Dirac's Large Numbers and Variable Speed of Light

[@Mikey-mike]

Good video. I was one of Dirac's student assts at FSU, Tallahasse, FL from '81 to '84. I attended his colloquia. Dirac often quoted Milne, who did work in large number theory. Dirac had no time at all for theory which had no explanation for the Fine Structure. "It's turtles all the way down." P.A.M. Dirac

[@TheMachian]

Thanks for sharing your experience.

[@PasajeroDelToro]

@@TheMachian I've figured out why these numbers show up btw. I now know what mass really is... Newton was very close to understanding it. Einstein was not as close. Einstein got the wrong end of the stick. Newton considered the whole stick. Thanks for the video!

[@konradcomrade4845]

NASA or ESA need to measure Newton's G to more precision, than what is possible here on Earth.

[@_John_P]

@@TheMachian Why was the paper on Dicke's momentous error reject on arxiv? What was their argument?

[@matthiasbonisch2925]

Ich verstehe ihre Betrachtungsweise mit jedem Video immer besser. 🙂 Das sind sehr interessante Aspekte, die im Laufe der Zeit leider untergegangen sind. Es ist spannend mit anzuhören, wie Sie diese Themen beleuchten und auch selbst Analysen und Berechnungen vornehmen. Das finde ich großartig!

[@aminomar7890]

You don’t show off like many others and your Videos contains valuable information. I think you have good intent which very rare nowadays.

[@odenwalt]

Alexander, by adding an absolute time, this would imply simultaneity on the planck scale everywhere in the universe. This would further imply that the principle of least action would be "tick" on a universal time scale. At planck scales, length contraction is the increase of energy density of a system (including the surrounding space). The background noises of simultaneous ticks at a plank volume from each other would in fact be entropy. Although, the ticks happen at the speed of causality, the speed of light would be decelerated traveling across space at these planckian scales. Time would also appear to be dilated (illusory), because the energy would have to travel through a sort of Hamiltonian saturation of the locality of that system, causing a change of speed in measured changes in the local system. The observed time = absolute time - ((the Hamiltonian of the system) X (Planck scale entropy)). Relative time would appear to go at slower speeds, due to the slowing of simultaneous principles of least action occurring adjacent to each other (at Plank scale volumes of space), because of an increases of vector energy densities or mass. The speed of light would be different traveling across local regions of space, but the speed of causality would remain the same.

[@douglasstrother6584]

Robert Dicke was the, or one of, the inventors of the lock-in amplifier which allows the measurement of a periodic signal with a negative signal-to-noise ratio.

[@TheMachian]

True. I really appreciate Dicke, hope everyone unerstood this.

[@uitzicht3797]

It struck me that in the weak force interaction, the energy to be borrowed, and especially the time allowed to borrow the required energy, limits this interaction to take place only between particles that are really close to one another. Imagine gravity not to be bounded by such limitation. Then every particle can interact with every particle in the observable universe.

[@joecaner]

I remember when I was first introduced to the hypothesis of an expanding Earth. My initial thought was would it account for a reduced G and help alleviate concerns regarding the biomechanics of dinosaur gigantism, but if the mass of the Earth remained constant and its diameter was smaller, the pull of gravity would have been greater and not less making dinosaur biomechanics even more challenging. My other concern with the expanding Earth explanation is that if the Earth is indeed around 4.5 B years old, why would its most significant expansion take place over the last 500 M years? These concerns would seem to detract from the hypothesis viability.

[@TheMachian]

Keep in mind this idea is not to replace continental drift, which has the 500 My timescale. An expansion would take on cosmological timescales. Not a stupid idea however to relate the continents to a back-then surface.

[@jaycorrales5329]

Regarding the expansion of Earth, Neal Adams describes the scientific evidence for how celestial bodies, e.g. moon and planets grow from within the evidence seen on the surface of such expansion.

[@relativemotion2077]

Excellent presentation.

[@DarwinianUniversal]

The connecton is "atomic activity relates to space because there is an energy field in space which atoms have evolved to exploit. In the same respect that biology on Earth have evolved to exploit the suns energy. This is why Atomic physics and Cellular biology are the same structural theme as one another. Units comprised of a nucleus shrouded within a shell. Units with the capacity to form bonds and build bodies. This description depicts atomic physics just as readily as it depicts cellular biology. The reason, because of the above relationship between atomic activity and space. The volume of space relates to atomic activity/energy because space possesses the energy which atoms use to generate their activity/energy/force. A direct causal relationship

[@DarwinianUniversal]

Ask yourself. How do atoms generate their activity? Could they be drawing on an energy from space? YES Analogous to how biological activity is generated, via the exploitation of an environmental energy, that of the sun.

[@PrivateSi]

I'm not sure comparing a complex high level rule-set in a very emergent system to QM is the way to deduce what should be the simplest possible relationships of the simplest possible universe at the simplest possible base level of existence.. There could be 'evolution of constants' over time but the basic rules should not evolve, they should just be. -- It's simpler to think in terms of a giant ball of base field cells with variable cell (gap) size, with the average size related to the size of universe.. More cells = closer packed cells.. Add in some mobile, free-flowing -ve substance to bind this ball of +ve quantised charge cells and you have all sorts of possibilities. Cells can even be mobile too, rather than simply moving about on the spot.. Could be Planck sized, but are probably much larger. Probably a smallest and largest possible cell (gap) size too, determined by the size of the universe again (and -ve electro-dust/gas to +ve electro-cells ratio in my own 'model').

[@douginorlando6260]

I watched a video of Dirac himself talking why he thought there was something to his cosmology theory … the fact there are coincidences in constants & inverse square relationships so there very likely is a reason. This leads to the obvious question … are they somehow related? In general, I believe this inquisitive mindset helped make Dirac successful. This creative genius might be replicated by systematically looking for all kinds of “coincidences” and then systematically trying different sets of equations that can tie them together. Someday software algorithms will use this heuristic process.

[@Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time]

Could Dirac’s large number hypothesis represent a universal process? Dirac’s large number hypothesis says that the strength of gravity, as represented by the gravitational constant, is inversely proportional to the age of the Universe: G ~ 1/t And that, the mass of the Universe is proportional to the square of the age of the Universe: M ~ t² People have said that this implies that the physical constants are not really constants. Their value depends on the age of the Universe. Could we turn this idea around and say that, the age of the Universe, since the big bang, depends on the physical constants? This implies that there is one universal process. We have a mathematical link between atomic physics and cosmology. The photons of the CMBR have a specific wavelength relative to the current temperature of the Universe. When the background radiation was formed, the temperature was higher and the wavelengths of the photons were much shorter. The wavelengths have grown a little over a thousand times in size; the Universe has expanded a thousand times in size in all direction over the same time period. The volume has grown more than a billion times what it was then. Could this form what you could call a large number?

[@xd_metrix]

I have one inconsistency that I would like to have explained. After entering into the calculator (radius of the observable universe)/(radius of the proton) = 4.37*10^26/8.33*10^-16 we got roughly 5*10^41 which is roughly 100x larger than 10^39. That doesn't seem like a coincidence anymore

[@damiandassen7763]

I was wondering the same thing

[@jeremywilliams5107]

That inspired me to brush up my comprehension of the physics i did too long ago! There is a use of the 'anthropic principle' in physics and cosmology - it is the fundamental observation of all, that we exist here and now: and so any model that prohibits this or severely modifies it must be erroneous.

[@lasa18]

What is meant here by the Epoch? I heard it has something to do with the ratio of the Compton frequency or something? The Planck time is 10^60, why do we only account for 10^52? Please explain

[@n.i.g.e.machine417]

Alexander, you ideas are worth listening to in more clarity. Please treat yourself to a broadcast-quality microphone!

[@kasel1979krettnach]

you must be American ☺️

[@sumdumbmick]

another important detail that is broadly missed is that every point in space has a local speed of light, which automatically implies that the speed of light is variable. for instance, if it's possible for distant regions of space to be moving away from you at just over the speed of light, but the physics within those regions of space is the same as it is for you locally, that obviously means that objects in those regions can be moving away from you at roughly twice the speed of light, because the space is moving away from you at ~c, plus the motion of the object within that space can be away from you at ~c, so the net motion away from you is ~2c. but the full implications of this screw with people's assumptions based on their naive understandings of post-war physics, so it's effectively impossible to have a real discussion about what's happening here with almost anyone who knows enough of the maths to potentially participate in a discussion about it. for instance, one of the implications of this is that if you shoot off an object at effectively your local c, and it's just a projectile, not a self propelled rocket or something, then as it gets further away from its starting point its speed relative to the local space it's in will decrease, unless there is some other unknown aspect to physics which continually accelerates it for free to keep up. this in turn has (rather unexplored) implications for measurements of neutrino speeds compared to light which is assumed to have been emitted simultaneously from distant objects.

[@theosib]

If there is no expansion, is the universe steady state? If so, it could be eternal. But why have we not reached hest death already?

[@2tehnik]

I have to admit that this scale conversion stuff is going completely over my head in this series. I understand why the horizon increases with the square root of two, why the speed of light decreases with the inverse, as well as the whole premise as to how that's split up into the frequency and wavelength components. But how that relates to the speed, acceleration and inertial mass of some body, I have no clue. Would anyone be kind enough as to explain?

[@TheMachian]

You have to be a little patient with yourself, it will take time to get familiar. A long explanation is in my book "Einstein's Lost Key". Feel free to email me for a pdf.

[@2tehnik]

@@TheMachian Thanks for the offer. I'll see when I have enough time to study it in-depth.

[@derndernit8275]

Assuming light is, the vibration an accelerated charge imparts to the surrounding medium. Then perhaps the only way the speed of light could theoretically change is if the speed of the medium or its mechanical structure changed; The circumstances in which it seems the speed of light may be questioned, are circumstances in which the activity of the medium may be sufficiently altered (that being, from a state of stable steady quiet homogenous flatness), massive gravitational phenomenon, which are accurately tautalogical, alterations of the local medium. Though the issue of speed is still, I don't know. If there is a car that gureenteed eternally only drives 100 mph, cannot stop or slow down or speed up, and it's placed on a 1,000 mile road, you can measure different things by placing many of these roads back to back to back, and extending them, and many of these cars at different starting points, and roads at angles and criss crossing, and you will expect to measure the non variable speed of this car and the distances and times it covers. But then throw some twists and turns and hills and mountains and valleys in the construction of these roads, and though the straight imaginary line A to B distance is the same, all the sudden your timings and measurements are thrown off. The then interesting wondering to relate it back to light, field, medium, speed, distance, time; Is the physical shape, and particular particulates of the mechanics of the light medium, to be locally altered yet still propagate the precise ways it does. If you take a rectangular piece of metal, tap it with a fork and note the data of vibrations that travel through it, drive your model toy car on it. And then bend that metal to make it into a right angle. And do the same with fork and car, the data might be different. Imagine the medium vibrating, but then in some specific location of the medium, the mediums orientation is altered. Mass and charge I geuss interrupt the flow of medium, and create the flow of medium, and reflect and capture it. Black holes are large novel interuption disturbances I geuss, like the bending of the metal. One large curious thing about light to me, is that it seems beam and ray like. What is the non-atomic-parts of the mediums nature, such that a bumped charge vibrates the local medium, which ripples on indefinitely but only on what limited scope and axis? For it is not the case that the medium reacts in all spherical degree directions surrounding the accelerated charge, right?

[@darkmath100]

6:52 "The time unit has to decrease." I think you mean *increase* here? 17:20 "He predicted...a decrease of the gravitational constant." I immediately thought of Roger Penrose's idea of a Universe that eventually pulls itself apart through expansion and then starts over again. It would be a lot easier for the Universe to pull itself apart if the gravity holding things together heads towards zero. 18:30 "[No change in units]...but that's not perfectly sure" I agree. Any experiment or measurement on the change in gravity should be performed in an environment with as little gravity as possible. To make such a measurement the ideal would be sending the experiment outside the solar system then beam back the results. Just sayin'. 19:22 "Earth Expansion?" Note the timing, just after Hubble discovered the Universe was expanding exponentially. That would have been the logical conclusion at the time but now we know space only expands in the general absence of gravity right? Interstellar space expands not the space inside a solar system, or that's my understanding. Gravity does a good job of keeping things together for the most part.

[@TheMachian]

time unit INcreases, thanks for correcting!

[@bjorn7355]

as always - interesting.

[@joegillian314]

227 and its variations (i.e. other forms of the sequence, 2.27, 22.7, etc.) seems to be a very special number. It is a prime number, and a very ubiquitous one considering it has 3 digits. Anecdotally, I feel that I come across this number very often in many different, disparate contexts (which is one of the interesting aspects of this hypothesis). There are other coincidences as well, for example, 227 is exactly 1/2 of a pound (imperial) in grams. It also happens to be a twin prime, but there are infinite twin primes, so this isn't so interesting. At any rate, I am quite fond of this number and I find it to be quite remarkable. And one more thing. All the digits are primes as well.

[@No-zf1ru]

We could conduct an experiment with a giant long capacitor, observing whether its charge will change relative to what position relative to the Earth's gravity it will be in. The vertical or horizontal position should affect, since gravity changes the linear dimensions of objects. I would like to test this experimentally. Probably by this experiment we can indirectly check the variability of the speed of light.

[@MatheusCarvalho-ev9hw]

Have you done it yet?

[@manipulativer]

Just an observation: If you watch on of the "latest" videos of veritasium on youtube you can find a video about testing boats in the pool. They show a proportionality formula where smaller scales ran at lower speeds it corelates to real life dynamic 100% Hence the proportionality of the proton and radius might just be the real relativity hehe

[@aminomar7890]

Build your own thoughts, be independent and don’t live under the cloaks of others whoever they are! build your own thoughts to become a real scientist !

[@PaulMarostica]

You might like my videos. Search keywords: matter theory marostica.

[@michaelwrenn4993]

What numbers tell us about physical principles is worth heeding. One day, I had this in mind when I was mulling over the reason nature might pack so much energy into a small amount of mass. It struck me then, that one reason for this might be that there are really two of what we call a universe and the two parts are intertwined. The scalar differences between energy and mass may be a manifestation of accommodation of one part of the universe for the other part . Later,, I realized that complex numbers could be seen as an analogous expression of how the universe might actually be composed. Curious how a bogus mathematical expression as the square root of a negative one is not only infinitely useful,, it is part and parcel of quantum mechanics. The logic of the square root of negative one does not work in the part of the universe we recognize, that is, a negative multiplied by a negative does not produce a negative.. However, if what is negative in the part of the universe we recognize is actually positive in the part of the universe we do not recognize, then when both parts of the universe are recognized as a whole the square root of negative one makes total sense. When I watched your video on "the Strong Force," what seemed clear to me was that the tried and true quantum separated orbitals of electrons clouding the atom's nucleus were of our recognized universe, while the nucleus was likely of the unrecognized universe. and needs to be looked at in a way more appropriate to the unrecognized universe. This is all conjecture, of course, but I like the way this perspective came to me. We are not dumber now than in the time of the infinitely remarkable Einstein and his colleagues, The unrecognized part of the universe is deeply hidden, maybe. Maybe we need to dig more deeply for our physical realities and the square root of minus one may be showing us where to dig.

[@justinmurre5193]

Good ”mullings”, Michael. I think that complex numbers have been so successful because indeed they describe an aspect of a deeper mathematical nature of the reality. Further, I think we got stuck with weak and strong interaction _and_ with particle models because the rest pf Hamilton’s invention, quaternions, was ignored. As Unziker himself has mentioned in some of his videos, quaternions could occupy a bigger role in describing quantum phenomena. My understanding is that since quaternions represent ring algebra instead of field, we might avoid the issues arising from field equations by replacing real numbers with rational numbers and looking to the implications. Infinities could be avoided and Planck scale would become understandable as graphs. Actually Nima Arkani-Hamed is already going this way with his amplituhedron etc., only he hasn’t made the connection with quaternions that is necessary for arising from cross sections of interactions to the level of even accelerator scale, namely Lorentz invariance in at leadt some local reference frame. Going up to gravity and how a spacetime manifold emerges is yet another story; Fay Dowker and Lee Smolin are both rather near to an exit from the present Standard Model straight-jacket.

[@bilkishchowdhury8318]

Complex numbers are not any more bogus than the reals

[@HWJJSCHUMACHER]

WAS GESCHAH MIT DEM PARADIGMENWECHSEL ????

[@jatin1dahiya]

Loving your videos/concepts sir, keep it up! And sir, please make a video on big bang!

[@frankmansour362]

What are the implications that you are right and the standard model is wrong? Is it possible to advance physics in a direction that resolves all the unknowns, put to rest all the side theories that were created to justify the standard model (inflation, dark matter, dark energy.....)?

[@dinf8940]

slight problem with using that as argument for vls validity is that *everything* you 'know' about the universe is inferred from interpretations that rely on c being constant. diracs parity certainly should tell you something, but im afraid it has very little to do with nature of the universe and much more with methodology utilized to discern it

[@anthonyiodice]

yay! As above=so below!

[@SernasHeptaDimesionalSpace]

The gravitational constant may go up or down it all depends in the level it is measured - the number that seems to be the neutral constant its 1.618 X 4= 6.472 which could be the very center of the yellow stars belt of our universe.

[@SernasHeptaDimesionalSpace]

All go by levels: sub atoms make atoms, atoms make cells, cells make clusters of cells, clusters of cells make super clusters of cells and so on to form our body - our body is inside earth, earth is inside the solar system, our solar system is part of a galaxie, our galaxie forms part of a cluster of galaxies which is part of a super cluster of galaxies and so on to form our cell universe which to me is not the end - in any of this levels light speed can not be the same - at large scales light speed(299792.45 km/s) just wont make it to workcause is to slow - as well at the atom or cell level such speed is way to much to do work.

[@tcarr349]

I don’t see a button to donate $. Maybe set up a Patreon page as well. I will contribute. I’m sure many people will also. Buy some better equipment and improve the quality of your videos. You will get more views. Although I don’t always agree with you I also feel your voice is important. You certainly have courage that’s for sure!

[@PrivateSi]

The mass / radius of a proton should be related to the size of the universe and both should be finite. If not the size, the ratio of +ve EM field cells to -ve EM field 'electro-gas' (like an electron gas). This close-packed, high tension, self-balancing, self-contained electrostatic(-like) field's cell (gap) size decreases with -ve gas concentration increase around matter, with the opposite occurring in voids. -- Whether the whole universe expands or it stays the same and matter shrinks more, or a mixture of both is a question I can't answer definitively. Either way, the larger the universe, the smaller the average cell (gap) size. Cell charge is quantised in this matter-energy field, cell size is continuously variable (with a minimum and maximum size in all probability. Compressibility gives way to displacement at maximum field SQUASH.

[@sistajoseph]

Why variable speed of light? We do not have a theory of why it should be constant but it can be calculated from measurables. So, do you have a theory that says the speed of light will be different somewhere else, not near here.

[@justinmurre5193]

Probably rather like: the speed of light was and will be different ”sometime else”, if I got it right.

[@nmarbletoe8210]

@@justinmurre5193 yes i think that is correct. i've seen papers on VSL cosmological models. I suppose a fast c would allow the universe to equilibrate without inflation. Perhaps inflation is even equivalent to a very high light speed?

[@PasajeroDelToro]

Heard of refractive index? Must be variable. Space is not empty.

[@aminomar7890]

connecting subatomic level with cosmological level is important to understand constants, because constants are not just a numbers, they have to do with so called infinity too, and important to understand space "the current understanding of space in physics is wrong" automatically they "future scientists" will figure out the roll of speed "action" and get closer to understand gravity and entanglement,... that could take up to hundreds of years of hard work of multi-generations of real scientists, that will change human history forever "not easy work". to concise: could turn the apes into humans.

[@markkaidy8741]

We know gravity bends light...What experimental or observation data proves the speed of light decreases as a result of mass interaction?...ie we do know and it has been proven that the speed of light in water is decreased.

[@nmarbletoe8210]

have you seen the slow light experiments? There are media in which light moves slower than Usain Bolt

[@mark970lost8]

the change of the gravitational constant could explain the gigantism of prehistoric animals? of course dinosaurs come to mind, but also insects and plants. there were at some point dragonflies the size of a small cars and trees that would dwars the current tallest giant redwood by 3 times (archeological finding of a petrified pine tree in the amazon almost 300 meters tall against the "mere 100m" of the contemporary trees. note scientists are baffled since the calculated max possible height of a tree is 150m due to current gravity and friction would render impossible for the tree "feed" the higher portion of the trunk and foliage) a side note to this is that these scientists went the other way postulating the lower G is due to the earth "shrinking", which is understandable since they don't probably know abot the papers you are presenting

[@derndernit8275]

How does light get from A to B. What are it's components and how do they interact. You know how a river gets from A to B How a rolling ball gets from A to B How a bouncing ball gets from A to B How an ant and how a snake gets from A to B The mechanics of how a car and walking person gets from A to B How does that thing, seemingly like no other, we call light, get from A to B? If the light field, medium, is like a nearly uncountable amount of little spheres, and light travels from A to B like a newtons cradle, then maybe it could be said the speed of light changes if large enough areas of these spheres are greatly compressed or seperated, then it would take longer or shorter for the signal to get from A to B. If that model is not how light field, light, exists and propagates, then..

[@VortekStarling]

So now all you need to do is publish the corrected version of Dicke's 1957 article and you will be the solver of all physics. His loss, your gain.

[@TheMachian]

vixra.org/abs/1510.0082

[@aminomar7890]

it is not specific to the speed of light it self, it is the speed, velocity, acceleration, .. in general speed is very important but not the whole story ! it is very complex related to the current weak understanding of the fundamentals of physics ! don't rely too much on the work of previous good scientists because it is incomplete ! that does not underestimate them in anyway, simply because it is not the job of one generation of scientists to solve all scientific problems! it is a long journey of multi generations of real scientists !

[@HWJJSCHUMACHER]

FORGET "PARICAL PHYSICISTS :: "IF YOU WANT TO UNDERSTAND THE UNIVERSE YOU HAVE TO THINK IN TERMS OF ENERGY ::: FREQUENCE ::: AND VIBRATION" (NICOLA TESLA) ::: NOOOOOOOO PARTICALS !!!!!! NOT ONE ::: THINK IN "DIMENSIONS" !!!!

[@ojas3464]

👍

[@aminomar7890]

Regarding fine structure constant and constants in general: Because there is a lack of understanding regarding the fundamentals of physics, and that is why the content of your channel is important. Constants are not just a numbers rather have meaning especially regarding the concept of infinity. and that is why what you have said about inventing a new imaginary particle from time to time is not the solution rather will make it worse. better to focus on contacting the subatomic level with cosmological level to get closer to understand constants, speed, space, momentum, …. etc. and that is why I wrote before that the way they interpret speed is missing essential part. not easy job, that could take up to hundreds of years of hard work of multi generations of real scientists. patching techniques will never work, and that is why Einstein couldn’t make progress in his last twenty years of his life, I mean no way to make any further progress without deeper understanding of the fundamentals of physics (no place for patching techniques anymore rather deep understanding of the fundamentals of physics).

[@ricardodelzealandia6290]

Do you have links to these papers?

[@TheMachian]

Which ones? Dirac? Easy to find Dirac Nature 1937 and royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.1938.0053

[@chrimony]

Your audio is consistently terrible. Please fix. I'm thinking you have too much gain, which causes clipping.

[@aerosoapbreeze264]

Thirdly - Please Read these quick tips. 1)Always consider your recording environment, Prevention of noise is best if possible (duh) 2)Record at an even lower Input volume, You can always add Volume - You cant Always remove Clipping / Noise 3)Microphone wind deflector for your lapel. The fluffy / foamy things, Feel free to improvise. Wind = Bad (This includes breath) 4)EQ your audio for dialogue. First try to use cuts more than boosts (EQ Sliders ideally only move down) Next subtlety is key. Avoid cutting or boosting more than 3-5dB Tips for dialogue - Use a High Pass Filter Or EQ to Cut Everything Below 80Hz, Cut 100-300 Hz to Add Clarity, If not enough clarity, try a gentle boost across 2-6 kHz 5)Use background noise subtraction if needed. I suggest ReaFIR VST Plugin its 100% Free. Dont be put of it is extremely simple. Google is your friend 5)Always use headphones when doing your Video / Audio production. Any headphones over $15 is fine. Quality dialogue audio sounds as if you’re talking around a kitchen table or with a client in your office. You can tell audio needs to be improved when you hear Clipping, Hum, Buzz, Hiss, Microphone bumping sounds etc. Good audio adds few steps even as a novice and really takes very little time > Consider the potential of your video being viewed for many years, An extra 5 minutes Is worthwhile. ===Free Software === OceanAudio - www.ocenaudio.com/whatis (My Program choice) Audacity - www.audacityteam.org/ (Alternative Program) ReaPlugs VST Pack - www.reaper.fm/reaplugs/ (This can be used in any audio program) ===Things to google === Audacity Clip Fix Tutorial (5 min) ReaFIR Background noise subtraction (5 - 7 min) How To Use OceanAudio (5 min) Cheerio.

[@danieladmassu941]

Fourthed😉

[@kasel1979krettnach]

you must be American ☺️

[@Danaluni59]

Ja whol herr kommedandt!

[@JorgeBrown]

Dr Unzicker, again you've provided a great Saturday morning thoughts. You are one of the brightest physicists that is living in "my time"! And this'd is a great coincidence too. Haha! You bring physics to Earth realms again and rescue it from of the pink unicorn's physics that started with Einstein. You also brought back my interest in physics that was being diluted by Math Elegance paradigm. Thanks heaps and keep you enlightening us! All the best!

[@tomfritz2431]

What do you mean by „pink unicorn‘s physics“? Special/general relativity? Or quantum mechanics? Or both?

[@JorgeBrown]

@@tomfritz2431 Both, Tom. To give you a hint. On GTR time is dependent on speed, so it is "relative". On QM time flows like a river as on Newton's gravity theory. These two prevailing theories should agree. One is supposed to explain the macro world and the other the sub-micro world. Nicole Tesla was right. He said "space has no property". Thus it cannot stretch, bend as Einstein proposes. Dr Unzicker has written an outstanding book titled Einstein's Lost Key. Read it and it will open your horizons.

[@TheMachian]

None of them.

[@JorgeBrown]

@@TheMachian Dear Dr Unzicker, when you say None of them it means what I said, both (GTR and QM) are pick unicorns, right?

[@aminomar7890]

Equivalence principle: g in the potential energy ! real scientists do not rely on patching techniques rather on deep understanding, mathematics is essential to master but alone will never make a real physicist " it is a kind of tool in the hands of scientist who has mind of scientist" . the next step needs real scientists "patching techniques will never work anymore".

[@tlldrkhndy]

go to around 5:00. You incorrectly spelled wavelength.

[@aminomar7890]

Dirac was only wondering! Connecting subatomic level and Cosmological level to solve the problem of space, constants, gravity, speed, … is my own idea! you still don’t understand what I have wrote! stop patching techniques and living under the cloak of others such as Einstein and build your own thoughts!

[@aminomar7890]

12:30 so-called Equivalence principle is incorrect not because it is entirely wrong else the equations will never work! it is because of the wrong interpretations "why". so-called variable speed of light has to do with gravity but not the whole story at all "not the way they thought it is only a small part of the whole story" that is why Einsteins' theory as a wrapper is more accurate.

[@norlesh]

Alexander, can you recommend any technical references summarizing the current state of experimentally verified nuclear physics that isn't pushing the Standard Model flavored kool-aid?

[@TheMachian]

You may consider ROGER H. STUEWER THE NUCLEAR ELECTRON HYPOTHESIS. Feel free to contact me next week via email.

[@gene8945]

numbers are wrong: the mass of the universe is around 4.5x10^54kg; mass of proton is 1.67x10^-27 kg. Thus ratio is 2.69x10^81. Regarding ratio of radius of observable universe to proton's is 5.28x10^41. Besides, radius of observable universe increases fast and the ratio change. All these big numbers are BOGUS

[@carly09et]

VSL is EGR as physics, they differ when extended out of science into Cosmology. Cosmology is NOT a science, it is a science philosophy. Mathematics models for physics BUT mathematics is art NOT science. The bridge is philosophy and acknowledge WHY mathematics 'fails'. The philosophical kernal is 'what is continuity?' without this basis discussion fails!

[@johnmcmenemy3864]

Have always thought of this possibility....how would a a variable c affect carbon dating of the Earth? ;) Biblical?

[@aminomar7890]

The superficial view is no longer useful. Physics has reached a stage where making any real scientific progress is not possible without deeper understanding of the fundamentals of physics, To sum up, the next stage requires a deep understanding of the foundations of physics and real scientists. Real Scientist is not a title, Media, followers, …etc rather lifestyle (science for real scientist is life itself), governments must offer them proper living conditions. here I talk about theoretical physiatrist or mathematician. the lifestyle of real scientist usually different because he doesn’t look to science as a job to get money from, they usually they don’t show off, prone to fraud by all types of thieves, even though they are aware of what is going on, because destructive irrational animal meanness is impede pure human intelligence , so the primitive irrational animal meanness hinders human intelligence. they even call it politics nowadays!