Einstein's Gravity

A concise visual explanation to better understand Einstein's vision of gravitation.

And if you liked this video, you can share it on social networks !

Alessandro Roussel,

_
To learn more :

[alteskonto]

Oh wow you even pronounced Einsteins name the correct german way! This whole video is perfect

[NICOLAS-scmr]

Tu fais un travail de dingue mec, tu traduis tes vidéos en anglais en plus de les faire en français;en plus de ça le montage et ouf et c'est du contenu de qualité.Franchement tu mérites beaucoup plus d'abonnés.

You do a crazy job dude, you translate your videos in English in addition to making them in French, in addition to that editing and phew and it's quality content.Francely you deserve many more subscribers.

[dsaun]

"Why do we fall" "So we can learn to pick ourselves back up"

[Amrhossam]

You can’t “explain” gravity by the concept of Newtonian “gravity”, your bowl model is only valid due to newtonian explanation of forces and gravity, it would became better if you explained it as objects meets because they are traveling along a curved path which is space-time, so as time flies objects move along that curve and meet eventually

[mnada]

You didn't mention following the least time path, which is very much appealing

[shouryatripathi]

Einstein's theory of general relativity gives gravity the tag of an illusion rather than a force, which I think is better than the newtonian gravity. But I think we should not forget that newton created his own mathematics in order to prove his theory for universal gravitational force!!😅 Which is truly epic and induces a greater respect to me towards him.

[kexcz]

Man, you have some f**king brilliant explanations and showcases. Add to it your perfect voice, and the best physics videos are born... 👍

[Roberto-REME]

Outstanding video and very well explained.

[meomlett]

A class mate recommended a video in our physics class about the quantum field theorie and although the subject was imo a bit to advanced for us, i really fell i love with this channel and it's "simler" videos. Great job.

Another thing, what's the music track called playing at 0:38? It's really relaxing and unnerving at the same time and i really want to listen to it.

[ArtoLuukkainen]

This is a wrong description as it explains gravity with gravity. In the video it is Earth's gravity that forces B to go to the bottom of the bowl. Actually, it is curvature of time that explains why relatively small masses like Earth create attraction. Time goes slower near Earth. There are good videos about this on YouTube.

[muhammadumerfarooq]

Sir please make a thorough video on space-time for complete beginners.

[TomTom-rhgk]

You are using gravity to explain gravity. They object falls because of gravity not because of the curvature of the bowl. Put the bowl in orbit and the ball will float away.

[zebrastriber]

This video is amazing, thank you so much! I have one question after all: How does this model explain gravitational forces like the moon having an effect on water on Earth?

[baraskparas]

Einstein was looking for little children to sell a story to and he found the physics community. An objects 3 dimensions change with time but space and time are different things defined by humans. Gravity is just a phenomenon caused by the ejecta of the universe in the form of profuse superluminal fundamental particle of extremely low mass that comprises the mass of elementary particles forcing objects against other objects that shield each other from the contralateral universal hemisphere ejecta. There is only one force in the universe, the strong repulsive nuclear force which itself is a consequence of the kinetic energy of the fundamental particles emanating and entering the core of all long lived elementary particles and bosons.

[markhughes]

From the constructs presented here I can’t see any particular advance beyond Newton’s conceptions or anything else’s besides given for the ‘cause’ of gravity as you put it. I don’t know if I have it right but I am not sure that Newton gave a cause for gravity or ever could since he regarded it as a ‘general effect’ - although the operation of this effect was quantifiable and this he provided with his inverse square formulation for it - boiling down to doubling the attraction for each halving of the mutual distance of centres. Since the effect is so much greater at the surface than any distance away and dissipating with distance at the same rate as that for attraction - personally have never seen what is meant by ‘space-time’ and the depressed trampoline surface image provided to explain it. You place two snooker balls ever closer together and at the finest approximation a magnetic effect takes place and they ‘click’ together - but what’s that to the larger spaces of any sized table on which play takes place? I’d like to know what is mistaken in this view.

[RahulMishra-mhds]

Aren't you trying to explain gravity by gravity itself? Space-time is a 3D grid + 4th dimension (t), then you're explaining apple falling story with earth/sun example on 2D like stretched space-time fabric ?

[starfishsystems]

This is a great illustration of the difference in science between a LAW and a THEORY.

Newton's laws of motion, like all scientific laws, are purely descriptive. They only say THAT something happens under certain conditions.

Einstein's special and general theories are accounts of mechanism. They make the case of HOW something happens. And because we can say HOW something happens rather than merely THAT it happens, we can predict what else SHOULD happen according to the theory.

[dwaynemarsh]

GREAT FINALLY FINALLY SOME ONE DID IT SO MUCH FINESSE IN THE PRESENTATION OF PHYSICS

[KleinDuimpje]

The Galilian transformation most then also work in the Electric/Magnetic wave, meaning that the centre and the wave horizontal or verticaly will end up at the same time, in the centre. There is no time differance, it just looks like that. It matters not if you move diagonaly away or in a parabool, you will alway's see your mirror equation in the Galilian transformation. 😮

[erbenton]

Your description of B moving towards A is using gravity to describe gravity. This is why the rubber sheet analogy is so wrong. If gravity was simply the curving of space then nothing would fall, it would simply stick wherever you put it.
The explanation of gravity must include an explanation of time to make sense, because its spacetime that warps, not just space. Time slows down the closer to A you get, so there is a time gradient across any object in a gravitational field. e.g the part of B that is further away from A is moving through time faster than the part of B that is closer to A.
The real question tho is why (and how) a mass warps spacetime at all.