Mach got a bit crotchety in this latter years, Einstein had a great point and Mach should have simply acknowledged the obvious. None of us can agree with everyone on every subtle point. Finding a little camaraderie with men of good will is never a bad thing.
Maybe it would be too much of a digression, but Einstein greatly admired Mach and visited him once to try to convince him about the reality of atoms through his work on brownian motion. Mach was skeptical as always which was his greatness.
What Mach is complaining about is that he forsees that other scientists are going to put words in his mouth that he would never say. The comparison between Einstein's geometric view and Mach's relativism is instructive there. Far too often early thinkers have things attributed to them that are mistaken, or, often, simply wrong. Francis Bacon for instance is often mentioned in connection "Baconian empiricism" by "philophers" of science who have never actually read what Bacon had to say.
Mach was nearer to the fundamental reality earlier, Einstein’s Theory “explains gravity as a distortion of space (or more precisely, spacetime) caused by the presence of matter or energy. A massive object generates a gravitational field by warping the geometry of the surrounding spacetime”. Einstein explained Gravity in geometric terms, when the reality is Gravity is a Field Energy Intensity Gradient caused by a quantity of Matter Energy. Gravity has its origin in the ENERGY in all of the matter in the Universe, and it is the process of containment of matter energy that produces Gravity, not the mere presence of it.
@C the mechanism though, if it bears up, is the truly beautiful part. The containment of the Quark Energy by the static energy Higgs Field in a fully elastic process provides the energy for all of the strong Nuclear Force, the Weak Nuclear Force, and Gravity at least. Once you factor in that the Higgs Field is an Energised Static Field it becomes likely that the Higgs Field is also the Dark Energy Field. And it goes way further than that.
There were several others who challenged Newton's absolute space before Mach, including Leibniz, Huygens and Kant. But I'd agree that Mach had the most comprehensive critique.
@@TheMachian As an introduction I recommend Kaith Emerson Ballard Leibniz's Theory of Space and Time Journal of the History of Ideas 21(1), pp. 49-65 (1960) In particular on p. 55-56 of loc. cit. it is mentioned that Leibniz ( in his second letter to Samuel Clarke) had/believed/postulated a metaphysical axiom according to which God did not create any two distinct indistinguishable things. As two disjoint equal-sized parts of absolute space would BE two such things, Leibniz' axioms implies that absolute space does NOT exist. (Unless one postulates an ugly ad-hoc axiom according to which it is forbidden to intellectually cut absolute space into disjoint pieces.) Of course there are more sources; the above seems the best introduction to this historical topic though.
New and relevant is the talk "Princeton-Bucharest Early Modern Seminar" by "Leibniz’ Theory of Space and the Newton Affair" available at czcams.com/video/DHa0kqVBlWc/video.html .
@@TheMachian In Duhem's "Le Systeme du Monde" one can also find a medieval Maltanese Nicholaus Bonet, who insisted that absolute time and place are mathematical fiction, not connected to any real thing. Argument was follows: I can consider motion in relation to physical thing, but every such thing has at least some capacity of motion as well - so it will never be absolute motion. I can consider motion in relation to certain place (a fixed volume of space) - but this is merely a mathematical abstraction. This struck me as really modern thought for his days. This, among few other XIIIc. thinkers was important in departure from Aristotle's time as byproduct of motion of celestial spheres. (Pierre Duhem, "Medieval Cosmology: Theories of Infinity, Place, Time, Void and Plurality of Worlds", p. 353, Chicago University Press)
These phenomenons (gravity, electricity, week force, strong force) CANNOT be explained by physics . it only describes them. Even if one could reduce all the forces to a single one (theory of everything), that one would stay unexplained in physics, and just accepted as an (described) axiom of physics. You need to go (at least) one turtle lower on the tower to look for explanations... in metaphysics, philosophy or religion.
My reasoning for the question of the mile thick glass is that the additional mass of the glass will create denser spacetime within the glass. The result of the denser spacetime is increased gravity, a slower rate of time and a slower speed of light, we call this relativity.
I didn't notice Mach in the background of the cartoon until now! It actually makes comparing the basic concepts of their theories easy by looking at the illustration
Space is 123... Time is the transistion (change of Space) ... SpaceTime therefore can be written as 1t2t3t... It is all relative ... The only absolute thing is Nothing (but we shouldn't talk about that, because we cannot talk about Nothing) Mach was thinking in the correct direction👍
thank you for this very clear explanation of Ernst Mach and what he did. I learned much. I wonder specifically why the Europeans named units of sound speed after him. It seemed (some years ago now) that the Europeans in competition with the upstart Americans a century ago forced us to honor their scientists by naming physical parameters after them. We used to use CPS (cycles per second) in describing radio waves until the 1960s or so when the Europeans insisted on using Hz (Hertz) instead for example.
Light c² is linked to G and both gravitational fields and electromagnetic fields share the Inverse Square Law that can arise out of spherical geometry. We have to square the radius if process is relative to the spherical surface!
@@javiersoto5223 There is an exchange of photon energy with the movement of charge whenever our 3D world changes. Sound arises out of this process that is why it is based on inverse square law. The point is that we can have one emergent process that forms Mach Principle.
The base electro-positronic matter-energy wave medium wants to be balanced so repels imbalances into balls. This principle works from the sub-sub atomic to stars and black holes. Matter is imbalances in the field (out of place +ve field cells and the -ve holes left behind - (vibrating) spherical field bulges and pinches)..
Thanks for talking about my favorite Physicist! I had Mach's principal explained in a slightly different way long ago, but it forever altered my perception of space, time, and motion. I was told to imagine a 9-ball from a pool table in otherwise empty space. An entire universe with ONLY a 9-ball in it and nothing else. Imagine spinning the ball, pushing it, applying any motion you like to it. How could the motion ever be described? It will always "look" the same as no motion at all. Remember, you don't exist in this universe so you can't use your own imaginary perspective as a reference. However, add in just one more ball to that imaginary universe and all the sudden the motion of one ball can described relative the other. But you still will not be able to say with certainty that either ball is "stationary" provided they are not both "stationary". In fact, the 2 "stationary" balls might still just have the exact same motion. There are all sorts of interesting puzzles you can come up with using this line of reason, but the one that really baked my noodle and still does to this day is this: Dose the idea of space, time, and motion have any meaning at all devoid of "things" (mass)? Is empty space-time equivalent to no space-time? If so, are all the laws of our universe, and more importantly the physical constants that define those laws, actually just variables that can change on inhuman scales of time and space? Sorry to write I book, but I truly love this topic, and no one EVER talks about it.
You rise important questions. You find some literature here: arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0308087. See also sec. 2.4 (I do not hold all these views any longer however)
Interesting, however for an observer to witness the spinning 9 ball as stationary out in space the observer must orbit the ball in the exact plane of rotation, at the same rate of orbit as the rate of spin. with ever increasing energy and increasing orbital forces required as you are further from the 9 ball. Clearly NOT the same effects if the 9 ball was not spinning. Proving, as Newton insisted, not all motion is relative. Mach’s arguments always were and still are nonsensical.
@@4pharaoh The point is that there is no observer. There is only the ball in the universe. The godlike perspective of the "observer" is just an imaginary perspective to help setup and understand the model. The observer's perspective can't be used as a reference frame.
@@fatherwilliam7256 sorry to say but the physics is a practical thing. The question debated for over 100 years “ Is all motion Relative.” Newton’s bucket experiment, (and a spinning 8-ball in the emptiness of space) both demonstrate it is are not always the case. In one relative motion is not observed but the effects of motion never-the-less is. Mach insists the bucket is spinning relative to the universe, and if the entire universe was spinning around the ball the (now *that’s* a God Like Perspective) you would have the same bucket deformation. The 8 ball analogy, reminds us that the ball is observed is as spinning as every frame-of-reference, and only a one very specific and constantly acceleration can can the ball be considered as stationary. Newton and your teacher, is telling us that not all motion can be described as relative.
His mile thick bucket idea is fun, kind of similar to comparing Newtons shell theorem with gravity inside a massive sphere. Which a bucket with miles thick walls would be a middle ground of
Age ~78 is not short, from the point of having a vibrant mind! Ernst Mach name will live for ever -- like that of other great minds of Science. I pay my salutations to them all (regardless of whether any of them had lousy character). The divine sparks permeate the entire Universe. In my considered view, the foundations of science (and all other areas of knowledge including the beginnings of alphabets, numerals, numbering, sense of space, time AND relative-nature of the world) can all be traced back to the Vedās AND the Vedic Seers of Bhārat (now referred to by the Westerners as India). India was looted for the material wealth & knowledge. All the same, I am beginning to enjoy I am enjoying your service/series, Professor Unzicker! Thank you very much!
I believe that mass is not self sustaining. The Aether or whatever you want to call it, is energy that mass absorbs. This flows in from l directions and is accelerated by proximity to the mass as the mass absorbing it leaves a relative vacuum. This negative pressure is highest in the most dense areas and can drag other mass along as it attempts to rush to the low pressure.
Motion is relative, but accelerated or rotational motion is NOT - acceleration is change of velocity; rotation is change of direction. If no force is applied on a body it's relative motion stays the same in both the magnitude and direction of the motion. For accelerated or rotational motion, a force need to be applied. Therefore neither acceleration nor rotation are relative. I don't understand what that would have to do with far away masses in the universe, even in an empty univere you would know if a body rotates, because there would have to be a force (and I don't think the universe could be rotating for the simple reason that the universe has no centre). PS. The einstein equivalence principle is not true either, since accelerating charges emit radiation (rotating charges also, that is why the classical model of the atom doesn;''t work, the electron would radiate away it's energy and fall into the nucleus) but in a gravitational field that is not the case.
Mach was in slight errancy when talking about massive galaxies being the singular source of a universal gravity constant (but not talking about the actual graviton object inside those galaxies creating the actual PE and KE energies and forces). Mach was before the quarkian STD Model came into existence. Mach, if anything, should be talking about the 3 - quarkian space time fabrics (with boson gluons displaying mass as the source of multiple gravitational waves across these fabrics, creating gravity-time properties ... i.e. space-time fabric. The cosmic tension (Hubble tension) ... coming from the electro-static and electro-gravitic model ... dealing with the interactions between the gluons in the quarkian space time fabrics with the tensor boson hybrids (ES-EG and EG-ES). The tensor bosons working as the cosmic force carriers having half-gravitational properties ... and their multiple layers of electrical forces and the multiple layers of gravitation forces ... across deep space (graviton bosino, electrino bosino, electron boson, muon electron boson, and tau electron boson). Then one has to deal with the (unsaid) matter fabrics of the graviton, electrino, electron, muon electron, and tau electron, making their own layers of matter fabrics with electrons and positrons having either ES or EG properties. These matter fabrics interact with the intermediary cosmic tension tensor bosons, and the space-time fabrics. The whole aspect of understanding gravity and gravity waves needs to be calculated, then develop all the multiple proper derivatives and multiple constants dealing with the 3 layers of space-time fabric, the 5 layers of boson hybrid tensor boson force carriers, and the 5 layers of EG matter fabrics. One then adds in the visible galaxies gravitational properties for a full explanation of Newtonian G and g, and Mach's view of G and g. Newton also needs to have his mass definition also revised. An ES composite (ES electron, ES positron, ...) object does not display gravity (electro-gravitics) but they display electro-static forces. Only EG composites (EG electron, EG positron, ...) tensor boson hybrids (ES/EG, EG/ES), and the EG-EG photon have gravitational properties. Newtonian Law of Attraction is not a singular equation as there are the ES forces (technically being the weak nuclear force) and the stronger EG forces (technically being the strong nuclear force). So Newtonian calculations and derivatives need to be split in two - and deal with electro-statics and electro-gravitics. There is no inbetween gravitational universal constant, except for the multiple tensor boson hybrid levels having both ES and EG properties. So Mach and Newton (and Einstein) need to have their calculations and derivatives all revised and reformed - and this leads to massive advances in physics and the Grand Unified Field Theory.
That this gravitational pulling from all sides produces the inertia, there are clear proofs for it since newest time. The clock unrest ticks more viscously in increasing mass concentrations. For this, an additional power must not be postulated and -time- must be made flexible.🙃
Worthwhile content and much appreciated. If I may, I would just like to add one line item to Mach's summary bio that you omitted; the fact that he killed poor old Boltzmann! You downplay Mach's skepticism about the existence of atoms but it was not 'reasonable' at the time, it was willfully ignorant; and probably rooted in Mach's insecurities re: Ludwig's intellect. Hopefully you take this in the light-hearted manner it is intended but, come on man, Boltzmann should be in your Hall of Fame playlist, surely.
I read works of a more Metaphysical leaning written in Mach's era before Atomic Theory or QM of course, my School had a very old Library that had references to Eternity-now and All is Vibration, but I don't remember anything else about. This video is an excellent reminder and explanation for some of the relevant issues that must have prompted William Thompson to suggest a Vortex theory of atoms, and that is obviously a "form following function" proposed by Newton's ideas of Gravity. All the above fits with the "Cyclonic" properties of temporal mechanics sync-duration connectivity Superspini-Reciproction-recirculation at e-Pi-i relative-timing infinitesimal, and Lord Kevin's Absolute Zero.., Black Hole Singularity positioning and Newton's axial-tangential line-of-sight superposition, Fluxions at the Centre of Time. If you observe the operation of a Dust Cyclone, in Correspondence with temporal Thermodynamical "Ideal Gas" resonance bonding and proportioning.., apply AM-FM to Superposition-point inside-outside holographic time-timing sync-duration, and the whole scenario of Mach's Principle is the Observable GD&P point-line-circle conic-cyclonic coherence-cohesion Pi-bifurcation properties of Reciproction-recirculation Singularity repositioning vertices in vortices nodal-vibrational manifestation of turbulence etc. Quantum Field Condensation Logic of Logarithmic Time Duration Timing modulation. This video is a "filling in of more of the blanks" in continuity, (although it turns out to be this hyper-hypo resonance Vortex, zero-infinity floating point information In-form-ation), thank you Professor, very impressed again with your observational approach to reasoning. ***** The suggestion that the Universe is a Big Flash, Temporal coherence-cohesion objective existence concept, of purely functional navigational positioning information In-form-ation of Quantum-fields, or time-timing of what we see overhead from inside-outside space, is reasonable observation, and the name change to holography dimensionality continues naturally to log-antilog interference-condensation, ie resonant observation in math-music superposition identification, of Math-Phys-Chem and Geometrical phase-locked resonance bonding in Perspective Principle.
Brilliant channel. Apologies, but as an amateur I have to ask (& I'm sure it's a question that has occurred to others) if the universe were curved in a higher dimension and was itself rotating, could this not create a gravitational effect? Here I picture any object with mass indenting the spatial fabric (so space would be in tension) with celestial bodies creating a distinct 'gravity well' due to the resulting centripetal force.
Relevant topics not discussed but important here, are experiments showing G may not be constant, gravity may break down on scales of about 4000au already, and the idea that Earth does not precess relative to other solar system objects, but only relative to distant stars. Putting them together means that yes, we may have an equivalence of gravitational and inertial frames, but they are more local and rotating with respect to the entire visible universe. Here is the question I’d ask: We know that the inertial frame is not fixed to a rotating Earth, Earths orbit around the sun etc, but is there a single experiment that shows our local inertial frame does not rotate compared to distant galaxies at a rate of 1/72 of a degree per year (the precessional frame)?
Occurs to me that one might explain galactic spin (without dark matter) by invoking Ernst Mach's principle: Mass more distant from a galactic center is (somehow) "less aware" that it is in fact spinning relative to some other huge mass, thus its speed is more on par with nearby mass. Loosely thinking this way: Per Mach's principle, far from the galactic center you should begin to perceive your own orbital speed as lower than expected. Objects remaining in orbit therefore need to orbit faster than expected, or they will fall inward. Even better, this hypothesis is testable.
So I was working on a physics problem, what happens if you put Mars at the Jupiter-Sun L5 point? 1. Mars hangs out at L5 indefinitely 2. Mars eventually gets attracted to Jupiter 3. Mars loops around Jupiter and gets it's velocity removed 4. Mars orbits the Sun in a highly elliptical orbit, until it interacts 5. It can get to its present orbit by adjusting the impact parameter. 6. Mercury and Venus don't have the mass to do this since Mars is travelling at higher velocity 7. So Mars did a pass by Earth at an extremely low altitude This is a pretty straightforward concept but I can't find it in anybody's work. Know any good citations for straightforward planetary dynamics?
Look into Bode's Law. Planets (and the asteroid belt) are at octaval distances from each other, like nodes in a wave interference pattern. Nikola Tesla wanted to move planets around with the Hutchison Effect (interfering high voltage DC brush with high frequency AC magnetic flux) but he was accused of Black Magic, causing both the Dust Bowl and Tunguska, and he was an electrical engineer, neither a medical physician nor an astrophysicist. The idea you suggest was suggested by Tesla and would probably cause catastrophe.
@@0ned Oh those are all interesting, but more specifically the idea if you put Mars at this major spot, it does the pachinko dance described above and ends up where it is now. You say Tesla had the idea; do you know a link?
Dear Mr. Unzinger, I have struggled with exactly these ideas for many years. For a couple of years, I thought we would find the ideal "Gesprächspartner" in another. Lieber Herr Unzinger, ich habe mit genau diese Ideen viele Jahre gerungen. I habe auch sehr viel darüber gelesen, auch die Papers von Sciama habe ich bearbeitet, etc.. Ich wollte sogar die Einsteinsche Gleichungen für eine drehende Staubscheibe lösen, ein Problem, das eine Gruppe aus Jena intensiv geforscht haben. Vor einige Zeit dachte ich, dass wir in einander die idealen Gesprächspartnern finden können.
About "The Bucket Experiment" argument, is there a good explanation of it somewhere? References please... I don't see how it implies a relative acceleration.
Important to consider this: This may be true for both cases or one or the other, The phenomenon that keeps the planets around the Sun. The phenomenon that keeps the bodies on the planet. The phenomenon that keeps the Sun around milky way center. Would not occur as they do if the celestial bodies were motionless. To understand deeply and fully the material and mechanic of gravity, one must consider this; If the Sun was stationary, and the Earth was placed stationary at it's current distance from the Sun, what does ones understanding of the physics of the material of the gravity field and its mechanics, tell them will happen? A stationary body in a medium effects the medium differently than that same body would moving.
So if G = c^2/4x L^3 r^3 /T^2 r^2/c^2 / r according to RSR the c^2 and the r^3 cancel out. I guess that means that G is the same everywhere simultaneously “now” regardless of distance and the speed of light. Simplifying G = the inverse of 4L^3/T^2. When B = .9629739 then G = 6.674e-11 which makes the calculation agree with the current values for the age of the universe, the energy density, and the Hubble constant.
Talk about Paulis notion that atomic motion is two valued, spin up clockwise and spin down cntrclkwz. It gives us a "right hand rule" but requires only the spin to flip. The momentum vector doesn't flip. So in the mirror a particle moves away from the mirror. Huh? If I walk up to a mirror my image moves to the mirror not away from it..
what do you mean by cosmological origin of mass? do you consider parts of the universe which are not in casual connections with us due to the expansion of the Universe? Since the universe is expanding the cosmic horizon is expanding too so the observable universe 'looses' mass continuously , how does it affect this theory?
I made a small mistake below (left out the G on the right hand side of the equation) G (at any value of B) = c^2/4x L^3 r^3 / T ^2 r^2/c^2/ G / r Simplifying G (at any value of B) = G (now) x T^2/L^3/4 so that T^2/L^3/4 is the ratio of G (at any value of B ) to G (now).
It seems like quite a leap to go from the convex shape in the surface of water in the bucket to the conclusion that the large masses in the universe determine whether one is spinning. It is true that the convex shape is related to the gravity of the earth, but one could easily devise a variation of the test that would work in a zero-gravity environment. I don't see the need for an absolute frame of reference or the presence of large masses. One can determine whether one is in a spinning frame of reference by seeing whether things tend to be accelerated in a particular direction, which would be the direction from the center.
It would be interesting to calcule Mach principle accelerations in the outskirts of rotating galaxies compared to further in and further out. Since we had to innovate a dark matter for that anti-viscous motion and dark energy for a far red shift motion, Mach principle probably only holds where there is strong enough gravitational coupling or similar enough speed between masses. Elsewhere both GR and Mach principle looses accuracy.
There is an elephant in the room explanation for those abnormally high star rotation rates. For some reason people don't know that Einstein said that singularities are not possible. In the 1939 journal "Annals of Mathematics" he 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 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." We have all heard the phrase "mass becomes infinite at the speed of light" this phenomenon is illustrated in a common relativity graph with velocity (from stationary to the speed of light) on the horizontal line and dilation (sometimes called gamma or y) on the vertical line. Mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer. General relativity does not predict singularities when you factor in dilation. Einstein is known to have repeatedly spoken about this. Nobody believed in black holes when he was alive for this reason. Wherever you have an astronomical quantity of mass, dilation will occur because high mass means high momentum. There is no place in the universe where mass is more concentrated than at the center of a galaxy. According to Einstein's math, the mass at the center of our own galaxy must be dilated. In other words that mass is all around us. It was recently discovered that low mass galaxies (like NGC 1052-DF2) have normal star rotation rates. This is what relativity would predict because there is an insufficient quantity of mass at the center to achieve relativistic velocities. This is virtual proof that dilation is the governing phenomenon in galactic centers.
A singularity is a mathematical concept for a model that does not fit reality perfectly everywhere. Or a reality that has too many orders of magnitude for its scales to be modelled accurately without using multiple models and a transition model for a phase change. I think we need to consider a phase change. We live in a gravity that is not extremely high (dense) and not extremely weak (sparse). But reality does not need to be just within our scale.
A fundamental question is "why can't we see light from the galactic center?" The modern answer is because gravitational forces there are so strong that not even light can escape (even though the mass of the photon is 0) Einstein's answer would be because the mass there is partially or completely dilated relative to an Earth bound observer. Einstein's answer explains the greatest mystery in science, the missing mass is dilated mass.
Another question is: How come we have stuck to the idea that there is only one infinite and rigid space-time and that everything that we can observe, including gravitational waves, is coupled to only that one?
For the sake of the stars in the heavens: GravitATION! Mach worked on a Gravitational Theory, not a theory of gravity. There is no gravity and Mach never referred to gravity. That is why we have GR. Bodies are falling through space and their relative motion effects their temporality, in that as two bodies move closer together, the joining of their masses causes a slowing of relative time between and for the two bodies. The closer to a center of mass and the greater the mass, the slower time goes for that mass. Mach's Principle and General Relativity are not "theories of gravity" but explanations for Gravitation. Space is Time. As Space between converging bodies gets smaller the Time for the two bodies goes slower.
There is a difference between acceleration/inertia sticking you to a surface And a sphere boring a hole through a medium which smaller spheres get trapped in; Though, the smaller spheres I suppose experience getting stuck to the surface of the mediums rushing to equilibrium hole
I don't know much about Einstein's relativity, but isn't there a problem with explaining inertia in general relativity? If so, then Mach might have been onto something different than what Einstein came up with later. Just my amateur guess.
@@BlueGiant69202 I don't know much about GR but I heard that it can't easily explain inertia. Anyway I think the approach in the Wolfram Physics Project is promising which separates space and time.
It's so simple that no one wants to see it, because physics is "arcane and difficult and weird." But it's right there in the formula. The gravitational potential is the local speed of light, c2. Which is related to the balance of the distribution of masses at your location, i.e. how isotropic space is. No mass in the vicinity = zero gravity. So Mr. Unzicker, I would posit that the amount of mass in the universe is irrelevant, what matters is its concentration relative to a body... because of the inverse square law proximity makes all the difference.
The real problem is that Mach had a terrible stroke in the 1910s, and his correspondence with Einstein was marred by his inability to do mathematics after he suffered the brain damage. He therefore couldn't follow any of the relativity work.
you could reframe new foundations on either absolute, but you cannot marry them, especially not with 'knowledge' obtained by measuring with rubber band (eg. size of universe)
This thing, I'll never understand. Masses and gravity have their origins in all masses in the universe. We got one single object and this can have mass or charge and all those objects influence each other. So mass and charge have to have their origins in one single object itself. And now without Newton, Einstein or Mach, I present my very own theory about that and it's very simple. First, we have to face the fact, that masses attract both kinds of charges and both kinds of charges attract masses as well, which means, that gravity can't be shielded or polarized. Even if the last bit of charge is shielded out, gravity will still be there. Now lets have spiral waves spreading spherical from an object and let these waves be responsible for both - mass and charge. So partly such waves spread conical from the object and if all the wavelengths are the same, we'll see sharp Newton rings at every single cut area of the sphere (base of a cone). If they are not, we'll see a more or less noisy pattern there. The rings can be polarized and considered as "key" and "keyhole". Therefore two keys wont fit together and two keyholes wont fit too. The ranges between positive/negative and noisy are seamless, and now keys can more or less fit into a keyhole, what depends on the overall wavelengths in the cut area of two objects. The strength of the force between two objects can now be between Coulombs law (Coulomb constant) and the gravitational law (gravittional constant). With this, we don't have to find more than one force between two objects, so there is only one grand unified force in the universe and as far as I know, this is the wonder all physicists have been waiting for. And of course, this is what we see, if we look at solid disks, most galaxies and solar systems. This all is an development of F=a*M*m/(M+m)=v²*M*m/(r*(M+m)). We do not need dark matter! We have to think over our "knowledge" of mass.
correct me if im wrong , im not a phycist just a curious person , as far as i know the inflation of the universe in mainstream is primarily attributed to redshifting of light from distant stars and galaxies , is it possible that these objects are moving away from us because they are perhaps rotating or moving in some trajectory which has a different direction then us relative to some other point and thus the redshift would be produced this way ?
Universe is well connected Mass of an electron Or proton.. Owes its existence to the sum total interaction Of the rest of universe (gravitational,electromagnetic.....) ... ?
Watch a video of a slinky stretched and then dropped from a tower. Then watch a video of a plane doing a zero g flight. Then watch a video of a pilot pouring a drink into a cup on top of his instrument panel while doing a barrel roll without a drop being spilled. They each show what gravity actually is. Einstein (and Mach, apparently) figured it out with his equivalence principle, but didn't realize what he had demonstrated and went off into general relativity lala land. It's plain as day what's going on if one thinks things through completely. Can anyone see it? I highly doubt it.
@C if the earth is the focal point of the universe, then the fact that other things appear spherical would not really proof of anything. a snooker table is not spherical, yet all the balls are. am i ignorant of certain math concepts? no. i am aware of eretosphanes stick and shadow experiment... it proves the earth is spherical or the sun is local. as it turns out, the flat earth model has a local sun. you have not studied flat earht, youve just looked for an argument against it. when you can explain a thousand photos that ought to be impossible on a shperical earth, you can say youve studied flat earth. the sun apparently being 390 times bigger than the moon and 390 times as far away is a ridiculous coincidence that, if true, would be so impossible youve have to be skeptical just bc the maths does not allow you not to be. nasa take 50 million dollars a day and cannot send one skinny rocket up to film earth with a zoom lens. even after 50 years. why not? how does the earths air move with the earth at say, 40 miles up? what meachansim serves that? everything we know ab gas tells us it would trail back like a catherine whell, yet apparently it moves in tandem with the ground. how is that possible? how is it even contained? how does water run down an incline on a globe, when the only force is pulling it to the centre of earth... it would be more inclined to bore down thru the ground than run downhilll. why do airplane runway sometimes run from north to south on a surface moving at 1000 miles an hour.? why do weather balloons show flat horizons from 25 miles up? how come we still cannot prove axial rotation? why do nasa training manuals all say 'over a flat non rotating earth'..? i could go on... but its your turn to put some evidence on the table. '
@C i was not 'defending my stance'. you are strawmanning me, as it helps you to then pull me apart. i am not preaching to you, i am sharing my understanding with you,. i said you can think what you like, i am not deliberating or directly attempting to recruit you into anything. the heliocentric solar sytem model is a theory. thats great. but it is not so great when people present it as fact. the scientific model is not ab facts, but ab theories and models put up to be disproved. its a healthy enough method, but the problem is that it allows for disingenuity. if we never get to go to the south pole to disprove the globe by showing a lack of 24 hour sun, and we cherry pick the experiments we do do, then we can avoid disproving the model forever... as i say, a littel bit, a lot really, of disingenuity there. i am a christian, i foxus on the new testament. if there is no supreme power beyond us, how can a flat earth system come into being randomly...it cannot really. we could think ab mathematics, music, radio waves, language, the voice box, rainbows, electricity, the genome, the digestive system, mysticism, and a whole load of other stuff to convince ourselves of a creator, but in the end he clearly wishes us to proceed in accordance with our own personal response to the ideas of justice and goodness... bc then he will be able to see which of us will be deserving of a place in pasradise, and which wont. he has made his creation perfect in that way, and none of us will be able to complain if we do not make the final cut. .. this is clear to many of us, but it is an article of faith, and you can take it or leave it, i am not preaching it, just sharing my understanding with you in this salonn of shared ideas... if we have come to personify god and the devil, then that is just people being artisitc.. but the concepts of goodness and justice.are hardly deniable. you will respond to them in the way that seems best for you... as will we all. i dont even beleive Jesus necessarily did walk the earth.. i respond to the teachings associated with the character... the message is worth more than the man for me. i am not an average christian. we are in and of the body... we must repent and be born again in the spiritual... we must open our door fully so that god can enter... we cannot save ourselves directly... but we can open our door so wide that god has to enter... indeed he will not enter unless we open it fully, but muat eneter if we do. you can keep throwing rocks at me, but they literally bounce off. thew earth is demonstrably flat. you either know rhis and work for the dark side, whixch you are at liberty to do, or you are not really looking at the situation rationally. u display all the classic symptoms of a darksider... but u ought to know that a true jedi knows full well that you can only operate around me with the power i give to you. i respect your freedom to be a darksider (if that is what you are) i just think you would do well to consider youve bought into a counterfeit pathway... and whilst its easy to wrap up the gamma males in their own childishness, not all who you meet along this highway will be so easy to entrap. and in the end it may be you who is powerless to overcome the adversary who is sent to slay you.... have you ever read that little story of kafkas... the man who sought access to the law... yes, my friend, thisd doorway was really only ever meant for you to pass through...
@@DaemonZodiac do you propose that the key to "salvation"resides in the belief of whether or not the Earth is flat? If so, I promise you have been deceived.
@@xenphoton5833 no, i am sure i would have made it clear that knowing the earth is flat will not save anyone. However, it is just about the biggest clue there is to relaising the false arcadian babylon for what it is, thus facilitiating a coming out of babylon and being reborn in Christ. Christ is our saviour.. or at least his message is. I am not an idol worshipper, i do not bow down and worship the man, i contemplate his message and believe i am saved thruogh that contemplation of his message. i cannot even see the comments of the person i was debating with... they appear from my viewpoint to have all been removed. it looks like i am arguing with a ghost... he was there, i swear it...hahahaha have you explored th wetymology of the word 'person'... per son... per jesus Christ... are we all clones of Jesus Christ waiting to activate ourselves from within, but remain sleeper who fail to notice the clue in the word 'person' until we do? what a lovely iidea. now, if we see clearly that the earth is flat, can we, in all seriousness, take the babyloninan death cult seriously ever again? i dont rthink we can... and that very act ought to take us out of babylon and facilitate the rebirth in Chrsit... but, there are many who apparently know the earth is falt but have not come out of babylon... therefore it doesnt work like that... and the information will do such people more harm than good.. but they clearly have no faith and so it doesnt really matter, they were already miserable before they embraced the flat earth thing and they are still miserable. i can only conclude that they do ont really beleive the earth is flat, they just lke the idea of it and wear the basdge the same way flase christians love to wear a crucifix... what can you do with such people... thnkfully it is not our job to judge and punish them... but we can speculate on how they operate. so, i would conclude that flat earth can save a person, but only if they really beleive it is flat... because then 2 things happen.. 1) they activate their beleivng faciltiy and this must coincide with finidng salvation in Christ (they will soon enough relasie they have been reborn in Christ when they activate their bleeiving faciltiy, truly activate it)...and 2) they must come out of babylon therein, and where else can they then wash up but in Christ. so, theres an angle you didnt cover, i ll bet. good day to you.
Page 1:30 + I see two forces, (1) g force and (2) inertia and or centrifuge forces. Where g relates local g, eg g on earth, while inertia relates to cosmic g force, eg total g of total mass in the universe. I agree with Mach.
Your remark made me understand gravity better. We should better study the spiral forms of gravity. For instance the rings of Saturn are still puzzling.
@@BartvandenDonk I’m glad you asked, the ring. You just put me on the spot :) to look at this a bit closer. Coming out of it, I see this as two g plus two electric forces. The local g keeps them close together but the electric force keeps them apart from bumping at one another. The universe g provides inertia to maintains the gyroscopic operation. Why rings in the rotational plane? The associate answer is a question: why a planet has magnetic poles? The answer is anybody’s guess. Given a planet has magnetic poles, and all space bodies including atom and subatom, carries electric charge. Visiting and charged bodies from all approaching angles are diverted towards the polar regions in a helical path by Laurence force of planet’s magnetosphere. At close proximity encounters electric charged difference between planet and visiting bodies, an electric arc took place equalizing both into equal and common polarity charges have induced an electric repulsion force and begins to send the smaller mass body into a curved migration path or a prototype orbit section near planet’s pole. By center of planet mass, and the planet’s magnetosphere (tokamak), can the visiting bodies change migrate path towards planet’s rotational plane. Visitor’s mass, momentum and electric charge will define its final location in the ring. Besides visiting bodies, the ring also originate from debris out of electric arc went between a sizable visiting planet, also from difference electric charge equalization but only more intense and violent. Example: Valles Marineris of Mars. However without magnetosphere its debris all drift to its neighbor, Saturn. If not because of space bodies and planets carries substantial electrical charge of like polarity, all materials in our universe may end in a single planet or fire ball.
What happens if you replace the water in Machs bucket experiment with (a) fluid helium and (b) superfluid liquid helium and what is the difference between (a) and (b) in view of Machs explanation of gravity?
@@TheMachian Until now, General Relativity is still the best theory of gravitatioin we have. But GR can't be the full story since it is classical physics and fails to describe gravitational effects on entangled quantum states. So far, There is still a gap between quantum field theory and gravitational interaction and no one is able to fix this problem. Machs principle may be interesting for history of physics, but there is no convincing argument, that it could help to improve our current state of the art theories.
Not bad. I would like to have heard a bit on the use and interpretation of Mach's principle by Dr. Mendel Sachs in "General Relativity and Matter(1982)" and "Quantum Mechanics from General Relativity(1986)". "To find, then, what remains unaltered in the phenomena of nature, to discover the elements thereof and the mode of their interconnection and interdependence- this is the business of physical science. It endeavors, by comprehensive and thorough description, to make the waiting for new experiences unnecessary ; it seeks to save us the trouble of experimentation, by making use, for example, of the known interdependence of phenomena, according to which, if one kind of event occurs, we may be sure beforehand that a certain other event will occur. Even in the description itself labor may be saved, by discovering methods of describing the greatest possible number of different objects at once and in the concisest manner." - The Science of Mechanics by Ernst Mach
Actually, the :"all the masses of the universe makes the most sense" The gravitational mass of a galaxy is not isolated from the gravitational pull of everything else that has mass in the universe.
Gravity can be understood in a similar manner to the centrifugal force, resulting from momentum conservaton as the velocity changes direction. The centrifugal force is outward where as gravity inward. It is like sitting inside a large rotating cylinder and getting pushed to its wall and feeling very much like gravity. Replace the cylindrical wall by the distant masses of the universe and you get gravity. This explains 'why gravity is so weak'.The value of G of gravity can then be calculated from v^2/r balanced by gravity and replacing v by c and r, m by the radius and mass of the universe and getting; G=4c^2 ru/mu , in agreement with the Shrodinger formula and Mach's principle. Note also that in Bernard theorem a proof is given that two bodies locked in an orbit experience the inverse square forces of gravity 'if momentum is conserved'. See for more; "Simplifying astronomy via Mach's principle, Einstein equivalence principle, and the gravitational phase shift". regards.
I never understood how Einstein's equivalent principle could be considered true since any gravity field creates a spaghettification effect and therefore, you can tell if you're accelerating in a gravitational field.
Hello Alexander Unzicker and thanks for this video about Ernest Mach. With all due respect for EM, I don´t think he really understood gravity. (As with Newton himself too - or nobody else for that matter). All motions in micro- and macro cosm is naturally embedded in all atoms and molecules and these are naturally affected by the two polarities in external electromagnetic forces. Electric currents flow in a double helical swirling pattern and the attractive EM polarity is what causes atoms and molecules to bind together and form firm matters everywhere. Newton´s gravity has nothing to do with this formation and its motions everywhere. Regarding "celestial motions" of galaxies, this is the immediate result of an external EM affect on a random cosmic cloud of gas and dust - and the orbital motions of stars is a secondary effect from the electromagnetic formation when stars have reached a critical mass/weight and slung CENTRIFUGALLY away from the location of formation. Orbiting planets around a star are made from the same actual formation as the mother star itself and have dispersed centrifugally from this starry “pre-Solar System sphere”. Regarding Newtons idea of gravity on Earth, he confused a general orbital velocity draft resistance PRESSURE on the Earth from the not empty space around the Sun for his Earth gravity PULL. This orbital pressure logically also affects all other planets according to their simple SIZES and orbital velocities. It has nothing to do with Newtons gravity and “Universal laws of celestial motions” - which in fact was directly contradicted on galactic scales, and “dark matter” was inserted as yet another occult patch in Newtons also “occult gravity agency”.
Merci ; peut on envisager sur une epclise de soleil de faire de la choronographie des étoiles deviées ,a mon avis on pourrair avoir une idée du decalage vers le rouge des raies hydrogene Merci
Why is there a need for Mach’s principle ? Isn’t the bucket phenomena adequately explained by conservation of energy? Kinetic energy in this case. So in other words water accelerated into a particular direction will try to carry on in that direction? The question I would ask is once an object is accelerated into a rotational motion would it carry on indefinitely in a frictionless world?
Einstein was influenced by Mach. Look at Al's original "chest" in space. It accelerated at 32'/sec2 because it is pulled by a rope fastened at the top by a hook. The pulling force is a "being" says Einstein. And one must suppose the occupant experiences his weight against the floor as the "inertial drag" of the rotating star frame.
I just wondering what if we take from numerology only the digital root part of it. The digital root can be representerd as line of numbers from 0 to + infinit which graficaly could be bandet to spiral on that way that on second line of spiral on top of 0 we have 9. On top of 1 we have 10, 2-11,3-12,4 -13...... so one . Than on third line next group of number. This way we can create the spiral which will go to + infinit . But will have the numbers which will give as digital roots in on line going from first line of spiral (all digital roots of numbers will have projection in first line of spiral almost like in numerologji) . This will explain why the univers is expanding end also speeding up. From digital root we know that 0 and 9 are acting same but they can create one pare. So we need to create other pairs . Also from digital root examples on different web site you can se that if you apply times table using digital root you create other pairs 1-8,2-7,3-6,4-5. Times table is symetric. I se the problem with representig times table in all this websites. There should be one model of representig the times table for all numbers. I have found that model . This model would explain lots of things
Mach is remembered in the history of physics as a deep thinker. But his actual contributions were over shadowed by greater ideas, especially Einstein's theories of relativity.
Mach was right about not wanting be connected to the theory of relativity. Mach's Principle is not consistent with General Relativity and therefore most probably wrong.
Ach, Ott Christoph Hilgenberg, por favor, the gravity sink, not the gravity well, seeing you won't find Marco Todeschini easily. Hilgenberg is your national hero. Please honor him.
Hi Alexander. I had been wondering if exist any experiment that show the quantum nature of gravity. If gravity is really diferent in nature to quantum mechanics. Many people have been wasting time.
From my book "Bankrupting Physics", p. 132: :-) Since the Planck length contains the gravitational constant G and Planck’s quantum h, it is the scale at which “quantum effects of gravity” are supposed to become important. Dear readers, that is all. No theory of quantum gravity exists, let alone any evidence of an observable effect. You’ll find the topic somewhat more elaborated in Stephen Hawking’s book A Briefer History of Time. The chapter about quantum gravity takes up 21 pages, of which almost 20 pages are devoted to repeating gravitation and quantum theory. Andrzej Staruszkiewicz, the editor of a renowned physics journal, commented on this topic: “It is tempting to assume that when so many people write about ‘quantum gravity,’ they must know what they are writing about. Nevertheless, everyone will agree that there is not a single physical phenomenon whose explanation would call for ‘quantum gravity.’ "
1= how fast does the effect of gravity travel through space? a) c? b) faster/slower than c? c) instantaneously?d) we have no idea. Unless the correct answer is (c) the gravitational effects of anything in the universe upon here, are yet to be felt, except anything within a 300 LY radius, which is about the time when the first measurements were taken, if we are assuming that the answer is (a). 2= The gravitational potential depends on (c) being right. It also depends on the fact that the inverse square law from Newton's equations does not hold. Otherwise, even if (c) is correct, the gravitational effects of distant galaxies will be below detectable instrument limits. 2= there must be a good reason why Einstein dropped the idea of VSL. Space warping due to gravity, a local effect, yields more tractable equations, and VERIFIABLE EFFECTS, as the precession in Mercury's orbit. Occam's Razor. 3= What Einstein called his biggest blunder= the cosmological constant. VSL says the universe is (almost,not) static. (a) says it is expanding. Let us call the matter in the universe an ideal gas. An increase in temperature, generated by converting matter into energy at a rate of 4 Gkg per second, per star, per 100/200 billion stars per galaxy,per 200 billion galaxies, per 3E7 seconds per year, per 14 billion years (give or take). An increase in temperature causes an increase in volume, at constant pressure. If, and only if, VSL is correct, then the average temperature/pressure of the galaxy should be increasing, at constant volume. COBE measured the area it measured, at a few Kelvins, or less. It looks we will not be burning in plasma anytime soon
Gravity has nothing to do with mass, gravity moves into holes inside mass, gravity therefore has to do with holes like water moves into a sponge. A bigger sponge has more holes so there is a relationship with mass, and holes, but you can have holes is space too. Gravity will also move into holes in space, they do not need any mass. Mass is spin inside holes, it is separate physics to the holes themselves that gravity moves towards.
When you say Mach realized gravity has something to do with all the rest of the mass in the universe but didn't Newton already realize this in his gravitational equation? Not sure what you mean.
wat. Are u saying origin as in, "origin the XYZ coordinate of the middle of the universe", or origin as in "gravity originates from mass". I don't see the connection of gravity and inertia either.
1. A hammerthrower spins the iron ball around his head. When he releases the handle, what happens? Does the iron ball ceep on orbiting around the head of the hammerthrower? No. The iron ball flys away. No mass attraction between the head of hammerthrower and and iron ball is observable. Conclusion: mass attraction does not exist. 2. Billiard balls shot at one another don't clump together. They repel each other. Mass attraction between billiard balls is not observable. Conclusion: mass attraction does not exist. 3. Sandglass, hourglass. The sand does not clump together. Mass attraction between sand grains is not observable. Conclusion: mass attraction does not exist. 4. Sahara dust. The dust particles don't clump together. Mass attraction between dust particles is not observable. Conclusion: mass attraction does not exist. 5. Gases expand. Gases don't clump together. Mass attraction between gas molekules is not observable. Conclusion: mass attraction does not exist. Conclusion: Gasballs and dustballs in space are impossible. If gas molekules or dust particles collide they repel each other. They don't (never/ever) clump together by themselves. Final conclusion: is up to you.
@@mj7335 Gravity is based on size not mass. Nor does gravity attract. That much is correct. A proton is a collection of 1836 expanding electrons and add a bouncing expanding electron makes a hydrogen atom. Electron mass(9.11) multiplied by 1836 equals the proton mass (1.67). “G” calculated from first principles- the hydrogen atom- in 2002. All atoms and atomic objects are expanding at 1/770,000th their size per second per second constant acceleration: multiplied by earth’s radius equals 16 feet expansion- pushing us up away from center mass- that is literally Einstein’s “ elevator.” All of Standard Theory/Model replaced by Expansion Theory: Much more interesting/ important than the status quo that passes for ‘ knowledge ‘.
Mach did not understand gravity, Einstein did not understand gravity. His theory only understood the effect of gravity. Physicists look for gravitrons but cannot find them. How does the attractions of particles function. It is not time. We need to explain how gravity works as in the great attractor at distances of hundreds of light years apart.
I had a similar idea to Mach. Imagine if there were only two objects in the universe (equal in size and mass) and the one object accelerated away from the other that remained still... In relativistic terms, both objects are accelerating away from each other but we would tend to think that only the object that physically moved would feel the effects of inertia. But is this so? Could it be that our sensation of inertia is only experienced during acceleration/deceleration and the rest of the universe that is not accelerating feels no inertia when we accelerate, is because our inertia is distributed across our small mass while the counter inertia is distributed across the mass of the universe and is therefore undetectable? Yes, that was a serious run-on sentence.
I found the spinning blob of water experiment at the ISS very interesting, in which the gases were forced into the axis or core of the water globule. While tea flecks were distributed. In a topological rearrangement way the core was the concavity of your bucket.
Mach was no great thinker, he was just a contrarian philosopher. Who have no place in physics since they argue untestable complaints without suggesting an alternative explanation. Any cranky hobo could do that for a ham sandwich.
Mach got a bit crotchety in this latter years, Einstein had a great point and Mach should have simply acknowledged the obvious. None of us can agree with everyone on every subtle point. Finding a little camaraderie with men of good will is never a bad thing.
Maybe it would be too much of a digression, but Einstein greatly admired Mach and visited him once to try to convince him about the reality of atoms through his work on brownian motion. Mach was skeptical as always which was his greatness.
What Mach is complaining about is that he forsees that other scientists are going to put words in his mouth that he would never say. The comparison between Einstein's geometric view and Mach's relativism is instructive there. Far too often early thinkers have things attributed to them that are mistaken, or, often, simply wrong. Francis Bacon for instance is often mentioned in connection "Baconian empiricism" by "philophers" of science who have never actually read what Bacon had to say.
Mach was nearer to the fundamental reality earlier, Einstein’s Theory “explains gravity as a distortion of space (or more precisely, spacetime) caused by the presence of matter or energy. A massive object generates a gravitational field by warping the geometry of the surrounding spacetime”.
Einstein explained Gravity in geometric terms, when the reality is Gravity is a Field Energy Intensity Gradient caused by a quantity of Matter Energy. Gravity has its origin in the ENERGY in all of the matter in the Universe, and it is the process of containment of matter energy that produces Gravity, not the mere presence of it.
@C the mechanism though, if it bears up, is the truly beautiful part. The containment of the Quark Energy by the static energy Higgs Field in a fully elastic process provides the energy for all of the strong Nuclear Force, the Weak Nuclear Force, and Gravity at least. Once you factor in that the Higgs Field is an Energised Static Field it becomes likely that the Higgs Field is also the Dark Energy Field. And it goes way further than that.
There were several others who challenged Newton's absolute space before Mach, including Leibniz, Huygens and Kant. But I'd agree that Mach had the most comprehensive critique.
I'd be glad if you could provide sources.
@@TheMachian As an introduction I recommend
Kaith Emerson Ballard
Leibniz's Theory of Space and Time
Journal of the History of Ideas 21(1), pp. 49-65 (1960)
In particular on p. 55-56 of loc. cit. it is mentioned that Leibniz ( in his second letter to Samuel Clarke) had/believed/postulated a metaphysical axiom according to which God did not create any two distinct indistinguishable things.
As two disjoint equal-sized parts of absolute space would BE two such things,
Leibniz' axioms implies that absolute space does NOT exist.
(Unless one postulates an ugly ad-hoc axiom according to which it is forbidden to intellectually cut absolute space into disjoint pieces.)
Of course there are more sources; the above seems the best introduction to this historical topic though.
New and relevant is the talk "Princeton-Bucharest Early Modern Seminar" by "Leibniz’ Theory of Space and the Newton Affair" available at czcams.com/video/DHa0kqVBlWc/video.html .
@@TheMachian In Duhem's "Le Systeme du Monde" one can also find a medieval Maltanese Nicholaus Bonet, who insisted that absolute time and place are mathematical fiction, not connected to any real thing. Argument was follows: I can consider motion in relation to physical thing, but every such thing has at least some capacity of motion as well - so it will never be absolute motion. I can consider motion in relation to certain place (a fixed volume of space) - but this is merely a mathematical abstraction. This struck me as really modern thought for his days. This, among few other XIIIc. thinkers was important in departure from Aristotle's time as byproduct of motion of celestial spheres. (Pierre Duhem, "Medieval Cosmology: Theories of Infinity, Place, Time, Void and Plurality of Worlds", p. 353, Chicago University Press)
Leibniz thought of space as a relationship between objects. I've heard Lee smolin say that a few times
Impressive presentation!
I could not think in a better title!
Thanks for this interesting video. From my humble point of view, we really don't understand gravity.
These phenomenons (gravity, electricity, week force, strong force) CANNOT be explained by physics . it only describes them. Even if one could reduce all the forces to a single one (theory of everything), that one would stay unexplained in physics, and just accepted as an (described) axiom of physics.
You need to go (at least) one turtle lower on the tower to look for explanations... in metaphysics, philosophy or religion.
1860: Ernst Mach" macht ernst !
Er bestätigt Experimentel den Doppler Effekt.
Always some new inputs and thoughts.
My reasoning for the question of the mile thick glass is that the additional mass of the glass will create denser spacetime within the glass. The result of the denser spacetime is increased gravity, a slower rate of time and a slower speed of light, we call this relativity.
I didn't notice Mach in the background of the cartoon until now! It actually makes comparing the basic concepts of their theories easy by looking at the illustration
I still can't see him even knowing he should be there.
look for gigantic supine face, well, mostly eyes, glasses and nose
Space is 123... Time is the transistion (change of Space) ... SpaceTime therefore can be written as 1t2t3t...
It is all relative ... The only absolute thing is Nothing (but we shouldn't talk about that, because we cannot talk about Nothing)
Mach was thinking in the correct direction👍
Outstanding introduction to Ernst Mach!
thank you for this very clear explanation of Ernst Mach and what he did. I learned much.
I wonder specifically why the Europeans named units of sound speed after him. It seemed (some years ago now) that the Europeans in competition with the upstart Americans a century ago forced us to honor their scientists by naming physical parameters after them. We used to use CPS (cycles per second) in describing radio waves until the 1960s or so when the Europeans insisted on using Hz (Hertz) instead for example.
Sounds like an improvement
CPS makes sense. Hertz?
You also have Donald Duck and Donald Trump. You win my friend, you win.
Since all scientific innovation came from Europe, I suppose that makes sense.
Light c² is linked to G and both gravitational fields and electromagnetic fields share the Inverse Square Law that can arise out of spherical geometry. We have to square the radius if process is relative to the spherical surface!
Sound is also expressed via an inverse square law, yet it reveals nothing about light and gravity. What is your point?
@@javiersoto5223 There is an exchange of photon energy with the movement of charge whenever our 3D world changes. Sound arises out of this process that is why it is based on inverse square law. The point is that we can have one emergent process that forms Mach Principle.
The base electro-positronic matter-energy wave medium wants to be balanced so repels imbalances into balls. This principle works from the sub-sub atomic to stars and black holes. Matter is imbalances in the field (out of place +ve field cells and the -ve holes left behind - (vibrating) spherical field bulges and pinches)..
Thanks for talking about my favorite Physicist! I had Mach's principal explained in a slightly different way long ago, but it forever altered my perception of space, time, and motion. I was told to imagine a 9-ball from a pool table in otherwise empty space. An entire universe with ONLY a 9-ball in it and nothing else. Imagine spinning the ball, pushing it, applying any motion you like to it. How could the motion ever be described? It will always "look" the same as no motion at all. Remember, you don't exist in this universe so you can't use your own imaginary perspective as a reference. However, add in just one more ball to that imaginary universe and all the sudden the motion of one ball can described relative the other. But you still will not be able to say with certainty that either ball is "stationary" provided they are not both "stationary". In fact, the 2 "stationary" balls might still just have the exact same motion. There are all sorts of interesting puzzles you can come up with using this line of reason, but the one that really baked my noodle and still does to this day is this: Dose the idea of space, time, and motion have any meaning at all devoid of "things" (mass)? Is empty space-time equivalent to no space-time? If so, are all the laws of our universe, and more importantly the physical constants that define those laws, actually just variables that can change on inhuman scales of time and space? Sorry to write I book, but I truly love this topic, and no one EVER talks about it.
You rise important questions. You find some literature here: arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0308087. See also sec. 2.4 (I do not hold all these views any longer however)
@@TheMachian Thank you! I'll read it! And don't worry too much about the views you hold. Eventually reality makes fools of us all.
Interesting, however for an observer to witness the spinning 9 ball as stationary out in space the observer must orbit the ball in the exact plane of rotation, at the same rate of orbit as the rate of spin. with ever increasing energy and increasing orbital forces required as you are further from the 9 ball. Clearly NOT the same effects if the 9 ball was not spinning. Proving, as Newton insisted, not all motion is relative.
Mach’s arguments always were and still are nonsensical.
@@4pharaoh The point is that there is no observer. There is only the ball in the universe. The godlike perspective of the "observer" is just an imaginary perspective to help setup and understand the model. The observer's perspective can't be used as a reference frame.
@@fatherwilliam7256 sorry to say but the physics is a practical thing. The question debated for over 100 years “ Is all motion Relative.”
Newton’s bucket experiment, (and a spinning 8-ball in the emptiness of space) both demonstrate it is are not always the case.
In one relative motion is not observed but the effects of motion never-the-less is. Mach insists the bucket is spinning relative to the universe, and if the entire universe was spinning around the ball the (now *that’s* a God Like Perspective) you would have the same bucket deformation.
The 8 ball analogy, reminds us that the ball is observed is as spinning as every frame-of-reference, and only a one very specific and constantly acceleration can can the ball be considered as stationary.
Newton and your teacher, is telling us that not all motion can be described as relative.
His mile thick bucket idea is fun, kind of similar to comparing Newtons shell theorem with gravity inside a massive sphere. Which a bucket with miles thick walls would be a middle ground of
Age ~78 is not short, from the point of having a vibrant mind! Ernst Mach name will live for ever -- like that of other great minds of Science. I pay my salutations to them all (regardless of whether any of them had lousy character). The divine sparks permeate the entire Universe. In my considered view, the foundations of science (and all other areas of knowledge including the beginnings of alphabets, numerals, numbering, sense of space, time AND relative-nature of the world) can all be traced back to the Vedās AND the Vedic Seers of Bhārat (now referred to by the Westerners as India). India was looted for the material wealth & knowledge. All the same, I am beginning to enjoy I am enjoying your service/series, Professor Unzicker! Thank you very much!
I believe that mass is not self sustaining. The Aether or whatever you want to call it, is energy that mass absorbs. This flows in from l directions and is accelerated by proximity to the mass as the mass absorbing it leaves a relative vacuum. This negative pressure is highest in the most dense areas and can drag other mass along as it attempts to rush to the low pressure.
Mach's understanding is compatible with the unity of being.
Motion is relative, but accelerated or rotational motion is NOT - acceleration is change of velocity; rotation is change of direction. If no force is applied on a body it's relative motion stays the same in both the magnitude and direction of the motion. For accelerated or rotational motion, a force need to be applied. Therefore neither acceleration nor rotation are relative. I don't understand what that would have to do with far away masses in the universe, even in an empty univere you would know if a body rotates, because there would have to be a force (and I don't think the universe could be rotating for the simple reason that the universe has no centre).
PS. The einstein equivalence principle is not true either, since accelerating charges emit radiation (rotating charges also, that is why the classical model of the atom doesn;''t work, the electron would radiate away it's energy and fall into the nucleus) but in a gravitational field that is not the case.
The ozone is the bucket
Of issak newton
Mach was in slight errancy when talking about massive galaxies being the singular source of a universal gravity constant (but not talking about the actual graviton object inside those galaxies creating the actual PE and KE energies and forces). Mach was before the quarkian STD Model came into existence. Mach, if anything, should be talking about the 3 - quarkian space time fabrics (with boson gluons displaying mass as the source of multiple gravitational waves across these fabrics, creating gravity-time properties ... i.e. space-time fabric.
The cosmic tension (Hubble tension) ... coming from the electro-static and electro-gravitic model ... dealing with the interactions between the gluons in the quarkian space time fabrics with the tensor boson hybrids (ES-EG and EG-ES). The tensor bosons working as the cosmic force carriers having half-gravitational properties ... and their multiple layers of electrical forces and the multiple layers of gravitation forces ... across deep space (graviton bosino, electrino bosino, electron boson, muon electron boson, and tau electron boson).
Then one has to deal with the (unsaid) matter fabrics of the graviton, electrino, electron, muon electron, and tau electron, making their own layers of matter fabrics with electrons and positrons having either ES or EG properties. These matter fabrics interact with the intermediary cosmic tension tensor bosons, and the space-time fabrics.
The whole aspect of understanding gravity and gravity waves needs to be calculated, then develop all the multiple proper derivatives and multiple constants dealing with the 3 layers of space-time fabric, the 5 layers of boson hybrid tensor boson force carriers, and the 5 layers of EG matter fabrics. One then adds in the visible galaxies gravitational properties for a full explanation of Newtonian G and g, and Mach's view of G and g.
Newton also needs to have his mass definition also revised. An ES composite (ES electron, ES positron, ...) object does not display gravity (electro-gravitics) but they display electro-static forces. Only EG composites (EG electron, EG positron, ...) tensor boson hybrids (ES/EG, EG/ES), and the EG-EG photon have gravitational properties. Newtonian Law of Attraction is not a singular equation as there are the ES forces (technically being the weak nuclear force) and the stronger EG forces (technically being the strong nuclear force). So Newtonian calculations and derivatives need to be split in two - and deal with electro-statics and electro-gravitics. There is no inbetween gravitational universal constant, except for the multiple tensor boson hybrid levels having both ES and EG properties.
So Mach and Newton (and Einstein) need to have their calculations and derivatives all revised and reformed - and this leads to massive advances in physics and the Grand Unified Field Theory.
That this gravitational pulling from all sides produces the inertia, there are clear proofs for it since newest time. The clock unrest ticks more viscously in increasing mass concentrations. For this, an additional power must not be postulated and -time- must be made flexible.🙃
Worthwhile content and much appreciated. If I may, I would just like to add one line item to Mach's summary bio that you omitted; the fact that he killed poor old Boltzmann! You downplay Mach's skepticism about the existence of atoms but it was not 'reasonable' at the time, it was willfully ignorant; and probably rooted in Mach's insecurities re: Ludwig's intellect. Hopefully you take this in the light-hearted manner it is intended but, come on man, Boltzmann should be in your Hall of Fame playlist, surely.
V speed of light like a drum when you're next to the mass
I read works of a more Metaphysical leaning written in Mach's era before Atomic Theory or QM of course, my School had a very old Library that had references to Eternity-now and All is Vibration, but I don't remember anything else about. This video is an excellent reminder and explanation for some of the relevant issues that must have prompted William Thompson to suggest a Vortex theory of atoms, and that is obviously a "form following function" proposed by Newton's ideas of Gravity.
All the above fits with the "Cyclonic" properties of temporal mechanics sync-duration connectivity Superspini-Reciproction-recirculation at e-Pi-i relative-timing infinitesimal, and Lord Kevin's Absolute Zero.., Black Hole Singularity positioning and Newton's axial-tangential line-of-sight superposition, Fluxions at the Centre of Time.
If you observe the operation of a Dust Cyclone, in Correspondence with temporal Thermodynamical "Ideal Gas" resonance bonding and proportioning.., apply AM-FM to Superposition-point inside-outside holographic time-timing sync-duration, and the whole scenario of Mach's Principle is the Observable GD&P point-line-circle conic-cyclonic coherence-cohesion Pi-bifurcation properties of Reciproction-recirculation Singularity repositioning vertices in vortices nodal-vibrational manifestation of turbulence etc. Quantum Field Condensation Logic of Logarithmic Time Duration Timing modulation.
This video is a "filling in of more of the blanks" in continuity, (although it turns out to be this hyper-hypo resonance Vortex, zero-infinity floating point information In-form-ation), thank you Professor, very impressed again with your observational approach to reasoning.
*****
The suggestion that the Universe is a Big Flash, Temporal coherence-cohesion objective existence concept, of purely functional navigational positioning information In-form-ation of Quantum-fields, or time-timing of what we see overhead from inside-outside space, is reasonable observation, and the name change to holography dimensionality continues naturally to log-antilog interference-condensation, ie resonant observation in math-music superposition identification, of Math-Phys-Chem and Geometrical phase-locked resonance bonding in Perspective Principle.
I'm laughing a lung out 😂😂
@@paulg444 Im guessing all that gobbledygook was nonsensical?
Brilliant channel. Apologies, but as an amateur I have to ask (& I'm sure it's a question that has occurred to others) if the universe were curved in a higher dimension and was itself rotating, could this not create a gravitational effect? Here I picture any object with mass indenting the spatial fabric (so space would be in tension) with celestial bodies creating a distinct 'gravity well' due to the resulting centripetal force.
I do not think you need more dimensions. Much of this drivel is describen in modern popular literature on physics, however....
@@TheMachian Interesting, as I have not come across this. I suppose I haven't delved too much into modern, popular physics literature.
Mach was the first relativist.
Thanks for the video
Lets start🎩🎩🎩
Relevant topics not discussed but important here, are experiments showing G may not be constant, gravity may break down on scales of about 4000au already, and the idea that Earth does not precess relative to other solar system objects, but only relative to distant stars. Putting them together means that yes, we may have an equivalence of gravitational and inertial frames, but they are more local and rotating with respect to the entire visible universe. Here is the question I’d ask:
We know that the inertial frame is not fixed to a rotating Earth, Earths orbit around the sun etc, but is there a single experiment that shows our local inertial frame does not rotate compared to distant galaxies at a rate of 1/72 of a degree per year (the precessional frame)?
Which is why people ca no be no savedin water
Occurs to me that one might explain galactic spin (without dark matter) by invoking Ernst Mach's principle: Mass more distant from a galactic center is (somehow) "less aware" that it is in fact spinning relative to some other huge mass, thus its speed is more on par with nearby mass.
Loosely thinking this way: Per Mach's principle, far from the galactic center you should begin to perceive your own orbital speed as lower than expected. Objects remaining in orbit therefore need to orbit faster than expected, or they will fall inward.
Even better, this hypothesis is testable.
So I was working on a physics problem, what happens if you put Mars at the Jupiter-Sun L5 point?
1. Mars hangs out at L5 indefinitely
2. Mars eventually gets attracted to Jupiter
3. Mars loops around Jupiter and gets it's velocity removed
4. Mars orbits the Sun in a highly elliptical orbit, until it interacts
5. It can get to its present orbit by adjusting the impact parameter.
6. Mercury and Venus don't have the mass to do this since Mars is travelling at higher velocity
7. So Mars did a pass by Earth at an extremely low altitude
This is a pretty straightforward concept but I can't find it in anybody's work. Know any good citations for straightforward planetary dynamics?
Look into Bode's Law. Planets (and the asteroid belt) are at octaval distances from each other, like nodes in a wave interference pattern. Nikola Tesla wanted to move planets around with the Hutchison Effect (interfering high voltage DC brush with high frequency AC magnetic flux) but he was accused of Black Magic, causing both the Dust Bowl and Tunguska, and he was an electrical engineer, neither a medical physician nor an astrophysicist. The idea you suggest was suggested by Tesla and would probably cause catastrophe.
@@0ned Oh those are all interesting, but more specifically the idea if you put Mars at this major spot, it does the pachinko dance described above and ends up where it is now. You say Tesla had the idea; do you know a link?
@@MarcusMacgregor2 some esoteric 20th Century book, I think by William Rayford Lyne, try scribd maybe...
Sorry I don't have the passage handy to quote
“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics. Chapter 3: “ Rethinking Our Celestial Observations “, 95 pages.
Dear Mr. Unzinger, I have struggled with exactly these ideas for many years. For a couple of years, I thought we would find the ideal "Gesprächspartner" in another.
Lieber Herr Unzinger, ich habe mit genau diese Ideen viele Jahre gerungen. I habe auch sehr viel darüber gelesen, auch die Papers von Sciama habe ich bearbeitet, etc..
Ich wollte sogar die Einsteinsche Gleichungen für eine drehende Staubscheibe lösen, ein Problem, das eine Gruppe aus Jena intensiv geforscht haben. Vor einige Zeit dachte ich, dass wir in einander die idealen Gesprächspartnern finden können.
About "The Bucket Experiment" argument, is there a good explanation of it somewhere? References please...
I don't see how it implies a relative acceleration.
I love how gravity shows that light isn't a constant
Important to consider this:
This may be true for both cases or one or the other,
The phenomenon that keeps the planets around the Sun.
The phenomenon that keeps the bodies on the planet.
The phenomenon that keeps the Sun around milky way center.
Would not occur as they do if the celestial bodies were motionless. To understand deeply and fully the material and mechanic of gravity, one must consider this;
If the Sun was stationary, and the Earth was placed stationary at it's current distance from the Sun, what does ones understanding of the physics of the material of the gravity field and its mechanics, tell them will happen?
A stationary body in a medium effects the medium differently than that same body would moving.
So if G = c^2/4x L^3 r^3 /T^2 r^2/c^2 / r according to RSR the c^2 and the r^3 cancel out. I guess that means that G is the same everywhere simultaneously “now” regardless of distance and the speed of light. Simplifying G = the inverse of 4L^3/T^2. When B = .9629739 then G = 6.674e-11 which makes the calculation agree with the current values for the age of the universe, the energy density, and the Hubble constant.
Ernst Mach also worked in psychology and physiology, he wasn't a mathematician at all.
He was a physicist and natural philosopher.
Talk about Paulis notion that atomic motion is two valued, spin up clockwise and spin down cntrclkwz. It gives us a "right hand rule" but requires only the spin to flip. The momentum vector doesn't flip. So in the mirror a particle moves away from the mirror. Huh? If I walk up to a mirror my image moves to the mirror not away from it..
what do you mean by cosmological origin of mass? do you consider parts of the universe which are not in casual connections with us due to the expansion of the Universe? Since the universe is expanding the cosmic horizon is expanding too so the observable universe 'looses' mass continuously , how does it affect this theory?
I made a small mistake below (left out the G on the right hand side of the equation) G (at any value of B) = c^2/4x L^3 r^3 / T ^2 r^2/c^2/ G / r Simplifying G (at any value of B) = G (now) x T^2/L^3/4 so that T^2/L^3/4 is the ratio of G (at any value of B ) to G (now).
Yeah,meanwhile the smart money is on a flat earth and electromagnetism causing things to fall down.
It seems like quite a leap to go from the convex shape in the surface of water in the bucket to the conclusion that the large masses in the universe determine whether one is spinning. It is true that the convex shape is related to the gravity of the earth, but one could easily devise a variation of the test that would work in a zero-gravity environment. I don't see the need for an absolute frame of reference or the presence of large masses. One can determine whether one is in a spinning frame of reference by seeing whether things tend to be accelerated in a particular direction, which would be the direction from the center.
It would be interesting to calcule Mach principle accelerations in the outskirts of rotating galaxies compared to further in and further out.
Since we had to innovate a dark matter for that anti-viscous motion and dark energy for a far red shift motion, Mach principle probably only holds where there is strong enough gravitational coupling or similar enough speed between masses. Elsewhere both GR and Mach principle looses accuracy.
There is an elephant in the room explanation for those abnormally high star rotation rates. For some reason people don't know that Einstein said that singularities are not possible. In the 1939 journal "Annals of Mathematics" he 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 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."
We have all heard the phrase "mass becomes infinite at the speed of light" this phenomenon is illustrated in a common relativity graph with velocity (from stationary to the speed of light) on the horizontal line and dilation (sometimes called gamma or y) on the vertical line. Mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer.
General relativity does not predict singularities when you factor in dilation. Einstein is known to have repeatedly spoken about this. Nobody believed in black holes when he was alive for this reason.
Wherever you have an astronomical quantity of mass, dilation will occur because high mass means high momentum. There is no place in the universe where mass is more concentrated than at the center of a galaxy. According to Einstein's math, the mass at the center of our own galaxy must be dilated. In other words that mass is all around us.
It was recently discovered that low mass galaxies (like NGC 1052-DF2) have normal star rotation rates. This is what relativity would predict because there is an insufficient quantity of mass at the center to achieve relativistic velocities. This is virtual proof that dilation is the governing phenomenon in galactic centers.
A singularity is a mathematical concept for a model that does not fit reality perfectly everywhere. Or a reality that has too many orders of magnitude for its scales to be modelled accurately without using multiple models and a transition model for a phase change.
I think we need to consider a phase change. We live in a gravity that is not extremely high (dense) and not extremely weak (sparse). But reality does not need to be just within our scale.
A fundamental question is "why can't we see light from the galactic center?" The modern answer is because gravitational forces there are so strong that not even light can escape (even though the mass of the photon is 0) Einstein's answer would be because the mass there is partially or completely dilated relative to an Earth bound observer.
Einstein's answer explains the greatest mystery in science, the missing mass is dilated mass.
Another question is: How come we have stuck to the idea that there is only one infinite and rigid space-time and that everything that we can observe, including gravitational waves, is coupled to only that one?
For the sake of the stars in the heavens: GravitATION!
Mach worked on a Gravitational Theory, not a theory of gravity.
There is no gravity and Mach never referred to gravity.
That is why we have GR.
Bodies are falling through space and their relative motion effects their temporality, in that as two bodies move closer together, the joining of their masses causes a slowing of relative time between and for the two bodies.
The closer to a center of mass and the greater the mass, the slower time goes for that mass.
Mach's Principle and General Relativity are not "theories of gravity" but explanations for Gravitation.
Space is Time.
As Space between converging bodies gets smaller the Time for the two bodies goes slower.
There is a difference between acceleration/inertia sticking you to a surface
And a sphere boring a hole through a medium which smaller spheres get trapped in;
Though, the smaller spheres I suppose experience getting stuck to the surface of the mediums rushing to equilibrium hole
I don't know much about Einstein's relativity, but isn't there a problem with explaining inertia in general relativity? If so, then Mach might have been onto something different than what Einstein came up with later. Just my amateur guess.
GR does not resolve all problems; in particular, the origin of intertia is still a riddle.
@@BlueGiant69202 I don't know much about GR but I heard that it can't easily explain inertia. Anyway I think the approach in the Wolfram Physics Project is promising which separates space and time.
It's so simple that no one wants to see it, because physics is "arcane and difficult and weird." But it's right there in the formula. The gravitational potential is the local speed of light, c2. Which is related to the balance of the distribution of masses at your location, i.e. how isotropic space is. No mass in the vicinity = zero gravity.
So Mr. Unzicker, I would posit that the amount of mass in the universe is irrelevant, what matters is its concentration relative to a body... because of the inverse square law proximity makes all the difference.
The real problem is that Mach had a terrible stroke in the 1910s, and his correspondence with Einstein was marred by his inability to do mathematics after he suffered the brain damage. He therefore couldn't follow any of the relativity work.
you could reframe new foundations on either absolute, but you cannot marry them, especially not with 'knowledge' obtained by measuring with rubber band (eg. size of universe)
"Have you seen one?" Hahaha simple reply.
The universe varies it speed of time its not all the same everywhere.
“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics.
This thing, I'll never understand. Masses and gravity have their origins in all masses in the universe. We got one single object and this can have mass or charge and all those objects influence each other. So mass and charge have to have their origins in one single object itself. And now without Newton, Einstein or Mach, I present my very own theory about that and it's very simple. First, we have to face the fact, that masses attract both kinds of charges and both kinds of charges attract masses as well, which means, that gravity can't be shielded or polarized. Even if the last bit of charge is shielded out, gravity will still be there. Now lets have spiral waves spreading spherical from an object and let these waves be responsible for both - mass and charge. So partly such waves spread conical from the object and if all the wavelengths are the same, we'll see sharp Newton rings at every single cut area of the sphere (base of a cone). If they are not, we'll see a more or less noisy pattern there. The rings can be polarized and considered as "key" and "keyhole". Therefore two keys wont fit together and two keyholes wont fit too. The ranges between positive/negative and noisy are seamless, and now keys can more or less fit into a keyhole, what depends on the overall wavelengths in the cut area of two objects. The strength of the force between two objects can now be between Coulombs law (Coulomb constant) and the gravitational law (gravittional constant). With this, we don't have to find more than one force between two objects, so there is only one grand unified force in the universe and as far as I know, this is the wonder all physicists have been waiting for. And of course, this is what we see, if we look at solid disks, most galaxies and solar systems. This all is an development of F=a*M*m/(M+m)=v²*M*m/(r*(M+m)). We do not need dark matter! We have to think over our "knowledge" of mass.
correct me if im wrong , im not a phycist just a curious person , as far as i know the inflation of the universe in mainstream is primarily attributed to redshifting of light from distant stars and galaxies , is it possible that these objects are moving away from us because they are perhaps rotating or moving in some trajectory which has a different direction then us relative to some other point and thus the redshift would be produced this way ?
Mach is one of the only physicists that makes good logical sense to me. For Einstein, it's all relative, but not relative enough it seems!
Universe is well connected
Mass of an electron Or proton.. Owes its existence to the sum total interaction
Of the rest of universe (gravitational,electromagnetic.....) ... ?
Watch a video of a slinky stretched and then dropped from a tower. Then watch a video of a plane doing a zero g flight. Then watch a video of a pilot pouring a drink into a cup on top of his instrument panel while doing a barrel roll without a drop being spilled. They each show what gravity actually is. Einstein (and Mach, apparently) figured it out with his equivalence principle, but didn't realize what he had demonstrated and went off into general relativity lala land. It's plain as day what's going on if one thinks things through completely. Can anyone see it? I highly doubt it.
U do know the earth is flat,right?
@C if the earth is the focal point of the universe, then the fact that other things appear spherical would not really proof of anything. a snooker table is not spherical, yet all the balls are.
am i ignorant of certain math concepts? no. i am aware of eretosphanes stick and shadow experiment... it proves the earth is spherical or the sun is local. as it turns out, the flat earth model has a local sun.
you have not studied flat earht, youve just looked for an argument against it. when you can explain a thousand photos that ought to be impossible on a shperical earth, you can say youve studied flat earth.
the sun apparently being 390 times bigger than the moon and 390 times as far away is a ridiculous coincidence that, if true, would be so impossible youve have to be skeptical just bc the maths does not allow you not to be.
nasa take 50 million dollars a day and cannot send one skinny rocket up to film earth with a zoom lens. even after 50 years. why not?
how does the earths air move with the earth at say, 40 miles up? what meachansim serves that? everything we know ab gas tells us it would trail back like a catherine whell, yet apparently it moves in tandem with the ground. how is that possible? how is it even contained? how does water run down an incline on a globe, when the only force is pulling it to the centre of earth... it would be more inclined to bore down thru the ground than run downhilll.
why do airplane runway sometimes run from north to south on a surface moving at 1000 miles an hour.?
why do weather balloons show flat horizons from 25 miles up?
how come we still cannot prove axial rotation?
why do nasa training manuals all say 'over a flat non rotating earth'..?
i could go on... but its your turn to put some evidence on the table.
'
@C i was not 'defending my stance'. you are strawmanning me, as it helps you to then pull me apart. i am not preaching to you, i am sharing my understanding with you,. i said you can think what you like, i am not deliberating or directly attempting to recruit you into anything.
the heliocentric solar sytem model is a theory. thats great. but it is not so great when people present it as fact. the scientific model is not ab facts, but ab theories and models put up to be disproved. its a healthy enough method, but the problem is that it allows for disingenuity. if we never get to go to the south pole to disprove the globe by showing a lack of 24 hour sun, and we cherry pick the experiments we do do, then we can avoid disproving the model forever... as i say, a littel bit, a lot really, of disingenuity there.
i am a christian, i foxus on the new testament. if there is no supreme power beyond us, how can a flat earth system come into being randomly...it cannot really. we could think ab mathematics, music, radio waves, language, the voice box, rainbows, electricity, the genome, the digestive system, mysticism, and a whole load of other stuff to convince ourselves of a creator, but in the end he clearly wishes us to proceed in accordance with our own personal response to the ideas of justice and goodness... bc then he will be able to see which of us will be deserving of a place in pasradise, and which wont. he has made his creation perfect in that way, and none of us will be able to complain if we do not make the final cut. .. this is clear to many of us, but it is an article of faith, and you can take it or leave it, i am not preaching it, just sharing my understanding with you in this salonn of shared ideas...
if we have come to personify god and the devil, then that is just people being artisitc.. but the concepts of goodness and justice.are hardly deniable. you will respond to them in the way that seems best for you... as will we all.
i dont even beleive Jesus necessarily did walk the earth.. i respond to the teachings associated with the character... the message is worth more than the man for me. i am not an average christian.
we are in and of the body... we must repent and be born again in the spiritual... we must open our door fully so that god can enter... we cannot save ourselves directly... but we can open our door so wide that god has to enter... indeed he will not enter unless we open it fully, but muat eneter if we do.
you can keep throwing rocks at me, but they literally bounce off. thew earth is demonstrably flat. you either know rhis and work for the dark side, whixch you are at liberty to do, or you are not really looking at the situation rationally. u display all the classic symptoms of a darksider... but u ought to know that a true jedi knows full well that you can only operate around me with the power i give to you. i respect your freedom to be a darksider (if that is what you are) i just think you would do well to consider youve bought into a counterfeit pathway... and whilst its easy to wrap up the gamma males in their own childishness, not all who you meet along this highway will be so easy to entrap. and in the end it may be you who is powerless to overcome the adversary who is sent to slay you.... have you ever read that little story of kafkas... the man who sought access to the law... yes, my friend, thisd doorway was really only ever meant for you to pass through...
@@DaemonZodiac do you propose that the key to "salvation"resides in the belief of whether or not the Earth is flat? If so, I promise you have been deceived.
@@xenphoton5833 no, i am sure i would have made it clear that knowing the earth is flat will not save anyone. However, it is just about the biggest clue there is to relaising the false arcadian babylon for what it is, thus facilitiating a coming out of babylon and being reborn in Christ. Christ is our saviour.. or at least his message is. I am not an idol worshipper, i do not bow down and worship the man, i contemplate his message and believe i am saved thruogh that contemplation of his message.
i cannot even see the comments of the person i was debating with... they appear from my viewpoint to have all been removed. it looks like i am arguing with a ghost... he was there, i swear it...hahahaha
have you explored th wetymology of the word 'person'... per son... per jesus Christ... are we all clones of Jesus Christ waiting to activate ourselves from within, but remain sleeper who fail to notice the clue in the word 'person' until we do? what a lovely iidea.
now, if we see clearly that the earth is flat, can we, in all seriousness, take the babyloninan death cult seriously ever again? i dont rthink we can... and that very act ought to take us out of babylon and facilitate the rebirth in Chrsit... but, there are many who apparently know the earth is falt but have not come out of babylon... therefore it doesnt work like that... and the information will do such people more harm than good.. but they clearly have no faith and so it doesnt really matter, they were already miserable before they embraced the flat earth thing and they are still miserable. i can only conclude that they do ont really beleive the earth is flat, they just lke the idea of it and wear the basdge the same way flase christians love to wear a crucifix... what can you do with such people... thnkfully it is not our job to judge and punish them... but we can speculate on how they operate.
so, i would conclude that flat earth can save a person, but only if they really beleive it is flat... because then 2 things happen.. 1) they activate their beleivng faciltiy and this must coincide with finidng salvation in Christ (they will soon enough relasie they have been reborn in Christ when they activate their bleeiving faciltiy, truly activate it)...and 2) they must come out of babylon therein, and where else can they then wash up but in Christ.
so, theres an angle you didnt cover, i ll bet.
good day to you.
Page 1:30 +
I see two forces, (1) g force and (2) inertia and or centrifuge forces.
Where g relates local g, eg g on earth, while inertia relates to cosmic g force, eg total g of total mass in the universe.
I agree with Mach.
Your remark made me understand gravity better. We should better study the spiral forms of gravity. For instance the rings of Saturn are still puzzling.
@@BartvandenDonk I’m glad you asked, the ring. You just put me on the spot :) to look at this a bit closer. Coming out of it, I see this as two g plus two electric forces. The local g keeps them close together but the electric force keeps them apart from bumping at one another. The universe g provides inertia to maintains the gyroscopic operation.
Why rings in the rotational plane? The associate answer is a question: why a planet has magnetic poles? The answer is anybody’s guess. Given a planet has magnetic poles, and all space bodies including atom and subatom, carries electric charge. Visiting and charged bodies from all approaching angles are diverted towards the polar regions in a helical path by Laurence force of planet’s magnetosphere. At close proximity encounters electric charged difference between planet and visiting bodies, an electric arc took place equalizing both into equal and common polarity charges have induced an electric repulsion force and begins to send the smaller mass body into a curved migration path or a prototype orbit section near planet’s pole. By center of planet mass, and the planet’s magnetosphere (tokamak), can the visiting bodies change migrate path towards planet’s rotational plane. Visitor’s mass, momentum and electric charge will define its final location in the ring.
Besides visiting bodies, the ring also originate from debris out of electric arc went between a sizable visiting planet, also from difference electric charge equalization but only more intense and violent. Example: Valles Marineris of Mars. However without magnetosphere its debris all drift to its neighbor, Saturn.
If not because of space bodies and planets carries substantial electrical charge of like polarity, all materials in our universe may end in a single planet or fire ball.
Also you obviously need informational events for acceleration to happen.
What happens if you replace the water in Machs bucket experiment with (a) fluid helium and (b) superfluid liquid helium and what is the difference between (a) and (b) in view of Machs explanation of gravity?
I do not see why this should make a difference as a matter of principle.
@@TheMachian Until now, General Relativity is still the best theory of gravitatioin we have. But GR can't be the full story since it is classical physics and fails to describe gravitational effects on entangled quantum states. So far, There is still a gap between quantum field theory and gravitational interaction and no one is able to fix this problem. Machs principle may be interesting for history of physics, but there is no convincing argument, that it could help to improve our current state of the art theories.
Not bad. I would like to have heard a bit on the use and interpretation of Mach's principle by Dr. Mendel Sachs in "General Relativity and Matter(1982)" and "Quantum Mechanics from General Relativity(1986)".
"To find, then, what remains unaltered in the phenomena of nature, to discover the elements thereof and the mode of their interconnection and interdependence- this is the business of physical science. It endeavors, by comprehensive and thorough description, to make the waiting for new experiences unnecessary ; it seeks to save us the trouble of experimentation, by
making use, for example, of the known interdependence of phenomena, according to which, if one kind of event occurs, we may be sure beforehand that a certain other event will occur. Even in the description itself labor may be saved, by discovering methods of describing the greatest possible number of different objects at once and in the concisest manner." - The Science of Mechanics by Ernst Mach
4:49, please provide the reference link for this paper of Professor Erwin Schrödinger.
E. Schrödinger, Annalen der Physik 382 (1925), p. 325ff
Actually, the :"all the masses of the universe makes the most sense"
The gravitational mass of a galaxy is not isolated from the gravitational pull of everything else that has mass in the universe.
Gravity can be understood in a similar manner to the centrifugal force, resulting from momentum conservaton as the velocity changes direction. The centrifugal force is outward where as gravity inward. It is like sitting inside a large rotating cylinder and getting pushed to its wall and feeling very much like gravity. Replace the cylindrical wall by the distant masses of the universe and you get gravity. This explains 'why gravity is so weak'.The value of G of gravity can then be calculated from v^2/r balanced by gravity and replacing v by c and r, m by the radius and mass of the universe and getting; G=4c^2 ru/mu , in agreement with the Shrodinger formula and Mach's principle. Note also that in Bernard theorem a proof is given that two bodies locked in an orbit experience the inverse square forces of gravity 'if momentum is conserved'. See for more; "Simplifying astronomy via Mach's principle, Einstein equivalence principle, and the gravitational phase shift". regards.
I never understood how Einstein's equivalent principle could be considered true since any gravity field creates a spaghettification effect and therefore, you can tell if you're accelerating in a gravitational field.
Hello Alexander Unzicker and thanks for this video about Ernest Mach.
With all due respect for EM, I don´t think he really understood gravity. (As with Newton himself too - or nobody else for that matter).
All motions in micro- and macro cosm is naturally embedded in all atoms and molecules and these are naturally affected by the two polarities in external electromagnetic forces.
Electric currents flow in a double helical swirling pattern and the attractive EM polarity is what causes atoms and molecules to bind together and form firm matters everywhere. Newton´s gravity has nothing to do with this formation and its motions everywhere.
Regarding "celestial motions" of galaxies, this is the immediate result of an external EM affect on a random cosmic cloud of gas and dust - and the orbital motions of stars is a secondary effect from the electromagnetic formation when stars have reached a critical mass/weight and slung CENTRIFUGALLY away from the location of formation.
Orbiting planets around a star are made from the same actual formation as the mother star itself and have dispersed centrifugally from this starry “pre-Solar System sphere”.
Regarding Newtons idea of gravity on Earth, he confused a general orbital velocity draft resistance PRESSURE on the Earth from the not empty space around the Sun for his Earth gravity PULL.
This orbital pressure logically also affects all other planets according to their simple SIZES and orbital velocities. It has nothing to do with Newtons gravity and “Universal laws of celestial motions” - which in fact was directly contradicted on galactic scales, and “dark matter” was inserted as yet another occult patch in Newtons also “occult gravity agency”.
Merci ; peut on envisager sur une epclise de soleil de faire de la choronographie des étoiles deviées ,a mon avis on pourrair avoir une idée du decalage vers le rouge des raies hydrogene
Merci
Why is there a need for Mach’s principle ? Isn’t the bucket phenomena adequately explained by conservation of energy? Kinetic energy in this case. So in other words water accelerated into a particular direction will try to carry on in that direction? The question I would ask is once an object is accelerated into a rotational motion would it carry on indefinitely in a frictionless world?
“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics: I.e. answers.
Ernst Mach Self Portrait speaks so loudly you can hardly hear what he said. The observer is the observed.
Einstein was influenced by Mach. Look at Al's original "chest" in space. It accelerated at 32'/sec2 because it is pulled by a rope fastened at the top by a hook. The pulling force is a "being" says Einstein. And one must suppose the occupant experiences his weight against the floor as the "inertial drag" of the rotating star frame.
I just wondering what if we take from numerology only the digital root part of it. The digital root can be representerd as line of numbers from 0 to + infinit which graficaly could be bandet to spiral on that way that on second line of spiral on top of 0 we have 9. On top of 1 we have 10, 2-11,3-12,4 -13...... so one . Than on third line next group of number. This way we can create the spiral which will go to + infinit . But will have the numbers which will give as digital roots in on line going from first line of spiral (all digital roots of numbers will have projection in first line of spiral almost like in numerologji) . This will explain why the univers is expanding end also speeding up. From digital root we know that 0 and 9 are acting same but they can create one pare. So we need to create other pairs . Also from digital root examples on different web site you can se that if you apply times table using digital root you create other pairs 1-8,2-7,3-6,4-5. Times table is symetric. I se the problem with representig times table in all this websites. There should be one model of representig the times table for all numbers. I have found that model . This model would explain lots of things
It's amazing that Democritus from ancient greece thought about atoms in an era with so little information.
Mach is remembered in the history of physics as a deep thinker.
But his actual contributions were over shadowed by greater ideas,
especially Einstein's theories of relativity.
Mach was right about not wanting be connected to the theory of relativity. Mach's Principle is not consistent with General Relativity and therefore most probably wrong.
Ach, Ott Christoph Hilgenberg, por favor, the gravity sink, not the gravity well, seeing you won't find Marco Todeschini easily. Hilgenberg is your national hero. Please honor him.
Hi Alexander. I had been wondering if exist any experiment that show the quantum nature of gravity. If gravity is really diferent in nature to quantum mechanics. Many people have been wasting time.
From my book "Bankrupting Physics", p. 132: :-)
Since the Planck length contains the gravitational constant G and Planck’s quantum h, it is the scale at which “quantum effects of gravity” are supposed to become important. Dear readers, that is all. No theory of quantum gravity exists, let alone any evidence of an observable effect. You’ll find the topic somewhat more elaborated in Stephen Hawking’s book A Briefer History of Time. The chapter about quantum gravity takes up 21 pages, of which almost 20 pages are devoted to repeating gravitation and quantum theory. Andrzej Staruszkiewicz, the editor of a renowned physics journal,
commented on this topic:
“It is tempting to assume that when so many people write about ‘quantum gravity,’ they must know what they are writing about. Nevertheless, everyone will agree that there is not a single physical phenomenon whose explanation would call for ‘quantum gravity.’ "
@@TheMachian Thank you very much. Have a nice day.
What is the carrier of communication of this revolving bucket of water with the rest of the Universe?
G calculated from first principles- the hydrogen atom- in 2002. Can you not read- with comprehension of course?
1= how fast does the effect of gravity travel through space? a) c? b) faster/slower than c? c) instantaneously?d) we have no idea. Unless the correct answer is (c) the gravitational effects of anything in the universe upon here, are yet to be felt, except anything within a 300 LY radius, which is about the time when the first measurements were taken, if we are assuming that the answer is (a). 2= The gravitational potential depends on (c) being right. It also depends on the fact that the inverse square law from Newton's equations does not hold. Otherwise, even if (c) is correct, the gravitational effects of distant galaxies will be below detectable instrument limits. 2= there must be a good reason why Einstein dropped the idea of VSL. Space warping due to gravity, a local effect, yields more tractable equations, and VERIFIABLE EFFECTS, as the precession in Mercury's orbit. Occam's Razor. 3= What Einstein called his biggest blunder= the cosmological constant. VSL says the universe is (almost,not) static. (a) says it is expanding. Let us call the matter in the universe an ideal gas. An increase in temperature, generated by converting matter into energy at a rate of 4 Gkg per second, per star, per 100/200 billion stars per galaxy,per 200 billion galaxies, per 3E7 seconds per year, per 14 billion years (give or take). An increase in temperature causes an increase in volume, at constant pressure. If, and only if, VSL is correct, then the average temperature/pressure of the galaxy should be increasing, at constant volume. COBE measured the area it measured, at a few Kelvins, or less. It looks we will not be burning in plasma anytime soon
This comment is far more interesting that the video.
“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics.
sigh - I still don't get Mach's principle - not fully anyway. Everytime I think I get it, some other what-if question comes to mind.
See my VSL playlist; there are several videos that touch it.
I am an absolute fan of your vulgarization work, it's very enlightening (no pun intended :-)
Gravity has nothing to do with mass, gravity moves into holes inside mass, gravity therefore has to do with holes like water moves into a sponge. A bigger sponge has more holes so there is a relationship with mass, and holes, but you can have holes is space too. Gravity will also move into holes in space, they do not need any mass. Mass is spin inside holes, it is separate physics to the holes themselves that gravity moves towards.
When you say Mach realized gravity has something to do with all the rest of the mass in the universe but didn't Newton already realize this in his gravitational equation? Not sure what you mean.
“G” calculated from first principles- the hydrogen atom- in 2002.
how all great physicists were born from 1860-1920 just like so great men who built western civilisation. max planck dob is 1858*
wat. Are u saying origin as in, "origin the XYZ coordinate of the middle of the universe", or origin as in "gravity originates from mass". I don't see the connection of gravity and inertia either.
Can he pull 9 Gs…?
Do you have any opinions on soviet physicists?
Yes, they were Lysenkoist or dead.
That's personal opinion, not academic opinion.
Check out Viktor Grebennikov or Andrei Kozyrev.
But not atoms
1. A hammerthrower spins the iron ball around his head.
When he releases the handle, what happens?
Does the iron ball ceep on orbiting around the head of the hammerthrower?
No. The iron ball flys away.
No mass attraction between the head of hammerthrower and and iron ball is observable.
Conclusion: mass attraction does not exist.
2. Billiard balls shot at one another don't clump together. They repel each other. Mass attraction between billiard balls is not observable. Conclusion: mass attraction does not exist.
3. Sandglass, hourglass. The sand does not clump together. Mass attraction between sand grains is not observable. Conclusion: mass attraction does not exist.
4. Sahara dust. The dust particles don't clump together. Mass attraction between dust particles is not observable. Conclusion: mass attraction does not exist.
5. Gases expand. Gases don't clump together. Mass attraction between gas molekules is not observable. Conclusion: mass attraction does not exist.
Conclusion: Gasballs and dustballs in space are impossible. If gas molekules or dust particles collide they repel each other. They don't (never/ever) clump together by themselves.
Final conclusion: is up to you.
“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics.
@@davidrandell2224 First comment within 5 month!!! What's your conclusion?
@@mj7335 Gravity is based on size not mass. Nor does gravity attract. That much is correct. A proton is a collection of 1836 expanding electrons and add a bouncing expanding electron makes a hydrogen atom. Electron mass(9.11) multiplied by 1836 equals the proton mass (1.67). “G” calculated from first principles- the hydrogen atom- in 2002. All atoms and atomic objects are expanding at 1/770,000th their size per second per second constant acceleration: multiplied by earth’s radius equals 16 feet expansion- pushing us up away from center mass- that is literally Einstein’s “ elevator.” All of Standard Theory/Model replaced by Expansion Theory: Much more interesting/ important than the status quo that passes for ‘ knowledge ‘.
@@davidrandell2224 Thank you. Very interesting.
"Modern" Physics is far away from Reality:
Speculations + Assumptions + Hypotheses + Speculations + Assumptions + Hypotheses + Speculations + Assumptions + Hypotheses + Speculations + Assumptions + Hypotheses + Speculations + Assumptions + Hypotheses...
and weird conclusions, weird conclusions, weird conclusions,
weird conclusions, weird conclusions, ... = Science?
Mach did not understand gravity, Einstein did not understand gravity. His theory only understood the effect of gravity. Physicists look for gravitrons but cannot find them.
How does the attractions of particles function.
It is not time.
We need to explain how gravity works as in the great attractor at distances of hundreds of light years apart.
“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics.
I had a similar idea to Mach.
Imagine if there were only two objects in the universe (equal in size and mass) and the one object accelerated away from the other that remained still...
In relativistic terms, both objects are accelerating away from each other but we would tend to think that only the object that physically moved would feel the effects of inertia.
But is this so?
Could it be that our sensation of inertia is only experienced during acceleration/deceleration and the rest of the universe that is not accelerating feels no inertia when we accelerate, is because our inertia is distributed across our small mass while the counter inertia is distributed across the mass of the universe and is therefore undetectable?
Yes, that was a serious run-on sentence.
Bucket experiment kind of flops in zero g. I hate thought experiments that never make it to lab or demonstration.
Why should it? No problem as a matter of principle to perform it at the ISS.
Kind of the whole point of imagining giant spinning wheels in space for artificial gravity, no?
I found the spinning blob of water experiment at the ISS very interesting, in which the gases were forced into the axis or core of the water globule. While tea flecks were distributed. In a topological rearrangement way the core was the concavity of your bucket.
Mach was no great thinker, he was just a contrarian philosopher. Who have no place in physics since they argue untestable complaints without suggesting an alternative explanation. Any cranky hobo could do that for a ham sandwich.
I have no sandwiches to offer here, just factual information.
2:57 Brah, can't you at least spell it right? I mean c'mon