Why The Theory of Relativity Doesn't Add Up (In Einstein's Own Words) 

I'm not a mathematician, physicist, or engineer. I'm just a finance and accounting guy. BUT I LOVE THIS CHANNEL. THANK YOU !!!

Yet again a fascinating video! I am wondering however what prevents us from defining "acceleration" as the anisotropy of the laws of motion? For instance: in an accelerating frame, a spring changes length if we rotate it, and objects which are initially at rest start moving in a specific direction, which indicates that there is an anisotrpy in the laws of physics for this observer. In this sense, an "inertial frame" can be defined as a frame in which the laws of motion are isotropic. Or more generally, an inertial frame would be a frame in which the laws of physics have a maximum amount of symmetry. I am probably missing something but I don't see why this would fail? In a way this is related to the fact that - even though time and space are relative - spacetime itself is absolute (in the "orthodox" interpretation of relativity) : we can tell whether or not a line through spacetime is straight or curved, using this anisotropy approach. And acceleration is the fact of turning / changing direction through spacetime.

Thank you Dialect. This is the first channel I've seriously considered becoming a Patreon member for.

Calibration is only required to accurately measure how much acceleration there is. Detecting the presence of acceleration doesn't need calibration. And this is a fundamental flaw in this video that puts a lot into question.

My impatience makes me wish I had discovered this channel after conclusions are presented, not before!

The quality of this videos is amazing, as a math major I really like the approach they take, not easy neither super theorical. It's really impresive the way this man can address this topics. I'm eager for more videos (specially the logic related ones), have a nice day and thanks for the upload!

Great, thought-provoking video. I would just like to point out that constant speed of light is not merely an axiom. It is one for special relativity; however, the fact that the speed of electromagnetic waves (light being one type thereof) is constant and independent of observers comes as a clear result of Maxwell's equations and their solution for space without point charges and macroscopic currents. This result was measured and verified countless times since then. This is in stark contrast to Galilean relativity whereby velocities add and this problem puzzled physicists for more than 40 years. The reason Einstein's 1905 paper is called "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" is, that he attempted to resolve this apparent contradiction between classical mechanics and electromagnetism.

Hey guys. I have thought about your example with the boat and the car. It reminded me of bells paradox. Even if both spaceships accelerate at the same rate( according to the resting observer) the see each other accelerate too because the string breaks. I will at times try to use rindler coordinates to plot the cars worldline from the pov of the shore. I love how you guys can make me think deeper about things.

The car on the aircraft carrier was hilarious. Perfect timing and delivery

At 6:30, the accelerometer is calibrated so it can measure acceleration apart from gravity. But in general relativity, acceleration is equivalent to gravity. You can assume that you are not moving and measure gravity by just dropping something; no calibration needed.

Hi, I really like your videos, you are one of the few channels I what every video as soon as it is available :) But I have to disagree with you regarding the issue with calibrating the accelerometer. Taking as exemple the box with springs described in 6.35min, it is completelly possible to completelly build this accelerometer inside a accelerated referential frame, calibrate it there and still have it displaying the correctly that you are not inertial. For that you just have to check if the 6 springs inside the box are identical. To do that you just have to put the 6 of them side by side and check if: 1- They all have the same length L 2- They all have the same deformation DeltaL for the same external stimulus you apply on them. (They dont even have to be a "linear spring"). Of course, it is important to make these measurements with all springs pointing in the same direction/being side by side. Or you could also make sure to build them from the same material and that they have exacly same shape and measurements. But anyway, once you are sure that the springs are identical, when you assemble the accelerometer, it will "point" in the direction of acceleration, even if you checked their "identicalness" in a accelerated frame. What I will agree with you, is that the actual value of acceleration will indeed depend on the calibration (if you measure your DeltaL of check 2 in the direction of the acceleration it could be different than at an angle for example). But such accelerometer would only show 0 for a inertial observer. Also, as other people said, you can also rotate it in our hands once assembled as an extra check/test. Such accelerometer would always measure the "proper acceleration" (scalar value, independent of reference frame), and it is also a local measurement, as you can build it as small as you want, One of my university teachers would call it an "honest accelerometer" and he would define inertail reference frame as a frame where such accelerometer measures 0. Likewise he also would define time as "what an "honest watch" measures" with similar checklist to identify an honest watch.

6:50 No it is not. Any uncalibrated measurement unit still gives you the true absolute "measurement", not output. If it is 2 times smaller than m/s², then every possible movement is (according to that information you receive). But it still measures without a reference.

Great video! You should devote some time in a future video to cover both the history of the idea of a luminiferous ether, from Plato to the Michelson-Morley experiment and beyond and how the mechanics of the ether would affect relativistic calculations. That would make it much easier to appreciate the stakes of adding or removing the ether from general relativity.

Once again an incredible work on this video. Can't wait for what's next to come, thanks a lot !

Brilliant video. It was said simply enough that someone like me could grasp what you are saying, even though i know little about the subject or physics

🏆 Best RU-vid Physics Channel No doubt!

Another great video. I've never taken a formal physics course in my life but Dialect makes topics easy to understand. Your visualizations keep getting better and better... keep it up, I'll be anxiously awaiting your next episode.

It's easy to detect absolute acceleration, just rotate your accelerometer. If you get the same reading, you're not accelerating. If it changes, e.g. from being positive, to being negative, you are. Since we can assume there is no evil demon that is watching you, and causing the whole universe to change its relative acceleration exactly in sync with your rotation.

Beautifully and aesthetically animated and genuinely presented and explained! Thanks! 👌👌👌👋👋👋🎖🎖🎖

sound waves are very analogous 👍 Brilliant video, look forward to the next installment 🥳

Dialect being dialectic! Definitely recommend David Bohm’s interpretation of space-time!

There's a third possibly, which Einstein and Poincaré already explained 120 years ago when creating the "Theory of Relativity" : Inertia comes from confinement. Remember all that E=mc² stuff? Ask yourself: Why does _anything_ travel *slower* than light? I'd elaborate, but I'm going to bed now. So, I'll write more when I wake up. Basically, proper acceleration of a rigid object is like the front of the object moving relative to the back of the object.

Thank you for making all of this. This is a top notch production. It might take a while for information about the rest of the universe to reach you but the information is already there about the present state that has arrived already, you don't need feedback to know you're accelerating. Mach's principle in short is that the matter out there influences the state of things here. If there was nothing in the universe and you were rotating, should you feel like you are rotating? I don't know if there's an answer to this question. Veritasium said that absolute space exists to answer this question.

I think its important to remember that as light travels, space is expanding & time is unfolding. Another thing to consider is that the Speed of Light cannot be know with certainty. (I know, your brain is exploding right now & you don't want to read my comment any further; you just want to fire back with a "You're wrong!" Response....but please resist that urge & just read my whole comment.) When light travels, is it a one-way trip, or a round trip? The truth is that no one can know with certainty. Because in order to measure the Speed of Light, a conscious observer has to influence the measurement by making the observation. So our answer leaves us to wonder if the Speed of Light is a one-way or a round trip. & no one can know which it is. & depending on which it is, affects what the Speed of Light actually is. Veritasium did a great video on this. Its actually a game-changer once you realize it.

This was once again quite excellent. For a quite excellent account of Einstein, Mach and general relativity model building I can highly recommend "The Geometry of the Universe", by professor Colin Rourke. He proposes the Sciama Principle as an axiom and also a basis for Mach's Principle. The inertial frame is defined by the distant rotating masses, since in the Sciama Principle, a body's influence on the surrounding spacetime drops off with 1/r, hence any such effect is dominated by distant masses. According to Rourke what confounded Einstein, was that de Sitter Space is a solution to his equations, with no matter, but a uniform negative curvature. The unique vacuum solution is the Kerr metric, which drops off as 1/(r**3). But space is not a vacuum, it's full of hydrogen and microwaves. It's not hard from here to see why the Sciama Principle should apply. All rotations are accelerations, and general relativity applies all rotations. Would love the opportunity to discuss Professor Rourke's work you.

Love this. Explanation for twin paradox never quite made sense to me, without some kind of absolute reference frame.

Another amazing video! Thank you.

New subscriber!! One of the best physics video i ever saw. Ill stick with you too

There are more options. Another option is that you change your inertial frame relative to your last inertial frame. Therefore you change it relative to yourself so a speed change would be instant. If you do not change your inertial frame you would be standing still relative to your last inertial state so you will not change your speed. In my little theory time helps out.

To everyone here, I suggest reading Tim Maudlin's book on the Philosophy of Physics: Space and Time. Brings some clarity and needed understanding to the issues presented here. Also John Bell's Lorentzian Route to Special Relativity is a must-read.

I look forward with great expectation to your proposals!

This is perhaps the greatest physics video I have ever seen. Good job!

Isn't rotation absolute? I'm not a phsyicist, i'm an Engineer. it seems to me that a sphere tries to stretch perpendicular to the axis of rotation. This is always positive, and could be measured. Rotating something slower in that axis reduces the stretch until you reach a minimum at which point you know you're reached absolute lack or rotation. I'm sure this must be wrong, but in what way?

On the spring example, I was thinking no calibration is needed for you to detect the presence of an aceleration as calibration helps you to measure the value of said acceleration, but the value doesn't matter if you're only interested in determining whether or not there is some aceleration. But then something crosses my mind: when everything is accelerating together, there's no way to detect the acceleration. If the spring is also acelerating with us, we won't be able to use it to detect our acceleration. So I think I got your point: we can only detect our own aceleration by comparing ourselves to something that's not acelerating and, thus, aceleration is relative. Many people here is arguing about acceleration being a measurable property - and, therefore, absolute - but I think it's because it's generally very easy to find an inertial frame, so we assume we'll always find one. But what if we are all under a force making every single particle accelerate together? How would you find an inertial frame to compare to? I think Dialect really has got a point here.

Now I'll try my best to be concise (not my forte but definitely something I need to practice). First, I want to critique the premise. First, it is tricky to analyze the views of Einstein through this one paper since his views adjust over time. It is extremely prudent to mention 1914 was a time he was still running in circles and believing generally covariant theories weren't possible because of the hole argument. What's funny is that after a simple but profound realization, he quickly realized the generally covariant theory. After that, he had to do some reorganizing of his founding principles and his views would change. Most notably, he had to tear from the idea of 'coordinates' being of intrinsic physical meaning. This brings to the second point that Einstein's word, even on relativity, is not gospel and in fact is highly idiosyncratic. It shouldn't be confused with the modern viewing, which I argue gives a quite simple resolution in the most obvious place to miss. To see what this is, let me emphasize something about the nature of your critique. Every critique is framed as to why general theory of relativity does not obey relativity and implicitly treating that as a problem because of that assumption. This critique does not ask *why* such a manner of relativity is justified from core principles of epistemics and to be expected in a logical manner of a sensible theory. To be perhaps more blunt: the general theory of relativity may not obey this sense of relativity. Then I ask: why should it be expected to? Why is it a defect? What aspect of epistemics and logic make this a necessary expectation? You treat Einstein reversing his stance as a failure of GR to incorporate relativity, when to me it reflects a reconsideration on its exact nature and the need for it. I think a very careful, critical evaluation of this fact reveals a, in hindsight obvious, conflation at play. Let me state what is really needed. We need a means that, as an observer, to have empirical determination of various physical quantities and mechanisms around us in a given model, and that given model able to produce only from those experimental pieces alone a description of the physics. We can not presume any observer any more special in its chosen model-all differences must need to arise from something that itself is measurable with only assumptions of the model. Since otherwise, something non-measurable, like choice of observer, would lead to the need of different scientific theories to describe the same thing-a 'multiple reality' description of physics that is obviously absurd. ie, its a principle of 'ontological non preference', not of 'relativity'. This is my attempt from looking critically at the matter at why such a kind of principle is an expected thing. This principle is often assumed to imply the principle of relativity. To see the difference, let us note that in the principle of relativity, we expect a frame to be attached to each observer, with an implicit experienced physical reality of the space and time extending through out based on unambiguous measurement. We fill this world with agreed on physical quantities (in our model) and now presume the laws of physics when considered over all physical quantities to be obeyed. Whats problematic is how it seems to present the question of what is physically real as implicitly obvious. That attached to 'you', the observer, the time you can only empirically sense with a clock with you somehow extends to the rest of the universe. It does not follow from the minimal expectations of empirical expectations nor of logical consistency. One can see why this unjustified (albeit natural and sneaky) viewpoint would lead to perceived problems of relativity. To see what I mean, lets suppose that view and we are in a 'inertial' frame that begins to accelerate. Then, accordingly, g_uv goes from 0 to non-zero everywhere. To you, this wouldn't be properly 'physical' as it would propagate instantly everywhere with no physical source, seeming to be more implicative of it being from our frame as the cause. This is half true. Let us look at this scenario very carefully. First, were I just me in space with rocket boots, only *I* would accelerate. There is no distant part of my 'frame' that accelerates, not any one *I* can meaningfully measure. Therefore, should I accelerate, the only presence of the gravitational field that is meaningful to me is local. Once again, your implicit assumptions of physical reality are at fault. A scenario that may be imagined is a rocket ship with clocks and rulers throughout it. If I'm in the cockpit and accelerate, we want to imagine the entire body it accelerates. But, this is not the case: it is only by structural stability that the rest eventually accelerates, by propagation at speed of sound to the end of the ship. Thus, there is no 'instant everywhere' influence. *I* could perceive the scenario as a local gravitational field propagating throughout and expanding more steadily. Importantly, the bigger the ship, the longer it takes to accelerate and so the more global the frame, the more 'disconnected' distant bits are. We might imagine to synchronize clocks and time our thrusters. But now notice: this relies on something outside *my* mere empirical, physical experience, but the chosen correspondence to the other frames to accelerate. Therefore, the *real* cause of the global, instantaneous gravitational field is how we chose to define a global accelerating frame in the first place. Here is then the main point: this necessity of correspondence means there *is* no implicit physical frame attached to an observer that reaches out globally, one that the locally existing *me* can find through pure experimental processes purely by myself. Thus, the assumption in this principle of relativity is flawed and when we get rid of it and couple the need of frame-to-frame correspondence as itself part of our needed empirical testing, can realize that now, all differences can be accounted for as purely empirically measured things by me and everyone else involved. In this manner, I simply empirically measure how my synchronization goes with local observers to get my part of the metric g_uv and use it to account for a description of physics holding no special emphasis to any observer because anyone could have found it in the same way using the same models and empirical apparatus. This applies to Newton-Cartan theory and explains Kretschmann's criticism: Einstein was using a wrong framework that needed that principle: when it was done away with, it was realized there is no problem nor is it something special to relativity. Relativity just forced the hand. When these things are conflated, things become quite confused as g_uv lives a dual life of acting as a physical field as well as empirical correspondence between observers on clock and distance measurements, and thus the question of what 'is' physical and what isn't. I look forward to your response but I really want you to very carefully consider the second paragraph.

I think the key to this issue can be found when you define spacetime and its structure. At first, you define spacetime as an abstract real smooth 4-manifold. So far, so good. There's currently not much we can do in this spacetime. But then you add another assumption, namely that spacetime can hold a smooth Lorentzian metric. This is the key. For given this metric, you then find the coordinate chart that corresponds to a Minkowski metric. That then defines what you call an inertial frame (well, in general, you can only find a chart that is locally inertial, ie. there's a point where the metric is the Minkowski one, and the derivatives of the metric are zero. But the idea is the same). If there are many smooth Lorentziab metrics on the spacetime, then you simply choose one of them. That then defines a convention for what you call an inertial frame. You could choose any of these metrics, and define an inertial frame relative to it. It doesn't matter which one you choose.

Awesome video and good questions. We are accelerating relative to what? Of course to our own inertial frame, what else it could be, if everything is relative to everything else

You seem to have a bizarre fixation with this idea of absolute acceleration. That's not really an issue, and anybody who tells you otherwise probably doesn't understand relativity. The magnitude of acceleration is relative, sure, but the fact that it HAPPENS is not. All observers in all inertial frames of reference can agree upon who is in a state of acceleration and who is not. I'm also wondering why you seem to ignore the idea of a spacetime interval. One of the greatest triumphs of special relativity is the notion that spacetime is definitely absolute. All observers in all inertial frames can universally agree on the magnitude of the spacetime interval between two events. So if you really care about "absoluteness" in your theory, then there it is.

This is one of the best contents I see..

Very Interesting. Thank you again for pointing this out.

I really appreciate your videos. But I think you make a few mistakes: For the spring calibration on an accelerating space craft, simply rotate the spring into another orientation. If it expands your original orientation was a direction of acceleration. You can include two unattached masses as well, to see how they behave relative to the spring masses to make sure. Of course, you can argue that there MAY be other unknown forces that are at play, or that "how can we be sure from the beginning that ...". These are not strong retorts because 1) even the most empirical knowledge must start with a priori assumptions about what is happening, and 2) Occam's razor is a good thing and should be taken into account. Secondly, relativity is not about relativity at all. It's actually more absolutist than even classical mechanics. It postulates an absolute manifold on which events live, and an absolute metric on that manifold that defines causality. Acceleration is absolute because it is a metric property (the covariant derivative of a velocity vector). Acceleration is "relative" to the metric. This is a local definition because the metric and its connection are locally defined objects. The speed of light and causality are absolute and local because they are local metric quantities. Light paths are null geodesics, and inertial paths are non-space-like geodesics. Proper time is curve arclength and hence a metric quantity as well. True, relative acceleration is what is observable, not the metric, but this is also a metric quantity. It can, for example, be measured as the metric divergence of nearby time-like curves.

An acceleration is required to change your position along the time dimension. Energy is required to do this. No object actually moves when you observe it independently of all other objects. Differing constant velocities is just a measurement of where that object lies along the time dimension with respect to others.

Isn't that ether just the higgs field? Also the conciderations of the ScienceClicEN comment made sense. Thanks for your thought provoking, high production value videos!

Wonderful thought process, thank you

My personal feeling is that non-locality must be embraced, which resolves the need for an absolute universal frame of reference, and Bell's dilemma. I am working on a mathematical model in which non-locality is a natural feature, from which space and time emerge.

First of all, thank you for another brilliant video, thought provoking as usual. I haven't read the transcript of Einstein's 1921 lecture for some time, but I don't think he was saying that the luminiferous ether, as commonly understood, must exist. There are three little words that a lot of people, yourselves included, tend to leave out of that infamous quote ie "in this sense" (therefore, there exists an ether). All he was saying, imo, was if spacetime has physical properties, if you want to, you can call spacetime itself the ether (my words). I'm a dubious about the section describing the "calibration frame" of an accelerometer. The spring under acceleration, being pushed by the rocket wall, is not in its equilibrium state, as it would be if it was floating freely. Wouldn't that be its only valid calibration frame? Anyway, I'm going to read the Lindner paper now and see what he has to say. Thanks.

I have seen many explanation on special and general relativity. Only this video echos my puzzles on these theories.

The ether frame is not exactly undetectable - it's supposed to be the cause of length and time contraction, which provides a means of detection, it's just that we have no other way of confirming its existence. The problem with that is it means we have no way of determining speeds relative to the ether frame, which means no way to determine the absolute distances and time that the ether frame is supposed to represent. Instead, all we can do is pick some arbitrary frame and calculate things relative to that. But in doing so, we're avoiding the use of the Lorentz theory's primary distinguishing characteristic, reducing it to special relativity, and acknowledging that we can't discover, and have no need for, an absolute frame. At that point the ether frame can be eliminated by Occam's Razor. Also, special relativity is strictly more powerful than Lorentz ether theory in that it provides a fully worked-out explanation for length contraction and time dilation from first principles, whereas the Lorentz theory simply postulates an unknown mechanism by which atoms and molecules physically contract in the direction of travel due to interaction with the ether. (And I'm not sure this can be reconciled with observed length and time contraction between arbitrary frames.) WL Craig amusingly tries to spin the latter issue as an advantage: "Indeed, its fecundity in opening the question about physical causes is an important advantage of the neo-Lorentzian interpretation." He's saying that there's a whole area of unexplored science, namely the physical mechanisms by which atoms and molecules contract along their direction of travel through the ether. Someone should let them know at the LHC! ;)

First of all, congratulations for your great videos (all of them). I'm not a mathmatian nor a phisicist, just an engineer who loves science. I believe that all science starts by observing nature/reality. The fact that the speed of light is constant has been obseved by the Michelson-Morley experiment and by later and more refined experiments. So I don't think it can be called a postulate. It is an observed fact. About the accelerometers and it's prior calibration: if we are in apace, far away from any concentration of mass or energy and we are not using any form of propulsion, would it not be possible to calibrate the accelrometer in this way? I believe that although motion, velocity and speed are indeed relative, the only absolut is acceleration (and the force that mass objects feel with it). I believe that as far as possible things (teories) shoud be kept simple. Einstein said: time is what we measure with a clock and distance is what we measure with a ruller. He could also have said: acceleration is what we measured with an accelerometer (or a spring).

As always a great video with great insights. Its truly a pleasure to have came across a channel where the creator presents their own critical examination on the subject along with doing a great job of explaining it neatly to us ❤ As with the problems with absolute motion, velocity, acceleration and with the especial importance given to the speed of light, I had always wondered about an extremely bizzare way to interpret them. That is what if in the slightest of possibility be the case that "LIGHT" itself is a stationary entity with respect to everything and that reaching the speed of light is equivalent to being at absolute rest. Maybe this somehow also gives light the property of being massless. I know, this makes no sense and I could be just horribly wrong and misinterpreting things. Still what would be its implications if any, when such a view is considered ? Or what is the biggest fundamental flaw that such a view would carry that certainly throws it out of the table ? Can anyone shed some light on this ?😅

How many other people on earth have such a open and questioning grasp of the concept of a force and acceleration. I don't agree with all your videos but it is such a breath of fresh air. I know what you are getting at with your relation between acceleration and the idea of a "force" on a body, the way in which acceleration is clearly ridiculous. I wonder if there is any literature on it that you know of? Sure wish you answered more comments :)

Ether it's there or it's not. Please accelerate the release of your next amazing video!

Thank you for these great content. I just don't see any problem with defining the absolute acceleration as something that can be measured with an accelerometer. Yes it needs to be calibrated and in the twin paradox situation the calibration will be made at initial state when both twins are on earth. This will show that the traveling twin away from earth is the one accelerating.

Isn't there a third option for measuring absolute acceleration - with respect to an object's own instantaneous reference frame? This is by definition an inertial reference frame, and is uniquely specified for each object at any point in spacetime. Intuitively it makes sense. If an object's trajectory remains unchanged, it will experience zero acceleration, regardless of what occurs in the rest of the universe. But as soon as a force is applied to the object along any vector (with respect to its own degrees of freedom), it will experience a measurable acceleration relative to its own instantaneous frame of reference, again without regard to the rest of the universe.

The number of videos this channel has posted in each year-long interval is (1 video, 4 yr ago), (3, 3), (3, 2), (4, 1), (8,

My way of thinking about physics is that it is simply an expression of a way of combining mathematical formulae and values together such that we can say that as long as an object, that we define X, has values a, b, and c, relative to another object Y, we can predict the motions of objects X and Y, and hence the most important place to look for when trying to interpret physics equations is allowing the mathematics to speak for itself (the model speaks for itself so to say) and holding that the phenomenal experiences of space and time are entirely illusory, the same way the experience of emotions are illusory in that they cannot be broken down into a purely formal expression. From our experiences and what we extrapolate from them we can at best construct rigorous, abstract models that show that certain experiences consistently occur and the contents of the experience behaves in a specific way consistently, and what we expect to experience if we choose to perform certain actions such as look through a telescope can be predicted. So we expect to see stars in the sky looking through a telescope rather than say, a gargantuan space duck. Thus when we speak about absolute space versus properties of spatial objects being defined only relatively to one another, it seems to me that the ether that we are accelerating against which happens to exist infinitesimally close to any object accelerating would itself be a mathematical construct that is originally constructed out of objects already being placed relative to one another at different distances. Since when we have any number of objects placed relatively to one another at different dimensions or different ways of relating to each other, that is each object is an element of a set or a "variable" which defines the mathematical expression of said objects, hence the external properties of said objects, such as position and velocity, then we can argue that any set containing a number of objects constructs an ether. I would take the ether then to be defined as a mathematical object which contains all possible values that can exist for a given property an object is said to have, such as velocity, and hence it must be infinitesimally close to everything and infinitely spread out. Thus when we have an object accelerating relative to this ether we already have values of speeds defined for said object, the speed of said object on the mathematical object is recorded instantaneously such that we obtain a continuous flow of change of speeds and properties put in relation to speed over time. In physics, any object or particle can be defined as simply a demarcated set in which certain mathematical values hold within other specified sets/functions (said sets/functions being properties) which must be held relative to each other. (since no property has a meaningful manifestation in isolation, all mathematical objects exist only because we are describing a relationship) That'd be my shot at interpreting relativity.

I’m a topology undergrad, got recommended your relativity videos, it’s a shame I wasn’t subscribed till now. Super good quality content, keep it up!

The interval continuum is the new ether that Einstein meant. It's 4-dimensional and takes projections of time + 3d-space for observers.

What tools you use for such mesmerizing animation, kindly let me know I want to use it for my lectures

Great video! thank you for sharing. I was waiting for ιt, although I have to wαtch it many times until Ι hopefully conceive everythιng!

If the spring was in an accelerated rocket, we would notice it just by rotating the spring... Also, if we have an accelerometer with 4 springs for example, it would be easier to notice a problem even if we take a 180° rotation.

Hey Mr Dialect, great video as always. I can't say I fully understand all your vids (esp the one about the sky is accelerating up) but I was wondering how the other YT content providers ie Sabine, Nick, Eugene, PBS Spacetime etc have reacted after you called them out for being wrong.

The title of this video says enough for me.. Even if your hypothesis were internally consistent, to peoclaim your MODEL is the true reality, may indicate a deep misunderstanding of science.

I am Buddhist monk. I love your videos. Thank you.

Great video. But im unclear if you think the car on the ship is accellerating or that you are demonstrating that the observer proves that it isnt. Its a thought experiment that Galileo would have seen through. If the acellerations of ship and car are equal and opposite then they cancel for the car so that only the ship is accelerating. You are doing great work and definitely asking the right questions.

Science has been deprived in popular/general talks of adequate philosophical reasoning. I believe people have a distaste for it since they believe philosophy to be lacking any standard of rigour when the complete opposite is true. Nowhere else is there a higher standard of proof then in philosophy. Thank you for reviving the art of fundamental reasoning and by applying it to scientific theories. I think this sort of common ground between science and philosophy is awesome, philosophers being scientists and scientists being philosophers is how we got our most important advancements as a species.

These are excellent videos. A major problem though is the insistence on locality. A more general problem is the lack of a clear model of what exists (an ontological model), and the lack of a sufficient definition of what space is/means. None of this matters if you just want to calculate and use your model to make accurate predictions. But if you are serious about understanding reality, you can’t escape these issues.

Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. ------------------------ String Theory was not a waste of time. Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: “We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr (lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958) The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics? When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Force" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry. Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Mesons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons? Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. We know there is an unequal distribution of electrical charge within each atom because the positive charge is concentrated within the nucleus, even though the overall electrical charge of the atom is balanced by equal positive and negative charge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist. The model grew out of that simple idea. I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles. .

Accelerometers work (including ones built into our bodies), so there must be _something_ that they're detecting. Though from what I've heard, it's not really acceleration so much as _change_ in acceleration. But that would imply that even if acceleration isn't absolute, something else up the stack would appear to have to be. True relativity from what I can tell would require every derivative of position be relative, which doesn't appear to be the case.

Hey everyone, thanks for coming by the channel! When watching this video, please keep in mind that all the arguments presented here are Einstein's, not ours (with the exception of the Kretschmann objection, to which Einstein only ever half-ceded). So if you wish to raise an objection or criticism, try and do so as if you were addressing Einstein himself, a man whom in all likelihood (and we speak merely from a probabilistic standpoint) was a great deal smarter than you. For instance, if you wish to assert that acceleration is absolute, you must fully address Einstein's critique as presented in his 1914 paper: how is it that acceleration is absolute if all we can ever observe is the relative acceleration of bodies? Here again, saying, "use an accelerometer" is not a proper response to Einstein's objection, because an accelerometer is still merely only the observations of bodies in motion relative to you. (Indeed, it is rather akin to saying "just use a clock" to prove that time is absolute!) Lastly, please be respectful in your comments and when responding to others. Disrespectful commenters, trollers, spammers, and other ill-willed remarks will be removed from the channel. Thank you!

I feel like linear acceleration really needs to be distiguished from rotation. The reason is this: The "apparent absoluteness" of linear acceleration can in my opinion be completely explained by the fact, that if you want to accelerate an object, you have to push it with a force, and that force will always (except gravitation!) only "grab" some parts of the object: for example if I push someones back, then the force immediatly only "grabs" onto their back, their intestines are not affected in the beginning. the back is then being accalerated towards the intenstines, creating internal tension and forces. these internal tensions and forces are what we feel when we "feel" acceleration. this is made more clear by considering the exception: gravitation: when in free fall, the "gravitational force" "grabs" every element of our body the same way, every single atom is being accelerated by the same amount at the same time, hence the resulting "acceleration" doesn't feel like acceleration at all, but like "free fall"/"floating" this is the essence of the equivalence principle, that it says this kind of linear acceleration will also give us inertial frames: inertial frames can be lineraly accelerated with respect to each other namely by gravity, and the reason it doesn't seem to work with other forces is because they don't act upon every molecule in your body simultaneously, thus creating inner tensions and forces and hence the "feeling" of acceleration. In this sense I feel like GR atleast gave us relativistic acceleration without "ether" if we only consider linear accelerations. However rotation seems to be something else. still I feel like this should be boiled down to the core, and getting rid of linear acceleration via this argument brings us into a postion where we can more precisely ephasize the real "problem"

I finally proved just yesterday (after 10 years of careful study and exploration), using a Minkowski time-space diagram, that absolute space is localized to any massive body. The change in distance between bodies is acceleration. Therefore absolute space itself exists, but is relative and local to all other massive objects. If all bodies in the universe shared the exact same position relative to each other, then absolute space between bodies would be achieved, but the universe would cease to exist because all particles would stop. Absolutism is not about the movement through a void of nothing, but about relative positions. The mass itself creates the tempero-spatial acceleration within its frame as it changes in relation to all others, with preference to local objects over distant ones. Thus it itself becomes absolute to any other massive object connected to it. (Earth is an absolute frame. It is the frame by which we measure all other frames. But so is our own body an absolute frame. All other things are relative to it. Any one electron is an absolute frame to which all other things are relative.) Why? Because a void doesn’t care whether objects are one Planck length apart or the entire universe apart. What does care is how many objects exist between them. This creates relative time and distance. Waves are a fundamental effect of objects moving relative to each other. That is why photons in a vacuum move at the same velocity regardless of the frame of the observer. The wave is what changes. It is the compression of distance relative to all other objects. The entire universe is localized (not infinite) and within it are things that are even more localized. This creates an inverse proportionality. The Minkowski diagram reveals that there is an as yet undefined law of physics that says all things that exist must move; that a thing that does not move cannot exist. Thus the universe could not exist without being both finite and every object within it constantly in motion. Neither time nor space exist without changes in distance between multiple objects. If an object spins in perfect nothingness when no other object exists, is it really spinning? Answer: No it’s not. It has no spin, velocity, charge, wave or any other tempero-spatial attribute without the existence of other objects. The universe is not spinning because there is nothing to compare it to. (A multiverse cannot exist because a universe, by definition, is everything that exists. If our local bubble were only one of many, they would all still share relativity in the void between them because the void doesn’t care and ours would be the absolute frame to us, and yes, it would spin relative to others.)

For the spring calibration problem, wouldn't pointing the spring and 3 perpendicular directions give us some clue. Moreover, just flipping the position of the spring and mass give us some clue of the rocket's acceleration, unless it's accelerating because of gravity. So, unless we are dealing with gravity, we can detect acceleration using a spring and mass.

Very thought provoking. I feel that lateral thinking is needed. A completely new model.

Such great video!

I am also missing something here. From my understanding, acceleration is proportional to a force being applied to the object - force is (at least locally) absolute, hence acceleration is absolute. Another way to describe acceleration is the rate of velocity change over time (dv / dt) and while velocity is relative, change in velocity is not. If one must describe acceleration to a reference, then the reference can be the object being accelerated itself - it is a local reference frame. Imagine you are in space, holding a bowling ball. No forces are being applied to you nor the bowling ball. You now just remove your hands from the bowling ball - which should stay in the same position in relation to you and become your "frame of reference". Now apply a force to your body (say, a jet-pack) for 1 second, that will make you accelerate, leaving the bowling ball behind - your speed in relation to the bowling ball went from 0 to, say 20m/s in 1 second - you accelerated (20 - 0) / (1) = 20 m/(s*s) and your speed in relation to the bowling ball is a constant (i.o.w. no changing) 20 m/s. If you apply the same force, in the same direction for the same 1 second, in relation to the ball you go from 20 m/s to 40 m/s - you accelerated (40 - 20) / 1 = 20 m/(s*s) - exactly the same as before. Rotation is just a special case where the acceleration is continuously changing direction, but the same experiment could be applied - if you are rotating and let a bowling ball go (without applying any forces), it will move away from you.

Absolutely fabulous video! I find myself in eager anticipation of each and everyone of your subsequent videos! Best physics on RU-vid BY FAR! Keep it up Dialect!

If we have no way of detecting the ether other than some abstract link to acceleration to it how is it different than the notion of an absolute space

When using a rocket, the rocket accelerates relative to its exhausts.

And having "done away with Aether" we needed to create the concepts of Dark Matter, and Dark Energy when we recognized that the universe was not behaving congruently with Einstein's math.

Very interesting, and actually brings up questions I hadn't really thought about. Makes me rethink a lot of the previous advancements in Physics and what I thought of them, as sort of linearly incrementing in understanding. But the reality is actually far more interesting, especially "The Ether;" what is it, exactly, if this is the only other option? I can't see the relativistic conception of space changing, I think there's too much in support of that, particularly gravitational lensing, which doesn't make a lot of sense without that conception (light is massless so gravity as an effect of mass on other mass clashes with that observation). I feel like any meaningful, experimental way to go about this question inevitably leads to Quantum Physics, especially to answer the question of what acceleration is on the infinitesimal level. This whole series is just really quite interesting in the context of how I've always seen relativity discussed (which is to say...not in this way).

Great video! It takes true talent and wisdom to see things with clarity, identify the problem, depict it correctly, in a simple manner. Thank you for sharing this with us!

Thank you for these videos.

I don't fully understand why acceleration or rather _proper acceleration_ shouldn't be considered absolute: Unlike your velocity, you can feel it. You'll notice inertial forces if you are accelerated. What you don't feel is whether you already move into the direction of your acceleration and you're getting faster or if you move in the direction the inertial forces point and you're getting slower, or if you move perpendicular to the acceleration so that you only change direction.

Acceleration is absolute. If you accelerate, and if you have a sensor on you, you can absolutely measure it. You cannot measure your velocity or position, you can only infer them by what is already accumulated (which is VERY relative). However, acceleration is absolute.

When in freefall the accelerometer says the acceleration is zero yet visibly accelerating relative to ground.

What if we define an acceleration as a deviation from a geodesic? We can use the geodesic equation in GR to tell if it is on a geodesic. The definition doesn't involve any forces?

I've been refering to this "ether" as the entropic field for awhile now because I think there is a lot of overlap in different disciplines' questions that might just be the same answer.

Maybe one of the most promising RU-vid channels ever! I can't wait for more, I like that I am learning about the true Einstein not the hearsay Einstein. If our Universe is indeed some kind of simulation then this "ether" could be the underlying workings of that simulation? Or maybe if there are parallel Universes, then maybe we can define absolute acceleration relative to them? Who knows? Also I want you guys to talk about the accelerated expansion of space (or should I say spacetime?). Maybe there is something hidden there that can help us out? Again that was awesome! Can't wait for more!

Young Einteins greatest contributions? 1905- Rock and Roll. 1915- Heavey Metal.

So there are 2 and only 2 possible answers to the question of what are we accelerating relative to (13:17)? That seems to be unduly restrictive when we consider all the possible configurations of an 11 dimension space a la String Theory. Or in the opposite take, a one or two dimensional universe (if dimensions are causal and emergent) that may have existed before the second or third spatial and the fourth temporal dimensions emerged. There are actually some absolutes in the universe, but this either/or answer to the aforementioned question is not one of them. The problem with completely accepting such a dichotomy is that we will tend to explore only those two possibilities and forego looking for a third (or fourth) possible answer. It seems that we would be prudent to use the phrase "it seems that" more often. And thanks for the wonderful video. I look forward to viewing the rest now that I've subscribed.

General Relativity (acceleration) as a "solution" to the TWIN PARADOX reintroduces absolute motion, but not consistently. Q: Which of twins will be old and gray? A: The twin which wasn't moving! He wouldn't experience the time dilation. Q: But I thought each twin could consider the other twin to be moving! A: Nope, if the twins were initially together in an initial inertial frame, and then relative motion occurred between them, one of the twins must have accelerated over some period of time (hey! hey!) to bring himself eventually into a different inertial frame from the other twin. General Relativity then applies. Q: I see, so GR reintroduces absolute motion: The object that has, once upon a time (whose time?), accelerated relative to another object is TRULY MOVING relative to the other object. The younger twin is younger precisely because he was truly moving relative to the old & gray one and we can tell this by the fact that he is young and other is old & gray. Isn't that what you are saying? A: Um... Q: And can't the time period over which is the "moving" object is accelerated be made arbitrarily small, in theory? A: I suppose.. in theory... Q: I must point out the Lorentz transformations do not contain any acceleration terms whatsoever, so if, as SR claims, these easy transformations apply once neither twin is accelerating, i.e., once the two twins are in different INERTIAL frames, then it follows that which side of the equation the factor "(1-v^2/c^2)^1/2" appears on depends upon which object is truly moving and that is determined by HISTORY. Doesn't that follow? A: Umm... Q: Of course, Lorentz & Poincare thought the speed "v" in the transformations was the speed of the object relative to the absolute aether & so none of these paradoxes appeared; it was Einstein who decided that "v" was just the relative speed between any two objects in different inertial frames so they should really be called the EINSTEIN TRANSFORMATIONS, but that is history too, and I digress. Anyway, in applying the transformations between different internal frames, it must get pretty complicated to decide where the all the factors go considering history of the objects must be taken into account & the fact that different objects could have all kinds of wild acceleration histories! A: Ummm... Q: Hey, what about a TRIPLETS Paradox? Suppose one triplet stays stationary while the two triplets accelerate away from her for the same time period (relative to her, no doubt) but in opposite directions???? Once all of them are in inertial frames (no longer accelerating), it follows that, having motion in opposite directions, the two TRULY moving triplets must have speeds relative to each other that are even greater than that relative to the stay-at-home triplet (I'd say we should add the two speeds, but that probably wouldn't be Einsteinian)! Can the Einstein transformations handle all these situations without contradictions??? A: I've got to go. Q: Thanks for clearing all this up for me!

The funny thing is, Einstein actually used Lorentz's axioms in special and general relativity, both of which posit length contraction and time dilation and use Lorentz's mathematics. Lorentz published his aether theory in 1904, a year ahead of Einstein's publishing of special relativity. Einstein basically plagiarized Lorentz's mathematics and then did away with the aether and replaced it with Minkowski space-time. This caused all of the paradoxes and problems commonly associated with special/general relativity.

@Dialect Your video seems to be ignoring that when you accelerate, as in a rocket, you are throwing off mass that carries away some of your inertial energy in that direction. You don't need a distant inertial frame, an ether or an absolute inertial frame to compare it to. The mass you threw off of your ship is perfectly suited for it. In fact, it is exactly when it is thrown when acceleration is felt or measured. You have to constantly throw mass away to continue to experience inertia. Am I missing something?

It is indeed quite intuitive. Any difference in relative velocities observed from different frames is always exactly compensated for by the time dilation which always corrects the observed speed to "c".

For years I have been looking for theory in which gravity was explained by movement of space so no wonder I like this channel. This concept raises questions about absolute space. Why does this space not slow down bodies moving in a uniform rectilinear motion. The existence of a maximum permissible speed in this concept seemed obvious, and it seemed to me that its limited value could be the result of the way it was measured. All the ways of explaining the twin paradox that can be found on major physics channels seemed unconvincing and illogical to me. Even if you're wrong, your videos are very inspiring and I'm surprised by the low number of subscribers. I am even more surprised that there is no discussion with you on these most famous channels about physics, which greatly reduces their value because surely the creators of these channels have watched your videos. This seems to be a conscious attempt to conceal the problem.

General relativity and quantum mechanics will never be combined until we realize that they take place at different moments in time. Because causality has a speed limit (c) every point in space where you observe it from will be the closest to the present moment. When we look out into the universe, we see the past which is made of particles (GR). When we try to look at smaller and smaller sizes and distances, we are actually looking closer and closer to the present moment (QM). The wave property of particles appears when we start looking into the future of that particle. It is a probability wave because the future is probabilistic. Wave function collapse happens when we bring a particle into the present/past. GR is making measurements in the predictable past. QM is trying to make measurements of the probabilistic future.

Dialect, I love your inquisitive minds. Been waiting for the Lorentzian Ether Theory (LET) part at 14:45+ However: "This axiom in and of itself feels pretty arbitrary and jarring" For me, Lorentz's axiom is not at all arbitrary and makes perfect sense if you reframe it as follows: There is an inverse relationship between linear and rotational motion within subatomic particles, causing forward movement to mean subtraction of rotational movement (thus less 'ticks'), to preserve its absolute travel-length within the ether. Nobody I've said this to has been able to really appreciate what I am saying, so I am really hoping it makes sense to you, since you seem to get the "problem". I have a word doc explaining how this would happen geometrically, if you'd like to see it, I would love to hear your thoughts on it.

Waiting for the next videos 🙏

Why don't you respond to criticisms made by CS Unnikrishnan on Special Relativity