I'm picturing the idea of teaching these things by having children play along as a Babylonian market with coins and so on, in order to motivate them to care about doing these.

I love this video its really good

At this point I'm seriously considering exposing teenage students to your content, and maybe you should consider it as a target audience as well. Here's why: I try to teach them some advance concept, e.g. limits. They struggle with the idea, but they can see the point. Then, when actually solving a limit, they freeze. I realise it's because they're not confident with algebraic manipulations. So maybe it's using symbols for variables and unknowns what they don't get. I go back to this idea and see they're comfortable enough with it. And what I always end up finding is that they're not sure what algebraic manipulations they're "allowed" to do. In other words, they don't have a solid grasp of arithmetic operations, their meaning, their properties, or the fact that this whole stuff isn't about what they're "allowed to do", but what they WANT to figure out and what it TAKES to do it. So then, when they're dealing with the sophisticated version of arithmetic (aka powers, radicals, brackets and so on), all of those deficiencies fall through. Even though this content is aimed at teaching the inductive method inductively, the yields of applying the inductive method to basic arithmetic can be invaluable to students. Cheers

Energy is All. Energy waves. Waves generate bio-electro-magnetic fields of influence. Peripheral attention = wave like Focused attention = particle like Peripheral attention (Intuition) recognizes possibilities with potential for actualization. Focused attention collapses the probabilistic wave function of infinite possibilities into one actuality. The one all-encompassing principle of Nature is 'pressure mediation'. 0. Hermaphroditic di-electric null point/plane of conversion (Psyche, Energy). 1. Masculine electric centripetal convergence (Mind, Potential). 2. Feminine magnetic centrifugal divergence (Heart, Actual). 3. Androgynous electromagnetic current (Will, Power, Parsing). Gravity = Di-electric inductive acceleration toward mutual null point of conversion. When the Mind inspires, the Heart aspires and the Will conspires (combines). Go to sleep with a compelling quest-i-on (Adam), wake up with a compelling answer (Eve). Genesis 42:18 - "Do this and live (an inspired Life)."

Zero was invented by Brahmagupta (India 7c), there wasnt any mathematician named "Algamesh", therefore this video is scam

He loves numbers so much that he named his six children 1,2,3... lol

Seeing if I have this: Contact-to-acceleration time would be efficiently/passively conditioned by the nature of the materials and formal construction of the entities in collision. Some (possibly very little, or quite a lot) of the energy of the collision will be diverted to deformation/heat and possibly consequently chemical reactions or fusion/fission.

Is necessitation distinct from conditioning? If not, is that a word Dr. Pierson would prefer for this concept?

Regarding the proposition that the ether carries the force of gravity in wavefront shells emanating from the Sun: In reacting to gravity, does the Earth consume something (e.g. momentum) from the ether shell (or the succession of them that intersect the Earth during traversal) such that successive ether shells (manifesting the wave peak moving away from the Sun) have less of it? Or perhaps does it impart momentum in the opposite direction to its pull toward the Sun? Would this be testable, say during a planetary alignment?

Wrestling with some of points of the conversation: Unless I'm misunderstanding, Ron seems to be wondering if a static equilibrium is distinct from a formal conditioning relationship. The conditioning connections between the sides of a right triangle are formal (as it's a non-material abstraction). The "static" relationships between physical entities exerting opposing forces on each other (resulting in a net-null action) are distinct from the formal conditioning connections between the properties of the right triangle. Are there actual formal conditioning connections among physical entities? The right triangle example is illuminating, but has the disadvantage (for the resolution of this particular confusion) of not actually being physical (no actuality or potentiality of force). Hmm. I suppose the wicker fence demonstrates this. But the key is that no actual force is at play for the formal conditioning, only potential. Is material conditioning actually material causation at the scale of the constituent entities (e.g. molecules/atoms/baryons/quarks)? Does conditioning only pertain to potentiality of force, and causation to actual force?

I’ve done some subset of this before. But this is so well worked out. What a great set of tools you’re building! Thank you, James.

Frakmar was so disappointed after the audition. Baar just had the character down.

In year MCMLXXXIV they put me in a forced labour camp with advanced Maths (and the college Physics prize) my bad I mean 1984

awesome explanation

To the person who invented zero....thanks for nothing!

Ai picture 😮‍💨

Very cool

Arabic numerals

I will binge-watch the series after its completed. Good luck

Numbers seem so intuitive and universal to us that it’s hard to believe there was a time when they had to convert numerals

great visual and instinctive explanation. Thanks a lot for your effort.

When I took Astronomy and Physics in college, it was one of my favorite classes. I was a litte appalled when my Prof asked me if he should bother to go over quantum theory, which was what I did my research paper on versus the Bohr model etc. If it’s outdated I don’t really see much point. I guess it helps to understand our past but could limit us.

I had no idea how the carrying was explained in division. It's always amazing how clearly you can grasp things inductively and how often it is almost avoided to be explained so in school.

Excellent!

Love this video. 29:54… Maybe could’ve saved time and paper to use your proof that anything can go backward any number of spaces to help prove that anything can go forward any number of spaces by first using your first rule to swap any number to the front and from there to anywhere else. E.g. step 1: (a b c…) p q… x y z = p (a b c…) q …. x y Step 2: use your move backward anywhere proof to move p anywhere from there.

What a divisive topic.

The purpose cum criterion of proof of all knowledge SHOULD be: PRACTICAL SUSTENANCE OF EVIL FREE LIFE ON THIS EARTH. EVIL, thereby, is defined exhaustively as DISASTERS (earthquakes, volcanos, floods, droughts, storms, accidents), PREDATION (human and animal), DISEASES (including all birth defects, all weapons manufacture, all violence) and DEATH. This implies there MUST EXIST a correspondence between the events inside the earth that cause the development of PLANTS from soil and subsequent delivery and sustenance of living beings (animals and humans) on its own surface through them. This means all 4 fundamental arithmetic operations (+ × ÷ -) correspond to unique type of particle interactions inside the earth. Hence, in order to be able to achieve the above goal of all knowledge, we MUST first find out the particle types each DIGIT we use when we make calculations in our minds (NOT the supposed electrons in the BITS of the chips we manufacture ourselves) correspond to and the unique interactions among them that we separate as the 4 basic arithmetic operations. Otherwise we are following some rules because they work, without any idea as to where they would lead us to. Unless we discover what particles DIGITS correspond to, and what interactions among them the 4 basic operations we all accept as absolute truth represent, we are sailing in uncharted waters with no destination in mind.

When multiplying 0 to 1 ratio, you are really explicitly stating end quotient of a fraction without the actual fraction, as 1 is the whole (.5)(1*n) = half the n value, every time. It's kind of like division without needing the other proportions, it loses ordering information with the other half, because times is a statement about what's being operated on rather than what will be the result of fractional measure of both proportions (you are instead explicitly stating what one proportion is, without having to reference the second proportion in the fraction, you are just saying "this proportion occurs half the length of n", where the second proportion is not needed in this derivation). It loses ordering information of the whole fraction (n over undefined set of dimensions), you lose the ability to get the values and relationships within the denominator, which doesn't allow you to climb back down that ladder do to the loss of temporal sequential data, the ability to point in 2 directions (fraction direction (n/? or ?/n = directional pivot for proportion of focus)).

Good stuff dude

This video was pretty epic. By doing this longer inductive proof, I got a more direct view on what an inductive proof is looking to achieve (too short a proof seems to lead you nowhere as the step is too short to put your knowledge gain into perspective, I think). I'm sure others will see it too. Something that's struck me as surprising is that the distributive rule hasn't shown up while proving modern multiplication. I guess it's just a different inductive path to the same conclusion, which is an important point to make too!

Normally Multiplication is defined as Repeated Addition. But this is untrue for values less than 1.00. So what should its definition be? And try to order these from first to last (Really think if what is commonly taught is correct or not) Addition, Subtraction, Multiplication and Division.

This is a worse self immolation than Whitlam. They began with less than a third of the electoral, they needed to win voters to survive. But, _unfathomably,_ they piss off everyone, except Landlords, the bourgeois sisterhood, and uni students (who today are increasingly middle class). You won’t believe this because your’e pretty much a Friendly Jordie in his 50s, but this govt is hated _more_ than ScoMo, so much so they’ll put a ghoul line Voldemort in The Lodge. I still find it a political facial, I still can’t swallow.

There is so much to unpack. You are right about the ether. It is involved from gravity to leptons. You are right about the ignoring underlying causes today. Especially when it can lead to new science. But there are other causes of stagnation or lack of innovation. To get ideas, theories, accepted you need letters behind your name or connection to an institution. This is understandable. But when straight-up science is presented to provide an explanation of an observation and rejected -- it is wrong. An adjunct theory to space-time, D-space, provides needed answers with simple connections. Luminescent ether had no properties. The one presented in this new theory does, only a couple. Einstein in a dissertation at University of Leiden in 1920 mentioned 'gravitational ether'. I believe his works are based on ether. But seeing what happened with the Michelson-Morley experiment (MMX), including it in his works would have made him a peria. He was able to use time as a crossover between his new GR and ether -- time dialetion. The ether caused this effect and also length contraction. The latter Lorentz provided calculations for in defense of MMX that showed there could be an ether. Einstein saw the values in these concepts and they became part of the basses for GR. Yes, ignoring simple principles developed before and verified many times has become a huge problem for physicist while they slip into indefensible positions. Physicist are not interested in underlying causes even if new science and explanations can be found.

Isn't it the case that you can initially have seemingly random or integrated ideas that then end up being observed when tech catches up? An example of might be having a random hypothesis or something that is not supported by direct observation, but purely by abstract, math and in both cases you don't have a way to prove the validity of this. In the first case, this just gives you a New path of exploration. Even if the hypothesis is random, it might end up being related to existing knowledge. And in the second case, abstract math may or may not lead to actual observations once we have the tools to observe or experiment on this abstract concept. For example, the math might tell you something about subatomic particles before we have physical instruments to make observations

You are totally correct.

About to binge watch your channel, good stuff!

I want to know more! Who's after algemesh? Also, can you confirm the pattern of name selections you have for your fun characters. I have my theory and would like to know if I'm right.

The existence of fields is the dark matter realm. Fields ,waveforms ,ether...virtual particals -- You're sitting on the shore of a calm lake. Across the horizon from left to right, moves a little motorboat. You see the reflection of the boat upside down along with the wake of waves spreading out. Also, you see the sky reflected on the lake. The sun peaks over the trees on your right and its' reflection is also on the lake, giving off heat that you can feel on your face ,even from the sun in the middle of the lake...do you follow??..

I figured out intelligence scaling. Sensory reward motor driven scientific intelligence, and automated instancing of new reward mechanisms, with and inverse appetite function. (Sensory Reward Detection Acceleration * Node output Acceleration = weight additive or subtractive in the direction of node acceleration) = node weight mutation factor, meaning that as you accelerated towards goal (reward frequency increase [detection tick frequency]) the network's node outputs that accelerate the most during a reward acceleration, becomes a weight increase factor for that specific node. It's sensory reward driven. Now we can bootstrap automation of forming new reward measures. Environmental data input snap shots (patterns) are taken when over arching reward detection becomes active, these snap shots of data input values eventually become new reward mechanisms based on a growing or shrinking importance value = (Pattern detection acceleration) * (overarching reward detection acceleration), the more pattern detection acceleration coincide with reward acceleration = higher importance weight motor. The hierarchical growth of reward mechanisms drives weight changes in a objective and scientific measured way (hypothesis formation based on what objectively achieves overarching reward context, and object measure of importance based on [acceleration directionality comparison and temporal proximity]). Finally inverse appetite function can divide against this weight increase/decrease factor, where (weight additive / acquired resource). Boom, a ever evolving intelligence that does real time objective measure of actions that work, and stops optimization in that direction when not needed. You remember most of what works best and what is practical to focus on. Objectively grounded real world mathematical grounded intelligence. Sensory Driven Intelligence: Sensory inputs drive scientific intelligence, automating new reward mechanisms. (Sensory Reward Detection Acceleration * Node Output Acceleration) = Weight Mutation Factor. Nodes accelerating toward a goal increase weights, optimizing the network dynamically. Automated Reward Mechanisms instantiation: Snapshot environmental data inputs during overarching reward detection. New reward mechanisms form based on the importance value: (Pattern Detection Acceleration * Overarching Reward Detection Acceleration). Hierarchical growth in reward mechanisms objectively drives weight changes toward (overarching goal detection accelerations). Inverse Appetite Function: Applies weight additive to node divided by acquired resources.

I realized time dilation isn't what we think it is, I made a huge discovery, a huge differential that is fundamental. Planck units vary in size based on energy extent, meaning that as meter space contracts, so do Planck lengths, because the observer in meter space always shrinks with their meter space therefore detects Planck length as constant (observationally proven), very simple, however. The average energy speed within a Planck length is inversely related to the first order curvature degree (fundamental energy curvature)-higher curvature means slower energy flux (less power per volume = increase reflection curvature degree) = slower speed and shorter lengths. This contraction of Planck lengths doesn't directly cause time dilation, because the rate of energy transfer from one unit to the next is the same because the length is smaller. Instead, we use the formula: Planck length plus Planck coupling factor divided by constant time length equals the speed of transfer. As the coupling weakens, the time taken for energy transfers increases, this is do to bending the alignments of Planck units relative to each other (2nd order curvature), increase resistance to energy flow between one unit and another. Another useful formulation is Planck length divided by the sum of constant time length and 2nd order curvature degree. This highlights how curvature in the alignment of different Planck lengths creates resistance, affecting energy transfer rates. The critical takeaway is that the curvature affecting energy transfers isn't from the fundamental energy extent but rather from the alignment of these Planck lengths. This alignment curvature introduces resistance, slowing down the process. This nuanced understanding could have significant implications for describing real-world physics at the most fundamental levels. The universe is in wind down phase, not wind up phase, you must divide the energy of a "space" quanta in order to form more, it's called (conservation of angular momentum), inflation of number of meters cost energy and length, it's not something that occurs for free. There is first order curvature (fundamental vacuum energy that comprises a Planck unit) and second order (curvature in the alignments of Planck lengths), it's the curvature in the alignments that causes time dilation (the second order curvature, not the first), it's a key bit of nuance, better aligning with observational evidence of energy conversion relationships. You can derive the coupling amount by how much 2nd order curvature degree dilates a clock, a inverse resistance effecting rate of flow between Planck units. What this proves is that mass observers shrink over time, they always see their local planck length as constant, and see the universe as expanding, creating the illusion of expansion. Also, a observer will always see the coupling factor as a constant, because time dilates.

Neat as always. It's key to lay stress on the epistemological (inductive) reason why we do this in order. Cheers! PS: I've got another point on the last topic I wrote to you about. Let's arrange to discuss it if you want, as the relevant moment for it is approaching in your series.

Ether is a substratum of pre.quantum stage with potency of motion higher than Light .Ether is simulating the pre.energy Absolute Reality Domain. Absolute Reality Domain which I published my innovative ideas of 2972 in the book named .Matter And Fate of The Universe.My introspection.My innovative ideas are in the darkness of time.Hope one day all will come to light among scientific intellectuals. in2000.Dr.B.S.Gogoii.Asssm.Infia. Thanks.

I really like this video. Not only is it extremely informative, but it made me laugh out loud. A good way to start my day. Thanks.

Yes, the Ether exists, clearly and undeniably. Everything is simple fluid dynamics, because the Ether itself is a kind of fluid. It is normally stationary, unless it's in the presence of matter. All atoms are tiny dipoles acting like Venturis for the Ether. That's electrostatics, gravity. So ALL fields are manifestations of this same Ether. Why is there a magnetic field associated with an electric current? Because that electric current is a flow of Ether within the stationary Ether. It drags the Ether and creates a vortex type turbulence, just like a jet of water inside a pool. That is the explanation for magnetic fields my friends. Glad I could enlighten you all. Have a nice life.

I like chocolate cake. Yum.

Light "being aware of air" is a pathetic fallacy. Light is not brain. YER can't produce a perfect vaccum, either. How does brain work to understand events is not explained. Typical incomplete utuber. Does NOT define "field" Major gap. grav field, EM field, charge fields, magnetic fields. Nary a Word ont those. Ooops!!! He has no idea about physics, or how the brain which creates the models. No mind, never matter... didactic nor comprehensive....

Granting valuations as constitutive for cognition, isn't your idea a version of magical thinking about the mystical powers of language? I either will not find or disprove any truth by manipulating predicates. Language evolved for communication, not truth-seeking

Are you trying in part to revive the verificationalist philosopies of the vienna circle that Popper so strongly objected to. How is something "proved" in physics? Presumably you will give examples in you forthcoming book.