The Most Fundamental Problem of Gravity is Solved 

This is Jonathan Fay, I am very glad to see there is public interest in this topic and I am thankful to Dr. Unzicker for his enthusiastic presentation! Publications on my end incoming in the not too distant future. Looking forward to further exchange of ideas & collaboration.

In 1968, I wrote a senior thesis at Reed College "A Gravitational Analogy to Electromagnetism" that derived a Special Relativistic theory of gravitation using 4-vector notation and based on the generalized Lorentz force equation. It included the "G" and "Gamma" fields, equivalent to the E & B fields, with gravitational waves and the potentials. The theory produced several of the relationships derived from General Relativity, a Coriolis force inside a spinning mass shell due to the Gamma field, and as applied to the anomalous perihelion advance of Mercury, predicts 45.5 sec/century. In retrospect, I probably should have tried to publish it, but my advisor had no enthusiasm. If you have further interest, I would be happy to share it with you.

The delay in imparting knowledge in physics is due to the inertia caused by the combined mass of authority. Many thanks for this stimulating information.

Great video! This topic has been puzzling me for years... and I am glad that you have posted this. I hope Jonathan Fay will publish soon!

I loved your enthusiasm, insightful comments, and honesty. It helped me appreciate how little we really know but must keep trying. Thank you.

I choose to believe that you are a wizard who can make their arms invisible rather than just emoting with your hands more than the greenscreen allows for.

As an 80-year-old lightweight mathematically, I cannot in fact fathom some (most) of the calculations. The conclusions, however ring true at some level of my incomplete understanding, and I can see why they would simplify some of the issues which confound our incomplete understanding of the evolution of the universe. Very enjoyable thank you.

It's all starting to come together ... Well done Mr. Unzicker

Through this video, I discovered you channel and was really blown away by the profound deepness of its content. Inertial frames of reference seem so trivial at first glance, but this video made me realize that they are far from that. Thanks for making this, for me it was truly an eye opener!

During my bachelor degree in Physics I was puzzled and fascinated by Newton's bucket experiment. I loved Mach's objection cause to me, the principle he derived, added "simplicity", an explanatory powerful idea that avoided adding forced ideas, like the presence of an absolute space, since eliminates the question of why there exists a special frame. I searched also for a more mathematical grounded version of the principle, so to speak, glad I finally was able to have some reference to it. Good luck with your research, hope this will reveal as a good path to follow.

Mr. Unzicker,I have never seen you happier!Congrats to Sciama and Fay!

Thanks for sharing this paper, it's great. I'm adding this to my science playlist for sure.

Thank you for your great work and teaching!

Brilliant research. Well done sirs! Another constant of nature crossed off the ‘Where does it come from?’ list.

Thank you for this most interesting account of this fundamental problem and its proposed solution. I appreciate your independent and critical approach to the domain of physics.

Absolutely stunning result!

Details of Dr Unzickers explanations are definitely way above my pay grade. Mach's theory of inertia is what brought me here. Thrilling to discover the connections from Newton through Einstein, Mach, Sciama et al. Vast implications for Cosmology and our conception of the Universe. And ourselves! Looking forward to his book Einsteins Lost Key. Subscribed today. Thank you Dr Unzicker!

Excellent podcast. Congratulations to the author and the presenter.

Wow, I have long appreciated the problem, since my undergraduate physics days, but had no idea there was such an elegant explanation. Just wow!

Thanks Dr. Unzicker, Great and excellent work

Absolute layman here; this blew my mind, fascinating lecture. The idea we now know how to calculate the cosmological constant is amazing and it was more or less discovered over 50 years ago. That's wild!

I found another paper that was based on Sciama's work by James F. Woodward called: FLUX CAPACITORS AND THE ORIGIN OF INERTIA. It includes experiments and results- not just a theoretical paper.

It is very rewarding, exciting and wonderful to live in the internet era and be able to follow the development of science and knowledge in general in real time.

Thank you very much. Another puzzle piece. Have a wonderful New Year.

I would like to point out that there is another explanation for gravity that awaits discussion. According to Helmut Krause, he discovered it in January 1937. His findings are set out in the book "Der Baustoff der Welt". It is available online in German.

Mind boggling! The distant masses as rulers (gods?) of our little corner! Happy New Year!!

Stunning ... sitting in plain sight! This is truly groundbreaking.

This is beautiful and profound... inertia's cause has been a mystery for so long.

Can someone sum up what the hell is he talking about

It's amazing to see how you can challenge mainstream theories with basic and easy-to-understand concepts. Thanks for the video, it reaffirms my belief that if a theory is too difficult to understand (current cosmology) it's probably wrong.

I like how profound and complex ideas in physics can be demonstrated by such simple demonstrations, like this and the double slit with light etc......😊

I have little or no clue what you are talking about, but couldn't help watching the whole thing anyway. Your enthousiasm works contageous. I guess that means I'm happy for you in some Machian way.

Great to see that the idea of G not being a constant is finally supported by the relevant formalism, I hope C will follow the same path. Now the big question in my mind is what determined the universe to have the mass it has, leading to this particular value of G? Thanks for you work

We discovered a lot more and an outline is in the 4D vector book I have shared on Facebook. There is a null point. You quote my favourite philosopher. (Ludwig Josef Johann Wittgenstein. You are right we need the 'big picture' as well. Collectively we ALL perceive the big picture and I feel we are all designed to freely share and obtain spherical view points.

Beautiful. Thank you for sharing, i.e. explaining.

Thank All for your hard work to contribute for the human beings knowledge!

The answer was there all along. This looks very promising. Rather than spending money on new accelerators, it might be best to feed some AI bots on some forgotten papers, (especially those predating the quantum period.) They may find some very interesting concepts. How we choose to process the results will be difficult, as some are still refusing to believe string theory isn't adequate. It is very obvious to the layman that the celebrity physicist of today is championing impossible concepts, which are no better than a sci-fi paperback.

I'm a brazilian programmer with no college education but an interest in science and I got maybe 10% of this but sounds great, I get that it can be big. Cool video, congrats =)

Super important aspect of cosmology explained wonderfully.

Congratulations for the success of this video with such an interesting topic.

There are scales in our universe that are so immense, it's understandable if we can barely grasp them. There's so much yet to learn in science. It's hard for us to comprehend dynamic chaotic systems. Especially vast systems. What if at those immense scales, we don't yet fully grasp how things fully work? Like density, mass, Electromagnetism, static charges, fluid dynamics, temperature, pressure, radiation, velocity, etc. *I think there is a lot left to learn about these behaviors on VAST scales throughout our cosmos? I hope we continuously try to improve our understanding of the cosmos over time because it would be foolish to think we fully understand these things. Especially when talking about scales of galactic filaments, multiple galaxies interacting, and many more cosmic bodies & structures. We are getting better & better but some things are just so vast it's understandable we don't yet fully grasp them yet. I'm curious to see where things go as we advance our ability to study these things.

Nice find! How this was missed in my physics education (1980s), or anyone's education, is anyone's guess. What a brilliant and exciting piece of work!

Thanks YOU TUBE FEED, for sending this wonderful result. Seems this also solves ZERO POINT ENERGY of space, since Mc^2 now includes space by way of potential energy, so subtraction of the mass energy sum/volume of space! Very good indeed.

I did go to the video you gave the link to and the math was above my expertise in that branch of Mathematics. However, I got the gist of what was the essence of the calculations. It is actually explaining how the gravitational constant that was measured by the Cavendish experiment with the lead spheres can be derived. It is not an arbitrary "God given" value but rather a consequence of the sum total of the mass in the universe at large. This is very fascinating. And it ties gravity to inertia and the equivalence principal coming from a different direction than GR. I wish I was able to follow the math, but I have too much on my plate to try to bring myself up to speed on this branch of Mathematics to fully appreciate this. What an adventure your video has taken me to. A great revelation to know that the gravitational constant could have been calculated rather than learned from experimentally simply by knowing the speed of light squared and doing the math. You say it blows YOUR mind! Imangine what it is doing to my little mind! :-)

I wish we had this at least mentioned in school. I love the history of science. Has there been any challenges?

Dear Aleksander/Jonathan, Please correct me if I am wrong, but according to this formalism, the gravitational constant itself would vary across space, as it depends on the proximity to the masses in the universe. Could this theory be tested using current astronomical data? Would such a test necessitate the knowledge of the distribution of masses in the entire universe, or can one construct a test relying only on local information?

The tone change at 17:32 to 17:33 is really-really meaningful, it reveals the true structure of our universe.

Hmm ok, 3 questions. 1)At 7-00 Sum of Gm(i)/r(i) = constant. If G doesn`t change and m(i) doesn`t change, but Universe expanding, that means constant(c) diminishes? 2)Rotation implies a point of rotation. Where is it? Even if we take into account the rotation on the surface of the sphere, the rotation is stronger at the equator, but zero at the poles. 3)The variable speed of light implies a change in the electrical and magnetic "something" of vacuum for every observer. What`s going on?

Hi Alexander! Very nice. I wonder if these ideas might help to understand the reality behind conservation of angular momentum. I have been haunted by giroscopes behavior for years... As a teenager I found it sort of antigravitational stuff. I understand the equat6ions, but all those vectors equation seem to my kind of unreal and conviniently man made, as if we were sweeping under the mat. I don't get why the wheel goes one way instead of another once it doesn't fall if it is spinning. Thank you for your videos.. I loved phisycs but I couldn't finish my degree. At least I learnt enough to enjoy some of the great ideas you show. Thank you!!!

This discovery is beautiful, and the paper of Sciama is beautiful. I hope to understand more clearly this video and I hope you continue to develope this reserch, so that the scientist community can conclude that the problem is solved!

Great video! I don't usually get this excited over scientific papers but your presentation of it was exceptional. On a side note, I love the name of your book but I know several people who could be interested in the topic but would never give it a second thought based on the title.

Fascinating talk, thank you for sharing! The equations do not have a divide by zero error as the Lorentz Transformation does at v=c, I like that! I'm slowly attempting to grasp gravity, and it does indeed seem to be on the surface of the earth a lot of velocity vectors of matter experiencing electro-magnetic forces just as a rotor of a motor experiences a dynamic electro-magnetic field. It is amazing that our relative velocity towards "The Great Attractor" is over a million kilometers per hour. I like the interesting idea that "G" may not be a constant (could also be that all "constants" happen to be very low frequency variables that can be calculated).

If you take this finding and add the postulation of Anthony Peratt in his Physics of the Plasma Universe, we see the non visible mass as dusty plasma we have then no missing mass, it is simply not visible in the visible spectrum.

WOW!!! WOW!!! I never thought we could gain any real insight into inertia!! This is really exciting stuff!!

Fascinating. Brilliant.

I agree with possibility of the variable speed of light. We do not fully understand the extremely low gravity space outside of our solar system let alone in between galaxies, or outside of our galaxy. Or even the extreme gravity at the center of our galaxy! But we do know that light bends and attenuates as it travels though different media.

There is a further reason why gravity is linked with the overall mass and size of the universe which I detail in my D Construction model - which explains exactly what gravity is, although alas without the exposition of the model it won't make too much sense here. Anyway, I am very pleased to see that the mathematical proof was here all along. Thanks again for your diligence and historical investigation in these matters - Fascinating stuff.

This is fascinating. I'd love to hear more about the implications of this idea. It seems to mean that the gravitational constant has changed over the lifetime of the universe. I'd be curious how fast we should be expecting it to change today, and whether the rate is anywhere within a range we could verify with something like the lunar laser ranging mirrors. Would this also mean that inertial behavior has changed over the lifetime of the universe? Could this resolve things like dark energy and change how we backtrace the weird early-universe expansion? Does it imply anything about how we might measure G or inertia in different parts of the universe? Would love to hear more about possible implications like these.

If you make a list of content of this subject you can call it a bucket list. My respects for you and all scientists who step down their ivory towers and share their wisdom and visions to common people. In long run that brings more minds to thinking these things and boost popularity of science - both are important to humankind. Sometimes you just have really bad times in life and thinking science can make you feel little better. It is like little holyday of earthly struggle.

Ernst Mach was a wonderful man, with a brilliant, interesting or creative new idea every day of his life. Unforutnately, all his ideas were wrong. Time after time, people would come along and say "Hey, that's great fun." Then they'd strip out the lunatic bits and what was left was relatively decent physics or mechanics. If Mad Magazine had existed in his time, he could have been the German Alfred E. Neuman.

Fascinating! So Dr. U., what does this say for the dark energy problem? Does it mean we now have an explanation for the accelerated expansion of the universe?

I am excited to hear of this remarkable discovery and in your presentation, great work, thank you. Now three ideas discussed caught my imagination, one is related to the sum of all masses and its relation to c^2. In that insight JWST is pointing to a crisis in cosmology, that mass production could be ongoing and the universe being infinite. I am wondering if this points at a new conceptual framework? Secondly was a hint at of explanation for dark matter and news paths to resolve mysteries of physics and the cosmos? Thirdly the idea of relationship between electromagnetic formulation and the derivation of gravity hints at very deep ideas that could be the genesis of new ground breaking science.

With my A level physics, the maths was beyond my understanding. However, it is amazing to see a derivation of the Gravitational constant. Wow. Awesome. Very humbling.

FINALLY AN ACTUAL SCIENCE CANAL. I`VE JUST PUT MY INSCRITION. EXCELLENT VIDEO. CONGRATULATIONS FROM BRAZIL.

interrupted a political vid to hear from you

This reminds me of the Huge Gravity book they make you read for Caltech undergrads.... yeah Gravity is very extensive micro/macro topic. I wonder if Ed Witten is aware of Sciama's theory??

At 13:00 centrifugal force (compression) is mentioned but there is another equalising force called centripetal and this is a pulling force creating a less dense centre. This is observed in tornadoes and whirlpool vortices. As light (inductive perurbance in the Aether (tub water)) moves across the expanse it passes through these varying densities and slows down or speeds up therefore light does not flow through the galaxies and clusters at a constant rate.

we did it!!! good job Jon!!

What I find the most baffling is, in the past 4 days, I was intuitively coming to these exact same conclusions, without the maths, especially the last conclusions that gravity is simply inertia in a non homogeneous Universe. In my guts I could feel that it is correct. What I am the most surprised by, is that RU-vid suggested me this video, which is EXACTLY what I've been thinking about in the last week without talking about it to anyone, nor writing about it. Did RU-vid read my mind? This paper seems wonderful and could.possibly lead to more discoveries. I love it 🔥 Would there be a way to combine all the forces, hence let stuff 'fall' into all fields, and equate the sum of all the fields to be the total inertia? Would it be mathematically possible to do that to describe a unified field caused by the existence of the Universe? When I think about it, it would make sense that everything I decide to do is caused by an acceleration, which is caused by the combinations of all the fields, Gravity, EM, Strong and Week. In the end, making a decision and accelerating really is just letting myself 'fall' into all the force fields combined. Could that also explain how Gravity overtakes all the other forces on long distances? Their influence on the total sum might be high on short distances, but become really weak in comparison to gravity on long distances.

Congrats on these findings! I came to similar conclusion years ago but couldn’t prove it, just using logic. This means I may be able to provide explanatory/logical way of getting here, and maybe take the theory another step forward. Would be interested in collaborating with anyone researching this topic.

WoW! Tears came to my eyes reading that text below equation 86. What a profound understanding!

Thanks for sharing this immersive collaboration. I got interested of it and can see it very satisfactory, if G can be derived. Was the calculation done in some paper?

The main problem that I have with the Mach / Sciama model is that it uses values for the size and density of the universe as though these are well known quantities. From what I can see, you can easily have many orders of magnitude difference in the estimates for these values. So, when the equations seem to give such accurate values for G, then it looks like someone is "cooking the books." Is there a better way of looking at this, to eliminate my concern?

If the universe rotated around me, would i still produce frame dragging effects?

Interesting explanation of inertia and variable speed of light.

Loved this video. Thank you.

If one just imagine a hollow cylinder or sphere with walls infinitely thick and rotate it, what would general relativity say about a body inside it!? It would rotate and feel a centripetal force like this paper says!? Maybe both theory would agree... I dont know. It is just a guess

“It won’t help you weightlifting” 😂

You've either 1) re-introduced instantaneous action at a distance or 2) simply stated there is a local "field" gradient which is the determinant factor. 1 is untenable for a variety of reasons. 2 is again a statement without meaning if you do not grant some substance of space. IE a return of an absolute space. The problem with old aether theories prior to 1887 ("absolute space") is the assumption of simplistic unmoving grid or singular matrix which only has changes in the properties over time. The unchanging "absolute" characteristic is absurd. However, an simple additional dimension allows us to track the movement of said space with respect to itself. IE there is a persistence to the features of a microstructured space over time, not merely the local characteristics. Slapping a cartesian coordinate over an ocean and attempting to navigate via your local apparent motion through the water is just dumb. That's the assumption of Michelson at a time when there was already good reason to oppose Stokes. (Fresnel's prediction of the Fizeau result) In Einstein 1920 Leiden speech on aether he ended with "Space without aether is unthinkable" but ended it with the stipulation that space does not move with respect to itself. However the Lense-Thirring or "frame-dragging" effect is well known and falsifies this conjectured limitation to the aether that Einstein put forward. The aether behaves as a superfluid defined by the Cosserat's 1909 description we now know as "micropolar elasticity" and this descends from Kelvin's work in 1889 showing the way rotational elasticity functions mechanically. All I've said above is that aether acts like an ideal fluid. This solves instant action at a distance, and also gives an origin of local gradients which would create a VSL theory that concurs with Einstein's 1912 gravitational explorations you mention. However, you should very well know that Minkowski spacetime is specifically and irrevocably an *ISOTROPIC light speed* presumption. It's inherent in the formalism. This means it CANNOT support a variable speed of light. Lorentz's initial theory however PRESUMED VSL. (and Minkowski's isotropic assumption is now technically "pseudoscience" since we have no one-way speed of light tests) I'm not sure you've understood this critical disconnect in the various worldviews you entertain. Minkowski spacetime encodes presumptions that preclude VSL whereas relativity as a principle (before Einstein) was developed specifically FROM the very idea of VSL in combination with specific truths about the effect of aether upon material bodies creating an illusion of constancy. This is what FitzGerald, Larmor and Lorentz created the change factor from. (and incidentally Heaviside gave greater detail for the exacting dynamics) Please consider these quotes from Einstein: === “However, the writer of these lines is of the opinion that the theory of relativity is still in need of generalization, in the sense that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is to be abandoned”. “The theory presently called "the theory of relativity" is based on the assumption that there are somehow preexisting "privileged" reference systems K with respect to which the laws of nature take on an especially simple form, even though one raises in vain the question of what could bring about the privilegings of these reference systems K as compared with other (e.g.,"rotating") reference systems K'. This constitutes, in my opinion, a serious deficiency of this theory. These privileged reference systems are postulated as those with respect to which the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light in a vacuum is to be valid. There can be no doubt that this principle is of far-reaching significance; and yet, I cannot believe in its exact validity. It seems to me unbelievable that the course of any process (e.g., that of the propagation of light in a vacuum) could be conceived of as independent of all other events in the world. But whatever one may think of such arguments, it is in any case interesting to pose the question: To what extent is it possible to build a theory of relativity that does not have the constancy of the velocity of light as its foundation? [..] In the case where we drop the postulate of the constancy of the velocity of light, there exists, a priori, no privileged coordinate systems.” --clarifying the quote above, he's saying removing light speed constancy resolves the problematic issues and fixes the "serious deficiency" The “privileged” systems are flat spacetime-- “On the other hand, the empirical fact that all bodies fall equally fast in a gravitational field suggests the idea that physical processes occur in exactly the same way in a gravitational field as they do relative to an accelerated reference system (equivalence hypothesis). Having taken this idea as a basis, I arrived at the result that the velocity of light is not to be regarded as independent of the gravitational potential. Thus, the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is incompatible with the equivalence hypothesis; for this reason, the theory of relativity in the narrower sense cannot be brought into agreement with the latter. In this way I was led to view the theory of relativity in the narrower sense as valid only for regions within which there are no noticeable differences in the gravitational potential.” “In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity”. “Second, this consequence shows that the law of the constancy of the speed of light no longer holds, according to the general theory of relativity, in spaces that have gravitational fields. As a simple geometric consideration shows, the curvature of light rays occurs only in spaces where the speed of light is spatially variable. From this it follows that the entire conceptual system of the theory of special rela- tivity can claim rigorous validity only for those space-time domains where gravita- tional fields (under appropriately chosen coordinate systems) are absent. The theory of special relativity, therefore, applies only to a limiting case that is nowhere precisely realized in the real world." The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 7: The Berlin Years: Writings, 1918-1921 (English translation supplement), p 140 === Unfortunately, on this paper you're reviewing, I have to say it's completely unsurprising that you can take the modern assumptions which are intrinsic to gravitational theory including the gravitational constant and rearrange them such that they are inside out. It's not profound, it's an aspect of all mathematical theories that they behave like a machine you can run backwards. It hasn't explained anything, it's regurgitated a rigidly relational (Mathematically functional theory) set of axioms (biased beliefs and and assumptions) in a different order. Of course it comes to the same conclusions!

Interestingly, the German word for Centrifugal Force is "Fliehkraft" - which literally means "Escape Force". The water in the rotating bucket experiences "angular momentum", transferred between the molecules of the bucket wall and the water molecules by FRICTION - which means, every accelerated molecule is moving in a direction at an outward angle in respect of the bucket wall - as are the molecules of the entire bucket. As the molecules of water can't overcome the bucket wall, but can move within the fluid, they pile up against the bucket wall (which experiences the same force - but is held in a "crystalline" atomic structure), thus concentrating the water mass away from the center of the bucket - and causing a mathematically precise curvature. NO MATHEMATICAL PROOF or REINTERPRETATION OF THE UNIVERSE IS NEEDED!

The question of absolute dimensions is like the dumbest question ever. Can you imagine people got robbed by taxation and those proceeds go to making up answers to irrelevant questions? Terrible.

this is actually predicted by general relativity. As the Earth rotating drags literally space with it. Space itself is being rotated by the earth’s rotation. so we might be in a rotating universe, and we would never know it. Because space itself is rotating with the universe.

Have I found what I was looking for, at last? This is such a great summary. I have to think it over deeply. But so far, this is the exact explanation I've always had on my own. Contrary to what I read in textbooks etc. Always disoriented by the fact that these fundamental questions were shrugged off or just omitted in textbooks. How come I didn't know about Sciama's work is unfathomable to me. I have read or watched lots of explanations why the twin paradox is not a paradox, but a simple, logical consequence of something. None of them explained what they purported to. Most were contradictory to each other. Even Feynman failed here completely. It's always stunned me. The absolute character of acceleration is just fiat. Without reason. Which however has to exist if we care at all about global symmetries. All justifications I met with were simply fake. Some books hinted at the fact that there is a problem but only that.

I saw these before going to sleep. Don't know if I will sleep at all...that is amazing, amazing solution!

You ARE very mistaken.

Main oroblems: 1. No time dilation explanation from this theory. 2. G calculated in such manner is just a some kind of density of an universe

When the water spins, from the water’s perspective it’s the fabric of the spacetime that’s rotating around it, hence the fabric gets distorted, adding to the distortion caused by earth’s mass,causing water to change shape. This phenomenon proves that the fabric of space time is something very real, empty space is actually an entity that can interact with physical objects.

I mean universe big, many big rocks play tug-of-war with blue marble... Maybe blue marble in different neighbourhood of big rocks 🤷. Great video, I am looking forward to seeing any new developments regarding this

I am only a humble electrical engineer - but I remember that many years ago (probably 15 or 20) I was already wondering, if the gravitational constant could not probably directly derived as a function of average density and distribution of the mass in the universe or by finding (maybe in an analogy) the strength of the electrical field could likewise be a function of the 'universal' average electrical potential in relationship of the overall space that is affected by it and the electric potential of a single electron. In general: I think the current approach to physics by smashing particles together and deducting something from the debris we find afterwards is not the best one. Well-thought-out theoretical models have always be more rewarding. To be honest - the ideas behind special an general relativity are not extremely difficult to grasp. It's the math needed to formalize and make good predictions that is really challenging. But the new ideas behind are always what make such theories revolutional. Not adding the umpteenth x-y-z-lepton to a catalog of subatomic particles...

This is fantastic!

Surely one could set up a Cavendish-like experiment to determine whether the rotating bucket is roughly similar to "rotating the universe". Consider a liquid metallic mirror in a bucket placed at the midpoint of two large masses. A plane-wave signal is reflected off of the mirror and focussed at a pre-determined focal point. The intensity of the signal at the focal point corresponds to the concavity of the liquid metallic mirror. Spinning the liquid metallic mirror in a counter-clockwise direction should be equivalent to spinning the two large masses in the clockwise direction about the midpoint. My guess is that the mirror has to be spinning very slowly relative to the two masses or that the masses have to spin very fast in order to produce similar effects. Granted, it's not rotating the universe, but perhaps this experiment could produce a discernible result. Let me know if this idea is incomplete, incorrect, or just not that well thought-out.

Thanks for the video

Very nice. Professor mentioned 'slight offset.' Is it possible to expand on that? Currently, it is believed mass is constantly leaving the visible universe. Presumably therefore, that offset is in continual flux and occasionally approaches zero from time-to-time. If a slight-offset is required, what are the implications of zero-offset?

It is interesting that in my book "The landscape of theoretical physics: A global view" (Kluwer Academic, 2001), there is an equation that reminds me of the Sciama's equation according to which the sum of the potentials of all particles in the universe is equal to c^2. Within a model in which the universe is described as a brane, I derived the equation (5.83), {\dot X}^2 + {\cal R} = 0. In the discrete case, namely, in a model of the universe consisting of particles, that equation would become something like the sum of 4-velocities of all particles plus the Ricci scalar of the multidimensional metric of the many particle configuration.

I’ve always had a problem with the assumption that an object could ever truly be “at rest.” It’s nonsense - the product of a myopic, earth-bound perspective.

Professor Colin Rourke presents a complete theory of the universe based on the Sciama Principle. The dragging of space time by the rotation of galactic centres also explains galactic rotation curves without need for dark matter. Rourke's other key idea is de Sitter Space, which is also much misunderstood

Fascinating !

Many many excellent videos on theoretical physics. String theory is very interesting.

Question, Speed of Light. Light travels at a known speed. Light travel slows down when going through water. If you had two clear walls and between you had water. Shine some light toward the wall water wall. The walls are clear transparent. The light travels to the clear wall passes through. Slows down in the water. travels through the wall. What accelerates the light again after it passes through the water?

Very interesting explanation. And relatively clearly explained. Though I do not fully understand. (For instance: I seem to miss the result of the caculation of the gravity constant.)