WHY Albert Einstein might be WRONG! | Testing the Theory of General Relativity
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 авг 2024
- Albert Einstein’s famous theory of general relativity has endured for more than 100 years and accurately describes how gravity works in the Universe. However, upon the 1998 discovery of the accelerating Universe, a cosmological problem arose. There was no matter or energy in Einstein’s theory that would make the Universe accelerate. Some theorists suggest the acceleration could be explained by changes in the nature of gravity at cosmological distances (meaning billions of light-years away), hence we really need to test general relativity at such a distance. And guess what? Astronomers from the Evolutionary Map of the Universe cosmology project have been collecting data on galaxies located at cosmological distances. Join Albany as she discusses the upcoming test of general relativity … at the greatest distance thus far!
#Einstein #GeneralRelativity #Astrophysics #Universe #Galaxies
Some say that red shift is not a good measure of distance. If this is true, the crisis runs much deeper.
If a distant galaxy is spinning and we are looking at its plane, one side will be spinning away from us while the other side will be spinning towards us. I've often wondered about this, will each side produce different wavelengths of light, one red-shifted, the other not? Will the net shift as we are looking at it be towards the red side?
@@james6401 I think you're correct about the different shifts according to movement, in addition to some postulated electric/plasma/magnetic charge/current/field related effect. Needs more work.
Even that wouldn't mean that Einstein was WRONG!?!
It would just mean that GR hold true till a certain scale. We would end up building on top of GR and include other frameworks and theories till we get a "theory of everything". Physics essentially is a model which would keep updating.
"Phantom light gravity" may give answer for the mystery of dark energy and some other question 🙂❣️
He WAS wrong!! Stupidity of GR is that, that he explain one force by creating another 'created' force. So on the END he explain nothing. :-DD
If I am travelling at 0.5 c toward a photon which is travelling toward me, our relative speed is 1.5 c. It's that simple, and that is why Einstein is wrong.
Exactly, pretending otherwise will not change it ruclips.net/video/JtPLzXx3n88/видео.html
Just ask Einstein why he dismissed Michelson’s test result for Aether?
Details.
The relative velocity of the Earth and Aether was probably less than 1/6 of the Earth’s orbit velocity S, and certainly less than S/4.
(or between 5~8km/s)
This data point of MMX was dismissed to make way for Einstein’s theory of relativity.
Statically, the Michelson-Morley experiment says we are 99.9% sure that the Earth’s velocity is between 6km/s and 10km/s. While the absolute error is (30-8)=22km/s.
Alternatively, absolute error may be (8-0)km/s.
Leaving the theory is 1% correct.
Miller reiterate MMX in 1933 result with 30km/s
Awesome work! Proud of you!
💛Tara
The equation which "quantized" light and turned it into a photon is E=hv (or E=hf) where E is energy in Joules, h is Planck's constant in Joules*seconds, and v (or f) is the frequency of light in Hertz. The SI units for Hertz are cycles per second. So a unit analysis of the equation shows Joules=(Joules*seconds)*(cycles/second) which reduces to Joules=Joules*cycles. This is an unbalanced equation that cannot be correct. Physicists will attempt to claim that the Hertz unit is actually 1/s, which makes the equation balance out. This is erroneous. The Hertz is a unit of frequency; the measure of a cyclical event. The Hertz unit is not the inverse of time, it is the amount of cycles per an amount of time. The cycles are a physical measurement and this information cannot just be discarded to make an equation work. The way Planck's constant was determined was by counting the light waves emitted by a material at varying temperatures in a 1 second time interval. The only measurement they were testing was the number cycles in a 1 second time interval, so to throw the cycles information out is to throw out all data from the original experiment from which h was derived. This is quite absurd. You might as well just make up the numbers out of thin air. The other argument physicists will make is that the unit Planck's constant is Joules/Hertz. This is also just wrong. The original paper clearly shows the value as ergs*seconds. An erg is 10^-7 Joules, so the original paper clearly shows Joules*seconds units. Here is a link to the original paper so you can see it for yourself.
This mathematically disproves the conception of the photon which was paramount in getting rid of the aether, which was necessary for Einstein to replace it with his conception of "spacetime." The photon is an artifact of error, thus any theory based off of this error is erroneous.
No. Scientists actually measure Planck's Constant as
6.62607015 × 10^−34 Joule second. You said yourself that's not the same as Joule/Hz
@@BritishBeachcomber I do not understand what you are disagreeing about. I never made a claim that the units for Planck's constant were not Joules*seconds or the equivalent erg*seconds.
@@wesbaumguardner8829 Just pointing out that no scientist says what you claim they do.
@@BritishBeachcomber They sure do. If they did not, they would have to admit the equation E=hf is an unbalanced equation that cannot be correct.
Gravity propagates at the speed of light. How does this affect the motion and interaction of distant massive objects? For example, galaxies and the motion of stars within them?
Wouldn’t that make time travel nearly impossible then, assuming light travels at the same speed even through a black hole?
@@ethanweeter2732 Probably. But I suspect that time travel, like in Doctor Who, is impossible. Otherwise causality could be violated.
The music got a little too loud.
GR clearly doesnt make accurate predictions. As GR predicts space should bend even at a considerable distance from the sun, but there is no light bending what so ever outside its corona, which is an actual part of the sun. Coincidence ? No.
This proves GR is simply wrong, bc light should bend massivelly even at Plutos distance which according to GR orbits the sun due to space being curved by the sun ! So light coming from other stars should take the same curved trajectory as Pluto at that distance. And it should never reach us bc it should just make a circle around the sun in that same curved space and then exit the solar system bc of its huge speed...we should not be able to see ANY star if GE was right. The fact that we do shows that it is WRONG.
Of course, he was wrong. Thank you! No one has proved GR directly. What bends is light, not space. Massive objects have ionospheres that cause light to refract, which therefore does so indirectly due to gravity. GR should not be understood as space bending or expanding, since it causes fatal logical contradictions, but should be understood as a mathematical method that allows us to think about space as if it were curved, but actually describes the curvature of energy in spacetime due to massive objects, not the curvature of spacetime. It is not even possible to test that space bends; so, it is not even a scientific statement, let alone all the contradictions it creates.
Another thing. The universe is not accelarating nor expanding. Many clusters of galaxies in the universe are moving away from a common center, but that's all. Some galaxies are even moving closer to each other!
What impact does the discovery of galaxies rotating in a giant twisted filament on the expanding universe theory? Isn’t it possible that the galaxies seen moving away from us, might simply be rotating in their twisted filament, away from us only to “turn the corner” and start heading back towards us?
Also, the expanding universe “experiments” seem to depend on the theory of star lifecycles. Isn’t that a house of cards? Theory based on theory?
Gravitational lensing is also a theoretical explanation. There are alternatives. So, theory based on theory again. Seems a bit self-reinforcing, like far too much these days.
Light bends around the sun bc of the suns corona which is extremely hot gas/plasma and creates diffraction. There is no light bending outside its corona.
Are you suggesting that the model we have for light bending due to gravity is wrong, but still able to make successful predictions because of the corona “diffraction”?
@@alexwray6173 It clearly doesnt make accurate predictions. As GR predicts space should bend even at a considerable distance from the sun, but there is no light bending what so ever outside its corona, which is an actual part of the sun. Coincidence ? No.
This proves GR is simply wrong, bc light should bend massivelly even at Plutos distance which according to GR orbits the sun due to space being curved by the sun ! So light coming from other stars should take the same curved trajectory as Pluto at that distance. And it should never reach us bc it should just make a circle around the sun in that same curved space and then exit the solar system bc of its huge speed...we should not be able to see ANY star if GE was right.
@@GamesBond.007 why do you think light would orbit the sun like Pluto?
@@alexwray6173 Because if the space is curved, light has to follow the same curvature...i.e. the geodesics. It cannot go in a straight line, unless space is flat.
Just like on the surface on the earth, if you try to draw a line you will get a curve that wraps around the curved surface. In the same way, if you raytrace a photon in a curved space, it will wrap around that space.
But of course light being so fast wont actually orbit the sun, instead it will be deflected by the curved space of our solar system. But of course this is not happening bc space is not curved. Thats why we can see stars on the sky, bc light travels in a straight line in a flat space. Where it massively curved by the sun's mass like they say, stars would not even appear to us, because their light would be bend around the curved space of the solar system and then deflected outside it.
@@alexwray6173I made this drawing to show the absurdity of GR: ruclips.net/video/6bxrJ6RV0oU/видео.html
the problem with general relativity is that relative theory of gravitational pull is false to begin with. in a 3 body system the motion of bodies travel at uneqevalent speed and acceleration and defies observed reality that masses fall at the same speed regardless of their mass as seen here on earth. that gravity is somthing that produce a constant pull to speed on all masses regardless of their actual mass is in line with newtonian physics and is why general relativity is false. gravity is a constant regardless of mass. that is the whole clue. the sun pulls on planets with a force that is exactly equal to the force that earth pulls on the moon. if it was not like this then masses would accelerate at different speeds when you drop them as different mass would produce different acceleration in that case. the thing is that gravity is not scale depandent in force. it do somthing else than that. somthing we don't fully understand. call it universal gravity if you want but that is what it is. the force is not scale dependent. gravity is a scale invariant force. the force of pull is topological. the force is not equal troughout the whole mass. its greater in front of the mass than behind it. its like it pulls surfaces. gravity does not care how big the mass is because the pull between bodies are on its surface. its as if gravity is a 2d force followed by the logic of a hologram. the force does not care what ever the ball is hollow on the inside or full density the whole way trough.
Just please fix the universe, please.
Click the big "T" to the left for a great video with another view of General Relativity.