Comments by "Laurence Fraser" (@laurencefraser) on "How Gravity Actually Works" video.

Of course, acceleration is Generally defined as change in speed over Time, with speed being change in spatial location over time, but when you start using time as part of your spatial location definition that starts getting a bit weird. Recursive or something. (There's a name for change in acleration over time, and change in That over time... I forget what they are.)
2
Eeeh, seemed to add to "what we call gravity is force, it's just not a meaningfully seperate thing from any of the other forces" kind of like how centrifugal force doesn't exist, as such, but you still feel it as a consequence of how centripetal force and momentum interact. There's absolutely a measereable amount of force acting on you in the direction that centrifugal force would, it's just the sum effect of other factors rather than it's own thing. Or... Gravity is force, it's just not A force. Or rather, it doesn't exist, but the effect it describes does. That's my understanding anyway.
2
Which is, in turn, also moving.
2
Which, so far as I ever understood, is what gravitational waves were supposed to be Anyway...?
1
Sounds more like he proves that it's as real as centrifugal force. Which is to say, it absolutely exists, it's just not a thing in its own right so much as the experienced result of the interactions of several other things.
1
I was wondering about that. Last I had heard relevant scientists had concluded that time was a property/effect of mass/gravity, and not actually a dimension... Not that that ever made a lot of sense either, to my not-terribly-educated-on-the-matter self.
1
The problem is that, nonsensical as it sounds... It kind of is. In that sone of their "logic" goes from "insane troll logic" to "off by one error".
1
Seems to be "add an extra axis for time and rotate your reference frame so the acceleration in question is on That axis", so far as I can tell. This could be entirely wrong, but that's the most coherent explaination I'm getting...
1
Something about time being a valid axis of motion, it sounded like.
1
And then, of course, there is the possibility that someone brings up a situation where the reverse is true. Usually it's because they're not understanding something. Sometimes it's because the new theory is imperfect, incomplete, and/or incorrect.
1
Basically just the concept of treating time as an extra spatial dimension, if I remember rightly. Or at least, bundling the two concepts together as "the reality-stuff everything else exists in". Something like that.
1
Well, in the sense that English didn't have a word for it and the various English speaking peoples decided that it was a thing we could do with a word for after the German (?) Word for it was pointed out (within my lifetime, I believe) then did what English does and just borrowed the one that was already there (and maybe filed off the serial numbers and made some adjustments to the fittings).
1
... I've had this argument before and it's infuriating. The moon is absolutely rotating. If it wasn't, then it's orbit would cause it to Appear to rotate. It is tidely locked to earth such that it's orbital period and rotational period are the same length, that's all. And then the counter argument is always to wander into the insanity of reference frames and it all being relative because Of Course It Is, but that doesn't change the fact that if everything's moving then a stationary thing will appear to move to an observer on one of the mobile things so in order to Appear stationary it must be moving such that it counteracts the observer's motion with sufficient precision. Basically, if you sit on earth and look out into space at something Actually stationary, it'd move past so fast you wouldn't have time to register its existence... And then, of course: how do you define stationary? Everything is, after all, relative! Then there's the joys of the apparent paradoxes you can produce with three observers accelerating away from each other along a single axis (one continuing, one accelerating, and one decelerating)
1
Supposedly does something to the algorithm, if I recall correctly. Of course, at the time i got my information it didn't actually make an appreciable difference compared to any number of other factors, most of them outside the Creator's control.
1