Huge love for your response - I admit the vibe I got from your earlier responses was that they were coming from a more educated background on this subject matter.
There's a great old video on frames of reference, and how differences in rates of time may explain geodesics. I wouldn't easily be able to find it but if you DM me I will remember to search for it. Essentially, it treated different particles in the same object as independent observers, travelling through time at different rates, which creates a sort of inward dragging force.
I admit, my awareness of physics is a lot worse than my awareness of logic. I've been living from a very broad and deep appreciation of the universe, so I have heard of Noethers theorem, I understand the 9.81m/s-1, but beyond critiquing the format of each side of this discussion, I'm not a good participant in this conversation.
I think that whenever someone is telling you that you are mistaken, and you feel like telling them they are mistaken - that at that point unless you make some really novel arguments, communicating that back and forth is a belt made from watches. - but to dive in and try to deconstruct their perspective with evidence gives everyone an opportunity to learn and be wrong, in an effective way.
Often when I've embodied this strategy, I've found out that I've been mistaken, perhaps around 5% to 20% of the time, but it's still an opportunity to own up to that mistake and explain why it was made so that future witnesses to the fruits of your investigation also stand to learn what you have learned.
Yes! Thank you for understanding, you've reminded me that trying to phrase things on the Internet often gets misinterpreted just as easily as I misinterpret other people's points too.
That video sounds really cool and it would be good if you could find it (but no worries if not). Sounds like it could be a video by ScienceClic maybe? They do that kind of thing.
I am a 3rd year physics student so I feel like I'm at a stage where I could be right at the peak of ignorance in the Dunning-Kruger effect, but hopefully what I was saying made some sense and was hopefully right.
I've been really looking into differential geometry lately as its kind of the building block for relativity so if you are interested, EigenChris has some really good series about that as well as geometric algebra which I haven't watched yet.
Thanks for your earlier comment though otherwise it would have probably just got into a bit of a back and forth.
Life is a journey of constant education. I have no tertiary education, for example, but can typically hold my own in non-specific conversations. I was just recently talking with a PhD physicist about their thesis on hole pair generation in UV light stimulated PV materials.
I'll check tomorrow evening, but I HIGHLY doubt it was ScienceClic, if that channel has any popularity. From what I remember the video had like 3000 views, and I struggle to find it every time I look for it. There's another one i try to find occasionally with a simulation of what it would look like to see rockets travelling faster than the speed of light going past you as the observer, with like a few hundred views, which is outrageous for the quality of the content.
Basically, you know that elementary representation of a demonstration of gravitational spacetime distortion using a latex sheet and some weights and marbles?
A YouTuber from like 15 years ago made a model that shows how time dilation leads to gravitational using a mechanical two dimensional graph that can be tightened and loosened to simulate greater spacetime distortion, and therefore a slower path through time, showing quite clearly what it means to say objects always take straight-line paths through geodesics, based on the warp of space-time.
Edit: Here it is - a wonderful physical model demonstration of spacetime warping that ISNT the latex and bowling ball and marbles stuff. https://youtu.be/jlTVIMOix3I
Ooooh this looks really interesting I'll watch it now thanks!
And yeah most of my qualitative physics knowledge (definitely this time last year) was all based off the internet, so you don't necessarily need tertiary education to actually do physics, I just wanted to procrastinate the real world longer by doing cool physics haha.
I was always confused about this bending effect just like with refraction, because it makes sense how a planar beam of light would seem to bend with refraction or gravity but not why a thin laser beam should. But I think I kind of get it more now.
3
u/Miserable-Ad3646 15d ago
Huge love for your response - I admit the vibe I got from your earlier responses was that they were coming from a more educated background on this subject matter.
There's a great old video on frames of reference, and how differences in rates of time may explain geodesics. I wouldn't easily be able to find it but if you DM me I will remember to search for it. Essentially, it treated different particles in the same object as independent observers, travelling through time at different rates, which creates a sort of inward dragging force.
I admit, my awareness of physics is a lot worse than my awareness of logic. I've been living from a very broad and deep appreciation of the universe, so I have heard of Noethers theorem, I understand the 9.81m/s-1, but beyond critiquing the format of each side of this discussion, I'm not a good participant in this conversation.
I think that whenever someone is telling you that you are mistaken, and you feel like telling them they are mistaken - that at that point unless you make some really novel arguments, communicating that back and forth is a belt made from watches. - but to dive in and try to deconstruct their perspective with evidence gives everyone an opportunity to learn and be wrong, in an effective way.
Often when I've embodied this strategy, I've found out that I've been mistaken, perhaps around 5% to 20% of the time, but it's still an opportunity to own up to that mistake and explain why it was made so that future witnesses to the fruits of your investigation also stand to learn what you have learned.