Great

I say that is a good idea :)

📍1:42 2📍 2:03 3📍 2:22

New ideas like amplituhedron etc seems to be good for physics to evolve

@DrBrianKeating

Ай бұрын

Agreed!

I think Brian's approach to define a (new) Assayer is intuitively correct. But in effect he is looking for something different than just the ' scientific method' because that's nothing new. So what method for truth-telling would be fundamentally new? Or at least new to many in academia? Well, what academia consistently seem to overlook, is that ll their current theories IN COMBINATION cause many unsolved paradoxes. We like to think of them as mysteries of Nature, but in reversed engineering heuristics, we always consider them to be symptoms of incorrect human thinking. Think of paradoxes like; we exclude a (spacetime) grid in Einsteins SR but we require there to be such a grid in Einsteins GR. Or what about the paradox of two approximations GR and QP being irreconcilable. Or the paradox that we seems to know exactly how to describe the working of gravity (GR) but still have no clue what causes it. Or the paradox that Sir Roger Penrose claims mass is fundamentally equivalent to inverse time, where Einstein says mass is equivalent to Energy. Such Paradoxes hint at problems with existing theories. We first need to solve them if we want to get closer to the truth. So the Essayer should be any simple new twist or insight in EXISTING theories, that would cause not one but ALL paradoxes to disappear. So the more paradoxes we can lift by changing something we take for granted, the more truthful we get with our existing theories. Thats is what the essayer should do. In fact, no matter what the end result is, as long as reversed engineering paths suggest a certain change is the best to clear paradoxes, then that route must be the correct one. It is the reverse order of the scientific method where you start with a theory and then try to prove it.

@NightmareCourtPictures

26 күн бұрын

Ya i agree. I'm a bit more radical; I think right now we need something more like philosophy to guide science and not just experiment. I believe in the Wolfram model and if its true (which after spending 3 years studying it I think it is likely), it means that experiments are not going to always yield predictable outcomes. Ironically, Wolfram is probably the only one who out of the pool of theory presenters that actually ran verifiable experiments (enumerating all possible rule classes) to get to that conclusion. The very foundation and fabric of science is getting it's buttons pushed, and it's going to require a fundamental shift in how we think about the world. For instance, equating mass with inverse time, makes no sense philosophically. Formally sure, you can flip the sign and say "hey positive mass is now negative mass," or "hey positive time is now negative time." followed by "if mass = time, then negative mass = negative time, means that if we find negative mass we can travel backward in time uwu!" But just because you can mathematically reverse a system, does not also mean that time went backwards, and there's many cases of this kind of sloppiness when dealing with physics. The reason this thinking has stuck around is because in some cases it works in experiment. For example, I think it was Feynman who predicted antiparticles by looking at reverse time trajectories in scattering. But the problem is that just cause the signs and trajectories are flipped, does not mean time went backwards, and some people take it literately and try to derive a whole bunch of other stuff under the same assumption that time is reversible and then go so far as to make it an axiom...which results in errors and paradoxes later on down the line, since everyone just assumes it is true. So in essence what needs to separate bad interpretations, is to actually have good philosophically driven explanation. Another example, is that sure...we got this theory that exists in 11d, has branes that exist outside in a multi-verse...cool...but what does that actually mean? Does it actually make any sense? To me the answer is no, it makes no sense and there's more questions that result : Why do we live in 11d and not some other d? What are dimensions to begin with? If we just say "That's just what nature is, now do your math and run the experiment" it's no answer. The same was done to quantum mechanics too which just accepted quantum probability as fundamentally "what nature is" so just do the math and do your experiments...even if the interpretations make zero sense at all. This comment is now getting super ranty but it's a big can of worms, and it can really go in a lot of directions. I think experiments are great, he can and should try to find experiments for these theories, but its not clear anymore whether experiments are the (only) answer to science anymore.

Well I suggest you start at the Kaluza-Klein theory, assume it is right, and push it until it breaks (inconsistences). Then when you know about the big universe field theory you can look back into QFT.

@RWin-fp5jn

29 күн бұрын

Almost right. Kaluza-Klein Theory is the correct mathematical approach. But we haven’t given it the correct physical definition. That is where mathematician Eric Einstein loses the plot as well. Yes there are 4 extra dimensions, next to the four existing spacetime grid. But they do not exist in the same spacetime grid, but in its inverse dual grid definition. It is more correct to say that there are two connected inverse grids. One grid coined by space and time dominating our macro world spacetime grid, and the other grid coined by energy and mass dominating our micro QP world. They are inversely defined by whom or what created this entire setup. So there are four extra dimension not in spacetime but inside the inversed spacetime grid. Don’t forget that electron motion inside an atom (quantum leaps) are defined in terms of energy (distance in eV orbits) and mass (mass is clock in the QP world as per Roger Penrose). Penrose was quite right to say we have to insert E=hf (Planck) into E=MC2 to find that mass equals clock which hints at this double INVERSE grid. Analogous; And Heisenberg was also correct to say dp*dx

Hello Brian, what you suggest is just what I have been hoping for. You will be aware, that I have contacted you many times over the past two years, regarding a radical but logical alternative hypothesis to the standard model of the atom and cosmology I have compiled. Unlike many comments that are put forward, which explains one particular element, which only causes problems with other parts of the standard model, I have started from square one, and what I proposed works through from a more rational relationship between the nucleus and the electron in the atom, to cosmology. In this model, each part fits and compliments each other, it also unites quantum physics with classical physics. It is the misconception that the universe is expanding that has led to many of the problems in cosmology. I contend that the universe is not expanding: It has no age because it has always existed much as it is now: It will exist forever much as it is now: There was no Big Bang or cosmic inflation: The CMBR is not the afterglow of the big bang, but a point where electromagnetic radiation reaches saturation, and Redshift is not due to the expansion of the universe, but is due to the loss of speed and energy of electromagnetic radiation over distance and time it has travelled. There has just been published an hypothesis called ' The Two Monopole Particle Universe ' by ' Tony Norman Marsh ', which fully explains all of this Logically. If you type in Tony Norman Marsh into Google, details will be shown, which would allow you to read the hypothesis on Kindle. This hypothesis can also explain Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Antimatter, and two forces of gravity, amongst other things. If you can provide an email address, I can send you a copy of the manuscript. All I ask, is that this hypothesis be looked at and thoroughly scrutinized, so it can be either shown to have merit, or proven conclusively wrong. You did ask me recently to call you on Telegram, but I do not do Telegram. Kind regards, Tony Marsh. The whole description of how the universe began is wrong. We keep getting headlines of " the Big Bang is over ", only to have a complete video explaining how the universe began in a Big Bang, and everything that the JWST finds is so many years after the Big Bang. Why not do a video that looks at a logical alternative to the big bang and cosmic inflation, such as that which is being proposed by ' Tony Norman Marsh, called the ' Two Monopole Particle Universe ', which has been offered on previous comments of your videos. If I had an email address to reply to, I could send you a copy of the hypothesis, but I have found that KZread will not allow email addresses to be posted on these comments. It is available on Amazon and Kindle. Typing Tony Norman Marsh ' into Google will bring up details. Unfortunately, the hypothesis is too long to post in these comments, however, below is a copy of of the Abstracts from both parts of the hypothesis. Abstract. Sole Author. Tony Norman Marsh. In this hypothesis, I set out to present a radical alternative to the standard model of quantum mechanics and cosmology, based on logic as opposed to mathematics, which could explain the following: Dark Matter: Dark Energy: Antimatter: cosmic nucleosynthesis: and two forces of Gravity. A more rational model of the atom, where the relationship between the nucleus and the electron is fully explained: The speed and ultimate distance that light and all electromagnetic radiation can travel: An alternative explanation for the ‘Cosmic Microwave Background radiation’ and ‘Redshift’: An explanation eliminating the ‘Horizon Problem’ without cosmic inflation: An explanation for an infinite, nonexpanding universe that has always existed, without a ‘Big Bang’: The cornerstone of my hypothesis is that everything that exists in the universe is composed of just two incredibly small monopole particles, which I contend are the only two true fundamental and finitely small particles that exist in the universe. One is a negatively charged monopole particle called a ‘Harveytron’. And the other is a positively charged monopole particle called a ‘Dannytron’. All other particles are composites of these two particles. Abstract. An hypothesis to challenge the idea of the ‘Big Bang‘, being how our universe began, and the idea that the universe is expanding. It is further proposed an alternative explanation for the ‘Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation’ (CMB), and ‘Redshift’. It is proposed that light and all electromagnetic radiation may have a limit to how far it can travel through space. It is also proposed that the universe did not emerge from nothing, but is a dynamic system, in which matter is constantly being created and consumed in a cycle over billions of years. It is proposed that the universe as we observe it has always existed much as it is today, and extends to infinity. It is further proposed that the so-called ‘ Big Bang ‘ was not some kind of massive explosion, but is a misconception of what is being interpreted as the ‘ Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation ‘. The ‘ CMB ‘ is the only proof offered for the ‘ Big Bang theory ‘, and this can only be held up by an even more preposterous idea of ‘ Cosmic inflation ‘, inflating the universe from a point of singularity to fill the whole of space in a minute fraction of a billionth of a second. Kind regards, Tony Marsh.

Once many moons ago when my old rescue Rottweiler who lived into old-cat-ages was probably only ten... I walked her on a path at a park where rich women (mentioned for a reason later seen) walked by the water in my Hometown, a place where I had spent many a morning before high school... and during the day as well. But this day I found a diamond on the path that had popped off a rich woman's ring... and yet drunk and stupidly I took it to my lowlife mentor who knew a person with a shop... and there in my naivety was convinced it was not real, but that it would be good to leave for a piece of 'dog-bling' to be made for my rottweiler out of the 'fake' stone... for sixty dollars... Yeah, first giveaway is lowlife mentor never would divert funds from drugs and alcohol... but, I was very stoned, that stone was real... and the lesson of the story, is that if one has access to an actual expert such as yourself then they are fortunate indeed! I look forward to these new episodes on these exciting topics!!! But if I had a time machine, I would not change anything about the years of such ignorance and suffering. Your channel is very interesting!

If you ever get a chance to read some of Richard Blackwells work on Galileo i highly recommend him. Late professer at St Louis U.

Are you taking submissions (rocks to assay) from the masses? Boy do I have a recommendation.

Really it depends on whether people trust you, or not, and how intelligent you really are. Mass is not attracted to mass, and hardly anyone can understand that idea. Once you figure that part out you can get to the Theory Of Everything. But personally I don't trust that you will be able to visualise that idea.

A telescope with a half way in betweeness is the 🔭 that defines assayer: G = ((v_R^2 R_☉)/(2 pi M_☉)) for the 2v_R probes'.

Any theory of Everything must explain the double slit experiment, alpha137, beta decay, exactly what energy is, how matter is created,give a model of physics that unifies and explains everything from the quantum to cosmological level. Almost all online propose to be maybe a ToE one day explaining none of these. There only is one. The Theory of Everything is already here with videos on the channel Science not Dogma on youtube and odysee and the full ToE on weebly however members of the big bang particle model cult keep having it removed, if it was nonsense why would they bother? It unifies everything into one model one field(the space time fabric dark matter lattice) one force(pressure). However getting someone to look at a few minutes of mathematics and logic to acknowledge it is the real problem, people tend to assume if that was the case it would have won a Nobel prize. With Roger Penrose winning a Nobel prize for scifi mathematics which ignores the Planck limit, particle physicists twisting Bells Theorem which proves the particle model is the wrong interpretation of QM into saying BT proves the Universe isn't real one can start to see how messed up science is. What a tragedy physicists have lost their sense of integrity to test what at 1st may seem unexpected. That's why we have experiments, then again that another problem, money, if it isn't funded who is going to put their hands into their own pocket and test, so far no one and if it is funded with the potential to provide free energy and multiply matter(an end to all need for competing for resources) and liberate everyone from the control of the industrial/military/banking/pharma complex, if they are the funders would it reach the public?. When the proof to a loop being impossible in the Collatz conjecture was put on Reddit someone(who is too distracted to follow Basic algebra) put it through chat gpt. One return from ai was "it makes unsubstantiated claims like every 4n+1×3+1 is a 12n+4" if ai can't even think to follow kids level math unless it is pre programmed in a specific format and people are depending on it to do the thinking for them it's a scary time for mankind(both proofs have been removed from Reddit along with the previous youtube channel with 160 videos made over 4 years, closed for no specific reason and no way to appeal). For those facing the reality of the onslaught against nature, and a cosmology model in absolute confusion & crisis, we may be at risk of losing all the technological advances scientists have worked so hard for over the last few centuries in a natural apocalyptic disaster or breakdown of the environment and/or human infrastructure. Goldbach conjecture has been proven, so has a loop been proven impossible in the Collatz conjecture and the Theory of Everything thing is here, the saddest most tragic thing is people who call themselves scientists would read a comment and laugh Dunning Kruger that such breakthroughs like this could be blocked from reaching the public. Its probably the worst travesty ever in scientific history and certainly a moment with the most danger and potential for a bright future ever simultaneously staring mankind in the face

One problem is that Galileo was using experiments - you're gonna be doing what? Scrutinizing mathematical concepts on a blackboard in an office somewhere?

It's good to see falsifiable theories again. They don't lead to decades of funding, but they are what true physics is all about.