Those guys got jobs as Quants for the banks. I'm not surprised that they just build things pointlessly to show something in the books and make money. Why don't they have No-Doc physics? You can just go by stated energy and you don't any pay stubs or other proof. You've been pre-qualified for all the energy you want. No energy down.

Philosophy is obsolete. The physics debates that raged back in the day were due to the dearth of facts and to the inability to acquire hard data.

There are plenty of “high Z Sun ” or “low Z Sun” discussions and papers going on. Latest astroseismology-based models are in favor of a high metallicity models. Are you aware of this, Dr Unzicker?

The 'Model' went off the rails when 'Pulsars' were discovered and not predicted..so 'Magnetars were invented. Faster 'Pulsars' were bigger 'Neutron stars'. Now, Einstein replaced one mass into the De Sitter Universe he theorized and which mass bent Space with Time. One Mass and no distance for 'Time'... Bending Space/Time allowed Mass to accumulate until a Black hole could capture light! Since light could be bent around a Mass, like the Sun (a star seen around the limb of the Sun before it would normally be seen, directly). Pile enough mass in Bent Space/Time and it would capture light...mathematically/gravitationally...like the center of galaxies...and which we 'Observe'. Ergo, black holes can bend light and Mass Does IT! :) Gravity wins the Creation Prize and the 'Model' replaces that stupid God...

Why are people arguing that if the universe isn't expanding, then it must be collapsing? If you view the universe through the model that every object has a positive or negative electromagnetic potential with respect to every other object - consider inverted magnets for the basic idea - then the universe is always seeking equilibrium. This is comparable to virtually any ecosystem we observe in physics and in nature. Stars die. New stars are created from the nebula of the dead star. Galaxies collide. New galaxies form from the remanents of the originals. This seems to be a very natural process. The oversight, imho, is that our current model attributes most/all interactions to gravity - a truly anemic force. As we glimpse more and more of these cosmic networks interconnecting galaxy clusters, galaxies, stars and even planetary systems, we find ions and electrons flowing in rotating pathways, with well defined positive and negative particle flows. We have also observed these networks nested within larger networks, accounting for various scales of influence. And, predictably, where these currents constrict into a z-pinch, we find matter condensing into the objects that we see, everywhere. The rejection of electrodynamics, I believe, is one of the biggest mistakes in scientific history, right up there with a flat Earth at the center of the universe, because god. It's shortsighted. But the theorists have just run away with GR. Apparently, we are missing 95% of the universe, whoops. Neutrons can miraculously be condensed to a ridiculous degree, in spite of...physics. Time is a physical dimension, somehow. Infinite gravity exists in every galaxy and more, despite the fact that they eject tremendous amounts of matter away from this infinite gravitational pull, at some of the highest energies ever observed. Theoretical physics has lost the plot. They got high on their own supply. And there are no other disciplines to reign them in. It has shunned other voices and become just a room filled with old men sniffing their own farts. What a sad time for cosmology....

Even Hubble disagreed with our current interpretation of Redshift. Considering the billions of light years of light being affected by large magnetic fields, I don't think that we even require a separate "tired light" hypothesis. Redshift is suspect out of the gate.

There also exists the effects of things such as Faraday Rotation, as well as the recently confirmed hypothesis of Vacuum Birefringence. Considering the distances involved and the many strong magnetic fields, these already point to a variable speed of light, affected by magnetic fields both passing through a plasma medium and within a vacuum with no effective medium.

I have been asking ChatGpt the same questions about controversial scientific issues for a couple of months and there is a clear effort to code ChatGpt in a way it displays the mainstream view instead of being genuinely puzzled by the set of questions. I have screenshots of the evolution. It is a shame.

Particle physics has become an expensive hobby of a handful of overly intelligent people.

Excellent contribution by Fay. I agree with the mindset that you must force yourself to step back from time to time and take a holistic view to help conceptualize the entire system that you are attempting to describe and define. At some point, we are going to have to bite the bullet, as they say, and attempt to understand the electromagnetic and electrodynamic forces that are contributing to the effects that we observe. For example, could we postulate a view of our local presentation of the universe as a single fork of a much larger Lichtenburg figure, which would point to many implications regarding both a positive and negative electromagnetic potential that could be evidenced in many of our latest observations? From this view, Maxwell would supersede Mach and Einstein, and potentially make gravity mathematically irrelevant. As we observe strings of stars forming in the Orion Nebula, it appears to be almost self-evident that gravity pulls mass, even the mass of vast dust clouds, into spheres, while electromagnetic currents bounded only by their own magnetic fields would result in meandering paths of current, and at each inevitable z-pinch, the rotating current would condense the magnetized particles into stars. Again, as we observe as opposed to the spherical condensation of matter that should arise from gravity. Who knows? As you stated, it took nearly a century and a half for someone to formulate the practical implications of Mach's principles. Perhaps we are in a rotating disc not dissimilar to the structure of an average galaxy? Nature is definitely not shy about expressing its many fractal elements. As your book implies, current astrophysics has gone astray. Today there are essentially two fields: observational astronomers and theoretical physicists. And there are the obvious subdivisions within those realms - and you might bump into a particle physicist at a conference. What has been lost are any interdisciplinary sciences. The fact that an average welder working in iron can recognize that the tremendous scar on Mars is the result of an anode-cathode arc, literally at a glance, though it remains a "mystery" to cosmologists is utterly shameful. Or that a well-plotted sine wave ripple in the Milky Way, very near our Sun, can be identified by virtually any electrical technician as an obvious electric oscillation that is universal, ubiquitous to any electrical circuit when the circuit is unregulated is equally embarrassing. The lack of interdisciplinary contributions to our cosmological understanding has held us back from decades of advancements that never occurred. And the reward structure within many of the sciences is utterly broken and self-serving. I don't know how to fix it. I don't mind questions for which I have no answers. I mind answers that can not be questioned.

Perrin and Spencer debunked Asch's bogus conformity experiment Perrin and Spencer conducted a replication of the classic Asch conformity experiment in the 1980s. They aimed to investigate whether the results of the original study would be replicated using a different population. The study involved engineering, mathematics, and chemistry students as subjects, who were asked to make judgments about the length of lines in a series of trials. Key Findings The results of the replication study showed that the Asch effect was not as strong as previously thought. On only one out of 396 critical trials did an observer join the erroneous majority. This suggests that the original findings of the Asch experiment may not be universal and may be specific to the cultural and historical context in which it was conducted. Implications Perrin and Spencer’s replication highlights the importance of replicating studies to ensure the generalizability of findings. It also suggests that the Asch effect may be more complex than previously thought, and that cultural and situational factors may play a significant role in influencing conformity behavior. Conclusion In conclusion, Perrin and Spencer’s replication of the Asch conformity experiment provides valuable insights into the limitations and generalizability of the original findings. The study demonstrates the importance of replication in social psychology research and highlights the need for further research into the factors that influence conformity behavior.

The surface is definitely fluidic (states of matter here), not gas. It's complicated by also being electrically charged and magnetically infused, with thermodynamic currents (caused by heat transfer and radiation), differential rotations (not a rigid spinning body) and possibly material segregation where different zones have variable composition. Laminar flow doesn't apply so forget using the "easy" fluid mechanics formulas in trying to make sense of its behavior, plus we simplify everything to toy physics when putting an overhead slide presentation. This was pretty much the description my astronomy professor give me back in 1975 and it has stuck with me since.

Thanks for an interesting video presentation. I am not a physicist but my recent investigations have notice some fundamental problems with the geometry and fundamental assumptions used in SR. I did do a lazy thought experiment regarding gravity GR in relation to >cough< time dilation and speed of light and it seamed plausible that regions of mass and the gravitational fields could be considered as a region of higher density. It follows like any wave propagation that its speed would be lower in that medium in the same way that light is slower in a gas or liquid. I noticed references to a radial geometry from the Schwarzschild coordinates and wondered if this has any similarity to radial field lines. I think the radial based geometry is a good starting place for past and forward light geometry in SR but the 2D flat geodesic (polar) coordinates system appears to break the space-time union as well as possibly implying non local causality. I am curious what the base geometry is in VSL (real universe, natural. Not the abstract versions converted to human readable x, y, z + t.)?

Who wrote all those books.... The c i a i n l o n d o n

With the help of the “HYBRID gyroscope” you can make scientific discoveries; in astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, higher theoretical physics,... I am writing to you with a proposal for the joint invention of a HYBRID gyroscope from non-circular, TWO coils with a new type of optical fiber with a “hollow core photonic-substituted vacuum zone or (NANF)” where - the light travels 48000 meters in each arm, while it does not exceed the parameters 40/40/40 cm, and the weight is 4 kg. Manufacturers of “Fiber Optic Gyroscopes” can produce HYBRID gyroscopes for educational and practical use in schools and higher education institutions. Einstein dreamed of measuring the speed of a train, an airplane - through the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1881/2024, and only then would the experiment be more than 70% complete. This can be done using a fiber optic HYBRID gyroscope. Based on the completion of more than 70% of Michelson's experiment, the following postulates can be proven: Light is an ordered vibration of gravitational quanta, and dominant gravitational fields adjust the speed of light in a vacuum. (We are not looking for ether, we will see the work of gravitational quanta) The result is a «theory of everything» in a simple teaching device and a new tape measure for measuring the universe.

Thank you sir for your informative perspective. You presented your points extremely well. I know this is an old upload, so forgive me for posting on a 4 year old presentation. I am well studied but I am not a physicist. These problems have been bugging the back of my mind for most of my life. I have recently dived into the rabbit hole in an attempt to investigate for my own peace of mind and in having done so realized many problematic "assumed" assertions in the fundamental physics and geometry. The following are my personal notes while watching your presentation. Note the time marks relative to my comments. > ~1:50 Henri Poincare Debate over the 4 dimensional geometry with Minkowski. Newtonian mechanics are preserved in the underlying 4D space-time coordinate system. Axle: The above appears to be problematic in respect to the different natural geometries available to choose from. > 5:50 A kind of union between space and time. But what is this union? And how do we accurately describe this union? What fundamental properties are we unifying? What is space? What is time? What IS space-time? I have identified a number of natural geometries that satisfy the broad description of relativity and space-time, so which is correct to the natural universe? > ~8:00 This light cone is a very problematic geometry.Axle > ~9:10 I fully agree. Albert was correct to question this geometry proposed by Minkowski as I don't believe it accurately described the conceptualisation of space-time that Albert has in his mind. Minkowski recreated Alberts space-time relativity in his own image instead of Albert's. > 10:45 Is space and time the same thing? Axle: The first question is does time exist of it's own accord as fundamental to the universe which we only seam to have a subjective human answer to. Second, can we have time as fundamental, or just an emergent illusion of the maximum value of motion. If time is fundamental we have a kind of Pseudo 4D space-time which has a few possible geometries. Only one of those geometries appears to encapsulate a true space-time union with relativity (causation) and the Minkoski model does not fit. An object with zero velocity in space may still have a minimum velocity in time as an equation of 'c'm/s. The other geometry is space only (we could apply an abstract 3D (x,y,z) over this) were Space is static and time is only an illusion that emerges from motion of objects where motion has a maximum rate. An object with zero velocity in space will have no inherent expression of time. Time is not fundamental and does not exist without motion. Which is correct may be difficult to establish. > 11:29 Note the use of 3D+1D This has many geometric interpretations and we have to be extremely careful about how we construct those geometries and even more so when translating those geometries back to a human readable form as it breaks the fundamental space-time concept. > 12:24 This fundamental construct of the speed of a photon is critical, and currently quite likely incorrect at the moment. [Note that the reference frame for 'c' is ambiguous. Is it global (universal) or local to an object... Or both frames at the same time? This is a conflict in physics which is ignored, and leads to all fashion of weird time dilation illusions in SR] > ~14:38 This is an exceptionally important problem that is overlooked, complex, ignored with an assumed solution. P.S. I don't actually think light speed is variable to the universal frame. [See following comments] > 19:20 I think all of this comes out of a human illusion that we have about distant objects. We tend to conflate a photon (which is not the object) with the actually object. The limited speed of light will always give the illusion because of the blurring in motion or time. It is just a human visual illusion. > 19:57 Albert clearly states the problem here between SR and GR. The claim of time and length dilation is an illusion in SR and does not appear to exist in reality. Axle [GR and time dilation is a different matter. See next comment] > 20:20 Variable speed of light in GR (gravity). Light speed is variable in different densities of a medium, so we have to ask is light traveling through a high density medium in a gravitational field. We know all physical objects are at a higher density state, but how far does that density state extend in the gravitational field when we include all forms of particles in space? > 21:36 Mikowskis space-time seams to be a fundamentally incorrect description of the math and geometry. > 21:48 This is Albert Einsteins acknowledgement of the problem with the "Human Condition". We have imposed assertions over physics based upon subjective human beliefs. > 27:05 What IS the constant 'c'??? > 29:52 This is a reasonable summary of the problem. We have to make an attempt to define the following 3 things as they exist in nature (nor for us, but nature) and then also inspect our limited human ability to describe these things in a human way without damaging there natural (non-human real) context. Speed of a photon: What does that even mean to the universe? Time: What does time even mean to the universe? Space (empty void): What does a void, universe even mean to the universe? What is the universes concept of our neat human box like x,y,z? What are boundaries or infinities to the universe? An idea of an object: What is an object to the universe? Does the universe even know if they exist? All difficult questions. > The above is a somewhat raw summary of my own investigation and thoughts. They may be a little ambiguous to the reader. If you need clarification on any point feel free to ask :) Axle

Modern Cosmologists are "Used Car Salesmen"...

Savage.

The universe is a galaxy made up of galaxies falling into a black hole and expansion starts when the gravity of space is equal to the mass in the back hole and with the help of centrifugal force expands into the flat universe.

It turns out that geostationary experiments do not experience a variance in the speed of light, but GPS satellites, in motion WRT the Earth and its Aether, do experience a variance in the speed of light, in contradiction of the Special Theory of Relativity. However, since the interferometer experiments, which allow an interference in each arm, between the forward and reflective wave, have documented the direction of travel of the Earth in 3 different reference frames. It turns out that when you use the Superposition of Waves Principle to compute the data from these interferometer experiments, they return an Earth orbital velocity value of about 30 km/sec vs the 7.5 km/sec, assuming a variance in the speed of light. So, although the MMX didn't detect an Aether drift, nor does it prove that there is no Aether, the experiment has nothing to do with a variance in the speed of light nor a length contraction, but the moving fringes are caused by an anisotropy of energy from the solar wind, Galaxy or Universe.

Interesting article published a few days ago in Quanta Magazine about electron aggregates, that have strange fractional charges like -3/5. They were measured in graphene, 2-D hexagonal lattices that slide across each other. I only read the news article about it, and would like someone independent to review it. I don't like news articles about physics or astronomy, or math, because the reporter is almost always promoting a theory they don't understand and the researchers are trying to get grants, making me skeptical of all of it. Still, they seem to be measuring something and the fermion concept doesn't really fit in with my ideas of what atoms and electrons are like.

The strangest man - Neils Bohr on Paul Dirac.

Ahhh, the casual ad hominem….

Might be overhyped.but he was also a genius. FACT

That's the thing, IF interpreted in terms of angular momentum. Little moons orbiting little planets. That's the fallacy of quantum mechanics and particle physics. Electron particles were nothing more than an assumption. They do not exist.

@TheMachian: Feynman became famous not for his work on QED. He became famous because of DOING physics (and not just talking about it (talk the talk but not walk the walk)). Many colleagues and students turned to him to get help with very difficult and long calculations (mainly calculus). No one else was able to do this on paper like him.

I wrote a program for my bachelor thesis to calculate atomic spectrum with QED, I must say I believe that QED has to be correct. Even without the self energy introduced by Hans Bethe, one can try to solve the Dirac equation in Coulomb potential with various techniques (e.g. by introducing Temple operator or by Foldy-Wouthuysen transformation), this already gives correct prediction to a precision of one part in 10^6 (and at this level there is no divergence or any inconsistency, any physics students could do it if he has taken some beginning graduate level course. What we mean by state-of-the-art QED calculation really involves more advanced methods like the application of 2-particle irreducible graphs and renders result with precision of one part in 10^15 for lowest hydrogen level (s-state) transitions, it is to be noted that such techniques are ubiquitous in theoretical physics, where it can be used for example to study non-equilibrium phenomenon in condensed matter systems according to Kadanoff Baym equation/Luttinger Ward equation. I have written down more than one thousand line of code and this was really a non trivial task, and I really admired the work established by Kinoshita. Finally to the issue of Renormalization, there are non perturbative methods to constrain our theory like the famous Noether Theorem (it has a quantum version called Ward identity) or, more advanced techniques like wetterich equation, these are all exact without any divergence issue. Furthermore the Renormalization procedure is mathematically very well established with the help of BPHZ R operation. Within standard model we don’t even have to send the cutoff to infinities because we are really expecting a phase transition to electroweak theory in that range at 200GeV. We certainly should not send the cutoff beyond the Landau pole as we still don’t know how to unify gravity and quantum mechanics. For me QED is a well established low energy effective theory: by low energy effective theory I mean what condensed matter theorist would agree as moving alone the Wilsonian renormalization group flow, which is mathematically well defined. If you do some research, you will even find application of Wilson’s Renormalization group in the study of artificial intelligence. I don’t know others, I myself was certainly not cheating in any sense and although there are mathematical issues in physics, it is not in the sense as described here.

i'm gay

Overhyped? Degrasse Tyson, Michio Kaku, and by far, Bill Nye who is a mechanical engineer...

So, please tell us what philosophy you follow.

I KNEW Big G was behind this.

anti-sheldon.

You know who else has an over-hyped big boring mouth: Eric Weinstein.

It seems that physicists do not learn, not only from theis mistakes, but also from history! Is it not the story of LEP which is repeating now?

I love how you ask for politnes on your comments but you aren't even polite enough to post the answer to your unnecessary large discurse. What a show of caracter.

Can I be a member to support you?

absolutely fascinating concept though I hope you could expand on how this explains the double slit experiment and entanglement.

Research into what terrance howard is saying. I think mendeleev table has to be rearranged. Its like you have different context. Meaning everything has to be circle. Because everything is a cycle. Only reason polygon even exist is to grow. Symmetry is key. He says lots of things but he got some 96 patents. Now you need to understand he got all this because he is part of black cult called boule ..a sub cult of freemason. Goal is gather talented people and make them part of cult., if anyone refuse...they will come down hard on them. They dont like to be refused. They never abandon einstein theory because even if someone find real explanation of everything , he will be unalived or he has to be from tribe to survive. Even then they will make it parallel theory than completely remove einstein bogus theories. Most of the early 90 theories are frauds

I hope your work has edified lots of people because the issue isn't physics... it's people. A child doesn't know why it's here or what it should do except for it's natural impulses and environmental cues. However, it is awesomely capable, complex and also able to harm itself or others. Human beings need to understand who they are, why they're here and what they should do. Physics is subsequently an important part of that equation.

AI (what we call AI) can help detect common data patterns which are not immediately evident to the human data mining. It is incredible how what we - for years - have called "Data Mining" and "Data Analysis" are now been merged together, and called "Artificial Intelligence". With the "Data Training" being no more than an overextended calculation of matrix differentiation. It is incredible how far this system is from true intelligence, which is a biphasic operation of "Invent and choose". Best Regards, dear Prof. Unzicker... Greetings, Anthony

Why did the string theorist cross the road? To get to the 10th dimension. Where did the string theorist hide from the experimentalist? Inside a gravitational singularity. Who did the string theorist buy a new particle accelerator for? Sweet SUSY. How many string theorists does it take to change a light bulb? 10 to the 500th power.

He said himself to be just an ordinary guy.

particle physics is done. it works. unless there is new theories to test, i dont think its a good idea.

Has there been a greater waste of money than building the large hadron collider?

Excellent ! Thank you for this spotlight.

What physicists need to understand, is that mathematics is just a tool to understand and work with nature. Somewhere in the last century it has been made primary. This can only lead to false conclusions. And it has, plenty of them.

This further proves the earth is flat...

Sir I wish you can write a book or at least do a video on scientific thinking

What we have now is q perversion Not a Koperinkan method. Speculations and guesswork not testability

thank you. keep questioning these fundamental scientific 'assumptions' that everyone quotes as facts