Gravity Visualized by High School Teacher in an Amazingly Elegant & Simple Way

Just a few miles down the high­way from Open Cul­ture’s gleam­ing head­quar­ters you will find Los Gatos High School, where Dan Burns, an AP Physics Teacher, has fig­ured out a sim­ple but clever way to visu­al­ize grav­i­ty, as it was explained by Ein­stein’s 1915 Gen­er­al The­o­ry of Rel­a­tiv­i­ty. Get $20 of span­dex, some mar­bles, a cou­ple of weights, and you’re all good to go. Using these read­i­ly-avail­able objects, you can demon­strate how mat­ter warps space-time, how objects grav­i­tate towards one anoth­er, and why objects orbit in the way they do. My favorite part comes at the 2:15 mark, where Burns demon­strates the answer to a ques­tion you’ve maybe pon­dered before: why do all plan­ets hap­pen to orbit the sun mov­ing in a clock­wise (rather than counter-clock­wise) fash­ion? Now you can find out why.

If you would like to sign up for Open Culture’s free email newslet­ter, please find it here. Or fol­low our posts on Threads, Face­book, BlueSky or Mastodon. If you would like to sup­port the mis­sion of Open Cul­ture, con­sid­er mak­ing a dona­tion to our site. It’s hard to rely 100% on ads, and your con­tri­bu­tions will help us con­tin­ue pro­vid­ing the best free cul­tur­al and edu­ca­tion­al mate­ri­als to learn­ers every­where. You can con­tribute through Pay­Pal, Patre­on, and Ven­mo (@openculture). Thanks!

via Coudal

Relat­ed Con­tent

Free Online Physics Cours­es

The Feyn­man Lec­tures on Physics, The Most Pop­u­lar Physics Book Ever Writ­ten, Now Com­plete­ly Online

Bertrand Russell’s ABC of Rel­a­tiv­i­ty: The Clas­sic Intro­duc­tion to Ein­stein (Free Audio)

Free Physics Text­books

by | Permalink | Comments (5) |

Sup­port Open Cul­ture

We’re hop­ing to rely on our loy­al read­ers rather than errat­ic ads. To sup­port Open Cul­ture’s edu­ca­tion­al mis­sion, please con­sid­er mak­ing a dona­tion. We accept Pay­Pal, Ven­mo (@openculture), Patre­on and Cryp­to! Please find all options here. We thank you!

Comments (5)
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
  • nivaca says:

    Well I do pre­fer Carl Sagan’s clas­sic depic­tion:

  • mike hire says:

    So then Mat­ter is 3 D and Space-Time is 2 dimen­sion­al .…

  • Chet says:

    I think Venus is the only plan­et that does­n’t go clockwise…maybe Nep­ture too.…

  • Daniel Sieradski says:

    Bri­an Greene did this on Col­bert the oth­er night.

  • Duane Ertle says:

    Dear Read­er,

    A per­son may won­der why there can­not exist a state of peace between those who believe the Bible to be truth­ful, and those who believe that evo­lu­tion is how mankind came into exis­tence. The rea­son there is no com­mon ground between the two is that there is need of decep­tive lying by some­one. One group of peo­ple is know­ing­ly pro­mot­ing that which is, obvi­ous­ly, not right – but which one is it?

    It is those that believe it nec­es­sary for them to lie in order to sup­port their claims and can­not rely upon real­i­ty to jus­ti­fy their the­o­ries. The real “truth” con­cern­ing evo­lu­tion is that it is a THEORY. That is the absolute truth. Those who espouse this idea do not speak of it in the sense of it being a the­o­ry at all. Because they have a vest­ed inter­est in this devised con­cept with its pre­emp­tion of God, and hop­ing there is no actu­al judge­ment before God for what they do, such believe if they run with the herd they are safe. It is not a par­tic­u­lar per­son or group of peo­ple evo­lu­tion­ists despise, but it is the Chris­t­ian reli­gion in gen­er­al that those who espouse the con­cept of evo­lu­tion oppose. Evo­lu­tion, the ‘big bang’, and abor­tion are all pret­ty much tied togeth­er in the attempt to get rid of a Bib­li­cal God. Though this state­ment is not a sur­prise to any­one, the per­son who reads this is like­ly not to real­ize the ani­mos­i­ty and des­per­ate need these peo­ple have to con­tin­u­al­ly prove them­selves a judge of all life-val­ues for all peo­ple.

    It is because of their neces­si­ty to lie, and their pro­mot­ing decep­tion at any cost, that I am stat­ing the fol­low­ing. I have done a great deal of work in under­stand­ing how and why time func­tions in our world as it does, and would like to list some of what I have dis­cov­ered:

    1. Earth’s grav­i­ta­tion­al field is prop­a­gat­ed at a speed less than that of light. It is a prod­uct of elec­tro­mag­net­ic ener­gy. The equa­tion for this force is c2=E/m, this com­plet­ing the ‘physics tril­o­gy’. I have con­duct­ed grav­i­ta­tion­al exper­i­ments where the grav­i­ta­tion­al field has been increased and decreased accord­ing to the val­ue of c2=E/m. “Youtube” – ‘Suc­cess­ful Grav­i­ty Exper­i­ment’, by StCor­ri­don.

    2. I deter­mined that it is the spin of our plan­et which forms earth­’s mag­net­ic field. Were our moon to have been cre­at­ed hav­ing any spin to its mass, the mag­net­ic field formed would cause it to become slow­ly attract­ed to one of earth’s poles where it would begin approach­ing till earth and our moon met. It is the heat ener­gy con­tained with­in a large solar mass that sup­plies the ener­gy nec­es­sary for both a grav­i­ta­tion­al field and a mag­net­ic one. Were a plan­et the size of earth to be encoun­tered in out­er space, and were it to have no heat ener­gy with­in, then that plan­et would have no grav­i­ta­tion­al field, or a mag­net­ic one, about it. No heat — no ener­gy. All that would exist is “m” mass.

    3. The elec­tron is com­posed of elec­tro­mag­net­ic ener­gy that has over­lapped its own fre­quen­cy, thus bond­ing fre­quen­cy with fre­quen­cy, and all the while main­tain­ing the veloc­i­ty state of ‘c’. This form of mass then forms neu­trons and pro­tons which in turn have formed our phys­i­cal uni­verse and giv­en all mat­ter a com­mon time val­ue. This val­ue of “c” all clocks mea­sure in their own abstract man­ner.

    4. I showed where New­ton made a mis­take in believ­ing that all mass of the uni­verse auto­mat­i­cal­ly attracts oth­er mass­es. New­ton was in error when he stat­ed (Wikipedia) grav­i­ty is “a force which caus­es any two bod­ies to be attract­ed to each oth­er, with the force pro­por­tion­al to the prod­uct of their mass­es and inverse­ly pro­por­tion­al to the square of the dis­tance between them.” Because the force of grav­i­ty per­forms work, it must have an ener­gy source (which becomes a vari­able). What form of ener­gy expen­di­ture is it that allows hydro­elec­tric pow­er to come into exis­tence through the medi­um of grav­i­ty? New­ton said: (Fg = G m1 x m2 / r². The force of grav­i­ty equals ‘the grav­i­ta­tion­al con­stant, times mass one, times mass two, divid­ed by the radius squared.’ The cor­rect equa­tion describ­ing the source and force of a field of grav­i­ty, (as to why it exists) is: (Fg = m1 x Q² times m2 x Q² / r²). The force of grav­i­ty is equal to mass one, times heat ener­gy squared, times mass two, times heat ener­gy squared, divid­ed by the radius squared. What is called the ‘grav­i­ta­tion­al con­stant’ today is real­ly a vari­able. The force of grav­i­ty is a prod­uct of a par­tic­u­lar kind of ener­gy. Were this not true, then this force would have to be cre­at­ed in all mass at all time. Plan­et earth uses 0.00444 kg. per. sec. of mass con­vert­ed into grav­i­ta­tion­al quan­ta. Our sun expends approx­i­mate­ly 665 lbs. per sec. in order to per­form the work of keep­ing the plan­ets in place.

    5. Then, Ein­stein made a mis­take in stat­ing mass increas­es its own mass as it is accel­er­at­ed. An accel­er­at­ed mass does not gain mass. It con­verts the over­all mass fre­quen­cy so there is a decrease of ener­gy (fre­quen­cy) at right angles to its motion, and a pro­por­tion­al increase of ener­gy-fre­quen­cy in the direc­tion of trav­el. As the read­er will note in “The Prob­lem and Repair of Rel­a­tiv­i­ty”, ( there is a major prob­lem with our cur­rent con­cept of earth and sun and their inte­ri­or work­ings. At the 0.716 mile loca­tion inward with­in the core point of our plan­et, were a mass to be released at this loca­tion it would exceed the speed of light in one sec­ond (a mass can­not do this and yet remain a mass). This same crit­i­cal dis­tance in our sun is 400 miles out­ward from its core point. At that loca­tion a mass would exceed the speed of light in one sec­ond were it released there. Ein­stein used the wrong form of ener­gy for an accel­er­at­ed mass. The cor­rect form of ener­gy that describes a mov­ing mass relates to elec­tro­mag­net­ic ener­gy, not to the Joule. (E = hf) states that mass com­posed of elec­tro­mag­net­ic ener­gy will change in over­all fre­quen­cy no mat­ter how slight the change may be, and shall reg­is­ter an increase of mass frequency/density in direc­tion of accel­er­a­tion. Elec­tro­mag­net­ic ener­gy forms all elec­trons, which in turn form neu­trons and pro­tons. (mv = mf²), mass times its fre­quen­cy squared, describes mass being com­posed of elec­tro­mag­net­ic ener­gy, con­tract­ing in over­all fre­quen­cy in direc­tion of trav­el. This gets rid of the con­cept that an accel­er­at­ing mass may gain unlim­it­ed energy/mass. Mass is com­posed of elec­tro­mag­net­ic ener­gy and degen­er­ates into that, as in a nuclear explo­sion.

    A fur­ther prob­lem Einstein’s think­ing brought about is the con­cept that the force of grav­i­ty is able to be com­pound­ed along with that of mass den­si­ty to form “black holes” – it won’t work. The equa­tion c2=E/m states that as a mass is com­pressed and forced to increase in heat val­ue (ener­gy) the new­ly formed ener­gy is released in form of gravi­tons (ulti­mate­ly a val­ue of (c=h), which equa­tion also is the answer to TOE) – both of these being con­stants and each hav­ing a per sec­ond val­ue). This leads us to the real­iza­tion that the con­cepts of worm holes and the big bang are impos­si­bil­i­ties. Every­thing in our uni­verse has been formed of phys­i­cal time (the first two equa­tions of the ‘physics tril­o­gy’ describe this), which phys­i­cal real­i­ty we can­not alter in any man­ner because we are total­ly com­posed of it. The third equa­tion of the tril­o­gy, ‘c2=E/m’ describes ener­gy formed with­in a mass brought about by the first two equa­tions.

    Mass is formed of phys­i­cal time (the val­ue ‘c’). Mass and ener­gy change but time does not. The last equa­tion of the tril­o­gy (c²=E/m) states that as an ener­gy to mass ratio increas­es, so also does the field of grav­i­ty (a field of grav­i­ty also being a lit­er­al field of phys­i­cal time. It is impos­si­ble to com­press either phys­i­cal time or grav­i­ty). The (c²=E/m) equa­tion total­ly inval­i­dates the ‘big bang’ the­o­ry. The false, athe­is­tic big bang doc­trine can­not replace the cre­ation event record­ed in the Bible.

    • The fol­low­ing is how the E, m, and c² con­cept works in a back and forth man­ner in the approx­i­mate con­ver­sion of one kilo­gram (2.205 lbs.) of mass into ener­gy expressed in Joules:

    (E) =mc²; (1 kg., times 2.9979 e8, times 2.9979 e8) = 8.9874 e16 Joules.
    (m) =E/c²; (8.9874 e16 Joules, divid­ed by “c²” 2.9979 e8, times 2.9979 e8) = 1 kg.
    (c²) =E/m; (8.9874 e16 Joules, divid­ed by 1 kg.) = “c²” or 2.9979 e8 times 2.9979 e8.

    “Inter­est­ing,” you say, “but where is the proof, and so what if you have learned what you say you have?”

    The evi­dence of what I have writ­ten is in the grav­i­ta­tion­al exper­i­ments I have per­formed. If it is pos­si­ble to form and col­lapse a grav­i­ta­tion­al field, then the source of this force is known and the oth­er con­cepts could also, even­tu­al­ly, become obvi­ous.

    This effort was begun because of the way the the­o­ry of evo­lu­tion was being lied about years ago. These peo­ple have a (reli­gious?) agen­da that they pur­sue at all cost, and they need to be brought to account. Their object is to destroy the mes­sage and mes­sen­ger. Twice in the 90’s I went to Wash­ing­ton, D.C. and gave to Sen­a­tors and Rep­re­sen­ta­tives infor­ma­tion on what I had done, and com­plained of U.S. “Agency” inter­fer­ence. Then, at the same time, I did the same in Lans­ing, Michi­gan. I real­ized at the time what I had done would like­ly not be believed — and, evi­dent­ly, it was­n’t; I did it any­way. This sounds sort of “sham­my”, but if there is some­one who would like to rep­re­sent a per­son against the U.S. Gov­ern­ment and how they seek to con­trol cit­i­zens because what they pro­mote is “polit­i­cal­ly incor­rect” please con­tact me. It seems as though it may take a gov­ern­ment not friend­ly to the U.S. in order to do this, oth­er­wise the fox­es are out count­ing the chick­ens! I would like the orga­ni­za­tion exposed.

    Over the past ten years I have sent this and sim­i­lar infor­ma­tion to the DOJ and nev­er received a response. I did not under­stand until recent­ly that it is a cor­rupt orga­ni­za­tion. Con­cepts that refute the Big Bang, abor­tion, or Evo­lu­tion would be dis­missed. Should this reach you, inquire of a con­ser­v­a­tive orga­ni­za­tion (Bob Jones Uni­ver­si­ty, Cedarville Uni­ver­si­ty etc.) con­cern­ing the con­cepts. MAKE SCIENCE GREAT AGAIN!

    Duane Ertle, Sebring Flori­da

Leave a Reply

Open Culture was founded by Dan Colman.