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.
@@ZenMasterChip The problem is that it is wrong. Newton's bucket is explained by Newton's laws. Change of direction is an acceleration. A rotating frame of reference is not an inertial frame. We solved all this in the 18th century with Laplace, Lagragia, Hamilton, etc. I don't know about gravity. I didn't watch that part.
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.
I recommend Ott Christoph Hilgenberg's sink theory of gravity with one contention: Wilhelm Reich's Orgone Biophysics unifies Hermann Fricke's Ether Physics with Antoine Bechamp's Terrain Biology and Marco Todeschini's Psicobiofisica goes one further. Irregardless, relativity is Galilean, Classical Invariance.
In Germany they had Gunther Enderlein. Antoine Bechamp is a French source, not widely translated. Same discoveries, different languages, independent of each other...
There has to be an absolute space and time; it is just unknown to us or anyone to measure such an 'absolute,' since we exist within the reference frame trying to do such measurements.
@@pyropulseIXXI Einstein claims a relative observation and interpretation! Reduces this claim practically to just one of the observations, phenomenons, effects: velocity („relative velocity“; and acceleration), and neglects that all other observations, phenomenons, effects, are relative to each other as well. This fails (or succeeds;-) by reducing the at least two (relative) observations by reducing the observers to only one! Without taking into account its already made mutual observations! A catastrophic methodological mistake! From here, from his beginning of the formation of "relativity-theses", from the first step, every following thesis and equation is unscientific and nonsensical! Again: A catastrophic methodological mistake! NO science! NO scientific "Relativity Theories"! NONsens! > 100 years of relativity nonsens and millions over millions of "physicists" and "mathematicians" who have not become aware of this crap and will not, who BELIEVE in BigBangs, wormholes, dark matters and so on;-) ... A little methodological criticism and criticism of the development, history of "theory"-)
Mach must be wrong, because if the universe rotated, and gravitation is linear acceleration, not rotational (unless near a rotating black hole) no frictional interaction should occur. Friction , viscosity, and surface tension are all locally powerful, small scale forces causing interaction. Gravity is too weak, and too large scale, to do this. IMHO...
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.
"I can understand the impatience of my friends who would like to learn as much as possible as soon as possible. However, the interest of the total work requires the interpolation of several years between the time a finding is made and its publication. This is an automatic safeguard against theoretical blunders. From the very beginning of orgone research it has proven valuable not to publish a new finding until it has developed into an essential new insight. The continued development to a new insight is a confirmation of the previous finding" ~ Wilhelm Reich in the introduction to Orgonotic Pulsation, The differentiation of orgone energy from electromagnetism ~ Presented in talks with an electrophysicist, International Journal for Sex-Economy and Orgone Research Vol. III, reprinted in Orgonomic Functionalism # 3, pp. 20-21
Not really, it's and old argument that's almost impossible to test. My objection to Mach's principle is gravity force travels at C so it would take billions of years for it to have an effect on the bucket, if it is indeed possible - but can't anyhow as the universe is expanding.
@PrivateSi Just as light from billions of years ago is just now reaching us from distant stars, gravitational waves and field lines are also reaching us constantly from the distant stars. I'm not saying that proves anything, but there could at least be a mechanism there for interacting with the gravity of distant objects, even if it's gravitation from millions of years ago.
@@shizza3198 .. Yes, but it's supposed to be the whole rest of the universe causing local gravity but some parts of the universe's light/gravity waves/mechanism won't ever reach us so that seems to nullify the notion in its absolute form (due to expansion and gravitational wave experiments showing the speed of gravity and light to be equal, or near as damn it). The 'Machian Mechanism' requires instant communication at any distance, and between the entire rest of the universe and the bucket. It's a bizarre thought experiment and I can't see how to prove it. It seems to imply if objects spin around another object they would create a centripetal force on the object. Is this observed in the cosmos? Do planets rotating around a star have this effect? Could we even detect it?
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.
One of the problems with Einsteinian mathematics is that Einstein's ideas hide behind extremely obtuse formulas that have very little explanatory value before you apply initial conditions. This means that one needs several years at a good engineering/physics program before you are even able to approach the problem to begin with. Adding insult to injury, many mathematicians have abandoned applied mathematics entirely - focusing instead on obtuse math "theories of everything" which don't add much in the way of value to people who actually use math to accomplish real work (engineers). The only field doing actually useful mathematics in modern America is within the engineering realm which has almost entirely abandoned modern physics due to how much blowback engineering professors get for questioning the underlying "base principles" of Einsteinian motion. So the engineer views the world through what can be proven to be useful/true - almost all of which has absolutely nothing to do with Einsteinian mechanics at its core. One would *think* that this fact would be a red flag for the physics community and a clue that these sagacious professors should rethink their ideas, but unfortunately, their heads are so full of hot air that they would float away into space were it not for the powers of mystical dark energy holding them to the earth.
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!
(1) « Einstein lost key » makes three implicit assumptions. First that there was a key. Than IF so, that it was lost (when, how, by who). Third that « Einstein », whatever that means, « was » related to such assumptions. Compare to arbitrary assumptions, historical FACTS are not less difficult to prove, in Science, than in court trial. What are the EVIDENCES ? The PROOFS? The WRITINGS? If none, game over! Empty allegations… On the contrary, despite a massive omerta to expose actual historical facts, a good place to start for such « Einstein lost key », is in 1885, when the French mathematical genius and supreme master of theoretical Physics, the overwhelming Science leader of his time, Henri Poincaré, besides his revolutionary breakthroughs in pure mathematics (beating the world leading masters on their own ground : Fuchs, Klein, Hilbert,…), makes a crucial remark in Physics, that leads him to an immediate revolutionary break through in the way the physical world ought to be viewed and conceptually modeled : Poincaré indeed, realises in close inspection of Hertz 1885 powerful synthesis of Maxwell theory of Light and EM, that the world wide accepted mantra of « luminiferous aether background », actually played no significant role in Hertz theory. And that it would stood as straight and grounded WITHOUT such superfluous, and thus OBSOLETE concept. THAT is the first missing key of mainstream historical records, despite its factuality. Poincaré papers on Hertz theory where he exposes this conceptual revolutionary « Eureka », is open source. He even taught it in his Sorbonne lessons. That alone gives a starting idea of the power of mainstream propaganda, which repeat everywhere like inculte perrots, that Poincaré held to « aether theory », whereas « Einstein » rejected it. Totally false. Einstein even admitted much later, that GR (that he didn’t discover nor invent neither!) was actually an aether theory with a new name : « curved space-time » (whatever that means) But that’s only the tip of the « iceberg ». Since Poincaré makes a second breakthrough 5 years later in 1890, by inventing the revolutionary clocks synchronization algorithm (« mixing time and space » into a revolutionary « space-time » mathematical continuum), that will become the hard core of the revolutionary theory of (UNIVERSAL) RELATIVITY, built entirely by Poincaré, with some helps of Lorentz… So again, it’s by no way « Einstein » who « invents » it in September 1905 such revolutionary clocks synchronization algorithm, but Poincaré in 1890. Second crucial lost key of a supremely important historic revolution. Which Revolution, mainstream believe and make believe, that it only started in 1895 when Lorentz proposed his iconoclast and weird transformations that tried to explain Michelson Morley experimental failure in…relative-motion of Earth, « relative » to « aether »… THAT was indeed a crucial moment in Science, but not exactly how mainstream propaganda brutally summarized it. Not because Voigt and Fitzgerald made similar iconoclast propositions a few years before Lorentz (who very probably was not aware of them). But because Lorentz proposed transformations were INCORRECT! Especially the most crucial one, dealing with « time ». So what happened ? Well, the genius of Poincaré in pure mathematics now expanded fully to Physics. Besides his unique conceptual advantage of already understanding by advance why the Michelson Morley experimental quest will fail -because of the OBSOLESCENCE of aether concept, that he discovered in 1885-, a full mastery of XIXth century Mathematics, in particular Lie Group Theory, and a raising genius mind in Physics (with very strong background since his Polytechnic former main teacher, Le Cornu, made forefront experiments in light speed measuring - important fact totally forgotten by mainstream bullshit!), led him to immediately understand that Lorentz transformations were INCORRECT, and not only to CORRECT them drastically to their nowadays world wide used « granit » form called « LORENTZ-POINCARÉ GROUP », but to PROVE THEM from fundamental Principle. Which Principle? This point is the most important and crucial one, totally blacklisted by mainstream garbage propaganda. Poincaré friendly but nevertheless strongly criticized Lorentz story by all angles. First he understood, contrarily to Lorentz, why the Michelson Morley experimental quest was chimeric and will failed. In particular that first order, followed by second order failure, was not going to get better, BECAUSE of a conceptual central flaw. Indeed, not only was the chimeric concept of aether OBSOLETE, but even more importantly, the old brilliant Giordano Bruno Galilean MECHANICAL PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY, was! And whereas Lorentz looked at their revolutionary 1895 « space-time » transformations, as some sort of mathematical trick describing « actual rods contractions » and « artificial time-dilation » of old « newtonian » « universal time » and « absolute space », Poincaré brought back such primitive fairy tail to actual Physics. Poincaré advocates indeed that such « rods contraction » is nothing more than APPARENT DESCRIPTION OF UNIVERSAL RELATIVE MOTION. Not an actual physical contraction. And that « time dilation » is nothing more than an twin APPARENT DESCRIPTION, that stop being « paradoxal » as soon as his revolutionary clocks synchronization algorithm is used to COMPARE what’s going on in two different, not only « inertial », but general frames of reference. And such 1895 genius clear mind leads Poincaré to a final and total breakthrough : Poincaré packs all this revolutionary conceptual chaos in a diamond stone, by breathtakingly upgrading the old Galilean mechanical principle of relativity, to an « Excalibur like » UNIVERSAL one, which ALL PHYSICS MUST OBEY AND FOLLOW. ALL PHYSICS! Not only Mechanics, but also Light and EM, and last (for his time) but not least : Gravitation ! THIS crucial 1895-1900 historical FACT is totally sunk under the radar of mainstream propaganda. But Poincaré doesn’t stop there his revolutionary building of UNIVERSAL RELATIVITY! Indeed, not only that he brilliantly raises the emerging revolutionary theory up to the corner stone of an official revolutionary UNIVERSAL « PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY » (which name he proposed since 1895), by which he PROVES in 1895 the correct form of space-time « Lorentz-Poincaré transformations » (now called « Lorentz-Poincaré group »). But he pushes forward in 1900, by saving Lorentz theory of EM (which he preferred on Hertz one), who suffered from unacceptable violation of Action-Reaction Principle. What extraordinary healing did he found? Nothing less than the his discovery of the revolutionary INERTIA of massless LIGHT! Proving moreover, in this crucial 1900 article, written for the occasion of Lorentz « jubilé » (Nobel price preparation), the so famous E=mc^2 crucial identity, that mainstream bullshit propaganda, once again, falsely pretends « Einstein » discovered it in September 1905. Which he didn’t. Not even « rediscover » it, since Planck soon realized that « Einstein » article was totally circular, groundless, and didn’t prove nor establish anything, except showing once again, a central flaw in « Einstein » reasoning. Dramatic failure, who pushed Planck to complete Poincaré 1900 mathematical proof, by a complementary thermodynamic one, that he achieved in 1908.
(2) We are thus still in 1900, and 90% of the theory of Universal Relativity is already built, mainly by the master of Science of that time, Henri Poincaré, helped by the great Duch physicist by Hendrick Lorentz. Poincaré exposes a synthetic view of Physics in his 1902 best seller (accessible also to non scientific) : « Science and hypothesis », where all the main pillars of Universal Relativity, are clearly exposed. Best seller, that we know from Solovine testimony -Einstein close friend-, was extensively studied from 1902 to 1905, by Einstein and Mileva friends « Academy », which counted besides those three, Einstein other friend Michel Besos. So there is no doubt that Einstein knew much much more than he confessed knowing in 1905, about Lorentz and Poincaré work on Relativity. Especially because Einstein was not only working (without any « post doc ») at the Berne office, where he essentially red all new articles upcoming in Physics (Poincaré ones in particular), but he also worked in the reading team of Planck Annalen Der Physics. Thus, no way could he have missed during 20 years, from 1885 to 5 june 1905, Poincaré revolutionary work on Relativity! No way! He had on the contrary (with all his « Academy » friends : Mileva who wrote « his » articles, Besos, Solovine, etc). But he didn’t have the mathematical and theoretical skills to fully and deeply understand Poincaré revolutionary work. And it’s easy to prove, especially on one crucial point. Poincaré proved indeed, the corrected « Lorentz-Poincaré transformations » in 1895. Based on first principle of Universal Relativity, and Group Theory (which was massively ignored by 99% of Physicists, Einstein included). But a crucial subtility of Poincaré sunk under the radar of almost all Physicists of this time. Poincaré didn’t only used « ordinary » Group Theory. But what is called « Lie Group Theory »! What’s up? Well it brings a complementary « INFINITESIMAL » wing to the standard « Group Theory », called the « Lie ALGEBRA » of a « Lie Group »! Which means in physical words, that the « Lorentz-Poincaré transformations » proved by Poincaré in 1895, didn’t apply ONLY to relative inertial frames, but ALSO to relatively ACCELERATED ones!!! Crucial subtility that Einstein ignored all his life, and that so many Physicist still ignore today! Because if Einstein had knew this crucial point, wouldn’t he had forged the silly and misleading distinction between « special » and « general » relativity. Which is an oxymoron ! Since 1895 Poincaré PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY, is precisely UNIVERSAL, thus GENERAL. And Gravitation is a PARTICULAR SPECIAL case of Physics, falling into the reign of the UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY. In other words, « Lorentz-Poincaré Lie Group (of space-time transformations) has an INFINITESIMAL twin counter part, called it’s « Lie Algebra », that fully allows to apply it to relatively ACCELERATED frames. It’s thus not at all limited, as Einstein dramatically thought, to inertial frames. Such crucial subtility, Poincaré didn’t exposed it in his 1902 best seller. Which explains why Einstein-Mileva September 1905 obvious plagiarism, missed it totally. Worse their September 1905 article is full of flaws and misconceptions, incomplete « proofs » and dramatic contradictions. It’s a forgery in which by three times, for instance, they violate the principle of invariance of light speed, that they ill posed at its beginning! Even « Einstein-Mileva » conception of a frame is so archaic as they imagine it as a RIGID MARBLE BLOCK! Which is childish and is even self contradictory. Since the revolution of Relativity is precisely to assume no more old unproved assumptions, and to stick to experimental facts or cured procedures, especially the 1890 Poincaré revolutionary clocks synchronization algorithm. Even the dramatic misleading description of « relatively sliding frames » that infested scholar books since then, is a major flaw, pointed out by Poincaré since 1895 : Poincaré indeed, recalls that it has much more to do with a ROTATION in Lorentz-Poincaré space-time, than with a « sliding translation » in « euclidian space », which was Einstein-Mileva childish naïve vue. Furthermore, from this 1902 open brilliant synthesis, Poincaré coaches Lorentz, guiding and helping him to verifying the inner coherence of their almost achieved theory of Relativity, in all aspects and technical details of EM and electron-Light interaction. Which brings Lorentz 1904 synthetic article where indeed he checks the global coherence of the ACHIEVED theory of Relativity. That same year, Poincaré attempts St Louis international science conference, with the great French physicist Leon Brillouin, and exposes a synthetic over view of forefront Physics, in particular its 1895 revolutionary PRINCIPLE OF UNIVERSAL RELATIVITY. The entire scientific world in Physics, concerned about electron-Light interaction and general EM, became instantly aware of such major speech. In particular Planck and Einstein-Mileva. Thus again Einstein lied and knew much much more about Poincaré work on the theory of Relativity than what he admitted.
(3) But that’s not the end of the crucial story of historical FACTS. Because, even though the Theory of Relativity, started in 1885 Poincaré breakthrough on « aether » obsolescence, was now fully achieved through its main pillars (1890 Poincaré revolutionary clocks synchronization algorithm, 1895 Lorentz-Poincaré Group and Lie Algebra space-time transformations, 1895 Poincaré Universal Principle of Relativity, 1900 Poincaré discovery of Light INERTIA and the famous E=Mc^2 formula), one crucial goal remained to be addressed for the claim Poincaré made since 1895, on the UNIVERSALITY of the Principle of Relativity : how exactly did it APPLIES to GRAVITATION. This will be the central subject of Poincaré final 5 June 1905 article, presented before the Paris Academia of Science. If the Principle of Relativity was indeed to hold UNIVERSAL and APPLIE TO ALL PHYSICS, it had to be showed how exactly Gravitation could be tuned, to become Lorentz-Poincaré COVARIANT, and thus written in Lorentz-Poincaré quadrivector space-time metric (abusively called Minkowski metric). This great goal was brilliantly achieved by Poincaré in 1904 and exposed in his 5 June 1905 crucial article. In which, Poincaré not only exposes the full set of « relativistic quadrivector invariants » (space-time ones AND mass-energy ones), but more crucially exposes fully the RELATIVISTIC FORM OF UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION, culminating in his prediction of GRAVITATIONAL WAVES. We are the 5 June 1905. Einstein hasn’t yet written a crocodile tear on « Relativity theory »! His first article appears in September 1905, massively if not fully written by his wife Mileva. So that’s already A LOT of « lost keys » on Relativity and Gravitation. And it would be dramatic enough if all that ended this sad story. But infortunately it doesn’t ! There is indeed so much more to be revealed, sleeping under the iron dome of mainstream propaganda! In a nutshell, Poincaré theory of RELATIVISTIC GRAVITATION, is INTENTIONALLY written, in Lorentz-Poincaré FLAT metric. That doesn’t mean that Poincaré ignored « curved metrics », since he was on the contrary, the universal master of his time, on this central subject, with breathtaking breakthroughs in non euclidian geometry. So why? First because Poincaré didn’t look at « space-time » as a Granit Aetheric GOD, as Einstein naively did! On the contrary, Poincaré was extremely cautious and careful, and didn’t draw fairy tails on the moon. He was a deep scientist and kept full rigour. He thus holds to Kant crucial remark that space no time aren’t physical OBSERVABLES. Thus they have NO PHYSICAL REALITY. And indeed they are mainly MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS, forged to describe in a simple way the abyssal complex Natural world. And Poincaré details that crucial point in his 1902 best seller « Science and Hypothesis ». Where he shows indeed why it is childish to believe that actual « space-time » has only 4 dimensions. That’s only our simplified version of a much more complex Reality. And Poincaré brilliantly exposes WHY and HOW we come to this simplified REPRESENTATION. What physiological mechanism leads to it. Greatest pure genious of all time, in Mathematics, Physics and Philosophy! Thus Poincaré doesn’t make a dogmatic religion of 4-space-time as « Einstein » sect did and does. He viewed it as a useful simplified mathematical description of a abyssal more complex Reality, where psychic role shouldn’t be neglected. He had made very close study of Machs revolutionary ideas, but also unwell known others, like Hertz one, which were deep, or Boltzmann ones, etc. And besides this fundamental philosophical grounded position, he knew that Physicists of his time were not ready to use a theory of such little application. Even non gravitational Relativity theory, hadn’t even wide spread. He thus INTENTIONALY kept the Gravitational relativistic covariant theory as simple and straight forward as possible. Writing it thus in Lorentz-Poincaré FLAT metric. Which is by no way less deep than « curved space » one, like GR. That’s just for Poincaré CONVENTIONAL MODELING CHOICE. And Trinity college Lasenby team, confirmed that right with a Relativistic Gauge theory of Gravitation, also written in FLAT METRIC. Then comes crucial 1908 Planck first attempt to write the Relativistic theory of Gravitational in « curved metric ». Closely followed by Grossman (Einstein momentary coworker), who finally achieves the breakthrough in 1912 by founding the correct equation of Relativistic Gravitation in « curved pseudo Riemann metric » (abusively called GR). Einstein immediately REJECTS them based on his chimeric ideas and deep mathematical ignorance about COVARIANCE concept. This major bug ends Einstein-Grossman coworking, just after Grossman complains about Einstein rejection of those equations, and blind belief in other chimeric ones. Such failure drives Einstein in no man’s land for years. Until he brutally meets REALITY again in 1915, by realizing that Hilbert had just found exactly the same equations of « GR » than Grossman did in 1912. Total panic! Einstein rushes writing an article where he forgets to recall that Grossman and Hilbert had discovered the equation he tries to exposes as his own discovery. It isn’t ! And a supplementary proof of it is that he never did anything with them. As plagiarist do! Worse he tried to justify their validity in a following 1915 article by pretending they predict correctly the anomalous Mercury perihelion shift of 38 ‘’ arc by century. But his article is another fraud, a total failure as nobody less than Schwarzschild immediately points him out by a personal letter of December 1915, where not only Schwarzschild exposes Einstein empty circular approximation flaw, but give him the EXACT correct symmetric solution. In fact Einstein article is an even greater fraud! Since besides of driving completely false calculations, he builds a full forgery by not at all using 1915 « GR equations » to compute the Mercury perihelion anomalous shift. How could he, since he didn’t solved those equations. Only Schwarzschild did in a symmetric special case. But worse, since we know now that Einstein used instead a old cruncky garbage computation that he hadn’t even made alone, an not in 1915, but around 1911-1912 with his amateur old friend Besos. So are the masters…of FORGERY! That will give some few important glances, behind the iron dome of mainstream propaganda, where stands HISTORICAL FACTS AND ACTUAL SCIENCE…
@@Igdrazil Thank you for your detailed reply to my post. Once again - unfortunately - largely beyond my comprehension. But I find three outstanding points: 1) Einstein as an 'imposter' and plagiarizer. 2) Mention of the infamous "aether", which - in my simple understanding - might correspond to the quantum field. And 3) scientists confusion of the "model" with the "reality" under study. Wherein enters the role of the human psyche. I wish I had continued my studies in physics, whereby I might have a deeper grasp of these topics. Alas!
“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics, including the CAUSE of gravity. Sorry Mach and all the rest.
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!
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.
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!
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.
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 =)
I would appreciate if he could explain it in layers so those of us at the back of the class can follow along. All I heard was gravity is solved. As Forrest Gump would say: great that’s one less problem.,
@@Greg-yu4ij when we think of the gravitational constant G or any constant in general, the natural question is where does it come from? An unsatisfying answer is to say that God, a programmer, or whatever set it to that specific value. Or can we predict it? So this video went through the theoretical framework of that process.
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
if G is not a constant, neither T. and neither C but we cannot really know that , BUT that sticks and annihilate the idea of dark matter, more matter - less time, the center of galaxies spins slower cause there is more matter. if we move out of the galaxies, and stop moving, time spends faster. because yes there is motion and mass, we move away from it our clocks will not be synchronized. and in my theory, according to this principle the big bang was a incredibly slow process, since the mass of the universe being dense, time itself was trapped, the age of the universe is a logarithm that tends to the infiinity. i don't think G can have a real fixed value anywhere in the cosmos, we have our reference here on earth, it is like saying the earth is flat because *gets a level out* look the horizon!
@@hartunstartunfortunately yes, I dont agree with defining c as a constant, now know one will know if it has changed, what is agender in science it wrong
What ever Mass the Universe has it will lead to a value for G. You just may as well ask why the universe has any mass at all. G is merely an attribute of a Universe with its given mass. We have the current value of G because the Universe is what it is, no magic just that the Universe predicated G not the other way around.
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.
Sciama teased that a 2nd paper is coming using tensors instead of basic math. That paper never came out, so the presumption is that he couldn’t get the theory to do what he wanted it to do.
@@timjohnson3913 then the correctness of this ‚presumption‘ can easily be tested. I rather suspect that since Mach hypotheses hadn’t been anywhere near the center of the actual most popular subjects of theoretical physics at the time, Sciama turned to other subjects. He was one of the proponents of a steady state cosmology and that might have been enough for him of being ‚alternative‘.
@@dankurth4232 It’s tough to be certain, there are lots of things to research and so little time, but this idea seems big enough that he wouldn’t have let the idea slide if the tensor theory had merit. He also wrote a book on tensors, so it’s not like the math was too challenging for him.
@@timjohnson3913 Thanks! Then the tensor calculation should be done as soon as possible. The potential relevance of this machian input to the theory of gravity is breathtaking
@@timjohnson3913 Well, it is true that physicists have difficulty creating mathematical models, and mathematicians don't always create the best models due to their lack of understanding or just ignorance on the physicality of reality imagined by physicists (I've seen mixed units and incompatible units, that formulate & calculate well, but describe nothing).
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.
Thank you ( I'm going to buy that buy that book - hoping to learn the principles behind early German electrogravitics ( which was seized by the US right after ww2
And there's another one - gravity is a pushing force of ether. Local inhomogenities causes universal force to compensate for it and push from all sides but that of interrupting body's.
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?
@@TheMachian so that may also mean that G is not constant across time, assuming an expanding universe, no? And i didn't get that about the non-steady C, could that also vary across timescales, providing an alternative explanation for the redness of "old" photons?
@@ankostis The universe is not expanding. That's just Hubble's interpretation, not a fact. There are sixty different possible interpretations of redshift. Why do you think that only one of them must be true?
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!
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.
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 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 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! 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?
@@TheMachianDark matter is dilated mass. General Relativity predicts dilation not singularities. In the 1939 journal "Annals of Mathematics" Einstein wrote - "The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the Schwarzchild singularities (Schwarzchild was the first to raise the issue of General Relativity predicting singularities) do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters (star clusters) whose particles move along circular paths it does seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that more general cases will have analogous results. The Schwarzchild singularities do not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light". He was referring to the phenomenon of dilation (sometimes called gamma or y) mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer. It's the phenomenon behind the phrase "mass becomes infinite at the speed of light". Time dilation is one aspect of dilation. Wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass, dilation will occur because high mass means high momentum. Dilation is the original and correct explanation for why we cannot see light from the galactic center. It can be shown mathematically that the mass at the center of our own galaxy must be dilated. In other words that mass is all around us. This is the explanation for the abnormally high rotation rates of stars in spiral galaxies, the "missing mass" is dilated mass. Einstein wrote about dilation occurring in "large clusters of stars" which is basically a very low mass galaxy. For a galaxy to have no/low dilation it must have very, very low mass. To date, 5 very, very low mass galaxies have been confirmed to show no signs of dark matter. For the same reason binary stars will always have predictable rotation rates. What we see in modern astronomy has been known since 1925. This is when the existence of galaxies was confirmed. It was clear that there should be an astronomical quantity of light emanating from our own galactic center. It wasn't until television and movies began to popularize singularities that the concept gradually became mainstream.
There is no dark energy problem since it does not exist. It was created simply to explain prediction by GR. Instead GR should have been thrown into a trash bin. The Earth is in fact the center of the universe and no, it is not just an illusion.
Is it possible that time is slowing down, and as a result when we look into the distant past everything was moving more quickly because time was faster? Just an idea. I have no fomal education in these matters, it's just seems contradictory to me that 90% of the universe is directly undetectable dark matter, holding everything together, meanwhile there is another directly undetectable force, dark energy, accelerating everything apart.
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.
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.
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......😊
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.
Sometimes I allow myself to think of the universe as a little explosion of energy like a bubble of steam in the pot boiling water. A quick pop and it's all over; small tint, fast. Just from where we stand inside the bubble it seams to happen so slowly :)
Dear Unziker, I'm glad to see your videos discussing inertia and gravitation. These problems have been "under the carpet" for decades... I think you would enjoy one of my recent papers on this subject, namely "Nonzero Gravitational Force Exerted by a Spherical Shell on a Body...", published in Gravitation and Cosmology vol. 26, 387 (2020).
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.
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?
I found a comment saying "...according to this formalism, the gravitational constant itself would vary across space, as it depends on the proximity to the masses in the universe." And Dr. Unzicker seems to agree to that because he replied. So G actually changes, not just across time, but also across space. c might be a constant though.
Sorry, the prevailing paradigm forbids it. There has to be the final collapse of science for it would allow alternative (which often means true) options.
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.
My objection to Mach's principle is gravity force travels at C so it would take billions of years for it to have an effect on the bucket, if it is indeed possible - but can't anyhow as the universe is expanding.
Wonderful idea! Thanks to LLMs this actually can be finally realized! AI reading all papers would also solve the problem of not ever being to able to know all published papers.
@@PrivateSiEven if there were a delay between distant objects spinning and the resulting effect on the bucket, you'd never be able to tell (if done correctly). A bucket in a frame that begins to rotate will appear the same as a universe that begins to spin in "shells", starting from the edge of the observable universe and kick starting a "twist" that propagates inwards towards the bucket at the speed of light, until the effect of all these staggered spinning shells reach the bucket simultaneously. Now, one would have to wonder if this gigantic whirlpooling twist would destroy everything in the universe, but ignoring all that, the bucket would observe everything spinning at the same time.
@@UnitaryV .. I know what you're saying but I don't agree with the forces reaching simultaneously and some parts of the universe never reach each other due to rapid, accelerating expansion so it can't be the entire universe for a start (unless gravity works at FTL speed / instantaneously, which is unlikely given the evidence so far but maybe not impossible). -- The Magic Bucket would see itself as spinning at first glance, but would then notice its watery contents had not climbed the sides of the bucket so would conclude the rest of universe has got itself in a right spin... or left depending on your point of view.. Neither does it feel dizzy as the contents of its buckety inner ear does not slosh about.
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.
@@joestitz539 and there is physicist who say time doesn't exist, if time doesn't exist, than how is there a "space time fabric", there isn't, it's just space. Time doesn't exist, time is a tool something like a rule, time is a tool used to measure entropy. That's all.
@josuerizo1 time does ! look in the Bible how many times God references to time.. even if something we measure, that's Still time in use, therefore-exists.. and if your right then go the rest of your life without using it. good luck..
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.
@@hqs9585 Did you watch the video? Sometimes science finds out that things we thought were constants actually aren't. The work being talked about here is one of those cases. Watch the video.
I am a physicist and of course I understand that. My comment was a bit sarcastics and jt for a laugh. Again If the constant changes of the lifetime of the universe, do you mean , continually changing, discreetly?, every so often? then of course in all seriousness, in sot e constant. Thanks for your comment indeed. Lastr, is the "constant changing": or is the metrology changing?
@@hqs9585 Well obviously if this is confirmed, we would stop calling it a constant now wouldn't we? And as far as I can tell from what was talked about in the video, if the size of G is inversely proportional to the gravitational potential of the universe, then I would expect this to mean that G has been shrinking at the same rate as the gravitational potential of the universe has been growing. TBH I would have thought you would have been able to understand this from watching the video if you are indeed a physicist.
@@billyte1265 given your last statement is apparent you are a light weight in this field. Do I will stop here: learn the subject and not just state sophomric statements . Thanks
I find your explanation of the VSL variable speed of light fascinating, mostly because it opposes the curvature of space-time, a concept alien to physics since space and time are non material, and belong more to philosophy (a priori intuitions according to Kant) Variable Speed of Light at least has a material base, which the absolute space and time of Newton never had, and which Einstein never dared to condemn. As the French say, when in doubt “cherchez la matiere”
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!!!
I remember the spinning iron disk on the end of a four foot steel bar the whole thing must have weighted around fifty pounds and a young boy lifted it up over his head like it was made of paper...
Given this explanation how might we draw some connections between gravity and entropy gradients by referencing the way condensed matter helium 4 climbs up the walls of it's container? Meniscus at room temp no spin of container, room temp container with spin creates an entropy gradient higher around sides of the glass, and near 0k temp of condensed matter with no centrifugal force climbs the glass as well. I think meniscus has to do with electromagnetism, but maybe it can help in our analogy. The latter 2 examples I provided seem to initially suggest some symmetries between centrifugal force, entropy gradients, and gravity. The thickness of the glass may also be related if we think of the quantum tunneling effect of the condensed matter helium that can tunnel through it's container. It climbs the glass without centrifugal force perhaps suggesting heat or entropy are is one way or another the inverse of centrifugal force. Is this spinning force something small or hidden in a higher dimension or something that works at the Planck scale? By lowering the temperature of the helium to near 0k is a threshold met where this small scale centrifugal force is activated to allow the condensed matter to climb the walls of the glass? If you could turn off gravity in the universe would the condensed matter thus no longer climb the walls of the glass? Finally if you could spin condensed matter in an enclosed container would this produce local counter-gravitational forces?
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.
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.
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.
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?
I noticed he slipped in "observable universe" and was expecting him to at least address the issue but he skipped over it. There was some literal hand-waving in this video. let alone virtual. It's all very interesting to make the equations work mathematically but show me the actual data.
It’s not a stretch to assume the simplest thing that universe is isotropic and homogeneous (The cosmological principle), and thus has the same density as we see in the nearby galaxy. On large enough scales, this has proved true even though there are pockets of dense matter (galaxy clusters) and empty pockets (large voids). Of course, as you look back further and further into the universe, you are looking at a younger universe, which was more dense when the light was sent out, but you can extrapolate the actual density using the Hubble constant (more correctly often now called the Hubble parameter, because expansion is not constant but is speeding up).
@@kalliste23The observable Universe is the only part of the universe that can have causal influence on us locally, so not sure why you would think any other part of the universe could have inertial influence on local matter. Mach certainly never made such a claim (that the unobservable universe is causes local inertia).
Sciama is using G to calculate the theoretical density of matter in the detectible universe, not the other way around. His value didn't agree with the accepted value at the time (nor the values for our time as far as I can tell). It seemed to be more dense, but not beyond the realm of plausibility. He's proposing a better number based on a new framework. The fact that the densities are even in the same neighborhood is what stands out.
@@7even285 @timjohnson3913 etc. To answer variously: it's an assumption that the observable Universe is the only part that affects human measurements. Who knows what the real story is - especially if you try to understand what the String Theorists are up to. Using G to calculate the theoretical density of matter in the Universe ends up being a circular argument to my mind, since it's not clear to me how you propose to empirically measure the density of matter in the observable Universe. The void in the CMB suggests at least parts of the Universe are not the same as other parts, so the question then becomes whether or not that is significant in the overall picture. The bottom line is however you look at it although this is interesting that's mainly what it is, interesting. It's not like this is some kind of new understanding that's going to lead to engineers building interstellar capable spacecraft or something. In my mind it's a bit more likely to be closer to reality than String Theory but that's not saying much.
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.
"The theories of Einstein, Heisenberg and Schrödinger appear very questionable if the existence of the ether can be verified, and it will not be an easy task to show the obsolescence of all those accepted physical theories. A coming re-evaluation will prove the truth of Max Planck's statement, 'A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.'" Rho Sigma Ether Technology "Meanwhile, Back in Europe"
@@TheMachiantechnocrats are killing our scientists. I have a long list were told they're before their time and then blacklisted, whitewashed and "deleted."
@@TheMachian Albert Einstein's opinion about the interferometric experiments of Dayton C. Miller. A communication to "Science". New Series, Vol 62, N° 1596 July, 31 1925 THE Einstein theory of relativity must fall or at least require radical modification, if the experiments performed at Mt. Wilson, in California, by Professor Dayton C. Miller, of the Case School of Applied Science, are correct, is the opinion of Professor Albert Einstein himself, expressed in a communication from him to Science Service. " If Dr. Miller's results should be confirmed," he says, " then the special relativity theory, and with the general theory in its present form, falls. Experiment is the supreme judge. Only the equivalence of inertia and weight remain, which would lead to an essentially different theory. " ... Professeur Allais has proved that Dr Miller's experiments are valid. See his article published in "La Jaune et la Rouge". Then, the conclusion is done by Albert Einstein himself : the relativity theory falls.
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??
@@TheMachianI know Ed Witten is atleast aware of this work of Sciama’s. There is a youtube video where a young Ed is talking with Sciama and 2 other highly regarded physicists and Sciama mentions that he used to work on Mach’s Principle, but doesn’t go into any detail. Somewhat relatedly, I’ve seen a talk where Ed is asked a question by the audience at the end and he talks about Dirac’s LNH. He says it was disproved by measurement but that there are some modern versions of the theory. He doesn’t go into much detail.
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.
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.
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.
@@TheMachianwhat do you mean by "the coincidence of our dynamical and visual measurements of what it mean to be at rest"? If you mean GR can't explain why we feel at rest, it's because we are in an unaccelerated frame. The only force acting on us is an acceleration up from the ground because of the outwards pressure of the earth.
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 RUclips 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 RUclips 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.
Good to see an explanation for how G is calculated using the potential of rotating universe - which brings us to the next unanswered mystery of what it means for an object to be at inertial rest or motion (which Einstein assumed to be equal to gravity in his equivalence principle) In other words, answering the mystery behind the origin of inertia is critical for us to validate Einstein’s assertion on the equivalence of gravity and inertia - which brings us to our firm's theory that has attempted to answer this mystery using Principle of least action For example, as we all know that the principle of equivalence(POE) can also be derived from principle of least action(PLA) as follows T = U + c(v) In other words, both kinetic energy (T) and potential energy (U) are equal up to the constants of generalized coordinates -- and so, one can say they are equivalent (although can also be equal) when action is stationary - which brings me to our CP Path integral based TOE hypothesis by advancing Feynman Path integral First, as we all know the optimal/productive PLA path for both light & matter is the path where δS or δT =0. However, the unanswered question is how does light and matter know this mysterious precise inertial path in advance, per this MUST WATCH CLIP(lnkd.in/d-9saRQx) This brings us to our 2 TOE insights. 1. This quantum leaping productivity PLA path action, is decided by the probability of FSC (Ψ^2 = α=2/3) when the WF (Ψ) of electron starts emitting/absorbing a photon at an amplitude of -.8542455, before naturally collapsing it moment by moment! 2. This FSC-PLA path is the best bet path to TOE (integrating QFT w/ relativity theory), as it not only tells light how to interact with matter at the quantum level (per its probability) but also bents/curves it along spacetime(per Snell's law, as RI of light in vac/air=1 & in Matter(electron) is C/V=137=FSC - which brings us to our Advanced Relativity Theory in Einstein parley -- FSC-PLA path tells spacetime how to curve and the curved spacetime tells matter how to move! For more check out this linkedIn post (www.linkedin.com/posts/charlesprabakar_sovereign-ocean-w-adv-feynman-integralbest-activity-7143645125888344065-W7VC?) Thus brings me to its implications to our firm’s business dimension, which we have branded as Sovereign Ocean of Everything/VizPlanet framework, by advancing 10 Nobel winning/nominated ideas of business, as marked in parenthesis Every Maslow’s holacracial(1) economic need is a direct/indirect manifestation of QE caused Scripture/Griffith’s human condition/depravity model problem(2) only -- that is solved using the Principle of least action & its new insight(3) driven Fine-structure-constant(FSC) caused Attention factor (4) driven FSC/GT/Nash Equilibrium(5) based reality accurate S-economics model(6) caused Friedman’s Attention-Pluck(7) -- that is followed by an Solow’s TFP-expansion(8), before it being executed by “sovereign-to-choose with collaboration without coercion(9)” motto, driven Next-Gen capitalism called Sovereign/Conscious Sustainalism(10)! Similarly, if I I may expand it as a 10 line summary (lnkd.in/gbtsDNpQ) 1 Maslow's hierarchy model advanced as our Holacracical model (lnkd.in/gTeWVYUC) 2. Scripture/Griffith’s human condition/depravity model advanced as Quantum Entanglement (QE) caused depravity model((lnkd.in/gp5kcCa2) 3. Feynman path integral model advanced as Principle of least action's new insight driven CP Path Integral (This post) 4. Attention Economy model advanced as FSC-Attention Factor economy model (lnkd.in/gBe_bE5G) 5. Game Theory Nash/Market Equilibrium model advanced as FSC Equilibrium model(lnkd.in/gWkaPKdB) 6. Landscape economics model advanced as reality accurate FSC-S-Energy economics model(lnkd.in/gbtsDNpQ) 7. Friedman's Plucking model advanced as FSC Attention Plucking model(lnkd.in/gD_qzV5z) 8. Solow’s TFP model advanced as FSC legitimized TAFP model(lnkd.in/gWZ3-tsK) 9. Friedman's Free-To-Choose model advanced as Sovereign-to-choose with collaboration without coercion model(FSC(lnkd.in/g-xExeUm) 10. Current capitalism model advanced as purpose score driven incentivized COP28 solution enabling Next-Gen Conscious Sustainalism model(lnkd.in/d7A6U6dg) Now that we have explained the of what it means to be at inertial rest or motion (which Einstein assumed to equal to gravity in his equivalence principle ) using a complementary CP path integration approach, I hope the world grasps its multi-trillion dollar value implications, similar to how Prof Clay Christensen of Harvard grasped it 10+ years ago(lnkd.in/gRakUNVg). Welcome complementary POVs!
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
More than a good guess. Papers exist calculating the equivalence of a suitably specified rotating cylinder of mass, to a rising observer in the middle experiencing centrifugal and coriolis forces. Think of the frame dragging caused by a rotating black hole. The rotating hollow cylinder drags space-time within it.
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.
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.
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...
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?
Time in the center of the vessel is faster (higher pressure) than the time on the edge of the vessel is slower due to motion (lower pressure), therefore the difference in time pressure creates "lift" towards the edge of the vessel. Acceleration is product of the different in time density or mechanics. Time variance "lift" is analogous to aerodynamic lift on a wing - high pressure vs.low pressure yields lift - it's just upside down.
There is a problem with this formula. Given the Sciama formula, if the Universe expands further, say by 10%, then the r in the denominator increases by 10%, as the sum of distances increases. Thus, the left side of the equation is 1.1 times smaller, if big G is a constant. And c^2 on the right hand side has to decrease in the same proportion of 10% and the speed of light in the vacuum just decreased by 4.88% (square root of 1.1 minus 1). Or, the other way around, with the same example, if the denominator is 1.1 times smaller, then big G needs to increase by 10% in order to keep the speed of light constant. This Sciama formula tells us that either c is a constant and big G is a variable, or big G is a constant and c is a variable. This is what I read and it is disturbing. Can you help here ? It all works fine if the Universe is a steady state and not expanding. But everybody is convinced that the Universe is expanding.
I 'm sorry I don't get why you find it disturbing. You are saying that if the formula is correct and the universe is expanding, then at least one of them, G and c, is a variable. So what? Why is that disturbing for you? Why can't G or c be a variable?
@@Jian787 hi Jian. It is not disturbing for me. It is disturbing for science. Close to 100% of all scientists refute the idea that c or G could be variables. C ? The speed of light could change according to the expansion of the Universe ? And Big G would change according to what ? Also the expansion if the Universe ? And if only one of the variables can change, then which one ?
@@seankellycrypto Hi. What I learnt from physics classes in high school and college is that, the development of physics is a process of continual disturbingness for scientists. (Sorry for my English. I don't speak that much English.) When Einstein's theory of relativity came out, it disturbed a lot of people who preferred classical mechanics. The mass and length of an object change according to velocity? Hell no! I believe Einstein didn't even get a Nobel Prize for the theory of relativity, because many physicists found it disturbing and refuted it. He got the prize for the photoelectric effect. Looking back on it, physicists today don't usually think the theory of relativity was disturbing for science. Instead, many physicists think it was a big step forward in the history of physics. Though at the time it was disturbing for many scientists and philosophers. If I understand it correctly, I think at least Dr. Unzicker himself is a scientist who doesn't refute the idea of G being a variable. Based on what I can tell from the video, I think he actually likes the idea of G not being a constant that is decided by a supernatural god or something. Hey! If Sciama's theory is correct, maybe one day future physicists will figure out which one between c and G is a variable, maybe even both. Who knows? Have a nice day! Or is it night where you live?😄
@@seankellycrypto I just found a comment below that says "...according to this formalism, the gravitational constant itself would vary across space, as it depends on the proximity to the masses in the universe." And Dr. Unzicker seems to agree to that because he replied. So G can't be a constant according to Sciama's theory. It actually changes across space. So it probably can change across time too, if Sciama's theory is correct.
Thank you for your very interesting video. I wondered whether there would be an electromagnetic equivalent to Mach's principle. E.g. if we switch on an electromagnet then there is an initial surge of current and energy is stored 1/2Li2. Is this stored energy related to the fact that everything in the universe now has potential energy with respect to the electromagnet. And if we power off the electromagnet there is a back emf as this potential energy goes. The inductance is proportional to u0 and the configuration of the universe would be different in the past hence different speed of light.
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! :-)
Год назад+1
Where is the speed of the gravitational force? Something is missing there.
Isn't the assumption of a euclidian uniform isotropic universe contradictory with a rotating universe, which necessarily needs to rotate about a special line, while the speed at a finite distance exceeds the speed of light?
Thank you, Prof., for a highly insightful exposition. Beauty of Physics is fading out into yonder distance for want of adequate focus by intelligent miinds ! Am lamenting that Pure Sciences in India are not duly getting nurtured.
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.
I have played with magnets for years. The same poles repellent in space should propeller and speed up and likely over the speed of light, and stop over time when the reversal and likely control the speed by movement of the fields.
My understanding is that the universe is expanding and mass is continually being added such as to keep the mass density and therefore the gravitational field constant. But I don't know where the added mass comes from.
This maybe can be included in Broekaert VSL theory: in both cases (Fay, Broekaert) there is a vector potential A which obeys a wave equation with the surrounding mass velocity fields as a source. Then the scalar potential Phi should be inside the refractive index roughly as n = exp(-2 Phi). The problem with VSL is that not only refractive index are function of gravitationnal potential but also frequency, length, gradient operator, time, mass... we have to modify everything.
You can test it by using thick lead bowl and rotate it fast. Iside you hang smaller bowl hanging, full of mercury. Shoot laser fron surface of mercury and reflection angle should variate on ratio of lead bowl rotation speed. If not, Mach was wrong.
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.
Looking forward to your publication!
ayyyy fayy whaddup dawg yo 2024 is gonna be lit fr
I subscribed to your channel, Mr. Fay. I hope you make some videos explaining your ideas.
Please let us all know when it is published. I would love to read it!
@@deezynar I'm planning to do that if I have the time! Also, I will likely make announcements on RUclips when I publish something elsewhere.
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.
Glad if you get in touch via ChannelInfo-> email!
I treid to send you an email, but not sure it arrived...@@TheMachian
@rossbrown6649 you can still submit it for publication, even now.
To hell with your publisher. Release it, print it anyway !
This sounds like GEM but using the SR four-velocity in place of the 3-velocity?
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!
Read Robert Sungenis book and you will know the answers. Sciama is a great example, but that's not all.
I loved your enthusiasm, insightful comments, and honesty. It helped me appreciate how little we really know but must keep trying. Thank you.
I think this was pointing out how much we've known for a long time, but didn't recognize what we had! ;-)
an intelligent man knows that he know nothing
@@ZenMasterChip The problem is that it is wrong. Newton's bucket is explained by Newton's laws. Change of direction is an acceleration. A rotating frame of reference is not an inertial frame. We solved all this in the 18th century with Laplace, Lagragia, Hamilton, etc.
I don't know about gravity. I didn't watch that part.
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.
I recommend Ott Christoph Hilgenberg's sink theory of gravity with one contention: Wilhelm Reich's Orgone Biophysics unifies Hermann Fricke's Ether Physics with Antoine Bechamp's Terrain Biology and Marco Todeschini's Psicobiofisica goes one further.
Irregardless, relativity is Galilean, Classical Invariance.
In Germany they had Gunther Enderlein.
Antoine Bechamp is a French source, not widely translated. Same discoveries, different languages, independent of each other...
There has to be an absolute space and time; it is just unknown to us or anyone to measure such an 'absolute,' since we exist within the reference frame trying to do such measurements.
@@pyropulseIXXI Einstein claims a relative observation and interpretation! Reduces this claim practically to just one of the observations, phenomenons, effects: velocity („relative velocity“; and acceleration), and neglects that all other observations, phenomenons, effects, are relative to each other as well. This fails (or succeeds;-) by reducing the at least two (relative) observations by reducing the observers to only one! Without taking into account its already made mutual observations! A catastrophic methodological mistake!
From here, from his beginning of the formation of "relativity-theses", from the first step, every following thesis and equation is unscientific and nonsensical!
Again: A catastrophic methodological mistake! NO science! NO scientific "Relativity Theories"! NONsens!
> 100 years of relativity nonsens and millions over millions of "physicists" and "mathematicians" who have not become aware of this crap and will not, who BELIEVE in BigBangs, wormholes, dark matters and so on;-)
... A little methodological criticism and criticism of the development, history of "theory"-)
Mach must be wrong, because if the universe rotated, and gravitation is linear acceleration, not rotational (unless near a rotating black hole) no frictional interaction should occur. Friction , viscosity, and surface tension are all locally powerful, small scale forces causing interaction. Gravity is too weak, and too large scale, to do this.
IMHO...
It's all starting to come together ... Well done Mr. Unzicker
Mr. Unzicker,I have never seen you happier!Congrats to Sciama and Fay!
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.
"I can understand the impatience of my friends who would like to learn as much as possible as soon as possible. However, the interest of the total work requires the interpolation of several years between the time a finding is made and its publication. This is an automatic safeguard against theoretical blunders. From the very beginning of orgone research it has proven valuable not to publish a new finding until it has developed into an essential new insight. The continued development to a new insight is a confirmation of the previous finding"
~ Wilhelm Reich in the introduction to Orgonotic Pulsation, The differentiation of orgone energy from electromagnetism ~ Presented in talks with an electrophysicist, International Journal for Sex-Economy and Orgone Research Vol. III, reprinted in Orgonomic Functionalism # 3, pp. 20-21
😂Very true and amazing comment!
Not really, it's and old argument that's almost impossible to test. My objection to Mach's principle is gravity force travels at C so it would take billions of years for it to have an effect on the bucket, if it is indeed possible - but can't anyhow as the universe is expanding.
@PrivateSi Just as light from billions of years ago is just now reaching us from distant stars, gravitational waves and field lines are also reaching us constantly from the distant stars. I'm not saying that proves anything, but there could at least be a mechanism there for interacting with the gravity of distant objects, even if it's gravitation from millions of years ago.
@@shizza3198 .. Yes, but it's supposed to be the whole rest of the universe causing local gravity but some parts of the universe's light/gravity waves/mechanism won't ever reach us so that seems to nullify the notion in its absolute form (due to expansion and gravitational wave experiments showing the speed of gravity and light to be equal, or near as damn it). The 'Machian Mechanism' requires instant communication at any distance, and between the entire rest of the universe and the bucket. It's a bizarre thought experiment and I can't see how to prove it. It seems to imply if objects spin around another object they would create a centripetal force on the object. Is this observed in the cosmos? Do planets rotating around a star have this effect? Could we even detect it?
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.
One of the problems with Einsteinian mathematics is that Einstein's ideas hide behind extremely obtuse formulas that have very little explanatory value before you apply initial conditions. This means that one needs several years at a good engineering/physics program before you are even able to approach the problem to begin with. Adding insult to injury, many mathematicians have abandoned applied mathematics entirely - focusing instead on obtuse math "theories of everything" which don't add much in the way of value to people who actually use math to accomplish real work (engineers).
The only field doing actually useful mathematics in modern America is within the engineering realm which has almost entirely abandoned modern physics due to how much blowback engineering professors get for questioning the underlying "base principles" of Einsteinian motion. So the engineer views the world through what can be proven to be useful/true - almost all of which has absolutely nothing to do with Einsteinian mechanics at its core. One would *think* that this fact would be a red flag for the physics community and a clue that these sagacious professors should rethink their ideas, but unfortunately, their heads are so full of hot air that they would float away into space were it not for the powers of mystical dark energy holding them to the earth.
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!
(1) « Einstein lost key » makes three implicit assumptions. First that there was a key. Than IF so, that it was lost (when, how, by who). Third that « Einstein », whatever that means, « was » related to such assumptions.
Compare to arbitrary assumptions, historical FACTS are not less difficult to prove, in Science, than in court trial. What are the EVIDENCES ? The PROOFS? The WRITINGS? If none, game over! Empty allegations…
On the contrary, despite a massive omerta to expose actual historical facts, a good place to start for such « Einstein lost key », is in 1885, when the French mathematical genius and supreme master of theoretical Physics, the overwhelming Science leader of his time, Henri Poincaré, besides his revolutionary breakthroughs in pure mathematics (beating the world leading masters on their own ground : Fuchs, Klein, Hilbert,…), makes a crucial remark in Physics, that leads him to an immediate revolutionary break through in the way the physical world ought to be viewed and conceptually modeled :
Poincaré indeed, realises in close inspection of Hertz 1885 powerful synthesis of Maxwell theory of Light and EM, that the world wide accepted mantra of « luminiferous aether background », actually played no significant role in Hertz theory. And that it would stood as straight and grounded WITHOUT such superfluous, and thus OBSOLETE concept.
THAT is the first missing key of mainstream historical records, despite its factuality. Poincaré papers on Hertz theory where he exposes this conceptual revolutionary « Eureka », is open source. He even taught it in his Sorbonne lessons.
That alone gives a starting idea of the power of mainstream propaganda, which repeat everywhere like inculte perrots, that Poincaré held to « aether theory », whereas « Einstein » rejected it. Totally false. Einstein even admitted much later, that GR (that he didn’t discover nor invent neither!) was actually an aether theory with a new name : « curved space-time » (whatever that means)
But that’s only the tip of the « iceberg ». Since Poincaré makes a second breakthrough 5 years later in 1890, by inventing the revolutionary clocks synchronization algorithm (« mixing time and space » into a revolutionary « space-time » mathematical continuum), that will become the hard core of the revolutionary theory of (UNIVERSAL) RELATIVITY, built entirely by Poincaré, with some helps of Lorentz…
So again, it’s by no way « Einstein » who « invents » it in September 1905 such revolutionary clocks synchronization algorithm, but Poincaré in 1890. Second crucial lost key of a supremely important historic revolution.
Which Revolution, mainstream believe and make believe, that it only started in 1895 when Lorentz proposed his iconoclast and weird transformations that tried to explain Michelson Morley experimental failure in…relative-motion of Earth, « relative » to « aether »…
THAT was indeed a crucial moment in Science, but not exactly how mainstream propaganda brutally summarized it. Not because Voigt and Fitzgerald made similar iconoclast propositions a few years before Lorentz (who very probably was not aware of them). But because Lorentz proposed transformations were INCORRECT! Especially the most crucial one, dealing with « time ».
So what happened ? Well, the genius of Poincaré in pure mathematics now expanded fully to Physics. Besides his unique conceptual advantage of already understanding by advance why the Michelson Morley experimental quest will fail -because of the OBSOLESCENCE of aether concept, that he discovered in 1885-, a full mastery of XIXth century Mathematics, in particular Lie Group Theory, and a raising genius mind in Physics (with very strong background since his Polytechnic former main teacher, Le Cornu, made forefront experiments in light speed measuring - important fact totally forgotten by mainstream bullshit!), led him to immediately understand that Lorentz transformations were INCORRECT, and not only to CORRECT them drastically to their nowadays world wide used « granit » form called « LORENTZ-POINCARÉ GROUP », but to PROVE THEM from fundamental Principle.
Which Principle? This point is the most important and crucial one, totally blacklisted by mainstream garbage propaganda. Poincaré friendly but nevertheless strongly criticized Lorentz story by all angles. First he understood, contrarily to Lorentz, why the Michelson Morley experimental quest was chimeric and will failed.
In particular that first order, followed by second order failure, was not going to get better, BECAUSE of a conceptual central flaw. Indeed, not only was the chimeric concept of aether OBSOLETE, but even more importantly, the old brilliant Giordano Bruno Galilean MECHANICAL PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY, was!
And whereas Lorentz looked at their revolutionary 1895 « space-time » transformations, as some sort of mathematical trick describing « actual rods contractions » and « artificial time-dilation » of old « newtonian » « universal time » and « absolute space », Poincaré brought back such primitive fairy tail to actual Physics.
Poincaré advocates indeed that such « rods contraction » is nothing more than APPARENT DESCRIPTION OF UNIVERSAL RELATIVE MOTION. Not an actual physical contraction. And that « time dilation » is nothing more than an twin APPARENT DESCRIPTION, that stop being « paradoxal » as soon as his revolutionary clocks synchronization algorithm is used to COMPARE what’s going on in two different, not only « inertial », but general frames of reference.
And such 1895 genius clear mind leads Poincaré to a final and total breakthrough : Poincaré packs all this revolutionary conceptual chaos in a diamond stone, by breathtakingly upgrading the old Galilean mechanical principle of relativity, to an « Excalibur like » UNIVERSAL one, which ALL PHYSICS MUST OBEY AND FOLLOW. ALL PHYSICS! Not only Mechanics, but also Light and EM, and last (for his time) but not least : Gravitation !
THIS crucial 1895-1900 historical FACT is totally sunk under the radar of mainstream propaganda. But Poincaré doesn’t stop there his revolutionary building of UNIVERSAL RELATIVITY!
Indeed, not only that he brilliantly raises the emerging revolutionary theory up to the corner stone of an official revolutionary UNIVERSAL « PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY » (which name he proposed since 1895), by which he PROVES in 1895 the correct form of space-time « Lorentz-Poincaré transformations » (now called « Lorentz-Poincaré group »).
But he pushes forward in 1900, by saving Lorentz theory of EM (which he preferred on Hertz one), who suffered from unacceptable violation of Action-Reaction Principle. What extraordinary healing did he found? Nothing less than the his discovery of the revolutionary INERTIA of massless LIGHT!
Proving moreover, in this crucial 1900 article, written for the occasion of Lorentz « jubilé » (Nobel price preparation), the so famous E=mc^2 crucial identity, that mainstream bullshit propaganda, once again, falsely pretends « Einstein » discovered it in September 1905.
Which he didn’t. Not even « rediscover » it, since Planck soon realized that « Einstein » article was totally circular, groundless, and didn’t prove nor establish anything, except showing once again, a central flaw in « Einstein » reasoning. Dramatic failure, who pushed Planck to complete Poincaré 1900 mathematical proof, by a complementary thermodynamic one, that he achieved in 1908.
(2) We are thus still in 1900, and 90% of the theory of Universal Relativity is already built, mainly by the master of Science of that time, Henri Poincaré, helped by the great Duch physicist by Hendrick Lorentz. Poincaré exposes a synthetic view of Physics in his 1902 best seller (accessible also to non scientific) : « Science and hypothesis », where all the main pillars of Universal Relativity, are clearly exposed.
Best seller, that we know from Solovine testimony -Einstein close friend-, was extensively studied from 1902 to 1905, by Einstein and Mileva friends « Academy », which counted besides those three, Einstein other friend Michel Besos. So there is no doubt that Einstein knew much much more than he confessed knowing in 1905, about Lorentz and Poincaré work on Relativity.
Especially because Einstein was not only working (without any « post doc ») at the Berne office, where he essentially red all new articles upcoming in Physics (Poincaré ones in particular), but he also worked in the reading team of Planck Annalen Der Physics. Thus, no way could he have missed during 20 years, from 1885 to 5 june 1905, Poincaré revolutionary work on Relativity! No way!
He had on the contrary (with all his « Academy » friends : Mileva who wrote « his » articles, Besos, Solovine, etc). But he didn’t have the mathematical and theoretical skills to fully and deeply understand Poincaré revolutionary work. And it’s easy to prove, especially on one crucial point.
Poincaré proved indeed, the corrected « Lorentz-Poincaré transformations » in 1895. Based on first principle of Universal Relativity, and Group Theory (which was massively ignored by 99% of Physicists, Einstein included). But a crucial subtility of Poincaré sunk under the radar of almost all Physicists of this time. Poincaré didn’t only used « ordinary » Group Theory. But what is called « Lie Group Theory »!
What’s up? Well it brings a complementary « INFINITESIMAL » wing to the standard « Group Theory », called the « Lie ALGEBRA » of a « Lie Group »! Which means in physical words, that the « Lorentz-Poincaré transformations » proved by Poincaré in 1895, didn’t apply ONLY to relative inertial frames, but ALSO to relatively ACCELERATED ones!!! Crucial subtility that Einstein ignored all his life, and that so many Physicist still ignore today!
Because if Einstein had knew this crucial point, wouldn’t he had forged the silly and misleading distinction between « special » and « general » relativity. Which is an oxymoron ! Since 1895 Poincaré PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY, is precisely UNIVERSAL, thus GENERAL. And Gravitation is a PARTICULAR SPECIAL case of Physics, falling into the reign of the UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY.
In other words, « Lorentz-Poincaré Lie Group (of space-time transformations) has an INFINITESIMAL twin counter part, called it’s « Lie Algebra », that fully allows to apply it to relatively ACCELERATED frames. It’s thus not at all limited, as Einstein dramatically thought, to inertial frames.
Such crucial subtility, Poincaré didn’t exposed it in his 1902 best seller. Which explains why Einstein-Mileva September 1905 obvious plagiarism, missed it totally. Worse their September 1905 article is full of flaws and misconceptions, incomplete « proofs » and dramatic contradictions. It’s a forgery in which by three times, for instance, they violate the principle of invariance of light speed, that they ill posed at its beginning!
Even « Einstein-Mileva » conception of a frame is so archaic as they imagine it as a RIGID MARBLE BLOCK! Which is childish and is even self contradictory. Since the revolution of Relativity is precisely to assume no more old unproved assumptions, and to stick to experimental facts or cured procedures, especially the 1890 Poincaré revolutionary clocks synchronization algorithm.
Even the dramatic misleading description of « relatively sliding frames » that infested scholar books since then, is a major flaw, pointed out by Poincaré since 1895 : Poincaré indeed, recalls that it has much more to do with a ROTATION in Lorentz-Poincaré space-time, than with a « sliding translation » in « euclidian space », which was Einstein-Mileva childish naïve vue.
Furthermore, from this 1902 open brilliant synthesis, Poincaré coaches Lorentz, guiding and helping him to verifying the inner coherence of their almost achieved theory of Relativity, in all aspects and technical details of EM and electron-Light interaction. Which brings Lorentz 1904 synthetic article where indeed he checks the global coherence of the ACHIEVED theory of Relativity.
That same year, Poincaré attempts St Louis international science conference, with the great French physicist Leon Brillouin, and exposes a synthetic over view of forefront Physics, in particular its 1895 revolutionary PRINCIPLE OF UNIVERSAL RELATIVITY.
The entire scientific world in Physics, concerned about electron-Light interaction and general EM, became instantly aware of such major speech. In particular Planck and Einstein-Mileva. Thus again Einstein lied and knew much much more about Poincaré work on the theory of Relativity than what he admitted.
(3) But that’s not the end of the crucial story of historical FACTS. Because, even though the Theory of Relativity, started in 1885 Poincaré breakthrough on « aether » obsolescence, was now fully achieved through its main pillars (1890 Poincaré revolutionary clocks synchronization algorithm, 1895 Lorentz-Poincaré Group and Lie Algebra space-time transformations, 1895 Poincaré Universal Principle of Relativity, 1900 Poincaré discovery of Light INERTIA and the famous E=Mc^2 formula), one crucial goal remained to be addressed for the claim Poincaré made since 1895, on the UNIVERSALITY of the Principle of Relativity : how exactly did it APPLIES to GRAVITATION.
This will be the central subject of Poincaré final 5 June 1905 article, presented before the Paris Academia of Science. If the Principle of Relativity was indeed to hold UNIVERSAL and APPLIE TO ALL PHYSICS, it had to be showed how exactly Gravitation could be tuned, to become Lorentz-Poincaré COVARIANT, and thus written in Lorentz-Poincaré quadrivector space-time metric (abusively called Minkowski metric).
This great goal was brilliantly achieved by Poincaré in 1904 and exposed in his 5 June 1905 crucial article. In which, Poincaré not only exposes the full set of « relativistic quadrivector invariants » (space-time ones AND mass-energy ones), but more crucially exposes fully the RELATIVISTIC FORM OF UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION, culminating in his prediction of GRAVITATIONAL WAVES.
We are the 5 June 1905. Einstein hasn’t yet written a crocodile tear on « Relativity theory »! His first article appears in September 1905, massively if not fully written by his wife Mileva. So that’s already A LOT of « lost keys » on Relativity and Gravitation. And it would be dramatic enough if all that ended this sad story. But infortunately it doesn’t !
There is indeed so much more to be revealed, sleeping under the iron dome of mainstream propaganda! In a nutshell, Poincaré theory of RELATIVISTIC GRAVITATION, is INTENTIONALLY written, in Lorentz-Poincaré FLAT metric. That doesn’t mean that Poincaré ignored « curved metrics », since he was on the contrary, the universal master of his time, on this central subject, with breathtaking breakthroughs in non euclidian geometry.
So why? First because Poincaré didn’t look at « space-time » as a Granit Aetheric GOD, as Einstein naively did! On the contrary, Poincaré was extremely cautious and careful, and didn’t draw fairy tails on the moon. He was a deep scientist and kept full rigour. He thus holds to Kant crucial remark that space no time aren’t physical OBSERVABLES. Thus they have NO PHYSICAL REALITY. And indeed they are mainly MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS, forged to describe in a simple way the abyssal complex Natural world.
And Poincaré details that crucial point in his 1902 best seller « Science and Hypothesis ». Where he shows indeed why it is childish to believe that actual « space-time » has only 4 dimensions. That’s only our simplified version of a much more complex Reality. And Poincaré brilliantly exposes WHY and HOW we come to this simplified REPRESENTATION. What physiological mechanism leads to it. Greatest pure genious of all time, in Mathematics, Physics and Philosophy!
Thus Poincaré doesn’t make a dogmatic religion of 4-space-time as « Einstein » sect did and does. He viewed it as a useful simplified mathematical description of a abyssal more complex Reality, where psychic role shouldn’t be neglected. He had made very close study of Machs revolutionary ideas, but also unwell known others, like Hertz one, which were deep, or Boltzmann ones, etc.
And besides this fundamental philosophical grounded position, he knew that Physicists of his time were not ready to use a theory of such little application. Even non gravitational Relativity theory, hadn’t even wide spread. He thus INTENTIONALY kept the Gravitational relativistic covariant theory as simple and straight forward as possible. Writing it thus in Lorentz-Poincaré FLAT metric. Which is by no way less deep than « curved space » one, like GR. That’s just for Poincaré CONVENTIONAL MODELING CHOICE. And Trinity college Lasenby team, confirmed that right with a Relativistic Gauge theory of Gravitation, also written in FLAT METRIC.
Then comes crucial 1908 Planck first attempt to write the Relativistic theory of Gravitational in « curved metric ». Closely followed by Grossman (Einstein momentary coworker), who finally achieves the breakthrough in 1912 by founding the correct equation of Relativistic Gravitation in « curved pseudo Riemann metric » (abusively called GR). Einstein immediately REJECTS them based on his chimeric ideas and deep mathematical ignorance about COVARIANCE concept.
This major bug ends Einstein-Grossman coworking, just after Grossman complains about Einstein rejection of those equations, and blind belief in other chimeric ones. Such failure drives Einstein in no man’s land for years. Until he brutally meets REALITY again in 1915, by realizing that Hilbert had just found exactly the same equations of « GR » than Grossman did in 1912. Total panic! Einstein rushes writing an article where he forgets to recall that Grossman and Hilbert had discovered the equation he tries to exposes as his own discovery.
It isn’t ! And a supplementary proof of it is that he never did anything with them. As plagiarist do! Worse he tried to justify their validity in a following 1915 article by pretending they predict correctly the anomalous Mercury perihelion shift of 38 ‘’ arc by century.
But his article is another fraud, a total failure as nobody less than Schwarzschild immediately points him out by a personal letter of December 1915, where not only Schwarzschild exposes Einstein empty circular approximation flaw, but give him the EXACT correct symmetric solution.
In fact Einstein article is an even greater fraud! Since besides of driving completely false calculations, he builds a full forgery by not at all using 1915 « GR equations » to compute the Mercury perihelion anomalous shift. How could he, since he didn’t solved those equations. Only Schwarzschild did in a symmetric special case. But worse, since we know now that Einstein used instead a old cruncky garbage computation that he hadn’t even made alone, an not in 1915, but around 1911-1912 with his amateur old friend Besos.
So are the masters…of FORGERY!
That will give some few important glances, behind the iron dome of mainstream propaganda, where stands HISTORICAL FACTS AND ACTUAL SCIENCE…
@@Igdrazil Thank you for your detailed reply to my post. Once again - unfortunately - largely beyond my comprehension. But I find three outstanding points: 1) Einstein as an 'imposter' and plagiarizer. 2) Mention of the infamous "aether", which - in my simple understanding - might correspond to the quantum field. And 3) scientists confusion of the "model" with the "reality" under study. Wherein enters the role of the human psyche.
I wish I had continued my studies in physics, whereby I might have a deeper grasp of these topics. Alas!
“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics, including the CAUSE of gravity. Sorry Mach and all the rest.
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!
Brilliant research.
Well done sirs!
Another constant of nature crossed off the ‘Where does it come from?’ list.
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.
@Name-ot3xw
-Honestly sounds like what he assumes physicist feel about the standard model...-
This is way ahead of everyone ruclips.net/channel/UCHvRotcJ0RiCI1ypnQ0L_gg
Thank you for your great work and teaching!
I believe this was mentioned in the Upanishads and Vedas 1,000s of years ago.
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!
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.
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 =)
I would appreciate if he could explain it in layers so those of us at the back of the class can follow along. All I heard was gravity is solved. As Forrest Gump would say: great that’s one less problem.,
@@Greg-yu4ij when we think of the gravitational constant G or any constant in general, the natural question is where does it come from?
An unsatisfying answer is to say that God, a programmer, or whatever set it to that specific value.
Or can we predict it?
So this video went through the theoretical framework of that process.
@@briannguyen6994No, it did not. It was just quackery at its finest.
@@kurtgodel28 I'm not saying it wasn't quackery
@@Greg-yu4ij he did explain it in layers.
Wow, I have long appreciated the problem, since my undergraduate physics days, but had no idea there was such an elegant explanation. Just wow!
Mind boggling! The distant masses as rulers (gods?) of our little corner! Happy New Year!!
The tone change at 17:32 to 17:33 is really-really meaningful, it reveals the true structure of our universe.
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
if G is not a constant, neither T. and neither C but we cannot really know that , BUT that sticks and annihilate the idea of dark matter,
more matter - less time, the center of galaxies spins slower cause there is more matter.
if we move out of the galaxies, and stop moving, time spends faster. because yes there is motion and mass, we move away from it our clocks will not be synchronized.
and in my theory, according to this principle the big bang was a incredibly slow process, since the mass of the universe being dense, time itself was trapped, the age of the universe is a logarithm that tends to the infiinity.
i don't think G can have a real fixed value anywhere in the cosmos, we have our reference here on earth, it is like saying the earth is flat because *gets a level out* look the horizon!
@@Diamond_Tiara Isn't it that units of legnth are defined by units of time and c? This means c must be constant by definition.
@@hartunstart A "constant" and "we don't have the tools or capacity to measure accurately to see the changes" is almost the same thing in science.
@@hartunstartunfortunately yes, I dont agree with defining c as a constant, now know one will know if it has changed, what is agender in science it wrong
What ever Mass the Universe has it will lead to a value for G. You just may as well ask why the universe has any mass at all. G is merely an attribute of a Universe with its given mass. We have the current value of G because the Universe is what it is, no magic just that the Universe predicated G not the other way around.
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.
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!
Sciama teased that a 2nd paper is coming using tensors instead of basic math. That paper never came out, so the presumption is that he couldn’t get the theory to do what he wanted it to do.
@@timjohnson3913 then the correctness of this ‚presumption‘ can easily be tested.
I rather suspect that since Mach hypotheses hadn’t been anywhere near the center of the actual most popular subjects of theoretical physics at the time, Sciama turned to other subjects. He was one of the proponents of a steady state cosmology and that might have been enough for him of being ‚alternative‘.
@@dankurth4232 It’s tough to be certain, there are lots of things to research and so little time, but this idea seems big enough that he wouldn’t have let the idea slide if the tensor theory had merit. He also wrote a book on tensors, so it’s not like the math was too challenging for him.
@@timjohnson3913 Thanks! Then the tensor calculation should be done as soon as possible. The potential relevance of this machian input to the theory of gravity is breathtaking
@@timjohnson3913 Well, it is true that physicists have difficulty creating mathematical models, and mathematicians don't always create the best models due to their lack of understanding or just ignorance on the physicality of reality imagined by physicists (I've seen mixed units and incompatible units, that formulate & calculate well, but describe nothing).
FINALLY AN ACTUAL SCIENCE CANAL. I`VE JUST PUT MY INSCRITION. EXCELLENT VIDEO. CONGRATULATIONS FROM BRAZIL.
If you know professor Assisi, you should connect the dots with Robert Sungenis, there's a lot of science that awaits for its time.
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.
Thank you ( I'm going to buy that buy that book - hoping to learn the principles behind early German electrogravitics ( which was seized by the US right after ww2
And there's another one - gravity is a pushing force of ether. Local inhomogenities causes universal force to compensate for it and push from all sides but that of interrupting body's.
WoW! Tears came to my eyes reading that text below equation 86. What a profound understanding!
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?
This was one idea, yet the data were not good enough: arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0610028
@@TheMachian thanks a lot, I'll have a read :)
@@TheMachian so that may also mean that G is not constant across time, assuming an expanding universe, no?
And i didn't get that about the non-steady C, could that also vary across timescales, providing an alternative explanation for the redness of "old" photons?
@@ankostis The universe is not expanding. That's just Hubble's interpretation, not a fact. There are sixty different possible interpretations of redshift. Why do you think that only one of them must be true?
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!
Stunning ... sitting in plain sight! This is truly groundbreaking.
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.
Thanks for sharing this paper, it's great. I'm adding this to my science playlist for sure.
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 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.
Excellent podcast. Congratulations to the author and the presenter.
Congratulations for the success of this video with such an interesting topic.
WOW!!! WOW!!! I never thought we could gain any real insight into inertia!! This is really exciting stuff!!
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.
Hard to guess what people like but thanks for sharing your thoughts.
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 trying to relate dark matter to these ideas, but it is not easy.
@@TheMachianDark matter is dilated mass. General Relativity predicts dilation not singularities. In the 1939 journal "Annals of Mathematics" Einstein wrote -
"The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the Schwarzchild singularities (Schwarzchild was the first to raise the issue of General Relativity predicting singularities) do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters (star clusters) whose particles move along circular paths it does seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that more general cases will have analogous results. The Schwarzchild singularities do not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light".
He was referring to the phenomenon of dilation (sometimes called gamma or y) mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer. It's the phenomenon behind the phrase "mass becomes infinite at the speed of light". Time dilation is one aspect of dilation. Wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass, dilation will occur because high mass means high momentum. Dilation is the original and correct explanation for why we cannot see light from the galactic center.
It can be shown mathematically that the mass at the center of our own galaxy must be dilated. In other words that mass is all around us. This is the explanation for the abnormally high rotation rates of stars in spiral galaxies, the "missing mass" is dilated mass.
Einstein wrote about dilation occurring in "large clusters of stars" which is basically a very low mass galaxy. For a galaxy to have no/low dilation it must have very, very low mass. To date, 5 very, very low mass galaxies have been confirmed to show no signs of dark matter. For the same reason binary stars will always have predictable rotation rates.
What we see in modern astronomy has been known since 1925. This is when the existence of galaxies was confirmed. It was clear that there should be an astronomical quantity of light emanating from our own galactic center. It wasn't until television and movies began to popularize singularities that the concept gradually became mainstream.
There is no dark energy problem since it does not exist. It was created simply to explain prediction by GR. Instead GR should have been thrown into a trash bin. The Earth is in fact the center of the universe and no, it is not just an illusion.
@@bogdank8284 Prove that the Earth is the "center" of the Universe.
Is it possible that time is slowing down, and as a result when we look into the distant past everything was moving more quickly because time was faster?
Just an idea. I have no fomal education in these matters, it's just seems contradictory to me that 90% of the universe is directly undetectable dark matter, holding everything together, meanwhile there is another directly undetectable force, dark energy, accelerating everything apart.
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.
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.
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......😊
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.
Sometimes I allow myself to think of the universe as a little explosion of energy like a bubble of steam in the pot boiling water. A quick pop and it's all over; small tint, fast.
Just from where we stand inside the bubble it seams to happen so slowly :)
space is fake
Dear Unziker, I'm glad to see your videos discussing inertia and gravitation. These problems have been "under the carpet" for decades... I think you would enjoy one of my recent papers on this subject, namely "Nonzero Gravitational Force Exerted by a Spherical Shell on a Body...", published in Gravitation and Cosmology vol. 26, 387 (2020).
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.
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?
Read Robert Sungenis for answers
I found a comment saying "...according to this formalism, the gravitational constant itself would vary across space, as it depends on the proximity to the masses in the universe." And Dr. Unzicker seems to agree to that because he replied. So G actually changes, not just across time, but also across space. c might be a constant though.
I wish we had this at least mentioned in school.
I love the history of science.
Has there been any challenges?
Sorry, the prevailing paradigm forbids it. There has to be the final collapse of science for it would allow alternative (which often means true) options.
This is beautiful and profound... inertia's cause has been a mystery for so long.
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.
Very well said 👏
My objection to Mach's principle is gravity force travels at C so it would take billions of years for it to have an effect on the bucket, if it is indeed possible - but can't anyhow as the universe is expanding.
Wonderful idea! Thanks to LLMs this actually can be finally realized! AI reading all papers would also solve the problem of not ever being to able to know all published papers.
@@PrivateSiEven if there were a delay between distant objects spinning and the resulting effect on the bucket, you'd never be able to tell (if done correctly). A bucket in a frame that begins to rotate will appear the same as a universe that begins to spin in "shells", starting from the edge of the observable universe and kick starting a "twist" that propagates inwards towards the bucket at the speed of light, until the effect of all these staggered spinning shells reach the bucket simultaneously. Now, one would have to wonder if this gigantic whirlpooling twist would destroy everything in the universe, but ignoring all that, the bucket would observe everything spinning at the same time.
@@UnitaryV .. I know what you're saying but I don't agree with the forces reaching simultaneously and some parts of the universe never reach each other due to rapid, accelerating expansion so it can't be the entire universe for a start (unless gravity works at FTL speed / instantaneously, which is unlikely given the evidence so far but maybe not impossible).
--
The Magic Bucket would see itself as spinning at first glance, but would then notice its watery contents had not climbed the sides of the bucket so would conclude the rest of universe has got itself in a right spin... or left depending on your point of view.. Neither does it feel dizzy as the contents of its buckety inner ear does not slosh about.
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.
He's assuming there's dark energy. And there's scientists who say gravity don't exist, it's curved space time.
@@joestitz539 and there is physicist who say time doesn't exist, if time doesn't exist, than how is there a "space time fabric", there isn't, it's just space. Time doesn't exist, time is a tool something like a rule, time is a tool used to measure entropy. That's all.
@josuerizo1 time does ! look in the Bible how many times God references to time.. even if something we measure, that's Still time in use, therefore-exists.. and if your right then go the rest of your life without using it. good luck..
Absolutely stunning result!
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.
Why do we call uit gravitational constant if it changes? Las I learnt those quantities that change we call them variables.
@@hqs9585 Did you watch the video? Sometimes science finds out that things we thought were constants actually aren't. The work being talked about here is one of those cases. Watch the video.
I am a physicist and of course I understand that. My comment was a bit sarcastics and jt for a laugh. Again If the constant changes of the lifetime of the universe, do you mean , continually changing, discreetly?, every so often? then of course in all seriousness, in sot e constant. Thanks for your comment indeed. Lastr, is the "constant changing": or is the metrology changing?
@@hqs9585 Well obviously if this is confirmed, we would stop calling it a constant now wouldn't we? And as far as I can tell from what was talked about in the video, if the size of G is inversely proportional to the gravitational potential of the universe, then I would expect this to mean that G has been shrinking at the same rate as the gravitational potential of the universe has been growing. TBH I would have thought you would have been able to understand this from watching the video if you are indeed a physicist.
@@billyte1265 given your last statement is apparent you are a light weight in this field. Do I will stop here: learn the subject and not just state sophomric statements . Thanks
I find your explanation of the VSL variable speed of light fascinating, mostly because it opposes the curvature of space-time, a concept alien to physics since space and time are non material, and belong more to philosophy (a priori intuitions according to Kant) Variable Speed of Light at least has a material base, which the absolute space and time of Newton never had, and which Einstein never dared to condemn. As the French say, when in doubt “cherchez la matiere”
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!!!
how come you didn't finish your degree? (coming from someone who also hasn't finished their CS degree either lol)
I remember the spinning iron disk on the end of a four foot steel bar the whole thing must have weighted around fifty pounds and a young boy lifted it up over his head like it was made of paper...
Well if you don't know how to derive all the vector equations from basic principles you are sure to fail in Physics!
there is no sweeping under the rug my friend :) Anytime you have movement, you have momentum.
Given this explanation how might we draw some connections between gravity and entropy gradients by referencing the way condensed matter helium 4 climbs up the walls of it's container? Meniscus at room temp no spin of container, room temp container with spin creates an entropy gradient higher around sides of the glass, and near 0k temp of condensed matter with no centrifugal force climbs the glass as well. I think meniscus has to do with electromagnetism, but maybe it can help in our analogy. The latter 2 examples I provided seem to initially suggest some symmetries between centrifugal force, entropy gradients, and gravity. The thickness of the glass may also be related if we think of the quantum tunneling effect of the condensed matter helium that can tunnel through it's container. It climbs the glass without centrifugal force perhaps suggesting heat or entropy are is one way or another the inverse of centrifugal force. Is this spinning force something small or hidden in a higher dimension or something that works at the Planck scale? By lowering the temperature of the helium to near 0k is a threshold met where this small scale centrifugal force is activated to allow the condensed matter to climb the walls of the glass? If you could turn off gravity in the universe would the condensed matter thus no longer climb the walls of the glass? Finally if you could spin condensed matter in an enclosed container would this produce local counter-gravitational forces?
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.
Super important aspect of cosmology explained wonderfully.
If the universe rotated around me, would i still produce frame dragging effects?
what if the water/bucket was absolutely frictionless. how would that affect the results.
@carlosgaspar8447 possible loophole? Weakness in her theory? I have no idea. Possibly, the bucket would be too small in mass to have an effect
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.
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.
Unglaubliche Videos und "outside the box" thinking. Subscribed!
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?
I noticed he slipped in "observable universe" and was expecting him to at least address the issue but he skipped over it. There was some literal hand-waving in this video. let alone virtual. It's all very interesting to make the equations work mathematically but show me the actual data.
It’s not a stretch to assume the simplest thing that universe is isotropic and homogeneous (The cosmological principle), and thus has the same density as we see in the nearby galaxy. On large enough scales, this has proved true even though there are pockets of dense matter (galaxy clusters) and empty pockets (large voids). Of course, as you look back further and further into the universe, you are looking at a younger universe, which was more dense when the light was sent out, but you can extrapolate the actual density using the Hubble constant (more correctly often now called the Hubble parameter, because expansion is not constant but is speeding up).
@@kalliste23The observable Universe is the only part of the universe that can have causal influence on us locally, so not sure why you would think any other part of the universe could have inertial influence on local matter. Mach certainly never made such a claim (that the unobservable universe is causes local inertia).
Sciama is using G to calculate the theoretical density of matter in the detectible universe, not the other way around. His value didn't agree with the accepted value at the time (nor the values for our time as far as I can tell). It seemed to be more dense, but not beyond the realm of plausibility. He's proposing a better number based on a new framework. The fact that the densities are even in the same neighborhood is what stands out.
@@7even285 @timjohnson3913 etc. To answer variously: it's an assumption that the observable Universe is the only part that affects human measurements. Who knows what the real story is - especially if you try to understand what the String Theorists are up to. Using G to calculate the theoretical density of matter in the Universe ends up being a circular argument to my mind, since it's not clear to me how you propose to empirically measure the density of matter in the observable Universe. The void in the CMB suggests at least parts of the Universe are not the same as other parts, so the question then becomes whether or not that is significant in the overall picture. The bottom line is however you look at it although this is interesting that's mainly what it is, interesting. It's not like this is some kind of new understanding that's going to lead to engineers building interstellar capable spacecraft or something. In my mind it's a bit more likely to be closer to reality than String Theory but that's not saying much.
Excellent ! Thank you for this spotlight.
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.
You will have luck for your next research. Try it and you’ll get it!!
Elaborate
I saw these before going to sleep. Don't know if I will sleep at all...that is amazing, amazing solution!
interrupted a political vid to hear from you
:-) Yea let's do science, politics is too annoying...
"The theories of Einstein, Heisenberg and Schrödinger appear very questionable if the existence of the ether can be verified, and it will not be an easy task to show the obsolescence of all those accepted physical theories. A coming re-evaluation will prove the truth of Max Planck's statement,
'A new scientific truth does not triumph by
convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.'"
Rho Sigma
Ether Technology
"Meanwhile, Back in Europe"
@@TheMachiantechnocrats are killing our scientists.
I have a long list were told they're before their time and then blacklisted, whitewashed and "deleted."
@@TheMachian
Albert Einstein's opinion about the interferometric experiments of Dayton C. Miller. A communication to "Science". New Series, Vol 62, N° 1596 July, 31 1925
THE Einstein theory of relativity must fall or at least require radical modification, if the experiments performed at Mt. Wilson, in California, by Professor Dayton C. Miller, of the Case School of Applied Science, are correct, is the opinion of Professor Albert Einstein himself, expressed in a communication from him to Science Service.
" If Dr. Miller's results should be confirmed," he says, " then the special relativity theory, and with the general theory in its present form, falls. Experiment is the supreme judge. Only the equivalence of inertia and weight remain, which would lead to an essentially different theory. "
...
Professeur Allais has proved that Dr Miller's experiments are valid.
See his article published in "La Jaune et la Rouge".
Then, the conclusion is done by Albert Einstein himself : the relativity theory falls.
Good call
Thank All for your hard work to contribute for the human beings knowledge!
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??
Surely not. He is living his fantasies about how to explain the existence of gravity with strings. LOL.
@@TheMachianI know Ed Witten is atleast aware of this work of Sciama’s. There is a youtube video where a young Ed is talking with Sciama and 2 other highly regarded physicists and Sciama mentions that he used to work on Mach’s Principle, but doesn’t go into any detail. Somewhat relatedly, I’ve seen a talk where Ed is asked a question by the audience at the end and he talks about Dirac’s LNH. He says it was disproved by measurement but that there are some modern versions of the theory. He doesn’t go into much detail.
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.
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.
Can someone sum up what the hell is he talking about
About 26 minutes 😀
Mostly about physicist day dreaming about weather the universe is spinning or thier head after having a few toman drinks from the punch bucket.
@@GSCt1000math and physics humor.😅
I'm not convinced. I'm going to first measure the mass of the universe (and it's distance), then I'll let you know if I agree.
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.
No. You mean the Lense-Thirring-Effect, but it is not the same. Inertia is not explained by GR, not is G.
@@TheMachianwhat do you mean by "the coincidence of our dynamical and visual measurements of what it mean to be at rest"? If you mean GR can't explain why we feel at rest, it's because we are in an unaccelerated frame. The only force acting on us is an acceleration up from the ground because of the outwards pressure of the earth.
Your correct
dos3 • And what is "space" in REALITY by itself only? 😏
It is an honor to listen to an intelligent attempt to explain the search for universal phenomenon.
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 RUclips 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 RUclips 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.
Good to see an explanation for how G is calculated using the potential of rotating universe - which brings us to the next unanswered mystery of what it means for an object to be at inertial rest or motion (which Einstein assumed to be equal to gravity in his equivalence principle)
In other words, answering the mystery behind the origin of inertia is critical for us to validate Einstein’s assertion on the equivalence of gravity and inertia - which brings us to our firm's theory that has attempted to answer this mystery using Principle of least action
For example, as we all know that the principle of equivalence(POE) can also be derived from principle of least action(PLA) as follows
T = U + c(v)
In other words, both kinetic energy (T) and potential energy (U) are equal up to the constants of generalized coordinates -- and so, one can say they are equivalent (although can also be equal) when action is stationary - which brings me to our CP Path integral based TOE hypothesis by advancing Feynman Path integral
First, as we all know the optimal/productive PLA path for both light & matter is the path where δS or δT =0.
However, the unanswered question is how does light and matter know this mysterious precise inertial path in advance, per this MUST WATCH CLIP(lnkd.in/d-9saRQx)
This brings us to our 2 TOE insights.
1. This quantum leaping productivity PLA path action, is decided by the probability of FSC (Ψ^2 = α=2/3) when the WF (Ψ) of electron starts emitting/absorbing a photon at an amplitude of -.8542455, before naturally collapsing it moment by moment!
2. This FSC-PLA path is the best bet path to TOE (integrating QFT w/ relativity theory), as it not only tells light how to interact with matter at the quantum level (per its probability) but also bents/curves it along spacetime(per Snell's law, as RI of light in vac/air=1 & in Matter(electron) is C/V=137=FSC - which brings us to our Advanced Relativity Theory in Einstein parley
-- FSC-PLA path tells spacetime how to curve and the curved spacetime tells matter how to move!
For more check out this linkedIn post (www.linkedin.com/posts/charlesprabakar_sovereign-ocean-w-adv-feynman-integralbest-activity-7143645125888344065-W7VC?)
Thus brings me to its implications to our firm’s business dimension, which we have branded as Sovereign Ocean of Everything/VizPlanet framework, by advancing 10 Nobel winning/nominated ideas of business, as marked in parenthesis
Every Maslow’s holacracial(1) economic need is a direct/indirect manifestation of QE caused Scripture/Griffith’s human condition/depravity model problem(2) only -- that is solved using the Principle of least action & its new insight(3) driven Fine-structure-constant(FSC) caused Attention factor (4) driven FSC/GT/Nash Equilibrium(5) based reality accurate S-economics model(6) caused Friedman’s Attention-Pluck(7) -- that is followed by an Solow’s TFP-expansion(8), before it being executed by “sovereign-to-choose with collaboration without coercion(9)” motto, driven Next-Gen capitalism called Sovereign/Conscious Sustainalism(10)!
Similarly, if I I may expand it as a 10 line summary (lnkd.in/gbtsDNpQ)
1 Maslow's hierarchy model advanced as our Holacracical model (lnkd.in/gTeWVYUC)
2. Scripture/Griffith’s human condition/depravity model advanced as Quantum Entanglement (QE) caused depravity model((lnkd.in/gp5kcCa2)
3. Feynman path integral model advanced as Principle of least action's new insight driven CP Path Integral (This post)
4. Attention Economy model advanced as FSC-Attention Factor economy model (lnkd.in/gBe_bE5G)
5. Game Theory Nash/Market Equilibrium model advanced as FSC Equilibrium model(lnkd.in/gWkaPKdB)
6. Landscape economics model advanced as reality accurate FSC-S-Energy economics model(lnkd.in/gbtsDNpQ)
7. Friedman's Plucking model advanced as FSC Attention Plucking model(lnkd.in/gD_qzV5z)
8. Solow’s TFP model advanced as FSC legitimized TAFP model(lnkd.in/gWZ3-tsK)
9. Friedman's Free-To-Choose model advanced as Sovereign-to-choose with collaboration without coercion model(FSC(lnkd.in/g-xExeUm)
10. Current capitalism model advanced as purpose score driven incentivized COP28 solution enabling Next-Gen Conscious Sustainalism model(lnkd.in/d7A6U6dg)
Now that we have explained the of what it means to be at inertial rest or motion (which Einstein assumed to equal to gravity in his equivalence principle ) using a complementary CP path integration approach, I hope the world grasps its multi-trillion dollar value implications, similar to how Prof Clay Christensen of Harvard grasped it 10+ years ago(lnkd.in/gRakUNVg). Welcome complementary POVs!
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
More than a good guess.
Papers exist calculating the equivalence of a suitably specified rotating cylinder of mass, to a rising observer in the middle experiencing centrifugal and coriolis forces.
Think of the frame dragging caused by a rotating black hole. The rotating hollow cylinder drags space-time within it.
Thank you for bringing physics back from crazy land back to reality.
“It won’t help you weightlifting” 😂
I don't agree... This insight is highly motivating - so it helps me lifting weights, running farther and cycling longer
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.
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.
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...
You ARE very mistaken.
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?
Thanks for such great start in 2024. 🎉
It is amazing how he was able to distort spacetime so as to make his hand disappear.
Time in the center of the vessel is faster (higher pressure) than the time on the edge of the vessel is slower due to motion (lower pressure), therefore the difference in time pressure creates "lift" towards the edge of the vessel.
Acceleration is product of the different in time density or mechanics.
Time variance "lift" is analogous to aerodynamic lift on a wing - high pressure vs.low pressure yields lift - it's just upside down.
There is a problem with this formula. Given the Sciama formula, if the Universe expands further, say by 10%, then the r in the denominator increases by 10%, as the sum of distances increases. Thus, the left side of the equation is 1.1 times smaller, if big G is a constant. And c^2 on the right hand side has to decrease in the same proportion of 10% and the speed of light in the vacuum just decreased by 4.88% (square root of 1.1 minus 1). Or, the other way around, with the same example, if the denominator is 1.1 times smaller, then big G needs to increase by 10% in order to keep the speed of light constant. This Sciama formula tells us that either c is a constant and big G is a variable, or big G is a constant and c is a variable. This is what I read and it is disturbing. Can you help here ? It all works fine if the Universe is a steady state and not expanding. But everybody is convinced that the Universe is expanding.
I 'm sorry I don't get why you find it disturbing. You are saying that if the formula is correct and the universe is expanding, then at least one of them, G and c, is a variable. So what? Why is that disturbing for you? Why can't G or c be a variable?
@@Jian787 hi Jian. It is not disturbing for me. It is disturbing for science. Close to 100% of all scientists refute the idea that c or G could be variables. C ? The speed of light could change according to the expansion of the Universe ? And Big G would change according to what ? Also the expansion if the Universe ? And if only one of the variables can change, then which one ?
@@seankellycrypto Hi. What I learnt from physics classes in high school and college is that, the development of physics is a process of continual disturbingness for scientists. (Sorry for my English. I don't speak that much English.) When Einstein's theory of relativity came out, it disturbed a lot of people who preferred classical mechanics. The mass and length of an object change according to velocity? Hell no! I believe Einstein didn't even get a Nobel Prize for the theory of relativity, because many physicists found it disturbing and refuted it. He got the prize for the photoelectric effect.
Looking back on it, physicists today don't usually think the theory of relativity was disturbing for science. Instead, many physicists think it was a big step forward in the history of physics. Though at the time it was disturbing for many scientists and philosophers.
If I understand it correctly, I think at least Dr. Unzicker himself is a scientist who doesn't refute the idea of G being a variable. Based on what I can tell from the video, I think he actually likes the idea of G not being a constant that is decided by a supernatural god or something.
Hey! If Sciama's theory is correct, maybe one day future physicists will figure out which one between c and G is a variable, maybe even both. Who knows?
Have a nice day! Or is it night where you live?😄
I am in Switzerland. And you ?
@@seankellycrypto I just found a comment below that says "...according to this formalism, the gravitational constant itself would vary across space, as it depends on the proximity to the masses in the universe." And Dr. Unzicker seems to agree to that because he replied. So G can't be a constant according to Sciama's theory. It actually changes across space. So it probably can change across time too, if Sciama's theory is correct.
Thank you for your very interesting video. I wondered whether there would be an electromagnetic equivalent to Mach's principle. E.g. if we switch on an electromagnet then there is an initial surge of current and energy is stored 1/2Li2. Is this stored energy related to the fact that everything in the universe now has potential energy with respect to the electromagnet. And if we power off the electromagnet there is a back emf as this potential energy goes. The inductance is proportional to u0 and the configuration of the universe would be different in the past hence different speed of light.
Very interesting hypothesis.
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! :-)
Where is the speed of the gravitational force? Something is missing there.
Isn't the assumption of a euclidian uniform isotropic universe contradictory with a rotating universe, which necessarily needs to rotate about a special line, while the speed at a finite distance exceeds the speed of light?
Thanks Dr. Unzicker, Great and excellent work
Thank you, Prof., for a highly insightful exposition. Beauty of Physics is fading out into yonder distance for want of adequate focus by intelligent miinds !
Am lamenting that Pure Sciences in India are not duly getting nurtured.
HA Wilson in 1921 also considered the refractive index approach to gravitation.
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.
I have played with magnets for years. The same poles repellent in space should propeller and speed up and likely over the speed of light, and stop over time when the reversal and likely control the speed by movement of the fields.
My understanding is that the universe is expanding and mass is continually being added such as to keep the mass density and therefore the gravitational field constant. But I don't know where the added mass comes from.
This maybe can be included in Broekaert VSL theory: in both cases (Fay, Broekaert) there is a vector potential A which obeys a wave equation with the surrounding mass velocity fields as a source. Then the scalar potential Phi should be inside the refractive index roughly as n = exp(-2 Phi).
The problem with VSL is that not only refractive index are function of gravitationnal potential but also frequency, length, gradient operator, time, mass... we have to modify everything.
Yes. See my VSL playlist.
Interesting explanation of inertia and variable speed of light.
You can test it by using thick lead bowl and rotate it fast. Iside you hang smaller bowl hanging, full of mercury. Shoot laser fron surface of mercury and reflection angle should variate on ratio of lead bowl rotation speed. If not, Mach was wrong.