very interesting video but the earth accelerating hypothesis is explained in no way. I also dont see a follow up video explalaining. the key argument was showing a rocket in space not accelerating, objects freely float inside the rocket. When therocket accelerates the objects seem to fall (the rocket accelerates towards the objects that are floating). This is used to "prove" that the surface of the earth is accelerating in all directions in stead of gravity as a force pulling objects down. This seems to be illogical because the earth can after all be seen as a giant rocket ship. So why must the earth accelerate in all directions and not the rocket ship? why must the earth accelerate towards two apples on either side of the earth but a rocket not accelerate towards two apples on either side of it.
Much ado about nothing. All popular science lacks some essential issues for the sake of “understandability”. As Sabine Hossenfelder repeats at the end of most of her videos: “If you really want to understand, read the real stuff!” But there is, of course, one big problem: Most of the “real stuff” does not differ correctly between assumptions and facts, because you need not to bother about that, when you are satisfied by doing the right calculations. Nevertheless, as long as your experiments and/or observations do not falsify your assumptions, everything is ok, independent of sometimes many different possible interpretations. And if you find a single falsification, you have to adjust your assumptions. The essence of all science is the understanding, that you really don’t know. At best, one just knows enough to make some possibly nearly correct predictions. No know-it-all ever contributed to scientific progress.
Again a very interesting clip! Two questions immediately arise: 1) GPS satellites continue to orbit the Earth after their launch, and once we exclude the effect of the different gravitational potential in their orbit, their atomic clocks lag behind the clocks in the Earth's control center, as predicted by Special Relativity, without having returned on Earth (the place of their takeoff). Does this mean that the communication between the GPS satellites and the control center plays the role of bringing the satellites back and comparing the clocks? There must be no interaction between the moving objects, they must not even be in sight (communication) for each to consider the other's clocks lagging. 2) What is the speed of light according to matrix theory when the mirror is replaced by a second observer in place of the front board (spaceship) and the rear observer shines a flashlight (directly emitted, not reflected light) at the front observer when both moving in the same direction - the direction the flashlight is pointing? What is the meaning of the Doppler effect in this explanation?
Gravity, it's about time. High Pressure Time and Low Pressure Time, the difference produces "pull" - who needs curvature? Einstein true believers. Time variance produces and effect like Aerodynamic lift, just upside down - Chronodynamics. Time dilation gradients are CAUSED by MASS. Acceleration is the change of velocity over time - the earth is not accelerating a 9.8 meters per second squared. Inertial Frames fooled you. Earth is the inertial frame and yes, the clock above an object is going faster than a clock under the object. You also forget that things do not always fall in a curve. time dilation does not twist space. Space is not silly putty. You warp it to prove your error. You also forget potential energy and how hitting the ground GROUNDS the potential energy, but without acceleration, which you deny, there is no potential energy. According to you, objects in an inertial frame are not even moving. The inertial frame is moving without acceleration or potential energy. Show us a picture of curved spacetime - NOT CGI. BTW - the bottom of your gravity well should be in the center of the planetary mass - why I don't think you people think much. You just et Einstein do your thinking for you. Good Luck.
For thousands of years, time and space have been considered to be “absolute”. The really new idea of special relativity is the fact, that Einstein understood, that time and space can’t be defined “absolute”. Until Einstein, our view of physics was governed of our personal experience of our Eigentime and Eigenspace. Your “intuitive” example is suitable to let people imagine, that time is somehow “absolute”, like it is with the speed of sound in air at rest. But it is the essence of Special Relativity, that time and space do not exist on their own but are elements invented by our brain to model nature in a way, as we need it for survival. In nature, there is nothing like “time between two distinct events” speed ” or “distance between two distinct objects”. Unfortunately this fact is usually not made clear enough neither on this nor on most other channels). Nevertheless there fortunately are special oscillating physical processes on atomic scale, that define aging. We have to assign a “frequency” to it, only. (Namely 9 192 631 770 Hz as for today). This constant allows us to define measurements for something we call our Eigentime and our Eigenspace. It is arbitrary, but with the state of science as symmetric as possible and as close as possible to our “experience” of time and space and, by the way, comply with most of our physical sciences, too.
what if we have two identical gadgets, which measure time in some way, which guarantees homomor[fic measurement no matter external circumstances. Two synchronized identical gadgets are distributed in advance to any two points in space with the instruction to send a signal from one point to another exactly when the gadgets show 12:00 am. We can then measure the speed of the signal reaching each point one way, no?
Of course, the arbitrary definition of simultaeity in Special Relativity is unfortunately very often not even mentioned. To some, this gives the wrong expression, that simultaneity is a “physical fact” somehow. Others may think, they could lever out SRT. In fact, as already mentioned by others in this thread, it has no effect on the physics at all. The „Epsilon“ does not define any new physics nor does it revive any old physics. The Newtonian addition theorems for speeds don’t come to live again, moreover it confirms those of Einstein. Under the bottom line, it is nothing but just another equivalent but more complicated modelling of the same physical facts. I myself had a similar Idee some time ago, when I tried to use “complex” time. Vey nice idea, at the first view, but unnecessarily complicated at the second. My interpretation of the video: It suggests to know it better, but it doesn’t. In other words: There is no reason for Flat-Earthers to jump in the air for joy, Mercator-projection does not proof them right.
You’re right there’s no “new physics” here however, this does disprove the idea that Lorentzian geometry “causes” time dilation and length contraction - which is the mainstream prevailing view - since Lorentzian geometry depends upon epsilon being 1/2 in all frames of reference. Essentially, the math is right, but the philosophy is wrong. What this does tell us then is that relativity is a stop-gap, a mathematical shortcut to help make predictions for phenomena (time dilation and length contraction) whose causal origins are still unknown - though as Dialect’s other videos suggest, they are likely rooted in wave mechanics. The danger lies in those who embrace relativity as a religion, as the height of human achievement, instead of recognizing it as this mathematical stepping stone on the way to better and deeper theories.
@@WSFeuer I think it was Archimedes, who said, that he would turn the earth upside down, if he only had a fixed point in the universe. As far as I understand it, SRT was the first theory, which definitely says, that there isn’t such a point. Nevertheless, neither SRT nor GRT do describe our universe as a whole, they only give us a methodology to predict it’s local behaviour to a sufficiently reliable extent. If we don’t touch the boundaries of the theory, of course. The main mathematical tool of both theories is calculus. And, with a somehow generalised concept of “ locality” for differentiale manifolds, calculus is nothing but a tool for “local approximations”, using bundles of vector spaces (which are linear by definition). Therefore, if scientists believe they found the holy grale, they just don’t understand their business, they are just mixing up theories and facts, only.
The ridiculous gravity theory yet. Sky falling up? The ground is accelerating towards ur fall? I'm surprised our earth has not inflated like a balloon yet😂 with all the sky falling up🤣
Acceleration is relative but in comparison of gravity. The SR when we say speed is relative we mean no one can say who has the speed. Because both of them can be to relative to the frame! But acceleration is not like that. You can't say every observation can say I don't have acceleration, the other frames do! When we talk about relativeness of acceleration we mean you can't clarify that your acceleration is because of inertial field or the gravity fields. Got it?
the solution is simple, and Einstein had it- the inertial frame is that of ALL observers that are in a free fall, so in other words the curvature of space creates the inertial frame from which acceleration is measured, in a feee fall you feel no fore, if you're not in a free fall then you are accelerating due to some force acting on you
This is very helpful. It seems possible to test whether one-way light speed is the same in opposite directions: ethicsblackhole.blogspot.com/2024/05/proposed-test-for-light-speed-symmetry.html
It is important to note, as pointed out in the video, that in Relativity theory, unlike the sound clock, “v” is the velocity of the moving platform with respect to a remote observer. The local observer in a light clock case does NOT experience any time dilation, EVER, unlike the sound clock example. A simple interpretation of time dilation in the light clock case is: the finite speed of light causes changing events on the moving platform to APPEAR to slow down to the remote observer, like a movie running in slow motion. It does not mean that life has slowed down on the observed platform. If the latter is true, how does a time-counter on the moving platform record slower passage of time. I guess I still don’t understand your “mechanistic explanation”.
Check out our video "Matrix Theory" which tackles the conflation between apparent time dilation and physically real time dilation -- you'll find answers to your questions there.
Why is the presence of the Earth necessary in formulating the Twin Paradox? Why not assume twins of identical mass, no Earth but keep the Fixed Stars, and then reexamine the explanation. I am not sure that it will still hold water.
I don’t get the aversion to absolute simultaneity in modern physics. The existence of STR doesn’t necessarily rule it out and it would make understanding quantum mechanics a whole lot easier. Tim Maudlin is a proponent of the idea that we ought to bring back absolute simultaneity because of what we see in QM, but for whatever reason there seems to be almost an anathema against it.
Inertial frames are for people who don't know what acceleration means. No, I'm not going to tell you. This is a job for science fiction writers. BTW - the path of a falling object is an ellipse, not a parabola. Yes, they lied to us all.
That's the whole point of inertia as a phenomenon. If you apply force and accelerate a thing quickly, you can pancake it. How is that not physical?! You don't need reasoning or knowledge or "feeling". There's always asymmetry. You can start with two objects, and applying force to one without it "knowing" has a physical consequence, and also can be measured, by displacement of the particles that make it up, which we call inertia. So the real question is what causes inertia? It's not what Mach thought, and it must be acceleration relative to spacetime itself, which must be a fabric of sorts, but it's not the same as the famed aether. Still, it's a physical thing, affecting matter and light, and matter affecting it. But the crucial difference between the twins is that one experiencing these effects from true acceleration through spacetime, where faster movement through space is exchanged from slower movement through time, but that's a specious difference that we observe as humans, the path through spacetime is always the same for all things. Besides, for the 0.5c twin, nothing really changes anyway, they're experiencing "time" the same as before. It's relational, and it's also an illusion of sorts, even if they physically aged less than the other twin - both twins move through space+time at the same speed always. The motion of particles in your body that constitutes bodily processes that constitute aging happened slower compared to the other twin, but those particles also moved faster through space than the first twin's. It's about total velocity, not acceleration. Acceleration is necessary to increase that velocity, and a force is necessary for that, and that results in physical effects from inertia, a property that seems to be the result of stuff interacting with spacetime, ie truly accelerating in it locally, whether it's straight or curved.
What curved spacetime??? You mean CGIs of the toilet bowl model of gravity? That's really Einstein. BTW - the bottom or your gravity well should be in the center of the mass, not UNDER IT. Every try thinking instead of letting other people do your thinking for you? The bottom of the well is zero acceleration. Gravitational acceleration and mechanical acceleration are not the same thing. Gravity produces acceleration, gravity is NOT acceleration. Inertial frames just ignore acceleration, pretending it doesn't happen. When an object falls to the ground, it stops moving, calling that acceleration is foolish. Acceleration is the increase in velocity over time. An object laying on the ground is not moving, its velocity is zero and that doesn't. change until FORCE is applied to it, not a CURVE, so gravity is countered by a FORCE, making gravity a FORCE. You people are highly paid to spout this nonsense?
You messed up. Force is an abstract concept but the effects are indeed "felt". Accelerating a body induces physical changes - if you accelerate fast enough you die, your spaceship gets crushed etc. I believe, like Einstein later did, that Mach was wrong and inertia is not the result of spooky action with the rest of the mass of the universe averaged, but with the spacetime itself, which is a real, physical thing. Time dilation happens with increasing velocity, not acceleration. But to achieve these velocities through space one must accelerate through spacetime, and this is intrinsically different than inertial movement - we can indeed "feel" it, but so can any object, in that deformations occur, small or large, depending on the degree of the rate of change (acceleration/deceleration).
You're incorrect; force cannot be "felt", it must be measured if one is to perform strict science, and such measurements require adopting often arbitrary calibration practices. See our videos "Can You Feel Force" or "Newton vs. Mach" or "Why Relativity Doesn't Add Up" for more on this topic.
So we do have a continuous one-way light source: the sun. If the one way speed of light can vary, wouldn't we expect this to manifest at times as photons stack on each other and moments where they are absent? This would cause the sun to 'flicker' similar to constructive and destructive interference vs the light being a steady stream. Surely some of the sun's light (or any star's) would do this if it was possible.
What if I told you space and time are an illusion? Your mind is shaped by evolution, and you think you can comprehend reality. 😂 Check out Donald Hoffman.
How do you not have more subscribers? These videos are unbelievable. You are amazing at teaching and the videos are such high quality. Amazing work as always!
I tend to agree with Mach on why inertia exists, but wouldn't that imply an infinite universe with infinite stuff in it? How would that work at the edges of the universe, where the averaged out mass of everything in it would not produce equal inertia in all directions, ie towards vs away from the center of all averaged mass. Meaning inertia is anisotropic, which would make light speed anisotropic too? EDIT: In 1920 (Leyden Address) and 1924 (Essay On the Ether) Einstein rejected the Machian idea that inertia arises from matter's spooky action-at-a-distance interaction with all the matter in the universe. It's only been a bit less than 100 years, so it's unsurprising that word has not gotten out. Einstein thought that gravitational and inertial effects resulted from matter's interaction with the local space in which it is embedded, and not from any action-at-a-distance. He was not able to extend GR to encompass this concept before his death, but that doesn't mean that he was wrong. Reference: www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-inertia-truly-uniform-in-all-directions.285262/ So according to Einstein you're wrong at 7:32 - the accelerating objects would feel force in the form of inertia, there's always an asymmetry between accelerating and non-accelerating objects in straight spacetime. I wonder, however, what he meant by interaction with space they're embedded in. What is this space, physically? He therefore thought spacetime was a real thing, regardless of stuff in the universe. In an empty universe, spacetime still exists according to Einstein. But then his idea of spacetime is incompatible with quantum theory...
The animations were great, but in this video, you only questioned other people's statements and still haven't answered the main question! What is the cause of gravity or, as you say, "Earth's acceleration outwards"?
so, factually one way light speed is what varies among frames of reference, not time or space ("lenght")... makes sense, as light is physical "stuff" / "real" (in an all-ever-moving universe) and spacetime isn't (mere abstract coordinates / "thoughts")
Right you are. In the local frame, nothing changes other than the speed of light. And "spacetime" _is_ a pure abstraction, a figment, used as a stand-in for the vanquished space medium ("ether"). The ploy enabled space to be treated mathematically as a void or "nothingness" while still seeming to be "something". It enabled GR to "work" spectacularly well... up to a point. Sorta like how the flat Earth model "works" OK until it doesn't.
as a laymen I think in real inter actions what is shown as a cause of this attraction is a wall of caulk makings only provided by job program dollars to me the simple cause is it is a force easily seen the same as dark matter and dark energy [joking] but to me what force do we really know of what pulls things together and that would be the strong force maybe be the strong force does not stop at its proton wall but .001% carry's over to the next proton they add up over the trillions in any mass[ like stacking magnets] and on a plant mass thats is a lot of pull into the center of the mass Not the earth surface coming up to meet the apple as what happens on the other side of earth with a another apple the earth can,t move in two different directions. and seeing how the strong force is balanced maybe there are a - and a + but in two mass there is not the same balance which accounts for the attraction and for two different masses falling at the same speed maybe there is a auto balance in the two strong forces [or the other forces popping in and out] which no one can see . but you can make any mass fall faster if you add energy so there is that. so sorry for for the rambling but all should go in the trash bin and the trillion of $$$ should go how to look inside matter not paid guess work.
Gravitational force is acceleration, the acceleration is gravitation. Seriously? The actual question is that why is there so much trouble in accepting the fallaciousness of the special theory of relativity?
The true cause of the force F exerted by a force field on objects, which contributes to the force field is the dependency of the energy content W in the field overlay on the relative position s of the objects. F=dW/ds. dW/ds is not a gradient. It is a direction derivative and contains all non-local contributions, which depend on the relative position s. This force law applies to gravitational, electric and magnetic forces. The energy density in force fields is given by W/V = (-g²/(8πG), ε0E²/2, μ0H²/2). (V=volume), g=gravitational acceleration, G=gravitational constant, ε0=vacuum permittivity, μ0=vacuum permeability, E=electrical field strength, H=magnetic field strength.
He says that time dilation of the clocks is observer dependent. How then does GPS work? GPS relies on relativistic corrections of the clocks in satellites vs those on the ground - anywhere in the world. Your GPS tells the same time whether you are in free fall, on the ground, or in the space shuttle.
What if you take two or 3 cogged wheels. A kilometer away from each other. As light shines only between the teeth of the first cogged space then through the spinning cogged space a Kilometer apart. Can we use two maybe even 3 spinning coggs to determine the speed of light in one direction? There must be a way of timing that?
But with the SF metric which is r->inf a clearly ininertial RF, you clearly get time dilation in the g.t ST metric?????? So idk understand the same ticking clocks claim
