General Relativity Explained simply & visually
Video Overview & Insights
Quantum gravity videos: https://youtu.be/S3Wtat5QNUA https://youtu.be/NsUm9mNXrX4 -- Einstein imagined what would happen if the worker were to fall from a ladder. What would he experience as he was falling? He realized that gravity would be the only force acting on him. He would be accelerating towards the ground, but since the ground would not be pushing up on his body, he would feel no weight...
I'm using this as research for a future video so if everything I say is wrong I'm blaming Arvin. đ Jokes aside thanks for the video †it helped a lot on the "space" relativity. But I'm trying to understand the "time" relativity if that makes any sense.
3D gravity animation courtesy of: https://1ucasvb.tumblr.com/
PATREON:
General relativity does not exist
https://patreon.com/arvinash
SUMMARY
Todo es muy interesante , complejo, maravilloso de ser cierto, pero no deja de ser cierto que es un intento de quererse explicar el comportamiento del fenomeno que conocemos como gravedad, ustedes mismos lo han dicho y lo vuelven a decir , observamos anotamos y esperamos que algo se ajuste a lo que suponemos con ecuaciones, como el caso de mercurio y ahora estan suponiendo esto de la de que el espacio se curva y agregan tambien otro concepto " tiempo curvado" pero es solo un incremento o decremento del mismo para ajustar la formula universal y por siempre existente formula de la velocidad , entonces, primero FUERZA , ahora CURVATURA DEL ESPACIO, que sigue? MATERIA OBSCURA QUE SE MOLDEA como cuando amasas masa de harina con algo que la deforma por donde pasa?
Albert Einstein was ridiculed when he first published his theory. People thought it was too weird and radical to be real. Einstein wasnât satisfied with his theory either, because the theory did not apply if Gravity was present or if the observer was accelerating. One day, while observing a window washer on a ladder near his patent office, he had a thought experiments.If he fell, without air resistance, this would be no different than being weightless in space.
In a way gravity and acceleration were different ways to describe the same thing. The way to connect gravity in the theory of relativity was through the idea of acceleration, and this became the basis of general relativity.
Hello Arantes Adamson Adonia here i gonna explain Albert Einstein`s Theory of Relativy explained different
Suppose you have two observers one is on the Moon the other on the Earth they have two bombs with them the time now 11:50 they decided to explode there bombs at 12:00 o`clock
from the earth you see the explosion on Earth at exactly 12:00 and the explosion on Saturn you see 1,3 sec later the explosion
and from Saturn you see the explosion on Saturn at 12:00 o`clock and the explosion on earth you will see 1,3 sec later
I myself am poor so if you want to give something
on A.D.E.Adamson NL61 INGB0757424198
Einstein imagined being in a room with no windows, and a bathroom scale. It would weigh 80 Kgs, What if the room was on a space ship accelerating in an upward direction at 9.8 m/s/s. He would feel the same weight. There would be no difference
He imagined what would happen if he took a flashlight and pointed it from one side of the room to the other, as the space ship was accelerating upwards. If he had a ruler, he could measure the height of the light on the other side of the room. He realized that the height measured on the wall would be lower than the source of the light, because the floor of the room would be rushing upwards at ever faster speeds, as the light was propagating across the room. The light beam would appear to curve downward.
I reallyy enjoyed your video. It answered several questions I have had for years. Thanks for your effort!!!
However, If you were on earth, and you measured the two heights, you may think that there should be no difference. That light should go straight to the other side of the room. Einstein thought it canât be because it would violate the principle of equivalence. Acceleration of the room on a space should be no different than the room under the influence of gravity on earth. He realized that this meant light must bend in the presence of a gravitational field.
But light should be going on the shortest path. Then he realized, maybe the shortest path between two points is not a straight line but a curved line near gravity.
How dare Albert Einstein challenge the greatest scientist that ever lived đĄ
This was the key insight that Einstein had about gravity. But in order to express this mathematically, it required very complicated mathematics that even a genius like Einstein could not easily figure out. He contacted an old buddy from his college days, mathematician Marcel Grossman.
Itâs important to note that the trampoline analogy you normally see on TV shows and youtube videos like this is a 2D plane used for visualization purposes only, but it is really in 3D.
When a building collapsed it doesn't fall due to space -time bending
In order for this theory to really be taken seriously, it had to make a prediction that could be tested, which was confirmed by the fact that it explained Mercuryâs orbit which had been a mystery for decades because it had a precession. General relativity predicted exactly the precession that Mercury actually has.
But many skeptics still remained. The most fool proof confirmation came 4 years after he published it,when a team led English Astronomer, Arthur Eddington. in 1919, photographed stars near the sun during a total solar eclipse. He found that light passed near the sun was bent by the curvature of space due to its gravity. This is the moment Einstein became a celebrity.
This theory is not explain a lot of orbits around the Sun, this explain only one orbit . Why orbits are in same plan
#generalrelativity
#einstein
Space -time fabrics concept is wrong. Earthquake se jo building girta hai vo bhi space -time ke bend hone se girta hai kya ?
Why is this not just a distortion of space but also of time?...because special relativity says that light always moves at the same speed regardless of perspective or reference frame. This means that light will have the same speed in an accelerating reference frame as it will in a resting reference frame. But since the distance traveled by the beam of light in a gravitational field is longer due the curving of space, in order for the speed of light to remain constant, time itself must pass slower in the gravitational field relative to time in empty space.
General relativity does not answer everything. Although it tells us how gravity works, it doesnât really tell us what exactly it is.
I feel like Iâm smarter now
More User Perspectives
This is the first time I'm actually actively trying to understand this concept and it's frying my brain how bizarre our universe is. I've been living for 30 years and just accepted all of this at the surface level without actually trying to digest and understand it. Wow.
@Bigglesman96Thanks for the great presentation
@ThomasKennedy-h9bKilograms are a measure of mass, not weight! In a physics video no less! Otherwise great video I like to show to my physics students.
@mickrissling121On a TV program, a journalist asked Feynman to explain that theory in simple terms, and he refused, arguing that what she was asking was impossible
@Eerr-d7dClear
@TheZombieGAGAAnother point: How would light curve, since photons are massless, therefore they should not be affected by the accelerating spacecraft. Conversely, if light travel does indeed follow a curve, a star in the night sky is not really where we see it, but could be anywhere depending on the spacetime. Instead of so many light years away, it could actually be much closer in a radial direction from us. Would you agree?
@paristheaHi. I believe you are wrong about the weight on the scale when you are travelling to space with an acceleration equal to 1g. Your weight would show 160kg, unless there is no earth nearby, just space. In which case, there is no upward direction.
@paristheaTo think is to generalize
@benquinneyiii7941So why would light bend, when photons have no mass ?
@DejaVuDejaVuDejaVuIt is a common misconception that special relativity does not apply to accelerating observers. Case in point: The twin paradox is a purely special relativiistic effect. The setup cannot be duplicated in general relativity (although physicists have tried). Yet it involves acceleration when the twin turns around. Special relativity even applies when gravity is present. It's just that special relativity does not describe the effects of gravity.
@karlpomeroy8031https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_xxItpbuMY
How Carbon Built the World
String theory gng đ
@beinspiredbeaninspirer9902Booooooring... didn't make it passed 3 minutes
@herjabramYou just stated that , "Gravity is NOT a force " ! Now you say , Gravity is the only "FORCE" acting on the guy falling from the ladder !
@joedoakes8307This makes no sense because time doesnât apply to space just as much it doesnât apply here. We invented the concept of time. Our earliest ancestors werenât keeping track of time but yet they aged and died. Regardless of where you are in space it would be the same result because our bodies are constantly aging. We came up with the 12 month calculator based on observations of our solar system so other solar system would have different concepts of time based on the observations of their planets wouldnât it? I want to how they calculated the age of the universe if time is slower in space
@warriormonk3062⊠okay, I need a drinkâŠ.
@Tom-zg1vlEllipsisâŠ.
@Tom-zg1vlIs it me or is the Interstellar theme playing
@Jymi-wc3tw"What if Newton was right all along? A physicist from Panama just published a paper deriving the Lorentz transformation from Galileo â with absolute time and space â in four spatial dimensions. Mathematically equivalent to Einstein but completely different interpretation. Search: 'Four-Dimensional Newtonian Relativity' Kennard Callender"
@RonnyPinto-f6zEinstein explicou tudo mas vou dar uma interpretação mais simples e burra espaço tempo Ă© o espaço que conhecemos nele hĂĄ matĂ©ria como existe outras dimensĂ”es espaciais nelas nĂŁo existe matĂ©ria porque existiam antes do espaço espaço tempo quando uma estrela estĂĄ se formando notamos um grande campo de força e depois um campo gravitacional que dĂĄ origem a um campo magnĂ©tico campo gravitacional e o resumo de um campo de força que estĂĄ no nĂșcleo da estrela isso atrai tudo que estĂĄ a sua volta luz,espaço tempo causando uma distorção
@sylvioduque4829If Einsteins bent space fabric theory was correct, asteroids that shoot across our solar system should travel in a roller coaster fashion as they passed by the bent space fabric that all of the planets allegedly create. They don't. Also. If the suns mass is creating a huge divot in the space fabric causing planets to roll down towards the sun, the further out our planets are from the sun, they should not be on a near flat plain but rather on a curve. Lets not forget that there is no "Down" in space because space is weightless. The rubber membrane demonstration done here on earth by physicist to show the bent space fabric can not be correct because again, space is weightless. There is no down in space. Gravity is most likely an electromagnetic effect. Planets don't line up on a near flat plain if the space they reside in is curved. Black holes have so much gravity that even light traveling at 168,000 MPH is held back. Is that from bent fabric or a force that pulls objects, even light, towards the source ? I'm not trying to out smart Einstein but we can not ignore that many scholars over the centuries have been wrong many many times. For thousands of years, humans believed the sun revolved around the Earth and in their era, they were absolutely sure they were right until Copernicus came along and corrected that falseness.
The solar eclipse test Einstein did to see stars behind the sun seems legitimate. One could imagine the photons being influenced by the curved space fabric created by the sun's mass BUT. Look at the habits again of a black hole. So much gravity it prevents light from escaping. That can't be caused by some bent or curved space fabric because the light photons are being held back at the source, not out passed the event horizon, where I would imagine the bent fabric would begin. I believe the light from the stars behind our sun that were photographed in Einsteins test were simply pulled off their original path by the pulling or attracting force of gravity.
Sadly, The "Me first" competitive, Nobel Prize craving nature of earth humans, I believe, caused Einstein to challenge Sir Isaac Newton's incomplete conclusion of what gravity actually is and here we sit thinking like our ancestors did when they were so convinced the sun orbits the earth. We are in our era, perhaps, thinking that E=Mc2 is absolutely correct only to find out in a 1000 years it's wrong or just incomplete.
(Ducts behind my podium as students throw rotten tomatoes at what I just posted) LOL
For the record. I believe that some form of energy is affected by the mass of an object like perhaps dark matter or dark energy but I don't believe that is what makes objects attract. And also, I am not implying that all of what Einstein did was wrong. Only the bent space fabric theory and.... the idea of not being able to travel beyond the speed of light. (Whispers) our space visitors would never bother to travel for 80,000 years just to watch us blow each other up in wars and greed. FIN.
This was so well explained! Thank you so much!
@chadsdadbradAccording to this, small planet should rotate at higher level than bigger planet around the sun. So mercury as a smallest planet should be higher level and jupiter should be st liwest level of solar system
@shawnshah1499This is really well made and the theory is really cool but man taking physics was a mistake
@shepthedep5862Hos theories were not attacked. rather his theft and the denigration that he himself did to many others on their share of 'his" work . Including his own wife. That is a good over simplification of the entire issue and combined with the sensationalist claim of" Knot see" you, yourself are just resorting to thew tried and true 'for no reason at all" tropes frequently used by people such as yourself. Something you may want to think about, your tactics only work because we are and have been good natured, high trust, honourable people.
@IcantfindMikeHawk2:52 why ya gotta make the window washer look like Einstein tho đ
@DSB117One of the best explanations out there, well done
@pepoelectra5439Alberta stole the idea from his wife. đ
@kissi1859The most mundane thing the human eye perceives is 'empty' space, yet the most complex processes of this world and of life itself occur within this seemingly 'invisible' space!"
@TrueInvestigationsEh?
@paulgardner3451amazing video
@HH-ug9rh11:40 Clocks on the International Space Station (ISS) run slower than clocks on Earth, not faster as stated in this video. The fast you move, the slower time becomes to compensate the curve distance traveled by you.
An astronaut in space, feeling no gravitational force observes earth's time go slowly.
ISS travels at a very high speed (28,000 km/h) relative to Earth, time for the astronauts In ISS ticks slower.
Please, correct this and pin correction on top.
Anyone else here cause of Project Hail Mary?
@brandimullins8813Enlightening
@mohammadrasouli9903Great explanation, thanks
@sreeshakv5405"The theory did not apply if gravity was present or if the observer was accelerating." HYPOTHESIS 1: Albert Einstein found the correct mathematical formation of Einstein's equivalence principle. HYPOTHESIS 2. Mordehai Milgrom should have become a Nobel Laureate within 20 years of his inaugural publication of MOND. Do MOND's successful predictions indicate that something is wrong with Einstein's equivalence principle? Who are the world's 2 greatest living scientists? I say the 2 are the Weizmann Institute's Professor Mordehai Milgrom (genius of MOND) & BGU's Professor Eduardo Guendelman (genius of "Dynamical String Tension Theories with target space scale invariance SSB and restoration"). Has Guendelman revolutionized string theory & provided a mathematical basis for understanding FUNDAMOND string theory? Think about Einstein's equivalence principle: gravitational mass-energy = inertial mass-energy . Is there a FUNDAMOND equivalence principle:
non-virtual gravitational mass-energy + virtual gravitational mass-energy =
non-virtual inertial mass-energy + FUNDAMOND inertia ? In the standard form of Einstein's field equations, replace the â1/2 by â1/2 + FUNDAMOND-data-function â is this a plausible idea? Please google "triton station blog guendelman" &
"milgrom guendelman itzhaki" & "fundamond inertia".
The fundamental flaw at the root of this theory is that equivalence does not prove two things to be identical.
A blue crayon is not the same as blue sky, even if you can't observe any difference in your frame of observation.
Likewise, gravity and acceleration my be have parallels, but that doesn't make them identical.
They are clearly NOT identical otherwise for UK and Australia to experience gravity in opposite directions, the earth would have to expand at a huge rate.
Therefore, IF light bends in an accelerating rocket (which is an unproven theory), you cannot reduce from that that gravity also bends light.
That's just a pyramid of theories stated as fact.
Good video but I there were a few times when the term acceleration was used when motion or relative motion should have been used instead
@johnsymons5413