Well then again, it’s still just a theory

Its escape velocity is the same speed as the speed of light?

@@SherlockFootball828 not trying to nit pick, but the escape velocity is greater than the speed of light.

@@kalaasmna9116 the escape velocity of a black hole is greater than the speed of light.

Yes, but at the same time, gamma radiation and heat are escaping! All of that is math, correct. Many astrophysicists, unfortunately for us, have visited black holes, and they escaped riding on the gamma radiation wave for that reason they are the witnesses of the existence of the black holes. This is another god's miracle, the miracle of the black hole!

“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon.

@@davidrandell2224 Thanks. I'm on it...

We should all be thankful you are still with us and with a sound mind. Great story!

Thanks for sharing. Huge respect for you surviving it. Your experience of 'falling feeling' sounds horrifying and inspiring the same time. I literally saw a movie during reading and hope you recovered well, physically and mentally. my question: do you feel this feeling in your dreams? Or on any other everyday occasion (like elevators)? If it gives you stressful flashbacks eventually, how did you find your peace with it?

But why the low mass object have interaction with the hight mass object?

hey i don't know who to ask but. what would happen if the elevator would move at the acceleration of light?

@@isaiahpaul56 Its length and mass will decrease while the time span in which it would travel will increase ; would travel more distance in the same time .

@@wishfrgood75 what would happen to the light tho?

@@isaiahpaul56 Well , as far as light is concerned , it has no mass therefore , all the factors automatically don't dominate at all . Now for time , light naturally covers more distance than anything else moving at the same speed .

@@wishfrgood75 ah makes sense it's not possible to accelerate at the speed of light. But if we could accelerate 300000km/s2. It would be pretty interesting.

What has bothered me with the 2D example of space curvature is that the "experiment" relies on GRAVITY (that which pulled down on the objects on the curved "space". I still cannot get my head around what 3-4D curvature would look like, but in effect, a non-accelerating object in space is always moving in a straight line in relationship to curved space.

TIme does not exist it is a man invented concept. NOW Is the only "time" in the universe.

​@@stevenunua2118 time would exist in a universe without conscious life. it is definitely not a man made concept.

@@rev.davemoorman3883 it describes gravity. as an object enters the curved spacetime of a massive body the previously straight path of the object gets warped around the body and causes it to move (fall) towards it. "matter tells spacetime how to curve, and curved spacetime tells matter how to move"

@@kulled I like the symmetry of that wording.

I have an observation about this theory.. The fat person, thanks to his size, pulled the normal person when they sat on a piece of cloth. In our normal understanding, the normal person pulled due to gravity, and we originally say that gravity is caused by curvatures of space-time. How can the force of gravity be a cause of gravity? I didn't understand

Technically speaking, Einstein was a great theorist and not a great mathematician; his wife was better at computing and helped him out. He gave her his Nobel money. Their child was crazy and was put into a private asylum. She needed the cash to pay for it. He later divorced her and married his cousin. This wasn't a big deal in that age. It's said he almost drove himself crazy trying to come up with his theories.

ummm , maybe because of the accelaration of the universe? @@douaa.-

We are moving through the universe while orbiting in a galaxy and rotating around our star 🍔@@douaa.-

I know that, but it has nothing to do with gravity

Watch that concept in your mother language

Try quantum and you will see how simple and understandable the Theory of Relativity is.

In outer space gravity is just something traveling along a a straight line but on curve surface (eg around Sun) and thus it looks like the earth is attracted to Sun On earth gravity is the Earth pushing up on you as it travels in space on a straight line but on a curved surface. everybody experiences gravity the same on earth on all sides because of the earth rotates as it orbits the sun All this is constant and stable in space because billions of years ago all the violence and things crashing into each other to develop into a smooth orbit occurred then

This video actually explains the theory much better. ukposts.info/have/v-deo/ZWKJbJejgoJ70mQ.htmlsi=Gmvh2bp-GfEY1IKw

_The ISS is equipped with an anti gravity feature which allows BozoNauts to perform scientific experiments like weightless summersaults, pirouettes and answering scientific questions asked them by kindergarten kids._

_Pseudo Scientific Multicolored Kaleidoscopic and Hypnotic Hocus Pocus based on mind boggling Theories about distances, masses, and velocities that have never been proven and never will._ *_WHO_*_ are you going to believe, _*_ME_*_ or your own eyes?_ Grouxo Marx

I think kids should be tought real rational Physics and not this nonsense. Its making them silly.

but did you get the answer to the question in title? "If light has no mass, why is it affected by gravity?" I did not

​@@umer.on.youtube Basically, the gravity of an object curves the space around it, and light follows that curvature of space.

@@Milesco gavirty is not a force, it’s just grabbing and event horizon it just never ends space is truly magnificent

@@youngboy2pacdrake proofread when typing

@@umer.on.youtube Take the example of the lift in space for example. If an object is thrown and the lift is not moving, it will go straight. If the lift is accelerating, it appears the object falls. You only need a small acceleration to see that since the object moves slowly. Light, however, moves very fast, so the lift would be basically not moving comparing to the light. Now lets increase a lot that acceleration. The lift is now moving slowly comparing to the light, but the light will move straight. However, when you compare the light to the lift, it looks like it is blending, because the lift is going up so the light will look like it goes down. If you still don't understand, use your hand. Use one of them to exemplify light and move it to the other hand. The other one you move slowly up. If you compare the movement of the left hand (light) with the right hand (lift), it will look like the left one is going down compared to the right one, even thought it is only going right

bot generated script and bot reading it. lots of mistakes and bad English in this.

☝️I'm really getting sick of computers accusing us of being robots.

Die lay shun.

@@MajorHenryL Your pitiful criticism has been noted by your Computer Overlords and the fine has been deducted from your account.

@@MajorHenryL Plot twist: everyone in the universe is a robot, with varying levels of paranoia.

it isn't though but it's not the video fault. Einstein literally left a lose end by interpreting gravity as an effect rather than a force. Tying time and space together seems off.

​@@theinvisibleman6147 or maybe... Einstein just didn't know. At some point scientists have to accept that humans trying to explain the universe is like a baby fish trying to depict the ocean. We know nothing.

@@jdajayi92 yea, he didn't know but he claims to, or people claim he and others with similar ideas do. it's not that they know or don't know. my problem is that their ideas are entertained and disseminated despite being ridiculous on its face, not for its counter intuitive trait but it's poor intellectual rigor, that is, lack of ability to replicate and interpret things properly if at all. It's just endless thought experimenting that uses mathematics to further abstract observation (or lack thereof) Newton and others like him were on the right track and others came along and diverted us away from it. that right track being empirical, concrete, discrete observations and testing and coming to conclusions based mostly on such.

Animations are nice but the voiceover needs more polish. The word "dilation" pronounced as "deletion" was particularly cringeworthy. 9:02

@Capt Tsubasa Try watching the late Wallace (Wal) Thornhill in (The Log Path to Understanding Gravity) and get a real picture.

certainly

@@jovetj sorry - I have to agree, but it was the only blot on an otherwise excellent video.

Well, and one of the most wrong ones..

so it's just an illusion when the black holes that humans have ever found are just images from the front, or the black hole is a portal to another world just 1 pixel thickness like in the video games

Agreed, and I believe you are correct. Dilation as opposed to Deletion.

Do you really ?

@@user-ur8ed2vl7b no one actually does no matter what they claim.

​@@joejones9520i personally have a theory that extremely massive objects travel through time slower, but there are probably some flaws in it

I have an observation about this theory.. The fat person, thanks to his size, pulled the normal person when they sat on a piece of cloth. In our normal understanding, the normal person pulled due to gravity, and we originally say that gravity is caused by curvatures of space-time. How can the force of gravity be a cause of gravity? I didn't understand

Ai

I know, I caught that also.

YES! The way it is explained makes no sense and contradicts itself.

Sloppy use of language throughout the video. Script not edited or perhaps not written by a human. Frustrated me so much I quit watching after 2 min.

He also says that acceleration causes gravity several times through out the video

Shape of space time ? Hahahahahah In physics, spacetime is a mathematical model that combines the three dimensions of space and one dimension of time into a single four-dimensional manifold.

@@user-ur8ed2vl7b Yes, and that manifold has a curvature tensor that describes its "shape." In the absence of matter, it is flat - zero curvature. Fred

Which is in essence what Einstein meant with relativity as a whole

Only trouble is that its all just BS. Light doesn't bend due to "curved spacetime". No one has observed that happening, because spacetime is only a mathematical construct not present in reality. A math equation cant affect actual physical reality. Much of what you are told is just BS.

Einstein was bad at math. He had lots of outside help. One of his friends Grossman was calculating his ideas into math. And if you consider math you must know that math is arbitrary and anything can be fit into it. And if you wonder about these strange mathematical notations like Maxwell's equations, the notations were invented by Maxwell. All mathematicians do that.

In physics, spacetime is a mathematical model that combines the three dimensions of space and one dimension of time into a single four-dimensional manifold.

@@user-ur8ed2vl7b Oxymoron alert! A Mathematical Model is NOT Physics. It's abstract Math. Therefore such fantasies of the Mathematician can never be used as an explanation as to how things work in reality, in Physics, the study of the Natural World. The is no such construct in the Natural Wold, (Universe) that corresponds to a 4 Dimensional condition. Combining Time in with dimensions is a logical fallacy.

@@everythingisalllies2141 Try google search- space-time and read for yourself. Then tell Google what you just told me. You are right about the fallacy- Einsteins.

You now understand gravity, but still not grammar! This is "how gravity work"

@@curtcoller3632 I'll apply the "s" rule consistantly one day... one day

the planet isn't falling towards the sun, that would be circular reasoning. The Ball and Fabric demonstration isn't really a demonstration IMO, it is more of a representation of what happens rather than an explanation on how it happens. A better explanation would be this: If you and a friend walked in a straight line on the Earth towards the North Pole at the same speed, you will meet each other eventually. Even though both of you were going in a straight line on the surface of the Earth, you weren't going through the Earth to get to the North Pole. So for you and your friend, it is the shortest and straightest path, but for some invincible creature who knows how to dig, it is not. In this scenario, it would be more accurate to say that you and your friend are 2-d creatures on a 3-d sphere, but that's harder to imagine.

@@pokejinwwi What ?

@@tartipouss sry about that, i tend to make ridiculously long comments. basically, in th video, they showed the fat man and the skinny man sitting on a mat, which causes the skinny man to slide towards the fat man. That isn't how gravity works, that's what it does. It's more of a representation than a demonstration.

Do you mean to say that dark energy would be or contain another force that creates the pattern that we observe and classify as quantum properties? It makes sense. The problem is that whenever we investigate Plank's world, the most difficult and expensive thing is to discover more, especially to find some sign or information about dark energy there.

Yes the sheet is more of a "cross section".

Yes the simple 2d rubber sheet analogy is flawed as it uses gravity to explain gravity. Geodesic paths in local 4D spacetime geometry need a more sophiticated analogy. Not sure what that might be though. The ants on a football travelling North thru 'time' is quite good but has it's own problems I think.

@@nikthefix8918 "as it uses gravity to explain gravity. " So what? We could use magnetism instead, but we have gravitation freely available to create an explanation of the effects.

@@Dr-Curious But it becomes circular. Especially as you are using a Newtonian gravity to assist in visualizing an Einsteinian gravity. The former phenomenon used to demonstrate the latter is conradicted by the latter. I can think of a better rubber sheet analogy. Call it a rubber sheet laminate. Imagine 2 identical warped surfaces separated by the diameter of a frictionless steel ball. If an experiment performed on the ISS involved propelling the steel ball in a direction tangent to and between the the surfaces then ball would follow the laminate geometry due to the normal forces - with no need for a gravity force to pull the ball into the well. This would surely fail to demonstrate the 'non-orbital' point-to-point character of the gravitational attraction we see betwwen bodies but that's because the 4D Time component and inevitable movement through it has not been incorporated into the parameters of the 3D experiment.

@@nikthefix8918 "demonstrate the latter is conradicted" Though, it's a demonstration. It creates a "cross sectional" analogue of space time and uses vertical relief to be a visual representation of "gravitational strength". You can even roll balls around it to represent orbital motion. I think it's elegant as heII.

The galaxies viewed with the James Webb space telescope are moving forward in time through space, time did not stop billions of years in Earths past duh. Radio communications in space have a latency delay (a gap in transmissions time) The human eye retains light and images for 15 miliseconds, if there were any space-time relativity gaps in transmission time the galaxies viewed with the James Webb space telescope wouldn't be possible. To believe galaxies stars and planets can be in multiple places-multiple coordinates is fantasy physics. Time continues to move forward, measuring time with the speed of light then calling it space-time is a ilogical. A singularity-Big Bang creation of the universe cannot have multiple starting points just for Einstein's disciples. You can't measure time in one direction if time is moving forward in another because you'd run out of time :-) Like sound, if the speed of light is finite (limited) it could never reach it's destination unless photons ghosts are adding data from the future into the objects we see, re-converging geometry with motion, coordinates, speed, gamma, color and contrast. The human eye retains light and images for 15 milisecods limited to 30 frames per second, if the speed of light was not instantaneous in time images would be out of sync. Relativity and big bang debunked. If the speed of light is finite (limited) to 186,000 mi./s before the images reach their destination future data must be added into the objects we see, then re-converge geometry with motion, adjust coordinates, speed, gamma, color and contrast. It's illogical to say that light "travels" If light were reflected back in a mirror from opposite sides of the universe, according to Einstein's relativity (moving clocks run slow) the light from the mirror would move backwards in time. If the speed of light is finite (limited) to 186,000 mi./s light could never reach its destination as galaxies, stars and planets have moved from their coordinates, proving light is instantaneous in time, therefore has no speed limit in time. Light waves travels instantaneously in all directions, measuring it's speed inside a glass vacuum tube creates light shattering (interference) breaking its state of superposition. Light waves propagate through space in parallel rays behaving as the source at a given point, while measured light appears to have a limitation of speed yet its images appear instantaneous in time. Like a video camera, if the traveling distance (speed of light) is finite (limited) to 186,000 miles per second it's images captured-viewed would be (limited) to one second having a maximum distance of 186,000 miles. Conclusion, relativity needs more film. If light and moving images were (limited) in speed for even a microsecond light waves would break its state of superposition, the sequence of video frames would immediately stop, like pulling the plug on your TV or video recorder. Einstein's relativity has the same similarity as religious and political cults, rejecting all evidence that disproves their ideology the psychological term is Mass Formation Psychosis, similar to cognitive dissonance only worse :-). The Earth is constantly moving-orbiting the sun revolving on its axis, if light and images weren't instantaneous in time celestial objects would be blurred out of focus as the human eye is limited to 30 frames per second. If the James Webb space telescope captured live video with unlimited power you would see planets orbiting their sun, looking closer you might see aliens walking on the streets where they live laughing at Albert Einstein's time dilation 🙂 Einstein removed the ether medium coordinates of objects in space, replacing real gravity with mathematical gravitational wave clocks that defy the laws of physics. Einstein's space-time relativity is a mathematical model of the universe having no physical realities, so of course mathematical gravitational waves can stretch time back-and-forth like a rubber band :-). Like the movie Rainman, autistics are great at math but lack emotional intelligence. If space was curved gravitational waves would throw planets out of orbit, altering time as galaxies and planets ascend and descend gravity waves, warp-curve, bend images in the James Webb space telescopes, the emptiness of space has near zero gravity duh. If gravity curved, warped empty space it would also curve-warp images in the James Webb space telescope. The center of the sun is not the gravitational center of solar systems, neither are the center of black holes or galaxies the gravitational center for stars. If gravity curved, warped empty space, planets could not orbit in a flat plane around their suns-stars. Einstein's gravitational waves do not exist. The Magnetron gravity model debunks Einstein's Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, space-time, Big Bang, black holes, and our current understanding of celestial mechanics illustrating how light travels instantaneously in all directions independent of time, space and gravity. If the universe is expanding from a Big Bang by 360°x360° at an increasingly faster rate then the earliest post big bang galaxies at the singularity 13.8 billions years in Earth's past are now in Earth's future passing the singularity yet the size of galaxies remain the same? If the universe is expanding at an increasingly faster rate (faster than light) explain how you can measure distance if the speed of light is constant :-). Since gravity bends-curves light and space-time, explain how time and distance can be measured if light and space are being bent-curved passing through billions of years of Einstein's gravitational waves. Doublethink is simultaneously accepting two conflicting beliefs as truth. Explain how light particles record moving images of past cosmological objects, add image content from the future then re-converge and play back the final moving image in what we perceive as real time. Galaxies coordinates change with movement, even if it were possible to view images from Earth's past we would also see (all prior past images from each coordinates change of the past. If the speed of light is finite (limited) to 186,000 mi./s light could never reach its destination as galaxies, stars and planets would have moved from their coordinates with time, proving light (and it's images) are instantaneous in time, therefore have no speed limit in time. If an Earth based observer and time traveler used synchronized mechanical watches their time would be the same throughout the universe, debunking Einstein's relativity, space-time and big bang using common sense. Time and space are independently of each other, not material bodies or fantasy unions that magically stretch time and space like a rubber band into space-time dimensions with (near zero gravity waves). If space was curved gravitational waves would throw planets out of orbit, altering time as galaxies and planets ascend and descend Einstein's hypothetical gravitational waves, stretch-warp images in the Hubble and James Webb space telescopes. A particle would need a series of particles to bend in superposition like a wave. Imagine your vehicle being a particle, its onboard computer would need to instruct all the vehicles in your lane to make a left turn, but according to relativity the street no longer exists. Since Einstein's projectile light particles are separated by distance in space-time their distance would increase by the same factor obviously violating the laws of conservation of energy. If space curved the path of light through space-time an increased velocity and light source energy would be required to travel the increased distances, again violating the laws of conservation of energy. If galaxies (viewed) with the James Webb space telescope are no longer there (billions of years in Earth's past) than neither are Einstein's gravitational waves, space-time, dark energy, dark matter or the body of space/ether that contains these galaxies. Magnetron. As a television electronics tech-theoretical physicist I laugh at the stupidity of scientists.

If black holes reside is a region of Einstein's space-time where gravity and mass are so dense that nothing, neither mass, particles nor electromagnetic radiation such as light can escape, then the unimaginable mass of the proposed Big Bang couldn't escape either. The force of gravity in a black hole cannot create twin vortex dynamo convective motions (spiral centrifugal-centripetal vortex velocities) (two distinct directions of travel). A black hole is simply a plasma driven vortex, the rotating electron-positron dipole of an electromagnetic field, expanding electromagnetic light waves at the event horizon while moving electromagnetic light waves away from its core. The earths magnetic fields blocks dangerous radiation from space in the same way electromagnetic fields of black holes block visible light, you do the math :-). Electromagnetic waves curve light in a centrifugal-centripetal vortex, exactly what we see in an induction coil. The energy streaming out of the Sun counteracts its gravity pull because the Sun has no gravity and is not the gravitational center of solar systems, neither is a theorized Big Bang the center of black holes or galaxies the gravitational center for stars. Using optical clocks and lasers to prove Einstein's time dilation-space-time curvature is like using a metal detector to find gold at Fort Knox. The closer you are to the electromagnetic fields, mass and gravity of the earth the more light bends aka gravitational lensing. Proving matter cannot collapse to “near infinite density” as a result of gravity because gravity is a repelling force (a centrifugal deceleration, density against the ether, the gravity of space. The Magnetron gravity model debunks Einstein's Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, space-time, Big Bang, black holes, and our current understanding of celestial mechanics illustrating how light travels instantaneously in all directions independent of time, space and gravity. Magnetron A particle would need a series of particles to bend in superposition like a wave. Imagine your vehicle being a particle, its onboard computer would need to instruct all the vehicles in your lane to make a left turn, but according to relativity the street no longer exists. Since Einstein's projectile light particles are separated by distance in space-time their distance would increase by the same factor obviously violating the laws of conservation of energy. If space curved the path of light through space-time an increased velocity and light source energy would be required to travel the increased distances, again violating the laws of conservation of energy. If galaxies (viewed) with the James Webb space telescope are no longer there (billions of years in Earth's past) than neither are Einstein's gravitational waves, space-time, dark energy, dark matter or the body of space/ether that contains these galaxies. According to Einstein's relativity, projectile particle photons transport moving images from galaxies past into the future, re-converging geometry, gamma, contrast and color with every microsecond change in coordinates. Sorry, there are no video recorders in space. The moon is above Earth's horizon for 12 hours, if the curvature of space bends-curves light space and time then measuring the moons distance from Earth as light travels in a curve at 2,288 miles per hour the moon is then 27.456 miles further from Earth during daylight hours. Since the light from the Sun takes 8 minutes to reach Earth according to Einstein using a telescope to magnify time with a 20 times magnification power you should still see the Sun even after it's below Earth's horizon. Please use a Sun filter before trying this experiment :-). If Einstein's time dilation were true chemical bonding of atoms and molecules wouldn't be possible, light, gravity, mass and people cannot have multiple coordinate space-times. Delusion is characterized by or holding idiosyncratic beliefs that contradict reality :-) If the images you see in the universe were really in Earth's past, you wouldn't be able to see them because the past no longer exists :-). Delusion is characterized by or holding idiosyncratic beliefs that contradict reality. If the speed of light is finite (limited) to 186,000 mi./s before the images reach their destination future data from ghosts with knowlage of the future must be added into the objects we see, then re-converge geometry with motion, adjust coordinates, speed, gamma, color and contrast aka fantasy physics lol. If the galaxies (viewed) with the James Webb space telescope were really in Earth's past, the coordinates of everything in space would be in the past as well making it impossible to see them because the past no longer exists lol. Delusions are characterized as false beliefs that contradict reality. If the galaxies (viewed) with the James Webb space telescope are no longer there (billions of years in Earth's past) than neither are Einstein's gravitational waves, space-time, dark energy, dark matter or the body of space/ether that contains these galaxies aka doublethink. If the galaxies (viewed) with the James Webb space telescope are in real time, not in Earths past lol. If the speed of light is (limited) in speed it's time is limited in time and can never reach its destination. As a television electronics tech-theoretical physicist I laugh at the stupidity of scientists. Time continues to move forward, measuring time with the speed of light then calling it space-time is a ilogical. Light waves are discrete packets of energy produced from an energy source, you can't simply reverse its polarity with a DC rectifier to travel back in time :-). Narcissists are highly autistic only in a stupid way, lacking wisdom-emotional intelligence they believe feelings are facts and become brainwashed by their own ignorance. Since gravity is the effect of mass before the universe was created gravity couldn't have existed. Neither time, gravity nor mass can create itself from nothing, reside in nothing or expand into nothing since nothing has no properties. The gravity of the ether-space is a force against density-mass, the center of mass-gravity is not the gravitational center for planets stars and galaxies. Either the universe was always here or all the fundamental forces were created simultaneously. If the universe is expanding from a Big Bang by 360°x360° at an increasingly faster rate the earliest post big bang galaxies in Earth's past are now in Earth's future so measuring time from a singularity-Big Bang with the speed of light quickly becomes ilogical. Space-time relativity & big bang debunked. You can lead a zealot to water but you can't make them think. Magnetron.

It either twists it or not. Anything else is only an illusion and "Seems" is an illusion.

space moves the object by some force.

This is incorrect or I have misunderstood. A bloke in free fall in an elevator shaft is accelerating at 9.8m/s^2. A bloke floating in space isn’t accelerating.

Almost right: both you and the ball are pulled toward the center of gravity. From a practical viewpoint, there is no significant convergence of the two paths. The center of gravity, in one sense, is huge; it's not just a point source. However, there IS an unimaginably weak pull between you as a gravity source, and the ball. Being the massier object, you will win. Eventually. I don't know how tiny the acceleration rate is going to be, but you'd be able to reach Earth's center of gravity (if there are no obstructions) long before the ball will touch you. And again, the core of the Earth is not a point source, and for all practical purposes, your molecules are not going to be compressed. Remember just how huge the earth is, and how little your paths would converge even if the center of mass was a point source. This is a little bit like the argument that some use that the sun must be very close because you can see diverging light beams through the clouds. Only the opposite direction. Again, we are not dealing with a point source, but a huge source nearly a million miles in diameter. And there is just so much light being emitted (approximately 1300 watts per square meter) that even with the light diverging over the course of 93 million miles, the photons reaching Earth are still, if you could even measure the angles of the photons, essentially parallel. Similarly, your path and the ball's path are so close to parallel, your convergence is probably not measurable. At the Earth's surface, the curvature is so minute, it looks flat, and you're heading (if you're able to pass through the layers in the first place) towards a target hundreds of miles wide. Which will probably also seem pretty close to flat at that perspective. At the surface, at the equator, the Earth's circumference is 24,900 miles. Divide that by 360, and travelling a mere degree around the Earth is over 66 miles, where the peak curvature will be measured in feet. (Yes, I can find the equations online to calculate the height. No, I don't want to. But given that the horizon is only about three or four miles away from you, and you only start dipping down below the horizon at that point, I'm confident that a range of 66 miles, the "peak" of the curve is only feet. Guessing wildly, with no math at all to support my speculation, I would guess under 200 feet.)

It seems like it should be even easier to view gravity as the side effect of local depletion in a smooth scalar field. Any sufficient mass would draw in vacuum energy from the vicinity, creating local movement of space. Rather than a curved surface you would see a flow from all directions. It explains why space expands between galaxies but not inside them, on its face offering a possible explanation of external pressure holding galaxies together. This doesn't do a good job of explaining conservation of momentum though.

Should the ball go up in flames🔥, rising Gas Smoke from burning, is there a clue why it was grounded ? 🤔

@@passintogracegoldenyearnin6310 Ever tried Energy with your theory ?

@@Henglaar NOT QUITE RIGHT !! BUT THAT EXPLANATION WILL WORK AS LONG AS YOU ARE NOT DOING A SCIENCE PAPER ON HOW GRAVITY REALLY WORKS. BUT GOOD JOB !!

Well then why don't you explain it for us?

@@michaeldeierhoi4096 the gravitational dip on the sheet in this representation is actually spherical relative to the mass density of the object

@Michael Deierhoi also, this representation is a 3 dimensional object "sitting" on a 2 dimensional plane....it's an easy way to convey the idea but it is fundamentally wrong and misleading.

@Michael Deierhoi ok, while using the representation they provide, take a second sheet and place it on top of the object. You will now see a gravitational effect on both the bottom side and now the top side. Take both the top and bottom sheets and rotate them in every direction possible around the object and you will notice that the gravitational field is spherical and would ultimately affect external objects vastly different from what this model conveys.

@@LetsTalkAboutIt24-7 Yes I get that though it bears repeating.

A photon never has mass. You can assign a photon a mass equivalent in the sense of the change in mass of a solar panel that absorbed it and the photon can be assigned a dollar value based the price per kilowatt-hour, but a photon doesn't have money inside it any more than it has mass - a photon is a massless particle.

Einstein discovered that something doesn’t need to have mass to have momentum. The equation P=mv can be used in the case of a normal sized object going at non relativistic speeds but you shouldn’t think of it as the definition of momentum

@@deananderson7714 From my days in college 50 years ago a theoretical calculation of the mass of a photon was a number not remembered except that in scientific notation it was thought to be ten to the minus power 56. Indeed a nearly infinitesimal number, but yet not zero. Perhaps the number was calculated to explain in classical terms what the mass of a photon should be to explain it's behavior in a strong gravitational field such as the sun when it appears to be bent as if it is being attracted by the sun's gravity. Conversely, if space time is curved the apparent "bend" of a beam of light can be the result of the dimensional warping of space itself.

Well thanks😅

You are correct in your concept. An outside and stationary observer would not see bending of light because he is in a different frame of reference. It only is for the one who is accelerating. Also, I believe that there is no passage of time because if time flows, passes, it would have to move. And we do not experience movement of time.

how can gravity change time? Time is a construct, not an object

@@fetB That is a fair question. There are videos showing how time is relative, and the passage of time relative to the speed of light and relative to the observer. I am not clear on such questions. In a sense I see time as cause - effect, the relationship between disparate mass and matter, and light as the conveyer of that information. Yet relativity supposes that time would pass differently indeed as one appoaches light speed, and two people, one traveling through space at close to light speed, and then retruning to the other persson, would each age very differently. Also fair is What exactly is this fabric of space? One cannot imagine an end to the three demensions of height, width, and depth, so exactly what is this space fabric composed of? The entire concept is difficult. Yes, a man in an elevator, both in free fall will feel no force, just as if he was floating in space. A man laying down on a couch on earth are also both in free fall in space, yet the man will feel his weight against the couch. Why does light only curve a little? Would a ball thrown at 186000 miles per second, curve the same as light? (Ignore the mass issue for now) At any rate the video was not clear on the answer of light curving dispite having no mass. I suppose the assertion is that light follows exactly the degree of space curvature, yet the assertion is that is what a person or object is doing as well, yet they curve very differently according to angular momentum. Does light curve through space the same as a material object moving at light speed would curve?

@@davidanderson9074 well light is still an object, but with very, very little mass, so to the speak, so i dont object it bending with heavy gravitation. I can see this happening. But the whole aging thing in relation to time makes no sense to me. I've seen a few videos on time relativity, but they always reference a clock. A clock isn't time, but a measuring tool that is of course subject to gravitational forces, so of course it is affected. We're going to great length to 'keep time' on earth with various clocks ever so slightly being off, but that doesnt mean time has changed

hahahahahahah Gravity changes time ??????

There is no 'movement' fast than light because at light speed there is no movement. There is eternity and infinity. Every stops at light speed, time and distance are both transcended.

Hahahhahah.........In physics, spacetime is a mathematical model that combines the three dimensions of space and one dimension of time into a single four-dimensional manifold.

@@user-ur8ed2vl7b There are 4 spatial dimensions. Why do you think we cannot perceive the curvature of space? Because this is a property of the 4th dimension. Same as gravity, gravity, like time, a property of the 4th spatial dimension..

@@theseeker3771 You're a joke. There are not 4 spatial dimension. Only 3 according to Descartes. Length, breadth and width. Time is not a dimension.

@@user-ur8ed2vl7b Lol Decartes? Try Einstein... Hawking. Clearly they say that gravity is a ripple or warping of our space and is caused by mass which causes a displacement in 4 dimensional space.... I always find the rudest people are also the dumbest...

Down? Why not down from the South Pole?

@@annoyingbstard9407 Do you think that changes anything? If a person was to go to the South Pole and look down, how would this now cause the Sun to set in the East?

@@kylelochlann5053 Oh dear. Spatial awareness not your thing then.

@@annoyingbstard9407 No, you're not understanding the point made by the OP, specifically, that the angular momentum is observer-independent.

@@kylelochlann5053 Read again.

"Shone" surely?

No, it should do no such thing.

@Kyle Lochlann please explain. My understanding is that the photons would enter the spherical gravitational field and in lamens terms "get sucked into the black hole". As the laser enters the gravitational field, the light/photons will become visibly warped in a spherical gravitational pattern thus appearing as a ball of light that shrinks. This may not be visible to the naked eye considering the unreasonable force of a black hole.

@@LetsTalkAboutIt24-7 Black holes are shrouded in a shadow region. As light approaches a black hole there is a maximum grazing distance (called the impact parameter) where the light moves inward and vanishes across the horizon. In order for there to be a "ball of light" implies that light is somehow escaping the black hole and making its way to the eye of the observer. There is what's called a "photon ring" which is light that is at an unstable orbit around the black hole, some of which is sent back out and is thus visible to the observer. I recommend doing a google image search for "black hole photon ring" as it's not so easy to put it into words without a picture.

That wouldn't happen. First off, the "spherical distortion field" is a border, not an object. That's the border, where just inside, no one can see what is happening, and even light cannot escape. Which brings me to the second point: even if it was a reflection object instead of a region of space, the light probably couldn't get back to you after it arrived. If it does manage to get back to you somehow, I would bet (because I'm not certain on this point) it would probably be severely red-shifted. You're probably going to need infrared sensors to detect it at all. So, it's doubly impossible: there is nothing for the beam to reflect off of, It's like a sign saying "Beware of Dog" eighteen feet away from the house with a vicious dog on a seventeen foot chain. What ever you send in, you ain't getting back. And in the unlikely event someone left a handy square mile reflector, it's likely you're going to have to use instruments to see the reflection that you're not going to get back in the first place.

What you are not understanding is that the attraction is mutual. The "smaller" object falls "down" to the "larger" object, but the "larger" object *also* falls "down" to the "smaller" object. Obviously not as much, but if the sizes are not too drastically different, it is easily measurable. Suffice it to say that when you jump up and down, you are actually pushing the Earth away from its original position, even if only by a microscopic amount.

@ DrFireChief : Yeah, the analogy is imperfect due to the fact that they are necessarily trying to represent a three-dimensional phenomenon in two dimensions.

​@@uncaboat2399 No, that's not the source of DrFireChief's confusion. It's that the traditional analogy of two objects on a flat "trampoline" requires a downward force of gravity to exist for the analogy to work. So the analogy fails because it relies on gravity to explain gravity.

Good job noticing that, the reason this seems wrong to you is because it is. This model of general relativity as things on a bed sheet is very simple to explain however it falls apart when you look just a bit deeper. The funny thing is by assuming objects would fall downwards, the image is trying to explain gravity using gravity 😅. If you want to see a much much better and satisfying explanation and image of how general works I strongly recommend you watch “A new way to visualize General Relativity” by ScienceClic English here on UKposts. Their model of general relativity is much more accurate to the actual math of the theory without becoming too hard to understand(you don’t need to know any math to understand it but an understanding of what a vector is would help)

Agreed, it's a bad analogy that is attempting to demonstrate the curvature of space around an object.

And the reason why people like you fail to understand the fundamental issue that time is not a variable that can be changed but rather a constant is because Einstein's theory doesn't take into account all points of reference simultaneously, in which case time moves forward at the same rate in every point in space at the same time. Hence why his theory and our understanding of it is wrong. And this can be proven mathematically.

@@Fluke2SS GPS wouldn’t work without taking into account the various rates of time.

There is no indication that more distant places run on a different time that we are. None of the galaxies are traveling at relativistic velocities, so there should be little or no difference between the flow of time where they are and where we are. It's true that we have to compensate for the effects on atomic clocks because of relativistic effects, but at these speeds, again, the effects are only significant if you need a clock accurate to one part in several billion. Speeding or slowing an atomic clock up by ten parts per billion isn't something even a mayfly would notice. It may surprise you to know that a light year is defined as a distance under reference conditions. It is not a variable. Just like the meter used to be a standard bar of stable metal at a specific temperature, light year has specifications. It is, as I said, not a variable; if something outside the reference conditions is going on, it is still defined as a certain distance, not the time needed to travel that distance. So, it remains the same distance even shipboard. The people made the definitions of the standards were way ahead of you on that one. Ten light years away will still be ten light years away aboard ship, even if it only takes them five years to travel due to time dilation. And back at the places where the standards were defined, ten years will still have passed, regardless of what happens aboard ship. Now you did get one thing partially right: the local rate of time (but not distance, if they did what we did,) will vary dependent upon the local mass OR the local velocity. But you've forgotten that significant relativistic effects aren't felt until things are decidedly extreme. Like being close to a black hole. Really close. Or going close to the speed of like, and pretty damned close at that. I don't know if there is a time dilation calculator on the web, or the calculations are available, but I seem to recall that even loafing along at 10% of the speed of light wouldn't cause much of a problem. The effects, if I remember correctly, are non-linear. So, to recap, the distances don't change because you're going fast. The time won't change for anyone but you when you get back. There are no signs that anyone is living under relativistic conditions that create significant change. And there are currently no signs of intelligent life pretty much anywhere in the universe. That we can actually detect.

@@Henglaar I’m not talking about special relativity. I’m talking about general relativity.

This is basic physics learned in high school...

@@redstarchrille facts

1.) It's basic physics. It's far aways from university level. 2.) This person is wrong. All their examples with the lift are just false.

@@revendisio Agreed. the OP has tried to explain a complex topic using mostly classical Newtonian physics and outdated models. Whole textbooks and reference materials could be cited, and probbaly were, but are considred wrong now, but at the time they were written described physical phenomenom well enough that we could consider them to be a good explanation for observations. Remember, these things are call 'theories' for a reason; they explain obersevation well but are still waiting to be replcaced by newer, better theories. So the OP is not really wrong, just not tapped into the most current theories.

No, it's just to illustrate its shape.

it has a physical meaning outside of the universe to explain it inside the universe its now bean named as S.A* quark

gravity is a force, I think they were on the right track with Newton until Einstein showed up and obscured everything.

Gravity is a 'fictitious force' in that the appearance of force in gravity comes as a result of our movement through 4d spacetime

@@marksimpson2321 there is no 4th dimension 😑 bring me a 2 dimensiomal object, anything. u can't. all of existence we observe is observed with all 3 properties. no single one is discrete in reality. where u encounter one, u will encounter the other two. no counter examples exist, unless you have in your possession an object with more or less than 3 dimensions. the concept of dimensions was invented to simplify reality, not mirror it. it's an abstraction, unfortunately from this abstraction the concept of multiple dimensions is born. if your premise is false your conclusions, all which follow from it, are false...even if the reasoning itself is sound, which it is.

@@theinvisibleman6147 Thanks to Einstein we have modern cosmology. please stop talking nonsense

light doesn't warp space-time

@@maybeLaby Not energetic enough. Quantum Cat has forgotten gravity isn't significant until you have incredible amounts of mass OR energy available. It takes an entire planet to create enough gravity for one g. I have no idea how energetic things would have to be to create a significant change in the shape of space, but I do know I don't want to be standing there interviewing a science denier next to the box about why it's harmless when it goes off. [grin]

If anyone has done that, they probably work at a cyclotron, like the Hadron Collider. The reason for that is that we lack the technology move anything larger and massier to a fraction of speed of light. And while I can't do the math myself, I seem to remember that most of the effects of Special Relativity aren't all that noticeable until about the last ten percent. I do remember reading that they did verify time dilation back in the 60s or so as soon as atomic clocks became portable. Similarly, GPS timing is apparently sensitive enough that they allegedly have to compensate for time dilation on the GPS satellites' atomic clocks. Which doesn't answer your question, but is more verification that Einstein's equations still (mostly) hold up.

@@Henglaar The big question is: CAN living matter hold up at higher speeds, or is there a point where it starts breaking down at the upper relativistic speeds. And if there's problems, at what speeds do these problems occur? Send a mouse on a round trip tour of the solar system at 50%, 60%, 70% of light speed, and see if we still have an intact mouse.

@@AC3handle would be a good idea the problem is that we just don't have the technology to reach anywhere near 50% the speed of light. we haven't even reached 0.1% the speed of light, now theoretically life could survive at some of those speeds, but you would have to be accelerating relatively slowly (compared to the speed of light) for years to prevent any unfortunate mush.

Yes And Gravity .... that is because of black hole effect

Light is bent and distorted when it passes through a heated medium too. Just look through an open flame. It can also reflect and objects appear to be in a different location called diffraction of light. That also happens when light passes through a medium like water. Everything in the background becomes distorted. Light doesn't have mass and it is mass that is affected by gravity. Therefore light will not be affected because space is a reaction to mass . The only way light can bend is if it passes through a medium like the sun's hot corona full of hot charged particles "ions". So the light is passing through a heated medium. The sun's gravity didn't cause the light to bend. The sun's hot corona did it.

@@ronaldkemp3952 Well its both. Light is effected by gravity, but Einsteins E=MC^2 does not work. Energy = Mass*Acceleration If light has zero mass as it does, then that would mean that light has zero energy, but it is very clear that light does have energy, through solar panels and solar sails.

@@FlareSnare e=mc^2 is an abbreviated version of the full formula, which includes momentum. Photons have momentum. You are wrong. Case closed

Lol, I have also written a book about gravity and dark matter last year. I suppose that gravity is created by a "shadow". All massy objects are creating a shadow to some very intense and strong radiation coming from all around us and this shadow is pulling us down to the ground. The higher the mass of the object is or the closer the object is, the bigger and stronger is its shadow. The shape or the size of the object does not matter, because as this object is creating the same shadow for all radiation passing by, it is also bending this radiation, therefore very small objects like neutron stars can create a bigger shadow than the sun, if they bend the radiation away at a strong angle. And with black holes, the shadow is so big, that there is only a very thin beam of radiation coming from behind, pushing you with a tremendous force to the black hole. My book is in German (Eine Lösung für das Geheimnis der dunklen Materie). You might also like my idea to resolve the dark matter issue and why the big bang maybe never happened.

If you have theory that makes sense then you should publish a paper not a book.