Why doesn't the distance between two objects decrease if they are both increasing in size? oh wait, as i was writing this, i realized they'd just have to be moving apart at the same total rate of expansion of objects themselves and you'd have the illusion of being stationary
Eureka! I've been sitting in physics classes, reading literature and thinking about space-time for most of my adult life -- with the strong desire to stand up, and shout; "Bullshi*". This is that moment, where I can finally do that.
Nice vid and keep up the good work. I have always thought that the universe was expanding at an accelerated rate, simply because the force of Gravity is just like the force of Acceleration. If two objects with no measurable gravity were next to each other and expanded at an accelerated rate it would appear as if they were falling towards each other and then when they touched they would push against each other just like gravity. Time is also effected by both Gravity and Acceleration.
This doesn't sound like a simple and elegant explanation for something more complex. They haven't found the Higgs Boson yet, but that's no reason to jump to conclusions.
So how does your hypothesis consider Pauli's exclusion principle and quantization? A diffuse-mass model implies that all particles with mass overlap each other at all points in space-time (since gravity is infinite in range) and your explanation of spinning nuclei and electron orbitals seems to ignore the quantization of the electron energy levels and the Coulomb forces between the nucleus and the electrons.
STOP. Stop your World. I want to get off this massive object. Makes me feel like a whirling dervisher. Also had the sound volume turned to max and it was still hard to hear. But then the Universe is a very large place. Not that it couldn't fit inside a very tiny volume of my imagination. But the subject of gravity - I find very attractive. But not in a sexual sense. Gravity & I are only intimate friends. I bring spontanaety. It just sucks. Yet somehow it works.
i liked the video and all, but you talked so fast i found myself having difficulty following you. thanks though never seen this theory about mass and gravity before.
well dude, einstein had formulas which predicted new effects and withstood any experimental test so far (including launching monkeys into space and getting them back safely). i can't see how your theory predicts any new effects or can be experimentally tested, but most of all it doesn't help launching monkeys into space.
surely math isn't everything, but how the fuck am i supposed to calculate the gravitational attraction of two objects from your video?
So you try to explain the 4 forces of nature by your concept of expanding particles. Makes some sense to me... Especially because it has (to me at least) an easily understandable way of explaining why space seems to be expanding; since dark matter is said to make up around 70% of the universe, areas more heavy in dark matter - space - will expand faster (at least from our perspective, since we only see visible matter).
But one thing to ask: How would your theory of unification explain gravity?
I gave this video a thumbs up because the dialogue and animation were good, but it left me more than a little confused.
R U trying to say that expanding clusters of particles in higher dimensions R responsible for the 4 forces?
So, for example, 4D space-time is being eaten by matter as they radiate said clusters in higher dimension(s), giving rise to the curved space-time (gravity), so much like water circling the drain planets orbit stars.
Heres something to consider.. Space seems to go on forever right? But if gravity bends light then technically it would curve back in towards the cluster of planets and stars, extending the "perception" that more space existed, and again and again and again. In theory the thousands of galaxies we see in the sky could really just be the same one over and over and over, but at different angles and different times since light takes time to travel. Put that in your pipe and smoke it
Gravity brings things closer together, so it would make sense that a galaxy closer to a main source of gravity gets pulled faster than a galaxy further away. It would seem like the two objects are getting further apart, if no other frame of reference existed. ALso consider that the way space bends, looking in two opposite directions in space may actually contain the same destination but from a different perspective making it seem like 2 different places. We may find our own milky way someday
Hey man, I dunno bout your theory but I'm all about turning existing theory inside out. I have a theory of my own about the "expanding" universe. Its relative. You could measure that galaxies are getting farther apart, but maybe because instead of the universe expanding, our local space is contracting, making it seem like other galaxies are getting farther away.
it sounds interesting, but i don't really get it... first you rebuke the concept of space, and time as being abstract (thus really non-existing), and then you continue talking about expansion and rotation (fenomens that need space and time to occur) of mass...?
Good vid, better than following the sheep. Could gravity waves be magnetic waves that have been frequency stretched by space/time differences? Lower frequency photons generally get absorbed more but carry less energy... Now I wonder if all attractive forces aren't the same energy but at a different frequencies.
If threw ball past planet,would still follow curved trajectory under'expansion' theory as cause of gravity opposed to 'curved space-time'.(E=mc2 means light/energy are fundamentally equivalent,today light/particle distinctions fuzzy).Question isn't if gravity causes light to bend(well documented).Question:what causes gravity phenomena?Recent observation:universe expands accelerated rate.Ideas in video very much worth considering! (big bang resulting from a black hole is a possible explanation!)
Azarathos: Orest Chwolson (not Einstein!) deserves credit of gravitational lens (bending of light)!
Every black hole might be a big bang in a parallel universe! (we don't know what happens inside a black hole!). Dark matter, particle/wave classification/interaction, observed accelerating expansion of universe… There are always new and fascinating observed phenomena when we look!
the "particals" are vibrating and putting off "sound waves" (EMF). the "sound" waves are whats expanding outward causing the representaion of mass? Light passes by these "sound" waves and is drawn into the center of the mass a bit because it is sympathetic to the vibratory frequency of mass?
And my thirth and maybe the most important question: How can we define the rate of atomic and quantummechanical vaccuum expansion to control its balans whit the values of gravitational pull per mass units we observe in the universe. I would really like to know peoples opinion about the question's so,if you have got the time interest to answer them please do! thank you
This is the first time i hear of this way of thinking about gravity and I consider it to be very interesting becuase it sounds like a very simplistic idea. But I have a couple of questions about it... 1. Me myself cant really think of this to be a physical theory of the universe(maybe becuase it isnt physical?) but i rather consider it a philosphical idea. 2. Is this considert to be a expantion to the cosmological constant of Einstein into not only vacuum expansion but also atomical expansion?..
Quarks and leptons are only particles sometimes, waves somtimes, and they transform into eachoher spontaneously, blipping in and out of existence. So how can this expanding particle theory explain gravity when this is the case?
Interesting twist on things. I won't even attempt to explain the myriad of other things to be considered, of which there are many. But I think its pretty cool to imagine gravity being due to the ever expanding and ever increasing velocity of that expansion.
Imagine standing on the surface of the earth as being similar to sitting inside a rocket ship that's in constant acceleration, in essence, the surface of the earth constantly pushing us outward, faster and faster... against inertia.
The consensus seems to be that the universe is expanding. That said, one must ask, at what level or scale does it stop expanding. It makes sense that it would be expanding at the sub atomic scale as well. This theory seems to make more sense than gravitons or space-time fabric. There is so much we don't understand that it seems foolish to write this off without considering it to some extent.
see i've got no bace in science whatsoever but i just like the idea of reducing the gravity thing to a warping of space soloution because it would apply the sence 'atleast' as to why gravity in an instant force. But that wouldn't say there's not room to include elements of this mysterious graviton theory as well. apart from being a hard-ass subject to even conceptualise it would possibly involve dimentions that would be impossible to represent visualy making it a hard task to take to paper
From what I understand, this borders on 'here is my invisible friend' claim. You can't disprove it. I wonder if the author has the equations to match the theory.
As with String theory appealing to the fact that everyone should keep an open mind will not help prove a theory.
And exactly as with String theory, when you inherently cannot prove a theory it will never be true, in the most scientific meaning of the word based on the scientific method.
Hence it will remain false until the end of time or until we die, go to heaven and god tells us otherwise because he's suppose to be unbound from conventional laws of nature.
1. Gravity as we have realized is indeed one of the constant forces of our Universe that baffled us for a Grand Unified Theory. After Einstein, the ultimate quest for Physicist has been this unification : a. String theory - In time " graviton ", a key factor in the theory will be studied/confirmed by LHC ( very near now, so they say ). b. MBT, Higgs Boson to explain mass of particles; thus gravity, Nassim's double Torus model.....
2. With all of these theories containing " a fraction of the whole truth ", none ca be easily discarded, instead they should be kept as Important References.
3. We are looking into Unification with our own human perception just as Newton, Einstein and us modern people. With your theory. I would like to ask, What causes the SPIN, ACCELERATION and EXPANSION ?
4. What if there is no Unification in our Physical 3d + time /11 dimension ( ?) or relative to where we are observing at matter and energy interaction ? What if there are two forces ( energy/matter ) at work . The first dense energy is what we are observing then a larger energy form is interacting causing all the spins, waves, vibration ? If Unification is unsuccesful, this is the inevitable direction.
5. .... my favor to those who have access to technology who can verify theories is to try likewise if Gravity is just the result on animated physical reality in this dense physical reality /frame and that an external second force is triggering all physical matters to vibrate, ACCELERATE, EXPAND, and resonate to create such our physical reality.
@09205479428 I'm sorry it's taken me this long to get back to you -- your question is an excellent one, and I hope to address it in the final version of the film (due for completion... soon.) What causes expansion is fairly simple: Imagine 1,000 marbles scattered throughout a volume of 10 cubic feet in deep space, and each marble has a completely random and arbitrary speed and direction. Now, collectively, these marbles make up a large identifiable object – a ‘cloud’ or ‘cluster’ of marbles
@09205479428 ...but if the marbles are all moving, the cluster won’t just occupy 10 cubic feet for very long. And this is because the cloud has a geometric center, which is the average position in 3D space of all the marbles at any given moment – and every marble is 99.999% likely to be moving, to some degree or other, away from that specific center point. Remember that for each marble there is only one direction that leads directly towards that center point,
For every action there is an equal & opposite reaction. Gravity is a reaction what is the equal opposite action? When that is known then you will understand gravity. Actually there is a hypothesis which explains gravity, not relativity either. The hypothesis is simple & explains why the universe is inflating without having to inset dark matter or dark energy. It explains the age of Saturn's rings & predicts a very young age for Kepler Belt. If Kepler belt is young then the hypothesis is right.
that's the fun part, there is no more material than we started with at the moment of the big bang, meaning that the universe will eventually be very diluted and energy will be spread out even more until you can hardly say there is something in the universe at all. That or the big tear or the big crunch.
There is something fundamentally wrong with this. What about things that do not consist of mass? And how does this explain the electron cloud that is around a atom core. This also comes in conflict with where does the energy to spin the so much heavier cores from if the electrons does not lose any energy or even gain?
@Dasmaster1 But nothing is static, everything is in motion and its path altered through forces of attraction & repulsion. The orbits of electrons are only theoretical after all. Or am I just too dumb?
@pondman27 Motion is just relative to other objects. And your entering dangerous waters here.... an atom can by default not be visualised. The only way and also what will most like be THE only way to describe an atom is through an strange and master level mathematics that defies the normal rules of conventional math. To imagine electrons as balls hitting an object etc is wrong.. To imagine the core as a cluster is also wrong... its just something they simplify for students sake...
Doesn't explain space's relationship with time...which has already been demonstrated with atomic clocks on planes, as well as GPS's compensation for time dilation due to earth's gravity. It runs counter to the entire mathematical structure of relativity and quantum mechanics--the same math, mind, which has made the most precise confirmed predictions in history. There's more to physical theory than pictures; it must calculate established phenomena as well as make falsifiable predictions.
@HebiNoSannin i dunno, im sure with some work from some top-bollock theorists that 4 dimentional space could be a factor in gravity's exsistance.. if i had long enough with u and some massive acute drawing skills i'd love to try and show u how i think the time dialation thing could be accounted for
Interesting theory, but like others have stated. It does not explain the fabric of space-time properly given it does not take black holes or the protons of light being drawn towards a gravitational field. Not that this theory is wrong, it could actually be right. However it needs a lot, lot, more research.
this can't be right, because it wouldn't explain why light curves in the presence of a massive object, such as the sun. we can see many stars that are behind the sun BECAUSE, as einstein predicted, spacetime itself is what's getting warped inwards, thus explaining why some stars behind the sun would curve just enough as they pass near the sun so that they reach the earth. a theory of expanding matter wouldnt explain this phenomenon at all. sorry
@Azarathos I think you're thinking of the concept in the wrong way. Think about a photon from a distant star passing by the sun and as it does, the sun is expanding. Now, before the photon passes the sun, the sun is "smaller" and after it passes by the sun and gets to us, the observers, the sun now is large enough that in spatial terms it should be blocking our line of sight to that distant star. It would still explain the phenomenon just fine.
@Azarathos That's right, gravitational lensing doesn't only bend photons directly toward a gravitational source, since light travels at its constant speed (no accelleration) of c. There are other effects, and of course light gets bent sometimes clear around an object. In a picture where everything grows, everything would be a black hole, and if light were to modify a collapsing rate to compensate for all other expansions, then Occam's razor comes to shave.
And also we violate the well-tested equivalence principle by differentiating between other accellerations and accellerations caused by gravity, which in this case violate causality. This is a throwback to Newton, perhaps even behind him since Newton also had other force and motion laws which along with gravity agreed reasonably well with data (until the clocks-on-planes and GPS of course)
@Azarathos what would happen if u rolled a marbel across a flat surface,, it would go stright.. if u run it across a warped surface it would curve.. in this model light would mearly be following the direction of the warped space so with the correct angle of entry, light could curve around an object at the center of a gravity well and appear onthe other side intact, but having taken a path around the object
@Azarathos don't speak for Einstein. the beginning of the video made the claim that there's no fundamental difference between 'warping' space and 'warping' mass... you seem to have completely ignored that.
@Azarathos Maybe since the sun has more mass in it, it is expanding faster than the earth, thereby pushing the light out and making it bulge local to the sun.
@oaney The sun can't just "push the light out" because it's big. When light comes into contact with an object, it either reflects, refracts, or diffracts; to say that the sun "pushes light out" is meaningless, because that's not how light behaves (and this light never comes into contact with the sun). Plus, data says that the light curves inward toward the sun, not away from it.
@Azarathos I was just thinking about the gravitational lensing effect, where the light from a star behind a massive body sort of wraps around the massive body... And then attempting (in vain) to apply that to this new "turning gravity inside out" theory...
@Azarathos Why wouldn't it explain that? If space is curved then of course the light would "curve". This curvature of course would only be observable relative to a certain framework but isn't this what Einstein said in the first place?
@tnsradioireland Through which means would this expanding sun "push" these photons outward? As I wrote in an earlier comment:
The sun can't just "push light out" because it's big. When light comes into contact with an object, it either reflects, refracts, or diffracts; to say that the sun "pushes light out" is meaningless, because that's not how light behaves.
@Azarathos Thanks for your comment, and I'm sorry for the late reply -- "space" is defined by objects contained within it... there is no static point of reference by which to delineate space -- everything is in motion... so we establish our coordinate systems of space and time with boundaries of relevance: the very smallest and fastest and fastest cyclical phenomena we can measure determine the basis for time at the smallest scale:
@Azarathos ...roughly 9.2 billion radiation cycles corresponding to the transition between two hyperfine ground states of the caesium 133 atom at absolute zero define the unit of the time we call the 'second', but that offers no guarantee that each such measurement measures an identical slice of time... Or rather, it does, but only because that is the very definition that we give to time. Just remember that the map is not the territory. Our coordinate system for space behaves similarly...
@Azarathos ...we see light 'bending' around massive objects, and so we assume that the objects exert some mysterious 'pull' force on the light. It is just as plausible (and I would argue *far more* plausible) that large masses are expanding through the path that light has traveled. It is in using the position of those massive objects as markers to establish the coordinate system of space that we fail to recognize that they are dynamic members of the coordinate system. Everything moves. Always.
@Azarathos ...and every other possible direction leads somewhere else. And should one lucky marble happen to start out traveling directly towards center, it will eventually reach the center, pass through the center, and start traveling directly away from center. Now we see that (and why) our cloud of marbles is expanding, and we also see why “expansion” really just means simultaneous omni-directional motion – the cloud, which is physically defined as the sum of its parts,
@Azarathos is getting bigger by moving in every direction at the same time. But it appears that our cloud is becoming less dense in the process -- only because we’re thinking of the moving parts that comprise it as marbles – little solid nuggets that we don’t tend to conceive of as changing in scale. So let’s revise our mental picture to capture the idea that those marbles are essentially made from little expanding clouds as well – they are each made up of trillions of tiny atoms
@Azarathos , which are little fluffy clouds of leptons, hadrons, and nucleons. Now, if the rate of expansion at one scale (say the expansion of our cloud of marbles) is faster than the rate of expansion of the constituent elements (i.e., the particles that make up the marbles), then we will see an drop in density of the cloud. If the rate of each marbles’ particle expansion is faster than the rate of expansion of the cloud comprised of the marbles,
@Azarathos then the marbles will all coalesce into a dense, solid looking object, which in free space, will automatically (and very quickly) self-organize into a more-or-less spherical shape in response to distribution of pressure. Relative rotation of the marbles, which is a natural and necessary consequence of collision dynamics, adds a new dimension of ‘magnetic’ interaction but we don't have to eat that sandwich right now.
@cdewilde Hmm this is an interesting theory, but there are some phenomena that I can't quite explain using this theory. The main one that comes to mind is gravitational time dilation. How can it be explained through this theory?
hi im sorry im not quite in understanding of this, when u say matter grows do u mean it acually grows in our 3 dimentions? if this is true wouldnt it then fall under the law of 3d expansion? saying if an object is increased to twice its size its weight is increased 3fold? this would sertainly be the case if the nucleus of the atoms expanded if they do not it would mean that either the electron clouds around them are or the space between the atoms?
what's with the freaking narrator's voice? put the voice sequencer away and just speak into the mic with your regular voice like a normal person and at a reasonable speed.....jeez.
Gravity=universal vacuum. The vacuum within Earth's atmosphere is actually greater than that of outer space, not lesser. We exist in a vacuum, pressure does not exist.
Oh my god, I have this same theory, but I've been calling it "matter expansion theory". It does explain gravity as acceleration, but I've been saying that the acceleration effect is from the fact that because denser materials have more mass, and therefore denser materials expand faster than lighter ones. I also reasoned that this is why objects appear to shrink in the distance, because the seeing apparatus is larger, and therefore less impressionable.
I agree, but the sense it makes in other areas is what makes it worth the effort to find a solution for orbits. I came up with one regarding the nature of "centering". Between two spheres, it is the particles centered toward the other sphere which is actually expanding towards the other sphere. In an orbit, the other sphere is simply moving fast enough in, a single direction, to constantly have the other sphere's "center" expand behind it. The circular path is simply the resulting phenomenon.
Consider the tidal forces, or how the atmosphere would appear to get sucked up into empty space to meet the moon if the moon were to come too close. Matter expansion would not explain that except for the idea of "centering". The center-bar of the Earth that points towards the moon is the only thing expanding towards the moon. The other particles are actually being pushed in a trajectory away from the moon during expansion. That "center-bar" is changing as the moon continues. In orbit, its behind
If I fire a cannon in a straight direction, and it's near an expanding mass, and the cannon ball is expanding too, then ignoring atmospheric resistance, the cannon ball would appear to orbit for the first 1/4th, but slow infinitely as it approached a total point to second expanding mass direction change of 90 degrees.
Every orbital mass would never get past 1/4th a revolution.
I agree that this is difficult. But, because there is expansion, there always appears to be "movement toward" the other sphere, which is an all new direction that the center of the sphere actually isn't moving. Basically, it is the addition of this "extra direction" that causes the orbit to take on a circular appearance, because no matter where the spheres are, their centers appear to be in movement towards the other, when in 0-time, they are not. Referencing empty space is therefore, tricky.
Wow, this isn't that complicated... and I've done a few simulations which show this...
An object in motion stays in motion, in the same direction..
If I shoot an object, and a large mass without gravity isn't expanding, then the balls total direction change will be at 90 degrees after an infinite amount of time... if the objects are expanding, then the relative scale of distance seems to stay constant, yet the same rules about total relative angle change apply
Gravity, "Universal vacuum resulting from the compression of mass in the closed system, the force of said gravity proportional to the density of the mass. Gravity works in tandem with, but independently of, all things atmospheric, mass, electromagnetic forces, etc. Gravity results from the expansion of the universe resisted by the cumulative mass - creating universal vacuum in the vortex. In the closed system "mass=vacuum=gravity." Pressure doesn't exist - only degrees of vacuum.
This theory has so many holes. What about variations in gravitational force? If all matter is expanding at a constant rate, wouldn't gravitational force be constant, despite the mass of the objects involved? In order to have gravity vary as it does, objects with larger mass would have to expand faster, and the difference would be obvious.
Since the paperclip moves away from the earth, toward the magnet, logic says that the magnet is expanding faster than the earth. According to this line of thinking, the magnet should visibly grow in scale in reference to the Earth as it attracts the paperclip, or the Earth should visibly shrink in reference to the magnet as the paperclip moves away from it, or they should both change by an average of the distance between the two, interdependently of the paperclip.
he means that he can explain "subatomic particles" as expanding leptons. He does not mean that magnetism is the same phenomenon as gravitational attraction via expanding matter. Magnetism is probably still the influence of the path of electrons
How does this theory address multiple forces acting on a group of objects traveling in different directions? You say this theory explains all four forces, but how can several objects be expanding at different rates in relation to more than one frame of reference? For example, If a magnet attracts a paperclip directly away from the surface of the earth, this theory suggests that the magnet really expands into the empty space between itself and the paperclip... (continued in next comment)
Bravo! This is an extraordinarily vivid explanation of the implications of general relativity. It's actually my favorite video on YouTube. The earth's gravity is a push upward by the earth - not a pull in space. It just looks like an 'invisible force' because we're being pushed - as with any other 'fictitious force' in classical physics. We forget we're not in free fall.
And any kid will tell you that it's Work to hold up a heavy object. From a skydiver's POV, one can confirm it IS work.
i guess no one cares about this sort of thing, whats going on jerry springer is more important. so much for what is explained in the first part of this vidio, they wont get it anyway.....
vacuum will eventually stretch space as far as it can go and that is when the vacuum will start ripping matter apart i estimate this will occur 2012 give or take a few billion years haha
vacuum can be found in 99.9999 % of the universe it can be found were mass cravity and light do not exist it does not no time it is dark matter the point were space itself is being stretched
the reasons the planets are expanding 1 space debree 2 the universe is expanding and that is increasing the vacuum of space at some point even atoms will be riped apart by this force that gets no attention vacuum superceeds cravity thats why earth with all its mass only is able to produce the slite pull we feel today
i really like the end, how does this apply to supperconductors? of course me need a new vieupoint,,the old one lets us c olnly so farr,,lol if it is a good idea, the mainstream will totaly regect it at first,, hahaha but when it salves more and ore problems then theres a tiping point and thal all jump on bored and say of cours it has to belike this,,lol great vid,,freash idea 2 me.
And that which even the smartest physicist can't explain with old school is the bowling ball/penny hitting the ground at the same time - the only way to explain that is the earth expanding towards them both at the same speed. When you understand this concept - then all old school gravity theory goes out the window. Gravity IS caused by expansion of all objects toward each other.
This theory doesn't work. Doesn't even explain how planets orbit one another. If everything was expanding, the moon would not continue to orbit the earth.
If you disagree with me, try it geometrically on paper.
It absolutely explains orbits. Orbits are simply geometric illusions created by objects expanding towards each other. Why do we only see one side of the moon? Scientists state that the period of rotation of the moon is exactly that of its period of revolution around the earth. The chances of this happening are 1 in a Googolplex. What it is is that the moon is absolutely static in terms of its rotation. The gemoetric ullusion of the orbit makes only one side face the earth.
The moon always faces us because it was probably part of the earth (where the pacific ocean is) and was hit by a comet, thus making it orbit the earth's center of gravity the same way it did when it was sitting in the pacific. Draw two spheres that are expanding in multiple phases (time=0,1,2,3...etc). This will explain gravity perfectly but it will breakdown when you try to explain how any planet orbits the sun or how any moon orbits its planet. I came up with the exact same theory 3 yrs ago
And one other thing - exponential growth (i.e. expansion) pervades our everyday existence e.g. exponential growth of populations. This mysterious life force seems to have exponential growth/expansion as ones of its fundamental forces - it only makes sense that this also pervades the physical world as all matter expanding exponentially - planets, galaxies, the universe - thus creating that which we call the concept of gravity.
I read about this same concept in The Final Theory by Mark McCutcheon. I was immediately sold on this idea which makes perfect intuitive sense. Thinking about gravity from this viewpoint makes so much more sense than the Newtonian and Einsten theories. Current physicists should be embarassed for continuing to believe the old school science. Apparently they all "hate" this theory because it so changes everything they have ever learned. Great vid, great explanation - made by a true genius.
hmm i think i kind of understand it... its hard because english is not my mothertongue...
i wonder: if the masses expand rather than spacetime contracting, why cant we measure it ?, like the earths equator should gain length over the years... ??!
what about black holes ? their gravity is so big that they even suck light in. If this theory here is true, the expansion of the black holes mass must be faster than lightspeed ! This cant be true....
It is in fact a very clevar idea, and the reason the measuerment of the equator would not change is because the tool u are using to measure is also expanding.
the thing about black holes is interesting and I cannot begin to explain.
@MasterFPunkt yes it can expansion of matter doesnt have a speed limit, this is why the universe is only 13.7 billion years old yet somehow has a diameter of over 80 bilion lightyears. If expansion of matter has a speed limit then how is this possible?
@MasterFPunkt Both the black hole's mass and the photon's mass are expanding toward one another, so the expansion of mass wouldn't need to approach light speed. The theory could still work.
I'm pretty ignorant as to these deep physics theorems, but from what I have found, we still don't really know what a black hole is, because we can only see it through the measurement capacities that we have. The idea of a beginning & an end (the big bang) seems to be contra to all other manifestations and only becomes plausible if we see them as we do the vortex where acceeration leads to an altered state.?
My apologies for neglecting to comment sooner on the video itself. I love it! And I like the rapid-fire pace of the narration. It adds to the thrill and it puts you on your toes, or at least to the edge of your seat.
Best wishes to cruzdewilde in all endeavors. And thanks for bringing attention to the possibility that all goes onward and outward via gravity.
To davidalevitt, a description of the experiment and related ideas are found at GravitationLab,com.
Two valid recurring concerns here are orbits and the fact that the acceleration varies for different distances and different masses. These problems persist (fatally for the model) unless the expansion process: 1) creates curvature by its motion and 2) unfolds by generating a 4th dimension of space. It's not just that matter expands into pre-existing space. Gravity also makes a new dimension.
If we assume that the universe is a sphere larger than any particle within it and that all particles are spheres expanding at the same rate as the universe, the net effect is that the volume increase of the universe will be greater than the volume increase of any particle down to a certain scale where the 'local' rate of expansion of matter will exceed the 'local' rate of expansion of space, thereby creating an apparent curvature of motion, orbits, and a 3^2 law effect.
However, do not make the mistake of assuming that there is only one coordinate system for the universe, it more relativistic. Every particle exists at the center of it's own sphere of the universe and therefore has it's own coordinate system- it's own inertial frame.
GravitationLab is provocative and interesting, like deWilde's wonderful video here. I think it will be hard to complete your experiments on earth for the reasons you've discovered, but easier in space, where the center of the dominant field can be near the center of the object. Release a torus or hollow spherical mass in space where no planetary field dominates; then release a smaller mass at its empty center and observe it.
Doing the experiment in space would indeed make it much simpler. It would be more like the classic idealized thought experiment. But the beginning of the experiment would not involve putting the test mass at the center of the source mass. The source mass would have a hole through its diameter and the test mass would be released at one end of the hole. If gravity is a force of attraction, the test mass oscillates. But if it is a process of outward movement the test mass will not pass the center.
Right, testing the oscillator is a key initial experiment. Then: what's your theory of what happens to an object placed at the center? Since it is in a weaker field than its container - if the expansion theory is correct will the object appear to shrink relative to its enclosure?
The sizes of all masses remain constant relative to one another. The "expansion rate" cannot be represented by the widely ranging field strengths (acceleration) due to gravity. This is a misconception that most "expanding matter" models of gravity suffer from, as pointed out earlier. The only way I know of to conceive gravity as an expansive process, is in terms of the generation of space. New space is being perpetually created by matter as it projects itself into the fourth spatial dimension.
Objects in the same location and field maintain constant relative size so yes, that's what a rulers made of matter will always show. But across a varying field, general relativity effects can be detected optically. During an eclipse one sees stars that were 'behind' the sun when it was smaller, minutes ago.
Great points about accelerometers! I built a simple iPhone app that confirms it: the phone accelerates when it's on the earth's surface, NOT when it looks like it's falling!
I don't think it's reasonable to attribute gravitational light bending to a change in the size of the Sun. The effect is attributable to spacetime curvature. In the standard view, nobody has any idea HOW spacetime gets its curvature. In the space generation model, spacetime is curved because it is in a state of perpetual motion. But, to repeat, this conception is not logically defensible without a 4th space dimension. The best way to test the idea is by doing the interior solution experiment.
In general relativity, the space around matter shrinks over time - thus it is curved space-time. From an inertial reference frame the matter is expanding.
Think of general relativity's metric tensor as describing the rate at which the inch or the meter expands in the vicinity of matter -- which is also the rate at which matter itself expands at that location. Feel it push against you.
If instead you treat the expanding surfaces as stationary, it appears that objects are being pulled by invisible forces, much like the fictitious forces on a merry go round. Gravity is such a fictitious force that helps us ignore and deny our own upward acceleration.
It would help your case if you could show mathematically how "general relativity's metric tensor describes the rate at which the inch or the meter expands."
I don't think you can do it because, e.g., the solution corresponding to the field around a spherical mass (Schwarzschild solution) is explicitly STATIC from ANY frame of reference. And the Schwarzschild INTERIOR solution predicts that a falling object would oscillate through an antipodal hole, in agreement with Newtonian gravity.
While I'm not fluent in Schwarzchild's math, the description of "falling" objects in fact moving with constant velocity through curve(-ing) space(-time) is fundamental to general relativity.
The question becomes, "From what point(s) of view can we see such projectiles and planets 'really' moving in straight lines?" Not from a static POV on the earth's surface, obviously. From a skydiver's? DeWilde's video is a great start.
Let's continue this conversation via email as you suggested.
If gravity is not a force of attraction, but is instead a process of some kind out outward movement, then visualizing it is a very ticklish issue. I've been at it for many years, and at an early stage I too thought it involved a kind of simple inversion of general relativity. For the reasons mentioned above and others, this doesn't work. An entirely new theory is needed--one that "covers" the salvageable parts of GR (e.g., spacetime curvature) but goes beyond. rjbenish (at) teleport (dot) com.
read marc mccutcheon's book : " the final theory"...all answeres are there. amazing !
ipponmei 1 week ago
BRAINFUCKED
kizza314159 1 month ago
my left ear is lonely
Montenigger93 1 month ago
intense.
cyaard 1 month ago
Why doesn't the distance between two objects decrease if they are both increasing in size? oh wait, as i was writing this, i realized they'd just have to be moving apart at the same total rate of expansion of objects themselves and you'd have the illusion of being stationary
cyaard 1 month ago
Eureka! I've been sitting in physics classes, reading literature and thinking about space-time for most of my adult life -- with the strong desire to stand up, and shout; "Bullshi*". This is that moment, where I can finally do that.
mceltix2011 2 months ago
Really nice subject here and you explained it very clearly. Great job and nice opening of the subject at the end!
mudmike 2 months ago
This reminds me of how feynman always talked about taking the world from another point of view.
you've got your hypothesis, next is an experiment.
TheKturner05 4 months ago
I couldn't keep up the guy was talking too fast!
AgentSmith1902 4 months ago
Nice vid and keep up the good work. I have always thought that the universe was expanding at an accelerated rate, simply because the force of Gravity is just like the force of Acceleration. If two objects with no measurable gravity were next to each other and expanded at an accelerated rate it would appear as if they were falling towards each other and then when they touched they would push against each other just like gravity. Time is also effected by both Gravity and Acceleration.
yay78900 4 months ago
This doesn't sound like a simple and elegant explanation for something more complex. They haven't found the Higgs Boson yet, but that's no reason to jump to conclusions.
breaneainn 4 months ago
So how does your hypothesis consider Pauli's exclusion principle and quantization? A diffuse-mass model implies that all particles with mass overlap each other at all points in space-time (since gravity is infinite in range) and your explanation of spinning nuclei and electron orbitals seems to ignore the quantization of the electron energy levels and the Coulomb forces between the nucleus and the electrons.
xanshriekal 5 months ago
@xanshriekal how does it interfere with Pauli's exclusion principle?
cyaard 1 month ago
STOP. Stop your World. I want to get off this massive object. Makes me feel like a whirling dervisher. Also had the sound volume turned to max and it was still hard to hear. But then the Universe is a very large place. Not that it couldn't fit inside a very tiny volume of my imagination. But the subject of gravity - I find very attractive. But not in a sexual sense. Gravity & I are only intimate friends. I bring spontanaety. It just sucks. Yet somehow it works.
listen2meokidoki 5 months ago
Great Video, It just made me look at Gravity in a different way
glenwoofit 6 months ago
i liked the video and all, but you talked so fast i found myself having difficulty following you. thanks though never seen this theory about mass and gravity before.
seanfitz 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
well dude, einstein had formulas which predicted new effects and withstood any experimental test so far (including launching monkeys into space and getting them back safely). i can't see how your theory predicts any new effects or can be experimentally tested, but most of all it doesn't help launching monkeys into space.
surely math isn't everything, but how the fuck am i supposed to calculate the gravitational attraction of two objects from your video?
diabol 6 months ago
Comment removed
diabol 6 months ago
Comment removed
diabol 6 months ago
So you try to explain the 4 forces of nature by your concept of expanding particles. Makes some sense to me... Especially because it has (to me at least) an easily understandable way of explaining why space seems to be expanding; since dark matter is said to make up around 70% of the universe, areas more heavy in dark matter - space - will expand faster (at least from our perspective, since we only see visible matter).
But one thing to ask: How would your theory of unification explain gravity?
HarringtonAlex 6 months ago
I gave this video a thumbs up because the dialogue and animation were good, but it left me more than a little confused.
R U trying to say that expanding clusters of particles in higher dimensions R responsible for the 4 forces?
So, for example, 4D space-time is being eaten by matter as they radiate said clusters in higher dimension(s), giving rise to the curved space-time (gravity), so much like water circling the drain planets orbit stars.
SimplyObjective 6 months ago
hey, talk faster and use a shittier microphone next time you record a video.
presbarkeep 7 months ago
Could you repeat that? I lost you at "science."
MIKEANTHONY321 7 months ago
Heres something to consider.. Space seems to go on forever right? But if gravity bends light then technically it would curve back in towards the cluster of planets and stars, extending the "perception" that more space existed, and again and again and again. In theory the thousands of galaxies we see in the sky could really just be the same one over and over and over, but at different angles and different times since light takes time to travel. Put that in your pipe and smoke it
ricktbdgc 7 months ago
Gravity brings things closer together, so it would make sense that a galaxy closer to a main source of gravity gets pulled faster than a galaxy further away. It would seem like the two objects are getting further apart, if no other frame of reference existed. ALso consider that the way space bends, looking in two opposite directions in space may actually contain the same destination but from a different perspective making it seem like 2 different places. We may find our own milky way someday
ricktbdgc 7 months ago
Hey man, I dunno bout your theory but I'm all about turning existing theory inside out. I have a theory of my own about the "expanding" universe. Its relative. You could measure that galaxies are getting farther apart, but maybe because instead of the universe expanding, our local space is contracting, making it seem like other galaxies are getting farther away.
ricktbdgc 7 months ago
it sounds interesting, but i don't really get it... first you rebuke the concept of space, and time as being abstract (thus really non-existing), and then you continue talking about expansion and rotation (fenomens that need space and time to occur) of mass...?
MidnightSt 7 months ago
what if
Blastcasterincmich 7 months ago
this could be true.
Ramsez 8 months ago
Good video :)
You may want to slow down the speed at which the narration is read, you have lots of time, use it.
Also it seems to be edited in Mono, stereo is usually better received on YouTube.
Just some thoughts.
SpectrumRadioNetwork 9 months ago
Good vid, better than following the sheep. Could gravity waves be magnetic waves that have been frequency stretched by space/time differences? Lower frequency photons generally get absorbed more but carry less energy... Now I wonder if all attractive forces aren't the same energy but at a different frequencies.
thinkrealify 9 months ago
DARK ENERGY! AND COSMIC ETERNAL INFLATION!
FallofDarkness55 9 months ago
Or is this what is referred to as entropic gravity?
taicleis 10 months ago
This is elegant, and... brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. I'd like more. Is there a book or paper you are basing this from?
taicleis 10 months ago
If threw ball past planet,would still follow curved trajectory under'expansion' theory as cause of gravity opposed to 'curved space-time'.(E=mc2 means light/energy are fundamentally equivalent,today light/particle distinctions fuzzy).Question isn't if gravity causes light to bend(well documented).Question:what causes gravity phenomena?Recent observation:universe expands accelerated rate.Ideas in video very much worth considering! (big bang resulting from a black hole is a possible explanation!)
360f8 11 months ago
Azarathos: Orest Chwolson (not Einstein!) deserves credit of gravitational lens (bending of light)!
Every black hole might be a big bang in a parallel universe! (we don't know what happens inside a black hole!). Dark matter, particle/wave classification/interaction, observed accelerating expansion of universe… There are always new and fascinating observed phenomena when we look!
360f8 11 months ago
Comment removed
360f8 11 months ago
So as I right this now Im huge
cloneabe 1 year ago
the "particals" are vibrating and putting off "sound waves" (EMF). the "sound" waves are whats expanding outward causing the representaion of mass? Light passes by these "sound" waves and is drawn into the center of the mass a bit because it is sympathetic to the vibratory frequency of mass?
TheMeansardine 1 year ago
And my thirth and maybe the most important question: How can we define the rate of atomic and quantummechanical vaccuum expansion to control its balans whit the values of gravitational pull per mass units we observe in the universe. I would really like to know peoples opinion about the question's so,if you have got the time interest to answer them please do! thank you
ytkoekie2000 1 year ago
This is the first time i hear of this way of thinking about gravity and I consider it to be very interesting becuase it sounds like a very simplistic idea. But I have a couple of questions about it... 1. Me myself cant really think of this to be a physical theory of the universe(maybe becuase it isnt physical?) but i rather consider it a philosphical idea. 2. Is this considert to be a expantion to the cosmological constant of Einstein into not only vacuum expansion but also atomical expansion?..
ytkoekie2000 1 year ago
Quarks and leptons are only particles sometimes, waves somtimes, and they transform into eachoher spontaneously, blipping in and out of existence. So how can this expanding particle theory explain gravity when this is the case?
whymewhyherewhynow 1 year ago
this is inflation theory right
chrism216 1 year ago
Interesting twist on things. I won't even attempt to explain the myriad of other things to be considered, of which there are many. But I think its pretty cool to imagine gravity being due to the ever expanding and ever increasing velocity of that expansion.
Imagine standing on the surface of the earth as being similar to sitting inside a rocket ship that's in constant acceleration, in essence, the surface of the earth constantly pushing us outward, faster and faster... against inertia.
Peopleunit 1 year ago
wuut??
situlo 1 year ago
Nice concept. Black matter is probably expending like the earth, sun, and everything. tanks for sharing.
magnetismewave 1 year ago
The consensus seems to be that the universe is expanding. That said, one must ask, at what level or scale does it stop expanding. It makes sense that it would be expanding at the sub atomic scale as well. This theory seems to make more sense than gravitons or space-time fabric. There is so much we don't understand that it seems foolish to write this off without considering it to some extent.
qixxxz 1 year ago
see i've got no bace in science whatsoever but i just like the idea of reducing the gravity thing to a warping of space soloution because it would apply the sence 'atleast' as to why gravity in an instant force. But that wouldn't say there's not room to include elements of this mysterious graviton theory as well. apart from being a hard-ass subject to even conceptualise it would possibly involve dimentions that would be impossible to represent visualy making it a hard task to take to paper
kinghingle 1 year ago
From what I understand, this borders on 'here is my invisible friend' claim. You can't disprove it. I wonder if the author has the equations to match the theory.
qarusel 1 year ago
and what do we find when we build a bigger telescope?
vengencefrom1979 1 year ago
Electrons in orbital paths???????
As with String theory appealing to the fact that everyone should keep an open mind will not help prove a theory.
And exactly as with String theory, when you inherently cannot prove a theory it will never be true, in the most scientific meaning of the word based on the scientific method.
Hence it will remain false until the end of time or until we die, go to heaven and god tells us otherwise because he's suppose to be unbound from conventional laws of nature.
Cityj0hn 1 year ago
Hmmm. interesting. I have some thought though ;
1. Gravity as we have realized is indeed one of the constant forces of our Universe that baffled us for a Grand Unified Theory. After Einstein, the ultimate quest for Physicist has been this unification : a. String theory - In time " graviton ", a key factor in the theory will be studied/confirmed by LHC ( very near now, so they say ). b. MBT, Higgs Boson to explain mass of particles; thus gravity, Nassim's double Torus model.....
09205479428 1 year ago
..... Hagelin's Unification through consciousness, Deyo's ripple model and others.
and now Accelerating Particle Expansion.
09205479428 1 year ago
2. With all of these theories containing " a fraction of the whole truth ", none ca be easily discarded, instead they should be kept as Important References.
3. We are looking into Unification with our own human perception just as Newton, Einstein and us modern people. With your theory. I would like to ask, What causes the SPIN, ACCELERATION and EXPANSION ?
09205479428 1 year ago 2
4. What if there is no Unification in our Physical 3d + time /11 dimension ( ?) or relative to where we are observing at matter and energy interaction ? What if there are two forces ( energy/matter ) at work . The first dense energy is what we are observing then a larger energy form is interacting causing all the spins, waves, vibration ? If Unification is unsuccesful, this is the inevitable direction.
so that ;
09205479428 1 year ago
5. .... my favor to those who have access to technology who can verify theories is to try likewise if Gravity is just the result on animated physical reality in this dense physical reality /frame and that an external second force is triggering all physical matters to vibrate, ACCELERATE, EXPAND, and resonate to create such our physical reality.
09205479428 1 year ago
@09205479428 I'm sorry it's taken me this long to get back to you -- your question is an excellent one, and I hope to address it in the final version of the film (due for completion... soon.) What causes expansion is fairly simple: Imagine 1,000 marbles scattered throughout a volume of 10 cubic feet in deep space, and each marble has a completely random and arbitrary speed and direction. Now, collectively, these marbles make up a large identifiable object – a ‘cloud’ or ‘cluster’ of marbles
cdewilde 7 months ago
@09205479428 ...but if the marbles are all moving, the cluster won’t just occupy 10 cubic feet for very long. And this is because the cloud has a geometric center, which is the average position in 3D space of all the marbles at any given moment – and every marble is 99.999% likely to be moving, to some degree or other, away from that specific center point. Remember that for each marble there is only one direction that leads directly towards that center point,
cdewilde 7 months ago
For every action there is an equal & opposite reaction. Gravity is a reaction what is the equal opposite action? When that is known then you will understand gravity. Actually there is a hypothesis which explains gravity, not relativity either. The hypothesis is simple & explains why the universe is inflating without having to inset dark matter or dark energy. It explains the age of Saturn's rings & predicts a very young age for Kepler Belt. If Kepler belt is young then the hypothesis is right.
GateMessenger 1 year ago
xThe universe is expanding for some reason, wheres the material for the expansion comming from.
2012nugget 1 year ago
@2012nugget
that's the fun part, there is no more material than we started with at the moment of the big bang, meaning that the universe will eventually be very diluted and energy will be spread out even more until you can hardly say there is something in the universe at all. That or the big tear or the big crunch.
Cityj0hn 1 year ago
no sound = fail.
Frankyyourpimp 1 year ago
There is something fundamentally wrong with this. What about things that do not consist of mass? And how does this explain the electron cloud that is around a atom core. This also comes in conflict with where does the energy to spin the so much heavier cores from if the electrons does not lose any energy or even gain?
Dasmaster1 1 year ago
@Dasmaster1 But nothing is static, everything is in motion and its path altered through forces of attraction & repulsion. The orbits of electrons are only theoretical after all. Or am I just too dumb?
pondman27 1 year ago
@pondman27 Motion is just relative to other objects. And your entering dangerous waters here.... an atom can by default not be visualised. The only way and also what will most like be THE only way to describe an atom is through an strange and master level mathematics that defies the normal rules of conventional math. To imagine electrons as balls hitting an object etc is wrong.. To imagine the core as a cluster is also wrong... its just something they simplify for students sake...
Dasmaster1 1 year ago
one of my favorite youtube vids
DestroyerX61 1 year ago
Doesn't explain space's relationship with time...which has already been demonstrated with atomic clocks on planes, as well as GPS's compensation for time dilation due to earth's gravity. It runs counter to the entire mathematical structure of relativity and quantum mechanics--the same math, mind, which has made the most precise confirmed predictions in history. There's more to physical theory than pictures; it must calculate established phenomena as well as make falsifiable predictions.
HebiNoSannin 1 year ago
@HebiNoSannin i dunno, im sure with some work from some top-bollock theorists that 4 dimentional space could be a factor in gravity's exsistance.. if i had long enough with u and some massive acute drawing skills i'd love to try and show u how i think the time dialation thing could be accounted for
kinghingle 1 year ago
Interesting theory, but like others have stated. It does not explain the fabric of space-time properly given it does not take black holes or the protons of light being drawn towards a gravitational field. Not that this theory is wrong, it could actually be right. However it needs a lot, lot, more research.
EzraGoldstein 1 year ago
this can't be right, because it wouldn't explain why light curves in the presence of a massive object, such as the sun. we can see many stars that are behind the sun BECAUSE, as einstein predicted, spacetime itself is what's getting warped inwards, thus explaining why some stars behind the sun would curve just enough as they pass near the sun so that they reach the earth. a theory of expanding matter wouldnt explain this phenomenon at all. sorry
Azarathos 1 year ago 15
@Azarathos I think you're thinking of the concept in the wrong way. Think about a photon from a distant star passing by the sun and as it does, the sun is expanding. Now, before the photon passes the sun, the sun is "smaller" and after it passes by the sun and gets to us, the observers, the sun now is large enough that in spatial terms it should be blocking our line of sight to that distant star. It would still explain the phenomenon just fine.
Chinchilla7Man 1 year ago
@Chinchilla7Man Hmm that's true.
Azarathos 1 year ago
@Azarathos That's right, gravitational lensing doesn't only bend photons directly toward a gravitational source, since light travels at its constant speed (no accelleration) of c. There are other effects, and of course light gets bent sometimes clear around an object. In a picture where everything grows, everything would be a black hole, and if light were to modify a collapsing rate to compensate for all other expansions, then Occam's razor comes to shave.
HebiNoSannin 1 year ago
And also we violate the well-tested equivalence principle by differentiating between other accellerations and accellerations caused by gravity, which in this case violate causality. This is a throwback to Newton, perhaps even behind him since Newton also had other force and motion laws which along with gravity agreed reasonably well with data (until the clocks-on-planes and GPS of course)
HebiNoSannin 1 year ago
@Azarathos what would happen if u rolled a marbel across a flat surface,, it would go stright.. if u run it across a warped surface it would curve.. in this model light would mearly be following the direction of the warped space so with the correct angle of entry, light could curve around an object at the center of a gravity well and appear onthe other side intact, but having taken a path around the object
kinghingle 1 year ago
@Azarathos don't speak for Einstein. the beginning of the video made the claim that there's no fundamental difference between 'warping' space and 'warping' mass... you seem to have completely ignored that.
Mijitr 10 months ago
@Azarathos Maybe since the sun has more mass in it, it is expanding faster than the earth, thereby pushing the light out and making it bulge local to the sun.
oaney 8 months ago
@oaney The sun can't just "push the light out" because it's big. When light comes into contact with an object, it either reflects, refracts, or diffracts; to say that the sun "pushes light out" is meaningless, because that's not how light behaves (and this light never comes into contact with the sun). Plus, data says that the light curves inward toward the sun, not away from it.
Azarathos 8 months ago
@Azarathos I was just thinking about the gravitational lensing effect, where the light from a star behind a massive body sort of wraps around the massive body... And then attempting (in vain) to apply that to this new "turning gravity inside out" theory...
oaney 8 months ago
@Azarathos Why wouldn't it explain that? If space is curved then of course the light would "curve". This curvature of course would only be observable relative to a certain framework but isn't this what Einstein said in the first place?
MrMZaccone 7 months ago
@MrMZaccone Because this theory isn't talking about any curvatures in space. It only deals with matter expanding.
Azarathos 7 months ago
@Azarathos Could be I misunderstood it.
MrMZaccone 7 months ago
@Azarathos Well, wouldn't an expanding sun "Push" the photons outward causing the same effect ?
tnsradioireland 7 months ago
@tnsradioireland Through which means would this expanding sun "push" these photons outward? As I wrote in an earlier comment:
The sun can't just "push light out" because it's big. When light comes into contact with an object, it either reflects, refracts, or diffracts; to say that the sun "pushes light out" is meaningless, because that's not how light behaves.
Azarathos 7 months ago
@Azarathos Thanks for your comment, and I'm sorry for the late reply -- "space" is defined by objects contained within it... there is no static point of reference by which to delineate space -- everything is in motion... so we establish our coordinate systems of space and time with boundaries of relevance: the very smallest and fastest and fastest cyclical phenomena we can measure determine the basis for time at the smallest scale:
cdewilde 7 months ago
@Azarathos ...roughly 9.2 billion radiation cycles corresponding to the transition between two hyperfine ground states of the caesium 133 atom at absolute zero define the unit of the time we call the 'second', but that offers no guarantee that each such measurement measures an identical slice of time... Or rather, it does, but only because that is the very definition that we give to time. Just remember that the map is not the territory. Our coordinate system for space behaves similarly...
cdewilde 7 months ago
@Azarathos ...we see light 'bending' around massive objects, and so we assume that the objects exert some mysterious 'pull' force on the light. It is just as plausible (and I would argue *far more* plausible) that large masses are expanding through the path that light has traveled. It is in using the position of those massive objects as markers to establish the coordinate system of space that we fail to recognize that they are dynamic members of the coordinate system. Everything moves. Always.
cdewilde 7 months ago
@Azarathos ...and every other possible direction leads somewhere else. And should one lucky marble happen to start out traveling directly towards center, it will eventually reach the center, pass through the center, and start traveling directly away from center. Now we see that (and why) our cloud of marbles is expanding, and we also see why “expansion” really just means simultaneous omni-directional motion – the cloud, which is physically defined as the sum of its parts,
cdewilde 7 months ago
@Azarathos is getting bigger by moving in every direction at the same time. But it appears that our cloud is becoming less dense in the process -- only because we’re thinking of the moving parts that comprise it as marbles – little solid nuggets that we don’t tend to conceive of as changing in scale. So let’s revise our mental picture to capture the idea that those marbles are essentially made from little expanding clouds as well – they are each made up of trillions of tiny atoms
cdewilde 7 months ago
@Azarathos , which are little fluffy clouds of leptons, hadrons, and nucleons. Now, if the rate of expansion at one scale (say the expansion of our cloud of marbles) is faster than the rate of expansion of the constituent elements (i.e., the particles that make up the marbles), then we will see an drop in density of the cloud. If the rate of each marbles’ particle expansion is faster than the rate of expansion of the cloud comprised of the marbles,
cdewilde 7 months ago
@Azarathos then the marbles will all coalesce into a dense, solid looking object, which in free space, will automatically (and very quickly) self-organize into a more-or-less spherical shape in response to distribution of pressure. Relative rotation of the marbles, which is a natural and necessary consequence of collision dynamics, adds a new dimension of ‘magnetic’ interaction but we don't have to eat that sandwich right now.
cdewilde 7 months ago
@cdewilde Hmm this is an interesting theory, but there are some phenomena that I can't quite explain using this theory. The main one that comes to mind is gravitational time dilation. How can it be explained through this theory?
Azarathos 6 months ago
hi im sorry im not quite in understanding of this, when u say matter grows do u mean it acually grows in our 3 dimentions? if this is true wouldnt it then fall under the law of 3d expansion? saying if an object is increased to twice its size its weight is increased 3fold? this would sertainly be the case if the nucleus of the atoms expanded if they do not it would mean that either the electron clouds around them are or the space between the atoms?
dutubarn 1 year ago
Don't want to hurt the guys feelings but where is the proof?
Thetruthishere11 1 year ago
...anyone hear a word of what he was saying ?
docatomics 1 year ago
seems a lot like he smoked some weed and made a video.
BrandonFurtwangler 1 year ago
what's with the freaking narrator's voice? put the voice sequencer away and just speak into the mic with your regular voice like a normal person and at a reasonable speed.....jeez.
AlexBrasil123123 1 year ago
It's ok. But the pitch. THE pitch. Please slow it down. We are only human
maiwald56 1 year ago
Neat-o
RedLetterChristian 1 year ago
Ya know....this makes way too much sense that...well, it's almost scary.
FireFox1914 1 year ago
Gravity=universal vacuum. The vacuum within Earth's atmosphere is actually greater than that of outer space, not lesser. We exist in a vacuum, pressure does not exist.
ScottishProfessor 1 year ago
1080 hd would be much appreciated as the improved visual textures of animation! Anyway respect!
zeRhpositive 1 year ago
Oh my god, I have this same theory, but I've been calling it "matter expansion theory". It does explain gravity as acceleration, but I've been saying that the acceleration effect is from the fact that because denser materials have more mass, and therefore denser materials expand faster than lighter ones. I also reasoned that this is why objects appear to shrink in the distance, because the seeing apparatus is larger, and therefore less impressionable.
PrivationProductions 2 years ago
so ..... why is gravity weak ? and what does that all mean ?
NecrotiKmax 2 years ago
Hello Friends! Now you can help me! lets told about my new videos fro yours Friends!
Thanks!
Etimespace
Alias Mr. Pressure
.
Etimespace 2 years ago
1. Scientific experiments
The argument about the expanding space is an empty argument! There is no way
to make scientific experiments with a space. The argument about expanding
space is not science. It is a religion!
The thing that particules radiate their energy is not an empty claim.
Particules can be examined and make scientifical experiment with them and
this way proof this claim to be true.
Etimespace 2 years ago
2. Let´s take long chutes from different materials into the space and place
telescopes to them to observe some known place of a star. If the energy that
comes to the chutes makes the photons moving in the chute to bend towards
the chute, we can this way observe that this star concerned seems to be in a
different place than it is known to be!
Etimespace 2 years ago
3. The sun does not curve the space. The energy coming towards the sun makes
photons passing by the sun to bend towards the sun, because the hot / thick,
small and little exterior surface possessing particules do not interact with
the photons passing by the sun!
Etimespace 2 years ago
4. Even Einstein once told us that the massive the object is, the slower the
time is.
In relation to the size of a star there is much more energy / substance in
the stars than in the photons. The substance / energy is denser in the stars
than what it is in the photons. The time of the stars is so slower than the
time of the photons!
Etimespace 2 years ago
5. This way the time of the old photons is faster than the time of the new
photons and the photons radiating from the stars do not tranfer their
kinetic energy to the photons passing by the star as much as the photons
coming towards the star do. This way the light bends at the same time it
passes the star without supposedly the star would bend the space!
Etimespace 2 years ago
This video failed a simple test...
Orbits are failed to be explained by this, unless it supposes a force, which is what it fights against.
TheReasonWhyGuy 2 years ago
I agree, but the sense it makes in other areas is what makes it worth the effort to find a solution for orbits. I came up with one regarding the nature of "centering". Between two spheres, it is the particles centered toward the other sphere which is actually expanding towards the other sphere. In an orbit, the other sphere is simply moving fast enough in, a single direction, to constantly have the other sphere's "center" expand behind it. The circular path is simply the resulting phenomenon.
PrivationProductions 2 years ago
Single direction+ expansion= 1/4 of an orbit which takes an infinite amount of time.
TheReasonWhyGuy 2 years ago
Consider the tidal forces, or how the atmosphere would appear to get sucked up into empty space to meet the moon if the moon were to come too close. Matter expansion would not explain that except for the idea of "centering". The center-bar of the Earth that points towards the moon is the only thing expanding towards the moon. The other particles are actually being pushed in a trajectory away from the moon during expansion. That "center-bar" is changing as the moon continues. In orbit, its behind
PrivationProductions 2 years ago
Comment removed
TheReasonWhyGuy 2 years ago
Comment removed
TheReasonWhyGuy 2 years ago
@PrivationProductions
That's irrelevant to my point...
If I fire a cannon in a straight direction, and it's near an expanding mass, and the cannon ball is expanding too, then ignoring atmospheric resistance, the cannon ball would appear to orbit for the first 1/4th, but slow infinitely as it approached a total point to second expanding mass direction change of 90 degrees.
Every orbital mass would never get past 1/4th a revolution.
TheReasonWhyGuy 2 years ago
I agree that this is difficult. But, because there is expansion, there always appears to be "movement toward" the other sphere, which is an all new direction that the center of the sphere actually isn't moving. Basically, it is the addition of this "extra direction" that causes the orbit to take on a circular appearance, because no matter where the spheres are, their centers appear to be in movement towards the other, when in 0-time, they are not. Referencing empty space is therefore, tricky.
PrivationProductions 1 year ago
@PrivationProductions
Wow, this isn't that complicated... and I've done a few simulations which show this...
An object in motion stays in motion, in the same direction..
If I shoot an object, and a large mass without gravity isn't expanding, then the balls total direction change will be at 90 degrees after an infinite amount of time... if the objects are expanding, then the relative scale of distance seems to stay constant, yet the same rules about total relative angle change apply
TheReasonWhyGuy 1 year ago
Gravity, "Universal vacuum resulting from the compression of mass in the closed system, the force of said gravity proportional to the density of the mass. Gravity works in tandem with, but independently of, all things atmospheric, mass, electromagnetic forces, etc. Gravity results from the expansion of the universe resisted by the cumulative mass - creating universal vacuum in the vortex. In the closed system "mass=vacuum=gravity." Pressure doesn't exist - only degrees of vacuum.
ScottishProfessor 2 years ago
read "a constant rate" as "an identical rate of acceleration"
Roobydo 2 years ago
An "identical rate of acceleration", such as 6 m/s/s, is not a constant rate.
A constant rate is always a zero rate of acceleration
ShallowThoughts 2 years ago
This theory has so many holes. What about variations in gravitational force? If all matter is expanding at a constant rate, wouldn't gravitational force be constant, despite the mass of the objects involved? In order to have gravity vary as it does, objects with larger mass would have to expand faster, and the difference would be obvious.
Roobydo 2 years ago
matter expanion of any type cannot be witnessed. Denser materials simply appear to be "more attractive"
PrivationProductions 2 years ago
Since the paperclip moves away from the earth, toward the magnet, logic says that the magnet is expanding faster than the earth. According to this line of thinking, the magnet should visibly grow in scale in reference to the Earth as it attracts the paperclip, or the Earth should visibly shrink in reference to the magnet as the paperclip moves away from it, or they should both change by an average of the distance between the two, interdependently of the paperclip.
Roobydo 2 years ago
he means that he can explain "subatomic particles" as expanding leptons. He does not mean that magnetism is the same phenomenon as gravitational attraction via expanding matter. Magnetism is probably still the influence of the path of electrons
PrivationProductions 2 years ago
How does this theory address multiple forces acting on a group of objects traveling in different directions? You say this theory explains all four forces, but how can several objects be expanding at different rates in relation to more than one frame of reference? For example, If a magnet attracts a paperclip directly away from the surface of the earth, this theory suggests that the magnet really expands into the empty space between itself and the paperclip... (continued in next comment)
Roobydo 2 years ago
Bravo! This is an extraordinarily vivid explanation of the implications of general relativity. It's actually my favorite video on YouTube. The earth's gravity is a push upward by the earth - not a pull in space. It just looks like an 'invisible force' because we're being pushed - as with any other 'fictitious force' in classical physics. We forget we're not in free fall.
And any kid will tell you that it's Work to hold up a heavy object. From a skydiver's POV, one can confirm it IS work.
davidalevitt 2 years ago
i guess no one cares about this sort of thing, whats going on jerry springer is more important. so much for what is explained in the first part of this vidio, they wont get it anyway.....
dinahthecatrulez 2 years ago
vacuum will eventually stretch space as far as it can go and that is when the vacuum will start ripping matter apart i estimate this will occur 2012 give or take a few billion years haha
dinahthecatrulez 2 years ago
vacuum can be found in 99.9999 % of the universe it can be found were mass cravity and light do not exist it does not no time it is dark matter the point were space itself is being stretched
dinahthecatrulez 2 years ago
the reasons the planets are expanding 1 space debree 2 the universe is expanding and that is increasing the vacuum of space at some point even atoms will be riped apart by this force that gets no attention vacuum superceeds cravity thats why earth with all its mass only is able to produce the slite pull we feel today
dinahthecatrulez 2 years ago
Very nice!
ajwolf 2 years ago
i really like the end, how does this apply to supperconductors? of course me need a new vieupoint,,the old one lets us c olnly so farr,,lol if it is a good idea, the mainstream will totaly regect it at first,, hahaha but when it salves more and ore problems then theres a tiping point and thal all jump on bored and say of cours it has to belike this,,lol great vid,,freash idea 2 me.
DANTHETUBEMAN 2 years ago
And that which even the smartest physicist can't explain with old school is the bowling ball/penny hitting the ground at the same time - the only way to explain that is the earth expanding towards them both at the same speed. When you understand this concept - then all old school gravity theory goes out the window. Gravity IS caused by expansion of all objects toward each other.
fuzzman999 2 years ago
This theory doesn't work. Doesn't even explain how planets orbit one another. If everything was expanding, the moon would not continue to orbit the earth.
If you disagree with me, try it geometrically on paper.
deadego2009 2 years ago
It absolutely explains orbits. Orbits are simply geometric illusions created by objects expanding towards each other. Why do we only see one side of the moon? Scientists state that the period of rotation of the moon is exactly that of its period of revolution around the earth. The chances of this happening are 1 in a Googolplex. What it is is that the moon is absolutely static in terms of its rotation. The gemoetric ullusion of the orbit makes only one side face the earth.
fuzzman999 2 years ago
The moon always faces us because it was probably part of the earth (where the pacific ocean is) and was hit by a comet, thus making it orbit the earth's center of gravity the same way it did when it was sitting in the pacific. Draw two spheres that are expanding in multiple phases (time=0,1,2,3...etc). This will explain gravity perfectly but it will breakdown when you try to explain how any planet orbits the sun or how any moon orbits its planet. I came up with the exact same theory 3 yrs ago
deadego2009 2 years ago
And one other thing - exponential growth (i.e. expansion) pervades our everyday existence e.g. exponential growth of populations. This mysterious life force seems to have exponential growth/expansion as ones of its fundamental forces - it only makes sense that this also pervades the physical world as all matter expanding exponentially - planets, galaxies, the universe - thus creating that which we call the concept of gravity.
fuzzman999 2 years ago
I read about this same concept in The Final Theory by Mark McCutcheon. I was immediately sold on this idea which makes perfect intuitive sense. Thinking about gravity from this viewpoint makes so much more sense than the Newtonian and Einsten theories. Current physicists should be embarassed for continuing to believe the old school science. Apparently they all "hate" this theory because it so changes everything they have ever learned. Great vid, great explanation - made by a true genius.
fuzzman999 2 years ago
I see.
wareaglemartin 2 years ago
This is realy clever, bit to clever for me to fully understand, but i like the idea of looking "beyond the frame of reference".
Armuotas 2 years ago
yea but einstein's theory is much more evident..
rubut 2 years ago
Interesting, i have had some similar thoughts. Trying to link space/time/expansion.
Ultraversed 2 years ago
hmm i think i kind of understand it... its hard because english is not my mothertongue...
i wonder: if the masses expand rather than spacetime contracting, why cant we measure it ?, like the earths equator should gain length over the years... ??!
MasterFPunkt 2 years ago
i just thought another question:
what about black holes ? their gravity is so big that they even suck light in. If this theory here is true, the expansion of the black holes mass must be faster than lightspeed ! This cant be true....
MasterFPunkt 2 years ago 6
It is in fact a very clevar idea, and the reason the measuerment of the equator would not change is because the tool u are using to measure is also expanding.
the thing about black holes is interesting and I cannot begin to explain.
TheKturner05 2 years ago
@MasterFPunkt yes it can expansion of matter doesnt have a speed limit, this is why the universe is only 13.7 billion years old yet somehow has a diameter of over 80 bilion lightyears. If expansion of matter has a speed limit then how is this possible?
klooger28 1 year ago
@MasterFPunkt Both the black hole's mass and the photon's mass are expanding toward one another, so the expansion of mass wouldn't need to approach light speed. The theory could still work.
Chinchilla7Man 1 year ago
@MasterFPunkt
I'm pretty ignorant as to these deep physics theorems, but from what I have found, we still don't really know what a black hole is, because we can only see it through the measurement capacities that we have. The idea of a beginning & an end (the big bang) seems to be contra to all other manifestations and only becomes plausible if we see them as we do the vortex where acceeration leads to an altered state.?
pondman27 1 year ago
@MasterFPunkt i went faster then light once. I was invisible.
NobleNihilist 1 year ago
@MasterFPunkt i went faster then light once. I was invisible. Dont even think about try to speak.
NobleNihilist 1 year ago
@MasterFPunkt i went faster then light once. I was invisible. Dont even think about trying to speak.
NobleNihilist 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
......................
F+
discoinfern0 2 years ago
2:25 blueberries!!!!! i fucking love bloobairease
xxxslayerxxx666 2 years ago
My apologies for neglecting to comment sooner on the video itself. I love it! And I like the rapid-fire pace of the narration. It adds to the thrill and it puts you on your toes, or at least to the edge of your seat.
Best wishes to cruzdewilde in all endeavors. And thanks for bringing attention to the possibility that all goes onward and outward via gravity.
RJBenish 2 years ago
Comment removed
RJBenish 2 years ago
To davidalevitt, a description of the experiment and related ideas are found at GravitationLab,com.
Two valid recurring concerns here are orbits and the fact that the acceleration varies for different distances and different masses. These problems persist (fatally for the model) unless the expansion process: 1) creates curvature by its motion and 2) unfolds by generating a 4th dimension of space. It's not just that matter expands into pre-existing space. Gravity also makes a new dimension.
RJBenish 2 years ago
If we assume that the universe is a sphere larger than any particle within it and that all particles are spheres expanding at the same rate as the universe, the net effect is that the volume increase of the universe will be greater than the volume increase of any particle down to a certain scale where the 'local' rate of expansion of matter will exceed the 'local' rate of expansion of space, thereby creating an apparent curvature of motion, orbits, and a 3^2 law effect.
Piscivorus 2 years ago
However, do not make the mistake of assuming that there is only one coordinate system for the universe, it more relativistic. Every particle exists at the center of it's own sphere of the universe and therefore has it's own coordinate system- it's own inertial frame.
Piscivorus 2 years ago
GravitationLab is provocative and interesting, like deWilde's wonderful video here. I think it will be hard to complete your experiments on earth for the reasons you've discovered, but easier in space, where the center of the dominant field can be near the center of the object. Release a torus or hollow spherical mass in space where no planetary field dominates; then release a smaller mass at its empty center and observe it.
davidalevitt 2 years ago
(this was actually intended as a Reply to RJBenish in the conversation below)
davidalevitt 2 years ago
Doing the experiment in space would indeed make it much simpler. It would be more like the classic idealized thought experiment. But the beginning of the experiment would not involve putting the test mass at the center of the source mass. The source mass would have a hole through its diameter and the test mass would be released at one end of the hole. If gravity is a force of attraction, the test mass oscillates. But if it is a process of outward movement the test mass will not pass the center.
RJBenish 2 years ago
Right, testing the oscillator is a key initial experiment. Then: what's your theory of what happens to an object placed at the center? Since it is in a weaker field than its container - if the expansion theory is correct will the object appear to shrink relative to its enclosure?
davidalevitt 2 years ago
The sizes of all masses remain constant relative to one another. The "expansion rate" cannot be represented by the widely ranging field strengths (acceleration) due to gravity. This is a misconception that most "expanding matter" models of gravity suffer from, as pointed out earlier. The only way I know of to conceive gravity as an expansive process, is in terms of the generation of space. New space is being perpetually created by matter as it projects itself into the fourth spatial dimension.
RJBenish 2 years ago
Objects in the same location and field maintain constant relative size so yes, that's what a rulers made of matter will always show. But across a varying field, general relativity effects can be detected optically. During an eclipse one sees stars that were 'behind' the sun when it was smaller, minutes ago.
Great points about accelerometers! I built a simple iPhone app that confirms it: the phone accelerates when it's on the earth's surface, NOT when it looks like it's falling!
davidalevitt 2 years ago
I don't think it's reasonable to attribute gravitational light bending to a change in the size of the Sun. The effect is attributable to spacetime curvature. In the standard view, nobody has any idea HOW spacetime gets its curvature. In the space generation model, spacetime is curved because it is in a state of perpetual motion. But, to repeat, this conception is not logically defensible without a 4th space dimension. The best way to test the idea is by doing the interior solution experiment.
RJBenish 2 years ago
In general relativity, the space around matter shrinks over time - thus it is curved space-time. From an inertial reference frame the matter is expanding.
Think of general relativity's metric tensor as describing the rate at which the inch or the meter expands in the vicinity of matter -- which is also the rate at which matter itself expands at that location. Feel it push against you.
davidalevitt 2 years ago
(continued)
If instead you treat the expanding surfaces as stationary, it appears that objects are being pulled by invisible forces, much like the fictitious forces on a merry go round. Gravity is such a fictitious force that helps us ignore and deny our own upward acceleration.
davidalevitt 2 years ago
It would help your case if you could show mathematically how "general relativity's metric tensor describes the rate at which the inch or the meter expands."
I don't think you can do it because, e.g., the solution corresponding to the field around a spherical mass (Schwarzschild solution) is explicitly STATIC from ANY frame of reference. And the Schwarzschild INTERIOR solution predicts that a falling object would oscillate through an antipodal hole, in agreement with Newtonian gravity.
RJBenish 2 years ago
While I'm not fluent in Schwarzchild's math, the description of "falling" objects in fact moving with constant velocity through curve(-ing) space(-time) is fundamental to general relativity.
The question becomes, "From what point(s) of view can we see such projectiles and planets 'really' moving in straight lines?" Not from a static POV on the earth's surface, obviously. From a skydiver's? DeWilde's video is a great start.
Let's continue this conversation via email as you suggested.
davidalevitt 2 years ago
If gravity is not a force of attraction, but is instead a process of some kind out outward movement, then visualizing it is a very ticklish issue. I've been at it for many years, and at an early stage I too thought it involved a kind of simple inversion of general relativity. For the reasons mentioned above and others, this doesn't work. An entirely new theory is needed--one that "covers" the salvageable parts of GR (e.g., spacetime curvature) but goes beyond. rjbenish (at) teleport (dot) com.
RJBenish 2 years ago