if we are on a trampoline, earth's gravity is holding us down. just like a trampoline, there is space. but what is holding planets down in that dip? and not just let it roll out? check my video responce if your confused by my question plz :)
In whatever business thou mayest be, and whatever portion thou mayest be reciting from the Qur'an,- and whatever deed ye (mankind) may be doing,- We are witnesses thereof when ye are deeply engrossed therein. Nor is hidden from thy Lord (so much as) the weight of an atom on the earth or in heaven. And not the least and not the greatest of these things but are recorded in a clear record.Qur'an:10-61.By the Sky with (its) numerous Paths,Qur'an 51:07
If there is no up or down in space, no absolute point of reference, in what way does it make sense to talk about a "fabric" of spacetime? If gravity is merely falling into the depression caused by mass, then why don't people fall off the bottom of the world?? Seriously.
@gustjorodedheo Because the visual representation is only shown on one plane... but the idea is that mass depresses the fabric at every possible angle simultaneously.
@gustjorodedheo I don't know.. I'm not saying I agree with the theory because as far as I'm concerned it has a massive flaw, but I'm just answering your question as to why nothing would fall off the bottom - because the theory doesn't imply a bottom.
@gustjorodedheo When we talk about things "falling down" it is a matter of perspective. "Down" on earth actually means towards the centre of the earth. Down at the north pole is in the opposite direction to down in the south pole.
Objects with mass warp spacetime in towards themselves, so they essentially are "curved" in towards the mass. You can't think of curvature in the two dimensions shown in most demonstrations, but in three dimensions.
@gustjorodedheo The typical "ball on a sheet" demonstration of gravity is fundamentally flawed because without gravity it wouldn't fall "down" into the sheet.
Unfortunately it is very difficult to demonstrate three dimensional effects on a two dimensional image (your computer screen). All particles with mass have gravity, including yourself. But gravity is an extremely weak force so only really has any effect at huge masses.
In Newton's equation, acceleration due to gravity is used to define gravity or 'weight' of a mass on earth. By releasing his equation from the constant of 'g' (acceleration due to gravity) to the hypothetical variable of 'a' (acceleration of mass) he uncovered the value of force defined in Newtons (the net force required to accelerate a 1kg mass at a rate of 1 meter per second squared. A similar approach to Einstein's constant 'c' (speed of visible light) would unravel many hidden mysteries
Actually the moon is falling "around" the Earth, and similarly the Earth is perpetually "falling" around the sun.....but as they "fall" downward..... they also travel forward, thus they are actually falling around their respective bodies, but is not close enough to land. Anything going into orbit around the Earth, like those thousands of artificial Earth satellites, are actually caught in a perpetual "fall" around the Earth
i understand that what einstien was saying was not that nothing could surpass the speed of light, but that when light is pushed passed its speed limit, that is where some magic begins to happen. different wave lengths should have different speeds? a very long long wave could be pushed pass the speed of light. so "nothing" can travel faster than the speed of light? light itself should be able to be pushed passed its own speed to create matter?
@DINGLEtheBERRY In Newton's equation, acceleration due to gravity is used to define the 'weight' of a mass. By releasing his equation from the constant of 'g' (acceleration due to gravity) to the hypothetical variable of 'a' (acceleration of mass) he uncovered the value of force defined in Newtons (the net force required to accelerate a 1kg mass at a rate of 1 meter per second squared. A similar approach to Einstein's constant 'c' (speed of visible light) would unravel many hidden mysteries
A few things I have trouble understanding... this supposed "curve" that mass causes in space/time, how does that influence matter to pull toward it? Since here the concept of gravity is being used to explain the concept of gravity. Secondly... why doesn't the earth circle steadily closer toward the sun like a penny would roll toward the centre hole in a charity box? Lastly, how can anything including light even travel from one point to another when any measure of distance and time is infinite?
@Eggfriedmice Actually the moon is falling "around" the Earth, and similarly the Earth is perpetually "falling" around the sun.....but as they "fall" downward..... they also travel forward, thus they are actually falling around their respective bodies, but is not close enough to land. Anything going into orbit around the Earth, like those thousands of artificial Earth satellites, are actually caught in a perpetual "fall" around the Earth
@Eggfriedmice The earth doesn't fall into the sun because all the gravity is really doing is redirecting its momentum in toward itself. Because it is traveling at sufficient speed "sideways" to the sun it essentially "falls" past the sun. Basically, by the time it gets to the point where it would be "inside" the sun it has moved forward enough to miss it... it is a little hard to demonstrate without images haha.
If the earth was not moving, it would fall straight into the sun.
@SeanACampbell I've heard that before and if that's the case, I still find it overwhelmingly convenient that all the planets around all the stars and all the satellites around all those planets are only there because they managed to catch the right trajectory so as they would fall into perpetual orbit. Also, our suns gravity is strong enough so that pluto manages to orbit it (all that way out), yet mercury still isn't close enough to be sucked in unquestioningly? How close would you need to get.
@Eggfriedmice It all has to do with the movement of the objects. Any object traveling fast enough in the direction which is at a 90 degree angle to the direction of acceleration (ie. the direction towards the centre of the object it orbits) will remain in orbit. If its velocity is higher, then it will move away from that object. If the velocity is lower, it will move toward that object (get pulled in).
@Eggfriedmice You also need to understand that planets and their moons are not in a "perfect" orbit - the orbits are degrading in most cases. For example, in the case of the moon, it is moving away from the earth a few centimeters a year.
But a few centimeters on the scale of our solar system is relatively insignificant in the timescales we are talking about. Over the course of millions of years it may be significant, but over the course of the average human life span it would be unnoticeable.
@Eggfriedmice It is simply that because the human life span is so short (80 years) and the period that humans have been inhabiting the earth is so short (around about 100,000 years in their "current" recognizable form), and the fact that we have only been observing the universe for a fraction of that time (at least in a form where we would be able to detect a degrading orbit) we do not notice the slight degradation of orbits.
@Eggfriedmice Now if you consider how many objects are actually successful in remaining in orbit around their stars, you will understand that it is "rare". The solar system is enormous, yet only around 8 large objects (and of course various small objects, dust, minor planets etc) manage to stay in orbit.
And it is not as if there are planets around every star. There are about 350,000,000,000 galaxies in the observable universe, each with hundreds of billions of stars.
@Eggfriedmice At last count, there were around 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in our observable universe.
When you are talking about that kind of scale, then rare things happen all the time. And even the rarest events are bound to happen somewhere in our universe.
This is an invitation to see an artist theory on the physics of light and time!
This theory is based on two postulates
1. Is that the quantum wave particle function Ψ represents the forward passage of time ∆E ∆t ≥ h/2π itself
2. Is that Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle ∆×∆p×≥h/4π that is formed by the w- function is the same uncertainty we have with any future event that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual!
i love einsteins story and i remember the first time i heard about relaitvity and started investigating about it blew me away and thought what a genius einstein was to come up with it
Think of the even greater heights Einstein might have risen to, if only he'd been fortunate enough to be alive today & able to fully immerse himself in modern culture, stimulated by the likes of x factor, stars in their eyes & lady ga ga.
@gregrutz you only speak of the "concept" of time. which is a bean counting tool for beings that measure a certain tic in the motion of the universe. Ours is based on the cesium clock. Where lies this mechanism outside of our concepts for this tic?
@boarding5401 I agree. But is that specific sequence being measured actually real? Or a figment of our psyche needed to organize our motion through the universe?
what i have heard of other people and articles is that newton didn't discover gravity from the apple but from a comet thats directory changed when it came close to the earth and that the apple is a story to simplyfie the theory for the people in that time so they could understand it and sorry for bad english because i am from finland.
@Roulden thanks i generaly live in lappland/northern finland and there quite little snow compared to last year but now at the moment i am visiting relatives in the south and its stormy and rainy . But the wheather forecasters promised snow to the southern parts of finland. HAPPY NEW YEAR IN ADVANCE!! HYVÄÄ UUTTA VUOTTA!! GOTT NYTT ÅR!!!
"All matter consists of individual magnets, and it is the movement of these magnets within material through space that produces measurable phenomena" (Colin Wilson, From Atlantis To The Sphinx).
Are you seeking truth? Search for "Truth Contest" in Google and click the 1st result, then click on "The Present" to open it. What it says will blow your mind.
time is infinite just like space, but in my point of view, time also has a bunch of time bubbles, for example, time on this planet may run faster or slower compared to Pluto, also the time we live now, this moment is 4 dimensional or it transcends the 3dimensional world, what it mean by it, is that this moment is eternal it never ends, it never begins, it exist at the same moment right now as 1 million years ago, it's the same right now and everywhere and at all times.
I forgot as well, if you had a really long metal pole and it was, lets say 4,000,000 km long and you pushed it 1 meter, the energy would transfer instantly to the end beating the light barrier. In other words if you were at the end and your mate was at the beginning and he turned on a flash light and pushed the pole at the same time, you would sense the pole move before you sensed the light.. This is light travelling on light. the secret to the big bang. we are one but many as one,,,
Its like all matter is a bike wheel spinning in your hands, if something stronger bends your arm and the axis of the wheel it goes one way or the other depending on mass and charge, I know atoms have three spinning things in them but they act the same way and one spinny thing is dominant. and weight is centrifugal force locked in, but it all bends and everything floats, They all float get IT.
as pointed out by some already --- they should mention Isaac's secret theory of gravity, they should NOT say he had no idea how it worked -- it involved the exchange of unimaginably fine particulate substance between the objects, the substance was involved in the continuous creation of material, gravity was a result of the dynamics of the process. Not unlike Nick Harvey's Quantum Atom Theory here on youtube. if you consider that Newton's fine particulate substance was the photon
@AtomosDemocritus ps: my information is that from the recently decoded scripts Isaac believed the fine particulate should be a pure metal. He looked for it using the science of alchemy which was a big no like by the people of his time so it was not published. He made many optical discoveries in the process which were published, so i don't know why he did not consider light to be a more important part of things. He seemed obsessed with the properties of metal and particles. :)
An actual STARGATE/PORTAL-THING was caught on film in New Mexico. The footage can be found within the short-film entitled "SUDDEN PORTHOLE", which is parked at the PROJECT CAMELOT YouTube page (it's under the George Noory video).
I'm not selling anything…I'm just trying to spread the word about the unseen-dimensions we find ourselves embedded in.
My BLOG contains peripheral data regarding the movie and is where I reply to the "debunkers" (use search words "SAM ZURICK" & "BLOG"). THANKS!!
I just wanted to point out that Newton had a couple of ideas of what gravity might be
1) it was from God (Newton was deeply religious) and a method by which He controlled the universe
2) an inherit qualitiy in objects (this can be found argued forcefully by Roger Cotes who did the preface to Principia in 2nd edition) perhaps called gravitons
But Newton maintained that the purpose of mathematics was to derive universal laws and not speculate the 'causes' of things.
1. “The most essential requirement is, however, that irrespective of frequency the wave or wave-train should continue for a certain interval of time, which I have estimated to be not less then one-twelfth or probably 0.08484 of a second..."
2. "...and which is taken in passing to and returning from the region diametrically opposite the pole over the earth’s surface with a mean velocity of about four hundred and seventy-one thousand two hundred and forty kilometers per second.” (ART OF TRANSMITTING ELECTRICAL ENERGY THROUGH THE NATURAL MEDIUMS, Nikola Tesla, USA Patent No. 787,412. Application May 16, 1900, patented April 18, 1905.)
@VoguishArts Which is precisely WHY many of us are on the computer. The future of the world lies in technology and the internet. Videos like these even promote such action. This is the wrong place to post a comment like that.
@TheOneAndOnly10000 No you are wrong in a way. To find out things about the world, you must be part of it. All you have gained from this video is knowledge on what other people have discovered. Of course this video can help you, but why haven't any of us learned this in school? I guess school is a waist of time: eight hours a day, forty hours a week, two hundred and forty a month, and two thousand nine hundred twenty hours a year. There are 8766.1536 hours in a year, school seems wasteful, yes?
@TheOneAndOnly10000 Okay, so you spend that much time a year to learn the basics? I think schools should be obligated to teach us students about the universe. We are living in it and deserve to know, correct?
@VoguishArts What if someone doesn't want to find out something about the universe? Many people don't have the creativity, imagination or intelligence for such innovation. School allows people to live the 'meaning of life' that we have created for ourselves: to make money.
@VoguishArts I yet again state that 'many people don't have the creativity, imagination or intelligence for such innovation.' Or they simply lack interest in these topics.
@TheOneAndOnly10000 Well that's an opinion, or just a stereotype. How would you know this? Show me evidence. //i can prove that i'm right easily, can you?
@VoguishArts I understand that people are always trying to better their forefathers, but I don't think it is possible for every single human being to have the motivation and intelligence to discover fundamentally changing facts about the Universe as Einstein did, and Newton before that. After all, why was there only one Eistein, by your logic, every one of us would be a genius. Yes, I would like some proof.
@TheOneAndOnly10000 I never said everyone can do this, obviously the ones watching this video took the time to watch it, they have dedication. I know I do, people today are proving our forefathers wrong. They actually found something that is moving faster then the speed of light. Another group of people proved Einstein's theory to be incorrect. Enough proof? I have more if needed.
@VoguishArts Yes, I have read the same article, it's rather intriguing, I might add. I does disprove Einstein's theory of relativity, but it does not prove anything new yet. It has taken a long time to finally find an exception to Einstein's theory, though. 293,434 people have viewed this video in three years, I doubt they are, or will be the scientists dedicated or indeed intelligent enough to build on this new-found information, or even create a whole new theory.
@VoguishArts That's very modest. So you are backing out of the statement that you made that everybody watching this video is THAT dedicated? Or is it just you, perhaps even me and a couple of others?
Also, referring back to your first point, you want to get off the computer to learn about the universe by changing the school systems?
@TheOneAndOnly10000 Maybe not dedicated, but surely interested. Why else would someone watch through all nine minutes of this video unless for a school project? Yes, I am sure that with some inspiration some of the viewers may become dedicated. Not a large proportion of viewers, but some yes I am sure. I think school systems should be changed, as do others I am sure of it. Getting of the computer is another topic, but in some ways it can be beneficial, but so can going out and exploring.
@VoguishArts Ok, well argued, this does not mean I fully agree with you though. But I agree that some of the people watching this video would want to watch this to broaden and then later develop their ideas on the universe. At our age, 'going out and exploring' does not bring you much in terms of universal enlightening.
@TheOneAndOnly10000 So we have to be a certain age? I don't see why, you can go in your back yard and find something that is unknown to others on Earth. Possibilities are endless, you just have to be patient. So use your computers to gain information, use your mind and body to make the information.
@VoguishArts OK, what can you find in your backyard that is unknown to the universe? Now you're going to say, 'if I knew that, it wouldn't be unknown', well, yes, but then, without proof your point is invalid. Also, you DO have to be a certain age. It is possible at 16, but it is very hard to find something entirely new and influential. You are constricted by an immature mind and the lack of liberty of household/ presence of boundaries.
@TheOneAndOnly10000 Have you ever heard of a telescope? They're great tools that let you view things at a distance with ease. Not all teenagers are immature, I have several and only mature friends. In some cases the children are taking care of an adult, working full-time to help pay the bills. Some kids ARE adults and some adults ARE children. I never said you have to find things on your backyard, I said you can go in your backyard and find something that is unknown. See what i'm saying now?
@TheOneAndOnly10000 Maybe if you dig down far enough in your backyard though, you may even discover a new element. You never really know what you'll find when dealing with science. This is where your computer can come in good use so you aren't digging for no reason though, that's just mad.
I think that everything has already been discovered, using a normal telescope, but still, that is a good point. I think it's a good entry point into astronomy and the computer could also be used here, for info.
About the immature mind, it's a FACT that the brain does not fully mature until its mid-twenties. Sure, you and your mates are mature in behaviour and speech, but that does not mean your thinking is fully matured. You think it is (lol), but it's not.
@TheOneAndOnly10000 I am sure everything has not been discovered, a new element was found last year. You just have to look beyond where people have already looked. What if a new moon appears orbiting a planet, an asteroid is shown, or even a new star. They got there, why can't new ones be revealed? I know how I think, therefore I disagree. I'm sixteen and an immature thought rarely ever comes across my mind. I know people who will do the most immature things being in their mid-twenties.
@TheOneAndOnly10000 I believe certain experiences can cause one to mature faster, but of course he/she will still have their urges as Sigmund Freud showed in his theories.
@VoguishArts I stick with the fact that a teenage brain is not immature. I am not saying the phycology of it, but the actual neurology, the biology of the brain is undeveloped. 'This process of maturation, once thought to be largely finished by elementary school, continues thoughout adolescence. Imaging work[...] shows that these physical canges move ina slow wave from the brain's rear to the front[...]' 43 David Dobbs, National Geographic. The front is responsible for complicated thinking.
Both theory is wrong only base on imaginations hahahahah first of all at the bigining of big band when all planets was bombarding what gravitation was there
What I don't understand, is that if it is a curvature of space-time, then is the warping done by the weight of the object or the size of the object? In other words, is gravity stronger in a larger object that weighs less; or a smaller object that weighs more? And if it is the latter, how can an object physically weigh anything in space? Answer much appreciated.
@AroundSun there is no time in the space and it never was one!! Each planet within solar system has its own gravitational force and these forces are very according to the density of the planets gravitational force. Suns gravitational force curve when approaches to the satellite planets gravitational force. Weight place no role in internal space but gravity density does. You cannot calculate planets weight by using the gravitational force is that simple.
@AroundSun Objects size it doesn't matter. What is matter their age younger they are higher the concentration and density of gravitational force. It is kind of hard for you to imagine but planets or stars do not have weight in the universe, they weight as much as you will weight in the empty space of universe! What they have higher mass concentration. Mass it doesn't give gravity but energy concentration does is that simple which is the inner core of the planets and stars.
@AroundSun I wish NASA could of notice. I have all the answers they are looking for start from dark part of the universe always to the point which are visible to our eyes including the life form. I'm not asking whole lot just an recognition for all the work I did. It seems to me they see I'm asking to much but they don't realize originally I'm from former Soviet Union. I could of give it to Russia with out of getting any recognition but I want to share with NASA because I live in the USA.
@msms47 What kind of lies do you see in my explanations? I would suggest you for you see planet formations through NASA's explanations if you have some common sense you will see all planets formed the same way no exceptions to the rules. larger planets or stars they just accumulate more mass. Other wise mass of the planets or stars they don't interfere with gravity force. Gravity force shrinks according the age of the planets older they gets less gravity they have.
@msms47 Another thing I want you to think, why do think astronauts they are floating in the air when they are in the space ship 200 miles above the surface of the earth? All the mass come out of the space, is part of the space that is why weight has no effect within the universe. Try to imagine this when you get bruised up does your weight increases obviously not right. Why do you think weight will play any kind of role within the universe?
@Levon9404 lol and u saying u are smart ? ;p ansotrant aint floting in the air they are falling to the earth ..just caus its a round movments they sames to be floting !
@msms47 Yes you are absolutely right I agree with you 100%. Do you know why things still falling down on earth? Because earth's gravitational force travels another 5 to 8 million miles away. That's why moon trapped earth's gravitational force and its 250000 miles away from earth. About the floating, do you know what was my point. After 60 miles away earth losing gravity density and that is why astronauts floating in the air. But can you imagine some areas where gravity has no effect?
@Levon9404 yes thats would be a point between earth and moon ...but still the qeution why does not the sun pull the moon too its like 1/3 of the earth masse and even closer to the sun in some days ... or at less it shold effect on its routing movment around the earth caus the sun gravty on it is alaways differnt
@msms47 Try to imagine earth's gravitational force one large balloon. If you water that balloon water wont penetrate that balloon because balloon has internal pressure within thin layer of rubber. Now try to imagine earth's internal pressure with out of rubber and moon got trapped within earth's gravitational pressure. Suns gravitational force cannot penetrate earth's gravity force is that simple it just curves when it approaches earth's gravity and it passes over the earth's gravity.
@msms47 Even though sun has 27.9 time more gravity than earth but farther gravity travels thinner it gets. Suns gravity has ability to penetrate other planets gravitational force within close distance because gravity has density like planet Mercury. That is why even though planet Mercury has less gravity than earth it still has 0 tilt.
@Levon9404 how come that sun gravty on mercury is smaller than on earth when he is much closer and need to move faster around sun to stay in roution ... and it might be allite smaller becaus of mercry masse is smaler than earths and itws has more gases but the raidus still smaller than the earths and sun so gravty on mercry is bigger than with earth ..and still to your talk moon its not closer to sun than earth some times he is farther and some times he is as same far as earth .
@msms47 You misunderstood. Suns gravity is greater within close distance, when I said density that mean it has more pulling force. Because of it Mercury travels oval shape. For the same reason moon travel almost the same oval shape because earth has strong grip of the moon. Sun has no effect on moon so ever. Moon is under total control of earth's gravitational force. Sun it doesn't have any kind of effect on our moon.
@Levon9404 ok lets supose this ting .. a space ship fly in a 0 gravty between earth and moon due to neuton law of gravty ... so its should stay in its place floting and not moveing but how about sun does not have also a gravty force on this ship there for even the space ship is in a point that have no gravty between earth and moon it will still be going toword moon/sun side ?
@msms47 That would be incorrect if you say their is 0 gravity between the earth and moon. There is constant energy movement from earth to the moon and wise verse. Some point close to the moon gravity strength might be equal but it never reach to zero. Just try to imagine one large balloon & one tiny balloon inside the big balloon in this case earth will be tiny balloon & large balloon will be earth's energy clouds. Sun has no effect inside that clouds it just passes over 360 degree.
@msms47 Imagine this if you take the water hose and water the balloon water wont penetrate inside the balloon because balloon wont allowed the water to penetrate inside. The same way earth's energy clouds wont allowed suns gravity force to penetrate inside of the energy clouds. That mean where ever space ship break down within earth's energy clouds slowly earth will pull that ship toward the earth. If moon's gravity exceeds earth gravity in that location it will go toward the moon.
How does the Earth rotate on an axis of 23.5 degrees if it's supported on a flat surface that essentially conforms around the planet? What would cause it to more or less "lean" on an angle?
youtube is blocked at my school, and i love how my science teacher found out how to get around it JUST to show us this video. it's funny because nobody in my class payed attention.
Remember that the South Celestial Pole and the North Celestial Pole and, Mostly the later, has not much sun light as the rest of the plane Earth and those are covered in Ice - so Imaaaagine that... WITHOUT THE SUN... huh!!
When come about the gravity Issac Newton he was the only man was able to notice gravity is in motion. Even Einstein couldn't understand what is gravity for him gravity is fabric of energy which is far from reality. But Einsteins equation half way is correct I think that happen by accented the only part is accurate is E = M mass is proportional with energy each time energy decreases mass decreases. Other wise current scientists still don't understand what is gravity and why it moves.
@beastinblack If I tell you non of them correct would you except that. Because universe was built in harmony energy passes from one stage to another. Non of those explanation support that passage from one stage to another. There is no evidence support Bohr's standard model or Einsteins relativity even though both talking about the same subject. I was able find completely different explanation of the atom and one of NASA's experiments support my explanation I have the evidence to prove it
The formula of Gravity’s creation : h*f = kT logW 1 The formula E= h*f explained the energetic reason of Gravity 2 The formula E= kT logW explained the material reason of Gravity 3 This formula describes the possibility of realization of macro state from micro state. This formula explains the conditions of gravitation, the beginning conditions of star formation h*f = kT logW , h*f > kT logW , h*f < kT logW This local gravity area is Debye : Q(d) = h*f (max) / k
@rotflmaopmpqxyz well it's not pulling down through the fabric, it just warbs the fabric, the fabric shouldn't be shown in 2 dimensions like it is, the fabric is three dimensional, so it's "pulling down on it" in all directions, or pulling space toward it, thus pulling matter toward it, gravity
Unification of Isolated science and GOD particle exist within Human body which is CERN Laboratory of Nature.for details see YOU TUBE VK SONAKIA and read article on all voices.com -certainty-tool-is-higgin-boson-or-god-particle-which-exist-in-human-body.We have already developed next generation easy to learn unified science.world scientist are welcome to see and test FIT-Future Imaging Tool technology
The formula of Gravity’s creation : h*f = kT logW 1 The formula E= h*f explained the energetic reason of Gravity 2 The formula E= kT logW explained the material reason of Gravity 3 This formula describes the possibility of realization of macro state from micro state. This formula explains the conditions of gravitation, the beginning conditions of star formation h*f = kT logW , h*f > kT logW , h*f < kT logW This local gravity area is Debye : Q(d) = h*f (max) / k
I dont know how does this exclude the Newtons theory, its still the same thing, it still the force, its just that Newton didn't mention the delay, witch is needed for the gravity force to travel... Than again i might be wrong.
if you were to suddenly put a large object in space then the space would be pushed out to the sides (displacement) . because the object is now in the place were space once occupied ?? so space is just pushing back to its original area ???? is this what gravity is??? or bending of space?
Using the Lorentz equation, the contraction of the Universe from the inertial frame of reference of a light beam is (1 - c^2/c^2)^-1/2 = 1/0 = infinity. Therefore, the Universe would seem to have zero size to a light beam, which is equivalent to giving light a speed of infinity. Hence the speed of light, at 186,282.397 mi/sec = 2.99792458 x 10^8 m/s, is the Universe's chief illusion.
@SuperMagnetizer if you were to suddenly put a large object in space then the space would be pushed out to the sides (displacement) . because the object is now in the place were space once occupied ?? so space is just pushing back to its original area ???? is this what gravity is??? or bending of space?
@derek15476 Since all matter is mainly empty space anyway, I don't favor the view of space pushing back on an area displaced by a large or massive object. General relativity considers gravity to be a curvature of space-time caused (somehow, no one knows how) by the presence of matter. I believe gravity is an electromagnetic effect caused by the dynamical motions of all electrons in the gravitating body.
@SuperMagnetizer how come random dynamic vectors of electrons favour pattern that wouldn't nullify itself? if there would be some pattern favouring vector thus causing force to occur on worldwide scale how come it's not flat field based but rather equal at any given point of sphere? Also thing against electromagnetic theory is that star systems in galaxies seem to move around black holes which are made of condensed matter so no "mainly empty space anyway", so matter based after all.
@Yndin The "random dynamic vectors of electrons" you refer to are actually the magnetic fluxes surrounding every electric current, discovered by Oersted in 1820. These moving magnetic fluxes, despite their random directions, actually generate unidirectional electric fields pointing at the electron orbitals of all matter. Regarding black holes, these are theoretical objects only. Nature does not make singularities, which are zero size points of infinite density.
NO. The difference is as follows. The time evolution of light (in vacuum) is governed by the 3D homogeneous wave equation, and the time evolution of (so-called) `gravity` is governed by the Einstein field equations.
Whoa, i've been pondering this for a while now and i think i just had a breakthrough with myself?
First, light is the cosmic speed limit for everything and is a constant, where as gravity is a force(which note gets stronger further towards the middle of a body of mass. In this sense gravity is quite the phenomena having no limit. Black holes have a thing called the "Event Horizon" which is the point at which not even light can escape.
@Dreadnought942 Light that doesn't reach this point "bends" then carries on with it's business and the light that does reach this point is sucked in toward the black hole. Now the trickyness begins. Even thought light being massless, it still has momentum and does not gravity contribute to giving things momentum? my theory(guess) that I'm just now building up is that light which makes it to the event horizon has so much momentum that it is pulled in even further and further
@Dreadnought942 into the black holes singularity with the help of momentum, and the increasing strength of gravity. This much helps defeat the earlier result that i came up(being that black holes wouldn't be black they would literally be giant balls of never ending light) Hope this helps even a little bit toward your question?
If you find the actual scientific proven answer, give me a shout :)
(giving it a quantum thought) MAYBE because black holes are SO dense that the particles in gravity(not sure if that's the right wording) Are all entangle within each other, as in there is no real space(space being illusion) in a black hole. Particles instead of being one at one end of the universe and another being at a different part. Are incredibly close to each other. So, no real distance in involved allowing anything in the black hole to be completely and totally instantaneous beyond measure
I would like to know how Einstein "knew" that the speed of light wasn't instantaneous. There is no way to prove the one-way directional speed of light.
@Thisisnotmyrealname8 That the speed of light is not instantaneous has been known sens 1676 when Ole Rømer studied the moon Io (one of Jupiter's moons), but it has been proposed earlier. What Einstein figured out was that the speed of light in vacuum is independent of the source or inertial frame of reference. He overthrow the at the time popular "ether" hypotheses that was believed to make up space.
@bipinwanchoo50 i agree, science describing atomic theory and building us an atomic bomb theorized to create a massive explosion was not right. it can never be right. i dont care if it actually happened, it isn;t right..
@bipinwanchoo50 ok, but to try and shed some light on your claim. science only knows the truth as far as we know the subject. so even if quarks and gluons were not discovered or theorized yet, atoms were still known to be the smallest thing. and what if they really were? what if the guarks/gluons really are the smallest now? then we'd be right. but we press to go deeper with everything in science. the research and theories only help define what we know, and lead to knowing more.
@bipinwanchoo50 but i think i know what you are getting at. when i was younger i had this crazy idea that what if inside every proton neutron electron, there was a separate universe much like our own just at a smaller scale. and our entire vast universe is all but inside the very tiny atomic particle of an even larger universe. then recently i watched "Cosmos" by carl sagan, and he said that very exact thing. and thats where i agree with you in the sense that we truly can never know. not yet.
@justanothermessanger Because he was the first to ever put forth the idea of gravity. He saw the effects though he didn't understand how it worked. He also set forth mathmatical equations that worked with his gravitational model. These are firsts and building blocks to understanding of the basic workings of gravity. It has to start some place and that some place was Newton.
@ravex24 well i hope more people can be easy on others for having ideas they dont completely understand yet. theory starts with speculation & observation
Well, technically Newton didn't "discover" gravity. The first caveman to fall out of a tree discovered it. Newton attempted to define something everybody knows about but can explain.
if we are on a trampoline, earth's gravity is holding us down. just like a trampoline, there is space. but what is holding planets down in that dip? and not just let it roll out? check my video responce if your confused by my question plz :)
randomacountboy 5 days ago
In whatever business thou mayest be, and whatever portion thou mayest be reciting from the Qur'an,- and whatever deed ye (mankind) may be doing,- We are witnesses thereof when ye are deeply engrossed therein. Nor is hidden from thy Lord (so much as) the weight of an atom on the earth or in heaven. And not the least and not the greatest of these things but are recorded in a clear record.Qur'an:10-61.By the Sky with (its) numerous Paths,Qur'an 51:07
strangerlover11 1 week ago
Newton didn't DISCOVER gravity, he found out that everything is connected by gravity and came up with the equation that explains it.
jesseortiz666x 2 weeks ago
If there is no up or down in space, no absolute point of reference, in what way does it make sense to talk about a "fabric" of spacetime? If gravity is merely falling into the depression caused by mass, then why don't people fall off the bottom of the world?? Seriously.
gustjorodedheo 3 weeks ago
@gustjorodedheo Because the visual representation is only shown on one plane... but the idea is that mass depresses the fabric at every possible angle simultaneously.
Eggfriedmice 3 weeks ago
@Eggfriedmice Then in what sense does something fall?
gustjorodedheo 3 weeks ago
@gustjorodedheo I don't know.. I'm not saying I agree with the theory because as far as I'm concerned it has a massive flaw, but I'm just answering your question as to why nothing would fall off the bottom - because the theory doesn't imply a bottom.
Eggfriedmice 3 weeks ago
@gustjorodedheo When we talk about things "falling down" it is a matter of perspective. "Down" on earth actually means towards the centre of the earth. Down at the north pole is in the opposite direction to down in the south pole.
Objects with mass warp spacetime in towards themselves, so they essentially are "curved" in towards the mass. You can't think of curvature in the two dimensions shown in most demonstrations, but in three dimensions.
SeanACampbell 2 weeks ago
@gustjorodedheo The typical "ball on a sheet" demonstration of gravity is fundamentally flawed because without gravity it wouldn't fall "down" into the sheet.
Unfortunately it is very difficult to demonstrate three dimensional effects on a two dimensional image (your computer screen). All particles with mass have gravity, including yourself. But gravity is an extremely weak force so only really has any effect at huge masses.
SeanACampbell 2 weeks ago
In Newton's equation, acceleration due to gravity is used to define gravity or 'weight' of a mass on earth. By releasing his equation from the constant of 'g' (acceleration due to gravity) to the hypothetical variable of 'a' (acceleration of mass) he uncovered the value of force defined in Newtons (the net force required to accelerate a 1kg mass at a rate of 1 meter per second squared. A similar approach to Einstein's constant 'c' (speed of visible light) would unravel many hidden mysteries
1959info 4 weeks ago 6
Actually the moon is falling "around" the Earth, and similarly the Earth is perpetually "falling" around the sun.....but as they "fall" downward..... they also travel forward, thus they are actually falling around their respective bodies, but is not close enough to land. Anything going into orbit around the Earth, like those thousands of artificial Earth satellites, are actually caught in a perpetual "fall" around the Earth
1959info 4 weeks ago
if the speed of light is this rubbery area, wouldnt just saying it is Constant eliminate the unknown equation for how rubbery?
DINGLEtheBERRY 1 month ago
i understand that what einstien was saying was not that nothing could surpass the speed of light, but that when light is pushed passed its speed limit, that is where some magic begins to happen. different wave lengths should have different speeds? a very long long wave could be pushed pass the speed of light. so "nothing" can travel faster than the speed of light? light itself should be able to be pushed passed its own speed to create matter?
DINGLEtheBERRY 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DINGLEtheBERRY In Newton's equation, acceleration due to gravity is used to define the 'weight' of a mass. By releasing his equation from the constant of 'g' (acceleration due to gravity) to the hypothetical variable of 'a' (acceleration of mass) he uncovered the value of force defined in Newtons (the net force required to accelerate a 1kg mass at a rate of 1 meter per second squared. A similar approach to Einstein's constant 'c' (speed of visible light) would unravel many hidden mysteries
1959info 4 weeks ago
A few things I have trouble understanding... this supposed "curve" that mass causes in space/time, how does that influence matter to pull toward it? Since here the concept of gravity is being used to explain the concept of gravity. Secondly... why doesn't the earth circle steadily closer toward the sun like a penny would roll toward the centre hole in a charity box? Lastly, how can anything including light even travel from one point to another when any measure of distance and time is infinite?
Eggfriedmice 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Eggfriedmice Actually the moon is falling "around" the Earth, and similarly the Earth is perpetually "falling" around the sun.....but as they "fall" downward..... they also travel forward, thus they are actually falling around their respective bodies, but is not close enough to land. Anything going into orbit around the Earth, like those thousands of artificial Earth satellites, are actually caught in a perpetual "fall" around the Earth
1959info 4 weeks ago
@Eggfriedmice The earth doesn't fall into the sun because all the gravity is really doing is redirecting its momentum in toward itself. Because it is traveling at sufficient speed "sideways" to the sun it essentially "falls" past the sun. Basically, by the time it gets to the point where it would be "inside" the sun it has moved forward enough to miss it... it is a little hard to demonstrate without images haha.
If the earth was not moving, it would fall straight into the sun.
SeanACampbell 2 weeks ago
@SeanACampbell I've heard that before and if that's the case, I still find it overwhelmingly convenient that all the planets around all the stars and all the satellites around all those planets are only there because they managed to catch the right trajectory so as they would fall into perpetual orbit. Also, our suns gravity is strong enough so that pluto manages to orbit it (all that way out), yet mercury still isn't close enough to be sucked in unquestioningly? How close would you need to get.
Eggfriedmice 2 weeks ago
@Eggfriedmice It all has to do with the movement of the objects. Any object traveling fast enough in the direction which is at a 90 degree angle to the direction of acceleration (ie. the direction towards the centre of the object it orbits) will remain in orbit. If its velocity is higher, then it will move away from that object. If the velocity is lower, it will move toward that object (get pulled in).
SeanACampbell 2 weeks ago
@Eggfriedmice You also need to understand that planets and their moons are not in a "perfect" orbit - the orbits are degrading in most cases. For example, in the case of the moon, it is moving away from the earth a few centimeters a year.
But a few centimeters on the scale of our solar system is relatively insignificant in the timescales we are talking about. Over the course of millions of years it may be significant, but over the course of the average human life span it would be unnoticeable.
SeanACampbell 2 weeks ago
@Eggfriedmice It is simply that because the human life span is so short (80 years) and the period that humans have been inhabiting the earth is so short (around about 100,000 years in their "current" recognizable form), and the fact that we have only been observing the universe for a fraction of that time (at least in a form where we would be able to detect a degrading orbit) we do not notice the slight degradation of orbits.
SeanACampbell 2 weeks ago
@Eggfriedmice Now if you consider how many objects are actually successful in remaining in orbit around their stars, you will understand that it is "rare". The solar system is enormous, yet only around 8 large objects (and of course various small objects, dust, minor planets etc) manage to stay in orbit.
And it is not as if there are planets around every star. There are about 350,000,000,000 galaxies in the observable universe, each with hundreds of billions of stars.
SeanACampbell 2 weeks ago
@Eggfriedmice At last count, there were around 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in our observable universe.
When you are talking about that kind of scale, then rare things happen all the time. And even the rarest events are bound to happen somewhere in our universe.
SeanACampbell 2 weeks ago
El bananero!
MRWWETITANTRONS1 1 month ago
Wow . . . my intelligence points just increased by 57. This is EPIC! :D I love science!
BostonCreamPies 1 month ago
reaching the top-40 song list will make extremely for about 4 years.
but the legacy of an important scientist doesn't just resonate forever in everyday life, it grows by time!
fame is achieved by a hit single, however immortality requires an actually important discovery.
Trisscarro 1 month ago
@Trisscarro I couldn't agree more.
cjs2964 1 month ago
lol jokes, god did it :P
SuperCrazyIdiot 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nice video!
This is an invitation to see an artist theory on the physics of light and time!
This theory is based on two postulates
1. Is that the quantum wave particle function Ψ represents the forward passage of time ∆E ∆t ≥ h/2π itself
2. Is that Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle ∆×∆p×≥h/4π that is formed by the w- function is the same uncertainty we have with any future event that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual!
nickharvey7 1 month ago
i love einsteins story and i remember the first time i heard about relaitvity and started investigating about it blew me away and thought what a genius einstein was to come up with it
hovsec 1 month ago 10
Think of the even greater heights Einstein might have risen to, if only he'd been fortunate enough to be alive today & able to fully immerse himself in modern culture, stimulated by the likes of x factor, stars in their eyes & lady ga ga.
nosherz 1 month ago
That's genius
cjrodrigs 1 month ago
There is no empirical evedence that shows time is actually real. This makes the concept of space-time a problem when it is used as a proven idea.
DemonDik 2 months ago
@DemonDik Look in the mirror and in ten years do it again and you will have ''evedence'' for time.
gregrutz 1 month ago
@gregrutz you only speak of the "concept" of time. which is a bean counting tool for beings that measure a certain tic in the motion of the universe. Ours is based on the cesium clock. Where lies this mechanism outside of our concepts for this tic?
DemonDik 1 month ago
@DemonDik Time is a measurement of sequence. Abstract like words and numbers
boarding5401 1 month ago
@boarding5401 I agree. But is that specific sequence being measured actually real? Or a figment of our psyche needed to organize our motion through the universe?
DemonDik 1 month ago
what i have heard of other people and articles is that newton didn't discover gravity from the apple but from a comet thats directory changed when it came close to the earth and that the apple is a story to simplyfie the theory for the people in that time so they could understand it and sorry for bad english because i am from finland.
THEASLAKF 2 months ago
@THEASLAKF your english is actually quite good. Didn't even really notice till you mention it. Proud to be a Finn to :D Hows the weather right now?
Roulden 1 month ago
@Roulden thanks i generaly live in lappland/northern finland and there quite little snow compared to last year but now at the moment i am visiting relatives in the south and its stormy and rainy . But the wheather forecasters promised snow to the southern parts of finland. HAPPY NEW YEAR IN ADVANCE!! HYVÄÄ UUTTA VUOTTA!! GOTT NYTT ÅR!!!
THEASLAKF 4 weeks ago
"All matter consists of individual magnets, and it is the movement of these magnets within material through space that produces measurable phenomena" (Colin Wilson, From Atlantis To The Sphinx).
spawn2882 2 months ago
@spawn2882 Think Einstein was thinking quite the same he tried 30 years put general relativity and electromagnetism on one theory.
piloooogen 2 months ago
@spawn2882 Agreed. All forces are magnetic phenomena. In other words, there is but one Force, and it is magnetic in nature.
SuperMagnetizer 1 month ago
@SuperMagnetizer You are joking right?
SeanACampbell 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE END OF WORLD IS COMING VERY SOON !!!
BELIEVE ONLY IN JESUS BEFORE TOO LATE OR BURN IN HELL FOREVER !!!
BELIEVE ONLY IN JESUS BEFORE TOO LATE OR BURN IN HELL FOREVER !!!
BELIEVE ONLY IN JESUS BEFORE TOO LATE OR BURN IN HELL FOREVER !!!
fuckmania07 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Are you seeking truth? Search for "Truth Contest" in Google and click the 1st result, then click on "The Present" to open it. What it says will blow your mind.
jchijan 2 months ago
time is infinite just like space, but in my point of view, time also has a bunch of time bubbles, for example, time on this planet may run faster or slower compared to Pluto, also the time we live now, this moment is 4 dimensional or it transcends the 3dimensional world, what it mean by it, is that this moment is eternal it never ends, it never begins, it exist at the same moment right now as 1 million years ago, it's the same right now and everywhere and at all times.
1800levso 2 months ago
I forgot as well, if you had a really long metal pole and it was, lets say 4,000,000 km long and you pushed it 1 meter, the energy would transfer instantly to the end beating the light barrier. In other words if you were at the end and your mate was at the beginning and he turned on a flash light and pushed the pole at the same time, you would sense the pole move before you sensed the light.. This is light travelling on light. the secret to the big bang. we are one but many as one,,,
silleeellis 2 months ago
@silleeellis I had never though of that, nice point of view,
1800levso 2 months ago
@silleeellis nice point of view mate
hassanovitchh 2 months ago
Its like all matter is a bike wheel spinning in your hands, if something stronger bends your arm and the axis of the wheel it goes one way or the other depending on mass and charge, I know atoms have three spinning things in them but they act the same way and one spinny thing is dominant. and weight is centrifugal force locked in, but it all bends and everything floats, They all float get IT.
silleeellis 2 months ago
as pointed out by some already --- they should mention Isaac's secret theory of gravity, they should NOT say he had no idea how it worked -- it involved the exchange of unimaginably fine particulate substance between the objects, the substance was involved in the continuous creation of material, gravity was a result of the dynamics of the process. Not unlike Nick Harvey's Quantum Atom Theory here on youtube. if you consider that Newton's fine particulate substance was the photon
AtomosDemocritus 2 months ago
@AtomosDemocritus ps: my information is that from the recently decoded scripts Isaac believed the fine particulate should be a pure metal. He looked for it using the science of alchemy which was a big no like by the people of his time so it was not published. He made many optical discoveries in the process which were published, so i don't know why he did not consider light to be a more important part of things. He seemed obsessed with the properties of metal and particles. :)
AtomosDemocritus 2 months ago
Comment removed
AtomosDemocritus 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
An actual STARGATE/PORTAL-THING was caught on film in New Mexico. The footage can be found within the short-film entitled "SUDDEN PORTHOLE", which is parked at the PROJECT CAMELOT YouTube page (it's under the George Noory video).
I'm not selling anything…I'm just trying to spread the word about the unseen-dimensions we find ourselves embedded in.
My BLOG contains peripheral data regarding the movie and is where I reply to the "debunkers" (use search words "SAM ZURICK" & "BLOG"). THANKS!!
peopledick 2 months ago
...me piacciono le mele....flavio
FlavioMonterosso 2 months ago
All of these comments are paragraph-sized.
XD
pikachu777FTW 2 months ago
@pikachu777FTW yup except yours and mine :D
sgtstefan 2 months ago
I just wanted to point out that Newton had a couple of ideas of what gravity might be
1) it was from God (Newton was deeply religious) and a method by which He controlled the universe
2) an inherit qualitiy in objects (this can be found argued forcefully by Roger Cotes who did the preface to Principia in 2nd edition) perhaps called gravitons
But Newton maintained that the purpose of mathematics was to derive universal laws and not speculate the 'causes' of things.
Hope that helps
Klauswitzify 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1. “The most essential requirement is, however, that irrespective of frequency the wave or wave-train should continue for a certain interval of time, which I have estimated to be not less then one-twelfth or probably 0.08484 of a second..."
klopedokle 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
2. "...and which is taken in passing to and returning from the region diametrically opposite the pole over the earth’s surface with a mean velocity of about four hundred and seventy-one thousand two hundred and forty kilometers per second.” (ART OF TRANSMITTING ELECTRICAL ENERGY THROUGH THE NATURAL MEDIUMS, Nikola Tesla, USA Patent No. 787,412. Application May 16, 1900, patented April 18, 1905.)
klopedokle 3 months ago
You have to live and be smart to make discoveries such as this, so get off the computer and do or learn something.
VoguishArts 3 months ago
@VoguishArts Which is precisely WHY many of us are on the computer. The future of the world lies in technology and the internet. Videos like these even promote such action. This is the wrong place to post a comment like that.
TheOneAndOnly10000 3 months ago
@TheOneAndOnly10000 No you are wrong in a way. To find out things about the world, you must be part of it. All you have gained from this video is knowledge on what other people have discovered. Of course this video can help you, but why haven't any of us learned this in school? I guess school is a waist of time: eight hours a day, forty hours a week, two hundred and forty a month, and two thousand nine hundred twenty hours a year. There are 8766.1536 hours in a year, school seems wasteful, yes?
VoguishArts 3 months ago
@VoguishArts What would you otherwise be doing? Finding out stuff about the universe? You need the basics from school.
TheOneAndOnly10000 3 months ago
@TheOneAndOnly10000 Okay, so you spend that much time a year to learn the basics? I think schools should be obligated to teach us students about the universe. We are living in it and deserve to know, correct?
VoguishArts 3 months ago
@VoguishArts What if someone doesn't want to find out something about the universe? Many people don't have the creativity, imagination or intelligence for such innovation. School allows people to live the 'meaning of life' that we have created for ourselves: to make money.
TheOneAndOnly10000 3 months ago
@TheOneAndOnly10000 You can make money from making discoveries. Everyone wants to know more about the universe, whether they admit it or not.
VoguishArts 3 months ago
@VoguishArts I yet again state that 'many people don't have the creativity, imagination or intelligence for such innovation.' Or they simply lack interest in these topics.
TheOneAndOnly10000 3 months ago
@TheOneAndOnly10000 Well that's an opinion, or just a stereotype. How would you know this? Show me evidence. //i can prove that i'm right easily, can you?
VoguishArts 3 months ago
@VoguishArts I understand that people are always trying to better their forefathers, but I don't think it is possible for every single human being to have the motivation and intelligence to discover fundamentally changing facts about the Universe as Einstein did, and Newton before that. After all, why was there only one Eistein, by your logic, every one of us would be a genius. Yes, I would like some proof.
TheOneAndOnly10000 3 months ago
@TheOneAndOnly10000 I never said everyone can do this, obviously the ones watching this video took the time to watch it, they have dedication. I know I do, people today are proving our forefathers wrong. They actually found something that is moving faster then the speed of light. Another group of people proved Einstein's theory to be incorrect. Enough proof? I have more if needed.
VoguishArts 3 months ago
@VoguishArts Yes, I have read the same article, it's rather intriguing, I might add. I does disprove Einstein's theory of relativity, but it does not prove anything new yet. It has taken a long time to finally find an exception to Einstein's theory, though. 293,434 people have viewed this video in three years, I doubt they are, or will be the scientists dedicated or indeed intelligent enough to build on this new-found information, or even create a whole new theory.
TheOneAndOnly10000 3 months ago
@TheOneAndOnly10000 I may become a scientist, i'm both dedicated and intelligent.
VoguishArts 3 months ago
@VoguishArts That's very modest. So you are backing out of the statement that you made that everybody watching this video is THAT dedicated? Or is it just you, perhaps even me and a couple of others?
Also, referring back to your first point, you want to get off the computer to learn about the universe by changing the school systems?
TheOneAndOnly10000 3 months ago
@TheOneAndOnly10000 Maybe not dedicated, but surely interested. Why else would someone watch through all nine minutes of this video unless for a school project? Yes, I am sure that with some inspiration some of the viewers may become dedicated. Not a large proportion of viewers, but some yes I am sure. I think school systems should be changed, as do others I am sure of it. Getting of the computer is another topic, but in some ways it can be beneficial, but so can going out and exploring.
VoguishArts 3 months ago
@VoguishArts Ok, well argued, this does not mean I fully agree with you though. But I agree that some of the people watching this video would want to watch this to broaden and then later develop their ideas on the universe. At our age, 'going out and exploring' does not bring you much in terms of universal enlightening.
TheOneAndOnly10000 3 months ago
@TheOneAndOnly10000 So we have to be a certain age? I don't see why, you can go in your back yard and find something that is unknown to others on Earth. Possibilities are endless, you just have to be patient. So use your computers to gain information, use your mind and body to make the information.
VoguishArts 3 months ago
@VoguishArts OK, what can you find in your backyard that is unknown to the universe? Now you're going to say, 'if I knew that, it wouldn't be unknown', well, yes, but then, without proof your point is invalid. Also, you DO have to be a certain age. It is possible at 16, but it is very hard to find something entirely new and influential. You are constricted by an immature mind and the lack of liberty of household/ presence of boundaries.
TheOneAndOnly10000 3 months ago
@TheOneAndOnly10000 Have you ever heard of a telescope? They're great tools that let you view things at a distance with ease. Not all teenagers are immature, I have several and only mature friends. In some cases the children are taking care of an adult, working full-time to help pay the bills. Some kids ARE adults and some adults ARE children. I never said you have to find things on your backyard, I said you can go in your backyard and find something that is unknown. See what i'm saying now?
VoguishArts 3 months ago
@TheOneAndOnly10000 Maybe if you dig down far enough in your backyard though, you may even discover a new element. You never really know what you'll find when dealing with science. This is where your computer can come in good use so you aren't digging for no reason though, that's just mad.
VoguishArts 3 months ago
@VoguishArts Haha, alright, then.
I think that everything has already been discovered, using a normal telescope, but still, that is a good point. I think it's a good entry point into astronomy and the computer could also be used here, for info.
About the immature mind, it's a FACT that the brain does not fully mature until its mid-twenties. Sure, you and your mates are mature in behaviour and speech, but that does not mean your thinking is fully matured. You think it is (lol), but it's not.
TheOneAndOnly10000 3 months ago
@TheOneAndOnly10000 I am sure everything has not been discovered, a new element was found last year. You just have to look beyond where people have already looked. What if a new moon appears orbiting a planet, an asteroid is shown, or even a new star. They got there, why can't new ones be revealed? I know how I think, therefore I disagree. I'm sixteen and an immature thought rarely ever comes across my mind. I know people who will do the most immature things being in their mid-twenties.
VoguishArts 3 months ago
@TheOneAndOnly10000 I believe certain experiences can cause one to mature faster, but of course he/she will still have their urges as Sigmund Freud showed in his theories.
VoguishArts 3 months ago
@VoguishArts I stick with the fact that a teenage brain is not immature. I am not saying the phycology of it, but the actual neurology, the biology of the brain is undeveloped. 'This process of maturation, once thought to be largely finished by elementary school, continues thoughout adolescence. Imaging work[...] shows that these physical canges move ina slow wave from the brain's rear to the front[...]' 43 David Dobbs, National Geographic. The front is responsible for complicated thinking.
TheOneAndOnly10000 3 months ago
@VoguishArts I doubt many do lack interest in this.
VoguishArts 3 months ago
Both theory is wrong only base on imaginations hahahahah first of all at the bigining of big band when all planets was bombarding what gravitation was there
because it was itself in development stages.
strangerlover11 3 months ago
What I don't understand, is that if it is a curvature of space-time, then is the warping done by the weight of the object or the size of the object? In other words, is gravity stronger in a larger object that weighs less; or a smaller object that weighs more? And if it is the latter, how can an object physically weigh anything in space? Answer much appreciated.
AroundSun 3 months ago
@AroundSun there is no time in the space and it never was one!! Each planet within solar system has its own gravitational force and these forces are very according to the density of the planets gravitational force. Suns gravitational force curve when approaches to the satellite planets gravitational force. Weight place no role in internal space but gravity density does. You cannot calculate planets weight by using the gravitational force is that simple.
Levon9404 3 months ago
@Levon9404 So, " is gravity stronger in a larger object that weighs less; or a smaller object that weighs more?"
I am guessing it is stronger in a more dense smaller object than a larger porosity object?
AroundSun 3 months ago
@AroundSun Objects size it doesn't matter. What is matter their age younger they are higher the concentration and density of gravitational force. It is kind of hard for you to imagine but planets or stars do not have weight in the universe, they weight as much as you will weight in the empty space of universe! What they have higher mass concentration. Mass it doesn't give gravity but energy concentration does is that simple which is the inner core of the planets and stars.
Levon9404 3 months ago
@AroundSun I wish NASA could of notice. I have all the answers they are looking for start from dark part of the universe always to the point which are visible to our eyes including the life form. I'm not asking whole lot just an recognition for all the work I did. It seems to me they see I'm asking to much but they don't realize originally I'm from former Soviet Union. I could of give it to Russia with out of getting any recognition but I want to share with NASA because I live in the USA.
Levon9404 3 months ago
@Levon9404 lol lies hehe
msms47 3 months ago
@msms47 What kind of lies do you see in my explanations? I would suggest you for you see planet formations through NASA's explanations if you have some common sense you will see all planets formed the same way no exceptions to the rules. larger planets or stars they just accumulate more mass. Other wise mass of the planets or stars they don't interfere with gravity force. Gravity force shrinks according the age of the planets older they gets less gravity they have.
Levon9404 3 months ago
@msms47 Another thing I want you to think, why do think astronauts they are floating in the air when they are in the space ship 200 miles above the surface of the earth? All the mass come out of the space, is part of the space that is why weight has no effect within the universe. Try to imagine this when you get bruised up does your weight increases obviously not right. Why do you think weight will play any kind of role within the universe?
Levon9404 3 months ago
@Levon9404 lol and u saying u are smart ? ;p ansotrant aint floting in the air they are falling to the earth ..just caus its a round movments they sames to be floting !
msms47 3 months ago
@msms47 Yes you are absolutely right I agree with you 100%. Do you know why things still falling down on earth? Because earth's gravitational force travels another 5 to 8 million miles away. That's why moon trapped earth's gravitational force and its 250000 miles away from earth. About the floating, do you know what was my point. After 60 miles away earth losing gravity density and that is why astronauts floating in the air. But can you imagine some areas where gravity has no effect?
Levon9404 3 months ago
@Levon9404 yes thats would be a point between earth and moon ...but still the qeution why does not the sun pull the moon too its like 1/3 of the earth masse and even closer to the sun in some days ... or at less it shold effect on its routing movment around the earth caus the sun gravty on it is alaways differnt
msms47 3 months ago
@msms47 Try to imagine earth's gravitational force one large balloon. If you water that balloon water wont penetrate that balloon because balloon has internal pressure within thin layer of rubber. Now try to imagine earth's internal pressure with out of rubber and moon got trapped within earth's gravitational pressure. Suns gravitational force cannot penetrate earth's gravity force is that simple it just curves when it approaches earth's gravity and it passes over the earth's gravity.
Levon9404 3 months ago
@msms47 Even though sun has 27.9 time more gravity than earth but farther gravity travels thinner it gets. Suns gravity has ability to penetrate other planets gravitational force within close distance because gravity has density like planet Mercury. That is why even though planet Mercury has less gravity than earth it still has 0 tilt.
Levon9404 3 months ago
@Levon9404 how come that sun gravty on mercury is smaller than on earth when he is much closer and need to move faster around sun to stay in roution ... and it might be allite smaller becaus of mercry masse is smaler than earths and itws has more gases but the raidus still smaller than the earths and sun so gravty on mercry is bigger than with earth ..and still to your talk moon its not closer to sun than earth some times he is farther and some times he is as same far as earth .
msms47 3 months ago
@msms47 You misunderstood. Suns gravity is greater within close distance, when I said density that mean it has more pulling force. Because of it Mercury travels oval shape. For the same reason moon travel almost the same oval shape because earth has strong grip of the moon. Sun has no effect on moon so ever. Moon is under total control of earth's gravitational force. Sun it doesn't have any kind of effect on our moon.
Levon9404 3 months ago
@Levon9404 ok lets supose this ting .. a space ship fly in a 0 gravty between earth and moon due to neuton law of gravty ... so its should stay in its place floting and not moveing but how about sun does not have also a gravty force on this ship there for even the space ship is in a point that have no gravty between earth and moon it will still be going toword moon/sun side ?
msms47 3 months ago
@msms47 That would be incorrect if you say their is 0 gravity between the earth and moon. There is constant energy movement from earth to the moon and wise verse. Some point close to the moon gravity strength might be equal but it never reach to zero. Just try to imagine one large balloon & one tiny balloon inside the big balloon in this case earth will be tiny balloon & large balloon will be earth's energy clouds. Sun has no effect inside that clouds it just passes over 360 degree.
Levon9404 3 months ago
@msms47 Imagine this if you take the water hose and water the balloon water wont penetrate inside the balloon because balloon wont allowed the water to penetrate inside. The same way earth's energy clouds wont allowed suns gravity force to penetrate inside of the energy clouds. That mean where ever space ship break down within earth's energy clouds slowly earth will pull that ship toward the earth. If moon's gravity exceeds earth gravity in that location it will go toward the moon.
Levon9404 3 months ago
How can we explain the moon tides in this picture of gravity?
apspacking 3 months ago
How does the Earth rotate on an axis of 23.5 degrees if it's supported on a flat surface that essentially conforms around the planet? What would cause it to more or less "lean" on an angle?
skaught911 3 months ago
Never know what will be known since the universe is full of probability.
iif5 3 months ago
v=DbhuRcmSkMg
lolgepwnt 3 months ago
youtube is blocked at my school, and i love how my science teacher found out how to get around it JUST to show us this video. it's funny because nobody in my class payed attention.
laxpunky97 4 months ago
People!!!
Remember that the South Celestial Pole and the North Celestial Pole and, Mostly the later, has not much sun light as the rest of the plane Earth and those are covered in Ice - so Imaaaagine that... WITHOUT THE SUN... huh!!
WE WOULD DIE FROZEN x(
lemojucy 4 months ago
When come about the gravity Issac Newton he was the only man was able to notice gravity is in motion. Even Einstein couldn't understand what is gravity for him gravity is fabric of energy which is far from reality. But Einsteins equation half way is correct I think that happen by accented the only part is accurate is E = M mass is proportional with energy each time energy decreases mass decreases. Other wise current scientists still don't understand what is gravity and why it moves.
Levon9404 4 months ago
@Levon9404 You mean in other words we need to link the standard model with relativity. Both are right but they are not looking at each other.
beastinblack 3 months ago
@beastinblack If I tell you non of them correct would you except that. Because universe was built in harmony energy passes from one stage to another. Non of those explanation support that passage from one stage to another. There is no evidence support Bohr's standard model or Einsteins relativity even though both talking about the same subject. I was able find completely different explanation of the atom and one of NASA's experiments support my explanation I have the evidence to prove it
Levon9404 3 months ago
its all about the apple they are the secret if unnviers
msms47 4 months ago
Guy @3:50 "the sun vaporizes", i think you vaporized!
Photon98 4 months ago
israelsocratus 4 months ago
@rotflmaopmpqxyz well it's not pulling down through the fabric, it just warbs the fabric, the fabric shouldn't be shown in 2 dimensions like it is, the fabric is three dimensional, so it's "pulling down on it" in all directions, or pulling space toward it, thus pulling matter toward it, gravity
cabot2jville2010 4 months ago
@cabot2jville2010
A vid tells a thousand words, just mute the sound: v=DbhuRcmSkMg
Yezpahr 4 months ago
the apple story is apocryphal
its just a fluffy story ,just like gallileo ontop of pisa
ThanksDoctorThoctor 4 months ago
Imagine if that apple didn't fall...
BboyAdflicto 4 months ago
@BboyAdflicto its not true its a nice fluffy story
ThanksDoctorThoctor 4 months ago
Unification of Isolated science and GOD particle exist within Human body which is CERN Laboratory of Nature.for details see YOU TUBE VK SONAKIA and read article on all voices.com -certainty-tool-is-higgin-boson-or-god-particle-which-exist-in-human-body.We have already developed next generation easy to learn unified science.world scientist are welcome to see and test FIT-Future Imaging Tool technology
vk sonakia
unified field scientist
bhopal
INDIA
vksonakia@yahoo.co.in
vksonakia 4 months ago
that theory is stupid
loko95ftp 5 months ago
so as long as the sun doesnt explode earth wont die... simple =]
nietaanspreekbaar 5 months ago
socratus1 5 months ago
@realzz1 Yes, it is...
CleverTurkeyToast 5 months ago
Gravity is not a force, is it?
realzz1 5 months ago
moon landing was a good movie.
kriscool001 5 months ago
DID YOU SEE THAT GUY'S AFRO? IT WAS LIKE A BALL
omgislink 5 months ago
I dont know how does this exclude the Newtons theory, its still the same thing, it still the force, its just that Newton didn't mention the delay, witch is needed for the gravity force to travel... Than again i might be wrong.
Slavkod 6 months ago
if you were to suddenly put a large object in space then the space would be pushed out to the sides (displacement) . because the object is now in the place were space once occupied ?? so space is just pushing back to its original area ???? is this what gravity is??? or bending of space?
derek15476 6 months ago
Using the Lorentz equation, the contraction of the Universe from the inertial frame of reference of a light beam is (1 - c^2/c^2)^-1/2 = 1/0 = infinity. Therefore, the Universe would seem to have zero size to a light beam, which is equivalent to giving light a speed of infinity. Hence the speed of light, at 186,282.397 mi/sec = 2.99792458 x 10^8 m/s, is the Universe's chief illusion.
SuperMagnetizer 6 months ago
@SuperMagnetizer if you were to suddenly put a large object in space then the space would be pushed out to the sides (displacement) . because the object is now in the place were space once occupied ?? so space is just pushing back to its original area ???? is this what gravity is??? or bending of space?
derek15476 6 months ago
@derek15476 Since all matter is mainly empty space anyway, I don't favor the view of space pushing back on an area displaced by a large or massive object. General relativity considers gravity to be a curvature of space-time caused (somehow, no one knows how) by the presence of matter. I believe gravity is an electromagnetic effect caused by the dynamical motions of all electrons in the gravitating body.
SuperMagnetizer 6 months ago
@SuperMagnetizer how come random dynamic vectors of electrons favour pattern that wouldn't nullify itself? if there would be some pattern favouring vector thus causing force to occur on worldwide scale how come it's not flat field based but rather equal at any given point of sphere? Also thing against electromagnetic theory is that star systems in galaxies seem to move around black holes which are made of condensed matter so no "mainly empty space anyway", so matter based after all.
Yndin 5 months ago
@Yndin The "random dynamic vectors of electrons" you refer to are actually the magnetic fluxes surrounding every electric current, discovered by Oersted in 1820. These moving magnetic fluxes, despite their random directions, actually generate unidirectional electric fields pointing at the electron orbitals of all matter. Regarding black holes, these are theoretical objects only. Nature does not make singularities, which are zero size points of infinite density.
SuperMagnetizer 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 6 months ago
on day, a man from england was sitting under a tree, then a apple fell on his head, and then he said "gravity" and the universe is explained
w00tbeerisgood 6 months ago 2
hmm this gives a thought.
If gravity travels at the speed of light...
Why are black holes. the only thing that can stop them?
maybe einstein was missing something? how can Gravity and Light be the same.
yet 1 can Slain the other?...
can this mean that light can travel faster as well?
time travel maybe? or it actually explains Wormholes or parrel universes...
what if its doesnt "catch" light ..maybe it transmitts it to a different area in space....
hmm...
Dreadnought942 7 months ago
@Dreadnought942
NO. The difference is as follows. The time evolution of light (in vacuum) is governed by the 3D homogeneous wave equation, and the time evolution of (so-called) `gravity` is governed by the Einstein field equations.
LeconsdAnalyse 7 months ago
Whoa, i've been pondering this for a while now and i think i just had a breakthrough with myself?
First, light is the cosmic speed limit for everything and is a constant, where as gravity is a force(which note gets stronger further towards the middle of a body of mass. In this sense gravity is quite the phenomena having no limit. Black holes have a thing called the "Event Horizon" which is the point at which not even light can escape.
WhySoBass 6 months ago
@Dreadnought942 Light that doesn't reach this point "bends" then carries on with it's business and the light that does reach this point is sucked in toward the black hole. Now the trickyness begins. Even thought light being massless, it still has momentum and does not gravity contribute to giving things momentum? my theory(guess) that I'm just now building up is that light which makes it to the event horizon has so much momentum that it is pulled in even further and further
WhySoBass 6 months ago
@Dreadnought942 into the black holes singularity with the help of momentum, and the increasing strength of gravity. This much helps defeat the earlier result that i came up(being that black holes wouldn't be black they would literally be giant balls of never ending light) Hope this helps even a little bit toward your question?
If you find the actual scientific proven answer, give me a shout :)
WhySoBass 6 months ago
(giving it a quantum thought) MAYBE because black holes are SO dense that the particles in gravity(not sure if that's the right wording) Are all entangle within each other, as in there is no real space(space being illusion) in a black hole. Particles instead of being one at one end of the universe and another being at a different part. Are incredibly close to each other. So, no real distance in involved allowing anything in the black hole to be completely and totally instantaneous beyond measure
WhySoBass 6 months ago
@Darkzey lol....m believer of an ultimate power (which is beyond the Science's explanation)
n as far religion is concerned......m a near atheist...u ppl r not u.standing what i am intending to say.....
I am a student of science, an aspiring engg.
My point was "Science solves many mysteries but creates more"
Having said that I didnt mean to say that we should stop explorations.....
ofcourse we should be more curious to know our world....thats wat separates us from other living beings .
bipinwanchoo50 7 months ago
LET'S ROCK AND ROLL WITH EINSTEIN!
97kevinhuanle 7 months ago
I would like to know how Einstein "knew" that the speed of light wasn't instantaneous. There is no way to prove the one-way directional speed of light.
Thisisnotmyrealname8 7 months ago
@Thisisnotmyrealname8 That the speed of light is not instantaneous has been known sens 1676 when Ole Rømer studied the moon Io (one of Jupiter's moons), but it has been proposed earlier. What Einstein figured out was that the speed of light in vacuum is independent of the source or inertial frame of reference. He overthrow the at the time popular "ether" hypotheses that was believed to make up space.
greyman000 7 months ago
@greyman000 Thanks.
Thisisnotmyrealname8 7 months ago
Comment removed
bipinwanchoo50 7 months ago
Science is a fiction.It can never be right.At any instant it can get nearer to the Truth but it can never achieve the Ultimate Truth.
bipinwanchoo50 7 months ago
@bipinwanchoo50 i agree, science describing atomic theory and building us an atomic bomb theorized to create a massive explosion was not right. it can never be right. i dont care if it actually happened, it isn;t right..
ItsNotEvenSunny 7 months ago
@ItsNotEvenSunny @ItsNotEvenSunny lol, what I intend to say is the fact that more we explore anything, more will be the questions arising.
For instance, once atom was considered to be the smallest indivisible body which as per my knowledge are quarks now (may be).
But it changed, atomic bombs are nuclear reactions occuring at atomic level.
I am sure we will see a continuous change in these theories.
Henceforth, Science always takes us near the Truth but never can it get to the Ultimate .
bipinwanchoo50 7 months ago
@bipinwanchoo50 ok, but to try and shed some light on your claim. science only knows the truth as far as we know the subject. so even if quarks and gluons were not discovered or theorized yet, atoms were still known to be the smallest thing. and what if they really were? what if the guarks/gluons really are the smallest now? then we'd be right. but we press to go deeper with everything in science. the research and theories only help define what we know, and lead to knowing more.
ItsNotEvenSunny 7 months ago
@bipinwanchoo50 but i think i know what you are getting at. when i was younger i had this crazy idea that what if inside every proton neutron electron, there was a separate universe much like our own just at a smaller scale. and our entire vast universe is all but inside the very tiny atomic particle of an even larger universe. then recently i watched "Cosmos" by carl sagan, and he said that very exact thing. and thats where i agree with you in the sense that we truly can never know. not yet.
ItsNotEvenSunny 7 months ago
and once again demonstrates how little we are...nothing we are..!!!!
simplurobert 7 months ago
12 people didn't finish the primary school
jeandannemann 7 months ago
how can we respect him as 'the father of gravity' if like they said, he died not understanding its basic workings
justanothermessanger 7 months ago
@justanothermessanger Because he was the first to ever put forth the idea of gravity. He saw the effects though he didn't understand how it worked. He also set forth mathmatical equations that worked with his gravitational model. These are firsts and building blocks to understanding of the basic workings of gravity. It has to start some place and that some place was Newton.
ravex24 7 months ago
@ravex24 well i hope more people can be easy on others for having ideas they dont completely understand yet. theory starts with speculation & observation
justanothermessanger 7 months ago
5:40 looks like my principal. With an afro.
bored725 8 months ago
"Newton was harboring an embarrassing secret". He was gay. "He had no idea how gravity actually worked". Oh...
bored725 8 months ago
TACO BELL :D
0079Matthew 8 months ago
Well, technically Newton didn't "discover" gravity. The first caveman to fall out of a tree discovered it. Newton attempted to define something everybody knows about but can explain.
skyinmind487 8 months ago
I am the only one who is kind of creeped out when they zoom Newtons face?
PircCba 8 months ago
Newton was a douche.
10243406 8 months ago
Wait, so to understand gravity, the prescence of objects causes warps in the fabric of the universe. It's pulled down on this fabric by..... what?
rotflmaopmpqxyz 8 months ago 16
@rotflmaopmpqxyz Objects that encounter distortions in space - time follow the natural geodesics of that curvature.
floopsie666 8 months ago
@rotflmaopmpqxyz im confuse by this also. wouldn't gravity be at work for this to work? or is it just a law of p