Gravity Behaving Badly Part 1. Comsology and Astronomy

[nickharvey7]

Very good video indeed! I am an artist on YouTube trying to promote my theory on the dynamics of light and time

This theory is based on just two simple postulates

1. The first is that the quantum wave particle function explained by Schrödinger’s wave equation represents the forward passage of time itself

2. The second is that Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle that is formed by the wave function is the same uncertainty we have with any future event

[chylerreckeaolgodhul]

What program do you use for this?

[SeltsamerAttraktor]

Oh my gosh... the facepalm is strong with this one.

[AntiCitizenX]

I'm not sure you understand what magnetism is. The magnetic force is nothing more than a physical manifestation of special relativity as it acts on the Coulomb force. This has been known for decades.

[frankensteinmoneymac]

Interesting video but DAMN IT!! What the Hell is with that Crap Music?!?! I had to turn the sound down just to stomach this video!!

[fretbuzz6]

hated the video but loved the graphics at 3:20

[katesisco]

Thanks much & wonderfully done & informative. 

[CammieSpectrum]

Exceptional video, besides the music, and Russel is a lame Eugenicist. Wittgenstein quotes may have been more appropropriate for use in this video, since he was highly critical of Scientific accounts for phenomena

[jimthebutcher]

wave particle duality? could the photon be pulsing in size? and vibrating in shape?

does the mickelson morley double slit experiment measure the energy sent with the energy recieved at the screen?

using simple harmonic motion equations yo describe the "physical state" at the time of experiment should take some uncertainty out of the result as well describe x-ray diffraction a little more deterministacally i do suppose.

[soupdragon42]

@jimthebutcher The original music was muted by YouTube, so I added one of their randomn tracks, which is far from ideal. Thanks. Soup

[terrymorse]

@soupdragon42 Your video states "three or more planets present problems for Newtonian Mechanics".

I think the "problem" is rather small. The newtonian mechanics of an n-body system is well known, but solving the differential equations mathematically is impossible. No worries, since we have numerical methods to solve these complex systems of equations. Google "Runge-Kutta" for a common method.

[jimthebutcher]

missing mass? recently we have conjectured that at the center of galaxies are supermassive blackholes also that theprimordial universe spawned super super massive blackholes {1000 sm}

that will remain for 10*75 years. could this unseen matter account for something?

[ChemicalMikeUK]

time is not arbitrary! time/space is affected by heavy gravity,and/or mass,like from a black hole. the closer you get to one,the more affected and out of sync you would be with normal space/time.and gravity affects motion. without this nothing could be able to move. and time is measured by the rotation (the movement)of our solar system, right?. do you see where i'm going with this? just a theory, im not a physicist. peace :)

[Ichthus91]

Time is the measurement of change. Change is always taking place every unit of Planck time. As I see it: time only exists by attribute of thought, change, and measure. Time seem to merely be an illusion. It's an abstract concept projected onto the physical universe.

[sharazel]

But this is of course ridiculous. We know time exists. We exist in it. If your mathematical equations prove time is an illusion, than it is clearly the math which is incorrect, or the underpinning theory behind the math. Planck time is a silly notion; how does one transfer from one unit to another; over what time does it happen? Godel's incompleteness theorems prove it is possible, modern "physics" proves it is actual. Can you not see the circular nature of your definitions?

[EltonJThe]

@sharazel Man invented time, actually. The time we have is precious, yes, but it truly doesn't exist. Only the now actually does.

[tonysinclair]

Assuming that general relativity is wrong, why should I assume any other specific theory to be correct? The failures of one theory is not automatically the proof of another one. Any theory that replaces general relativity will have to account for the same phenomena (gravitational lensing, etc.). Furthermore (and this is key) there must be some way to test it, or it isn't science.

I've seen your videos on "plasma cosmology" but have yet to see any evidence for it or even a way to test for it.

[dggfhdfghdf]

who the hell marked ur own comment as spam?

wtf?

I am happy being an amateur physicist, cuz pro's, often stick to the math books WAY to much :( and miss a lot(I think)

Again, thnx 4 some great vids :)

[CammieSpectrum]

@tonysinclair True, but there is no way to test that there is a photon inbetween measurements(transactions), and yet everyone accepts this, and for the same reason, there is no way to test for gravitons..before you give a dismissive reply actually think about this