Constants of Nature -The Royal Road to Fundmental Physics

Talk by Dr. Alexander Unzicker given at the DPG Meeting Munich 2019. More on the topic is found in the book "The Mathematical Reality" www.amazon.com...
7:46: should be me/(mp+me)

[@AltonMoore]

I have always advocated for the elimination of constants as a fundamental methodology in this field and others. Many people seem content to live with them, though.

[@TheMachian]

Indeed, it is amazing that only a few people realize this.

[@duartecunhaleao]

@@TheMachian Do you know Thad Roberts' most recent work? He "eliminated" the fine-structure constant!! kzbin.info/www/bejne/iaGUpqZnaNibf8k

[@TheMachian]

@@duartecunhaleao Sorry, but for a almost 3-hour video one should offer a summary...

[@duartecunhaleao]

@@TheMachian yes, I see. You have his latest book, announced and summarised here: m.facebook.com/groups/117470683884?view=permalink&id=10158352925618885 For an even shorter version, direct to the juice version, there's this document: m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10223494301494336&id=1492705102 I bet with you this won't be a waste of your time.

[@wkgurr]

These lectures are quite philosophical and although I don't understand the physical details linked to Unzicker's approach, the philosophical problems are more comprehensible. It appears to me that the process of reducing physical constants by finding equations that express a given physical phenomenon/process with fewer constants than what was originally used can only go so far. This is illustrated by the formula Unzicker presents for G where G is determined by the sum of all masses in the universe. The sum of all masses in the universe is of course also a constant. This equation seems to bring you to the statement that G has the value it has because the sum of all masses in the universe is what it is. So instead of being perplexed about the "choice" of the value of G we are now perplexed abut the "choice" of the sum of all masses in the universe. Because if this sum were different then presumably G would be different too. So even if you work hard at reducing constants I doubt that you will be able to ultimately solve the question of why the laws of nature (or constants) are what they are. I am afraid that the anthropic principle stating that the laws/constants are what they are because if it were otherwise we might not be here to ask why they are what they are is at the moment the only acceptable (albeit not very helpful) answer to this question and will remain the only acceptable answer for quite some time. This does not mean that the search for simplification, unification and reduction in physics is destined to remain futile. It should be sought vigorously. But my intuition tells me that there will always remain that part of an equation describing physical phenomena that is just as it is, unexplainable. Perhaps this is also a characteristics of our universe just as the value of G or the value of the sum of all masses in the universe is.

[@zzzoldik8749]

How you acount or measure masses and radius of universe? Or where Mi/Ri come from?

[@billgardiner4858]

When solid state physicist Guenther Nimtz described Zero Time Space in his book by the same name, and by his demonstrations and patents, he showed that time and space are not fundamental. London School of Economics professor Nancy Cartwright explained in her publications that the laws of physics are not fundamental as Einstein suggested. They are dependent on the "ceteris paribus" (CP) "just so" setup of the experiment including selection of the materials, as when Snell's Law encountered metamaterials, which can exhibit a negative refractive index.

[@stridedeck]

Ahh, basically, the elimination of the constant of nature is not sweeping them under the rug, but to eliminate the assumptions that created these constants of nature!

[@Mikey-mike]

Good lecture. I attended Dirac's colloquia regarding large numbers and the Fine Structure; Dirac often quoted the mathematician named Milne. Penrose's Aeons and Conformal Cycling most likely will play a role into new knowledge concerning the Fine Structure and the so-called Constants of Nature. Keep up the investigation into this subject.

[@tokajileo5928]

if speed is defined by distance over time then it does not matter if meter rods shrink, c is constant by definition. also even in gravitational field causality cannot exceed that speed there which is the speed of light there, reduced or not. and that is what is impotant.

[@dianasitek3595]

Wonderful. Thank you!

[@brendawilliams8062]

Lots of people surely do get interested. Thx

[@manuelcastaneda7838]

The fine structure constant is simply the charge of the electron in Plank Unites

[@johnlord8337]

There is really no "constant" of nature - as most data prove (even with statistical deviations) that a constant is not a singular number, but a range of values. Just like the proton, neutron, electron, and positron have various mass weights, and only a decided upon value is said to be "THE" constant - is human hybris denying the total data. Same as Laws, being Laws that fit all time and the entire cosmos, when they only pertain to this terran location in the galactic arm of a greater galaxy and constellations, and the rest of the whole cosmos.

[@rikimitchell916]

So are you suggesting that 'natural' constants ( constants of nature) were/are considered incalculable? And whence they become calculable they cease to be constants? I realize thus us a little late...watching your Playlist backwards

[@TheMachian]

In a satisfactory theory, they should be calculable.

[@richardgreen7225]

In every direction (angle, angle) that we look, we intercept photons and are thus looking back in time (r=c*t). In this context, space and time are equivalent and interchangeable - with just a scale factor (c). Also: we measure time by counting wave-lengths, and we measure length by counting wave-lengths. f*lambda = c. So in this context also, time and space are equivalent and interchangeable - with just a scale factor (c). And we also find this scale-factor (c) is related to electrostatic permittivity and permeability of the "vacuum". We can simplify Lorentz transforms by replacing v/c with b (beta), and let r = x/c, so that the scale factor is built-in Let g = gamma = 1/sqrt( 1 - b^2) > 0. r' = g * (r - b*t). t' =g * (t - b*r). Dividing ... r'/t' = (r - b*t) / (t - b*r). But since r and t are interchangeable ... r'/t' = r/t = 1. This reflects the assumption that both observers will agree on the relative velocity between their frames. Is this an indication that velocity is more "fundamental" than displacement? Consider gravity gradient + Lorentz force: dv/dt = G + (q/m)*[ E + v x B]. (I am using G to represent gravitational gradient). This equation indicates that every point (r, t) of vacuum has 3 vector fields = 9 numbers varying in time. To specify our frame (r, t), we also need to specify 9 numbers (displacement, velocity, rotation) varying in time. String theory proposes that the vacuum has 9 dimensions ... (wherein the "strings" vibrate and interact). They propose that some of these dimensions are toroidal and so the radius of the toroids might relate Plank's constant (h), and perhaps some other constants. But Electromagnetic field is described by 6 numbers per point, and it tends of vibrate at frequencies related to (h), If you have something cycling around a toroidal dimension with radius related to h, would it produce similar interactions?

[@TheMachian]

I don't see how the 9 quantities specified by you should relate to the 9 dimensions (weren't there 10 or 26?) to string theory. This is just not science, forget about. Let's question instead why there are interactions with so specirfic yet different properties as gravity and electromagnetism. I'd also challenge the assumption of c being 'just a conversion factor'. The phenomenology is prettty different.

[@richardgreen7225]

[1] Yes. I agree. I realized later that "scale factor" was a poor choice of words. [2] I do have a hang-up on the 9s. One version of String Theory proposes 9+1=10. with 3 of the 9 being the familiar everyday 3D and the other 6 being hidden in some way - which happens to correspond to the 6 numbers in the Electromagnetic Tensor. As you say, this is just numerology, not science - and parameter space is not a space where particle events are located.

[@TheMachian]

@@richardgreen7225 Agree. You hit the key absurdity of modern physics: Dealing with transformations and groups in *parameter* spaces which are entirely metaphorical, such as the axes "strangeness" or "isospin".

[@robertferraro236]

Dr Unzicker, I think you have already labeled me previously with some line about about the danger of thinking one knows everything. I am not even a physicist. I am a layman with an intense interest in physics and an ability to solve the most difficult of problems and with only basic math skills. I have found the grand unifying constant. It is everywhere. To answer what most scientists wonder as to whether there is a Quantum origin to gravity.... yes there is. I already previously told you I am writing a book and I will send you a copy when it is done. You can think I am a nut job but I know I have found it. It puts to rest all of the mystical science that your lecture refers to especially all of the nonsense of the 19th and early 20th century science that the scientific world hangs on to.

[@PrivateSi]

All atoms and nuclear reactions can be electrically balanced using intrinsic electrons and positrons plus NEWLY FORMED electron-positron pairs.. Up Quarks are 1/2 neutralised positrons, a Down Quark is a fully neutralised electron.. -- In my Positronic Universe Model in the the making the first batch of electron-positron pairs were formed at exactly the same time with exactly the same phase in time.. The underlying subspace field is a simple close packed matrix of +ve charge balls (cells, quanta +1) held together by free-flowing -ve charge 'gas',... -- Positrons are out of place cells continuously trying to balance, but instead overbalancing back and forth, electrons are the holes left behind. Electron focuses -ve charge around a field cell, while positron free cells move between field cells. Thus they are half a phase apart in space.. -- Blips' are vibrating field cells, that squeeze through the 3 cells in front to the cell beyond and back, also compressing the field laterally before returning. Blips have recoil and same phase (charge) blips in the opposite direction repel, sending repulsive force back down the blip field surrounding the charged particle focal points.. Opposite phase (charge), opposite direction blips form an in-sync, alternating current and blip recoil pushes the two particles along this 'flux tube' (that can perhaps be as thin as 1 cell wide for distantly entangled particles). -- he next batch of electron-positron pairs formed after the first batch are formed from the first batch so have the same phase in time.. There is an emergent 'universal clock'.. The Matter-Antimatter Catastrophe is avoided as although electrons and positrons do annihilate back to regular subspace field two positrons colliding at the right angle with a field cell at the same time sends the cell flying, immediately creating a NEW electron-positron pair, with the captured electron sandwiched between the two colliding positrons, and the new positron is ejected... Now there exists 1 Proton that is positron proof, the 2 electrons of the 2 colliding positrons and 1 ejected new positron that will most likely annihilate with one of the electrons... Net result is Protons and electrons = PLASMA and hydrogen... -- Gravity is a all-pervasive, -ve subspace charge gradient due to the fact 1 Positron attracts 1 quanta of -ve subspace charge gas away from the rest of the universe. This adds up.. Variable size cell gap due to amount of -ve charge locally can be used as a Dark Energy mechanism. -- Spin/Strong/Magnetic force is Direct Current (DC) 'spin loops'... I go with 6 for an electron or positron as 12 balls max can surround another ball, 6 ins and 6 outs at the point nearest the centre... There are 6 quark proton models too.. These form strong bonds between electrons and positrons.. Some bonds can join into magnetic circuits in strong magnetic / ferrous materials, Loops in a magnetic circuit are pushed outside the material due to conservation of energy and joining of some strong bonds into the magnetic circuit.. -- There are billions of atoms in a magnet and magnetic/spin/strong force loops also compress/decompress the field as they loop through, sending out lateral AC field vibrations, as electrostatic blips do... This explains the Left Hand Rule. -- This model can explain many fundy physics mysteries.. Double slit wave-particle duality... Entanglement..

[@obviouslymatt6452]

go on then tell us about it

[@robertferraro236]

@@obviouslymatt6452 I can't right now. It will all be revealed in a book I am writing and papers I will be submitting. Our world is purely geometric. Gravity has no relationship to mass. This unproven assumption is the reason our science has so many "we don't knows."

[@danielvanmiddeldijk5711]

@Robert Ferraro I’ve read through your Quora writings about Gravity & while you are right about Gravity not being a force, I believe your conclusion to be problematic. First of all, In your conclusion you mention that to satisfy your theory of gravity the Earth & all matter must be expanding at a rate of 0.0000007/s^2, but there is another solution, the solution that Einstein came to in his Theory of General Relativity, in a nutshell Einstein concluded that space itself accelerates toward the centre of a mass while all objects move relative to this accelerating space, & while his theory is by no means perfect it seems to make more sense in comparison to all matter expanding at a set rate. & another problem with the Earth & all matter expanding is that if matter was expanding, what about the fundamental particles or values that create matter? If they were to expand as well what do they expand from? & most of all, why would fundamental particles expand? & yes I know the writings are a year old at the time of me writing this, this isn’t me nitpicking but simply expressing my thoughts about your ideas, so if you are passionate about Physics & in particular Classical Physics (ie Motion, Relativity, etc) perhaps have a look into Einstein’s Theories & particularly his theory of Gravity. Have a good day

[@robertferraro236]

@@danielvanmiddeldijk5711 Thanks for your reply. Yes, those writings are quite old. That doesn't mean that I am detracting or retracting the idea, instead I am doubling down on the concept of a world of expanding matter. Our reality can only come from matter. Where the atom is, reality is. Where the atom is not, that is just space and space has no properties, especially none where it can spontaneously contract. There is only one reason why space may contract and that is if matter expands into it. Yes, I am very passionate about physics and my passion has enabled me to fully discount the false premise behind General Relativity and that being that space spontaneously contracts. It cannot. This is just what Einstein interpreted his observation as. He had the option to consider space spontaneously shrinking, or space shrinking because matter was expanding. He unfortunately chose the mystical option. Why would fundamental particles expand? To create the dynamic that the universe needs to function, i.e., gravity. Nature cannot perform acts of magic and spontaneously accelerate objects without tangible mechanical action. General Relativity expects this to occur, but even Nature cannot perform that act. The only way action at a distance can occur is via an illusion in relative motion. Einstein is supposed to be the expert in relative motion, but he couldn't see the relative motion that created the illusion. He chalked up relative motion to an a priori shrinking of the coordinates instead of realizing, hmmm.... matter must be dynamic. Unfortunately, he could not accept what logical clearly concluded. As for what do they expand from? I do not know. We do not know that atoms are physical solid particles, but they do seem to create mechanical effects. Agree? So if they were some kind of wave that somehow created solid physicality then there is no matter limitation that would discount the argument. The reality is that reality can only come from our fundamental reality particle - the atom. The evidence is that it expands as a fundamental property. Think about if you were a character within the Sims and you became fully conscious. Your reality particle is the pixel. If an outside player had you displayed on a screen and zoomed in on your world thereby making your pixels larger and was able to do it perpetually, it makes not an iota of difference to your reality. Everything remains the same size in your world. We do not know the context of our reality. I am not citing simulation theory or anything like that but something greater than us is responsible for our reality whatever that may be (I just like to use the term Nature). The Sims character could never fully explain the mechanisms behind their pixels zooming. We cannot fully explain the mechanisms behind our atom having similar properties. We just have to go with non-contradictable logic. If you feel a force acting upon you from below 24/7/365, you just have to fight your belief bias and idolization of Einstein, and answer to yourself honestly - Is it more likely to be the shrinking of the nothingness of space or the mechanical action of matter (the only thing that can create reality and the only thing that can create mechanical action)? It is hard to un-believe what you were taught.

[@duartecunhaleao]

For those curious, Thad Roberts has "eliminated" the fine-structure constant 🎉. You have his latest book, announced and summarised here: m.facebook.com/groups/117470683884?view=permalink&id=10158352925618885 For a shorter, direct to the juice version, there's this document: m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10223494301494336&id=1492705102

[@jonathanray4598]

IF YOU WANT TO KNOW THE UNIFICATION OF MATHEMATICS LOOK AT THE "CROSS" USING MATH.

[@robertle3038]

Marko Rodin's "vortex math" will resolve the worship of constants by physicists. Good youtube videos by him.

[@dbz5808]

C is not fundamental, it is simply a consequence of the permittivity and permeability of space. The fact that c varies in different mediums due to differences in permittivity and permeability imply that space itself is a medium, leading logically on to quantum field theory.

[@clovissimard3099]

STRUCTURE FINE DE L'UNIVERS À LA LIMITE DE L'INCONSCIENT. La constante de structure fine se place à la limite entre relativité, physique quantique et électromagnétisme. En particulier, elle caractérise la force des interactions entre lumière et matière telles que définies par la théorie de l'électrodynamique quantique.

[@CACBCCCU]

Suppose an atomic clock's generated photon frequency initially depends on the difference between the macro-scale local gravity and the atom-scale local gravity, as if the frequency-generating atomic medium is primarily responsive to local gravitational tension spanning the generating bulk to the generating boundary, and consequently the photon's blue-shift into the lower-gravity local macro-scale surroundings simply nulls away the local macro-scale gravity effect leaving only background-independent atomic self-gravity effects. In this scenario the frequency-shift effects of a gravity-variable light-speed become indistinguishable from frequency-shift effects assuming gravity-independent light-speed. Wavelengths and distances remain unchanged, space becomes Euclidean and light-paths and light-speed become bent by gravity instead of space-time being bent by gravity. In this way Occam's razor apparently disfavors general relativity.

[@CACBCCCU]

Put another way, one can view the gravitational intensity gradient within a photon-generating medium as a photon-generative condition. In moving from the nucleus-bound surface to the edge of a well-isolated generative medium a photon sensitive only to atom-surrounding gravitational intensity can be produced. The "constant c" in Maxwell's equations supposes gravity never varies in space and time, which is not too realistic, but zero-dimensional like an invisible particle that ends up going nowhere fast. Mass-energy equivalence also supposes gravity never varies in space and time - again not too realistic but zero-dimensional and only adequate up to a point. Some people are apparently willing to gravitationally bend time and space in order to keep light-speed independent of gravity, essentially aiming to preserve any oversimplified and thus-more-impressive, but nonetheless cryptically under-dimensioned and under-factored equation that seems to naturally express an unrealistic preference for ignoring gravity.

[@CACBCCCU]

Simplest scenario - suppose effective gravity in a region of electrons bound to a generative atom is the sum of atom self-gravity plus the local gravity surrounding an atomic clock, and between leaving the atom and exiting the clock, forming the clock frequency output, what happens is the negative-energy contribution of gravity local to the clock output is cancelled out, up-shifting the clock output to a frequency defined by only the contribution of the generative atom's self-gravity. Isomorphism with Euclidean space-time requires nothing more than a gravity-change-sensitive transmitted light signal being generated from a clock having a local gravity-change-insensitive clock output frequency.

[@CACBCCCU]

Conventionally, under increasing gravity, one might say the meter is stretching and/or that a clock is slowing, while light-speed remains unchanged, consequently the light's frequency appears relatively up-shifted. Light appears wavelength-compressed if going by the stretched meter, frequency-upshifted if going by the slowed clock. Clock-slowing is equivalent to meter-stretching if light defines the meter. Unconventionally, under increasing gravity, one might suppose instead that atom and light wavelength geometries remained constant, and that both clock-rates and meters remained constant, while light-speed was increasing and simultaneously light frequencies were blue-shifting. The unconventional approach is non-disorienting (Euclidean) and non-overbearing, in comparison to anyone's artificially-bent space-time, including the artificially-bent space-time of Einstein's worshipping legions of well-trained personality-cultists.

[@davidwilkie9551]

THE Constant of Nature is 1-0-infinity instantaneous trancendental i-reflection containment Condensates Form following e-Pi-i sync-duration Function in which Absolute Zero is this Eternity-now spin-spiral logarithmic phase-locked coherence-cohesion superposition AM-FM Reciproction-recirculation Singularity information In-form-ation continuity Interval. It's the Universe-Calculus of e-Pi-i axial-tangential sync-duration infinitesimal instant.

[@Flaystray]

...Did u get it out of ur system?

[@tear728]

Terryology PhD here

[@zoltankurti]

Variable speed of light and general relativity being equivalent? No way, the degrees of freedom don't match at all. Variable speed of light is 1 function. General relativity is the metric tensor - redundant degrees of freedom that can be elimimated by coordinate transformations.

[@david_porthouse]

It would make sense to put the dimensionless constants first, since these are obviously capable of being the solution of some algebraic equation. I cannot imagine the speed of light, all by itself, being the solution of anything. The electron/proton mass ratio could be just trying to compare chalk and cheese. The fine structure constant, about 1/137, is the one to ask about. We just don’t know, as physicists, why it has this value. Anyone who claims they do know is best sent down the corridor to the theology department. However, the question may not have any answer. Sorry! In engineer’s language, the fine structure constant would be called a fudge factor, and your complaint is evidently about too many of them. If you have some wonderful new theory to present, I suggest that you proof-read your slides. I do make mistakes myself in these KZbin comments, but these can be fixed by the Edit button at top right.

[@TheMachian]

If you detected typos in my slides, feel free to mention. We agree that 137 is important. 1836 is important as well. However, also some of the dimensionful constants pose a riddle. An engineer may accept a fudge factor, a theoretical physicist should not; it is his business to explain. Nature is something else than an airplane model.

[@AjayKumar-uk4sp]

As long as there is constant in the equation that theory is not complete. Everyone knows it

[@williamzame3708]

Why should the fundamental constants be derivable from theory?

[@TheMachian]

Wrong question. Qhy should they be accepted as a priori, unquestioned entities?

[@DanielHendriks77]

EPIC

[@richardventus1875]

It is because it is because it is because............

[@muskyoxes]

Can we really get rid of a constant like h? If its existence is fundamental, its scale factor is arbitrary. Any constant which is regularly set to one when doing theory doesn't need to have its value explained.

[@TheMachian]

The scales are arbitrary, but the veryy existence of h is sth to be explained. Setting it to unity just sweeps the problem under the rug.

[@duartecunhaleao]

Thad Roberts has "eliminated" the fine-structure constant 😛 You have his latest book, announced and summarised here: m.facebook.com/groups/117470683884?view=permalink&id=10158352925618885 For a shorter, direct to the juice version, there's this document: m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10223494301494336&id=1492705102

[@MarcoAurelioDeCunha]

You forgot k (Boltzman constant) c,G,h,k

[@TheMachian]

k just converts kinetic energy into temperature. See also my video in Prague 2019.

[@MarcoAurelioDeCunha]

@TheMachian almost, that's the case.. it converts temperature 🌡 in energy density per states of a sistem. Independently of, G, c, and h. So...

[@kuntosjedebil]

To me the values of the nature's constants weren't that mysterious. My opinion is that for some ultimate constant, from the whole array of its possible values, we observe a particular value simply because in the end, such value allows for sufficient complexity (sufficiently high entropy?) in the universe for the intelligent observer (us) to emerge over time. And simply because we have emerged and gained the means to measure, we measure these particular values. The sub dimensions of multiverse where the value is "bad" simply goes unnoticed, because there is no observer to measure it.

[@TheMachian]

There are physics celebrities propagating such "explanations", yet I think this is ideology.

[@yaoooy]

We didn't emerge, we are the product of an intelligent design

[@obviouslymatt6452]

@@yaoooy take it somewhere else bro theres no point preaching on a physics video

[@arcshinus7238]

Your value of fine structure constant at 9:10, alpha=137, makes me worry.

[@manuelcastaneda7838]

137.036

[@arcshinus7238]

@@manuelcastaneda7838 alpha=1/137.

[@douglasstrother6584]

This video has 137 likes as of 25 Oct 2020 @ 11:00pm Pacific Time!!

[@TheMachian]

Greetings from Munich :)

[@rickshafer6688]

Exellent !

[@tombouie]

Dr Unzicker you'll be interested in this video. This fellow considers dimensionless physics constants: The Speed of Light is NOT Fundamental. But THIS is. kzbin.info/www/bejne/l4qsk3ZoaqyBgdU Update: I see you're already familar with what this fellow discusses.

[@TheMachian]

I looked briefly, but I do not think it is very fundamental.

[@sinOsiris]

practicality but subservient

[@jonathanray4598]

CHRIST HAS ALREADY RETURNED AND HIS NEW NAME IS BAHA'U'LLAH AND HIS FAITH IS CALLED THE BAHAI FAITH. REVELATION 3:12..."MY NEW NAME".

[@mrmotl1]

That one's dead too. Maybe if you quit looking for it in other people, you might just find who you are looking for deep within yourself. That which you seek is always alive and kicking it with his peeps. You don't have to look far to find them and there are many more than you would think. If you're looking for the one it doesn't exist, only everything else does. It is beyond existence and everything exists through it. Just as "I am, what I am" "it is, what it is" and we are always together in it and yet divided in the world apart. Maybe tomorrow you will see that another prophet will always come and go, just as many men will continue to sow the seeds to come. Through this many more will become through it and just as much will die from it, though only few will see the truth that we were all meant to see. Tragedies always become comedies, just as comedies eventually become tragedies as well. People twist the stories and misplace the facts, while misinterpreting the truth of it all in that. Though the truth will never die and can never be destroyed, nor will it ever change as it will always stay the same and stand the tests of time. This is because no matter how many times someone might mistake a beast for a man or assume the man to be a beast, the truth is always what it is and no matter how hard you believe it or how much you wish it to be something else it resolves itself to be exactly what it is and nothing more, nothing less, and nothing else except for this. "To be or not to be? Now that is the question is it not" To follow or to lead? Or to lead, by following someone else? Who is the master? Who is the slave? Better yet, is there another way around this age old tradition whereas instead of playing follow the leader or master the slave we choose to work together and serve a greater purpose than just ourselves or simply someone else? I don't know, just thought I guess. Then again what do I know, maybe it's everything and maybe it's nothing at all. Who knows, but then again maybe we all do and we just choose to pretend like someone else or allow someone else to move us. Either way good luck, be careful with yourself and always remember there's something inside of you and it's more than just yourself. It's alive as well...

[@undercoveragent9889]

In my opinion, your theory about all other theories is wrong. I will take my Nobel Prize now. Thank you. To be honest, it's like listening to a flat-earther trying to debunk the physics that shows that the earth is _not_ flat. Lots of claims but nothing that can stand up to scrutiny.

[@TheMachian]

Strawman polemic. Good luck with your prize.

[@TheLuminousOne]

@@TheMachian he is an 'undercover agent', because he is scared of the light of day.

[@zoltankurti]

🙄

[@becomepostal]

Why is the sound of your videos almost every time awful?

[@TheMachian]

I mixed the camera sound of the lecture hall with the sound track of the little micro. Glad if you make some more specific recommendations.

[@barryomahony4983]

@@TheMachian Sounds fine. I've heard far, far worse audio quality in lecture videos