Here's a question I've seen a lot in comments: OK, I'm accelerating up but then shouldn't someone on the other side of the globe fall off? No, here's why: Either watch again from 8:28 or read what I've written below... Spacetime is curved - it curves the opposite direction on the other side of the Earth. Neither us on this side of the Earth nor they on the other side are changing our spacial coordinates - we're not moving up, they're not moving down - Earth isn't flying into one of us. BUT we both ARE accelerating. In curved spacetime you have to accelerate just to remain stationary. The traditional definition of acceleration is something changing its velocity. In general relativity you have to embrace a new definition of acceleration: it means deviating from a geodesic - not going on a straight line path through spacetime. Near the Earth a geodesic is a parabola so unless you're moving in a parabolic arc (like on a zero-g plane) you are accelerating. This definition is the same as the old one so if you're accelerating in deep space then your velocity is changing. *BUT*... if you are near a large mass you are in curved spacetime, now acceleration your velocity is changing. You can stay stationary relative to Earth's surface and still be accelerating. This is because your acceleration should be measured not relative to the Earth's surface but relative to free-falling objects - they are inertial observers. Imagine this - I'm in deep space and I make horizontal rows and rows of stationary golf balls. Then I hop in my rocket and accelerate up through them. Just think about what that looks like. Now my rocket is back on Earth just sitting there. I freeze time for a sec and make horizontal rows and rows of golf balls up into the atmosphere. Now unfreeze time. What do you see? If you just look at the golf balls and the rocket ship it looks the same as the situation in space where the golf balls were stationary and the rocket was accelerating. Einstein's point was the golf balls have the better claim as the "stationary" thing since their experience is just like the golf balls in deep space - no forces experienced. The rocket on Earth is just like the rocket in space. It feels a force and hence an acceleration.

Bobby Tristan

Muaj më parë

Not sure if anyone cares but yesterday I hacked my gfs Instagram account by using InstaPortal. Find it on google if you wanna try it yourself

adorable

Muaj më parë

h

xiao99 xiao99

3 muaj më parë

@T F Rubbish. You are claiming that a permanent Magnet is NOT attracting metal objects, pulling them across space, doing WORK, because where is the Energy coming from? The magnet has no Fuel, so Magnets do not work right? Anyway, Where does the Energy come from when the Earth curves SpaceTime? It must be a massive amount of Energy, as SpaceTime is so dense, solid or something, able to make the Moon go in circles..... SpaceTime, and having no Gravity caused by the Earth is a moronic claim. Unsupported by the direct observations. All this complexity of the otherwise simple, just to try to keep the MYTH that Einstein is some sort of Genius, and that his nonsense ideas are somehow rational.

Stanford Luk

3 muaj më parë

@Veritasium we attribute the weight of our body to gravity. And astronauts weigh different depending on the planet they're on according to Newtonian physics, which also tells us the difference in gravity is due to the difference the planet's size(mass), but if gravity is a function of acceleration through spacetime, shouldn't that right weight therefore be calculated based on that planet's acceleration through spacetime? For instance, the moon orbits earth, logic would argue the moon needs to accelerate faster than earth through spacetime in order to remain in orbit, therefore astronauts should be subjected to higher gravity on the moon than on earth, yet the opposite is observed? Could you please do a follow up to reconcile this? Thanks heaps

Aditya Vikram Singh

3 muaj më parë

@Des Troya your 'clear defination of acceleration' is not right for the curved space time. Simply answered

I have a question then, how fast does the spacetime curvature travel? How long would it take for us to feel the gravitation difference if the sun would just disappear? Well I assume something like disappearing entirely is kinda surreal, so maybe it is not a case?

Who else high right now?

This is deep

If we somehow make a HOLE through the earth in the center and I jump down, how would I move (let say I don’t die)? Most people believe I would be speed up before the center of the earth and slow down to ZERO when I reach the other end of the hole and then start falling again in the opposite direction. How can we explain the change of speed and direction of movement without an invisible force like gravity force?

This video alone just wiped 1000 questions I had in my mind about gravity...the only mistery to me now is: what is it that the scientists don't know yet about gravity? Why is it the most unknow "force" to science? Did they not see this video or am I missing something else?

wow

Tesla is the real genius

This man is single handedly proving how a flat-earth theory is plausible.

I enjoy watching your videos. As a not science guy who reads above my weight class; I wonder what would you say about Steven Weinberg's comments on GR (in Gravitation and Cosmology: Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity) as a force (contra a geometric description). Also I am wondering if what you say here is contrary or complementary to a neo-Lorentzian view of SR (so the existence of absolute simultinaity and length, if completly impossible to measure)? In short, I love the presentation, love the video; I am just wondering if what you say here is less about science (what can be measured and observed) and more about Philosophy (what can be hypothesized or theorized). Again, thanks for the Videos!

First off, really love the video, it’s very easy to understand yet gives yo ur lot of knowledge showing how gravity is not a force. I have one question however: what about gravitons? Weren’t they detected to be the particles causing the force of gravity, or is this debunked?

I always wondered what the graphic rendition would be when changing to a 3-dimentional (volume) portrayal of that space curving instead of deforming a flat surface. Please show the bending of a volume instead of a surface.

Nice vid but HOW does matter curve the spacetime ...

Ok, serious question, I'm not being a troll. If the Earth is accelerating into us, like the rocket is accelerating into the man and objects....then why aren't people falling off the bottom and sides of the planet? Have I missed the point? :(

maria fe

14 orë më parë

Spacetime is curved - it curves the opposite direction on the other side of the Earth. Neither us on this side of the Earth nor they on the other side are changing our spacial coordinates - we're not moving up, they're not moving down - Earth isn't flying into one of us. BUT we both ARE accelerating. In curved spacetime you have to accelerate just to remain stationary. The traditional definition of acceleration is something changing its velocity. In general relativity you have to embrace a new definition of acceleration: it means deviating from a geodesic - not going on a straight line path through spacetime. Near the Earth a geodesic is a parabola so unless you're moving in a parabolic arc (like on a zero-g plane) you are accelerating. This definition is the same as the old one so if you're accelerating in deep space then your velocity is changing. *BUT*... if you are near a large mass you are in curved spacetime, now acceleration your velocity is changing. You can stay stationary relative to Earth's surface and still be accelerating. This is because your acceleration should be measured not relative to the Earth's surface but relative to free-falling objects - they are inertial observers. Imagine this - I'm in deep space and I make horizontal rows and rows of stationary golf balls. Then I hop in my rocket and accelerate up through them. Just think about what that looks like. Now my rocket is back on Earth just sitting there. I freeze time for a sec and make horizontal rows and rows of golf balls up into the atmosphere. Now unfreeze time. What do you see? If you just look at the golf balls and the rocket ship it looks the same as the situation in space where the golf balls were stationary and the rocket was accelerating. Einstein's point was the golf balls have the better claim as the "stationary" thing since their experience is just like the golf balls in deep space - no forces experienced. The rocket on Earth is just like the rocket in space. It feels a force and hence an acceleration.

Wat

Explain high tide and low tide then

This is the best ever video about space time on internet, love your work sir @veritasium

Happy 420 @15:02

I see you brought alcohol with you to space

so i gotta ask, what about bungy jumping?

has phyicsgirl cover this already?

But wouldn't the acceleration of the Earth mean that on the other side of the Earth, you should fly away, as Earth is not accelerating into you, but away from you?

maria fe

14 orë më parë

Spacetime is curved - it curves the opposite direction on the other side of the Earth. Neither us on this side of the Earth nor they on the other side are changing our spacial coordinates - we're not moving up, they're not moving down - Earth isn't flying into one of us. BUT we both ARE accelerating. In curved spacetime you have to accelerate just to remain stationary. The traditional definition of acceleration is something changing its velocity. In general relativity you have to embrace a new definition of acceleration: it means deviating from a geodesic - not going on a straight line path through spacetime. Near the Earth a geodesic is a parabola so unless you're moving in a parabolic arc (like on a zero-g plane) you are accelerating. This definition is the same as the old one so if you're accelerating in deep space then your velocity is changing. *BUT*... if you are near a large mass you are in curved spacetime, now acceleration your velocity is changing. You can stay stationary relative to Earth's surface and still be accelerating. This is because your acceleration should be measured not relative to the Earth's surface but relative to free-falling objects - they are inertial observers. Imagine this - I'm in deep space and I make horizontal rows and rows of stationary golf balls. Then I hop in my rocket and accelerate up through them. Just think about what that looks like. Now my rocket is back on Earth just sitting there. I freeze time for a sec and make horizontal rows and rows of golf balls up into the atmosphere. Now unfreeze time. What do you see? If you just look at the golf balls and the rocket ship it looks the same as the situation in space where the golf balls were stationary and the rocket was accelerating. Einstein's point was the golf balls have the better claim as the "stationary" thing since their experience is just like the golf balls in deep space - no forces experienced. The rocket on Earth is just like the rocket in space. It feels a force and hence an acceleration.

first time ever i m not sleepy

Could have used NASCAR not actually turning left as an analogy.

Thanks a lot..

can someone explain this to me like I'm a 3 year old

Keeping my eyes open for the people that turn this to a flat earth theory

This video both made me get it and made me motion sick.

Ok cool, so it is easier to understand with satellite/rocket around earth demonstration. But how do you explain me standing on this earth's surface. Am I travelling in straight line towards the middle of the earth??

If a gimmicky water/land curving force named gravity exists then how come smoke and other gases still always rise up as high as the top is (be it a ceiling, a boxes' top-side, carton-top, bottle-top, the top side of a sealed bag, or the top of the World's Dome Firmament we live in!) even when syringe-injected very carefully and very slowly through any angle, of any side, of any airless, "empty," vacuum-suctioned container; regardless of where the container is placed; outside/inside, at any atmospheric temperature, all while at any altitude?! This is what the Satanic, Illuminati, New World Order, 1 World Government, super-mega-rich, wicked, deceitful corperation: Google falsely tells us; the World is a round ball with a curvature of 7.98 inches in 1 mile. If that was true; that is more than enough curvature to capture and observe with even the resolution of a budget smartphone camera that billions of brain-washed sheeple (deceived guillable people) have right now; it's just plain flat-out impossible to capture a non-existent sea-curve or coast-curve because the World is not a round ball traveling non-stop at well over 50,000 miles an hour as the Wicked Satanic IlLIEminati corperation: Google want us (usual, average people) to believe!

Is general relativity just theory?

So why can't both be true? Large objects like the earth pull smaller objects to it, and it's accelerating in space time~ along with the rest of the universe

Thanks

I still think it’s a force ngl

uh huh, wait till we find all our known "forces" are just ways of changing direction of four-vector. Then I'll laugh at you "gravity is not a force" smugs.

this is a thing that school does not tell you

However, there is a force involved; if there wasn't, people would just fall into the earth on the fore side and fall away from the earth on the aft side.

maria fe

14 orë më parë

Spacetime is curved - it curves the opposite direction on the other side of the Earth. Neither us on this side of the Earth nor they on the other side are changing our spacial coordinates - we're not moving up, they're not moving down - Earth isn't flying into one of us. BUT we both ARE accelerating. In curved spacetime you have to accelerate just to remain stationary. The traditional definition of acceleration is something changing its velocity. In general relativity you have to embrace a new definition of acceleration: it means deviating from a geodesic - not going on a straight line path through spacetime. Near the Earth a geodesic is a parabola so unless you're moving in a parabolic arc (like on a zero-g plane) you are accelerating. This definition is the same as the old one so if you're accelerating in deep space then your velocity is changing. *BUT*... if you are near a large mass you are in curved spacetime, now acceleration your velocity is changing. You can stay stationary relative to Earth's surface and still be accelerating. This is because your acceleration should be measured not relative to the Earth's surface but relative to free-falling objects - they are inertial observers. Imagine this - I'm in deep space and I make horizontal rows and rows of stationary golf balls. Then I hop in my rocket and accelerate up through them. Just think about what that looks like. Now my rocket is back on Earth just sitting there. I freeze time for a sec and make horizontal rows and rows of golf balls up into the atmosphere. Now unfreeze time. What do you see? If you just look at the golf balls and the rocket ship it looks the same as the situation in space where the golf balls were stationary and the rocket was accelerating. Einstein's point was the golf balls have the better claim as the "stationary" thing since their experience is just like the golf balls in deep space - no forces experienced. The rocket on Earth is just like the rocket in space. It feels a force and hence an acceleration.

What’s holding us here?

There are some jokes that I heard in my childhood which induced a laughter now and there are these videos...

2:56 how long he's gonna fall?

So what makes earth move? Is the Great Attractor a misunderstanding? Whats goin on here dude XD

5:08 "Imagine you and a friend". Me: 😢

Flat earther fuel, I'm sure someone else has made that observation by now...

8:51 ~ You know, this is feeding the flat earthers!

Hmmm.. I think i know the reason🧐 "because the Earth is moveing and you are geting pulld from it but mars is moveing slow so you can jump higher then on Earth but mercury its small but it moves fast arond the sun So the gravity there is low so you can jump more higher then mars but plutu is more MOREE smaller and it moves super slow because its not near the sun to be fast like mercury so gravity on plutu is super low"😁

I had hiccoughs while I was watching this video I attempted to say that they would stop. They did not how do we explain this

Amongus

What if you hiccup?

I always thought of gravity as a property of space time and not a force. But if it is not a force do we need a theory that merges the standard model with Relativity?

Bồ Công Anh

Ditë më parë

When we talks about fundamental forces. we means "interaction" but we scientists just says force for short.

I'm wondering if the man in the rocket is close to a black hole and start to experience the spaggeti effect. So, at this situation he knows that he is very close to a black hole. How this situation does match with your explaination and the equivalence principle?

Bồ Công Anh

Ditë më parë

@Youness EL KHARRAF Thanks 😊

Youness EL KHARRAF

Ditë më parë

@Bồ Công Anh Now I see clearly. A referential is mathematically located in a single point, so approximately each atom has his own inertial frame and relative to each other they are not. It's clear now, but the example of that man fallen is kind of misleading and also the man in that ship. I think those exemple for simplification. Thanks a lot for your help. Have a nice day.

Bồ Công Anh

Ditë më parë

inertia is a local thing in General Relativity.

Bồ Công Anh

Ditë më parë

@Youness EL KHARRAF That's a good question. That's why I said its space-time curvature. For equivalence principle, space and time are connected uniformly even for the guy who accelerated up,his curved time perspective is still an illusion because he is not inertia like everything that fell down. In General Relativity, space-time curvature get smaller when you moves further from the massive object. "but fallen in black hole is an inertial frame, like the person who fallen from the roof". Yes but not global one. you can imagine that each atom each subatomic particle that makes up his body is following geodesic (inerita) but the sum isn't. for the man reaching singularity of the black hole,his entire body is following many straight lines in different curvature,the result is entire his body being spaghettified.

Youness EL KHARRAF

Ditë më parë

@Bồ Công Anh OK thanks, but fallen in black hole is an inertial frame, like the person who fallen from the roof. So it's not clear me, how a man in ship can be sppagetify and at the same time there is no experience telling him what happen outside. The weird thing here that he is the experience and the effects is visual for him. I missed something.

This would mean that the gravitational waves being picked up by Logo, etc. are ripples in spacetime, not some force carrier, right?

I have a question ❓ if the curve is pulling us down like a hook wouldn't there be a opposite curve that pull us the opposite way, like a negative curve, or there is no negative curve

Why does a falling object in a vacuum reaching maximum velocity is a lot slower than the earths speed moving through space? Shouldn’t we be moving at the same speed as the earth, since it is pushing us along with it?

How come when I google gravity all the referenced sources say gravity is a force caused by an objects mass. None of them mention gravity is fiction and we are just being pushed along. Are they all wrong?

Does gravity have expanding properties

I don't believe in gravity.

QUESTION............Can someone please tell me if i am right....................In FLAT spacetime an apple 100 meters above the moon AND the moon itself move through time and stay parallel with each other. The apple never falls to the moon. Because there is no such thing as gravity. But in CURVED spacetime when the apple and the moon move through time and are parallel to each other the curved spacetime forms geodesic straight lines that make the apple fall to the moon. Geodesics that start out parallel to each other will accelerate towards each other. Just like the 2 guys walking on the globe on parallel latitude lines. Because 2 geodesics on a curved surface always fall into one another. Or accelerate towards each other. The area or volume between 2 objects will always get smaller as the 2 objects move along their geodesic straight lines So the earth MUST shrink in curved spacetime. It is easier to talk about a 2 dimension circle earth than a 3D sphere earth. So think of the north pole and the south pole. As they move through time they try to move on straight parallel paths THROUGH TIME. But the curved spacetime turns those straight lines into geodesic straight lines. Just like it did for the apple. So the north pole must try to move towards the center of the planet and the south pole also tries to move towards the center of the planet in an accelerated way via the geodesic STRAIGHT LINES created by curved spacetime. But the earth does not get smaller. Even though the south pole and the north pole are moving through time on parallel straight geodesic lines and the volume between 2 parallel straight geodesic lines ALWAYS GETS SMALLER........... BUT THE EARTH DOES NOT SHRINK................ THEN ONLY ONE THING CAN BE HAPPENING.......... So the earth must expand or accelerate outwards AT THE SAME RATE the volume of spacetime shrinks. I am GUESSING the earth repels this shrinkage and accelerates outward because of electromagnetic forces created by the spacetime shrinking?????????????????????????????????? DO I FINALLY GOT IT ALL RIGHT???????????????????????????????

If light bends from our viewpoint on earth we should be able to calculate the coordinates of a universal spot in space from where the observer would never see light bending in any direction right? The official centre of the universe ?

There is an experiment you can do to distinguish if you are floating in space, or falling into a gravitational field..... Spaceman wouldnt feel his weight, and also, falling man wouldnt feel it either. But falling man would feel his body being stretched. A small blackhole would kill a person falling into it, because the gravitational difference between his legs and his head is massive. But before dying, he would be able to tell he is in a gravitational field falling, even tho, by definition he should be an inertial observer.... When falling into a gravitational field, your third derivate of your position isnt 0. This means, your acceleration is constantly increasing the closer you get to the source of the gravitational field. This means you would be able to tell that you are in a gravitational field, and also, using a tool that measures tension in all directions, you could know the direction you are falling to..... Now I got an interesting scenario from this: If everything (And I mean everything, the whole observable universe) was falling into a super super super massive blackhole (Kinda like the big crunch), including us, Wouldnt the universe look as if it were expanding due to the difference in gravitational pull? At least expanding in 1 of the 3 axis... If the universe's expansion is accelerating on 1 axis, but the objects on the other 2 axis are moving away from us but not accelerating, then we are probabily falling into an observable-universe-sized blackhole.

I knew my physics teacher was wrong! I should have passed my exam!

Gravity is the magnetic force between every positive and negative electron. The earth has a greater positive mass due to it's huge, negative magnetic field extending into space while your body has a plus one negative charge. Rocket's do not work in deep space as there is not enough gas to push against. You need an ion thruster to push against the static electrons in the vacume.

If there's no gravity (force) then why is his vector of travel towards the center of the planet and not away from it into space?

I think It's clearly to say force can be positioned in opposite side against the gravity, and any other directions but not the gravity.

Nice video. Makes me wonder, though, why physicists are obsessed with "unifying" the four basic forces of electromagnetism, strong force, weak force and gravitational... force? If gravity is not a force, then why bother trying to unify it with the others? It's so different from the others and operates at such a larger scale. Anyway, I'm sure lots of physicists can tell me why the quest goes on to unify them all.

Great video, but I still have the same question asked in minute 9:53.

maria fe

14 orë më parë

Spacetime is curved - it curves the opposite direction on the other side of the Earth. Neither us on this side of the Earth nor they on the other side are changing our spacial coordinates - we're not moving up, they're not moving down - Earth isn't flying into one of us. BUT we both ARE accelerating. In curved spacetime you have to accelerate just to remain stationary. The traditional definition of acceleration is something changing its velocity. In general relativity you have to embrace a new definition of acceleration: it means deviating from a geodesic - not going on a straight line path through spacetime. Near the Earth a geodesic is a parabola so unless you're moving in a parabolic arc (like on a zero-g plane) you are accelerating. This definition is the same as the old one so if you're accelerating in deep space then your velocity is changing. *BUT*... if you are near a large mass you are in curved spacetime, now acceleration your velocity is changing. You can stay stationary relative to Earth's surface and still be accelerating. This is because your acceleration should be measured not relative to the Earth's surface but relative to free-falling objects - they are inertial observers. Imagine this - I'm in deep space and I make horizontal rows and rows of stationary golf balls. Then I hop in my rocket and accelerate up through them. Just think about what that looks like. Now my rocket is back on Earth just sitting there. I freeze time for a sec and make horizontal rows and rows of golf balls up into the atmosphere. Now unfreeze time. What do you see? If you just look at the golf balls and the rocket ship it looks the same as the situation in space where the golf balls were stationary and the rocket was accelerating. Einstein's point was the golf balls have the better claim as the "stationary" thing since their experience is just like the golf balls in deep space - no forces experienced. The rocket on Earth is just like the rocket in space. It feels a force and hence an acceleration.

Just a question. You feel weight when you are standing on land. Imagine, you are in space and seeing earth and it's not standing on anything obviously. Then how is earth not weightless?

F*ck. I've been trying to understand spacetime curvature but never really gets it until now.

About 3:20 is that alcohol? 😂

Many “scientific assertions” put in the words of Albert Einstein, Very much bold move...

I still dont get it, and nobody here gets it ...... if someone understands it..... the nobel prize awaits.....The scientific fact Its....The biggest unsolved problem in fundamental Physics "PERIOD"

Everything is electro- magnentism.

Gravity is not a force : *cries in newton*

Time is rate of transformation. What we refer to as "time" is conceptual, it is how to measure the correlating state of all things which are undergoing change. Space is also conceptual. Everything is everywhere, but we only perceive objects in a state relative to our own.

I like how even the guy fell off the roof and crashing to the floor in high speed,he is still happy

God controls gravity that's it

how tides are formed then

Your Physics teacher won't agree this. You have to believe what is in the text book if you want to get marks in the exams.

The Conspiracy Group

Ditë më parë

this physics teacher agrees, actually

I just discoverd this chanel from slow mow guys And I always had a nitch for this type of thing And thess guys exlpain it so sinple that I almost getting addicted to their content

In 5th std Gravity is pulling force ,11th std gravity is pushing force now gravity doesn't exist.

I don't understand the subject well enough to know if this question makes sense, but since nothing can travel as fast as light, and if we are all accelerating, what happens as gravity increases. Is there a gravitational field strength beyond which nothing can accelerate faster? If so, what, if any, are the implications?

I am a bit skeptical if we are infinitely accelerating over an infinite time then we are taking that energy from somewhere can someone clear this up with me

If Gravitational field does not exist and we are in an inertial state, if earth moves to the right and the people in the right experiences being pushed upwards by earth, what about those people on the left side who feel the same? and why is it the same?

maria fe

14 orë më parë

Spacetime is curved - it curves the opposite direction on the other side of the Earth. Neither us on this side of the Earth nor they on the other side are changing our spacial coordinates - we're not moving up, they're not moving down - Earth isn't flying into one of us. BUT we both ARE accelerating. In curved spacetime you have to accelerate just to remain stationary. The traditional definition of acceleration is something changing its velocity. In general relativity you have to embrace a new definition of acceleration: it means deviating from a geodesic - not going on a straight line path through spacetime. Near the Earth a geodesic is a parabola so unless you're moving in a parabolic arc (like on a zero-g plane) you are accelerating. This definition is the same as the old one so if you're accelerating in deep space then your velocity is changing. *BUT*... if you are near a large mass you are in curved spacetime, now acceleration your velocity is changing. You can stay stationary relative to Earth's surface and still be accelerating. This is because your acceleration should be measured not relative to the Earth's surface but relative to free-falling objects - they are inertial observers. Imagine this - I'm in deep space and I make horizontal rows and rows of stationary golf balls. Then I hop in my rocket and accelerate up through them. Just think about what that looks like. Now my rocket is back on Earth just sitting there. I freeze time for a sec and make horizontal rows and rows of golf balls up into the atmosphere. Now unfreeze time. What do you see? If you just look at the golf balls and the rocket ship it looks the same as the situation in space where the golf balls were stationary and the rocket was accelerating. Einstein's point was the golf balls have the better claim as the "stationary" thing since their experience is just like the golf balls in deep space - no forces experienced. The rocket on Earth is just like the rocket in space. It feels a force and hence an acceleration.

rocket man is traveling at the same speed as the universe is expanding

8:00 People on the ISS (or other spaceship in the future) could be watching this video.

If Einstein was immortal, he would have appreciated this video, for expressing his point of view clearly

Can u determine speed of magnetic field line?

What if we imagined gravity like an accelerating stream that works on our mass? You feel it as long as you're not in sync with it. Starman is in sync so he doesn't feel it. With our feet on the surface of earth we do feel gravity as it's direction is towards the mass of earth. In fact mass attracts the stream. Falling is in fact syncing instantly with the gravity stream.

So if the earth stops moving right now we'd be floating right?

Is this why "Flat Earther's" can see objects at a far distance, not because the Earth is flat, but due to the curvature of the light from said object by the Earther's gravity? If we can see stars light curve around the Sun, maybe we can see a boats reflecting light curve over the horizon of the sea?

May I know if that equation is the same one Fridmann technically corrected?

Please say this was made april 1st. But wait how are stars made from dust? Cause curved space time? They would push apart not come together from gravity. They weren't walking on a Geodesic path. They were walking to a single point. Your trying to confuse a point of reference to reality. Like insane Narcissism. Cause your frame of reference doesn't mean your own personal reality. Curved Space Time? No, geodesic time. Explaining how reality is consistent and differences are consistent based on differences effecting the measurable aspects of reality. Lazy logic connecting time as linear. Time is not linear. Time is a series of differences. Differences can be linearly arranged to understand more easily.

Flat earthers called it.

Einstein spoke at the University of Leiden in 1920 on the subject of Ether and the Theory of Relativity. He covered too much to condense down, but one thing he said was that relativity accepted that there was something there, a kind of "ether", that allowed for measure of distance and time across it, but that he did not attribute any properties to it like motion. Tesla on the other hand believed that the fabric of space has a fluid nature and that many things could be explained through hydrodynamics. Rather than all the convoluted explanations about curvature that focus entirely on everything being relative to the observer, maybe gravity is a kind of buoyancy, with objects vibrating their way towards areas of less spatial density. Path of least resistance and all that. It is the resistance to this concept that results in confusion about the performance of the EM Drive. The cone shape produces a difference in spatial density between the ends, resulting in a "gravity" effect. But until something like this is accepted, followers of Einstein's theories will continue trying to force the curved peg of gravity into the square hole of quantum mechanics.

So we shoot arrows in projectile because we are accelerating, illumining gravity.

I know the rocketship is accelerating with respect to the deep space. And the rocketship being analogous to the earth, the earth is considered to be accelerating. But with respect to what? He says that the ISS is actually moving in a helical path, considering time as the fourth dimension. So would it be right to say that the earth is accelerating with respect to time? And if that is true then this acceleration which is 9.8 ms^(-2), should be somewhat associated to the nature of how or how fast is time progressing? There should be some association of this number 9.8 ms^-2, with the very intrinsic property of time?

Am I mistaken ? Or are they doing experiments to find graviton particles ? How does that fit in with this ?

Relative to how speed is calculated for everything on earth I'll say the speed of light value is correct or near perfect. What physicists simply care about is the overall speed and the overall time because there's hardly anything on earth with a constant speed and this gets worse as the distance increases. We calculate the speed of a car from a to b to be maybe 60km/hr, that doesn't mean there weren't some time when the car's speedometer hit near zero. So i think what we often care about in terms of speed is always the average speed of something or its overall speed against the overall time of the trip. Going by that, the value for speed of light is correct, relative to how the speed of everything else on earth is calculated.

BUT SCIENCE!!! hahaha - The earth is flat!

What if space time isn't curved? What if it's more dense around objects? Like light traveling through different materials?

When we have solved both kinds of gravities the micro and macro then this will make sense !