Added: 4 years ago
From: Balphaus
Views: 119,944
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (274)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • those lines go straight to the core of the sphere. not around it. nice vid otherwise.

  • What's space? Why would massive objects bend the 'fabric of space'? Let's talk about cause and effect if we want real science and stop guessing.

  • Are you saying it's the fault of space-time bends that cause large masses to be spherical? I always figured gravity was the reason objects become round when they get really big.  If I'm misunderstanding something here, let me know. Cool video!

  • I understood it. pretty cool... but for some reson I'm not so sure if it's accurate.

  • You ended up with a sphere because you chose to draw your bends symmetrically around a point. This has more to do with Cartesian geometry than gravity.

  • @kokopelli314 i agree

  • cool

  • mathematics fail.

  • Try doing this with a black hole, which has its mass compressed to a singularity. Sweeping this around would have the singularity go to infinity every direction in space. So it has its mass compressed to a singularity and is also omnipresent?

  • @MarcelDykstra sweeping round it would not go to infinity because even if the density is infinite, the mass is finite.

  • @Xaiano That’s true. The finite mass is compressed to a singularity in space-time curvature (bending), so density will be a singularity too. But it’s the bending of space-time, being swept around in this video. It does not make a whole lot of sense to me.

  • @Xaiano But don't things bend space more the more dense they get? (I'm not arguing. I really don't know.) I just remember hearing somewhere that if you compressed the earth to the size of a marble (or maybe it was a pinhead), it would be like a black hole.

  • good video. i think he should re-do it with the "bend" being more of a direct pinpoint at the bottom of the well. so it pulls to a single center of gravity like actual spacetime curvature works. then overlay the earth onto that

  • An object falling to earth wont follow those lines you have drawen, this is fail!

  • @Typho0n86

    That's because you misunderstood the video.

  • @MHGenesis Thats because the video is wrong

  • great video man, congratulations

    this explains a lot, by beginning from a simple ''bend'' all the way to earth

  • ...im just...confused ._.

    IM ONLY IN 8TH GRADE D:

  • @longbongotimee yes it does. it exactly what Einstein said: matter en energy are interchangeable. E=mc². energy is not something that's "in" matter

  • when I look at this drawing I think of light, space, time, sound or vibration, magnetism. the drawing is similar to a bunch of toning forks joined together. the vibrations of time and space meeting at a point gives of different sounds or vibrations that can attract or repel similar vibrations. hence the different planets at different planes of time.

  • ....O_o I don't get it

  • @Lifex0xDeath space and gravity are physical bends in the universe. giving it a physicle shape. unimajinable to our brain. supposibly

  • @tisilwm i still dont get it

  • @Lifex0xDeath @tisilwm @supermantahoo @tiye777 Look, all of you. Space/time doesn't bend AROUND something. It bends TOWARDS something. This video is build on false science, that will only make normal people break their brains over figuring it out. There is however a very easy way for (normal) humans to grasp the idea of how it works. Look: watch?v=DbhuRcmSkMg It explains in 3d, how it really works. Mute the sound though.
  • @Yezpahr does this video look scientific and meant to be for ppl with the iq of eienstien?

    so next time you comment "eienstien" check the simplicity of the video first genius

  • @LightDarkNinja

    Dude, check what I actually said in my post, without reading only the first sentence.

    It makes you look very stupid, since you don't take time to fully read and understand what I said.

  • @Yezpahr i think you made yourself look stupid coz what i meant to say was this video is simple and actually makes non eienstiens actually think of something

  • @LightDarkNinja

    I know that simple people will think they'll understand it, after seeing 45 seconds of 2D.

    But this simple lay-out of some 2D platform is like a shoe around growing feet.

    It prevents people from developing sense about how it truly works.

    There is this 2D shape that will cause people to stop thinking. They cannot answer new questions with this 2D shape and thus are dumbed down.

    Just watch the video I suggested in my first post, you'll see the difference yourself.

    v=DbhuRcmSkMg

  • @Yezpahr dude i can understand you point, but to me the trampoline thing makes much more sense it just shows how orbiting things works not exactly everything and how all matter comes to stay in earth.

    --

    A non-Eienstien person

    P.S can i call you eienstien? i mean... no offense but yeah

  • @LightDarkNinja

    Well, if this model works for you, then don't sweat it.

    Just know the difference between "around" and "towards".

    We got an atmosphere on our planet, which will increase our speed when we fall from the top layer to the bottom layer.

    That is gravity, it pulls towards the middle.

    On the trampoline model, nothing can reach the middle.

    The trampoline model works only if you'd picture the heavy object beneath the trampoline.

    That's how it should have been introduced to the public.

  • @Yezpahr but can i call you eienstien?

  • @LightDarkNinja

    lol, no problem

  • @tisilwm what isnt there to get. mass attracts other mass. due to the gravitational force. THE GRAVITATIONAL FORCE , try picturing it in the fabric of space and time

  • Grate video. I think is a logical conclusion.

  • I like this video it makes you think, but i think gravity can never be fully understood. However i think many are mistaken, we try to visualise gravity in 3D, when infact, there are more dimensions than that, we live in 4D, (taking into consideration time) and we can only see 3D, does not necessarily mean gravity must be visualised in 3D, since its only what we can perceive, but infact it is true, we can never visualise gravity in 3D, because infact you will need to see more dimensions

  • Wow, this is complete nonsense. With a similar sequence someone could probably prove that the universe begins with a longcat

  • So ur saying that a bend in space time is prObably the cause for gravity?

  • ...so maybe it's not the solid objects that create gravity/bend spacetime, but gravity/spacetime curve that "creates" (or manifests itself as) solid object, if strong/big enough? or there really is no difference in those two possibilities, in the spirit of e=mc^2 ... interesting idea, thank you for creating this animation to inspire that in me.

  • @MidnightSt could you please explain the link between no difference in those two possibilities and e = mc^2?

  • @Rboysblaster well, as I understand it, e = mc^2 basically states that mass is a form of energy/energy is a form of mass/they are interchangeable. so you can't tell which one is "the original" one, it's just one thing in two forms depending on other circumstances. in the same way, gravity (spacetime bend) being caused by mass, or mass being a manifestation of gravity (spacetime bend) could be one thing, and you really can't sepparate which is "first"/which is really (being) caused by which?

  • @MidnightSt I think you cannot state that energy is a form of mass; I don't know if you are familiar with the difference between implications and bi-implications? you can't really use that sign but just the idea of 'this thing means that, but still, you can't just twist it' can be used

    I think you can't say energy is a form of mass but maybe I am just wrong

  • @MidnightSt mass is in no way interchangeable with energy. all mass, however, contains energy.

  • that's pretty cool. Now make it for a little less than infinite gravity surface and then propogate them in the lead direction of travel and you have the methods for an alien spaceship travelling even in the vaccuum of space. Have a wonderful day!

  • @mrblazen8 We're sorry you don't have enough background in basic physics to even ask the question that this video answers.

    In physics, we are often shown a cross-section of gravity depicted as a curve. You do realize that it takes an infinite number of cross sections to draw a 3-dimensional object, don't you?

    This video merely demonstrates that a two-dimensional cross section of a single plane being deformed by gravity can be drawn an infinite number of times to approximate a sphere.

    Get it?

  • Comment removed

  • You forgot that gravity has no shape, depending on were the object is a how much mass it has changes the shape of gravity

  • Since centrifugal force pushes, such as on a spinning sphere... why does gravity pull?

  • @BornAgainEngineer Actually, centrifugal force is not a real force; it is an illusion of a force. It is centripetal force, which is the tension between the inside and outside of the spinning object. The outside is merely trying to go in a straight line while constantly being pulled by the tension of whatever is holding it to the center. If released, it is free to move in a straight line.

    Gravity is not the result of spinning; it is what happens to space when any mass is in it.

  • I suddenly, understand everything.

  • gravity are parts of a 4d object emerging into our 3d world.

  • The people that don't understand this are idiots. The people that do understand it but are calling the guy stupid are even bigger idiots. The creator never said this video was genius. It just shows a simple thing for anyone who wants to see it to see.

  • 23 views out of 100k NYAN NYA NYAN NYAN NYAN NYAN NYAN NYAN NYAN NYAN NYAN NYAN NYAN NYAN NYAN NYAN NYAN NYAN

  • NYAN NYAN NYAN NYAN NYAN NYAN NYAN HNYAN NYAN NHYAN NYAN NYAN

  • @Joniboy2012 4th dimension is not time moron.

  • @Bulbalish i don't think johniboy has any idea what he is talking about

  • Comment removed

  • Comment removed

  • things that alter time is 4dimensional because the 4th dimension is time. So black holes suck time away, so black holes are 4 dimensional objects that are in our universe, or mabye portals

  • @Joniboy2012 Where the f*#% do you get your information??? Anyway, apart from that simpleton, this is a great video, and I do appreciate how Balphaus has rendered something like this, and it really does make me want to think about gravity in a different way. All the morons who can't appreciate this video can go f@$% themselves. Honestly, some a@#holes think that they know everything, and spend their days trolling good vids like this. Makes me sick.

  • @Joniboy2012 rofl

  • black holes are 4 dimensional because they can alter time, and they suck time. anything that affects time is 4d, a time machine would be considered 4d. so yeah

  • @Joniboy2012 you fucking moron. go take some actual physics classes instead of using /sci/ for research

  • @ThatOneCakePerson omgg :( im taking physics but we dont learn about dis stuff, .... but ya, i researched and like, 1d things cant affect 2d, but 2d things can affect 1d. 3d things can affect 2d and 1d, b ut the 1d and 2d cant affect 3d kuz it 3d has more dimensions. 4d is time, so we (3d) cant affect time (4d) soo yeah (: 4d ppl hav time machines or something idk, and black hole sucks time, so it can affect time, so its 4d? (: <3

  • @Joniboy2012 what?

  • Funny, if you would draw the effect for a black hole the same way you would get an inverted globe going outwards instead of going in..

  • black holes are 4 dimensional..

  • @Joniboy2012 black holes are not 4 dimensional.

  • maybe black holes lead to a higher dimensional realm i.e. the multiverse.

  • I see you're getting criticism, but if nothing else it explains why objects in space are spherical in shape. That in my mind makes it valid.

  • Good beginning is so forth telling gravity pulling down the space time and the appearance of an axon and or double helix, now if you were to invert small matters of light and nuclei creation of an entity is highly possible. So to create life force did we actually need gravity? Could science encapsulate energy from the sun and transfer the energy elsewhere to say Uranus just enough to jolt the planet into a cosmic evolution inciting an atmosphere and with the science of gravity life appear.

  • Dude.... the universe.. xD

  • Good video, but somebody should explain/narrate it (not for me, but for other "non-science people")

  • excellent video.

  • i couldnt understand any of this !

  • @ sukassman

    Say, i dont remember asking you for your assessment. YOU would be stupid to believe i needed your quick and shoddy explanation of this video. I understand you wanna squeeze in and sound intelligent online, but let me comment in peace. Oh, and while i'm here, again, i think i might as well comment, again: This video is way cool, but i'd put more emphasis on the part about gravity, some people thinks its none other than a 3d circle.

  • Finally! I keep telling people that gravity is not some funnel created by the dipping of some 2d blanket of space/time, like those warped grid diagrams made so popular by s. Hawking.

    Your diagram looks to be spot on! And in 3d! Five stars all around!

  • @HYPRKLSTRKMPLX: of course gravity is not "some funnel created by the dipping of some 2d blanket of space/time". You would be stupid to believe it was. All it is is a simplistic analogy for what really goes on. Its like a simple example for something more complex, to help you understand the more complex model. This video on the other hand does nothing other than show that a sphere is the 3d equivalent of a circle.

  • Im scared

  • Congratulations, you whiners have made your point. The person who made this video took some actual time and effort to do this video, to try to make people actually think about something for once. All you do is drown in your own cynicism thinking you can do a better job than everyone else.

  • @CarlosMarti123

    "actual time and effort to do this video?" this can be easily done by qwopy-pasting in photoshop..

    jk.. just trolling with you =P

    i like this kinds of illusions.. remind me when i was a kid playing with lots of lines to create weird things..

  • "bend space" is only a representation of the reality, not the reality itself !

  • F*CK YOU GRAVITY!

  • actually the best way to imagine gravity is with 4 dimensions.

    time slows very slightly in the presense of matter

    when you get a planet (decent a mount of mass) it actually travels through time slower than other objects around it. when the earth "pulls" you at 9.8 m/s/s you are really "catching up" to earth in time because it travels 9.8m/s/s slower through time

    -Terence Watson Theory

  • TheAdam5100

    1 week ago @psycholian @Roobydo Why would you be so negative about this kind of video, the person is trying to figure stuff out for themselves, and may even encourage other people to think about the subject in a different way,, would you fuckos like the video more if someone got hit in the nuts, or if the dude dropped mentos into diet coke?

    right on, those other people are only embarrassed because they have small weiners

  • @psycholian @Roobydo Why would you be so negative about this kind of video, the person is trying to figure stuff out for themselves, and may even encourage other people to think about the subject in a different way,, would you fuckos like the video more if someone got hit in the nuts, or if the dude dropped mentos into diet coke?

  • @TheAdam5100

    to tell you the truth, id probably watch the dude get hit in the nuts.

  • @psycholian @Roobydo Why would you be so negative about this kind of video, the person is trying to figure stuff out for themselves, and may even encourage other people to think about the subject in a different way,, would you fuckos like the video more if someone got hit in the nuts, or if the dude dropped mentos into diet coke?

  • Oh sure, you can all bad mouth turning 2D into 3D because we can all comprehend 3D. BUT, answer this if you can -

    Are the bends caused because planets are round, or are planets round because of the bends?

  • @AniDex

    The planets are round because of gravity. You're thinking is good, but its too abstracted. Matter will always "fall" towards the strongest gravitational source. To put it simply, a planet is round for the same reason that the water in the deep end of a swimming pool is at the same level as that at the shallow end.

  • the prob with vids like this is that some genius know-it-alls will fail to appreciate the simplicity of the vid and the fact that it's just intended to make non-science people think about gravity in a different way

  • @DestinyQx I wish I could just like your comment a thousand times to get those snide, sarcastic remarks off the "highest rated" section. That's the whole point, but Egos need to make themselves known. Science is supposed to be about discovering beauty, not showing off your proverbial penis.

  • @FireFox1914 ha! that's funny :) i teach things like this to students, and EVERYONE is excited afterwards, half the time my explanations contradict what i said to someone else, like for example: at times, the value of a lesson is inversely proportional to how close one is to their instructor

  • @DestinyQx LOL! Yeah, I guess that's why students' grades usually go down the further back in the room they sit, which is, of course, inversely related to how "cool" they claim to be. :-P

  • That got my head spinning

  • dark energy/dark matter

  • o.O i always wonder about this.......

  • 1. have a 3d grid.

    2. add a "pinch" modifier inside the grid.

    3. voila, 3d spacebending, visualised.

  • I think you created a black hole before the planet was born. :D

  • Congratulations, you have drawn lines, on paper. Someone get this man a Nobel Prize.

  • @TopGun904 he's just showing space time in a three D sense to help people understand it better, wtf's your sarcastic problem for?

  • @cabot2jville2010 Space is a boundless 3D extent... And what you have told me, "showing space time" you cannot draw space, and time is a sense of thought, again from what you have told me, "showing space time", time is a nonspatial continuum, for most people, like I said before, a sense of how long or short something is, and you cannot draw time. (Drawing clocks do not count, :D)

  • Gravity != planet.

  • @andurilfromnarsil gravity=mass

  • But imagine how distorted the space time lines would be if there was a super-dense object such as a neutron star, or a theoretical black hole..

  • This isn't even right. You can imagine space bending like this: consider the same "dish" model when stars lie in the space like in the pit. Then you put a ball near that star and the ball eventually rides to the center of the pit. Then considear reality - you put a ball anywhere around the sun (in 3 dimensions) ant it will always fall to the star as to the pit. That's space bending, not some lame line redrawings.

  • i am not understanding the symmetry that must be involved for a sphere to still be a sphere in curved space. can some one please explain to some one just starting to look into this sort of thing?

  • Ahh I always wondered what it was on front of the god delusion book

  • @lukeraynor85

    I didn't know you had hard proof that life and the universe wasn't created by God. Would you care to share it and end the whole debate and controversy once and for all??

  • @AlexBrasil123123 wasn't??? ha. you're an idiot. do you have hard proof that i'm not a giant hamster? no? well i must be then...

  • @lukeraynor85

    ummm......yea.....still waiting for your proof. say what you want about me, I'm not the one here talking crap and making bold, definitive statements about how the universe came about. go ahead....I'm still waiting. If you have no hard proof, then don't talk crap.

  • @lukeraynor85

    idiot.....stop listening to talking heads like Bill Maher and your dumb idiot friends who talk out of their asses and go educate yourself on the matter.

  • @AlexBrasil123123 i talk crap about the cunts who claim to speak on all knowing creators behalf...people like you. fool.

  • @lukeraynor85

    not once in any of my comments have I claimed anything. I never even told you if I believed in God or not, dumb ass. All I said is that you sounded pretty sure and difinitive in your smart ass comments about creationism, so, you must have some solid evidence to have brought you to that. So, where is it??

  • @lukeraynor85

    if you have no proof to back your statements, then just do the world a favor, shut the fuck up and keep your self-created philosophies on life and the universe to your mentally challenged self. Lay off the crack, man. Get a girl!

  • @lukeraynor85

    have you researched the effects of crack, heroin, and alcohol on the human brain?? look into it man and stop your habits. It's really destroying your brain. There's other ways to have fun, man. You don't need the drugs. Lay off the crack, dude, lol.

  • @lukeraynor85

    right......oh yea? I spoke here as if I'm talking on God's behalf? I can't find any comments of mine here that do such a thing, so, if you find one, let me know cuz I'd love to read it.

    now, are you done being a girly little bitch because I'm getting tired of wasting my time with a douche bag like yourself.

  • @AlexBrasil123123 i think you guys should make out

  • @SIRA063

    I think you should get on your knees and lick my balls and shaft.

  • @AlexBrasil123123 LOL at all your comments. thanks for taking the time out to write so many during your busy lifestyle. i don't need to show people you're a cunt, you do it yourself.

  • @lukeraynor85

    oooh, nice comeback. you called me "cunt" for the 300th time. how original. it was ALMOST funny this time around................NOT. 

    From the way you like to say "cunt" a lot, I'm starting to think maybe you have one. Now go finger yourself, little bitch.

  • @AlexBrasil123123 i do have one.. in the form of a girlfriend...you daft cunt :). go and think about how it feels to kiss a girl. on second thoughts, you better not, jesus wouldn't approve of that now would he.. be a good little boy.

  • @lukeraynor85 u lie u aint got a girl and dude stop sayin cunt im wit alex u say it in every damn comment learn a new word and another thing stfu on god and crap u have no proof of wat your sayin so until u have proof stfu and go fuck your "girlfriend i.e your hand or a blow up or watever da fuck u use

  • @hopkidokid LMFAO

  • @lukeraynor85 yeah im with alex seeing as he actually has a point in what he says. you just like saying cunt, which isn't much of anything at all except maybe your life story.

  • @Srlancelot39 you jesus loving retards are all the same, so i wouldn't expect anything less from you.

  • @lukeraynor85 lol idiot i rest my case

  • @Srlancelot39 soooo. you've proven my point. okaaaaay? lol

  • @lukeraynor85 assuming yuor point was that you're a retard, yes, i have proven it.

  • @Srlancelot39 you have to spell it right first..silly moo :)

  • @lukeraynor85 what do cows have to do with gravity?

  • duhh -__-

  • does this mean that there is no space and time in side an object that has gravity?

  • Big flaw in this animation: gravity bends space towards the object, not around it. Use a grid of straight lines, and bend them towards the centre of the planet.

  • @maksphoto78 gravity bends space INTO the object, not towards or around it.

  • Your entire purpose of proofs was discard when you drew a CIRCLE around the conjoining lines containing the "point"

    *rendering this video "pointless"*

    nice animation though

  • You're summing tangential trajectories. Instead of vector fields, I picture gravity as more of a cloud that gets foggier as you move from the outside to the center. The resulting gradient between two nearby points establishes an acceleration as well as direction.

  • relatively you can suck his cock! I mean, guy (or girl) made an amazing video :D That's for sureeee :DDD

  • Wow, you proved that something round in two dimensions is spherical in three! Someone call the Nobel Committee...

  • Oh, and the effect of matter on the curvature of space time is parabolic, so it wouldn't look like your nice little half circle anyway.

  • @Roobydo

    there isnt something like "2-dimensional room" in physics, so he can only get the fields medal for his mathematical masterpiece :)

  • @Roobydo well obama got a nobel prize for nothing, so can this kid.

  • Orbits occur in a plane because there are two relevant forces. Gravity describes a vector pointing from the planet towards the star. Momentum describes a vector pointing from the planet in a different direction towards where the planet would go in a straight line. Two vectors describe a plane. If a third force were acting, as is sometimes the case, the orbit might be less planar.

    In three dimensions, the planet takes a great circle around the gravitational sphere of the star.

  • yeah.. we will see a lot of videos like this.. the thing is.. the people that make them.. are not the ones that youll expect.. times as we know are about to change.. thank god for the internet...

  • this is ok but what about the dimension? Whats the dimension gravity is from? Or what dimension can it be conprehended fully?

  • The dimensional units of gravity are mass, meters, and seconds..

  • Why are the line going around the sphere? Shouldn't the lines go towards the center?

  • Yes, the artist has drawn this wrong. The lower vertexes of the dips should be touching, not the empty space in the middle.

  • Yes, the lines should be parabolas with their vertex at the center, if the planet is not in motion relative to the observer.

  • not really. it'd be ~ 1/x for regions far away from the planet and ~ -x^2 for regions within the planet.

  • fucking nerds when i read your comments they make no sense

  • You're dumb, so what?

  • Exactly <3

  • ε> I really respect the cool way you reacted. Cheers & peace.

  • Aww well thank you! We need more people like you in this world.

  • Nice manipulation technique.your in control

  • Are you starting with a parabola? If not, please repeat experiment.

    "The potential function has a hyperbolic cross section.." -Wikipedia, Gravitioal Wells

  • there is no need to repeat anything. even though rotating a parabola around its focus would still produce a circle, hyperbolic does NOT correlate with a parabola, parabolic does. hyperbolic means you would use a hyperbola. plus if you would have payed attention to the article you would have seen that the figure used in this is very, very similar to one used in the article. nice try though.

  • How "fast" is the earth already revolving around the sun? So the earth is already zipping along at thousands of miles per hour around the sun. Then you have this little GPS satellite orbiting the earth. Well, relative to the path of the earth as it moves through space around the sun, that satellite could easily be advancing forward and then retreating as it orbits the earth. This would mean its "speed" is increasing and decreasing and thus time would be speeding up and slowing down!

  • Thopter, I don't know if I'm missing your point completely, but for relativistic reasons, satellites that have to calculate positions and speeds with a certain precision, such as gps, have to continually correct their computations

  • Relative to any position, the satellite's clock runs slowest when it is directly retreating from that position. The clock seems to run fastest as it approaches that position. When it is neither retreating nor approaching, time passes normally.

  • When the battery of a clock here on earth runs down and the clock starts to slow this too has nothing to do with "time".

  • The earth would be moving faster than the "stationary" satellite but from an observer on earth the satellite is still orbiting the earth so whose time is going to "flow" faster? The time differences of atomic clocks at different "speeds" proves nothing about time neccessarily. They show relative change and that is all.

    And with clocks on satellites is it the difference in gravity or the so called speed that makes that difference? Either way, it only shows a change of atomic vibration.

  • Evalesco1, "speed" is completely relative to other matter. This is why Eistein's so called ultimate "speed limit of the universe" is also incorrect. Space doesn't care how "fast" a body of mass is moving. Space only cares about acceleration. You mention high "speeds" of GPS satellites. This is also relative ( no pun intended). The earth is already spinning. If a satellite were to "stop" realtive to some other point in space then the earth would be moving "faster" than the satellite.

  • Oh brother....we do not *travel through time*. That is ridiculous. Time is an illusion that the human mind constructs a conception to. "Change" is constant in the universe and change is what creates the illusion of time. If there were no matter at all in this thing we call "spacetime" there would be no time.

    Space can easily exist without "time". But we're "traveling through" time? I don't think so.

  • You're correct. Shame that it's liable to go right over many people's heads.

  • While I wish you were right (because your view is the most logical and philosophically pleasing) you are not. Einstein's theory, that stipulates that time is not just a word humans have attached the notion of change but it is an abstraction in itself, entwined with space , has been proven correct experimentally. Clocks on GPS satelites must be marginally corrected each day, since time flows slightly slower at thier high speeds than on Earth. His equations work - sorry.

  • ofcorse you ended with a closed circle..if you were adding infinite ammount of lines...you will see no merge damn