How to Explain G - Mach's Principle and Variable Speed of Light

Maybe the most intriguing consequence of Einstein's 1911 variable speed of light approach to general relativity.
My papers:

[curiousmind]

Thank you Alexander! Please continue making these videos. Your lectures are green island in the ocean of junk popular science produced solely to impress.

[JoseSilveira-newhandleforYT]

Thank you Dr. Unzicker, for this thought provoking video.

[till]

Very, very good presentation of the VSL theory. One can clearly see the benefits of your efforts using appropriate illustrations and paper extracts. One small proposal: at ~8:24 you quickly explain the issue with missing variable wavelength. I have the feeling that a short illustration/animation would help the audience to understand the situation better (immediately), especially when they hear about this issue the first time.

Apart from that, this presentation ist one of your best since long time!

[johnward]

Wish I could have pressed the like button a few dozen times. How, with 7518 views (7/8/22) haven't you got 7517 likes? There's always one...

[dutertefan]

The curvature of the surface of water in a rotating bucket is caused by the addition of the force of gravity with the centrfigul force of rotation.
If you strung a wire across the top of the bucket with a series of little pendulums attached, the angle of each pendulum would be perpendicular to the water surface below it.

[Nobody_]

I think you have to slightly modify the equation you show at 16:58 in this way: G = c^2/(4.sigma(m_i/r_i)) = c^4/(4.sigma(E_i/r_i)), where E_i (Energy-sub-i) is the energy of each object in the universe using E = mc^2. This would imply that Einstein's Gravitational Constant would be = k = 1/(4.sigma(E_i/r_i)) with the dimension of L^2. This implies that the "curvature" of spacetime is dependent on the _area_ around the mass causing the curvature, and modification of this area can be used to counter gravity.

[Verschlungen]

The graphic that appears at 16:54 through 18:05 is very helpful. If there is a second edition of your book entitled Einstein's Lost Key (2015), that graphic would be a nice companion to pages 180-181: Getting Rid of the Gravitational Constant G.

By the way, I appreciate the fact that you employ (on pp. 51 and 155) the rarely (!) seen REAL alpha equation: e^2/2hcɛ,
namely, the version which is pi-free and which employs h instead of h-bar, in contrast to the popular version which includes an explicit pi and an implicit pi, hiding in h-bar, so that pi chases its own tail, canceling to 1. In the popular version, pi's presence can be somewhat justified by harking back to Sommerfeld and his modeling of the atom (in which the equation was born), but nowadays it comes across more as a kind of Promotion of the Pi Religion (superstition), so I think that version should be discouraged.

[GamesBond.]

Well Newton's bucket is obviously directing all the centrifugal force and water upwards because it has an inverted cone shape, that is a slope which makes the force vector dissipate and push the water in the up direction. If the bucket had a cylindrical shape, the centrifugal force would be directed perpendicular to the bucket walls, and the force exerted on the buckets walls by the rotating water will be much higher.
So instead of wondering what would happen if the bucket was several miles thick, Mach should have just used a cylindrical bucket instead.

[brianbeasley]

This is really a fantastically wonderful video. Thank you so much!

[MrVibrating]

The description of Mach's principle at 2:20 incorrectly states that "motion of the water relative to the bucket walls creates no noticeable centrifugal force" - you then proceed to stir a glass of water, demonstrating that _there is_ of course CF force when the water's rotating relative to the non-rotating glass. I don't understand what's so confusing here - linear motion's relative, angular is *absolute.* The reason _why_ is that while mass and inertia are taken as equivalent ("inertial mass vs gravitating mass" is a common misstatement of the dichotomy), this is only true in an incidental, circumstantial way for the case of linear motion; in rotating systems, angular inertia is a function of mass times radius _squared, _ thus possessing a degree of independence from how much mass, and thus gravitational weight, the system has.. So whilst doubling mass would double angular inertia *and* net weight, doubling radius would _quadruple_ it, yet without increasing gravitational weight. Thus a consistent definition of 'inertia' - resolving both linear _and angular_ forms - reduces to a measure of how much mass has been accelerated through how much space in how much time - those are its minimum dimensions, from a purely mechanical perspective. Thus the reason why angular motion is absolute is that CF force is either present or absent, and the reason why it exists, and why MoI squares with radius, is the increase with radius of how much space the mass is accelerating through. So the curving of the water surface when rotating is *not* mysterious as you suggest (!), but an inevitable consequence of the fact that any water at twice the radius is being accelerated through four times as much space in the same unit time for a given uniform rotation speed. I couldn't get past this broken predicate to make anything of the rest of the conclusions (sorry!) but just a heads-up - there's high-def, point-blank footage of UAP here on YT showing gravitational lensing effects more starkly pronounced than anything seen in deep-field astronomy, and on comparatively _tiny_ scales (some of these craft are surprisingly compact); to wit, we're seeing undeniable evidence of warp-field propulsion techs, along with copious Casimir radiation _and absorption_ at the curved / flat space interface (so whereas some UAP glow like suns, others appear as little floating black holes - not merely silhouetted, but actively absorbing energy). Hutchin's _Detection of Casimir Radiation from Our Sun_ (2019) _does_ move somewhat in the direction of tying inertia to the stars, if on a much-more local level (also pointing to a potentially-novel resolution of DE & DM), also encompassing variable c, and thus wavelength _and frequency-shifting_ effects. Mach's principle (even when correctly formulated) is for the birds; just as gravity _and time_ is a source and sink for momentum, so inertia and time is a source and sink of vacuum / ZPE energy under divergent inertial frames (eg. consider fixing the unit-energy cost of momentum from G*t to an RPM-invariant value, such that doubling system momentum only requires doubling the input work done) - proving the causal link between inertia and local vacuum / ZP energy. I've enjoyed the rest of your presentations thus far, but couldn't get over the bumps in this one..

[Wanu]

I hope someone researches more this interesting idea, maybe that is why everytime we use Planck's constant (containing G), our results are hierarchy problems such as the theoretical mass of the Higgs boson and the vacuum catastrophe

[davidwilkie]

On topic, the inverse concept of the Standard Model, whether it is variable or fixed is the Observable Eternity-now 1-0-infinity range of probabilistic limits and we are embedded at Singularity-point real-time realization of hyperfluid i-reflection, which could be identified as a QM-TIME Completeness Thought Experiment, ie another POV of Actuality is "Mach's Principle".

The mathematical "Disproof Methodology Philosophy", which attaches the meaning of a limit to Infinity-eternity of 1-0 probability range is where-when the "Mathemagical" event of instantaneous connection cause-effect is identified, and corresponds to Eternity-now Centre of Time Duration Timing i-reflection containment = Superspin Superposition-point Modulation, this inside-outside sum-of-all-histories Conception of pure-math relative-timing matrix crystallisation. WYSIWYG here-now-forever continuous creation connection.

[GamesBond.]

If we substitute Mass with Energy (M=E/c^2) in Newton`s equation g=GM/R^2 we see that the speed of light naturally appears as a component of g, or G if we write it as G=gR^2/M. There`s no need to fantasise about it or artificially insert it, it is already there.

[JH-lesd]

Makes sense to me. With gravity, everything pulls on everything proportional to mass and inverse squared distance, so when calculating the pull between two objects, divide the product of their masses divided by their r^2 by the sum all the other masses pulling scaled by the squared distances.

[enricolucarelli]

Many years ago I fell in love with fundamental physics. I still am. I remember that one of my first bewildering issues was the Mach principle. It still is. How come linear movement comes with a quantity called speed, which is meaningless unless I specify with respect to what, whilst rotational movement is absolute? Is it my ignorance or is it one of the most profound unsolved mysteries?

[HerbstaMagus]

Our current cosmological models are very Machian if you think about it. At galactic/universe scales the structure of the universe is determined almost exclusively by gravity and the mass that generates it. Our scale is in a rather exceptional balancing point in many ways so it is hard for us to see the universe scale perspective unless we think carefully.

[Lucidthinking]

Hi, thanks for your interesting video.

I wanted to point out two things regarding the nature of the gravitational constant.

First I don't understand why we take G, i.e. 6.674... to be the gravitational constant since clearly this number is not pure. It contains also the residue of 4π coming from the geometric behavior of newtons law.
To clarify, let's call the pure gravitational constant G'.
Then newton's gravitation equation should look like this: F=G'mM/4πr^2
The logic here is the same like in Coulombs law: the force applied on mass m is proportional to it's own mass and to a second mass M, which influence is spread over a sphere surface with radius R.
Then G', which is G'=G/4π should be the real, or pure gravitational constant.

Another point I wanted to mention, that I heard from a physics professor,
that we can treat the Planck length as a fundamental constant and then G is not a fundamental constant.
So usually the equation for plank length is written like this:
Lp = √(hG/2πC^3)

This might fool us to think that the Planck length is an emergent property of h, G and C.
But equations only show relations not causality.
So we can write it also like this:
G= 2πLp^2C^3/h
Or if we use the pure gravitational constant I've suggested
G'=Lp^2C^3/2h

This way we can look at the gravitational constant as an emergent property of Lp, C and h.

Philosophically speaking, by this view, Planck length is independent of Planck's constants and can represent the smallest component of a discrete space-time.

[knswartz]

There is physical support for the variable speed of light. Einstein Rings or much more likely arcs show a color change between edges. This is more characteristic of refraction than bent space time.

[dotanwolf]

check out wal thornhil- the long path to understanding gravity. he bases his theory on mach's principle!

[philoso]

How to read Mach’s idea on g? P 2:52
I guess everybody have missed it.
Mach and I think that g, rest or not, isn’t derived from within, is from without.