[MUSIC PLAYING] Einstein said that

gravity is not a force. Instead, he said,

it’s a manifestation of spacetime curvature. Sounds great. Now what’s curvature? In general relativity, objects

that fall or orbit aren’t being pulled by a gravitational

force, they’re simply following straight

line constant speed paths in a curved spacetime. Now anyone can say those words

at a party to sound cool, but what do they actually mean? Well, for a complete answer

you can read this 1,200 page behemeth. Sorry, there’s just

no way around that. But over the next

few episodes I’m going to try to give you

a sense of the answer, a flow chart level view

of the relevant concepts and how they add up to

the idea that there simply is no force of gravity. We actually started

this campaign in our “Is Gravity an

Illustion?” episode. If you haven’t seen it

yet, pause and click here to watch it right now. Otherwise, what I’m about

to say will make no sense. You all done? Awesome. In that episode we

noted objections to Einstein’s

viewpoint, many of which you echoed in the comments. Now ultimately, the way

around those objections is to realize that if the

world is a curved spacetime, then the familiar meanings of

terms like a constant velocity straight line and acceleration

will become ambiguous. We’ll be forced

to redefine them, and once we do there’s

no longer going to be an inconsistency with

saying that falling frames are inertial, even though

they accelerate relative to one another. Our goal in this

series of videos is to explain that

last statement, and to explain how

it lets you account for the motion we

observe even if there’s no Newtonian force of gravity. But we need to lay

some groundwork first, so we’re going to spread

this out over three parts. In part one we’re going to

put physics aside and focus on geometry, specifically

on what we really mean by straight line

and by flat verses curved mathematical spaces. In part two we’ll

acquaint ourselves with the specific geometry

of 4D flat spacetime, which is already weird, even

without curvature present. And finally, in part three we’ll

put curvature and spacetime together to tie up

all the loose ends that we raised at the end of

our gravity illusion episode. We’ll end up seeing that all

the supposedly gravitational effects on motion can

be accounted for just by the geometry of spacetime. Now I have to break

things up like this, otherwise there will be

too many logical gaps which defeats the purpose of

talking about this at all. And since you guys, as

a collective audience, asked for this topic I want

to try to do it justice. You guys ready? OK, buckle up. Today is part one,

that’s straight lines and curved spaces with no

physics, just geometry. Let’s start with this picture

of the flat Euclidean 2D plane from high school math class. Intuitively, we know

that curve number one, joining points A and B in

the diagram is straight, and curve number two is not. But how do we know that? See, if we want to do

geometry on arbitrary spaces like on the surface

of a sphere or a saddle or on some funky hillside,

that’s not a vacuous question. And as you’ll see

in a minute, saying that it’s the shortest

path from A to B doesn’t work as

a general answer. However, here’s what does work. Draw a tiny vector with

its tail at point A. You can slide that

vector from point A to point B along

curve one or along curve two while

keeping it parallel to its original direction. This operation is called

parallel transporting a vector along a curve. OK, now draw a

vector at point A, specifically that’s

tangent to curve one and parallel transport that

vector to B along curve one. At every point along the way it

remains tangent to curve one. In contrast, if we take a

vector tangent to curve two and parallel transport

it to B along curve two, it does not remain tangent

to curve two at all points. So it looks like we

have our definition. A curve is straight if

tangent vectors stay tangent when they’re parallel

transported along that curve. Mathematicians realized

a long time ago that this definition

generalizes very nicely and it’s also very useful. For example, picture

an ant confined to the surface of

an ordinary sphere with no concept of or access to

the direction off the surface. From the ant’s two dimensional

confined perspective, curve one between A

and B is straight. Just look at it. The vector tangent to

curve one at point A remains tangent

all along curve one as we parallel

transport it to point B. But that’s not true

along curve two, which is why curve two is not straight. Now, from the ambient three

dimensional perspective, you could say that those

tangent vectors aren’t really staying parallel and that

neither of our curves is really straight, but

the ant, who’s very flat, can’t look in three

dimensions anymore than we can look in four dimensions. Its entire universe is

that spherical surface, and it requires

criteria for parallel, tangent, and straight

that it can apply solely within that two

dimensional space. Here’s how the ant can do that. Over tiny regions of

the sphere the ant can pretend that

it’s on a plane, and it can use

planar definitions of parallel and tangent. So parallel transporting

a tangent vector means breaking up a curve into

a gazillion microscopic little steps and applying planar

rules for parallel and tangent over each step. Once the ant does that over

lots of curves joining A and B, it finds that the tangent

vector will remain tangent only along a particular curve, a

segment of a great circle. That segment is

called a geodesic, and piecewise it’s straight. By the same process

you can find geodesics on a saddle or a hillside or

in three dimensional spaces. Now note that a geodesic

is not always the shortest curve between two points. That piece of our

great circle that points the opposite direction is

also straight, even though it’s not the shortest curve

joining A and B. In fact, in some spaces that have

weird distance formulas, like flat spacetime, geodesics

are sometimes the longest curves between two points. So the shortest path

rule for straightness doesn’t generalize,

but the tangent vector parallel transport rules does. And in other curved spaces,

multiple straight lines can join the same two points. As a result, the notion of

distance between two points is ambiguous in a curved space. All we can talk about

is the length of curves and their straightness

or lack thereof. All right, now that we know what

it means for a line in a given space to be straight,

let’s figure out what it means for an

entire space to be curved. Intuitively, we

know a plane is flat and that a sphere is curved. But as before, let’s ask why. Again, we can end up

defining curvature using parallel transport. Here’s how. Parallel transport

a vector from A to B along two different curves. If the result you get is the

same, same vector at point B, then your space is flat,

otherwise it’s curved. Here’s an alternate way

of thinking about it. Parallel transport a vector

around a closed curve starting at A and going all

the way back to A. If you end up with the same

vector you started with, your space is flat. If not, curved. Now you may have heard

an alternate definition of curvature that

involves parallelism. Namely, take two nearby

parallel geodesics and extend them indefinitely. If they always remain

parallel, your space is flat. But if those geodesics start

converging or diverging at any point, then

the space is curved. It’s not obvious,

but that definition turns out to be logically

equivalent to the one I already gave. Each one implies the other. Note that this

notion of curvature does not always agree with

your 3D visual intuitions. For instance, the surface

of the cylinder is flat. If you draw some

lines and vectors on a flat sheet of paper

and roll it into a cylinder you can verify for yourself

that parallel lines, indeed, remain parallel. Now those lines might

close on themselves, but locally, snippet by snippet,

geometry and straightness and tangency and

parallelism all work just like they do in the plane. The difference between

the cylinder and the plane in topology, i.e.

in the connectedness of different regions

of the space. Topology is global, but geometry

and curvature are local. Different concepts. Now in a three

dimensional space you can test curvature the same

way we’ve been describing. Just move a vector parallel

to itself around a circle. If you end up with the same

vector you started with space is flat, if not, it’s curved. If you think that the

vector may have shifted by less than you can measure,

just use a bigger circle or do lots of loops

around the original circle until the shifts accumulate to

a level that you can measure. So is the three dimensional

space around Earth curved? Well, it turns out

the answer is yes, but it’s really hard to measure. And 3D curved space

isn’t what explains away gravity, it’s four

dimensional curved spacetime. Why is the spacetime

part so critical? To understand that, we

need to get a better grip on how geometry works

in flat spacetime. And remember, even

without curvature, that geometry is super weird. Let me give you an example. In flat spacetime that

line has a length of zero, and these two lines

are perpendicular. You see what I’m talking about? It’s weird. But I’m getting ahead of myself. Flat spacetime geometry is

part two, which is next week. To prepare for that, you should

watch our episode “Are Space and Time an Illusion?” Watch it like 10 times. I’m not fishing for views here. You should watch as many

videos about special relativity as you can no matter

who’s made them. This is for your benefit

to prime your brain. This stuff is

really unintuitive, so every little bit

of osmosis helps. In the meantime, you can put

your questions about geodesics and curved mathematical spaces

down in the comments below. I’ll do my best to address

them during the week and on the next

episode of “Spacetime.” Last week we asked whether

Australia would ever get a White Christmas

in order to discuss the calendar, the seasons,

and their connection to Earth’s orbit. Here’s what you guys had to say. But first, quick comment

about the leap second video. I got something wrong

in there and didn’t want that misinformation out there. So we’ll re-shoot

it soon and then the link will be working again. Now to you comments. Jordan Filipovski,

MaybeFactor, and Sharfy pointed out that

most of Australia doesn’t get snow,

even in winter. And several others pointed out

that some parts of Australia do get snow on Christmas, even

though it’s summer down there. Look, I’m not a complete

climate ignoramus, I understand all this. Northern Sweden got

snow in June of 2012 too and ourparentsareourlips

said that in central Oregon it once snowed in July. I wasn’t trying to

be that literal. Australian white

Christmas was just a motif for talking

about reversal of the seasons relative

to the calendar. I did learn something new

about Aussie Christmas though from JakeFace0

and QuannanHade, namely that Santa’s sleigh

is already pulled by six white boomers, or

older white furred kangaroos. Who knew? Ali Muzaffar and

Marko Nara asked whether geomagnetic

reversal, which happens every half

million to million years, might also reverse the seasons. I don’t think the answer

is well understood, but since magnetic pole

reversal wouldn’t affect Earth’s orbit or the tilt,

any effects on the seasons would be indirect. Indigo said that tracking

time in the future might become a challenge

if you have to consider relativistic effects. Actually, that’s already

an issue, even today. GPS breaks if time dilation

isn’t taken into account. Time also runs at

different rates at different locations on Earth

that have different elevation. So since those discrepancies are

measurable with atomic clocks, this has to be taken into

account when you calibrate time systems, or for

instance, when you measure the rate at which

the Earth slows its rotation. Finally, Jose Catlett and Dennis

Ryan left us with a fun fact about leap years. In the Gregorian calendar

we add February 29, but in the Julian

calendar that proceeded it we simply doubled

February 24 on leap years. Now I’m not sure when exactly

the transition occurred to sequential numbering of

days even on leap years, but I’d love to find out. So if you happen to

know, please go back to the Australia episode

and leave a comment in Jose Catlett’s thread. [MUSIC PLAYING]

Thank you Family that is beautiful, peace and love, Doug:)<3.

Why are you talking so fast. Slow down. you make me so nervous I think I will have to abandon the series which I don't want to do.

By 2019 Australia may have a white Xmas

Why are you talking so fast. Slow down. you make me so nervous I think I will have to abandon the series which I don't want to do.

No,and that is why "pi"exists

Just a minor amateur questionish observation …Why does your background Graphic at 7:30 show the Earth's gravitational field geodesic as an endless pit…Are you saying the lines of the Geodesic meet somewhere down that cone making its three dimensional or do they never meet until infinity…in what you call a Black Hole which I've never seen an actual photo of but might exist at the Galactic Core of super heavy stars.

so what i got from this video is that there are straight lines and there are curved lines

You can listen to it with 0,75 speed if he is going too fast ya know

It's a great video flat-earthers must watch!

Isn't a curve just a bent straight line?

Oh no, not this guy again

Thing is though, you can say it all you like but there are only 3 macro spatial dimensions, time may or may not 'tick' discretely and space is obviously neither empty nor 'curved'… When I asked if Einstein's space is really compressed at gravitational centres and stretched away from them I was told no, it's a curve in 4D SPACE-TIME – and by the way, it can twist too…. Unbelievably contrived, even if the formula fits the observable facts…

it's flowing to glitches (empty points) in the CLOSE-PACKED MOBILE POINT CORE MATRIX. One Planckish sized mobile core (base particle) (or one core's worth of total 'core mass') per slightly larger stationary matrix point. Cores repel cores, empty space attracts cores (GRAVITY PRECURSOR) forming the matrix. add some energy and a point core starts moving, either by pushing cores in front aside or swapping places with them. Travelling cores receive a kick from the disturbed cores returning to the space behind – INERTIA… this is a PRIMARY PARTICLE..

The other primary particle type is formed by the hole. 12 surrounding points are pulled in (GRAVITY), repel, and then stream out (EM PRECURSOR?)… Moving primary particles push point cores in front forwards that then loop back in streams to fill the emptying space behind… it takes some force to form/change these MAGNETIC FIELD-LIKE loops but once formed they provide inertia, with their energy pattern travelling (and SPINNING) along with the primary particle.

There could be a 'CLOCK' that makes time DISCRETE in relation to space or vice-versa where each point core always travels at the speed of light, and the matrix always returns to perfect regularity at the end of each Planck Time…. or it could be far messier and ANAL0GUEe, perhaps even with point and/or core sized varying in time and space…

A RICH MODEL emerges from 2 SIMPLE LAWS of ATTRACTION and REPULSION and 1 (or arguably 2) base particle type(s – is the empty space between the 'spherical, indestructible' matrix point cores really empty…).. Add another factor or two and you have even more sub-models to play around with.

If there is no force of gravity, then why are we detecting gravity waves?

Curves are just gay lines

The lines on the cylinder are not straight. If you cut them off the label and stretch them you’ll end up with curved “straight lines”

I deeply am sorry for this video. Why would you talk fast like this on science ? This is not a talk to get vote. You need to give it without excitation implying that you are smarter if we don’t understand. If you really want to teach something you need to talk just like a writer. Writers speak slowly because they do understand that when you talk slowly that means you also think when you talk! Just like when they write they also think, not just talk. I understand this concept completely. It is easier than what you try!

thats why physicist are having a hard time finding the Graviton particle because its simple not a force, its just a plain or a field that is space-time.

holy shit you're like a physicist prepper somehow… it's not an emergency

Differential Geometry simplified for Any & Everyone

Followed by: Latest simplification of text of: Einstein’s General Theory of Gravity and Acceleration Negated….Plus Energy & Matter – Mass & Weight – Centripetal & Centrifugal Force – Inertia – Orbital Mechanics of Celestial Bodies – Magnetism – Gravity.

THE CIRCLE AND ITS SQUARE

Given a "Diameter Distance" of 120-centimetres.

1. Multiply the 120-centimetre distance by 3.

2. The length of the distance to the length of the Circle's Circuit is 360-centimetres.

3. The length of distance to the length of the Circle's Circuit is 360-degrees.

4. Each degree of distance to the length of the Circle's Circuit is 1-centimetre in length.

Squaring the Circle

5. Multiply the 120-centimetre Diameter distance by 4, the Perimeter Length of the Circles Square is 480-centimetres.

6. The Circle is 360-centimetres and 360 degrees in length, which is three-quarters of the length to the Circles 480-centimetres square perimeter.

Simply

Three times the length of…Any line…is the length of the lines Circle.

Four times the length of… Any line…is the length of the lines Square.

THREE TIMES THE RADIUS SQUARED

Using a 120-centimeter diameter (distance) multiply the diameter by 120, this will yield the sum of 14, 400 square centimeters to the square of the diameter.

Using the radius (distance) of the diameter of 60-centimeters multiply the radius by 60, this will yield the sum of 3,600 square centimeters to the square of the radius.

Multiply the 3,600 square centimeters square of the radius by 3 this will yield the sum of 10,800 square centimeters to the area of the circle, which is three-quarters of the 14,800 square centimeters of the square of the circle’s diameter.

Answer 10, 800 square centimeters

Self – Evidence

Readers, given the above, can you or any one you know disprove or discredit the simple arithmetic I have used?

SUMERIAN METHOD

FOR FINDING THE AREA OF A CIRCLE 1000 BC

Using a 120-centimeters Diameter distance

Multiply, the 120-centimeters by 3

The Circle is 360-centimeters long

Multiplying the 360 centimeters by 360, yields 129, 600 square-centimeters

Dividing the 129, 600 square-centimeters by 12, yields 10, 800 square-centimeters to the circles area

Answer 10, 800 Square Centimetres

Archimedes Triangle

Proposition 1.

The area of any circle is equal to a right-angled triangle in which one of the sides about the triangle is equal to the radius, and the other to the circumference of the circle.

The circle for which we have to find the area using Archimedes proposition 1, has a 120-centimeter diameter length

The base-line length of the triangle is 60-centimeters (which is the radius length of the circle)

The right-angle height of the triangle is 360-centimeters (which is the length of the circles 360 degree edge)

The 360-centimeter height of the right-angle, is equal to 6 x the radius length

Radius length of 60-centimeters x the 360-centimeters to the circles edge yields 21, 600 square-centimeters which is the square area of the rectangle

Half of the 21, 600 square-centimeters yields 10, 800 square-centimeters, to the square area of the circle.

Answer 10, 800 square centimetresTHREE TIMES THE RADIUS SQUARED

Using a 120-centimetre length "Diameter Distance"

The diameter x 120- centimetres yields 14, 400 square-centimetres to the square of the diameter

The 60-centimetre radius x 60-centimetres yields 3, 600 square-centimetres to the square of the radius

The square of the radius x 3 yields 10, 800 square-centimetres to the area of the circle, and the area of the circle is 3/4 of its square.

Answer 10, 800 square centimetresFOUR QUADRANTS

Using a 120-centimetre “Diametric Distance”

Diameter x 120 yields an area of 14, 400 square-centimetres.

Divided by 4 each quadrant of the square will be 3, 600 square-centimetres

Divided by 4 each quadrant of a quadrant will be 900 square-centimetres

900 square centimetres multiplied by 3 yields 2,700 square-centimetres

2.700 square centimetre multiplied by 4 yields 10, 800 square centimetres to the circles area which is ¾ of its square

Answer 10, 800 square centimetresSUMERIAN METHOD 1000 BC; Answer 10,800 square-centimeters to the circle

ARCHIMEDES TRIANGLE 212 BC; Answer 10,800 square-centimeters to the circle

THREE TIMES THE RADIUS SQUARED 2017 AD; Answer 10,800 square-centimeters to the circle

FOUR QUADRANTS 2017; 10, 800 square-centimeters to the circle

FOUR: identical answers cannot be a coincidence.

Absolutes

The length to the edge of a circle is 6 times the length of the circle's radius.

The length to the edge of a circle is three-quarters that of the length to the square of the circle's diameter.

The area to the shape a circle is three-quarters that of the area to the square of the circle's diameter distance.

TWELVE STEPS FROM THE CIRCLE TO ITS SPHERE

For mathematical ease, we use a cube which measuring 60 x 60 centimetres.

Steps

1. Measure the length of one right-angle to obtain a “diametric distance” of 60 cm's.

2. Multiply the diametric distance of 60 cm's by 60 to obtain the 360 square cm's, to the area of one face of the cube cube, and a square perimeter length measuring 24 cm's.

3. Multiply the 360 square cm's area of one face of the cube by 60, to obtain the cubic capacity of 21,600 cubic cm's to the volume of the cube.

4. Divide the cubic capacity 21600 cubic cm's by 4, to obtain 5,400 cubic cm's, which is one-quarter of the cubic capacity of the cube.

5. Multiply the 5,400 cubic cm's by 3, to obtain 16,200 cubic cm's. which is the cubic capacity of the cylinder.

6. Multiply the 360 square cm's area to one face of the six-sided cube by 6, to obtain the cubes overall surface area of 2,160 sq cm.

7. Divide the cubes overall surface area of 2,160 square cm's by 4, to obtain 540 square cm's, which is one-quarter of the cubes overall surface surface area.

8. Multiply the one-quarter surface area 540 square cm's by 3, to obtain 1,620 square cm's, which is the square area of the overall surface area to the cylinder.

Sum

The cubic capacity of the cylinder is 16, 200 cubic cm's, which is three-quarters that of the 21,600 cubic cm's to the volume of the cube.

The surface area of the cylinder is 1,620 square cm's, which is three-quarters that of the 2,160 square centimetres to the overall surface area of the cube.

The number of square cm's to the overall surface area of the cylinder is 1,620 square cm's, which is one tenth of the number of cubic cm's to the volume of the cylinder, which is 16,200 cubic cm's.

CYLINDER TO ITS SPHERE

9. Divide the Cylinders cubic capacity of 16,200 cubic cm's by 4, to obtain 4,050 cubic cm's. which is one-quarter of the cubic capacity of the Cylinder.

10. Multiply the 4,050 cubic cm's by 3, to obtain 12,150 cubic cm's, which is the volume of the sphere, and three-quarters of the volume of its cylinder.

11. Divide the Cylinders overall surface area of 1,620 square cm's by 4, to obtain 405 square cm's which is one-quarter of the 1,620 square cm's, to the surface area to the Cylinder.

12. Multiply the one-quarter surface area of 405 square cm's by 3, to obtain 1,215 square cm's, which is the surface area of the sphere, and three-quarters of the 1,620 square cm's to the surface area of its cylinder.

www.fromthecircletothesphere.net

I've been striving to understand the parallel transport based on the definition given, which says "A curve is straight if tangent vectors stay tangent when parallel-transported along that curve." Is it more complete (and less confusing for me) to say, "A curve is straight if vectors that are tangent

at all pointsstay tangentat all pointswhen parallel-transported along that curve"? This may be assumed, but I am making it explicit to ensure that I understand.Animations of space-time curvature give the ILLUSION that there is ONLY ONE sheet that our solar system sits on, that is wrong.

WHY can you not show an actual visualisation of it? In my opinion, it is wrong and should NOT be shown that way…..

Can you actually show it for real?

Very good … but for heavens sake talk slower. I followed the video easily enough but it makes my ears hurt when you gabble

It’d help if the guy slows down a bit. Sounds like he was water boarded with coffee

So Earth is flat……..?

Speaks way too fast for me … Let us time to integrate what you just said, please. This is not an advertisement.

If gravity is not a force, why quantum physicists trying to find it's force carrier?

its 2018, anyone can be anything.

To answer the title: yes …turn it sideways

3 years ago, I watched this and was fascinated by it. Now, I have learned (and hopefully understood) the math underlying general relativity (and this video), it just became more and more fascinating 🙂

I don't fully understand the geometry part yet but I DID come up with the line "hey babe, are we points on a geodesic? because i dont care about the distance between us, just the length of your curves and their lack of straightness" which is incredibly useful for me a lesbian

WHAT?

Is that book thoroughly coffee-stained?

Put it on 0,5 speed and this video becomes a more normal spacetime.

The subject is unimaginable vast with some astoundingly concepts and regular incessant Time studying it's the only way to imagine this subject and if anyone has to realise no glimpse will effect as lifetime dedication Science should be religion as there larger than life God's Mind contributions to each legendary Scientists in their lifetime to Science how would you realise in a fraction of time

Please, stop talking like shouting all the time. It is very tirng and disturbing.

For the love of God, please slow down.

I want Russian subtitles.

I feel like there is meme potential between 5:10 and 5:15

If Gravity is not a force, but a manifestation of spacetime curvature, what about other forces? What about magnetic force (or Lorenz force)? Is it not a force, but a manifestation of the curvature of some field?

I have in my mind a circle with an infinite radius. The circumference will approach a straight line, but never a straight line. Anything else, I cannot visualize.

Is there a link between space time and magnetism ?

So Earth is flat. I knew it!

I love this channel but this guy talks too fast, there's just no time to absorb what he's saying.

Gabe talks far too fast …oz dude paces things better

It's only gay if the geodesics touch.

Why the ant cannot break the blue line into infinitesimal pieces where each piece is locally flat as well?

Regarding reversal of seasons, wouldn't Earth's precession around the Sun, which alters the angle of tilt, reverse the seasons in different regions every 13,000 years, quite frequent? A full precession takes 26,000 years. Geomagnetic reversal would not be relevant, and that's very infrequent.

Duh, what is book, paper, street, city , boat a circled line?

Can you talk slower

I have really enjoyed this video,it makes sense now. Could you please, please do a video on Tensors

doing blow with this dude has got to be exhausting 🙂

curvature is 4D's straight line

This video starts with "Einstein said gravity was not a force, instead it's a manifestation of spacetime curvature." Yet, the equation used in his General Relativity Theory uses the Gravitational Constant, which is an expression of force. And that equation is what is used to calculate the effects of gravity. So that opening statement is completely contradictory to his equation. In fact, the whole idea of "curved spacetime" has never been proven. Maybe some day it will be proven, but at this point it is actually nothing but a geometric model that is used explain the EFFECTS of the force of gravity. Once they have embraced a particular idea, scientists habitually make such assumptions and then treat them as if they are facts. As an example, the gravitational lensing that astronomers have observed around large massive bodies doesn't prove that the light is following a path of curved spacetime, or that its path is affected by curved spacetime. It only proves that the path of the light is affected by the force of gravity.

"The Earth is flat!" Shouted flat earthers. "Well,kind of,but not the way you think. Just watch the video by PBS Space Time titled 'can a circle be a straight line'." Flat Earthers:"WHAT?"

Only people on meth talk this fast😂😂

"Anyone can say those words at a party to sound cool."

Those are not the words I use to sound cool.

Put this mofo at .75x time so this vid makes sense.

A straight line can only curve and remain straight when it's time to lie!! This is flat earth damage control!!!

You must also repair i.e. damage control the lie that teaches there's no real up or down in space!! Otherwise how can an object of great mass curve the alleged fabric of space time downwards??? And how do you prove spacetime as it like gravity is without detectable presence and substance!! All lies!! NASA lies and so do you!!!

We nor an ant live in 2 dimensions as employing 2 dimensions is only way to get lie across!!

Double and triple speak equal lies!! This must be employed to make it seem real when in fact it isn't!!

Time is not something recognized by a nature. It is only perceived by humans who can reference it against motion of action. Without reference there is no time or space. So everything is relative to the observer and in theory all of us can see universe differently

But how do you define a vector as straight without having a circular definition? Defining straight as vectors that remain tangent assumes that vectors are already straight. But I guess we are allowed to do that because straightness can be considered a platonic or fictional idea imagined purely for thought experiments. ‘I guess.’

But we all know that curves in mathematics aren’t exactly not also platonic and also fictional.

This is the problem with mathematics. The whole thing begs the question.

alright I consider myself rather intelligent but my brain is melted and I don't think I actually absorbed anything

Yikes https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/threelly-ai-for-youtube/dfohlnjmjiipcppekkbhbabjbnikkibo

What kind of a party do you go to

So we're one big vibration aka wave aka a wave that makes itself into particles which as exhibit wave patterns of on and off and up and down etc and transferring aka transforming into other vibrations as complex as a human being. Got it, thanks.

Question @3:23. "A curve is straight if tangent vectors stay tangent when parallel transported along that curve.", If it's not, is the curve called Gay?

in fact a straight line can be nothing but a circle, if it can.

No.

0:27 everyone knows that the coolest person in the party talk about physics

Considering all relative motion, is anything actually moving in a straight line? We are spinning on an axis, rotating around the sun, moving around the galaxy which is also thundering along. So, is straight only relative?

0.75 is too fast, 0.5 x is perfect

Theoria Apophasis

So space is actually quantifiable abd has attributes? Interesting as I thought space inherently has no properties. If something has no properties then how can it steer a whole planet. Its makes no sense!

Great video…he should just slow down a lil bit

Hey I'm over 70 years old. You talk way way way too fast and your diagrams are only half explained and you leave no time to digest what you are saying and have the listener apply it to the graphics. You would not make a good teacher because you would only connect with the brightest fastest students and leave the rest behind. Young people. They have such little understanding of the people of the real world. Short programs run faster. And the more data that is stored which new information has to be compared to in order to understand it, the longer time it needs to digest.

0.75x is your friend.

He might as well be a propaganda mouthpiece for the Pentagon, spouting misleading information that is half a century old. Relativity contains the glaring Simultaneity Paradox and has proven to use the same mathematics as thermodynamics, in other words, its crap and he's using arguments based on what has turned out to be total crap. String theory produced a series of theories which all implied an infinitely greater number of String theories can describe the universe even more elegantly. Similarly, an arbitrary number of rudimentary metaphors have proven equally accurate for describing classical mathematics and Newtonian mechanics. Meaning you can argue everything is merely composed of black holes, superballs, icecubes, tornadoes, corkscrews, Barbie Dolls, or Lime Jell-O and nobody can ever prove you wrong, unless they resort to the actual physical evidence, which supports quantum mechanics.

The Golden Ratio has turned out to express a multidimensional equation. The computers should spit out the answers soon, but we inhabit a singularity that obeys a multifractal equation composed of a Fractal Dragon and a Mandelbrot, or a four and five fold asymmetrical-symmetry. Time itself has no known identity, making it what half the world calls the "Great Void" and "Mother of All". Yin and yang, the two faces of Janus, or what the physics have been telling us all along for over a century.

If the curve is big enough and the viewer is small enough, yes. Hear that, Flerfs?

I've started to come to the conclusion that a large amount of science is totally superfluous overexplanations of shit that only makes it more difficult to understand. And/or just a bunch of best guesses that will never make sense no matter how hard you try to make sense of it. "A curve is straight if…" yeah go fuck yourself with that shit. I get what you're saying. Just try saying it with less stupidity please. Thanks! A curve is NEVER straight. Hence the term "curve". Can you look at a curve a certain way that makes it look straight? Yes. Is it any less curved as a result? NO DUMBFUCK…IT IS NOT!!!

I get it now. It's not what I thought it was, it's more of a wobbly wabbly kind of way.

Sensitive measurements are very important.

Straight line = no curvature. A———-B

Place a straightline in a lense and it could have many degrees of changing curves in the light,

Keep in mind, everything you guy's view in the universe is through a lense.

How do you know certain part's of space are not bubbled lenses?

(Water)

What if you can not see the other side of the lense to reveal the "true nature" of what you are observing, because it is simply to far to travel?

If you cannot reveal the true nature of thing's, then you may never understand them.

Line =A ____/———–B

I feel like I am responsible for half of the views these guys get…….

Sure feels great knowing everything schools taught you for 10+ years is completely fucking wrong.

You videos really blow my mind but I enjoy watch these as they helped me understand some complex concepts. Thanks again!

Can a circle be a straight line? No of course not! a straight line is 180° and a circle is 360°. Duh. He is asking if 2d can be 1d. You would have to square it.

A straight line has a measure of 0° because it only moves in one direction, left and right on the number line. In a graph this is the x axis.

The second definition is actually more intuitive because it is simpler. What can be more equal than an equal sign? It is two parallel lines. Both lines have zero deflection.

Both lines from any given point will measure the same distance from each other when connected with a 90° line. A 90° line is a straight line and the shortest path.

If we found the center of an equals sign (=) and drew a line orthogonally in the middle we would have the capital letter I (i). This is the shortest path between two points in 2d.

In the 3d space we live in humans can only move in 2d unless they are flying in a plane. You can walk forward/backward (x axis) or you can turn left or right 90° (y axis).

On a flat plane surface like a city block with roads arranged in grid form a straine line is not a circle. Going in cirlCes means your lost. This video is wrong and not very good.

Plus the guys talks too fast. I only talk fast when I am proofing my writing not teaching a subject or holding a conversation. He needs to slow down and really think about what he is saying and what he actually wants to say.

And equals sign is two parallel lines. If extended forever in both directions they never converge or diverge. This is the definition of a straight line, more over of parallel lines.

If we had two functions where: 1st func y= 0, 2nd func y= 1 they are parallel. If we drew a 90° to connect them out line would measure 1 unit. We we drew a 45° to connect them our miter would = √2.

√2 ≈ 1.414213. 1.4 is longer than 1 so the 90° is the shortest path. Any deviation in degrees away from 90° makes a line longer than 1 unit.

If we used a square (or right triangle) that had a measure of 1 unit for height and then slid it through the parallel it would not get stuck nor would it show gaps above or below it because it is neither diverging nor converging.

The ant is small and thinks the world is flat because if you take a large circle and cut an arc out of it and zoom in many times it appears flat not from a 2d perspective but from an infinitely zoomed in perspective. These hollywood physicists need to get their act together. Likewise humans think the road is flat but it may gently curve over many miles so that you are at a higher or lower elevation and do not realize the change in height.

The shortest path is a straight line holds true for all examples he gave. The problem was he was mistaking a curved line for a straight one and calling it straight.

It is almost like they stole other people's work and tried to pass it off as their own without fully understanding what they were talking about.

Please slow down I understand english but it's very hard for me to catch everything.

Hi,straight line don’t be,as always curving,XAMichael

How was the length of that line 0?

Better yet how can you get a line that has no length?

I got lost somewhere between point A and point B.

Great video

The current generation is talking fast and loves showing off. Why do I have to watch this monkey all the time??? There are way too many monkeys on YouTube 🙁

Please make a lecture on Guess Bonnet theorem

Die Engländer sind dabei wegen dem Taschengewebe von 1999 und die Russen wegen der Zigarettendrehmaschinen

Its flat

Die Schwede sind schon aus meinem Ausbildungsbetrieb dabei 🤔

Let me guess. The 332 dislikes are form Flat Earthers!

Off course, 3d space is spherical if you use the Earth as a point of reference for XYZ. Axis X and Y are circles.