The Most Fundamental Problem of Gravity is Solved

If you are familiar with Newton's bucket, you may skip to 6:10.
Until recently, I had not realized the flash of genius of Dennis Sciama who linked inertia and gravity in a Machian way already in 1953.

Mind also my backup channel:

[relativemotion]

This is Jonathan Fay,
I am very glad to see there is public interest in this topic and I am thankful to Dr. Unzicker for his enthusiastic presentation!

Publications on my end incoming in the not too distant future. Looking forward to further exchange of ideas & collaboration.

[rossbrown]

In 1968, I wrote a senior thesis at Reed College "A Gravitational Analogy to Electromagnetism" that derived a Special Relativistic theory of gravitation using 4-vector notation and based on the generalized Lorentz force equation. It included the "G" and "Gamma" fields, equivalent to the E & B fields, with gravitational waves and the potentials. The theory produced several of the relationships derived from General Relativity, a Coriolis force inside a spinning mass shell due to the Gamma field, and as applied to the anomalous perihelion advance of Mercury, predicts 45.5 sec/century. In retrospect, I probably should have tried to publish it, but my advisor had no enthusiasm. If you have further interest, I would be happy to share it with you.

[uptoapoint]

The delay in imparting knowledge in physics is due to the inertia caused by the combined mass of authority. Many thanks for this stimulating information.

[Name-otxw]

I choose to believe that you are a wizard who can make their arms invisible rather than just emoting with your hands more than the greenscreen allows for.

[gtblanco]

Great video! This topic has been puzzling me for years... and I am glad that you have posted this. I hope Jonathan Fay will publish soon!

[bringbringish]

During my bachelor degree in Physics I was puzzled and fascinated by Newton's bucket experiment. I loved Mach's objection cause to me, the principle he derived, added "simplicity", an explanatory powerful idea that avoided adding forced ideas, like the presence of an absolute space, since eliminates the question of why there exists a special frame.
I searched also for a more mathematical grounded version of the principle, so to speak, glad I finally was able to have some reference to it. Good luck with your research, hope this will reveal as a good path to follow.

[davido.newell]

As an 80-year-old lightweight mathematically, I cannot in fact fathom some (most) of the calculations. The conclusions, however ring true at some level of my incomplete understanding, and I can see why they would simplify some of the issues which confound our incomplete understanding of the evolution of the universe. Very enjoyable thank you.

[Turbohh]

I loved your enthusiasm, insightful comments, and honesty. It helped me appreciate how little we really know but must keep trying. Thank you.

[HuygensOptics]

Through this video, I discovered you channel and was really blown away by the profound deepness of its content. Inertial frames of reference seem so trivial at first glance, but this video made me realize that they are far from that. Thanks for making this, for me it was truly an eye opener!

[christophershelton]

It's all starting to come together ... Well done Mr. Unzicker

[tryphonsoleflorus]

Mr. Unzicker, I have never seen you happier!Congrats to Sciama and Fay!

[ulifischer]

I would like to point out that there is another explanation for gravity that awaits discussion. According to Helmut Krause, he discovered it in January 1937. His findings are set out in the book "Der Baustoff der Welt". It is available online in German.

[smile]

The answer was there all along. This looks very promising.
Rather than spending money on new accelerators, it might be best to feed some AI bots on some forgotten papers, (especially those predating the quantum period.) They may find some very interesting concepts. How we choose to process the results will be difficult, as some are still refusing to believe string theory isn't adequate.
It is very obvious to the layman that the celebrity physicist of today is championing impossible concepts, which are no better than a sci-fi paperback.

[rentlastname]

Brilliant research.
Well done sirs!
Another constant of nature crossed off the ‘Where does it come from?’ list.

[marcoalpini]

Great to see that the idea of G not being a constant is finally supported by the relevant formalism, I hope C will follow the same path. Now the big question in my mind is what determined the universe to have the mass it has, leading to this particular value of G?
Thanks for you work

[joycyber]

When the water spins, from the water’s perspective it’s the fabric of the spacetime that’s rotating around it, hence the fabric gets distorted, adding to the distortion caused by earth’s mass, causing water to change shape. This phenomenon proves that the fabric of space time is something very real, empty space is actually an entity that can interact with physical objects.

[gyrogearloose]

Details of Dr Unzickers explanations are definitely way above my pay grade. Mach's theory of inertia is what brought me here. Thrilling to discover the connections from Newton through Einstein, Mach, Sciama et al. Vast implications for Cosmology and our conception of the Universe. And ourselves! Looking forward to his book Einsteins Lost Key. Subscribed today. Thank you Dr Unzicker!

[NLBoots]

Absolute layman here; this blew my mind, fascinating lecture. The idea we now know how to calculate the cosmological constant is amazing and it was more or less discovered over 50 years ago. That's wild!

[maximkosheleff]

Main oroblems:
1. No time dilation explanation from this theory.
2. G calculated in such manner is just a some kind of density of an universe

[ZPROHASZKA]

The tone change at 17:32 to 17:33 is really-really meaningful, it reveals the true structure of our universe.