Einstein vs Newton - Who's Right About Gravitation?

What's the difference between Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation and Einstein's Theory of General Relativity? Why does Einstein's General Relativity talk about gravity so much but doesn't actually have gravity in its name? Was Newton wrong and Einstein right? Those are some of the things we'll be talking about in this video.

We'll cover how General Relativity explains that every observation is relative to you, as the observer, and your frame of reference's velocity, how matter causes a curvature in spacetime, how spacetime affects the particles' movements, all the predictions made by Albert Einstein and confirmed, and we'll compare everything with Isaac Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.

Enjoy!

├ Website / Social Media ┤

► Respect Your Intellect

► Become a Patron

► Follow me on Twitter

► Follow me on Facebook

► Discord server invite link (chat live)

► Subscribe to my channel

├ References ┤

► Difference between scientific laws, theories, hypotheses, and facts

[RespectYourIntellect]

This misconception about theories in science being "just theories" is rampant today and extremely misunderstood. How would "you" address this problem?

[scott_meyer]

Newton explained what we observe. Einstein explained why.

[arctic_haze]

We now know that Newton's gravitation is a good approximation of the General Relativity as long as the the space-time distortion is very small.

[valheru]

This was so helpful for my Physics essay, you won’t even believe. Thank you so much for the clear and precise explanations!

[binnemans]

Keep 'm comming Jon. Good work mate.

[scott_meyer]

If you wanted to orbit a black hole, I'd go with Einstein.

[stuckinflorida]

The Newton/ Einstein laws/theories kind of reminds me of other science such as bacteria and germ theory, Leeuwenhoek discovered bacteria but it was 200 years later that Semmelweis, Pasteur and Koch explained how they worked. Einstein added to Newtons what gravity is and explained why we observe what we do and the universal laws with his equations, which also advanced our knowledge of things that Newton hadn’t even thought of. Both were correct. Thanks again for all you do for the science community and keep up the good work.

[chriswhitt]

Excellent. Really enjoyed this. And to add. There is a humility in the scientific method which I find very human.

[AnxiouPanda]

I still know less about this topic but thank you for thoroughly explaining the difference between Laws, Theories, and Hypotheses.

[DocBree]

This included the best, most concise summary of what a hypothesis, law and theory are.

I’m still confused as to whether or not gravity is a force. I’ve seen flat-Earthers say that Einstein proved Newton wrong and that it’s no longer considered a force. I’d love to hear your thoughts on this.

I’m glad I found your channel.

just a little aside: it’s reconciled, not reconciliated :)

[JeffSpijkers]

Another great video... I will definitely be joining in on the Discord whenever I can... Thanks for all the great work you do John! Well done.

[redpen]

Thank you you saved my essay for school which uses this topic as an example!

[stevendeans]

Great video. You piqued my interest and made me go look up intermediate vector bosons. I've never even heard of those.

I am now wondering if over the last maybe 200 years, the single biggest thing we've learned from science is how much we don't know.

Intermediate vector bosons are "cousins" to the photon according to electro weak theory. But they are 40 to 80 times as masive as a proton and photons have no mass. I can't imagine what they'll find out about the gravitational equivalent.

[GuerrasLaws]

The origin of momentum creation is founded on the application of energy. Momentum serves as the initial cause of pushing and pulling. The energy, emanating from the internal core of a planet, is what gives rise to momentum, commonly referred to as gravity, and not due to the planet’s size, mass, or space-time curvature. For example, when energy is applied, it generates the necessary momentum for the actions of pushing and pulling. Without the application of energy, momentum cannot be established. Consequently, force cannot be exerted for pushing and pulling, as it lacks a physical existence. This, in turn, clarifies why force is not gravity. ~Guadalupe Guerra

[adventureswithdogs]

One thing we hear a lot of with science deniers is "NASA admits that gravity is just a theory". (Why they always ascribe everything to NASA is never quite clear to me!) In fact, what is said is that not everything is yet known about gravity. As a hiker who sometimes traverses some thin ledge formations, I can attest that the basics of gravity are very real!
P.S. A few years ago, I had a hypothesis that MY house had a garage. Unfortunately, upon viewing the three feet of snow on my car, the hypothesis was shown to be false.

[oremazz]

You can get GTR closer to the quantum world by using Poincare-Minkowski invariance Delta x² + Delta y² + Delta z² +(i*C*Delta t)² = constant. Since GTR is a local value that depends on local energy and its influence of the surrounding energies, then: the square deltas of space (x, y, z) can be the quantum package volume and Delta t the energetic frequency of the quantum package. By this, space and time are related to the energy in the quantum world. You can go further with a hypothesis to explain how does energy is involved exactly with space... this can be read in a short amazon book "Space, main actor of quantum and relativistic theories" or if you desire can explain it in another chat (don't want to mix accepted formulas with a hypothesis in this chat), regards

[walterthebullterrier]

My fav scientist is Newton.Without the discovery of gravity a lot of scientist would not be famous.

[bologna]

We have never measured the one way speed of light. The reason being is that we don’t have have anything to measure the speed of light relative to. To measure the speed of light would require utilising a signal much faster than light. In the absence of a faster signal measuring the speed of light across a given distance first synchronising two spatially separated clocks . The two clocks can only be synchronised by first passing information between them in the form of light signals.

To measure any one way speed, we must first adopt a synchronisation convention. This in turn require us to make an assumption about how light travels from one clock to the next.
Einstein understood this clearly, because adopting a synchronisation convention constitutes the first and most famous part of his 1905 paper.

He acknowledges in his paper that thx empirical conception of the speed of light is a two way one… - - - > <- - - To resolve the issue he makes the most crucial ASSUMPTION of his career: in referring to two clocks A, and B which are in the process of being synchronised he writes:

We have not defined a common "time" for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires it to travel from B to A. Let a ray of light start at the "A time" from A towards B, let it at the "B time" to be reflected at B in the direction of A, and arrive again at A at the "A time" t”

In accordance with that definition the two clocks synchronise if by Einstein’s own assumption - - - > that light must travel between two clocks in a completely symmetrical fashion no matter what the speed of the observer is.

And then he defines time for each and every observer through this assumption.

If the (one way) behaviour of light is symmetric i.e. isotropic for you then for light to have a constant speed everywhere means the (one way) behaviour of light must be asymmetric or anisotropic for observers in motion with respect to you.

And because they assume isotropic behaviour in their own frame they synchronise their own clocks differently than yours. Leading plainly to the conclusion that the relativity of time and space is a direct consequence of this assumption about the (one way) behaviour of light.

This assumption is completely arbitrary:
if the one way speed of light is not empirically observable this means that it is equally probable in synchronising your clocks A, and B, the light signal sent out from clock A travelled at a slower than speed of light velocity towards clock B than returned to clock A at a faster than speed of light velocity so that the average speed was that of the speed of light.

If this is the case then the notion of light, time and simultaneity you constructed in your frame using Einstein’s assumptions would in fact be a false one.

Many other scientists picked up immediately on the arbitrariness of Einstein’s assumption in his 1905 paper.

Recheinbach described the notion of simultaneity as being regulated by a sort of uncertainty principle:

“The occurrence of this circularity proves that simultaneity is not a matter of knowledge, but of a coordinative definition, since the logical circle shows that a knowledge of simultaneity is impossible in principle.”

Simultaneity can be defined in the following way:

t2= t1 + 1/2 (t3-t1)

The Einstein assumption chooses 1/2 for the value of Epsilon E .

This means we assume the light beam in our frame spends half the total time traveling from clock A to Clock B and half the total time travelling from clock B to clock A

If we choose 2/3 for E this would mean that the beam in our frame spends 2/3 the time travelling from clock A to clock B and 1/3 the total trip time travelling back.

As Reichenbach clarifies we are free to choose whatever value for epsilon between Zero and 1 that we like. Just like deciding where the origin of a coordinate system should be it’s a completely arbitrary choice.

Einstein’s convention Rechienbach notes does achieve the greatest mathematical simplicity as choosing a value of 2/3 for epsilon would lead to quite the headache mathematically for observers.

Reichenbach makes it clear that the choice of 1/2 for E is not an EMPIRICAL NECESSITY, but rather a mathematical STIPULATION.

This definition is essential for the special theory of relativity, but it is not epistemologically necessary. Einstein's definition, too, is just one possible definition.

Determining absolute simultaneity would require a faster than light signal.

Mathematical stipulations and arbitrary values for equations representing theoretical models of reality do not determine reality - simultaneity aside, on the contrary, they are a perversion of reality and the forfeiting of common sense and instinct at the altar abstraction and quantification. Einstein was a mathematician and not a scientist - more importantly he was a gate keeper leading the pseudo intellectual and their flock of sheep to existential slaughter. Imagine a world where there is no absolute frame of reference, you get post modernism. Newton’s absolute motion in regards to absolute space and a fixed frame of reference in absolute time remains valid.

Space and time share an exact and immovable grid where all physical events take place. Newton we will not be given over to hyper relativism for it leads to nihilism. Leaving reality to consist of nothing more to subjective observation and what I perceive to be true.

"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men."
Plato

[anilvarma]

What do physicists mean when they say "Space and time curve?" This seems to imply that space-time is something physical that can bend.

[davidnievesjr.]

Great work, as usual, John.
Here's something I ask when I get a chance, but I don't really get an answer that I understand;
Large bodies bend space/time and that describes how the Moon orbits the Earth, etc.
But, I just can't get why my feet are stuck the ground. Where is space/time being warped to allow me to fall toward the planet I'm on? Or, is it quantum mechanics at this point?