No, it explains gravity by saying things roll down toward pits. He has a better video on his channel however.

@@Neptoid yeah agreed. was my first video by him

In English, the letter "S" does not make the "sh" sound. Therefore, he is already pronouncing it correctly.

einshtein, is that how germans pronounce it? just curious

@@LetsSink yes, it is

Thank you very much that's very kind, glad you like my work!

It's is Spanish I'm a indian and I'm learning it.....!!@

people fall because they have too much potential energy. - destroy all your potential, and you will never fall again! XD

@@Verrisin Even photons fall.

@@dsaun777 Destroy all potential of any photons as well. As the last signature of humanity, we should destroy all! If we don't have potential, neither should they!

Yesss

You right I’m picking myself up right now but it’s very hard

He did another video recently where it is explained w/o the Bowl model

I was about to comment the same.

Yes you're totally right, this video is an introduction to Einstein's point of view and I think the images of the "bowl" or the "rubber sheet" are useful as a first introduction. They help understand that objects attract each other because of the geometry of an underlying object (spacetime) on which they are placed. But if you want more thorough visualizations check out my other videos on General Relativity I have made multiple ones in different levels (this one is for beginners)

@@ScienceClicEN isnt it insanely unlikely that so many planets/moons gained the exact right speed to stabily orbit some bigger object? 🤔

@@Dr.RiccoMastermind Just as likely as all of the other objects that failed to maintain an orbit and crashed into the larger objects. There's a reason why the moon is peppered with meteor craters!

Yes, actually I made a video precisely on this : kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rdinmqybp7u9hpc.html However I still think this fabric analogy is good to begin with, as it makes it easy to understand that objects attract each other indirectly, thanks to an underlying container (spacetime), which can be bent and curved by matter.

@@ScienceClicEN That model can perhaps give some idea what is happening (curvature). But the problem is that it does not explain gravity at all! When I first saw this analogy for a long time ago - before internet and KZfaq - I was immediately wondering what makes B actually move to the bowl where the big object A is sitting. That was never explained. I have seen correct explanations only during last few months (I have not tried to search explanations).

In the analogy the thing that replaces gravity is time itself. In a spacetime diagram objects must be moving. This is the real reason why an object follows a curved trajectory.

You see that also SMALL objets make space curvature... thats why

@@suzanaperisa3319 Thank you for the reply.

Wrong. Newton's Law of Motion explains literally everything that involves motion. Einstein’s baseless theories only explain 'gravity' which doesn't even exist. See the Higgs Boson. See the hammer and feather drop experiments. Newton's Law of Motion perfectly explains the hammer and feather drop test. Explains why clocks in motion are slower. Provides a solution to the twin paradox. Einstein muddled it all up with his relativity theories and now you are lost and confused. Having to resort to such machinations as warped space and time (fudging the numbers) in order to get relativity to fit reality. As Nicholas Tesla said. Relativity is a bunch of mathematical nonsense that has hidden the underlying errors and confused people. Look how confused you are when you don't even understand 'gravity'.

But why is the space around Earth curved like that? Did a wizard do it with magic? title is clickbait

@@alwaysdisputin9930listen to the narrator

@@ninnikk6982 the narrator doesn't say why so you are the one who needs to listen to the narrator

because mass warps and bends the space around it to itself.@@alwaysdisputin9930

Their General Relativity videos are very good

The elastic sheet is a good first approach to understand that objects attract each other indirectly, through an underlying fabric whose geometry they alter. But yes you're right this model is not very satisfactory as it sort of describes gravity by gravity. Check out my other videos for better visualizations ;)

@@ScienceClicEN I have seen your other video. You are the best channel I have seen so far and I have been been studying physics for over 50 years. I saw the rubber sheet analogy years ago and it upset and confused me. I tried to explain my objections for years and everyone laughed at me. Your video is a good first step but for me the rubber sheet caused a great deal of suffering.

@@TomTom-rh5gk In your opinion, how would you visually introduce the concept to the layman?

@@jacobshirley3457 I like the rubber sheet idea. I saw it in a book by Edward Harrison 40 years ago. It is just that some internet physicists used to make fun of the idea. Most of them aren't very good at being physicists. Like I said before this channel is by far the best that I have seen on youtube.

How do you distort time?

@@abhijithcpreej Gravity bends the time lines towards each other. How it does it I don't know

Time is distorted from mass

things are not running through time - time is running through them

@@hillwalker8741 Interesting concept, I'll put some thought into that one, thanks for posting

Spacetime is 4D, not 3D. As you say, it's distorted by mass. The distortion takes place entirely within the four dimensions of spacetime. No higher dimensions are physically required. In mathematics this is called a "manifold." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifold

Aaand it's inaccurate. There's actually a great video by the same channel that explains it way better

@@commenturthegreat2915 it is inaccurate

@@commenturthegreat2915 What channel bro ?

@@commenturthegreat2915 how is it inaccurate?

@@FOXTROTALPHA2412 The way he explains it in the video suggests some sort of directional force is acting upon the falling objects through a 4th dimension, pulling them towards the "bottom of the bowl". This is inaccurate. The whole point of Einstein's version of gravity was to show that objects in freefall aren't actually accelerating, but are stationary on a grid that is compressing.

Yes but it’s a beginner intro to understand the basics or concept The other video heh as touches on your comment.

There is another video on the channel that explains this better

IT'S BECAUSE NATURE OF ITSELF THAT'S IT! YOU CAN USE GENERAL RELATIVITY ON HOW APPLE FALL TO THE GROUND INSTEAD OF NEWTON GRAVITATIONAL! IT is also work on QUANTUM MECHANIC TOO NO MATTER HOW SMALL OF ATOMS ARE!

He would have gotten into the math. Earth and the moon has a speed thru space. If the moon has the right speed for its mass it will constantly miss earth at an even rate, we call this orbiting. The international space station does this by achieving 17,000mph at a certain altitude, always falling, but missing earth in space-time. ➿〰️🔄

@@alexgmihai242 _"There is another video on the channel that explains this better"_ Yes but even that video just says Earth is sucking in spacetime like a vacuum cleaner without saying WHY it is sucking spacetime like a vacuum cleaner. It is unknown to humanity why it does this. No human knows why we fall. The title of the video "Why do we fall?" is clickbait. The question is not answered & nor can it be without new physics

Objects having mass only change their motion as a result of some force acting on them. That's what "makes the objects move in the first place." Otherwise, they keep on doing whatever they were doing, which may or not be nothing. This is one of Newton's original laws of motion. Massless objects, such as photons, in a vacuum move at the speed of light, and only at that speed. But within their own frame of reference (if there were such a thing) they are never moving at all. Nothing "makes them move." It's reality (specifically, the electromagnetic field in the case of photons) that is "moving."

It will be out in at max two weeks I think ;)

The curvature of the space-time is distorted, so that the physical geometry tends towards objects with high mass. The usual analogy is misleading I agree, it's difficult to represent the 3d geometric distortions visually. Insidd the event horizon of a black hole, the geometry is so distorted that all directions lead into the center of the black hole.

The illustration of a ball travelling around a curved fabric is just an intuitive way of illustrating the concept of GR. It's only an analogy, and like all analogies it breaks down if you ask too much of it. Now, tidal effects are something altogether different, and a different analogy works better. Imagine that you've got a bungee cord with three equal weights on it, spaced at equal intervals near the end. As you whirl the cord with the balls around your head, what happens to the DISTANCES between the balls? They get longer as the assembly goes faster. That makes intuitive sense, right? What's noteworthy here is that they BOTH become longer, even though you, holding one end of the cord, are applying an attractive force only in the direction toward you. Throughout the length of the assembly, however, there is a FORCE GRADIENT. Inertia wants the balls to go each in their separate ways, in effect pulling the balls away from each other until it balances against the elastic force of the bungee. The balls represent water molecules. As seen from the middle ball, the near and far balls are both pulling away. And you can also see that all of this two-lobed tidal effect occurs because it's taking place in an orbital system. If a watery planet were travelling through space with nothing acting on it, there obviously would be no tide. But if it were clamped rigidly somehow and then you were to rigidly place a large mass nearby, the watery planet would form only one tidal lobe, on the near side obviously.

Gravity waves propagate IN spacetime, not through it. While this distortion and mass are so closely related that it might be hard to say which is the cause and which is the effect, we can use some additional clues to help us decide. Fermions have properties in addition to mass. Spacetime doesn't account for these properties, and moreover they are highly localized to each fermion and invariant with each instance of a fermion. Conversely, spacetime has no known properties of itself, other than the geodesics of GR. So it's not clear that spacetime has any possible mechanism by which to generate objects with such properties. All in all, it's much simpler and more in accord with observation, to say that one specific property of fermions interacts with spacetime, than to say that spacetime is mysteriously responsible for all those properties.

what do you mean lagged behind in time?

yes. the 2d sheet is just an analogy.

and the idea of warping is wrong - less new spacetime is being produced near massive objects

That’s the next step for scientist How gravity fits with the Standadd Model. Quantum Psychics to this day still has no explanation for gravity or how it truly affects the universe. The closest is Super String Theory and the main problem with that is it theorizes our universe is 10 dimensions, 9 of space and one of time.

Gravitational attraction can be described mathematically as a force. Everything works fine, but the force is not fundamental, it's apparent. In this sense it's very much like centrifugal force. Centrifugal "force" isn't a real force, it's an effect of inertia as seen from within a rotating frame of reference. The object in question is just trying to carry on with a constant velocity vector. Similarly, gravitational attraction is the effect of an object trying to carry on with a constant velocity vector, only the frame of reference, namely nearby spacetime, is geodesically distorted. Mass is responsible for this distortion or curvature. So the more fundamental question is what makes this happen. Is THIS a fundamental force? Conventionally it's named as one of the fundamental forces. As such, we expect there to be a particle or field which carries it, called the graviton. But we have not yet directly detected it.

Haha. Ouch! ... although you’re right. Lol

Seeing this model (pushed down fabric) irks me everytime.

@@akinoreh What is the correct model to use?

See his other video

If it's constantly getting scaled down then it will never catch up to you. You're trying to have your cake & eat it at the same time. You're trying to say "the floor moves up but it doesn't move up". The floor is moving through time at the speed of light c. It got this movement probably at the Big Bang or thereabouts. When we start to fall, there is a relative movement between us & the floor. The space between us contracts until we connect with the floor. You can say we're stationary & the floor moves up. That's fine. & you can also say we're moving & the floor moves down. That's also fine. But both are mere labelling similar to saying "people in Australia are upside down". What's reallly happening i.e. the invariant thing is that the spacetime between us gets smaller. It gets smaller because the Earth's mass sucks the spacetime like a vacuum cleaner. No human knows why this happens. Therefore no human knows why we fall. However physicists do know 1) the spacetime contracts & 2) both the floor & us are moving through time at the speed of light. We are moving along a straight line into the future. As the spacetime contracts this straight line curves around. This means that instead of moving towards the future we start to change direction. We follow a curve. This is like how a car travelling north will start curving west IF the road is curved. However humans are blind in that we can't see the time dimension. Therefore it seems like we fall in a straight line until we connect with the floor. It's like we can't see north-south so we just see the car stationary & then we see it move westwards a little bit, then it accelerates westwards. But the car isn't moving just west like that. It is following a curve. Sorry to explain unclearly without diagrams & animations

Just like we know the amount of force due to a specific mass in Newton's theory: with an equation relating both concepts. For Newton's gravity you have the Law of Gravity: F = G Mm/r^2 (in module) For Einstein's General Relativity you have an analogous equation, though a much more mathematically-complicated one: Einstein's Field Equations, which instead of using vectors to represent forces it uses tensors, kind of a generalisation of vectors. Just like Newton's law tells you how much force there is given the masses and the distance between them, Einstein's Field Equations tell you how and how much the space-time curves given a certain distribution of energy.

Thanks!

True. Even if the orbit began perfectly, the gravity from other objects will affect that perfect orbit.

we do not know as of yet

Batman begins theme intensifies

This video is meant to introduce beginners to the concept. For example, both objects would move towards each other, but it isn't shown here.

if there is nothing there is no gravity

If you want a more accurate visualization I have done a more recent video called "A new way to visualize General Relativity", you might like it more

your physics degree must be strong

Relativity makes no claim about time or space having "physical properties". As far as relativity is concerned space and time are just coordinate systems we can choose to conveniently describe reality. Relativity is about an entity called Spacetime. Spacetime is made up of the manifold of all events. Relativity describes the geometry of this manifold. Coordinates like space or time, are simply convenient ways for observers to describe event. Relativity tells us different observers will not even agree on what this coordinates are. But what the will agree on is the geometry of Spacetime.

I know It's a weird naming convention, the word "Spacetime" can give you the false impression that it's just a way to say space and time together. H. Minkowski was not a fan of the name either; he preferred the term "world", inventing words like "worldline" to describe trajectories through this world. He showed that spacetime was it's own independent entity and space and time were merely coordinates we could freely choose.

@@ryan-cole Geometry is a physical property.

This reminds me of quantum mechanics. The math predicts most things in its field, but the scientists disagree on what the math represents.

It is a bit cursory.