"Gravity Don't Make Things Fall" "Gravity Things Doesn't Fall Make"

One of the few channels where I don't need subtitles, perfect diction! The switch-off gravity idea switched something on in my head. Thank you!

Great video! But: How does tidal forces towards the end of the video explain the problem with "earth falling up in all directions"? You asked the right question there but I am not sure if I understand how your explanation answers how the Earth can "fall up" in all directions? Also, you mentioned it's as if the objects are sucking the space-time around them. So this also goes against the Earth/sky falling up in all directions. Do they suck in or do they fall up?

From what I understand, standing on Earth is LIKE traveling in a ship with an acceleration of 9.81 m/s/s. It does not make the ship the same mass as the Earth or the Earth the same mass as the ship. Having a large mass can curve the spacetime around it, but the ship has accelerated motion which is a curve through spacetime. To me it seems more plausible that all objects with mass are "falling" though time and objects with large mass can slow time increasingly with proximity, causing other nearby objects with mass "fall" through time towards the massive object until they hit and then continue "falling" through time parallel with the massive object. If you stop accelerating through spacetime then you stop the curvature and "gravity". Jumping off a building does not stop the curvature of spacetime that the mass of Earth has affected, it only removes the object that was keeping you from "falling" through time to the Earth. It seems unlikely, to me, that the surface of the Earth is racing outward thousands of feet in all directions to meet every object within thousands of feet. That's an incredibly large bat hitting a lot of small balls, not to mention the surface of the Earth rushing outwards to meet every air molecule in the atmosphere. However, I'm no genius, so please direct me to where can I read the peer reviewed proofs of this theory of the surfaces of massive objects racing outward in all directions?

Yet again a fantastic video!

I have watched many videos on gravity over the years and I think this was one of the best . Thanks

One of the few channels that have a dark sense of humor in physics explanation.

I need a better/more thorough explanation of how all points on the surface of a sphere can be accelerating “outward” simultaneously, while the sphere itself remains intact.

Galileo didn't actually drop balls from the Tower of Pisa, he rolled them down inclined planes.

The ability to effectively explain complex concepts isn’t just extraordinary, it's a service to the world!

"The river model of general relativity, where mass eats space" - aha, that's exactly how I've been making sense of it! I need to see more about this interpretation!

22:02 Ok .. For those still wondering how it can be that the Earth or any celestial body isn't expanding or exploding or anything, which would be perfectly reasonable question because it hasn't been answered yet. Dialect will as I understand, but in the meantime a mathematical description about this "river model". (Waterfall model, Gullstrand-Painleve coordinates, raindrop coordinates, Kruskal Szekeres coordinates etc etc, they all have their advantages). (GP coordinates for example gets rids of the coordinate singularity at the event horizon for example and Kruskal Szekeres coordinates gets rid od the "swapping of space and time at the event horizon" as often said in popular science. And also gives a clear picture about singularities using a Kruskal diagram.) But mathematically you've got this equation in GR: \frac{d^{2}r}{d \tau^{2}}=a^{r}-\Gamma {_{tt}}^{r}(u^{t})^{2} (Im sorry I can't write math properly in a KZfaq comment, but write it in a Latex editor.) This sais that the second derivative of your position with respect to time is equal to your acceleration, or of a falling apple or whatever (going radially outwards/upwards) which is just a=F/m. In flat spacetime that would be all, as simple as that, if you're accelerating in flat spacetime your spatial coordinates would have to change. But in a gravitational field spacetime is not flat. And the term with the Christoffel symbol, just accept it please, because it would become far too much to explain. Really hope Dialect well delve into it a bit further in future videos 👍. But it's related to the curvature of spacetime and the last term is your "velocity" through time squared. So since you're position is not changing, you're spatial coordinates don't change even though you accelerating radially outwards or "up". The first term is zero, which means the acceleration must be exactly equal to the Christoffel symbol term times the "velocity" through time squared. So you get: a^{r}=\Gamma {_{tt}}^{r}(u^{t})^{2}. Thus in curved spacetime you need to accelerate just to "stand still" (for the observers "standing still" with you on Earth, but thus actually all accelerate .. it doesn't involve an inertial frame of reference, what the main problem was with the gravitational time dilation causing gravity nonsense). That's the easiest way to explain it, but this only holds for in the weak field limit, for in the Newtonian limit really. With strong fields and extreme angular momentum lots more Christoffel symbols are involved. The equations are not this simple anymore. .. I watched the video again and really hope Dialect will explain it all in more depth, and yeah 22:02 for now I'll trust you'll explain in a future video how the sky, the ground, the oceans .. everything really, is acceleting radially outwards without changing position. You simply need to use the equations, even though it's KZfaq and it's hard for your audience. (But .. Otherwise it isn't explained at all. Well a little bit in the river model video, but not truly imo. Because saying space falls in equally is, well let's be honest, poetic speak and coordinate system dependant.) Really curious how you'll do that, and to be completely honest I still have problems with that bit in strong fields. So yeah. If you even explain it for strong fields and extreme angular momentum (Kerr) that would be awesome! 👍

One of the best videos I've seen explaining how the equivalence principles of freefall to zero-G and gravity to acceleration can still work despite facts like gravity gets weaker over distance and causes things to fall radially.

Interesting how well presented logical fallacies smoothly take us down the road of inaccuracy 😮😮😮

Wonderful and insightful video. Love it. I’m looking forward to going through all of this channel’s videos.

Just found this channel and love its content. However, I'd appreciate a better explanation by the idea that the ground accelerates up toward objects we would normally consider as falling down. I understood everything this video said from the standpoint of vectors and so forth, and even learned a few new ways to think about GR. But when we got to the question about how Earth, a solid sphere, can accelerate upward in all directions, I felt the answer was glossed over. I'm not saying the answer isn't there, it was just rushed past. Having thoroughly enjoyed all four videos about how easy it is to pick apart solutions for the Twin Paradox by asking simple questions pointing out contradictory or incomplete answers, it is my feeling that saying that Earth, or at least the local ground, accelerates up makes way for contradictory or incomplete answers. After all, this video even points out how strange it would be for two apples to be released on opposite ends of the planet, implying Earth is accelerating in two opposing directions at the same time. Again, I'm not saying the explanation isn't there or doesn't make sense, I'm just saying it would be nice to revisit this idea I'm greater depth. Is saying the ground accelerates up merely a colloquial tool to make sense of the various vectors which add in some directions and eliminate themselves in others? Or are we to literally expect huge columns of dirt and rock to shoot up from beneath our feet every time an apple lets loose from a branch? Or is there a third way of phrasing it which a future video can explore? Thank you for considering my query as I would be very interested to learn this topic in greater depth, which I'm sure there is much yet to cover.

Wow, I knew the equivalence principle was locally true for a homogeneous field, but I never thought about it using the tidal forces and the subtraction of vector component. Well done !!!!!

I thought they figured out a long time ago that gravity isn't a force... What every mechanic and some engineers know is that just because it makes sense on paper or works in a computer simulation doesn't mean it actually applies to reality.

1. What experiment shows that my local gravity disappears *instantly* when I step off the building, thus proving the ground is accelerating up? 2. I can't imagine convincing anyone that the apple isn't falling. Which part of this disproved gravity is a force pulling things down?

I was so excited to see this recommended for me after watching your other videos. One of your best yet!

Breakthrough concepts for the layman patiently and convincingly explained. Kudos

One time when I was drunk, I could actually see spacetime flowing through me into the Earth.

Your videos are a great find! I feel the aha! moment and not some headache. I deeply admire your effort. Looking forward for the next ones!

Amazing video -- really crystallizes the concepts in a way that feels incredibly easy to grasp. And without any compromise on correctness as well. Technically I knew all the stuff about GR presented here but this made me really *feel* it.

Your channel and ScienceClic are by far the best channels on this subject. Keep up the good work. Look forward to seeing new videos from your channel!

Thank you for an amazing video with insightful delicate points highlighted. It would be nice if you add a segment or another video showing explicitly how we can glean this from the metric tensor mixing parameters under the effect of mass, so we see the flow of space expressed in the rather simple algebra. There is an audience here that is not afraid of seeing math.

Thanks for the clarification, most of my questions has been responded yet, but yeah more videos about this are very good idea to put all more clear.

When an apple falls to the Earth, the apple *is* accelerating down, while at the same time, the Earth *is* accelerating up (the sky is falling up at the same time the apple is falling down). The center of “pull” (acceleration) between those two objects is well within the Earth, so from our standpoint above the surface of the Earth, it is hard to see the Earth moving(accelerating) at all because: we can't see the central reference point the Earth and apple are accelerating to, and the Earth is moving much slower than the apple. Better to visualize two objects of the exact same size, density, etc. “falling” toward each other (one on 'top' the other on 'bottom'). Imagine two large balls of some pliable substance (perhaps blobs of some fluid) in space. They start moving (falling/accelerating) towards each other, toward the center of the common acceleration/gravitational point. As the spheres move toward each other (neglecting tidal forces), when the surface points closest to each other meet, you can now see the center point of the acceleration. The surrounding soft material on each side will still be accelerating toward that center. As the material of each sphere starts to interact (electromagnetic push and pull, strain between the atoms of the two spheres) they experience (feel) the acceleration(deceleration) of the motion they already had. That center point continues to cause acceleration of the rest of the material until the forces balance out and a new single sphere is created. The point is, both the Earth *and* the apple are accelerating (experiencing free-fall, Up-Earth, Down-Apple) toward the common center of mass. Lines of gravitational force should be diagrammed through the Earth and any satellite (like the moon or even an apple) with an exaggeration to shown the central point of gravity. Diagram a 2 body system like the Earth and Moon to more easily see the central gravitation point the both bodies accelerate to ~(1700 kM / 6371 kM = about a quarter the distance from the surface down to the center of the Earth in an Earth/Moon diagram).

being able to come up with effective analogies is a hella underrated skill, and you have it in spades, terrific video 10/10

bro the “sky is falling up” is a great name for some horror movie

I just found your channel, when I first watched a video from you I thought this was a multi-million sub channel. Your production quality is absurd and your content is top notch! Your videos deserve much more attention.

I was wondering when something new was coming from this channel- awesome as always.

This was a very good video. The caption @ 21:31 describes my first impression of the channel. I'm happy to be proven wrong, and as a new subscriber, I'm excited to finish the learning journey with you!

This was really good, thank you. I had always been bothered by the fact that most people discussing the equivalence principle almost never mentioned its locality, and it needlessly confused me for years. The "kill engine switch" idea was really cool. It's also very nice to see that the tidal forces are like a less extreme version of the "spaghettification" that occurs when falling into a black hole.

BELIEVING that the same results mean the same cause is a MISTAKE

Enjoy all your videos very much but you have outdone yourself with this one...have learned alot,many thanks 😎

21:44 I don't think putting this as a footnote is pedagogically wise. The intuition that the ground is accelerating upwards, for everyone on earth's surface, is clearly impossible unless space is doing something funny (which it absolutely is doing funny in general relativity). Thus, the river model of spacetime curvature is vital to understanding this viewpoint. If you're going to cover it in a future video (which I am excited for), then that's great, but in terms of good educational practices, "just trust us" is practically blasphemy.

Outstanding video production and exceptionally well narrated. You presented information in a compelling, interesting and engaging way. I get your point, …absolutely, but my intuition still struggles with the reality of the matter.

12:27 Reducing the acceleration of the reference frame obviously means that it will no longer accelerate at e.g. 9.81m/s^2. That's not primarily an "experiment" within the reference frame, but altering the crucial parameter of the reference frame itself.

brilliantly lucid illustrations - thank you for make all this be so apparent

Well done, great video. You’ve come a long way

I have been trying to make sense of GR for many years now, yet each of your videos is an eye opener to me. It must be nice to be clever, i'll never know. Thank you very much for sharing this understanding and for the great animations. Do you have any knowledge/opinion about Laurent Nottale's Scale Relativity ? From the little i understand of it, it is very elegant. At its core it's an extension of GR to scales (=>there's no such thing as zooming/unzooming), it leads to many experimentally verified results both in micro and astro scales, and yet for some reason it has been completely ignored by the scientific community since it came out in the early 90s. I'm not intelligent enough to decide or claim that it is right or wrong, but it is so impressive that it should at least deserve some interest, even if only for debunking.

I think the use of frames illustrates where people are confused about position in space relative something akin to mass. Space is massless (novel concept). You know acceleration is absolute. When you fall, you are accelerating, so all of those games in frames are confusion. On the surface of the planet, you see a different manifestation of acceleration. There are infinite definitions for any velocity which is just like saying NO DEFINITION. Velocity is like a potential energy that you can see, and it is how we define our world being the largest effect on our brain, but I don't think nature sees velocity at all.

I took 4 years of Aikido classes and you spend half your time throwing people to the floor and the other half of your time being thrown to the floor. I have probably spent more time in free-fall than most pilots. Heck, I may have spent more time in free-fall than some astronauts. We had a physics professor in our class and most aikido is done at a pace that you can talk still and we used to have all kinds of conversations about physics. From that I used to think of the equivalence principal frequently and lets just say that, if you take tens of thousands of falls, you really start to feel that ground rushing back up to meet you. I also wanted to mention that one of the reason we were falling so often was because we would have to dodge attacks from wooden swords and the swords were supposed to come down like a normal sword, so fast. So generally the only way you could move quickly enough was by falling in the correct direction. In fact, in Aikido, that's usually how you move everywhere, by pulling the support out from underneath the side of yourself that you want to move and you start falling in the direction you want to go. So why fall everywhere? Why use falling so much? because falling is instant acceleration. If I wanted to hop or skip out of the way, I would first have to fall a little bit and then push up, away from the the ground to start moving. that makes you have to do two things before you start moving in the direction you want to go. So instead you just do the first step, the falling step and you try to steer your fall into a step or a roll into a new superior position. Another part of Aikido that's relevant to relativity is how important posture is, if for no other reason than that it takes less energy to stand with proper posture. Think of it with the equivalence principal. Think of standing on the nosecone of an accelerating rocket. Do you think that a balanced beam will stand with less effort or do you think that an imbalanced beam would? One last thing, the equivalence principal tells you that up is the true forward. So if you want to look forward, look up! That's the direction you're constantly accelerating in, even if you're sleeping. =D

I appreciate that you acknowledge the left over questions most viewers are left with. Just that makes me comfortable accepting the model for now. Great presentation and work.

Combining slapstick with general relativity. Brilliant as always.

Hahaha. This was so good. Keep at it , D. 1, pretty solid proof by contradiction vs. certain other "explanations" of the twin paradox, I think, on first view anyway; 2, I'd not yet heard of the River model and I'm enjoying what I see, so thanks for that as well.

I have a theory of the genesis of flat earthers. When we combine what's stated independently into an independent model rather than depending on a basis for our philosophical view we get the flat earth. Since one educator says the ground is moving up, but others say the planet is not getting larger and the speed of light is constant, not increasing exponentially, along with the permittivity and permeability of free space, particle masses, etc, then the earth's radius must be infinite and thus its surface is flat.

Excellent video with comprehensible explanations and great animations! Astonishing job at making hard concepts of our physical world easily accessible! Thank you!

What you are doing here and ScienceClic English on his channel (by the way ScienceClic, your last clip called "The Electromagnetic field, how Electric and Magnetic forces arise" is extraordinary) is THE REAL DEAL. I'm really surprised that you only have so few subscribers. Much closer to the value of the content promoted here would be at least 3 - 4 million subscribers, but if you keep it up, you will get there in the shortest time, which is what I wish for you from the bottom of my heart. I only ask you to maintain this rigor in the future and we want as many and more frequent videos like this from you (and from ScienceClic as well!). I can't wait to watch the videos in which you treat the topics you opened up with the questions at the end of this video. All the best in the future in your journey through ... space time (SIC!).

I am impressed (and grateful) for your highly instructive and easy-to-follow videos offering a novel perspective to help make general relativity more intuitive to everyone. I also appreciate your overall attitude of calling out misinformation and inconsistencies in other youtube videos without making it personal or vindictive. It's refreshing to learn a new formulation while keeping the ego and blood pressure low and calm. The apparent "absolute" nature of acceleration in Relativity, which dispenses with previously absolute conceptions of motion, distance (space) and time, does seem odd and you're right to draw attention to it. And as you point out, even Einstein himself felt quite uncomfortable with this anomaly. It's interesting to consider your reformulation - that Earth is accelerating up in all directions to meet the apple falling from the tree rather than the other way around. Your new perspective aligns with the feeling we share in our bodies all the time here on the surface of our planet - equivalent to how we would feel if inside a jet moving with constant acceleration. One question I have is how does the discovery of gravitational waves impact your perspective on gravity? As an aside, I am curious to hear if you can share whether any of the other physics KZfaqrs have reached out to you or made any acknowledgement that you are correct and they got it wrong, or whether they doubled down and still think their earlier videos got it right. Would be interesting to know their reaction either way.. I look forward to future videos from you.

This channel is criminally under valued.

another great vid keep em coming, i can guarantee that this channel will blow up once people start seeing the quality in these vids.

You blew my mind! However, there is always going to be the argument that the objects falling towards the ground do not lose (pull the plug on) the gravitational field, it only appears so because the measuring methods and tools are also accelerating with it and the complete system within the frame of reference seems to do so, at the end all of the objects are relative to each other in the same frame of reference.

Something that Robert Dicke pointed out about the Equivalence Principle, or rather an accelerating spaceship vs. the Earth, is that if you're standing on the "floor" of a constantly accelerating spaceship, and you jump "up", you will push (accelerate) the spaceship "backwards" a little bit. So the apparent "gravity" inside the spaceship will suddenly become "weaker". The Earth, with a mass of about 6x10^24KG, doesn't move back as very much when you jump off of it, but in your much less massive spaceship, your jump has a much more noticeable effect. If your spaceship has the same mass as the Earth, *THEN* the Equivalence Principle is truly equivalent.

very very thorough, i love how precise you are in the way you speak

Man this is _really _*_really_* one of those moments in which I wish I had happily and accidentally stumbled upon a mostly completed KZfaq series... I actually didn't even have as many questions as were shown in the end, and I _still_ feel like I've been left on a cliff-hanger. I'll agree that the explanatory power of this video and it's production quality are *_well_* above its weight class in subs and views, but then again, I doubt many don't...

this video is really really great! but could you put some sources/references in the description ?

Great video, really clear and helped me get a better understanding of GR. One point though. It’s unfair to claim that if Galileo and Newton had just thought about things a bit more they could have come up with GR. I would posit it was impossible for them to do so. They didn’t have the benefit of 250 odd years of maths and physics discoveries to help as Einstein did. There was no Maxwell or Minkowski or Hilbert or Lorenz to help them. Einstein himself said that without Maxwell and Newton he wouldn’t have been able to devise GR. Einstein also said that what Newton did with his universal law of gravitation was just about the only way a human being with the highest intellect could do to make sense of gravity in his time. So kudos to Galileo and Newton for laying the foundations for Einstein.

Superb and outstanding video. Excellent narration and your explanation is very engaging.

The production level with so many animations is superb. Way to go!

If it's the earth that's moving upwards instead of the apple falling down, then how do you explain when something falls to the earth, *its distance to the moon increases*

Great watch an unbiased video that asks the difficult but simple questions

The reappearance of gravity is NOT faster than the speed of light. When the soles of your feet stop moving, your scalp is still falling. It takes a finite time for the effect to reach your head. Granted it's tiny compared to what you can "sense," but it's still non-zero and it is most definitely slower than light - quite a lot slower, actually. If you hold a Slinky off the top of a tall building, let it stretch out and become stationary, and then let the top go, the bottom will not immediately begin to fall. The top will - you can watch this on a video. It takes time for the upward tension operating on the bottom turn of the Slinky to disappear. That's a visible example of the same thing I was just talking about in more "rigid" bodies.

What an amazing channel to stumble across, the algorithm has truly blessed my day. I feel like I finally have some kind of understanding of general relativity. Keep it up and this channel will go so far! (Also, I joined the Patreon hope my tiny contribution helps :))

Sounds like a good defense for a car accident "I wasn't accelerating, my frame of reference was"

This Chanel is a paradise for physicists and who are interested in physics. You're doing great. I don't know how to thank you.

Finally! Thank you for making lucid something I have been trying to tell people for years. Let me now suggest to you that, since what you call "tidal effects" are too small to account for the rates of "descent" and since the Earth is not expanding in three dimensions, the acceleration is through a fourth spatial dimension (not time) pushing up from the center of every mass.

None of the examples that you give where the gravitational field is "instantly" turned off are correct. You cannot instantly remove your foot from the car's accelerator and even if you could the car's engine does not instantly turn off. The same applies for the rocket's kill switch. You also cannot instantly step off a building unless you travel at the speed of light. In each case the gravitational field will gradually (not instantly)diminish (if you choose to view it that way) .

May i ask if you have a degree or any sort of certificates on physics?

omg I love this channel so much you are a genius. As a small hint to help spread your message, at 19:51 if you want to show directed forces, maybe you can find a better visualization than a bunch of equilateral triangles! which way are they pointing?! 😀❤ ignoring the exact implementation, the picture is beautiful and I thank you for sharing this.

G force and Gravity are pressure mediation of aether. G force, acceleration causes a pressure gradient in the uncompressed aether, in the direction of motion. High pressure builds in front, low pressure builds behind. Gravity is a result of uncompressed aether/space flowing/accelerating towards compressed aether/matter. Pressure builds above, while decreasing below.

Good video. I was just thinking about how gravity works recently. This "charge" that gravity exerts would be a mirror of mass equivalence when a force F is applied to an object O for time T. Mass M defined by a volume V would have an energy equivalence that causes its center of gravity to accelerate towards the sky. IMO it's more akin to mass folding space inwards based on this energy equivalence, so we get the same time dilation effects that would occur with velocity. I think this "folding space inwards" would be how matter stays matter through time. Escape velocity would be to essentially escape from one guy folding in space, only be attracted by another guy folding in space. Since the edge of our observable expands at c(and where time stops) it's akin to an event horizon and will be the ultimate attractor for those that leave their home bodies, which would also explain why galaxies stretch further and further apart.

daily dose of relativity contradictions ☕😮‍💨.

There it is, the video I was waiting for; I liked ur switch explanation, nice

Clearest explanation I have seen. Thank you so much

"GRAVITIY MAKE FALL - DOESN'T THINGS"

I actually checked the date of upload. And was surprised it wasn't April the first!

A straight path through spacetime, near something like the earth, is an ellipse. That's how being in orbit works... Go sideways fast enough and the ellipse spreads out till you dodge the ground even though it keeps trying to rush towards you! Standing on the surface, the sideways component of your ellipse matches the rotation of the earth so that from your perspective, the ellipse narrows into a straight line pointing at the center of the earth... And if you could pass through it, you'd ascend through the other side, and repeat in reverse. In the absence of acceleration (in free fall), that is your "remains in motion" path. But there's a whole bunch of stuff in the way. And that stuff has other stuff in the way of it, in turn. None of it can follow that straight path, because the stuff below is compressed by all the stuff landing on top of it, until it pushes back upward with sufficient force to keep it at a relative standstill by accelerating it away from that straight line path, forcing it away from the Earth's center of mass (think of that spring accelerometer standing upright). This propagates upward until we leave the solid and liquid layers and get into the gaseous layer, in which it is relatively easy to propel yourself upward by pushing off of the solids below you with greater force, briefly breaking contact with all that stuff pushing up on your feet and putting you just barely on the rising arc of your elliptic straight line path... Until, no longer obstructed, that path brings you right back down to the ground. At which point the ground suddenly and forcibly redirects you again, by virtue of being much more massive than you (and, usually, having nowhere it can easily go in response to the impact, unlike air or water).

By Faith, and Faith alone, embrace, Believing where we cannot prove.

I am not a cosmologist, but I logically can't understand that if the earth's surface is accelerating at 32 feet per second squared, then why isn't the earth expanding. I mean if the earth is coming up to push me and there is someone in China being pushed in the opposite direction, the earth, being a sphere, would have to expand, wouldn't it?

@15:10. This is the most intuitive explanation of Einsteins equivalence principle I've ever seen. Brilliant work as usual

The earth is indeed moving upwards relative to us at a constant speed, nothing is going down, there is no acceleration towards the earth, objects in “free fall” are decelerating until it reaches terminal velocity, density and buoyancy cease to exist in “free fall” We have a directional vector and the antecedent to a directional vector is motion, the motion is what gives us weight and the density layers and pressure gradients Gravity is motion, no motion no reality

Great video! Look forward to your next one with the "answers"

5:20 Tiny mistake here. Astronauts orbiting earth are NOT in zero-gravity. The gravity from Earth is actually about the same where the ISS orbits as it is at sea level (0.89x to be precise). They are floating because they are in *free fall,* because they are orbiting. Which, appropriately for your video, is indistinguishable for the observer within that frame.

Sounds so crazy theoretical....you give no good answering to the sky falling up, just that it is a theoretical trick.....still confused

UNBELIEVABLE, THIS IS THE BEST DAMN VIDEO I HAVE SEEN IN A LONG TIME , AWESOME WORK.... GOOD FOR YOU 👏👏👏👏

Once I heard and started to understand this, I had the realization that the juggler is accelerating upwards. When they release the balls, they’re traveling inertial paths between throws. Once the juggler catches the balls, the balls are accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s^2 with an additional force making them go faster than the juggler. Then the juggler releases the balls. They continue on unaccelerated while the juggler accelerates and overtakes the balls on the next catch. It’s kind trippy trying to make sense of this without the proper mathematical training. Especially since the geodesics are spacetime curves and not purely space curves. So velocities impact the direction of the curves. Great circles on the Earth’s surface don’t care how fast you’re moving any more than the straight lines on the pavement. But my spacetime geodesic would have me tunneling through the Earth accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2. It’s because the Earth’s surface is accelerating upwards against that geodesic that I feel weight. What’s hilarious about this explanation is that it makes the Flat Earth Society less wrong than other flat Earthers. They believe the flat Earth is accelerating upwards. It explains gravity far better than the “density” explanation most other flat Earthers give. But accuracy is a bad thing in flat Earth so they’re suspected as CIA plants or NASA spies trying to make flat Earth look bad. If it weren’t for that and their tendency to shun real math and science I could see someone coming up with a spacetime curvature that would simulate Earth gravity on a flat Earth. Though I think that would be a contrivance since any real gravity would crush flat Earth into a ball in any case. Which is why most reject the existence of gravity altogether.

What is happening is that the spacetime between the two objects is shrinking. In the presence of matter and energy, spacetime shrinks. Likewise, in the absence of matter and energy spacetime expands. Trying to frame (so to speak) the event in Newtonian physics or Einsteinian physics will leave human beings who are forced to think in terms of the English language and transactional physics confused.

wow. I hope you are encouraged in your endeavour to teach, because you can really teach like no other on this subject. I can't wait for more insight from you. Thanks.

I wonder how some super athletes view gravity. For instance, Federer does not wait for the ball to fall to his racquet, but accelerates the racquet upward to meet the ball. Maybe this is his secret. Roger Federer is a relativist.

Near the end you say that mass sucks space in like a vacuum, but isn't that the opposite of what it's doing? Like if space is falling up, it's like mass(energy) emits space more like a faucet than a drain. Here's a good analogy: think of bubbles in a fluid, rising to the surface. Now imagine mass as bubbles in the fluid of space, and falling becomes similar to rising. Another cool way to shift your perspective is to imagine that a fire's upward trending shape is a result of motion through space rather than gravity.

Thank you for this video. What makes sense to me is the universe is an at least four dimensional frame of reference with three dimensional objects under constant acceleration through a four dimensional space. Our minds aren't wired to visualize four dimensions but we can see how a circle is a slice of a three dimensional sphere. For a two dimensional being to visualize a sphere they'd imagine an internal axis for the circle flowing uniformly up and down from the center of the circle. Well, we're three dimensional beings imagining an internal axis for the sphere uniformly radiating "forward" and "backward" from the center. As such, if you take a three dimensional object like the sphere and accelerate it through four dimensions you'd feel a uniform force on the surface pushing you up. To me, that explains how the ground can constantly accelerate upward. The earth is a three dimensional object accelerating through a four dimensional space. You can expand that explanation to all mass in the universe which leads to a universal frame of reference accelerating through a multidimensional space. Now, why is all mass under constant acceleration? Good question, it could be due to "vacuum energy" or some other interpretation of the cosmological constant. But the equivalence between a homogeneous gravitational field and an accelerated frame of reference is equivalent precisely because all mass in the universe is under constant acceleration through a four dimensional frame of reference.

...meanwhile a monkey in Australia jumps off a building and the earth there accelerates upwards splitting the earth in two. Maybe that's the reason there are no monkeys in Australia. I think in fact we need to make sure no one brings any monkeys to Australia and lets them go near any tall buildings. In fact for pity's sake don't let monkeys go near any tall buildings anywhere or it could be disastrous. And what about those damn monkeys in trees , jumping around the place? People talk about the possibility of asteroids hitting the earth when it's bloody monkeys we should be worried about.

Great info--keep it coming!

Time and space are merely conceptional references to where we are at; which is here and now. Everything else is in and out or past and future in relation to where and when we are. But universally there are 6 dimensions; 4 spacial(length, width, depth, and size), a 5th sequential, and a 6th of rate that governs them all. I'll be waiting here for my Nobel Prize.

Hey Dilect, where can one find more information on Gravitational Tidal Forces?

Here is a very simple test that will prove you wrong: Take 2 heavy spheres connected by a long rigid rod, suspended by a long thin wire connected to the center of the rod. Mount 2 other heavy spheres above a turntable centered beneath the wire at the same radius and height as the 1st 2 spheres, but at right angles to the rod. Very slowly rotate the turntable so the 2nd spheres approach the 1st spheres from opposite sides. As the 2nd spheres closely approach the 1st spheres, the gravitational attraction of the masses will cause the wire to twist slightly. No acceleration involved.

I love your Work. Keep Going on enlighten the world!

There may be a relationship between the "amounts", "volumes" of space/time "sucked in" by the massive regions of the universe, and the "amounts", "volumes" of space/time "ejected" into regions of the universe with low enough mass/energy concentration, that space/time expansion takes place there. The "amount" of space/time continuously "sucked" into regions of higher mass/energy concentration throughout the Universe is equal to the "amount" of space/time continuously "sucked out" into regions of lower mass/energy concentration throughout the universe Universe. In the case of elementary particles, we have a point representation of their masses/energies, which means that between the elementary particles there are significant spaces with fairly low concentrations of masses/energies. Such "large" "empty" regions exist both between the electrons and quarks of the nuclei of atoms, and between the quarks themselves in the atomic nuclei themselves. This should mean that even within the atoms themselves there are complex processes of "flows" of "intakes" and "ejections" of space/time, and this may have some role in the possibility of representing the quantum world as some kind of holographic semblance.