This is one of many attempted explanations for near Earth gravity using General Relativity. Relativists can't agree on this because none of their explanations make any sense.
"The apple falls because it's future points downwards"
Not even remotely possible, since even in relativity time is not a spacial dimension so it cannot point something "downwards" or at an object in space. That's beyond stupid stacked on top of an already stupid model of reality.
The last 6 minutes talk about a fictional "black hole".
Space and time are supposedly so "curved" within it, that nothing escapes. That's undefined nonsense because these are terms with no physical understandings attached to them.
Someone first needs to define what a "non-curved" space physically is and what a "curved" space is. What are their properties? What are the forces it exerts on an object and why? Why does a non-curved space seem to exert no forced on anything, but a "curved" space does? How does it exert a force on both light and matter? If a weight is put on a spring, how does "curved" space make the apple push down the spring?
And once again, time can't "point" to the center of a blackhole because in GR the "time" axis is orthogonal to space. It doesn't point AT individual objects within space.
What happened to the rigorous scientific method where you're supposed to observe the phenomena before formulating a hypothesis and a theory? This "theoretical physics" bs is not science, it's sci-fi narratives and speculation. Math could be forced to work with the model but that doesn't mean the model is what is observed in reality.
How can any of this be proven when no one has control of the variable being examined, so that they could remove it and introduce it in their experiments, proving causality? How could this bs be falsified?
From the very beginnings of chemistry, mathematics was used to create quantitative and qualitative models for helping comprehend the world of chemistry
No quantum effects isnt the same as "space" travel, but they all kinda work the same. Millions of people have done experiments and done the math, to give us a current explanation for the reality we live in.
But yes, I actually enjoyed physics and calculating trajectory's and I think its rather amazing that the military had these nerds on the battlefield with notepads and papers calculating this shit by hand before they had devices and eventually computers to do it all for them. Could you imagine trying to solve a algebra equation while bullets are flying by your head rofl. Sounds fun, except for the whole killing others and possibly dying part.
I really question, what math did you guys finish in highschool. I actually did not know how to add/subtract fractions in the 9th grade. By grade 10 I was in geometry and algebra, by 11 I was in algerbra 2 and I aced that class, somehow.
I failed out of precalc the next year though. Spent more time daydreaming about someone who didnt even know I existed rather than focusing on the school work. The teacher wasnt bad, but he wasnt the teacher from the year before playing fuel albums during quizzes and tests. I did end up passing precalc in college and making it to calculus. In fact calculus and linear algerbra was the last of my generic classes I needed. Its bullshit that most of the degree wont transfer to any other school.
I dont claim to be smart, but ive done alot of this math and checked it out myself. I deal with alot of it doing the game engine thing. Its why im convinced there is more to this universe than we can see/comprehend. You may believe in god, but we can both agree on that at least?
Math can even describe the breakdown of the very smallest particles that we know for sure can exist. Why would it be fake for the observable universe. Think about it.
I decided to ask physicists on reddit again and here is the best they've come up with so far. It still defines spacetime as a mathematical fantasy land and not a physical model.
[QUOTE]
"What then does that space curvature physically mean for space in that box?"
There are two main interpretations of curvature:
1- Geodesic deviation: usually, we expect that objects with zero acceleration are in uniform, rectilinear motion with respect to one another. This is not the case in curved spacetimes. Curvature tells us precisely how they are accelerating with respect to one another.
(We have to be careful with the meaning of "acceleration", but this is the gist of the idea).
One of the key insights during the development of General Relativity was that free falling objects can accelerate with respect to one another when the gravitational field is non-uniform. We call this effect tidal acceleration. So, if we wish to interpret free fall as inertial motion, we better have a way to make inertial objects "accelerate" with respect to one another.
Anyways, this leads to a beautiful correspondence between curvature and tidal effects.
2- Parallel transport around a closed loop (have a look at the geometric meaning section): suppose we pick an arrow and start moving around with it, doing our best not to deform nor to change its direction. Eventually, we go back to our starting point. By how much would our vector have changed?
We expect that it wouldn't have changed at all. And we would be right if spacetime were flat. In curved spacetimes, though, our arrow might change. Once again, curvature tells us precisely how it changes.
what do we mean by "space" anyway?
In the context of General Relativity, spacetime is a structure with three main aspects:
1- A manifold structure: we are able to map events via coordinate charts, just like a cartographer maps places on the surface of our planet.
2- It has a metric structure: we are able to measure lengths and time intervals.
3- It has an affine structure: we can tell by how much vectors change from one point to another.
If we are able to slice spacetime in a very specific way, we can call these slices "space".
And since this is relativity, I'd also ask the question "what is it straight or curved relative to exactly?"
Not everything in Relativity is frame dependent. An essential part of the theory is to explain which things are not coordinate dependent. Besides, something may be "relative" in a trivial sense: it is defined in a coordinate dependent manner, but it has the same values in arbitrary coordinate systems.
He defines curved space (potentially) by acceleration of objects in that space. But that still brings us back to what is space and what is curving? What is acting on what and how?
His other (potential) definition for curved space is pure mathematics, treating everything as a vector in a coordinate system. Well that is just math and not a physical model. In a proper physical model an object needs to be acted upon by something in some way.
His definition of space are just some general characteristics of a mathematical coordinate system. So just more math and nothing physical.
Just watch the first 6 minutes of the video.
This is one of many attempted explanations for near Earth gravity using General Relativity. Relativists can't agree on this because none of their explanations make any sense.
"The apple falls because it's future points downwards"
Not even remotely possible, since even in relativity time is not a spacial dimension so it cannot point something "downwards" or at an object in space. That's beyond stupid stacked on top of an already stupid model of reality.
The last 6 minutes talk about a fictional "black hole".
Space and time are supposedly so "curved" within it, that nothing escapes. That's undefined nonsense because these are terms with no physical understandings attached to them.
Someone first needs to define what a "non-curved" space physically is and what a "curved" space is. What are their properties? What are the forces it exerts on an object and why? Why does a non-curved space seem to exert no forced on anything, but a "curved" space does? How does it exert a force on both light and matter? If a weight is put on a spring, how does "curved" space make the apple push down the spring?
And once again, time can't "point" to the center of a blackhole because in GR the "time" axis is orthogonal to space. It doesn't point AT individual objects within space.
I simply ask the relativists - what is spacetime made of?
If you try to pin them down on that, eventually they will say "well the math works so the theory is true".
What happened to the rigorous scientific method where you're supposed to observe the phenomena before formulating a hypothesis and a theory? This "theoretical physics" bs is not science, it's sci-fi narratives and speculation. Math could be forced to work with the model but that doesn't mean the model is what is observed in reality.
How can any of this be proven when no one has control of the variable being examined, so that they could remove it and introduce it in their experiments, proving causality? How could this bs be falsified?
Your typing on the proof, imo.
The transistors work on quantum effect.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/quantum-interference-transistor
The processor does too.
https://semiengineering.com/quantum-effects-at-7-5nm/
So does the plastic. (works on math)
No quantum effects isnt the same as "space" travel, but they all kinda work the same. Millions of people have done experiments and done the math, to give us a current explanation for the reality we live in.
But yes, I actually enjoyed physics and calculating trajectory's and I think its rather amazing that the military had these nerds on the battlefield with notepads and papers calculating this shit by hand before they had devices and eventually computers to do it all for them. Could you imagine trying to solve a algebra equation while bullets are flying by your head rofl. Sounds fun, except for the whole killing others and possibly dying part.
I really question, what math did you guys finish in highschool. I actually did not know how to add/subtract fractions in the 9th grade. By grade 10 I was in geometry and algebra, by 11 I was in algerbra 2 and I aced that class, somehow.
I failed out of precalc the next year though. Spent more time daydreaming about someone who didnt even know I existed rather than focusing on the school work. The teacher wasnt bad, but he wasnt the teacher from the year before playing fuel albums during quizzes and tests. I did end up passing precalc in college and making it to calculus. In fact calculus and linear algerbra was the last of my generic classes I needed. Its bullshit that most of the degree wont transfer to any other school.
I dont claim to be smart, but ive done alot of this math and checked it out myself. I deal with alot of it doing the game engine thing. Its why im convinced there is more to this universe than we can see/comprehend. You may believe in god, but we can both agree on that at least?
https://www.murky.org/blog/2020-8/big-european-bubble-chamber
Math can even describe the breakdown of the very smallest particles that we know for sure can exist. Why would it be fake for the observable universe. Think about it.
They tend to say “strings” these days.
Like guitar strings? Has anyone observed those? But I guess it sounds fancy and sciency enough for the soyence goobers.
I decided to ask physicists on reddit again and here is the best they've come up with so far. It still defines spacetime as a mathematical fantasy land and not a physical model.
[QUOTE] "What then does that space curvature physically mean for space in that box?"
There are two main interpretations of curvature:
1- Geodesic deviation: usually, we expect that objects with zero acceleration are in uniform, rectilinear motion with respect to one another. This is not the case in curved spacetimes. Curvature tells us precisely how they are accelerating with respect to one another.
(We have to be careful with the meaning of "acceleration", but this is the gist of the idea).
One of the key insights during the development of General Relativity was that free falling objects can accelerate with respect to one another when the gravitational field is non-uniform. We call this effect tidal acceleration. So, if we wish to interpret free fall as inertial motion, we better have a way to make inertial objects "accelerate" with respect to one another.
Anyways, this leads to a beautiful correspondence between curvature and tidal effects.
2- Parallel transport around a closed loop (have a look at the geometric meaning section): suppose we pick an arrow and start moving around with it, doing our best not to deform nor to change its direction. Eventually, we go back to our starting point. By how much would our vector have changed?
We expect that it wouldn't have changed at all. And we would be right if spacetime were flat. In curved spacetimes, though, our arrow might change. Once again, curvature tells us precisely how it changes.
what do we mean by "space" anyway?
In the context of General Relativity, spacetime is a structure with three main aspects:
1- A manifold structure: we are able to map events via coordinate charts, just like a cartographer maps places on the surface of our planet.
2- It has a metric structure: we are able to measure lengths and time intervals.
3- It has an affine structure: we can tell by how much vectors change from one point to another.
If we are able to slice spacetime in a very specific way, we can call these slices "space".
And since this is relativity, I'd also ask the question "what is it straight or curved relative to exactly?"
Not everything in Relativity is frame dependent. An essential part of the theory is to explain which things are not coordinate dependent. Besides, something may be "relative" in a trivial sense: it is defined in a coordinate dependent manner, but it has the same values in arbitrary coordinate systems.
[END QUOTE]
So
He defines curved space (potentially) by acceleration of objects in that space. But that still brings us back to what is space and what is curving? What is acting on what and how?
His other (potential) definition for curved space is pure mathematics, treating everything as a vector in a coordinate system. Well that is just math and not a physical model. In a proper physical model an object needs to be acted upon by something in some way.
His definition of space are just some general characteristics of a mathematical coordinate system. So just more math and nothing physical.