NASA Gravity Probe finds space-time vortex and proves Einstein was right!

[ericajjful]

you have some great stuff here

[SuperDogbrown]

interesting video and very informative

[jjclassjj]

love the video really good

[osclarkos]

brilliant video

[samjenkinssam]

This is a great video

[prchecker]

some really good stuff here

[nickharvey7]

@prchecker Thanks! I am an artist and therefore outside of the scientific community so any help promoting this theory will be gratefully welcomed. Please share with your friends and add to your favorites. It would be nice to start a chain reaction of information a kind of quantum revolution!

[thefranciswatts]

Everyone should look at Descartes Vortex theory. He didn't believe in any invisible force called gravity was part of why the planets revolve around the sun. What he believed was that there was an invisible (dark) matter the flowed in a vortex which explained why planets revolve around the sun.

[nickharvey7]

@thefranciswatts Einstein never explained how mass curves spacetime in relativity, but in this theory objects just free-fall towards the greatest mass or energy because it has the slowest rate or flow of time. We have the principle of equivalence between gravity and acceleration because gravity is the same force as inertia.

[sclausi30]

NASA and Einstein FAILS with Gravity Probe B tests. Let us assume everything that was said it right. That the Earth can rest on the 'Frame of the Universe' and is dragging in Space-Time. That means the Sun does the same being of greater gravitational force. Like a bowling ball on a giant rubber like sheet material. Anyone would assume the Earth a small ball, would be falling TOWARD the Sun because of the drag and the Sun's influence. EXCEPT THE EARTH IS MOVING AWAY FROM THE SUN. GRADE F-.

[roqsanda]

NOTHING MATCHES better THAN TESLA's explanation of this, who is our Man for the times, behind the TIME TRAVEL, or Time Machines.

I think that you are ascribing to Einstein who was a mental + physical midget next to Tesla.

[tvswnet]

toward (perhaps collectively unconsciously still) the stance of truth-for-now, or is that my wishful thinking? It seems to me all we can ever declare is theory-with-evidence, but never fact/truth. I think the mathematical, light-based approach to looking at matter, processes, etc. is the "correct" one, but as you've mentioned, in our 3D context, even that will fall short. I feel excited about the emerging sciences as they're not restricted by observable "proof" (moving out of that paradigm?).

[tvswnet]

Nick, I've just recently found your channel (great!), but I have a question: Since really everything is relative to the observer, and the observer's perceptions are singular to that observer and cannot (within a 3D context) ever be truly conveyed/shared with a non-observer, isn't it then more/less impossible to come up with "proof" for much of this? The observer is never truly objective. Isn't everything a perception of possibility, really (in 3D)? Do you agree that science is moving (cont.)

[nickharvey7]

@tvswnet I like the idea of mathematical proof as long as it is of something we can observer. What is happening now in science is that we are making up things to fit in with our mathematics, parallel universe, dark matter and energy. What we actually see is a process of continuous change or creation!

[tvswnet]

@nickharvey7 I agree fully with you last sentence. Because our senses are so limited (including when aided by technology--we can observe/measure/detect just a tiny tiny fraction of creation) and our knowledge hedges on our restricted cognitive abilities as applied to our frame of reference, I see "proof" of anything now as being limited in scope and temporary in nature...precisely because of constant change/creation.

[frazzzer8888]

Sorry Nick. I don't mean to sound like I'm bashing.

I find your quantum atom theory fascinating and thought-provoking.

I thoroughly enjoy your vids.

[nickharvey7]

@frazzzer8888 Thanks! Please share with your friends and add to your favorites. It would be nice to start a chain reaction of information a kind of quantum revolution!

[rongrite]

So moving closer to a gravitational center stretches time out, so at a gravitational center time would be so slow, that it would appear stopped, to us.

And if time was stretched out it would take longer to go the same distance.

If time was to stop, distance would become infinite, no matter how close something was.

Alone in the universe.

Space time.

[nickharvey7]

@rongrite • Moving closer to a gravitational center slows the rate that time flows down therefore space stretches out, this sounds odd, but if you think of it as waves it make sense. The greater the energy or mass the shorter the wavelength and if you stretch those waves out they would take up more space.

[kevinstuartfr0st]

lol time people woke up there is NO time,it is a measurement that is all no more and no less,pluss you can not trust NASA there part of the NWO

[astoria791]

yeah let's believe anything that fucking NASA tells us.

[frazzzer8888]

@nickharvey7

Your response and question makes it seem like you misread my entire comment.

I AGREED the NASA tests confirm a specific prediction about distortion predicted by Relativity.

The OTHER experiment (Hafale-Keating/plane) confirms a completely DIFFERENT prediction within the overall framework of relativity. Similarly, neither of these experiments confirms (for example) Energy-Mass equivalence either - A major component of relativity's predictions confirmed by yet OTHER tests.

[frazzzer8888]

To explain: The experiment shows relativity's predictions about clocks perceived by an observer at rest with respect to clocks moving at a certain VELOCITY. The clock on the plane moving east(like Earth's rotation) has greater velocity (resulting in a relative time loss) than a clock on the ground. A clock moving west (AGAINST the Earth's rotation), has lower velocity (than on the ground) resulting in relative time gain. Simple as that

[nickharvey7]

@frazzzer8888 But in Einstein’s theories on relativity space and time are linked forming spacetime.

Therefore how could the commercial airliner create time dilation by moving at a certain velocity without distort the fabric of spacetime?

[frazzzer8888]

@nickharvey7

Nobody is disputing relativity.

But different experiments confirm different predictions from relativity.

The NASA experiment confirms spacetime warping through gravitational and rotational effects using gyroscopic structured detectors.

The commerical airliner experiment confirms time dilation not through measurement of spacetime warping but through velocity differences from different observation points.

Not enough room to explain here - READ ABOUT IT.

[nickharvey7]

@frazzzer8888 Both experiments confirm the same fundamental principle of time dilation. I have an enough room to explain here; as an object accelerates mass increases therefore there is a link between gravitational time dilation and time dilation formed by the velocity of an object.

[frazzzer8888]

You've misunderstood and misstated the findings of Hafele-Keating experiment.

Unlike the NASA gyroscopic probe study, the plane experiment absolutely does NOT measure "something as small as a commercial airliner" distorting the fabric of spacetime.

[quaxk]

@frazzzer8888 you are correct sir, nick grossly misinterpreted the experiment, not sure why

[nickharvey7]

@quaxk How can we create time dilation without distorting the fabric of spacetime? When in this experiment it took a three dimensional object a commercial airliner to create the time dilation. Just as the spacetime vortex is around a three dimensional Earth.

[nickharvey7]

@frazzzer8888 How can you have time dilation without distorting the fabric of spacetime?

When NASA Gravity Probe B has just found a spacetime vortex around Earth and its shape matches the predictions of Einstein's theories of relativity.

Therefore space and time are linked just as Einstein said!

[RevDevilin]

source ?

[allyouneedismmmm]

Dont have TIME for this ! TOO busy warping time ! or is it all in my mind ?