Stationary mass has no energy.Movement x speed x spin creates energy . An object will bend space around it even if its stationary but will not have any energy but will the object create gravity simply by bending space ?.
@littleXjack i did not say energy had mass . At the speed of light the object gain's so much mass (infinite) . so it is not possible to cross speed of light.
I have to disagree with Nova... if the sun suddenly disappeared then the invisible pink unicorn would immediately create an all new sun. It's too bad that we are tricked into believing all this silly relativity stuff when the truth is so easy and simple, believe in the unicorn and be free.
@GabloFX2 HAHAHAHA I read this when it started and saw the stupid dog looking around. Reminded me of like, Bill O'Reailly. "Tides go in, tides go out, that's my proof of god"
@Grafschnitzel the energy possessed by an object due to its motion increases its mass.so as the mass increases it becomes harder for an object to move.so at the speed of light the object would possess the mass which would make it impossible to increase its speed beyond the speed of light .
All these popular videos don't explain WHY light is the fastest speed possible. They just accept it. But I would really appreciate an explanation: why is it that nothing can go faster than light? How is this proven?
@JamesBlack47 - Don't know what you're getting at here, but Brian Greene is a VERY friendly, pleasant fellow in person - not to mention brilliant! He's not arrogant at all - just REALLY sharp!
@Iconvid Actually, on a ring over two relations * and + with only the element 1, 1 necessarily is the neutral element to * as well as to +, and since 0 denotes nothing more than a neutral element upon +(while 1 denotes the same for *), it follows 1=0. =) That's calculus, first semester^^But of course only under the assumption, that 1 be the only number there is...
@1971SuperLead No, they're different things, just moving at the same speed. If you want to to get technical, gravity's a visible effect of space being distorted by matter. Since you probably don't, think of gravity as... say, a slope. Depressions in a landscape. The heavier an object, the steeper the slope. If the second object is immobile, it'll start falling towards the first, etc. The problem is with imagining it, since the "slope" doesn't visibly exist, only the effects.
@Azkadaz How would you then explain a concept such as a black hole? That presents the merging of how things work at the minute subatomic level as well as on a larger level
pretty good documentary but it repeats itself way too much and there are too many dull parts just for the sake of showing "cool" special effects. you could probably fit all the information into one hour and still keep it entertaining and interesting. thank you for uploading it though!
What bores me in this kind of videos is that they are so much a kind of exercise of fantasy... one feels somehow that something is faked, sorry. But maybe it is just my impression.
this is simple arithmetic to God, so what if we figure out an all encompassing idea that's been here all along, welcome to "just scratching the surface"...then what?
I suppose this is as relevant a place as any to mention that anyone can help in the exciting effort to detect "Gravity Waves" (the gravity analog to electromagnetic waves) by participating in the einstein@home project. Just Google for it. For more information on the effort, look up LIGO on Wikipedia.
no bro...earth is nt approaching the sun...at first i also thought the same.....bt the earth travels at a constant speed on the space time fabric...nd hence does not fall, if the speed of earth would have been decreasing then it would have fallen into the universe....
Gravity i think is still the most misunderstood force of them all. General Relativity still doesn't really explain where gravity comes from. We can say that light comes from our sun and that photons are created by nuclear fusion, but how is gravity involved in all this? What exactly causes gravity? Nuclear fusion? lol no so what actually causes it? Can someone please tell me this one all you experts out there
@Gforcebond i ain't not physicist but I am a physics student, and general relativity clearly explains where gravity originates from. It's caused by the curvature of the space time continuum.
@SoorejJones Wait, if the graviton exists, then didn't we already discover the secret between unification of particles and gravity by theorising that gravity is indeed made up of particles?
@RINGMASTER1118 I never said we have proved that Gravitons exist, it's just a hypothesis and guess what, I think that the guys at CERN are trying to detect these particles. When we do, we will have a Grand Unification Theory!
Is this all proven/accepted? I want to be sure. Many people say these kind of ideas are nonsensical, and that these people are driven by their will/intuition because they want to be right. They say that because of that, you get these kind of nonsensical theories that claim to be scientific.
@larbo1616 well, mathematical proof proves something makes sense to us, it doesn't mean it's true. the biblical version of the origin of the universe also made sense to people once, that didn't make it true. In fact, nothing we can say or think can be proven to be true, since our senses and reason are shaped in a certain way that is common to us all. there's no possible objectiveness, since objects don't think or speak, that's why theories are called theories instead of facts
Is it just me or, shouldn't gravity be the 'cosmic speed limit' and not light? I mean what's stopping gravity from being instantaneous? These physicists are saying nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Why should it not be the opposite that nothing can travel faster than the speed of gravity and therefore gravity should be instantaneous since nothing is stopping it, or should be stopping it, from being instantaneous? Why is light the cosmic speed limit and not gravity?
@wramy88 see, here is the problem I've noticed. All these physicists say "nothing can travel faster than the speed of light" without explaining >>why<<. My interpretatin is, gravity has always and will always be less of a thing and we must rethink what gravity is. That's all I'm saying. If you disagree that's your opinion. Plus I said gravity must be instantaneous which is kind of like saying it doesn't travel by speed so I don't know why you're disagrreing, could you please articulate.
@TheAlexander356 ok i see your point. I guess we're just splitting hairs because gravity does not travel by speed, that is correct. but youre talking about the effect of the force of gravity is instantaneous, which is confusing in regards to the speed of light. So it is a very good question to persue. But I don't think comparing light and gravity in respect to speeds is the way to go since they are totally different things and cannot be compared.
@wramy88 well thanks for agreeing with me and for the advice :) it's something I've thought about ever since I first saw this example in this exact video and can't wait to pursue this question along with a formula and thought-experiment and several other hypothesis of mine.
@kaypee1985 good for you. Did you drink every last drop of the kool-aid before it occured to you to ask why? I know physicists say that speed of light is equal to the speed of gravity. My question is WHY? Their calculations are based on the ASSUMPTION that nothing can surpass the speed of light, but they don't know that and especially haven't proved that.
If you want to know why - look up Wave Structure of Matter. Believe me, everything is questioned in physics. Physicists are perhaps the most skeptical peeps out there. If you want dogma, try biology :)
@kaypee1985 Your right, nothing >IS< instantaneous in this universe, and my inquiry is that perhaps it would be wise to think of gravity as less of a thing than we do.
@TheAlexander356 I have done some research and found out that gravity travels at the speed of light. It travels in waves, similar to a ripple after droping a rock in a peddle. Nothing can travel faster than light because light (if you look at it in a quantum way) is a traveling photon. A photon has a rest mass of zero. Therefore, unless the thing you are trying to accelerate weighs less than nothing, it can't travel faster than light.
Light also doesn't has infinite velocity because the equation e=mc2, which means that it gains mass from having the energy to travel that fast. Btw, you could travel faster than light in a glass, but not light in a vacuum.
I have some questions. Astros spread out in all directions, so how the surface behaves with stars passing over the sun, for example? To the land slip surface that was deformed by the sun, it is assumed that there is a force that plays down to earth, and that would cause clashed. (Which does not occur by centrifuges speed the earth.)
For instance, a ball on the surface of the Himalayas would not fall if there was no gravity. So what does the earth slip surface deformed by the sun?
there is an theory saying that the gravitational wave released by the effect of removing the sun in an instant travels exact at the same speed as the speed of light, meaning the earth and the other planets will divert from they original orbit and fly to space, so we would only feel the effect of the sun disapperance after 8.32 minutes.
@GodlessLiberal666 Considering space-time as a fabric, like Einstein, then there is also no "travel" of gravity just like there is no "travel" using the theoretical Alcubierre drive
Since neither the Alcubierre drive, nor gravity seem to "travel" in the travel in the traditional sense, I don't see how you can say that the Alcubierre drive does not travel faster than light(I understand your reasoning, but how can you not apply that idea to gravity) yet gravity does. I do enjoy this discussion
@GodlessLiberal666 I don't think it is great science to claim that something is approximately "something" and then "exactly" the same as something else. Statements like that poke holes in your argument.
There is a way to travel faster than light, if you are not familiar with the "Alcubierre Drive" I'd look into it.
@GodlessLiberal666 Why are you wasting your time arguing with this person? You are obviously not getting through. I advise you to cut your losses, and go outside.
If 3 dimensions of space and single dimension of time bond together as a single fabric of space time, then it is just like a scroll as it was mentioned in the Quran 1400 years ago. Looks like a carpet and can be rolled. I am not sure if this verse refer to this theory.
Quran:
[21.104] On that Day, We shall roll up the heaven like a written scroll is rolled. As We originated the first creation, so will We bring it back again. This is a binding promise on Us which We shall assuredly fulfill.
If 3 dimensions of space and single dimension of time bond together as a single fabric of space time, then it is just like a scroll as it was mentioned in the Quran 1400 years ago. Looks like a carpet and can be rolled. I am not sure if this verse refer to this theory.
Quran:
[21.104] On that Day, We shall roll up the heaven like a written scroll is rolled. As We originated the first creation, so will We bring it back again. This is a binding promise on Us which We shall assuredly fulfill.
@celticwonder25 : you're wrong, gravity DOES move at the speed of light. ou're mistaking the gravity's acceleration with the speed at which gravity takes its effect. For instance, Earth pulls al of the objects close to it at the ACCELERATION of 9,81 meters per SQUARE second. BUT, should someone move the Earth to another location in the Universe, the new effect of its gravitational field would PROPAGATE at the speed equal to the speed of light. General Relativity's basics.
hey..how can you know that the dog cant understand physics..maybe if you translate it somehow they can understand it too..its a stupid idea..but it might be true..the size of the brain is not important..maybe animals our smart too..
I'm reading the book (loving it) and there's one thing I'm finding hard to swallow: the constancy of the speed of light regardless of relative motion. If you're motionless, light (photons) is traveling at the rate of 670 million mph. Yet, if you're moving away from those same photons at 100 million miles per hour, they're still catching up to you at the rate of 670 mill. mph, not 570. The speed remains constant despite relative motion. What's the explanation for this?
@LordWhite2024 the explanation is that light must always staying 670 million mph no matter how fast you are going from it. so to compensate for this, time actually becomes slower for you. thus the speed of light will still be 670 million mph from you. time is only a relative thing on an object.
@LordWhite2024 Hi, that's the hole point in SRT - the explanation is more or less that we have to part from our intuitive understanding of time and "now".
To measure speeds you need a clock and a length-scale and everyone measuring takes his own "measure set" with him. So yes the "moving" observer will measure the same 670 but with his tools - so I guess the will come to see that somehow their tools are different - that's SRT (more or less)
The Gravitational Force Vector of Sun on Earth, from a Mechanical parallel, can be imagined as a tug of war beween Sun and Earth leading to Earth revolving around Sun. Now imagine Sun Vanishing, Its just like you and an elephant involved in a tug of war with the Elephant suddenly "releasing" the rope. As soon as that happens, you are shot "back". In case of astronomical distances, how "soon" is this soon? Is it immediate? How can that be when the impact cannot travel faster than C?
Well what you have to remember is there is a lag between the time it takes light to reach the Earth. As Light travels faster then the affects of Gravity. We would notice the Sun disappearing before we would feel the affects of the loss of Gravity. It is like you hear an Ambulance before you see it. And you know it is getting closer due to the Doppler affect. In this case the sound is Light and the Ambulance is Gravity.
@kaypee1985 Gravity does not travel at the same speed of light. Gravity is dependent on the Mass of an object, which generates its affect. For instance on Earth the Affect the Speed of Gravity has is at 9.81 Metres per second. Light moves at 299,792,458 Metres per second. So in essence you would notice the Sun is gone before the earth would lose its orbit. If you can equate gravity to moving at this speed from a point with no Mass by all means let me know :)
No, you are confused! :) Gravity (as a force) DOES travel at the speed of light.
But the acceleration of an object due to Earth's gravity is 9.8 m/sec^2.
To give you a comparison. If I drop a canon ball from an air plane, it will start at zero velocity and accelerate at the rate of 9.8 m/s^2 until it reaches its terminal velocity.
However, if Earth were to vanish, the impact will be felt at moon after 1.3 seconds have elapsed.
@kaypee1985 Incorrect, if the sun disappeared we would feel its effects before the 8 minutes it takes for the light from the sun to stop reaching us. Gravity does not travel at the speed of light.
@kaypee1985 no it wouldn't matter bc of the universes gravitational pull towards the sun and if not the sun towards the systems black hole if not other planets or if not buy that the massive black hole in the middle and etc.even if only the force it has its own spin and gravity. even some cases negative gravity if you really wanna start to talk.. nothing travels faster than light exept that hypothetical subatomic particle called a tachyon.
@kaypee1985 from an old 5 months ago comment about Gravity (as a force) DOES travel at the speed of light which it doesn't. i see that its five months ago now. and shouldn't be bothered with a response.
@kaypee1985 Gravity is a pseudo force (I have an advance mechanics, and GR background), not a real force; also please do explain how you are relating a "force" and a velocity (I'm a little curious)
@kaypee1985 Gravity is a pseudo force (like the Coriolis force), not a real force; also please do explain how you are relating a "force" and a velocity (I'm a little curious)
Light is not a "velocity" .... rather photons travel at a velocity. In other words, if light originates from a source, it takes so much time to reach its destination.
Likewise with gravity ... if sun were to magically disappear, before earth "realizes" this and takes off tangentially, it would take so many seconds [just as much time as light would].
@kaypee1985 Yeah that makes sense (and I am aware of the second point, I'm pretty sure the documentary talks about this effect when he talks about the space time fabric
The statement I was questioning seemed awkward, considering the 'force' of gravity as a velocity seemed weird and in the 5 years I've been completing my post graduate degree I have not seen gravity addressed in that way.
@kaypee1985 Noteable that in a vacuum there is no such thing as terminal velocity so in theory; any object in a vacuum, be it a cannonball or a feather will accelerate to the speed of light (Atleast until the gravitational pull ended).
gravity has a aceleration of 9.81 metres per second on earth... but thats not the same in other places.. for example: in jupiter gravity ir much sttronger than in the earth... and they are speaking of how fast gravity cand react. and its not at the speed of light but it is al 0.99999999 times the speed of light.
if you would be on the dark side of the earth you wouldn't feel anything, the sun just wouldn't come up the next day, earth would still have it's gravity
@kaypee1985 Nope, since the space time fabric doesn't move since it is everywhere, gravity instantaniously let's go of the orbit between the earth and the sun.
@kaypee1985 you dont know that they travel at the same speed, according to inflation theory of the big bang, space expanded faster than the speed of light. So i would say that gravity does travel faster than light, if space can. Cause since gravity is a property of space/time.
You are trying to apply Newtonian Mechanics to objects that travel at very high speed. Newtonian mechanics is no longer accurate when we talk of speeds comparable to c.
S = u+v is a newtonian approximation.
The real formula is S =(u+v)/(1+uv/c^2). In your case that would be c+gt/(1+cgt/c^2); c+gt/(1+gt/c) = c. Therefore, you put something moving at any speed before another that moves at the speed of light, the new speed continues to be c.
If an object traveling at speed u shoots an object at speed v, the object will move with the speed u+v. But when u and v are close to the speed of light, that formula is no longer valid. The more accurate formula for calculating speed is (u+v)/(1+uv/c^2).
Say u = 10 m/s and v =10 m/s, the combined speed is 20/(1+100/3X10^16) which can be approximated to 20. But say u = 0.5c and v = 0.5c, the combined speed = (0.5c+0.5c)/(1+0.25c^2/c^20 = c/1.25 = 0.8c. So the combined speed is 0.8c and not c.
so the object never reach the speed of light is that what you saying or is there any particle fly equal to speed of light
but can not pass speed of light
or the speed of particle fly in speed of light are not slower than partilce fly in speed of light which fly directly to the object exert some acceleration on to it
Yep, a particle that's "heavier" than a photon will require a non-finite amount of energy to accelerate to the speed of light.
There are "hypothetical" particles called Tachyons that can move faster than light.
You gotta be careful when you apply the Newtonian concepts of acceleration, Kinetic Energy, Momentum, Relative velocity etc to particles that move extremely fast.
1) Photons move at the speed of light. If you move electrons at speeds close to that of light using particle accelerators, you get Synchrotron radiation
2) Photons move slightly faster in vacuum (space) than in air (Earth's atmosphere).
3) Light bends around heavy gravity. Also, bodies that have escape velocities greater than 3X10^8 will "capture" light, not allowing them to reflect off. Such bodies are called Black Holes. Even objects like Sun "bend" light.
Velocity is a vector and the magnitude of velocity = speed. Light bends around massive objects, sure. But that does not mean that Light becomes faster, it simply means a change in direction. A stone that is dropped on earth, accelerates with an increase in velocity. But a photon does not experience that increase. On the other hand, it slows down, because light travels slower in denser media and air is denser than vacuum!
I think you have some reading problems here. I did not say that Light slows down due to gravitational pull, I said it slows down due to air being a denser media compared to vacuum.
Why don't you do some research instead of arguing with me?
You are constantly trying to apply Newtonian Mechanics to a system that does not obey that!
Let me try writing it one last time. Velocity u + velocity v IS NOT EQUAL TO (u+v). It is (u+v)/(1+uv/c^2).
And its REALLY funny when you say that there are no blackholes. When astronomical objects revolve around nothingness, it means that there is a heavy object that does not radiate or reflect any light. Means there is a blackhole there.
Consider a light particle moving North East at the light speed. The X component of its speed is c/root2 and the Y component is c/root2 . In other words, it moves c/root2 Norther and c/root2 Easter per second. Now, say a heavy object causes this photon to bend so that it travels Northwards. Its N-component would be C and E-component would be 0. So gravity has raised the speed at the which the photon moves North, at the cost of the speed at which it moves East.
Stationary mass has no energy.Movement x speed x spin creates energy . An object will bend space around it even if its stationary but will not have any energy but will the object create gravity simply by bending space ?.
simonsrd100 1 month ago
Comment removed
renzoalvau 2 months ago in playlist The Elegant Universe - Einstein's Dream (Parts 1-19)
@littleXjack i did not say energy had mass . At the speed of light the object gain's so much mass (infinite) . so it is not possible to cross speed of light.
nirdeshreddy92 3 months ago
mass increases as accelleration increases(proven) and at the speed of light the mass would be infinate and so not possible
jocegir 4 months ago
It's like this was made for pre-teens or something... I'm a bit disappointed. I guess I should have expected this. Oh well...
youztuber5000 4 months ago
I have to disagree with Nova... if the sun suddenly disappeared then the invisible pink unicorn would immediately create an all new sun. It's too bad that we are tricked into believing all this silly relativity stuff when the truth is so easy and simple, believe in the unicorn and be free.
chicarbiomed 4 months ago
@chicarbiomed The flying spaghetti monster ate the pink unicorn. L2 science.
ExstaticHigh 4 months ago
@ExstaticHigh :: cries in a corner ::
chicarbiomed 4 months ago
8 Dislikes are either dogs or the church.
GabloFX2 5 months ago 40
@GabloFX2 HAHAHAHA I read this when it started and saw the stupid dog looking around. Reminded me of like, Bill O'Reailly. "Tides go in, tides go out, that's my proof of god"
AroundSun 4 months ago 10
@AroundSun LOL Bill
GabloFX2 4 months ago
@GabloFX2
Bullsh1t. I'm agnostic. Scientists who think they know it all, are every bit as bad as religiotards.
I added another just for you <3
itchytoke 2 months ago in playlist Science
@itchytoke :D! <3
GabloFX2 1 week ago
@GabloFX2 why do you associate one of the smartest animals with those who dislike this vid? This tells a lot about you, too!
flavius22 1 week ago
@flavius22 LOL! Didn't you see at the start of the vid.
"Dogs Are wired to grasp it" XP
GabloFX2 1 week ago
@Grafschnitzel the energy possessed by an object due to its motion increases its mass.so as the mass increases it becomes harder for an object to move.so at the speed of light the object would possess the mass which would make it impossible to increase its speed beyond the speed of light .
nirdeshreddy92 5 months ago
@nirdeshreddy92 I thought energy had no mass, sounds like momentum to me>?
littleXjack 4 months ago
@littleXjack Energy IS mass. Mass IS energy. They are 2 terms to describe the same phenomenon.
TheAenima86 1 month ago
All these popular videos don't explain WHY light is the fastest speed possible. They just accept it. But I would really appreciate an explanation: why is it that nothing can go faster than light? How is this proven?
Grafschnitzel 5 months ago
3:25 hahaha so fake
AlphaMaIe 5 months ago
I love how Brian Greene is being interviewed in the program he is hosting. How very... generous.
JamesBlack47 6 months ago
@JamesBlack47 - Don't know what you're getting at here, but Brian Greene is a VERY friendly, pleasant fellow in person - not to mention brilliant! He's not arrogant at all - just REALLY sharp!
amoskowitz0103 5 months ago
@sjbiga There would be much less atheists
pochopaz7381 6 months ago
the solution is .. 1=0, now if I only could find a way to prove this
Iconvid 7 months ago
@Iconvid Actually, on a ring over two relations * and + with only the element 1, 1 necessarily is the neutral element to * as well as to +, and since 0 denotes nothing more than a neutral element upon +(while 1 denotes the same for *), it follows 1=0. =) That's calculus, first semester^^But of course only under the assumption, that 1 be the only number there is...
semperFi4ever100 6 months ago
@Iconvid actually, all you have to do is divide by zero. it's much better than 42 as the answer to life, the universe and everything.
pappymu 6 months ago
@pappymu I loved that movie ;D
FuriousImp 5 months ago in playlist Meer video's van kaypee1985
So is light gravity? Does gravity suck or expand? I'm lost.
1971SuperLead 7 months ago
@1971SuperLead No, they're different things, just moving at the same speed. If you want to to get technical, gravity's a visible effect of space being distorted by matter. Since you probably don't, think of gravity as... say, a slope. Depressions in a landscape. The heavier an object, the steeper the slope. If the second object is immobile, it'll start falling towards the first, etc. The problem is with imagining it, since the "slope" doesn't visibly exist, only the effects.
Jaxuhe 7 months ago
@Jaxuhe The problem with the slope theory is that a perpendicular gravitational force needs to be present to get the ball rolling down the slope.
1971SuperLead 7 months ago
Unification. Simply put, the language of god, as a theist would call it?
HawK047 8 months ago
@Azkadaz How would you then explain a concept such as a black hole? That presents the merging of how things work at the minute subatomic level as well as on a larger level
solangesand 9 months ago
pretty good documentary but it repeats itself way too much and there are too many dull parts just for the sake of showing "cool" special effects. you could probably fit all the information into one hour and still keep it entertaining and interesting. thank you for uploading it though!
Coscinen 10 months ago
What bores me in this kind of videos is that they are so much a kind of exercise of fantasy... one feels somehow that something is faked, sorry. But maybe it is just my impression.
feliztex 10 months ago
Yea, I figured this out by my self while I was on acid on afternoon!
SaugaGraff 10 months ago
So... where is Venus when they are talking about the cosmic catastrophe ??
JimVenne 11 months ago
The Dirac equation???
sammy3212321 11 months ago
this is simple arithmetic to God, so what if we figure out an all encompassing idea that's been here all along, welcome to "just scratching the surface"...then what?
sjbiga 1 year ago
This is the GREATEST documentary in history.
RINGMASTER1118 1 year ago
this theory fails when makes the assumption that the whole universe works as does here in our proximities.
how do you know if somewhere in the universe , does not apply the same theory?
they talk as if they have collected data from the whole universe , to assume this theory fits the whole universe.
kybernes23 1 year ago
I suppose this is as relevant a place as any to mention that anyone can help in the exciting effort to detect "Gravity Waves" (the gravity analog to electromagnetic waves) by participating in the einstein@home project. Just Google for it. For more information on the effort, look up LIGO on Wikipedia.
sbergman27 1 year ago
It repeats from the previous vid, does it not?
Aristides1234567890 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Doesn't this mean that Earth is slowly approaching the Sun? I mean picture the marbles in Casinos.
jiminipark 1 year ago
Doesn't this mean that Earth is slowly approaching the Sun? I mean picture the marble in Casinos.
jiminipark 1 year ago
@jiminipark
no bro...earth is nt approaching the sun...at first i also thought the same.....bt the earth travels at a constant speed on the space time fabric...nd hence does not fall, if the speed of earth would have been decreasing then it would have fallen into the universe....
azarsaxena 1 year ago
Gravity i think is still the most misunderstood force of them all. General Relativity still doesn't really explain where gravity comes from. We can say that light comes from our sun and that photons are created by nuclear fusion, but how is gravity involved in all this? What exactly causes gravity? Nuclear fusion? lol no so what actually causes it? Can someone please tell me this one all you experts out there
Gforcebond 1 year ago
@Gforcebond i ain't not physicist but I am a physics student, and general relativity clearly explains where gravity originates from. It's caused by the curvature of the space time continuum.
burakmorali 1 year ago
@Gforcebond i'm not an expert but i think gravity is explained as the bending that matter inflicts on the space-time fabric
SERUNONURES 1 year ago
@Gforcebond My friend, we still have no proof. but for convenience, some people say gravity is caused by 'gravitons'. Like light by photons :)
SoorejJones 1 year ago
@Gforcebond
SoorejJones 1 year ago
@Gforcebond hm, they say gravity is caused by the exchange boson called 'graviton'. We have no proof though.
And, hey, I am no physicist either :D
SoorejJones 1 year ago
@SoorejJones Wait, if the graviton exists, then didn't we already discover the secret between unification of particles and gravity by theorising that gravity is indeed made up of particles?
RINGMASTER1118 1 year ago
@RINGMASTER1118 I never said we have proved that Gravitons exist, it's just a hypothesis and guess what, I think that the guys at CERN are trying to detect these particles. When we do, we will have a Grand Unification Theory!
SoorejJones 1 year ago
@SoorejJones YOUTUBE: What The Bleep Do We Know? Down The Rabbit Hole
onesweetguy 1 year ago
@onesweetguy ahem ahem...What??
SoorejJones 1 year ago
I clicked to add a description but it wouldn't let me. :(
Mal1234567 1 year ago
they are all pointing to God :3
roseliza2 1 year ago
Thank you so much for uploading this! I can't wait to watch the rest.
imaginelolalola 1 year ago
Is this all proven/accepted? I want to be sure. Many people say these kind of ideas are nonsensical, and that these people are driven by their will/intuition because they want to be right. They say that because of that, you get these kind of nonsensical theories that claim to be scientific.
Can anybody tell me please?
larbo1616 1 year ago
@larbo1616
It's a hypothesis. Mathematically possible, theoretically plausible, experimentally unproven.
kaypee1985 1 year ago
@kaypee1985 But mathematical proof is also proof, right? And, by the way, are there any scientists attempting to gather evidence for this hypothesis?
larbo1616 1 year ago
@larbo1616 well, mathematical proof proves something makes sense to us, it doesn't mean it's true. the biblical version of the origin of the universe also made sense to people once, that didn't make it true. In fact, nothing we can say or think can be proven to be true, since our senses and reason are shaped in a certain way that is common to us all. there's no possible objectiveness, since objects don't think or speak, that's why theories are called theories instead of facts
SERUNONURES 1 year ago
@kaypee1985 weve yet to get the unobtainium to test that theory
zeratul575 1 year ago
is that a nigger scientist? how is that possible?
lookatmepleasesir 1 year ago
@lookatmepleasesir
You are deplorable.
kaypee1985 1 year ago
@kaypee1985 niggers are deplorable
lookatmepleasesir 1 year ago
Is it just me or, shouldn't gravity be the 'cosmic speed limit' and not light? I mean what's stopping gravity from being instantaneous? These physicists are saying nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Why should it not be the opposite that nothing can travel faster than the speed of gravity and therefore gravity should be instantaneous since nothing is stopping it, or should be stopping it, from being instantaneous? Why is light the cosmic speed limit and not gravity?
TheAlexander356 1 year ago
@TheAlexander356 any response is helpful, thank you :)
and, remember, I'm not up for arguing I just want a reasoned debate to see what other people think.
TheAlexander356 1 year ago
@TheAlexander356 gravity does not travel by speed. so rethink your question after you've reviewed the definition of gravity.
wramy88 1 year ago
@wramy88 than how does gravity travel? Rethink your your comment before you reply.
TheAlexander356 1 year ago
@wramy88 see, here is the problem I've noticed. All these physicists say "nothing can travel faster than the speed of light" without explaining >>why<<. My interpretatin is, gravity has always and will always be less of a thing and we must rethink what gravity is. That's all I'm saying. If you disagree that's your opinion. Plus I said gravity must be instantaneous which is kind of like saying it doesn't travel by speed so I don't know why you're disagrreing, could you please articulate.
TheAlexander356 1 year ago
@TheAlexander356 ok i see your point. I guess we're just splitting hairs because gravity does not travel by speed, that is correct. but youre talking about the effect of the force of gravity is instantaneous, which is confusing in regards to the speed of light. So it is a very good question to persue. But I don't think comparing light and gravity in respect to speeds is the way to go since they are totally different things and cannot be compared.
wramy88 1 year ago
@wramy88 well thanks for agreeing with me and for the advice :) it's something I've thought about ever since I first saw this example in this exact video and can't wait to pursue this question along with a formula and thought-experiment and several other hypothesis of mine.
TheAlexander356 1 year ago
@TheAlexander356
Speed of light = Speed of Gravity.
kaypee1985 1 year ago
@kaypee1985 good for you. Did you drink every last drop of the kool-aid before it occured to you to ask why? I know physicists say that speed of light is equal to the speed of gravity. My question is WHY? Their calculations are based on the ASSUMPTION that nothing can surpass the speed of light, but they don't know that and especially haven't proved that.
TheAlexander356 1 year ago
@TheAlexander356
Hey! :)
If you want to know why - look up Wave Structure of Matter. Believe me, everything is questioned in physics. Physicists are perhaps the most skeptical peeps out there. If you want dogma, try biology :)
kaypee1985 1 year ago
@wramy88
Gravity has a speed. Nothing is instantaneous in this universe!
kaypee1985 1 year ago
@kaypee1985 Your right, nothing >IS< instantaneous in this universe, and my inquiry is that perhaps it would be wise to think of gravity as less of a thing than we do.
TheAlexander356 1 year ago
@TheAlexander356 I have done some research and found out that gravity travels at the speed of light. It travels in waves, similar to a ripple after droping a rock in a peddle. Nothing can travel faster than light because light (if you look at it in a quantum way) is a traveling photon. A photon has a rest mass of zero. Therefore, unless the thing you are trying to accelerate weighs less than nothing, it can't travel faster than light.
brizihe 1 year ago
@brizihe I meant gravity travels in a wave as in the rock analogy. Lol :)
brizihe 1 year ago
@TheAlexander356 (continued from above)...
Light also doesn't has infinite velocity because the equation e=mc2, which means that it gains mass from having the energy to travel that fast. Btw, you could travel faster than light in a glass, but not light in a vacuum.
brizihe 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I have some questions. Astros spread out in all directions, so how the surface behaves with stars passing over the sun, for example? To the land slip surface that was deformed by the sun, it is assumed that there is a force that plays down to earth, and that would cause clashed. (Which does not occur by centrifuges speed the earth.)
For instance, a ball on the surface of the Himalayas would not fall if there was no gravity. So what does the earth slip surface deformed by the sun?
brmgranado 1 year ago
Comment removed
brmgranado 1 year ago
@celticwonder25
there is an theory saying that the gravitational wave released by the effect of removing the sun in an instant travels exact at the same speed as the speed of light, meaning the earth and the other planets will divert from they original orbit and fly to space, so we would only feel the effect of the sun disapperance after 8.32 minutes.
hyshyco 1 year ago
@GodlessLiberal666 Considering space-time as a fabric, like Einstein, then there is also no "travel" of gravity just like there is no "travel" using the theoretical Alcubierre drive
Since neither the Alcubierre drive, nor gravity seem to "travel" in the travel in the traditional sense, I don't see how you can say that the Alcubierre drive does not travel faster than light(I understand your reasoning, but how can you not apply that idea to gravity) yet gravity does. I do enjoy this discussion
PeskyPanda 1 year ago
@GodlessLiberal666 I don't think it is great science to claim that something is approximately "something" and then "exactly" the same as something else. Statements like that poke holes in your argument.
There is a way to travel faster than light, if you are not familiar with the "Alcubierre Drive" I'd look into it.
PeskyPanda 1 year ago
@GodlessLiberal666 Why are you wasting your time arguing with this person? You are obviously not getting through. I advise you to cut your losses, and go outside.
hungryman192 1 year ago
@GodlessLiberal666 WORD
Grantrus71 1 year ago
If 3 dimensions of space and single dimension of time bond together as a single fabric of space time, then it is just like a scroll as it was mentioned in the Quran 1400 years ago. Looks like a carpet and can be rolled. I am not sure if this verse refer to this theory.
Quran:
[21.104] On that Day, We shall roll up the heaven like a written scroll is rolled. As We originated the first creation, so will We bring it back again. This is a binding promise on Us which We shall assuredly fulfill.
SwaZonKai 1 year ago
If 3 dimensions of space and single dimension of time bond together as a single fabric of space time, then it is just like a scroll as it was mentioned in the Quran 1400 years ago. Looks like a carpet and can be rolled. I am not sure if this verse refer to this theory.
Quran:
[21.104] On that Day, We shall roll up the heaven like a written scroll is rolled. As We originated the first creation, so will We bring it back again. This is a binding promise on Us which We shall assuredly fulfill.
SwaZonKai 1 year ago
Why does almost all of the greatest known scientist had bad hair?
prokorpz 1 year ago
@celticwonder25 : you're wrong, gravity DOES move at the speed of light. ou're mistaking the gravity's acceleration with the speed at which gravity takes its effect. For instance, Earth pulls al of the objects close to it at the ACCELERATION of 9,81 meters per SQUARE second. BUT, should someone move the Earth to another location in the Universe, the new effect of its gravitational field would PROPAGATE at the speed equal to the speed of light. General Relativity's basics.
PhoenixBoring 1 year ago
Thanks for postin this! I'm going to watch ALL of it... been readin Fabric of the Cosmos and this is helping me put it all together
kazaamBLAM 1 year ago
Minute 7.14 is Barry White
MrMurdock35 1 year ago
hey..how can you know that the dog cant understand physics..maybe if you translate it somehow they can understand it too..its a stupid idea..but it might be true..the size of the brain is not important..maybe animals our smart too..
fermerwuvu 1 year ago
I'm reading the book (loving it) and there's one thing I'm finding hard to swallow: the constancy of the speed of light regardless of relative motion. If you're motionless, light (photons) is traveling at the rate of 670 million mph. Yet, if you're moving away from those same photons at 100 million miles per hour, they're still catching up to you at the rate of 670 mill. mph, not 570. The speed remains constant despite relative motion. What's the explanation for this?
LordWhite2024 1 year ago
@LordWhite2024
You are applying Newtonian Mechanics to particles that move at the speed of light! That won't do! Get out of the Newtonian mind set :)
kaypee1985 1 year ago
Time distortion. It feels like 670M because time is passing slower relative to the static you.
nelbr 1 year ago
The explanation is that light can do anything, since a photon is the master of all space and time.
BluCosmos 1 year ago
@LordWhite2024 Time changes at different speeds.
Stephen Hawking's 'A Brief History of Time' would be a good book to read.
AkiThePirate 1 year ago
@LordWhite2024 the explanation is that light must always staying 670 million mph no matter how fast you are going from it. so to compensate for this, time actually becomes slower for you. thus the speed of light will still be 670 million mph from you. time is only a relative thing on an object.
XomgZomg 1 year ago
@LordWhite2024 Hi, that's the hole point in SRT - the explanation is more or less that we have to part from our intuitive understanding of time and "now".
To measure speeds you need a clock and a length-scale and everyone measuring takes his own "measure set" with him. So yes the "moving" observer will measure the same 670 but with his tools - so I guess the will come to see that somehow their tools are different - that's SRT (more or less)
DigtBrain2 1 year ago
@LordWhite2024
hey bro check out time dilation
MrKydaman 1 year ago
I don't understand why they talk about gravity as something traveling from the sun to the earth. Gravity is a force not an object, isn´t it?
jsbc 1 year ago
The Gravitational Force Vector of Sun on Earth, from a Mechanical parallel, can be imagined as a tug of war beween Sun and Earth leading to Earth revolving around Sun. Now imagine Sun Vanishing, Its just like you and an elephant involved in a tug of war with the Elephant suddenly "releasing" the rope. As soon as that happens, you are shot "back". In case of astronomical distances, how "soon" is this soon? Is it immediate? How can that be when the impact cannot travel faster than C?
kaypee1985 1 year ago
Well what you have to remember is there is a lag between the time it takes light to reach the Earth. As Light travels faster then the affects of Gravity. We would notice the Sun disappearing before we would feel the affects of the loss of Gravity. It is like you hear an Ambulance before you see it. And you know it is getting closer due to the Doppler affect. In this case the sound is Light and the Ambulance is Gravity.
celticwonder25 1 year ago
@celticwonder25
Except that light and gravity travel at the same speed :) So you will see sun vanish AND feel the gravitational impact the same moment.
kaypee1985 1 year ago 7
@kaypee1985 Gravity does not travel at the same speed of light. Gravity is dependent on the Mass of an object, which generates its affect. For instance on Earth the Affect the Speed of Gravity has is at 9.81 Metres per second. Light moves at 299,792,458 Metres per second. So in essence you would notice the Sun is gone before the earth would lose its orbit. If you can equate gravity to moving at this speed from a point with no Mass by all means let me know :)
celticwonder25 1 year ago
@celticwonder25
No, you are confused! :) Gravity (as a force) DOES travel at the speed of light.
But the acceleration of an object due to Earth's gravity is 9.8 m/sec^2.
To give you a comparison. If I drop a canon ball from an air plane, it will start at zero velocity and accelerate at the rate of 9.8 m/s^2 until it reaches its terminal velocity.
However, if Earth were to vanish, the impact will be felt at moon after 1.3 seconds have elapsed.
kaypee1985 1 year ago 19
@kaypee1985 Incorrect, if the sun disappeared we would feel its effects before the 8 minutes it takes for the light from the sun to stop reaching us. Gravity does not travel at the speed of light.
PeskyPanda 1 year ago
@kaypee1985 no it wouldn't matter bc of the universes gravitational pull towards the sun and if not the sun towards the systems black hole if not other planets or if not buy that the massive black hole in the middle and etc.even if only the force it has its own spin and gravity. even some cases negative gravity if you really wanna start to talk.. nothing travels faster than light exept that hypothetical subatomic particle called a tachyon.
TonPappa 1 year ago
@TonPappa
What's this in response to?
kaypee1985 1 year ago
@kaypee1985 from an old 5 months ago comment about Gravity (as a force) DOES travel at the speed of light which it doesn't. i see that its five months ago now. and shouldn't be bothered with a response.
TonPappa 1 year ago
@kaypee1985 ur mixing the gravity of the sun towards earth and the earth gravity towards the moon!!!
carlscic 1 year ago
@kaypee1985 Gravity is a pseudo force (I have an advance mechanics, and GR background), not a real force; also please do explain how you are relating a "force" and a velocity (I'm a little curious)
Meena1587 1 year ago
@kaypee1985 Gravity is a pseudo force (like the Coriolis force), not a real force; also please do explain how you are relating a "force" and a velocity (I'm a little curious)
Meena1587 1 year ago
@Meena1587
Light is not a "velocity" .... rather photons travel at a velocity. In other words, if light originates from a source, it takes so much time to reach its destination.
Likewise with gravity ... if sun were to magically disappear, before earth "realizes" this and takes off tangentially, it would take so many seconds [just as much time as light would].
kaypee1985 1 year ago
@kaypee1985 Yeah that makes sense (and I am aware of the second point, I'm pretty sure the documentary talks about this effect when he talks about the space time fabric
The statement I was questioning seemed awkward, considering the 'force' of gravity as a velocity seemed weird and in the 5 years I've been completing my post graduate degree I have not seen gravity addressed in that way.
Meena1587 1 year ago
Where did I address Gravity as a velocity?
kaypee1985 1 year ago
@kaypee1985 Noteable that in a vacuum there is no such thing as terminal velocity so in theory; any object in a vacuum, be it a cannonball or a feather will accelerate to the speed of light (Atleast until the gravitational pull ended).
borjeman 10 months ago
Comment removed
plzcallmebabe 7 months ago
gravity has a aceleration of 9.81 metres per second on earth... but thats not the same in other places.. for example: in jupiter gravity ir much sttronger than in the earth... and they are speaking of how fast gravity cand react. and its not at the speed of light but it is al 0.99999999 times the speed of light.
dahdahmichel 1 year ago
@kaypee1985 Now, you would not.
PeskyPanda 1 year ago
if you would be on the dark side of the earth you wouldn't feel anything, the sun just wouldn't come up the next day, earth would still have it's gravity
TheChanGold 1 year ago
@kaypee1985 Nope, since the space time fabric doesn't move since it is everywhere, gravity instantaniously let's go of the orbit between the earth and the sun.
RINGMASTER1118 1 year ago
@kaypee1985 Theoretically.
2012singularity2012 8 months ago
@kaypee1985 you dont know that they travel at the same speed, according to inflation theory of the big bang, space expanded faster than the speed of light. So i would say that gravity does travel faster than light, if space can. Cause since gravity is a property of space/time.
PS the gravaton does not exist
Typho0n86 8 months ago
Gravity moves at the speed of light
OffNewGrounds 2 years ago 2
If you put the particle flying in speed of light
in front of some gravitational force
C+GT>C
it means there are no speed limit
jinshiksung 2 years ago
@jinshiksung
You are trying to apply Newtonian Mechanics to objects that travel at very high speed. Newtonian mechanics is no longer accurate when we talk of speeds comparable to c.
S = u+v is a newtonian approximation.
The real formula is S =(u+v)/(1+uv/c^2). In your case that would be c+gt/(1+cgt/c^2); c+gt/(1+gt/c) = c. Therefore, you put something moving at any speed before another that moves at the speed of light, the new speed continues to be c.
kaypee1985 2 years ago
Comment removed
jinshiksung 2 years ago
light bend or particle bend due to gravitational field
don't telll me that
C+GT=C
It should be C+GT>C
I do not care much about the validity of your constants on all you equation
and the stupd formula became 0 by multipling 0 but don't play with addition too
don't tell me that space get shorten instead of speed increase
jinshiksung 2 years ago
@jinshiksung
Sorry, you are too naive. Refer previous explanation
kaypee1985 2 years ago
I think that you are naive
That is how west die
jinshiksung 2 years ago
@jinshiksung
Too bad I am from the East!!
All I am telling you that there is nothing like C+GT, it is (c+ gt)/1+cgt/c^2. That is the correct formula.
kaypee1985 2 years ago
v=at is fundamental
c speed of light
g gravitational
t time
c+gt>c
I do not know where other stuffs coming from
jinshiksung 2 years ago
If an object traveling at speed u shoots an object at speed v, the object will move with the speed u+v. But when u and v are close to the speed of light, that formula is no longer valid. The more accurate formula for calculating speed is (u+v)/(1+uv/c^2).
Say u = 10 m/s and v =10 m/s, the combined speed is 20/(1+100/3X10^16) which can be approximated to 20. But say u = 0.5c and v = 0.5c, the combined speed = (0.5c+0.5c)/(1+0.25c^2/c^20 = c/1.25 = 0.8c. So the combined speed is 0.8c and not c.
kaypee1985 2 years ago
so the object never reach the speed of light is that what you saying or is there any particle fly equal to speed of light
but can not pass speed of light
or the speed of particle fly in speed of light are not slower than partilce fly in speed of light which fly directly to the object exert some acceleration on to it
jinshiksung 2 years ago
Yep, a particle that's "heavier" than a photon will require a non-finite amount of energy to accelerate to the speed of light.
There are "hypothetical" particles called Tachyons that can move faster than light.
You gotta be careful when you apply the Newtonian concepts of acceleration, Kinetic Energy, Momentum, Relative velocity etc to particles that move extremely fast.
kaypee1985 2 years ago
Is there a particle fly in speed of light?
If so
which one is faster
the particle fly in space
or
the particle fly in to earth
I think that light bend like particle bend
means it exert the pull
jinshiksung 2 years ago
1) Photons move at the speed of light. If you move electrons at speeds close to that of light using particle accelerators, you get Synchrotron radiation
2) Photons move slightly faster in vacuum (space) than in air (Earth's atmosphere).
3) Light bends around heavy gravity. Also, bodies that have escape velocities greater than 3X10^8 will "capture" light, not allowing them to reflect off. Such bodies are called Black Holes. Even objects like Sun "bend" light.
kaypee1985 2 years ago
is there a particle with mass fly in speed of light ?
jinshiksung 2 years ago
@kaypee1985
even the light
which one is faster
the particle fly in space
or
the particle fly into object which pull
by observing the sun bend light
means it accelerate due to sun's gravitational pull isn't it
jinshiksung 2 years ago
@jinshiksung
Velocity is a vector and the magnitude of velocity = speed. Light bends around massive objects, sure. But that does not mean that Light becomes faster, it simply means a change in direction. A stone that is dropped on earth, accelerates with an increase in velocity. But a photon does not experience that increase. On the other hand, it slows down, because light travels slower in denser media and air is denser than vacuum!
kaypee1985 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@kaypee1985
light slow down due to gravitational pull
is that what you saying?
jinshiksung 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@kaypee1985
are you nut?
light slow down due to gravitational pull
jinshiksung 2 years ago
I think you have some reading problems here. I did not say that Light slows down due to gravitational pull, I said it slows down due to air being a denser media compared to vacuum.
Why don't you do some research instead of arguing with me?
kaypee1985 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@kaypee1985
even the black hole
I doubt it's existence thou
the light to the black whole should be faster
b/c light from the black hole slow down to 0 due to gravitational pull
jinshiksung 2 years ago
You are constantly trying to apply Newtonian Mechanics to a system that does not obey that!
Let me try writing it one last time. Velocity u + velocity v IS NOT EQUAL TO (u+v). It is (u+v)/(1+uv/c^2).
And its REALLY funny when you say that there are no blackholes. When astronomical objects revolve around nothingness, it means that there is a heavy object that does not radiate or reflect any light. Means there is a blackhole there.
kaypee1985 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@kaypee1985
b/c einstein stuffs doesn't make sense
the light responds to gravitational pull
it means it is accelerate the light
means it is faster than speed of light
I am talking about observation
light is emited from the its place by exitation maybe it emit constant speed but it also should reacting to gravitational pull
jinshiksung 2 years ago
Consider a light particle moving North East at the light speed. The X component of its speed is c/root2 and the Y component is c/root2 . In other words, it moves c/root2 Norther and c/root2 Easter per second. Now, say a heavy object causes this photon to bend so that it travels Northwards. Its N-component would be C and E-component would be 0. So gravity has raised the speed at the which the photon moves North, at the cost of the speed at which it moves East.
kaypee1985 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@kaypee1985
are you okay?
it is like stupid greek
saying arrow never hit the target
b/c arrow move only half the distance
jinshiksung 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@kaypee1985
C+GT>C
isn't it?
jinshiksung 2 years ago
Not necessarily. But it is if and only if GT > 0.
Learn some English, Dumbass!
CONSTITUTIONART1 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@GodlessLiberal666
it become matter to you kik kik
because I am right
I provided the proof
you just can't admit it
because it throu your education
but it happen many times in human history like galireo
science become politically oriented then it will try to stop you to think in correct way
but sombody who stop will be decimated in pursue of truth
jinshiksung 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GodlessLiberal666
I am sorry for you
I can't help you if you do not want to think
jinshiksung 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GodlessLiberal666
We are GOD to you
jinshiksung 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@GodlessLiberal666
Okay not CG but miniature
jinshiksung 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GodlessLiberal666
why not? I wrote in perfect English
jinshiksung 2 years ago
@GodlessLiberal666
just look carefully it is CG
jinshiksung 2 years ago
@GodlessLiberal666
I went to siberia found that all the people there are asian
la asia are whold aisan country
jinshiksung 2 years ago
@GodlessLiberal666
All the nuke explosions are looks like CG
jinshiksung 2 years ago
@GodlessLiberal666
Pershing is first us army officer
it means that there were no us army
1920 US Army first cross the continent and saying asian are enemy
1943 Detroit has busy train ferry landing
it means that Detroit doesnt' have bridge
jinshiksung 2 years ago
@GodlessLiberal666
Just think a little
jinshiksung 2 years ago
@GodlessLiberal666
I can even see green plant in bikini island
The nuclear plant were exist in nature
not the bomb dumb
jinshiksung 2 years ago
@GodlessLiberal666
I am talking about the stuff which ordinary kid can understand
jinshiksung 2 years ago
@GodlessLiberal666
The eveidense is everywhere
light bend
saturn's ring
start is spinning plasma
I do not know why don't they grip the fact
jinshiksung 2 years ago