, though they do not explicitly deal with Mach's principle I think.
Mach's principle doesn't have anything to do with accelerations. It's about, why you shoud not can figure out, if you are moving uniformly against empty space, you should only can figure out, if you're acellerated against empty space or Einsteins space time, because of local measurable forces caused by inertia. Because of Mach's principle, you'll not be able to detect an absolute uniform movement against empty space and this was added to Galileis principle of relativity since then. Galilei instead didn't tell anything about absolute movements in empty space, because neither he did know about any constant movement of electromagnetical waves or light nor about clocks can be influenced by their own movement. So for Galilei (and also for Mach) movement and speed were the same - one single movement can only have one speed and this will always be the same, if measured with proper adjusted clocks. This is a decent notice, that they all already know about the fact, that one will measure differend speeds for one single movement with deadjusted clocks. I don't want to know, to which conclusion they came, if they have known about clocks can be influenced by movements, because I already do. And now to absolute movements in and against empty space. Consider two objects in empty space, which are in motion to each other. If one of it is at absolut rest against this empty space, the other one has to be in an absolute movement against both - the resting object and the empty space. But since no one should be able to tell his own state of movement, everyone can equally consider himself resting, like Galileis principle of relativity proposes. Now what will happen, if you measure the length of a space craft in two ways - one time based measurement with light or radar and one with a simple measure tape. Adjust the radar device to the length value, which is shown by the measure tape. What do you think wat happens to value, which is shown by the radar device, if you change the state of movement of the space craft? First it will change if you acellerate and second it will not fall back to the old value, when the acelleration ends. Now you can tell about the state of movement of the space craft locally. You can also divide the radar value by the measure tape value and the result will be the Lorentz factor for the space crafts absolute speed. If it is smaller than one at some time, you adusted your radar device, while you weren't at absolute rest. The smallest Lorentz factor measured in this "thought experiments" are the made by space crafts, which are more resting against empty space than others. So if clocks can really be influenced by their own movements, we will be able to tell, if we're at (nearly) absolute rest or not. This should work with or without aether. The only thing, that has to be postulated, is a constant movement of light against empty space or aether. But this all wont work with bendable aether, wich is called space time by relativists.
I am not convinced about the variable speed of light, simply because permittivity of space and permeability of space would then have to be variable also. As we can see these are constants and constants multiplied by constants can only equate another constant.
Teaching reiteration and reorientation at regular intervals may keep us all alive.? I would like to see the world's education system get a workover. Recital of Nomenclatures is "not even wrong", but still essential to maintain an approximate format that an Observer's Sciencing Re-search practices can maintain a qa cause-effect pressure on. The nature of QM-TIME Completeness Actuality is, "you can't push on a string", so "there's your problem" with Measurement, Constants and String Theoretical Tensors all components of AM-FM Resonance superposition etc, aka fractal e-Pi-i conic-cyclonic Thermodynamic Ideal Gas CFT foci by universal Reciproction-recirculation Singularity repositioning.
Hello Dr. Unzicker, I have just watched your interesting video, and read some of the comments to it. I have commented on a few of your videos, and mentioned that I have an alternative hypothesis to the standard model, in which I proffer an explanation for gravity, and propose that it is in fact a force of both attraction and repulsion. If this turned out to be true, it could explain why the mathematical equations still can't unify physics, because they are missing half of data that would allow a resolution to the problems that are still outstanding. The two particles that I hypothesize, make up everything in the universe, form the two forces of gravity, with the Negatively charged monopole ' Harveytron ' particle forming the repulsive force of gravity. This particle I propose, is also associated with the speed of light, insomuch as it is the limiting factor to the speed of light. In my hypothesis, I contend that these particles in a cloud occupies every available empty space in the atom, and throughout the universe, and I propose that the speed of light and all electromagnetic radiation is determined by the time it takes for this radiation to pass between these particles. I further hypothesize that these particles make up the ' Dark Matter ', and thus the missing mass of the universe. If this extra mass was included in the matematical calculations, more productive results and understanding may result. As I have said before, I would be happ to send the latest draft of my hypothesis to you if you were interested. Kind regards, Tony Marsh.
@@TheMachian Thank you ' Alexander ' for your kind reply, I will look into your suggestion. As a matter of interest, have you, or are you likely make any videos on your own suggestions for an alternative to the standard model? I am sure many people would find them very interesting, as would I. Kind regards, Tony Marsh.
You have explained a great unity, thank you! On another video, I came across info that said that the wavelength of photons from the Cosmic Miro Wave Background Radiation have increased relative to the expansion of the Universe. Maybe another coincidence LOL. Could it be when we see something squared as in c² it is a sign of spherical geometry?
@@dodatroda In this theory we go back to the Inverse Square law with the mathematics representing the geometry of a three dimensional process! We have Galileo’s square of time t² with the wave function of quantum mechanics squared ψ², the electron e² and the speed of light E=MC² all squared! Don’t you think this points very strongly towards one three-dimensional process that has spherical 4πr² geometry? The two-dimensional surface could form a manifold or boundary condition for positive and negative charge. This would form an interactive process with an uncertain ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π future unfolding with the exchange of photon ∆E=hf energy and movement of charge. Within each reference frame, the future would continuously come into existence with potential photon energy changing into the kinetic energy of electrons.
Because we are absolutely embedded in pure-math relative-timing ratio-rates of e-Pi-i logarithmic resonance numberness, Spinfoam Partitioning fractal conic-cyclonic bubble-modes, the precise nature is forever Reciproction-recirculation uncertainty time duration timing modulation, that is it.
Maybe I am missing something, but I find this notion of Mach's preposterous. The curvature of the water surface is due to motion of the stir, the walls of the vessel and the pressure of the atmosphere. Asking the question; "how does the water know?", is equally absurd, the water doesn't know, it just does. Gravity, as a force unto itself, is nonexistent. Newton was right, it is absurd to think that "inanimate brute matter can communicate at a distance without an intermediary". Einstein's GR is not a mechanism for gravity, therefore, all these speculations regarding mass driven gravity are pointless until one knows what the intermediary force for the effect we call gravity is. Now, inertia and gravity on earth do have the same origin, but this is due to local forces due to local mechanisms not known in Einstein's time. To declare that gravitation is due to the all the masses in the universe is special, especially since THEY do not know where mass is in the atom. We still do not know the size of the universe and such speculations are not science. Except even Hubble questioned whether or not the redshift observed was purely Doppler effect, and Halton Arp in his Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies makes this more apparent. The measurable gravitational constant was/is measured on Earth and is due to local electromagnetic structures and is not a universal value. The GC is not constant. Why does it fluctuate when a storm is overhead? Out of all the constants, this one is the most elusive and refuses to be worked out to 8-12 digits like many of the other measured constants, and, it oscillates with the Length of Day cycle. Why? As for Mach's principle. Based on the electromagnetic nature of the universe and the inverse square law, we can say with confidence that that which is at infinite distances from an observer have infinitesimal effects on the observer. The Gods of Modernity, are mathematical assumptions, and all assumptions are based on ignorance. The only way to solve this problem is to look at what they were ignorant of at the time they made their assumption, and to that, their ignorance was rather profound.
You are missing nothing my friend. Unzicker on the other hand .,,,,,,, Having written a book on this subject , his arrogance will not allow him to acknowledge that he really did not think through what he wrote and was simply parroting dogma.
I think what he means by "how does the water know" is that you could use the reference frame of the cup of water as being at rest with the entire universe rotating around it, why then is the water being pulled out to the sides of the container if it is at rest... he is saying that it is the mass of the earth, and presumably in deep space it would be the entire mass of the "rotating universe," that is pulling the water out
When you talk about the entire universe, do you mean the entire observable universe? (Would make sense if gravity is propelled at the speed of light and anything outside of the observable range would also not be able to exchange a force)
That was very interesting. The immediate question that springs to mind is this: just what is the value of G we get by plugging the numbers into the equation based on the current observations we have? Surely if we are actually getting a value close to or in the range of measureable G then it stacks up support for the argument you make here.
Well, cosmological mass estimates from direct observations have a large error margin, of course. But if you put the numbers in, the order of maginitude coincidence is there.
I just dont understand the spinning water bucket enigma. Isnt that the centrifugal force at work ? When you spin the bucket you create a rotating mass and a displacement of water from the center to the edges driven by the centripetal force. So when it hits the bucket at an angle, it tends to go up on the bucket, because the bucket has an inverted cone shape i.e. a slope which allows the force vector to dissipate upwards. If you take a cylinder shaped bucket with straight walls the centrifugal force will be directed perpendicular to the bucket walls, and the water surface will not get curved like that.
@@TheMachian Thanks, now I understand the water bucket experiment. But I dont understand why Newton uses a spinning water bucket to prove that motion is absolute, and Mach uses the same bucket to disprove him. Whats so special about that bucket ? Why doesnt he use a spinning glass of water instead, and requires the observer to pick it up and drink it while floating around it like a massless ghost ? That would be much more fun, and would prove the same thing. Which is nothing. Because the experiment doesnt say why is the observer able to resist the centrifugal force which appears when he is placed in the same rotating frame with the bucket. It doesnt say how he arrives there or how is he placed either, is he fixed to the spinning ground, is he flying in a helicopter, or is he simply floating there in a circle for no reason, without any force acting on him ? You cant just spawn a metaphysical observer to an experiment. He has to have physical properties and interact with the system physically in order to observe it. That said, I think Newton is right, but not because of his water bucket, but because the observer would notice a centrifugal force acting on him if he was placed in a high velocity rotating frame. So even if he was blindfolded he would know he was not in stationary frame...even in outer space with no gravity he would be able to realise that something is moving underneath him. But newtons bucket experiment simply doesnt prove what he intends to prove. That doesnt mean that if that experiment is flawed we cant find other experiment which proves that motion is absolute.
Dear Dr. Unzicker, in this video You quote Alexander Moszkowski (1920): A look into Einstein's thinking "... He deduced that (determing the approximate size of this non-infinite universe) from the existence of a measurable gravitational constant...". It is true, Einstein was convinced of the existence of one single natural constant G, the so called "gravitational constant". Einstein uses "G" in his "Einstein field equations". Dear Dr. Unzicker, please give a clear answer to the following question: Do You also (the same like Einstein) believe in "G" as the one and only existing "gravitational constant"?
@@arthurbuettgen9301 I believe the measured effects attributed to GR are correct. They need to be explained in a similar, albeit not equivalent way. I perfer thus to call VSL an alternative version of GR.
2:45 No noticeable centrifugal force, really ? Why is the water climbing on the buckets walls, then ? Why is it displaced from the center towards the edges, if not from the centrifugal force ?
This same concept also exists in general relativity, where the shell i think its an infinite cylinder of mass, makes a mass at the center rotate if the cylinder does.
But there is an exception to the equivalence principle : if you're in a free fall within a gravitational field, your feet will be more attracted than your head and you will be submitted to a 'spaghettification'. In a real free fall, you will not feel that force stretching your body. I know that Einstein assumed that the object in a free fall was a size-less point. But that point does not exist in reality, so how do we conceal reality with that ?
Very inspiring. But the bucket is about inertia while the rest of the video is about the gravitational constant. And I think that mass itself is not fundamental but due the Higgs mechanism. Maybe it's safe to say that we still don't know how all that is related.
Thank you for posting your thoughtful videos. Maybe all matter existed together in one place and gravity is a memory. Things “know” about other things and become entangled because without time they are all in the same place. Maybe dark matter is matter without a time dimension. Maybe . . .maybe. Maybe the electron only exists in two dimensions and time.
If gravity is a result of a Cassimir-like effect (for example as QI proposes and many others have before), would that explain the apparent correlation between G and the mass of the universe? Also I still don't understand how we can claim to have any idea of the mass of the universe though considering how our progress is in developing our observational abilities.
Of course the current pressure prohibits the water from doing anything else than what it does. If you change the boundary conditions, the water does something else. For there to exist structure in the first place, large scale existence is prohibited in one way or another. If those parameters changed, then who knows what the water would do.. My main point being that one are not interested in other than the restriction on the action.. the plain flies because it is not allowed to fall (when everything works).
Nice video and presentation. Further coincidence on page 18:05. G ~ Ru/Mu/e0/u0; where e0,u0 represents Aether. That Gravitation’s origin is in Aether.
Take a sheet of paper and a pen with you, at your disposal.. Please write in the left side the energy of the mass m at rest in relation to the mass of the universe M, and you get: E = GMm / r Compare this energy to the energy of the rest mass m: E = mc ^ 2 The mass m doesn't contribute (it's eliminated On both sides) And from recent data, we assume that: r = ct (According to the Hubble Law) You have obtained a relationship between the speed of light, the mass of the universe, gravity constant and the duration t of the universe. c = (GM / t) ^ 1/3 You are welcome. The same result in a much simpler calculation and a minimum number of assumptions. This equation indicated a 0.927 cm decrease in the speed of light per year. (Something that can be tested with atomic clocks in space) Your thoughts on this, Alexander?
BUT ......... won't the existence of Dark Matter upset the equations by introducing more matter in the universe ..... PLUS ............. the space between galaxies is expanding which further posits parts of the universe we cannot see simply because light from them simply can't reach us.
I like the idea, but I wanted to hear an estimate of the actual numbers, what are mass and radius of the universe proposed to be, in order to arrive at G?
@@TheMachian Thank you, I’m looking forward to it! I’m also extremely interested in the alternate interpretation (I think you touched on it) which VSL theory offers for the cosmological redshift.
@Rodriguez Good question! Reading Unzicker's excellent book entitled Einstein's Lost Key (2015), I had the same desire to see how some rough estimates of radius and mass would actually play out in the "elimination of G" scenario. At the same time, there is so much hocus-pocus in astrophysics, one could understand why an author would be reluctant to assign values to m and kg, even for a quick trial run of the equation. Here, in his reply to you, he writes 10^23 m and 10^52 kg. Well, that's a start finally (!), but I believe there's a typo in his response. Thinking in terms of km, 10^23 would be the right order of magnitude, but for m, the order of magnitude would be 10^26, not 10^23. For example, if we try using 4.4x10^26m and 1.5x10^53kg (these being two prevalent "internet" values, e.g., at wikipedia), then we get a reasonably good match as follows: 2.6x10^-10 (as compared with G = 6.6x10^-11 m^3/kg s^2).
@@Verschlungen yes, I noticed that too. The figures usually accepted for the *observable* universe are 9 × 10²⁶ m and 1.5 × 10⁵³ kg. So I think he did mean km. The answer is still an order of magnitude off, but that is surprisingly close. However, it would be a pretty big coincidence, I think, if the our estimates of the observable universe are that close to the actual numbers we should use, especially according to a theory in which there is no inflation and expansion.
If you would propose a model in which you could calculate G in such a way that it explains the dark matter (additional gravity due to higher G) of rotating galaxies, that would be nice
Hi. There's a paper that uses the same approach in this video to do just that. It's called "On the gravitodynamics of moving bodies" by A.W. Mol. Interesting, they come to a calculation of a curvature of omega=2, which is consistent with recent findings that we are not in a flat spacetime.
Why do computations of gravity require the speed of light if the force of gravity is distinct from electromagnetism? Like in your formulation of the g potential of everything being equal to the square of c, wouldn't that be a pretty big coincidence, relating gravity to electromagnetism?
@@TheMachian The Sapien is korrekt. Gravity has zero to do with the speed of light. Mach was correctish. The mass of our cosmos affects gravitational mass & inertial mass. But i would not go as far as to say that the mass of our infinite eternal universe affects mass & gravity. Its a more local thing.
No, the issue lies in your assumption of ”Gravity has zero to do with the speed of light”. Such assumptions actually hinder scientific progress, for which reason I’d be careful and try get rid of those. What is basis for your assumption? In doing so, you assume that Theory of Everything does not exist. How do you know that light does not have everything to do with mass? There are actually postulates that electron is made of circularly trapped light.
@@joonasmakinen4807 Yes, the photon is the fundamental (quasi) particle. Yes, elementary particles (eg electrons) are confined photons (that have bitten their own tail & formed a loop)(Williamson)(Ranzan). Matter is bottled light (Jeans). My wording was klumzy. Gravity duz indeed affect the speed of light (or i should say the nearness of mass affects the speed of light)(Shapiro Delay), but what i meant was that the speed of light duznt affect gravity. Unzicker is wrong. And i can add that the speed of gravity is at least 20 billion c (Van Flandern). Nothing associated with gravity has a speed of c. LIGO is a total fraud.
What does it mean that distant celestial masses are responsible for gravity? What we're taught via Newton's law of gravity is due to the mass & radius of the earth (g = G me / re^2), but nothing about any other mass. Sorry I am rather slow on this idea.
On the speed of light,.. in your mind, if you could go back in time but was able to take with you YOUR present "stretch" of space time, and because acceleration is STILL taking place stretching spacetime, then you could potentially witness a year within a minute from YOUR stretch of spacetime as this earlier time is far less stretched than ours today, then light speed, when measured, would show to be slower measuring it within our spacetime parameters, but if you measured its speed within it's own stretch, then it would read the same as today, ?
Celestial bodies are responsible for inertia. Restated celestial bodies have Potential Energy (PE) manifesting outward as a gravitational field that creates compacted space-time fabrics around the object (not the 2D model of a gravity well, but a 3D model of a spatial gravity force field sphere). Celestial bodies are responsible for gravity. One would make the assumption that this energy (PE) and force (Kinetic Energy KE) are made by matter ( = mass, size, volume, density), but that is wrong. It is the actual composition of the object, having internal electro-gravitic composition that creates the greater gravitational object. There are source materials that are electro-gravitic, and these materials are the true source of gravity - and they are multiple and varied. These electrogravitic materials have internal graviton cores - the actual source of gravity, and any outward manifesting energies and forces. The EG electron and EG positron have these graviton cores inside their existence, and their higher muon and tau objects. Restated - large gravitational objects, having internal electro-gravitic compositions display these gravitational force fields and gravity force field sphere within the multiple compacted space-time fabrics.
These various EG particulates and particles with smaller and larger energies, have their own velocities across space-time ... and are affected (or not !) by other gravitational objects in their vicinity. Thus, these EG compositions do have variable velocity (not to be stated as variable light speed).
@@TheMachian I knew you would say that. It is just a "thought experiment" of mine. My obvious question is, "How do you know." (Don't answer that.) Thank you very much.
@@TheMachian Even though quantum theory says that everything that can happen has happened, must happen, will happen. Quantum theory wants to have infinite universes with infinite dimensions. Why not an antimatter universe / dimension on the other side of c?
Guten Tag. Erst einmal Danke, die Kritik finde ich anregend und wichtig, kritisch zu bleiben. Und die Wissenschaftsgemeinde sollte sich über Kritiker und Skeptiker freuen, die rational argumentieren wollen. Wie es ja auch mit Ihrem kritischen Buch 2010 durchaus gelang. Daher widerspreche ich nur ungern (und habe es an anderer Stelle wohl schon früher getan) : Die Konstanz der Lichtgeschwindigkeit ist nur ein Postulat im Umfeld der SRT, welche im Kern das alte Relativitätsprinzip aufgreift, dass Objekte mit konstanter Geschwindigkeit keine Kraft erfahren. Im Alltag ahnen wir von der Richtigkeit dieses Prinzips etwas, wenn ein Zug oder Auto mit konstanter Geschwindigkeit fährt. Im Inneren können wir so agieren als würden wir im stillstehenden Auto oder Zug agieren. - Mit der ART, welche nach einer Formelwelt sucht, die über die spezielle Situation der konstanten Geschwindigkeit hinausgeht, wird die konstante Lichtgeschwindigkeit ganz offiziell zum Grenzwert bei Beschleunigung = 0. Bei jeder Art von Beschleunigung - ob als Beschleunigung eines Objektes oder dem "Fallen" eines Objektes in einem Gravitationsfeld, wie der Aufenthalt auf der Erdoberfläche dies repräsentiert - ist bei den Fachleuten auf dem Gebiet der Relativitätstheorie ja bekannt, dass das Postulat einer konstanten Lichtgeschwindigkeit nicht mehr so absolut gesprochen werden kann. Je stärker das Gravitationsfeld, desto stärker die Summe der Abweichungen der Auswirkungen auf die Lichtgeschwindigkeit. Der Streit kommt erst ins Spiel, wenn man quasi im Gravitationsfeld jeden einzelnen Abstand zur Erdoberfläche (Beispiel) als Raum mit invarianten Gesetzmäßigkeiten nach Einstein denken lässt (Denkgebäude aufbauend auf der SRT), was aber freilich eher akademischer Natur ist, denn der Kopf ist nun einmal faktisch in einer leicht anderen Gravitationsfeld-Intensität verortet als die Füße, das macht das "Fallen" des Gesamtobjekts Mensch im Gravitationsfeld der Erdoberfläche aus. Unglücklich ist aus meiner Sicht, dass man die Begrifflichkeiten von Minkowski aus den Gedanken zur SRT (1908?) auf die Entdeckung der Feldhaftigkeit der Gravitation bzw. des Raums im Sinne von Bernhard Riemann übertrug und weiterhin von "Zeit" als vierte Dimension redete, obwohl man es hätte besser wissen können, dass zum Feld eben Begrifflichkeiten gehören, die über Intensitäten sprechen. Damit wurde aus meinem aktuellen Kenntnisstand leider der Begriff der Raum-Zeit versäumt, gegen ein Sprechen von Raum-Dichte / Raum-Intensität zu tauschen. Aber in den mathematischen Formeln ahnt es der Physiker wohl, wenn er mit Tensoren arbeitet. Der Begriff kam von Hamilton beim Arbeiten mit der Vierdimensionalität. Und vermutlich passt die Sichtweise auf die innere Spannung in einem Material wohl schon gut, wie es ein Spannungstensor intendiert. Bei der Art und Weise, wie sich Licht ausbreitet, gab es schon früh Überlegungen, welche von Transversalwellen in einem sehr harten Medium sprachen. Wenn also der Raum mit einer Spannung / Dichte / Intensität physikalisch ausgestattet sei, dann erübrigt sich nach meinem Dafürhalten, in die philosophischen Spekulationen über das Wesen der "Zeit" einzutauschen. Es ist mir als Laie ein Rätsel, warum die theoretischen Physiker diese Änderung in der Sprache (wider besseren Wissens?) nicht durchgeführt haben. Nur, um den Sprachgebrauch seit 1914 nicht ändern zu müssen? Jedenfalls mit dem Sprechen von Zeit als vierte Dimension wurde die Sache nur verkompliziert und sorgt noch 100 Jahre später für Verwirrungen und Widerstände bei abgehängten Physikern, Philosophen und Laien-Philosophen wie mich.
@@TheMachian Danke! - Verstehe ich Sie richtig, dass eine variable Lichtgeschwindigkeit irgendwie die Gravitation (ohne Feld-Interpretation im Sinne B. Riemann) erklären könne?
I don't think gravity is a constant. I think it is variable, depending on mass and location. That would be a much simpler explanation for the motions of spiral galaxies than inventing imaginary dark matter and imaginary dark energy to explain why the observation of gravitational movements are not constant with the observed masses.
I agree that G is determined by the mass distribution rather than being a constant. However, I do not see yet a really good (i,e, quantitative) DM explanation on this road. Maybe it is possible.
The risk with thought experiments is that you can overthink them! What are the results of doing a real experiment with (a) a bucket of ball bearings, (b) a bucket of sand (c) a bucket of mercury, (d) a bucket of high density liquid, ((e) a bucket of low density liquid, (e) a bucket of smoke? I am guessing that you will only see a curved surface if you spin a bucket containing a liquid with some viscosity and frictional forces exerted from the walls of the bucket. If I had access to a lab I would do the experiment. In my thought experiment I am a molecule in a liquid, a tiny spherical object that can travel only in straight lines in between the elastic collisions I make with other molecules in the liquid or with the walls of Newton’s bucket. At rest, in the bulk of the liquid I randomly jiggle around within a small volume, jostled by the movements of the molecules that surround me. When the bulk liquid is put into a rotating motion the molecules in the centre acquire less kinetic energy than those at the rim. Some of that KE at the rim, transmitted to the molecules near the surface, exerts a net upward force on those molecules. There is little countervailing force from the molecules in the atmosphere above the surface. The liquid at the rim rises up until its gravitational potential energy balances the excess kinetic energy coming from below. The effect diminishes towards the centre of the bucket. I, as a little molecule, am completely unaware and indifferent to any effect from the wider universe. I am only subject to the effects of viscosity and friction in my surroundings. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Another way to think about constants is accept them as inevitabilities that not even creator can choose. For example, with other things being equal, if you are the only dishonest player at the table you will win. This logical inevitability can be described mathematically and resolved to the constant, which we can call - cheating constant - CC. It was not chosen, it was not random and not even Almighty can create a world which would work differently. This is where I agree with Einstein that something is missing. The fundamental constant is a presentation of inevitability that we do not understand or dont even know and that is the most interesting part not what, by why. Why will be truly fundamental.
@@TheMachian It can only be 6.67 because the cheater always wins in my example. The value - 6.67 is a random artificial construct a reflection of a non-random inevitable outcome.
Or, say, every year so many people have a car accident. It can be expressed as a number, which will be very reproducible if the sample is large enough. The number will be random, but it is not chosen and is an expression of inevitability - certain behavior of people etc
Equivalents to Euler's e-Pi-i, such as Flashed inside-outside holographic sync-duration modulo packaging measures @.dt 1-0-infinity probability of i-reflection Superspin Superposition-point Singularity Perspective Principle, Newtonian Fluxion-Integral superposition of log-antilog density-intensity probability and resonance i-inflation functional distribution.., etc, makes a Bose-Einsteinian Quantum-fields Mechanism Holographic Principle Universe that Corresponds to Mach's Principle, from all possible aspect angles of Observable Logarithmic Time, instantaneous Relativity ratio-rates, timing-phase spacing pure-math ONE-INFINITY. ...0-1-2-ness transverse trancendental GD&P image-imagination thought experiments. "Unlearning" the chaos of normal living "Perturbation" is why unforced alignment with your personal identity at zero-zero meditation states (like Swami Sarvapriyananda"s lectures postulate), means practising Disproof, ie what is left to your attention, thinking fast and slow, when you are on the edge of sleeping, so that it possible to know what you "are" Awake. Otherwise the current versions of Mach's Principle are relatively misunderstood non sense. No motion point positioning of the Universal macro Black-body axial-tangential=> horizon or horizontal depending on orientation to vanishing limits, ..the Echo-chamber of Empty Space, and micro position point vanishing-into-no-thing Perspective, is "unimaginable" in UHF trancendence, because NO motion = solid-relative phase-locked coherence-cohesion spacing. (It's [ONE-INFINITY, +/-, 0] no Boundaries)? How can any phenomena be understood except by relative-timing pulse-evolution at Absolute Zero reference-framing containment e-Pi-i, flash-recognition, infinitesimally, ie putting the Universe in condensed picture-plane projection-drawing Actuality coherence-cohesion sync-duration perspectives. There's no new news only new angles and general time-timing Q-chem resonance patterns in chaos. This is what it is intended to mean by "open mindedness".
If this was true, wouldn't the expansion of space cause an apparent change in G? I.e. cosmological redshift could be explained by a changing value for G.
When you admit to the existence of sub-quantum particulates having EG properties, you must admit that smaller energetic and smaller velocity objects can be gravitationally captures and orbit around their gravitational captor. Put this into context when talking about the stars (our sun) and the (said) composition of the inner sun, PHOTOsphere, chromosphere, and the corona. If you have smaller velocities of photinos and photons they are gravitationally captured or manufactured from the stellar engine. They can't escape, but they can glow and shine - as they are light particles. Where would you find those captured object. Duh ! - in the PHOTOsphere, and the chromosphere as all of the granular surface features on the sun's surface ! When looking at a black hole (black body radiation) and the event horizon "that glows," the black hole engine tearing apart matter into its primal constituents, and thrusting out white hole emissions of all kinds of primal and composite electro-static and electro-gravitic sub-quantum particulates and quantum particles, other (EG-EG) particulates of photinos would still remain captured around the object, within the event horizon, and the very reason for "its glow." When you put this together and solve solar questions and problems, you gain truth and insight. You also see the same processes with black holes. Only allowing for photons with light speed, gravitational lensing, and escape velocity, then how do you account for all of the "light" of the sun, not being total radiation versus particulates and particles. There must be particulates that remain, while particles fly off, and other radiations of gamma, beta, alpha, UVA/B, and the entire (bad word) electromagnetic spectrum is being spewed across space-time. The Aether exists with these sub-quantum particulates, as well as all the higher particles in the physical matter universe.
Thank you Alexander! Please continue making these videos. Your lectures are green island in the ocean of junk popular science produced solely to impress.
Glad you like them!
The Junk popular science you state is the, " Griffter class." Who would have to be able to produce real work if there was any positive work that actually moves the needle.
I think you have to slightly modify the equation you show at 16:58 in this way: G = c^2/(4.sigma(m_i/r_i)) = c^4/(4.sigma(E_i/r_i)), where E_i (Energy-sub-i) is the energy of each object in the universe using E = mc^2. This would imply that Einstein's Gravitational Constant would be = k = 1/(4.sigma(E_i/r_i)) with the dimension of L^2. This implies that the "curvature" of spacetime is dependent on the _area_ around the mass causing the curvature, and modification of this area can be used to counter gravity.
The curvature of the surface of water in a rotating bucket is caused by the addition of the force of gravity with the centrfigul force of rotation.
If you strung a wire across the top of the bucket with a series of little pendulums attached, the angle of each pendulum would be perpendicular to the water surface below it.
The description of Mach's principle at 2:20 incorrectly states that "motion of the water relative to the bucket walls creates no noticeable centrifugal force" - you then proceed to stir a glass of water, demonstrating that _there is_ of course CF force when the water's rotating relative to the non-rotating glass. I don't understand what's so confusing here - linear motion's relative, angular is *absolute.* The reason _why_ is that while mass and inertia are taken as equivalent ("inertial mass vs gravitating mass" is a common misstatement of the dichotomy), this is only true in an incidental, circumstantial way for the case of linear motion; in rotating systems, angular inertia is a function of mass times radius _squared,_ thus possessing a degree of independence from how much mass, and thus gravitational weight, the system has.. So whilst doubling mass would double angular inertia *and* net weight, doubling radius would _quadruple_ it, yet without increasing gravitational weight. Thus a consistent definition of 'inertia' - resolving both linear _and angular_ forms - reduces to a measure of how much mass has been accelerated through how much space in how much time - those are its minimum dimensions, from a purely mechanical perspective. Thus the reason why angular motion is absolute is that CF force is either present or absent, and the reason why it exists, and why MoI squares with radius, is the increase with radius of how much space the mass is accelerating through. So the curving of the water surface when rotating is *not* mysterious as you suggest (!), but an inevitable consequence of the fact that any water at twice the radius is being accelerated through four times as much space in the same unit time for a given uniform rotation speed. I couldn't get past this broken predicate to make anything of the rest of the conclusions (sorry!) but just a heads-up - there's high-def, point-blank footage of UAP here on YT showing gravitational lensing effects more starkly pronounced than anything seen in deep-field astronomy, and on comparatively _tiny_ scales (some of these craft are surprisingly compact); to wit, we're seeing undeniable evidence of warp-field propulsion techs, along with copious Casimir radiation _and absorption_ at the curved / flat space interface (so whereas some UAP glow like suns, others appear as little floating black holes - not merely silhouetted, but actively absorbing energy). Hutchin's _Detection of Casimir Radiation from Our Sun_ (2019) _does_ move somewhat in the direction of tying inertia to the stars, if on a much-more local level (also pointing to a potentially-novel resolution of DE & DM), also encompassing variable c, and thus wavelength _and frequency-shifting_ effects. Mach's principle (even when correctly formulated) is for the birds; just as gravity _and time_ is a source and sink for momentum, so inertia and time is a source and sink of vacuum / ZPE energy under divergent inertial frames (eg. consider fixing the unit-energy cost of momentum from G*t to an RPM-invariant value, such that doubling system momentum only requires doubling the input work done) - proving the causal link between inertia and local vacuum / ZP energy. I've enjoyed the rest of your presentations thus far, but couldn't get over the bumps in this one..
Wish I could have pressed the like button a few dozen times. How, with 7518 views (7/8/22) haven't you got 7517 likes? There's always one...
Thank you Dr. Unzicker, for this thought provoking video.
I must disagree with acceleration being relative. It is a fact that all observers agree on accelerations. That is the opposite of relative. I don't think absolute change needs a reference board to be played upon for coordinates. I think they needed something to frame it in, but I think the ether is void of locations for coordinates. I also think that basic acceleration, being absolute, may be the source of all forces that we have named several other names to account for their presence. The Four forces may be manifestations of accelerations due to absolute changes by mass within space. Suddenly, the duality of mass and light starts to make causal sense.
Very, very good presentation of the VSL theory. One can clearly see the benefits of your efforts using appropriate illustrations and paper extracts. One small proposal: at ~8:24 you quickly explain the issue with missing variable wavelength. I have the feeling that a short illustration/animation would help the audience to understand the situation better (immediately), especially when they hear about this issue the first time.
Apart from that, this presentation ist one of your best since long time!
There will be a more technical video about that. Thanks.
The graphic that appears at 16:54 through 18:05 is very helpful. If there is a second edition of your book entitled Einstein's Lost Key (2015), that graphic would be a nice companion to pages 180-181: Getting Rid of the Gravitational Constant G.
By the way, I appreciate the fact that you employ (on pp. 51 and 155) the rarely (!) seen REAL alpha equation: e^2/2hcɛ,
namely, the version which is pi-free and which employs h instead of h-bar, in contrast to the popular version which includes an explicit pi and an implicit pi, hiding in h-bar, so that pi chases its own tail, canceling to 1. In the popular version , pi's presence can be somewhat justified by harking back to Sommerfeld and his modeling of the atom (in which the equation was born), but nowadays it comes across more as a kind of Promotion of the Pi Religion (superstition), so I think that version should be discouraged.
Hi, thanks for your interesting video.
I wanted to point out two things regarding the nature of the gravitational constant.
First I don't understand why we take G, i.e. 6.674... to be the gravitational constant since clearly this number is not pure. It contains also the residue of 4π coming from the geometric behavior of newtons law.
To clarify, let's call the pure gravitational constant G'.
Then newton's gravitation equation should look like this: F=G'mM/4πr^2
The logic here is the same like in Coulombs law: the force applied on mass m is proportional to it's own mass and to a second mass M, which influence is spread over a sphere surface with radius R.
Then G', which is G'=G/4π should be the real, or pure gravitational constant.
Another point I wanted to mention, that I heard from a physics professor,
that we can treat the Planck length as a fundamental constant and then G is not a fundamental constant.
So usually the equation for plank length is written like this:
Lp = √(hG/2πC^3)
This might fool us to think that the Planck length is an emergent property of h, G and C.
But equations only show relations not causality.
So we can write it also like this:
G= 2πLp^2C^3/h
Or if we use the pure gravitational constant I've suggested
G'=Lp^2C^3/2h
This way we can look at the gravitational constant as an emergent property of Lp, C and h.
Philosophically speaking, by this view, Planck length is independent of Planck's constants and can represent the smallest component of a discrete space-time.
I don't believe that the Planck lenght is something reasonable. A video will follow soon.
I have a friend who has an aphorism: "We don't even know what gravity is!". Now, I am aware that this friend's understanding of physics and math is somewhat limited, and he is saying that from a very different perspective than I could every hold, but I have jokingly responded that while he has a lot to learn about the subject, he is more right than he knows when it comes to that particular aphorism. I may have to revise my response in the future!
As always, this was both shocking and informative, thank you.
great work dude, love your content.
If we substitute Mass with Energy (M=E/c^2) in Newton`s equation g=GM/R^2 we see that the speed of light naturally appears as a component of g, or G if we write it as G=gR^2/M. There`s no need to fantasise about it or artificially insert it, it is already there.
Many years ago I fell in love with fundamental physics. I still am. I remember that one of my first bewildering issues was the Mach principle. It still is. How come linear movement comes with a quantity called speed, which is meaningless unless I specify with respect to what, whilst rotational movement is absolute? Is it my ignorance or is it one of the most profound unsolved mysteries?
There is no such thing as linear movement. That's why this problem "seems" so confusing. Everything is rotating, and traveling a curve linear path at some scale.
@@paaao A scientist inside a laboratory with no windows only requires measuring how high the water climbs along the walls of a bucket in order to derive how many radians/second the laboratory is rotating. But rotating with respect to what?
@@enricolucarelli816 this is my point... If everything in the universe is moving with respect to any other part, and every part defined by an observer is connected to everything, ie, it's all one fluid ball of interconnected motion and change... then how do you quantify anything with respect to anything else? Everything becomes relative and dependant upon where the observer (also a part of the system as a whole) decides. Time and space in the end, are mere measures of these changes once referenced against each other.
So, a scientist in a laboratory has no idea how quickly his laboratory is rotating until he defines it against another scale of space-time. Even then, it's meaningless.
Like think about this, let's assume the cells in your body that eat and reproduce have some level of conscious thought. Yet, all those cells, living, eating, dying, and trying to survive, create you. Now zoom out way beyond the galaxy, and think of the universal web of energy and magnetic links between galaxies as neurons. Let's assume that this universe, is merely a fraction of a part of another cell.
Now, we can safely say, for this larger entity to compose a single thought, galaxies would need to collide and be destroyed, releasing and transferring energy. So.. for this creature to experience a split second of time (existence), billions upon billions of years would need to expire from our perspective.
This process is happening at all scales, all the time.
Now define rotational movement, time, speed, etc... It's all meaningless beyond a certain scale of reference. It's completely subjective.
@@paaao interesting how ancient esoteric philosophy says much of the same in regards to the correspondences between micro and macrocosm
Variable speed of light: First I am going to assume that light is made of two parts since it has spin and since -/+ charges rotates 1 time with each wavelength. I am also going to assume that as wavelength increases that the distance between these two charges will also increase. Now as a photon approaches the EM fields of electrons and protons the energy and hence wavelength and photon amplitudes will also change and if the speed of light is the speed of each part, then as they get closer and further apart from traveling through the EM fields of a solid lattice then the paths of the two parts will increase from the zig-gag of the amplitude: hence slowing down the perceived velocity of the photon itself.
Check out Ray Fleming channel. He is all about variable speed of light affected by a mass to which it comes close to, depending on velocity as well. Have a nice day.
@@ebrelus7687 Just watched one and subscribed. Thanks for the tip.
Makes sense to me. With gravity, everything pulls on everything proportional to mass and inverse squared distance, so when calculating the pull between two objects, divide the product of their masses divided by their r^2 by the sum all the other masses pulling scaled by the squared distances.
A problem with this view is that the sum of all other masses should cancel each other out. The universe as a whole has no center of mass. So there's no singular point to be attracted to. Even if we think of the universe as bounded, as opposed to infinite, a bounded 3D space is like the 2D surface of a sphere, which has no center on that 2D surface. Every point is a center. So the gravitational pull from everything should be equal in all directions, canceling itself out.
However, if you're talking about what produces inertia, this equal force in all directions thing might play a part. I think that's actually what he was getting at.
@@KittyBoom360 Check out Newton-cartan theory. It's newtonian gravity dwelt with in a manner similar to GR. Spacetime is "curved" but regardless of interpretation or ontological implications this does change our understanding of inertial paths.
Recall how in Newtonian mechanics Galilean transformations don't effect conserved quantities and therefore preferred frames are constant velocity ones. According to Newton-cartan theory in an infinite universe of point masses those infinite cancellation of forces actually gets you something interesting. . . rectilinear motion, including accelerations or higher derivatives of motion, locally conserved symmetries in the same manner as the Galilean transformation before.
The catch? Rotation is still absolute but another paper I found seemed to imply that non-inertial rotational motion effects that appear can be treated as a gravito-magnetic field. Like how magnetic fields appear or disappear in Lorentz invariant transformations of Maxwell's equations. 🤔?
@@KittyBoom360 Can it cancel each other out also in a more less flat disc universe with one stable axis, with birkelands* currents, each circle zone with a different up-down down-up axis movement while mass rotating around in each bordering circle in opposite directions?
How to read Mach’s idea on g? P 2:52
I guess everybody have missed it.
Mach and I think that g, rest or not, isn’t derived from within, is from without.
I hope someone researches more this interesting idea, maybe that is why everytime we use Planck's constant (containing G), our results are hierarchy problems such as the theoretical mass of the Higgs boson and the vacuum catastrophe
I don't think you need the VSL to do that, it works with a constant speed of light as well. Besides in order for Dicke's theory to work, you have to assume constant speed for the most part, otherwise the redshift becomes meaningless and you don't know the radius of the Universe.
It does explain though, why c is a constant in the first place, which is what you want right? If you consider the whole Universe with a certain radius and mass, then it will create an overall gravity field everywhere that is the same or very close to the same. Then it means for long distances like inter-galactic distances, c will be constant throughout the whole Universe, only changing speed next to body masses, where it is changed locally.
It's why he chose the geometric space he did, he needed an horizon, so that the local gravity would cease to apply or could be ignored with some justification. Now the interesting thing is the speed we calculate, might not be the right one, because we are slowed down as compared to the whole if you follow VSL. That's of course a problem that could not be solved if you don't assume something, so he assumed it stayed constant, but it's the measurements that change, thus the dilations and so on.
c is needed to be constant to calculate distance in a non relativistic way. Otherwise all our calculations are wrong. They are just a point of view and everything's an illusion if you follow Dicke's model. The redshift is not real redshift, so can't be used to calculate distance on the cosmic scale, so you can't explain G either.
I think Einstein conceptualized local gravity like this Mack bucket, so you would have many of them, all inside a bigger cosmic one. c should be able to be calculated from the big one just like G. It's a property of the whole Universe, which is why they are constant. You want to have the light change speed, Einstein at least in the end wanted the observer to change speed. This way they can all agree on something. VSL is interesting because it shows what's happening, but don't knock out the other interpretation, there is a reason he chose it.
Ether & Relativity - by Albert Einstein - University of Leiden - 5 May 1920:
"The ether of the general theory of relativity is a medium which is itself devoid of all mechanical and kinematical qualities, but helps to determine mechanical (and electromagnetic) events."
Albert Einstein in 1920:
“To deny ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical quality whatever. The fundamental facts of quantum mechanics do not harmonize with this view.”
Ether and the Theory of Relativity - by Albert Einstein - Methuen & Co. Ltd, London, in 1922:
"How does it come about that alongside of the idea of ponderable matter, which is derived by abstraction from everyday life, the physicists set the idea of the existence of another kind of matter, the ether? The explanation is probably to be sought in those phenomena which have given rise to the theory of action at a distance, and in the properties of light which have led to the undulatory theory".
"Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it"
Mr. Tesla's vision: How the Electrician's Lamp of Aladdin May Construct New Worlds - by Nikola Tesla - New York Times - April 21, 1908:
"According to an adopted theory, every ponderable atom is differentiated from a tenuous (fragile, vague) fluid, filling all space merely by spinning motion, as a whirl of water in a calm lake. By being set in movement this fluid, the ether, becomes gross matter. Its movement arrested (halted), the primary substance reverts to its normal state. It appears, then, possible for man through harnessed energy of the medium and suitable agencies for starting and stopping ether whirls to cause matter to form and disappear. At his command, almost without effort on his part, old worlds would vanish and new ones would spring into being. He could alter the size of this planet, control its seasons, adjust its distance from the sun, guide it on its eternal journey along any path he might choose, through the depths of the universe. He could make planets collide and produce his suns and stars, his heat and light; he could originate life in all its infinite forms. To cause at will the birth and death of matter would be man's grandest deed, which would give him the mastery of physical creation, make him fulfill his ultimate destiny."
On topic, the inverse concept of the Standard Model, whether it is variable or fixed is the Observable Eternity-now 1-0-infinity range of probabilistic limits and we are embedded at Singularity-point real-time realization of hyperfluid i-reflection, which could be identified as a QM-TIME Completeness Thought Experiment, ie another POV of Actuality is "Mach's Principle".
The mathematical "Disproof Methodology Philosophy", which attaches the meaning of a limit to Infinity-eternity of 1-0 probability range is where-when the "Mathemagical" event of instantaneous connection cause-effect is identified, and corresponds to Eternity-now Centre of Time Duration Timing i-reflection containment = Superspin Superposition-point Modulation, this inside-outside sum-of-all-histories Conception of pure-math relative-timing matrix crystallisation. WYSIWYG here-now-forever continuous creation connection.
There is physical support for the variable speed of light. Einstein Rings or much more likely arcs show a color change between edges. This is more characteristic of refraction than bent space time.
How do we know light will bend as rocker accelerate on page 5:09?
How do we know light propagate without Aether?
M&M experiment tells us three scenarios but we failed to recognize all.
a) there is no Aether
b) there is Aether unattached to matter.
c) there is Aether attached to matter.
The interferometer result confirms either a) or c) may be true.
In that regard we haven’t finished our research on Aether.
Drawn from Maxwell’s equation that Aether is (e0*u0) and (e0*u0) = 1/c^2
Aether is regarded as a fluid that has no physical but electrical properties.
A light source cannot induce bipolar e charge or displacement current into a void space unless vacuum is flood with Aether. That implies that Aether must be adhere with matter at the subatomic level and therefore drag with matter.
Being able to adhere to all matter in the universe, Aether also exerts a tensile force pulling objects together that we misunderstood for gravity force. That tensile force is represented by A = 6.674*10−11 N-m2/kg2.
Because Aether connects and pull all matter in the universe A can’t be blocked or shielded like electricity can.
And this is why I said Mark and I think alike in the bucket water experiment.
Given the above assertions I see that inertia is not a mechanical event but electrical. I’d leave that to another discussion.
I once saw a mathematical demonstration that causality implies that the speed of information, the speed of light, must be a constant for any observer, otherwise the order of events cannot be the same for all observers, which is a catastrophe in physics. This is the reason why spacetime is curved with a constant speed of light and not the other way around.
I believe in evidence, not in "mathematical" demonstrations how reality ought to be.
@@TheMachian Mathematics, logic and more particularly the principle of causality are the foundations of physics, if a physical theory is not logically true, it must be rejected. If a physical theory is not compatible with causality, it must be rejected. This is the case with a variable speed theory of light.
@@TheMachian I appreciate very much your work and there is much to discover concerning the relation between speed c of light and planck constant h. But, here, Mathematics, logic and more particularly the principle of causality are the foundations of physics, if a physical theory is not logically true, it must be rejected. If a physical theory is not compatible with causality, it must be rejected. This is the case with a variable speed theory of light.
But as per GR, with curved space time, the order of events can be different for different observers in different rest frames.
I don't think fixed speed is needed for causality, and indeed quantum events, such as tunnelling and information exchange between entangled particles, can happen faster than light.
Even the cosmological theory says the spacetime inflates faster than light propagation.
Only lically, for relatively short distances and time frames, the speed of light to have constant speed is required for causality, not as cosmological scales, (and probably not in quantum scales either).
@@bulentkulkuloglu For any observers, its dt is always >0 then the order of events and the causality are always the same for any observers whatever the curve since the g00 term of their metrics has the same sign for all observers. Except in some particular controversial theoretical cases like inside a "black hole", the g00 term has, in theory, a problematic opposite sign whose the meaning is still unclear and that could exclude them from possible solutions but anyway, it doesn't matter, because these observers cannot communicate at all, anyway, useless to point out that these very theoretical BH are rather controversial because nobody can't observe them concretly.
The faster than light communications between entangled particles are a pure joke as the inflation , big bang with its 95% of Black stuffs is also a pure joke.
Inflation? I like very much these physicists talking the first minutes of the universe and unable to explain the dynamic of our own star, the Sun, in our own Galaxy the Milky Way. With its 200 km/s our Sun should take the tangential, our Galaxy has not enough mass to retain it, then why is it still in the Milky way? not a physicist can answer this simple basic question.
In relatvity, motion is relative, but acceleration is not. But rotation is just another form of acceleration, since motion is a vector. In an accerated frame of reference the magnitude of the motion increases but the direction stays equal. In rotation the magnitude of the motion stays the same, but the direction changes constantly. So, acceleration and rotation should be treated the same in relativistic mechanics. Doesn't that disproof Mach's principle?
Our current cosmological models are very Machian if you think about it. At galactic/universe scales the structure of the universe is determined almost exclusively by gravity and the mass that generates it. Our scale is in a rather exceptional balancing point in many ways so it is hard for us to see the universe scale perspective unless we think carefully.
I've always been fascinated by Mach's principle and I'm glad someone is still working on it.
In the attempt of "explaining away" constants, I got lost... Here are my questions / doubts:
Is it so that there are no "constants" in the sense that both G and c depend on masses and their distances? But still, the mass (inertia and gravitational field) itself is originating from other masses and their distances. How is this not a circular argument? Crazy thought: Can it be that the mass is originated by a sort of feed-back loop, which eventually reaches saturation?
Well Newton's bucket is obviously directing all the centrifugal force and water upwards because it has an inverted cone shape, that is a slope which makes the force vector dissipate and push the water in the up direction. If the bucket had a cylindrical shape, the centrifugal force would be directed perpendicular to the bucket walls, and the force exerted on the buckets walls by the rotating water will be much higher.
So instead of wondering what would happen if the bucket was several miles thick, Mach should have just used a cylindrical bucket instead.
"How does the water know it should curve?" --> Using the same logic that it "knows" it should fall if poured out of the bucket! The water simply reacts to the acceleration that the rotation imparts on it (via centrifugal force) or the gravitational field (if poured out). Both are examples of acceleration. Which CAN be detected absolutely (even by lifeless water).
The part I don't understand is : what do the external bodies in the rest of the universe have to do with inertia ?!? Or this particular experiment for that matter ? The fact that the water is pushed against the bucket walls has to do with the fact that the bucket is rotating around its axis, thereby imparting an outward acceleration to the water. Nothing to do with distant galaxies, as far as I can tell. And you've provided zero fact or argument to support that assertion.
By the way, you shouldn't confuse UNIFORM motion (the subject of Special Relativity) which is in fact relative (as Einstein has shown) with ACCELERATED frames of reference, which is the subject of General Relativity. Proper acceleration (which would include centrifugal force and gravity) IS absolute, and can be measured by an accelerometer.
Admittedly he explained it poorly, but Mach's principle has to do with the absoluteness of rotational motion. While linear momentum is relative and different observers will not agree on its magnitude, every single observer will agree an object is rotating. This also implies that inertia is not just an artefact of the frame of reference, or at least that rotational inertia is different than linear inertia. We don't have a theory that can explain this discrepancy, GR does not deal with the problem.
2:45 Mach's experiment would lend itself to be performed on the ISS internationalSpaceStation! or wouldn't it?
If the concept of emerged reality floating on modern aether was understood, Einstein would have believed it, but it was not possible at that time. Virtual particles soup was mistakenly introduced in QFT as field excitement. It was a misconception, the supernatural soup of virtual particles is the same as ether. The virtual pressure of this soup ( needs whole world) is reminiscent of Mach's principal 😁
Mach's work also implies that vacuum space itself, is a quantifiable causal mass. Didn't Einstein talk about "The new Aether"? Your thoughts on this, Alexander?
Einstein, in his later years, was not against the ether. My view: vixra.org/abs/2006.0218
@@TheMachian Thank you for the reply sir. I feel that Einstein's interpretation of GR is different than the mathematician's. I think space is a fluidlike causal mass at it's lowest energy state. It is quantifiable at the quantum (almost planck) scale as well. Perhaps the new ether.
3.17 the water don't have to know anything substitute water with ball bearings and the same happens and the same happens when a metal plate is fix on the circumstances and heated up in the middle, a curve will appear
The mystery of G: (1.536581547 x 10^-18m or the electron's actual radius) x (6.29 x 10^-12 m/s or the inertia speed of gravitation) ^2 / (9.109 x 10^-31kg or electron's mass) = 6.674 x 10^-11 M^3/kg s^2 or G, the gravitational constant. Hope this helps.
Omerbashich's expressing values of G via c on both quantum and mechanist scales (as Einstein hinted at in 1930s after stumbling upon a most remarkable relationship between values of gravity, g, and of velocity of light, c - but then forgot all about it) tells how quantum mechanics and gravity are conceptually unified. Furthermore, as Maxwell hinted in 1870: "[Maxwell's theory] denies action at a distance and attributes electric action to tensions and pressures in an all-pervading medium, these stresses being the same in kind with those familiar to engineers, and the medium being identical with that in which light is supposed to be propagated. [This theory and a theory of electricity by Riemann, Lorenz, and Neumann] are found to explain not only the phenomena by the aid of which they were originally constructed, but other phenomena which were not thought of or perhaps not known at the time; and both have independently arrived at the same numerical result, which gives the absolute velocity of light in terms of electrical quantities. That theories apparently so fundamentally opposed should have so large a field of truth common to both is a fact the philosophical importance of which we cannot fully appreciate till we have reached a scientific altitude from which the true relation between hypotheses so different can be seen." 134 years later, Omerbashich has succeeded in deriving the absolute velocity of light - in terms of gravity in a mechanical oscillator, showing the underlying engineering concept (of mechanical oscillators) with which all forces of nature can be unified, as Einstein, Maxwell and others hoped for.
The Omerbashich 2005-2006 theoretical value of G, at 6.6750E-11, has been subsequently matched by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) 2013 value of 6.6754E-11. This BIPM value has been converging on the Omerbashich's since their previous experiments, so that the two are essentially identical now as shown by BIPM's Quinn et al. This is a direct experimental confirmation of the Omerbashich's epochal discovery by the World's leading authority on physical units and measures.
I have never understood Newton's bucket. It seems to me that the water piles up simply because you have applied a force to the molecules. They attempt to travel in a straight line but keep bashing into each other and thus pile up; the ones at the walls can't go further forwards so are pushed out of the way upwards, like a queue of people trying to walk forwards hitting a wall and thus spreading out either side. It just seems to me to be a trivial local effect and despite many attempts I can't grasp why it says anything about local or relative spaces. It doesn't seem any more mysterious to me than my dinner spreading out over the floor if I drop the plate. What am I missing?
Yeah, he didn't explain it well here, but the basic question is, how can we in say that one of the two buckets is spinning in an absolute sense if all motion is relative? What is our special frame of reference? How can we say for certain the bucket that appears to be spinning is really spinning instead of the world simply spinning around it? Well, we can tell because the water in the spinning bucket behaves as if accelerated, forming a pressure gradient from center to edge. Thus, it must be truly spinning. But with respect to what then? The common answer is then with respect to everything else, which seems to form an absolute background.
I think the confusion arises because the answer is already intuitive. It's the setup of the problem that is unintuitive. One must suspend intuition for a moment and think about what relative motions might mean, or not mean.
Thanks for providing this extra explanation.
Referring to your slide at t=18:05; The Weber/Maxwell solution presented 1/c squared=permittivity/permeability, clearly demonstrates that light is a wave just like any other, and that its propagation speed and behaviors are a function of the physical attributes of the medium . The macro scale analogy is represented by the speed of sound in a fluid which is derived by dividing the bulk modulus by the density of the fluid. As opposed to the approximation for Mach and crew, who use the concept of mass and gravity. Mass is not only undefined, but is a flawed concept which fails at the most basic levels of observation (think mass defect). Add to the fact that doing away with the aether as a concept created a universe of atoms that exist as closed systems, that have to do work on themselves by producing a gravitational attraction at the large scale, and strong and weak nuclear forces at the small scale but not the large scale, which still has to subsidized by stealing quantum energy from nowhere and postulating electrons that don't exist until you look at them in order to reproduce observations.
Very thoughtful and thought provoking
To address Mach’s concern can we run that bucket of water half filled again 90% submerged below sea level?
10 minutes in you say that index of refraction is 1+2 G m/(r c^2) but I am having trouble translating this into GR terms that I understand.
Here's what I know:
In the Schwarzschild metric, radial distance r is the point at which measured circumference is 2*pi*r. This conversion is necessary since space is squished radially, increasing travel time by a factor of 1/sqrt(1−rs/r) where rs is the black hole event horizon radius (this supposedly adds a factor of 2 to what you would get with a standard index of refraction formula, though I haven't gone through the calculation myself). In addition, time is slowed down by the same factor (or you could say that the speed of light is slowed down, which amounts to the same thing since everything moves and evolves in proportion to it). If you multiply these terms together and integrate, you can get the total travel time of light going towards the massive object and returning after bouncing off a mirror.
Which "r" is the equation in the video referring to?
How is radial space squishing dealt with? The only way I can think of is to make light travel slower radially than it does parallel to the surface.
How is "frame dragging" dealt with?
Thanks,
Dustin Soodak
Hi. I would recommend Dicke's 1957 paper: journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.29.363. r is just the distance to the center of mass. keep in mind we a re not talking about a distorted spacetime, everything is Euclidean and just c varies. It is not useful, if possible at all, to reproduce all formalities of the usual GR by VSL. However, the tests such as light deflection are described by VSL without problems. Hope this helps.
@@TheMachian It's not possible to "reproduce all formalities of ... GR" via an Interpretation of QM alone, only a Model has such a capacity for validity. "In the CTMU, quantum mechanics is modeled rather than merely interpreted." C.M.Langan, Intro. to Mathematical Metaphysics
Various celebrity theorists (along with their interpretations) attempt to be the Model, but invariably they don't have the legs for it.
How are the ways we can calculate the gravity of the Moon and Mars???
I have a counterbalancing personal objection to putting personal names on the elemental e-Pi-i AM-FM sync-duration universe in Principle, ie "I Am you and you are me and we are all together" in factual Totality, there's no actual Ego personal thing in nature.
So as we all cycle through our pulse-evolution, Spinfoam bubble-modes of events in events, we can settle on a conscious awareness of pure-math trancendental Conformal Field Correspondence and dimensionality coordination shaping and sharing information in common (social hive mind, community, whatever general recognition of inclusion matters personally)
It is not a big problem if we all accept Sciencing Re-search critiques directly related to Observable Quantum Operator Logic Fields of Reciproction-recirculation Singularity positioning integration. (Think for yourself implies a balance of ego-self with the Universe in Principle)
Mach, Einstein or anyone else do not own the Universe above anybody's shared existence, unless we are recognising their outstanding teaching example and contribution to the sum of our human knowledge. Quantum-fields Mechanism is a sum-of-all-histories "ghost" of Eternity-now e-Pi-i sync-duration relative-timing probability structural constraints (Spacetime, Math-Phys-Chem and Geometry) Interval.
The property of Fluxion-Integral superposition axial-tangential orthogonal-normal instantaneous Singularity focus here-now-forever at the Condensate Centre of Time Duration Timing Modulation Mechanism tends to indicate nobody can be more than a transient identification of probabilistic correlations.
One can understand lumping everything under a ONE-INFINITY Singularity or "god" type heading, but that is the inverse of possession.
"I Am you and you are me and we are all together", temporary ego composed of wave-packaging formations in/of probability states in Quantum-fields of self-defining information In-form-ation, positioning-not-force.
If c is variable how to to produce a constant where the other variable you need are also not constant
This is really a fantastically wonderful video. Thank you so much!
Glad you enjoyed it!
check out wal thornhil- the long path to understanding gravity. he bases his theory on mach's principle!
"how does the water surface know it should curve?" This confuses me. As you spin it, the water is perturbed by the walls and bottom of the glass, resulting in this shape after a little bit, no? Am I misunderstanding the point?
Or you could imagine you have a round sink full of water not spinning or orbiting then pull the plug, or do it with any sink and watch what happens. Then think if that space is gone then what's replenishing it, and how could space be expanded when it's being deleted.
If the gravitational constant is defined by the distribution of matter in the universe, then the constant will be different, depending on where in the universe you are.
I'm very interested in the conceptual modeling in this presentation but something that bothers me about this presentation is that the door seems wide open to multiple alternative physical interpretations and two physicists can be talking about the same thing using different words, like what happened when Schrodinger showed that his wave mechanics was mathematically equivalent to matrix mechanics. I'm reminded of the relationship between Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism and the theory of the electron by Lorentz who also tried to model gravity with Maxwell's equations in 1900.
Things this video brings to my mind:
1. The generalized Mach principle used by Dr. Mendel Sachs in "Quantum Mechanics from General Relativity"
2. Karl Kornacker's paper, "Heat, light and relativity (1969) - "a new interpretation of the radiation wave equation in which c^2 measures the statistical variance of velocity."
3. Gauge Theory Gravity on flat spacetime with Geometric Calculus and papers on it by Dr. David Hestenes such as "Gauge Theory Gravity with Geometric Calculus" by David Hestenes where Dr. Hestenes quotes Poincare “One geometry cannot be more true than another; it can only be more convenient."
4."Zitterbewegung structure in electrons and photons" by David Hestenes
"The general idea is that gravity is about deformation of the vacuum due to presence and propagation of singularities described by the Dirac equation. The implication that all elementary particles and their interactions can be described by variations and excitations of the vacuum impedance promises closure to the search for a Unified Field Theory."
5. A.K.T. Assis and Relational Mechanics
6. Daniele Funaro's "Electromagnetism and the Structure of Matter"
7. Note on the absence of the second clock effect in Weyl gauge theories of gravity by Michael Hobson, Anthony Lasenby
Why does that bother you? To me, having multiple theories which are equivalent in some respects while being very different rhetorically can be a good thing, leading down multiple research paths. It's akin to putting your eggs in multiple baskets.
Thanks for your interesting comment. Unfortunately, I cannot cover everything what was written on Mach's principle. The approach/books by Andre Koch Torre de Assis are very interesting and so are Hestenes' papers, though they do not explicitly deal with Mach's principle I think.
Mach's principle doesn't have anything to do with accelerations. It's about, why you shoud not can figure out, if you are moving uniformly against empty space, you should only can figure out, if you're acellerated against empty space or Einsteins space time, because of local measurable forces caused by inertia. Because of Mach's principle, you'll not be able to detect an absolute uniform movement against empty space and this was added to Galileis principle of relativity since then. Galilei instead didn't tell anything about absolute movements in empty space, because neither he did know about any constant movement of electromagnetical waves or light nor about clocks can be influenced by their own movement. So for Galilei (and also for Mach) movement and speed were the same - one single movement can only have one speed and this will always be the same, if measured with proper adjusted clocks. This is a decent notice, that they all already know about the fact, that one will measure differend speeds for one single movement with deadjusted clocks. I don't want to know, to which conclusion they came, if they have known about clocks can be influenced by movements, because I already do.
And now to absolute movements in and against empty space. Consider two objects in empty space, which are in motion to each other. If one of it is at absolut rest against this empty space, the other one has to be in an absolute movement against both - the resting object and the empty space. But since no one should be able to tell his own state of movement, everyone can equally consider himself resting, like Galileis principle of relativity proposes. Now what will happen, if you measure the length of a space craft in two ways - one time based measurement with light or radar and one with a simple measure tape. Adjust the radar device to the length value, which is shown by the measure tape. What do you think wat happens to value, which is shown by the radar device, if you change the state of movement of the space craft? First it will change if you acellerate and second it will not fall back to the old value, when the acelleration ends. Now you can tell about the state of movement of the space craft locally. You can also divide the radar value by the measure tape value and the result will be the Lorentz factor for the space crafts absolute speed. If it is smaller than one at some time, you adusted your radar device, while you weren't at absolute rest. The smallest Lorentz factor measured in this "thought experiments" are the made by space crafts, which are more resting against empty space than others. So if clocks can really be influenced by their own movements, we will be able to tell, if we're at (nearly) absolute rest or not.
This should work with or without aether. The only thing, that has to be postulated, is a constant movement of light against empty space or aether. But this all wont work with bendable aether, wich is called space time by relativists.
I am not convinced about the variable speed of light, simply because permittivity of space and permeability of space would then have to be variable also. As we can see these are constants and constants multiplied by constants can only equate another constant.
Teaching reiteration and reorientation at regular intervals may keep us all alive.?
I would like to see the world's education system get a workover.
Recital of Nomenclatures is "not even wrong", but still essential to maintain an approximate format that an Observer's Sciencing Re-search practices can maintain a qa cause-effect pressure on. The nature of QM-TIME Completeness Actuality is, "you can't push on a string", so "there's your problem" with Measurement, Constants and String Theoretical Tensors all components of AM-FM Resonance superposition etc, aka fractal e-Pi-i conic-cyclonic Thermodynamic Ideal Gas CFT foci by universal Reciproction-recirculation Singularity repositioning.
Can you explain more clearly how this relationship holds in the VSL context? If c changes does G also change?
Hello Dr. Unzicker, I have just watched your interesting video, and read some of the comments to it.
I have commented on a few of your videos, and mentioned that I have an alternative hypothesis to the standard model, in which I proffer an explanation for gravity, and propose that it is in fact a force of both attraction and repulsion.
If this turned out to be true, it could explain why the mathematical equations still can't unify physics, because they are missing half of data that would allow a resolution to the problems that are still outstanding.
The two particles that I hypothesize, make up everything in the universe, form the two forces of gravity, with the Negatively charged monopole ' Harveytron ' particle forming the repulsive force of gravity. This particle I propose, is also associated with the speed of light, insomuch as it is the limiting factor to the speed of light.
In my hypothesis, I contend that these particles in a cloud occupies every available empty space in the atom, and throughout the universe, and I propose that the speed of light and all electromagnetic radiation is determined by the time it takes for this radiation to pass between these particles. I further hypothesize that these particles make up the ' Dark Matter ', and thus the missing mass of the universe. If this extra mass was included in the matematical calculations, more productive results and understanding may result.
As I have said before, I would be happ to send the latest draft of my hypothesis to you if you were interested. Kind regards,
Tony Marsh.
Hello, I guess it is the best thing you write your ideas down carefully and publish it at vixra.org.
@@TheMachian Thank you ' Alexander ' for your kind reply, I will look into your suggestion. As a matter of interest, have you, or are you likely make any videos on your own suggestions for an alternative to the standard model? I am sure many people would find them very interesting, as would I. Kind regards,
Tony Marsh.
You have explained a great unity, thank you! On another video, I came across info that said that the wavelength of photons from the Cosmic Miro Wave Background Radiation have increased relative to the expansion of the Universe. Maybe another coincidence LOL. Could it be when we see something squared as in c² it is a sign of spherical geometry?
There will be a video on the cosmological consequences, albeit different from mainstream cosmology. Good question with c^2. I don't know.
@@dodatroda In this theory we go back to the Inverse Square law with the mathematics representing the geometry of a three dimensional process! We have Galileo’s square of time t² with the wave function of quantum mechanics squared ψ², the electron e² and the speed of light E=MC² all squared! Don’t you think this points very strongly towards one three-dimensional process that has spherical 4πr² geometry? The two-dimensional surface could form a manifold or boundary condition for positive and negative charge. This would form an interactive process with an uncertain ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π future unfolding with the exchange of photon ∆E=hf energy and movement of charge. Within each reference frame, the future would continuously come into existence with potential photon energy changing into the kinetic energy of electrons.
@@dodatroda Eₖ=½mv², c², e², ψ² and t² its all squared, one geometry LOL
Because we are absolutely embedded in pure-math relative-timing ratio-rates of e-Pi-i logarithmic resonance numberness, Spinfoam Partitioning fractal conic-cyclonic bubble-modes, the precise nature is forever Reciproction-recirculation uncertainty time duration timing modulation, that is it.
Is that reversible or irreversible?
If so, then G would decline with cosmic expansion beyond horizon (?). What's the time scale on being able to measure that?
Maybe I am missing something, but I find this notion of Mach's preposterous. The curvature of the water surface is due to motion of the stir, the walls of the vessel and the pressure of the atmosphere. Asking the question; "how does the water know?", is equally absurd, the water doesn't know, it just does.
Gravity, as a force unto itself, is nonexistent. Newton was right, it is absurd to think that "inanimate brute matter can communicate at a distance without an intermediary". Einstein's GR is not a mechanism for gravity, therefore, all these speculations regarding mass driven gravity are pointless until one knows what the intermediary force for the effect we call gravity is. Now, inertia and gravity on earth do have the same origin, but this is due to local forces due to local mechanisms not known in Einstein's time.
To declare that gravitation is due to the all the masses in the universe is special, especially since THEY do not know where mass is in the atom.
We still do not know the size of the universe and such speculations are not science.
Except even Hubble questioned whether or not the redshift observed was purely Doppler effect, and Halton Arp in his Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies makes this more apparent.
The measurable gravitational constant was/is measured on Earth and is due to local electromagnetic structures and is not a universal value.
The GC is not constant. Why does it fluctuate when a storm is overhead? Out of all the constants, this one is the most elusive and refuses to be worked out to 8-12 digits like many of the other measured constants, and, it oscillates with the Length of Day cycle. Why?
As for Mach's principle. Based on the electromagnetic nature of the universe and the inverse square law, we can say with confidence that that which is at infinite distances from an observer have infinitesimal effects on the observer.
The Gods of Modernity, are mathematical assumptions, and all assumptions are based on ignorance. The only way to solve this problem is to look at what they were ignorant of at the time they made their assumption, and to that, their ignorance was rather profound.
You are missing nothing my friend.
Unzicker on the other hand .,,,,,,,
Having written a book on this subject , his arrogance will not allow him to acknowledge that he really did not think through what he wrote and was simply parroting dogma.
I think what he means by "how does the water know" is that you could use the reference frame of the cup of water as being at rest with the entire universe rotating around it, why then is the water being pulled out to the sides of the container if it is at rest... he is saying that it is the mass of the earth, and presumably in deep space it would be the entire mass of the "rotating universe," that is pulling the water out
I guess this is the first time someone accuses me of parroting. :-)
Deamon, not sure what you are trying to convey. Phrase it shorter?
When you talk about the entire universe, do you mean the entire observable universe? (Would make sense if gravity is propelled at the speed of light and anything outside of the observable range would also not be able to exchange a force)
Yes, the observable universe.
That was very interesting. The immediate question that springs to mind is this: just what is the value of G we get by plugging the numbers into the equation based on the current observations we have? Surely if we are actually getting a value close to or in the range of measureable G then it stacks up support for the argument you make here.
Well, cosmological mass estimates from direct observations have a large error margin, of course. But if you put the numbers in, the order of maginitude coincidence is there.
@@TheMachian That's fascinating. Is there somewhere I can find the calculation?
Dr. Unzicker, can you post a video explaining existence of gravitational waves stemming from the VSL theory?
There will be a video on that, takes a little time.
I just dont understand the spinning water bucket enigma. Isnt that the centrifugal force at work ? When you spin the bucket you create a rotating mass and a displacement of water from the center to the edges driven by the centripetal force. So when it hits the bucket at an angle, it tends to go up on the bucket, because the bucket has an inverted cone shape i.e. a slope which allows the force vector to dissipate upwards. If you take a cylinder shaped bucket with straight walls the centrifugal force will be directed perpendicular to the bucket walls, and the water surface will not get curved like that.
there is an excellent viso about by the channel "dialect"
@@TheMachian Thanks, now I understand the water bucket experiment. But I dont understand why Newton uses a spinning water bucket to prove that motion is absolute, and Mach uses the same bucket to disprove him. Whats so special about that bucket ? Why doesnt he use a spinning glass of water instead, and requires the observer to pick it up and drink it while floating around it like a massless ghost ? That would be much more fun, and would prove the same thing. Which is nothing. Because the experiment doesnt say why is the observer able to resist the centrifugal force which appears when he is placed in the same rotating frame with the bucket. It doesnt say how he arrives there or how is he placed either, is he fixed to the spinning ground, is he flying in a helicopter, or is he simply floating there in a circle for no reason, without any force acting on him ? You cant just spawn a metaphysical observer to an experiment. He has to have physical properties and interact with the system physically in order to observe it.
That said, I think Newton is right, but not because of his water bucket, but because the observer would notice a centrifugal force acting on him if he was placed in a high velocity rotating frame. So even if he was blindfolded he would know he was not in stationary frame...even in outer space with no gravity he would be able to realise that something is moving underneath him. But newtons bucket experiment simply doesnt prove what he intends to prove. That doesnt mean that if that experiment is flawed we cant find other experiment which proves that motion is absolute.
Dear Dr. Unzicker,
in this video You quote Alexander Moszkowski (1920):
A look into Einstein's thinking
"... He deduced that (determing the approximate size of this non-infinite universe) from the existence of a measurable gravitational constant...".
It is true, Einstein was convinced of the existence of one single natural constant G, the so called "gravitational constant".
Einstein uses "G" in his "Einstein field equations".
Dear Dr. Unzicker,
please give a clear answer to the following question:
Do You also (the same like Einstein) believe in "G" as the one and only existing "gravitational constant"?
No. I believe it is determined by the mass distribution, not a constant.
@@TheMachian Consequently You believe the ART is wrong?
@@arthurbuettgen9301 I believe the measured effects attributed to GR are correct. They need to be explained in a similar, albeit not equivalent way. I perfer thus to call VSL an alternative version of GR.
2:45 No noticeable centrifugal force, really ? Why is the water climbing on the buckets walls, then ? Why is it displaced from the center towards the edges, if not from the centrifugal force ?
River model of gravity and various speed of light explains everything.
This same concept also exists in general relativity, where the shell i think its an infinite cylinder of mass, makes a mass at the center rotate if the cylinder does.
lens-thirring effect is the name
But there is an exception to the equivalence principle : if you're in a free fall within a gravitational field, your feet will be more attracted than your head and you will be submitted to a 'spaghettification'. In a real free fall, you will not feel that force stretching your body.
I know that Einstein assumed that the object in a free fall was a size-less point. But that point does not exist in reality, so how do we conceal reality with that ?
Very inspiring. But the bucket is about inertia while the rest of the video is about the gravitational constant. And I think that mass itself is not fundamental but due the Higgs mechanism. Maybe it's safe to say that we still don't know how all that is related.
The Higgs mechanism is bunk. Masses can be understood, if anyhow, with Mach.
I am warming up to the Variable Speed of Light explanatory power
I am curious how this ideea works in an infinite universe, with an infinite number of masses, or an infinite total mass.
Thank you for posting your thoughtful videos. Maybe all matter existed together in one place and gravity is a memory. Things “know” about other things and become entangled because without time they are all in the same place. Maybe dark matter is matter without a time dimension. Maybe . . .maybe. Maybe the electron only exists in two dimensions and time.
If gravity is a result of a Cassimir-like effect (for example as QI proposes and many others have before), would that explain the apparent correlation between G and the mass of the universe? Also I still don't understand how we can claim to have any idea of the mass of the universe though considering how our progress is in developing our observational abilities.
One can estimate galaxy density, galaxy mass etc. By orders of magnitude ther is this coincidence.
Of course the current pressure prohibits the water from doing anything else than what it does. If you change the boundary conditions, the water does something else. For there to exist structure in the first place, large scale existence is prohibited in one way or another. If those parameters changed, then who knows what the water would do.. My main point being that one are not interested in other than the restriction on the action.. the plain flies because it is not allowed to fall (when everything works).
Nice video and presentation.
Further coincidence on page 18:05.
G ~ Ru/Mu/e0/u0; where e0,u0 represents Aether. That Gravitation’s origin is in Aether.
Awesome subject!
Take a sheet of paper and a pen with you, at your disposal..
Please write in the left side the energy of the mass m at rest in relation to the mass of the universe M, and you get:
E = GMm / r
Compare this energy to the energy of the rest mass m:
E = mc ^ 2
The mass m doesn't contribute (it's eliminated
On both sides)
And from recent data, we assume that:
r = ct
(According to the Hubble Law)
You have obtained a relationship between the speed of light, the mass of the universe, gravity constant and the duration t of the universe.
c = (GM / t) ^ 1/3
You are welcome. The same result in a much simpler calculation and a minimum number of assumptions. This equation indicated a 0.927 cm decrease in the speed of light per year.
(Something that can be tested with atomic clocks in space)
Your thoughts on this, Alexander?
Thank you for your video.
BUT ......... won't the existence of Dark Matter upset the equations by introducing more matter in the universe ..... PLUS ............. the space between galaxies is expanding which further posits parts of the universe we cannot see simply because light from them simply can't reach us.
I like the idea, but I wanted to hear an estimate of the actual numbers, what are mass and radius of the universe proposed to be, in order to arrive at G?
Hi, the radius is about 10^23 m, the mass about 10^52 kg. Forgot to mention, indeed... more will follow.
@@TheMachian Thank you, I’m looking forward to it! I’m also extremely interested in the alternate interpretation (I think you touched on it) which VSL theory offers for the cosmological redshift.
@Rodriguez Good question! Reading Unzicker's excellent book entitled Einstein's Lost Key (2015), I had the same desire to see how some rough estimates of radius and mass would actually play out in the "elimination of G" scenario. At the same time, there is so much hocus-pocus in astrophysics, one could understand why an author would be reluctant to assign values to m and kg, even for a quick trial run of the equation. Here, in his reply to you, he writes 10^23 m and 10^52 kg. Well, that's a start finally (!), but I believe there's a typo in his response. Thinking in terms of km, 10^23 would be the right order of magnitude, but for m, the order of magnitude would be 10^26, not 10^23. For example, if we try using 4.4x10^26m and 1.5x10^53kg (these being two prevalent "internet" values, e.g., at wikipedia), then we get a reasonably good match as follows: 2.6x10^-10 (as compared with G = 6.6x10^-11 m^3/kg s^2).
@@Verschlungen yes, I noticed that too. The figures usually accepted for the *observable* universe are 9 × 10²⁶ m and 1.5 × 10⁵³ kg. So I think he did mean km. The answer is still an order of magnitude off, but that is surprisingly close. However, it would be a pretty big coincidence, I think, if the our estimates of the observable universe are that close to the actual numbers we should use, especially according to a theory in which there is no inflation and expansion.
Wow this is mind boggling....
If you would propose a model in which you could calculate G in such a way that it explains the dark matter (additional gravity due to higher G) of rotating galaxies, that would be nice
Hi. There's a paper that uses the same approach in this video to do just that. It's called "On the gravitodynamics of moving bodies" by A.W. Mol. Interesting, they come to a calculation of a curvature of omega=2, which is consistent with recent findings that we are not in a flat spacetime.
Why do computations of gravity require the speed of light if the force of gravity is distinct from electromagnetism? Like in your formulation of the g potential of everything being equal to the square of c, wouldn't that be a pretty big coincidence, relating gravity to electromagnetism?
In fact, only when recognizing gravity's relation to c, on might hope to unify it with EM.
@@TheMachian The Sapien is korrekt. Gravity has zero to do with the speed of light.
Mach was correctish. The mass of our cosmos affects gravitational mass & inertial mass. But i would not go as far as to say that the mass of our infinite eternal universe affects mass & gravity. Its a more local thing.
No, the issue lies in your assumption of ”Gravity has zero to do with the speed of light”. Such assumptions actually hinder scientific progress, for which reason I’d be careful and try get rid of those. What is basis for your assumption? In doing so, you assume that Theory of Everything does not exist. How do you know that light does not have everything to do with mass? There are actually postulates that electron is made of circularly trapped light.
@@joonasmakinen4807 Yes, the photon is the fundamental (quasi) particle. Yes, elementary particles (eg electrons) are confined photons (that have bitten their own tail & formed a loop)(Williamson)(Ranzan). Matter is bottled light (Jeans).
My wording was klumzy. Gravity duz indeed affect the speed of light (or i should say the nearness of mass affects the speed of light)(Shapiro Delay), but what i meant was that the speed of light duznt affect gravity. Unzicker is wrong.
And i can add that the speed of gravity is at least 20 billion c (Van Flandern). Nothing associated with gravity has a speed of c. LIGO is a total fraud.
What does it mean that distant celestial masses are responsible for gravity? What we're taught via Newton's law of gravity is due to the mass & radius of the earth (g = G me / re^2), but nothing about any other mass. Sorry I am rather slow on this idea.
Watch 17:00 for the difference. Newton's insight is today rather obvious, but might be just a first stage of understanding.
@@TheMachian If this were true, that G is governed by all masses of the universe, would this imply that G is varying over time?
On the speed of light,.. in your mind, if you could go back in time but was able to take with you YOUR present "stretch" of space time, and because acceleration is STILL taking place stretching spacetime, then you could potentially witness a year within a minute from YOUR stretch of spacetime as this earlier time is far less stretched than ours today, then light speed, when measured, would show to be slower measuring it within our spacetime parameters, but if you measured its speed within it's own stretch, then it would read the same as today, ?
I will talk about the evolution of time scales soon.
I hope it's a new dawn of theoretical physics.
F = ( mM)÷ ( 4pi r^2 G ) is the proper presentation. Whereas G has value of
1.1926 E9 [127]
Celestial bodies are responsible for inertia. Restated celestial bodies have Potential Energy (PE) manifesting outward as a gravitational field that creates compacted space-time fabrics around the object (not the 2D model of a gravity well, but a 3D model of a spatial gravity force field sphere).
Celestial bodies are responsible for gravity. One would make the assumption that this energy (PE) and force (Kinetic Energy KE) are made by matter ( = mass, size, volume, density), but that is wrong. It is the actual composition of the object, having internal electro-gravitic composition that creates the greater gravitational object. There are source materials that are electro-gravitic, and these materials are the true source of gravity - and they are multiple and varied. These electrogravitic materials have internal graviton cores - the actual source of gravity, and any outward manifesting energies and forces. The EG electron and EG positron have these graviton cores inside their existence, and their higher muon and tau objects.
Restated - large gravitational objects, having internal electro-gravitic compositions display these gravitational force fields and gravity force field sphere within the multiple compacted space-time fabrics.
These various EG particulates and particles with smaller and larger energies, have their own velocities across space-time ... and are affected (or not !) by other gravitational objects in their vicinity. Thus, these EG compositions do have variable velocity (not to be stated as variable light speed).
If inertia in an accelerated system and gravity are equivalent, the earth is accelerating outwards in all directions simultaneously?
No. It is just a locally equivalent description.
But, how can we be sure about the size of the universe?
If matter cannot accelerate to c, can antimatter decelerate to c?
antimatter is slower than c as well.
@@TheMachian I knew you would say that. It is just a "thought experiment" of mine. My obvious question is, "How do you know." (Don't answer that.) Thank you very much.
@@TheMachian Even though quantum theory says that everything that can happen has happened, must happen, will happen. Quantum theory wants to have infinite universes with infinite dimensions. Why not an antimatter universe / dimension on the other side of c?
Guten Tag. Erst einmal Danke, die Kritik finde ich anregend und wichtig, kritisch zu bleiben. Und die Wissenschaftsgemeinde sollte sich über Kritiker und Skeptiker freuen, die rational argumentieren wollen. Wie es ja auch mit Ihrem kritischen Buch 2010 durchaus gelang.
Daher widerspreche ich nur ungern (und habe es an anderer Stelle wohl schon früher getan) :
Die Konstanz der Lichtgeschwindigkeit ist nur ein Postulat im Umfeld der SRT, welche im Kern das alte Relativitätsprinzip aufgreift, dass Objekte mit konstanter Geschwindigkeit keine Kraft erfahren. Im Alltag ahnen wir von der Richtigkeit dieses Prinzips etwas, wenn ein Zug oder Auto mit konstanter Geschwindigkeit fährt. Im Inneren können wir so agieren als würden wir im stillstehenden Auto oder Zug agieren. - Mit der ART, welche nach einer Formelwelt sucht, die über die spezielle Situation der konstanten Geschwindigkeit hinausgeht, wird die konstante Lichtgeschwindigkeit ganz offiziell zum Grenzwert bei Beschleunigung = 0. Bei jeder Art von Beschleunigung - ob als Beschleunigung eines Objektes oder dem "Fallen" eines Objektes in einem Gravitationsfeld, wie der Aufenthalt auf der Erdoberfläche dies repräsentiert - ist bei den Fachleuten auf dem Gebiet der Relativitätstheorie ja bekannt, dass das Postulat einer konstanten Lichtgeschwindigkeit nicht mehr so absolut gesprochen werden kann. Je stärker das Gravitationsfeld, desto stärker die Summe der Abweichungen der Auswirkungen auf die Lichtgeschwindigkeit. Der Streit kommt erst ins Spiel, wenn man quasi im Gravitationsfeld jeden einzelnen Abstand zur Erdoberfläche (Beispiel) als Raum mit invarianten Gesetzmäßigkeiten nach Einstein denken lässt (Denkgebäude aufbauend auf der SRT), was aber freilich eher akademischer Natur ist, denn der Kopf ist nun einmal faktisch in einer leicht anderen Gravitationsfeld-Intensität verortet als die Füße, das macht das "Fallen" des Gesamtobjekts Mensch im Gravitationsfeld der Erdoberfläche aus.
Unglücklich ist aus meiner Sicht, dass man die Begrifflichkeiten von Minkowski aus den Gedanken zur SRT (1908?) auf die Entdeckung der Feldhaftigkeit der Gravitation bzw. des Raums im Sinne von Bernhard Riemann übertrug und weiterhin von "Zeit" als vierte Dimension redete, obwohl man es hätte besser wissen können, dass zum Feld eben Begrifflichkeiten gehören, die über Intensitäten sprechen. Damit wurde aus meinem aktuellen Kenntnisstand leider der Begriff der Raum-Zeit versäumt, gegen ein Sprechen von Raum-Dichte / Raum-Intensität zu tauschen. Aber in den mathematischen Formeln ahnt es der Physiker wohl, wenn er mit Tensoren arbeitet. Der Begriff kam von Hamilton beim Arbeiten mit der Vierdimensionalität.
Und vermutlich passt die Sichtweise auf die innere Spannung in einem Material wohl schon gut, wie es ein Spannungstensor intendiert. Bei der Art und Weise, wie sich Licht ausbreitet, gab es schon früh Überlegungen, welche von Transversalwellen in einem sehr harten Medium sprachen. Wenn also der Raum mit einer Spannung / Dichte / Intensität physikalisch ausgestattet sei, dann erübrigt sich nach meinem Dafürhalten, in die philosophischen Spekulationen über das Wesen der "Zeit" einzutauschen. Es ist mir als Laie ein Rätsel, warum die theoretischen Physiker diese Änderung in der Sprache (wider besseren Wissens?) nicht durchgeführt haben. Nur, um den Sprachgebrauch seit 1914 nicht ändern zu müssen? Jedenfalls mit dem Sprechen von Zeit als vierte Dimension wurde die Sache nur verkompliziert und sorgt noch 100 Jahre später für Verwirrungen und Widerstände bei abgehängten Physikern, Philosophen und Laien-Philosophen wie mich.
Dazu: ua-cam.com/video/TDjgQ_megMI/v-deo.html&lc=UgwGVD4JXB8AOllCBwx4AaABAg
@@TheMachian
Danke! - Verstehe ich Sie richtig, dass eine variable Lichtgeschwindigkeit irgendwie die Gravitation (ohne Feld-Interpretation im Sinne B. Riemann) erklären könne?
I don't think gravity is a constant. I think it is variable, depending on mass and location. That would be a much simpler explanation for the motions of spiral galaxies than inventing imaginary dark matter and imaginary dark energy to explain why the observation of gravitational movements are not constant with the observed masses.
I agree that G is determined by the mass distribution rather than being a constant. However, I do not see yet a really good (i,e, quantitative) DM explanation on this road. Maybe it is possible.
@@TheMachian I think a good start would be throwing out all of Einstein's assumptions and then taking a good, long, objective look at the raw data.
The risk with thought experiments is that you can overthink them!
What are the results of doing a real experiment with (a) a bucket of ball bearings, (b) a bucket of sand (c) a bucket of mercury, (d) a bucket of high density liquid, ((e) a bucket of low density liquid, (e) a bucket of smoke? I am guessing that you will only see a curved surface if you spin a bucket containing a liquid with some viscosity and frictional forces exerted from the walls of the bucket. If I had access to a lab I would do the experiment.
In my thought experiment I am a molecule in a liquid, a tiny spherical object that can travel only in straight lines in between the elastic collisions I make with other molecules in the liquid or with the walls of Newton’s bucket. At rest, in the bulk of the liquid I randomly jiggle around within a small volume, jostled by the movements of the molecules that surround me. When the bulk liquid is put into a rotating motion the molecules in the centre acquire less kinetic energy than those at the rim. Some of that KE at the rim, transmitted to the molecules near the surface, exerts a net upward force on those molecules. There is little countervailing force from the molecules in the atmosphere above the surface. The liquid at the rim rises up until its gravitational potential energy balances the excess kinetic energy coming from below. The effect diminishes towards the centre of the bucket. I, as a little molecule, am completely unaware and indifferent to any effect from the wider universe. I am only subject to the effects of viscosity and friction in my surroundings.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
What if Earth starts to accelerate crazily and I am at the equator and suddenly weight less?
Another way to think about constants is accept them as inevitabilities that not even creator can choose. For example, with other things being equal, if you are the only dishonest player at the table you will win. This logical inevitability can be described mathematically and resolved to the constant, which we can call - cheating constant - CC. It was not chosen, it was not random and not even Almighty can create a world which would work differently. This is where I agree with Einstein that something is missing. The fundamental constant is a presentation of inevitability that we do not understand or dont even know and that is the most interesting part not what, by why. Why will be truly fundamental.
It seems to me that "inevitability" is just another name for god. Why is 6.67 inevitable and 5.23 not?
@@TheMachian It can only be 6.67 because the cheater always wins in my example. The value - 6.67 is a random artificial construct a reflection of a non-random inevitable outcome.
Or, say, every year so many people have a car accident. It can be expressed as a number, which will be very reproducible if the sample is large enough. The number will be random, but it is not chosen and is an expression of inevitability - certain behavior of people etc
Equivalents to Euler's e-Pi-i, such as Flashed inside-outside holographic sync-duration modulo packaging measures @.dt 1-0-infinity probability of i-reflection Superspin Superposition-point Singularity Perspective Principle, Newtonian Fluxion-Integral superposition of log-antilog density-intensity probability and resonance i-inflation functional distribution.., etc, makes a Bose-Einsteinian Quantum-fields Mechanism Holographic Principle Universe that Corresponds to Mach's Principle, from all possible aspect angles of Observable Logarithmic Time, instantaneous Relativity ratio-rates, timing-phase spacing pure-math ONE-INFINITY.
...0-1-2-ness transverse trancendental GD&P image-imagination thought experiments.
"Unlearning" the chaos of normal living "Perturbation" is why unforced alignment with your personal identity at zero-zero meditation states (like Swami Sarvapriyananda"s lectures postulate), means practising Disproof, ie what is left to your attention, thinking fast and slow, when you are on the edge of sleeping, so that it possible to know what you "are" Awake.
Otherwise the current versions of Mach's Principle are relatively misunderstood non sense.
No motion point positioning of the Universal macro Black-body axial-tangential=> horizon or horizontal depending on orientation to vanishing limits, ..the Echo-chamber of Empty Space, and micro position point vanishing-into-no-thing Perspective, is "unimaginable" in UHF trancendence, because NO motion = solid-relative phase-locked coherence-cohesion spacing.
(It's [ONE-INFINITY, +/-, 0] no Boundaries)? How can any phenomena be understood except by relative-timing pulse-evolution at Absolute Zero reference-framing containment e-Pi-i, flash-recognition, infinitesimally, ie putting the Universe in condensed picture-plane projection-drawing Actuality coherence-cohesion sync-duration perspectives.
There's no new news only new angles and general time-timing Q-chem resonance patterns in chaos.
This is what it is intended to mean by "open mindedness".
If this was true, wouldn't the expansion of space cause an apparent change in G? I.e. cosmological redshift could be explained by a changing value for G.
I will discuss that in further videos.
Moszkowski as Polish name can be pronounced like English 'Moshkovski' (Polish 'sz' = English 'sh'). But I do not know how he called himself.
Thanks.
I still can't believe the Plasma Electric Universe is true, but here we are. We're in The Simulation, boys.
by using geometrodynamic units
When you admit to the existence of sub-quantum particulates having EG properties, you must admit that smaller energetic and smaller velocity objects can be gravitationally captures and orbit around their gravitational captor.
Put this into context when talking about the stars (our sun) and the (said) composition of the inner sun, PHOTOsphere, chromosphere, and the corona. If you have smaller velocities of photinos and photons they are gravitationally captured or manufactured from the stellar engine. They can't escape, but they can glow and shine - as they are light particles. Where would you find those captured object. Duh ! - in the PHOTOsphere, and the chromosphere as all of the granular surface features on the sun's surface !
When looking at a black hole (black body radiation) and the event horizon "that glows," the black hole engine tearing apart matter into its primal constituents, and thrusting out white hole emissions of all kinds of primal and composite electro-static and electro-gravitic sub-quantum particulates and quantum particles, other (EG-EG) particulates of photinos would still remain captured around the object, within the event horizon, and the very reason for "its glow."
When you put this together and solve solar questions and problems, you gain truth and insight. You also see the same processes with black holes. Only allowing for photons with light speed, gravitational lensing, and escape velocity, then how do you account for all of the "light" of the sun, not being total radiation versus particulates and particles. There must be particulates that remain, while particles fly off, and other radiations of gamma, beta, alpha, UVA/B, and the entire (bad word) electromagnetic spectrum is being spewed across space-time.
The Aether exists with these sub-quantum particulates, as well as all the higher particles in the physical matter universe.