ROA25: The Locality Tell and the lost Century of Scientific Progress

[@intrinsic524]

what level of math class should we take before studying your work vector algebra and ether mechanics?

[@thedracachannel9187]

My friend, no matter how big a paradox in physics is, it is important who finances the person who creates these models, if you want to have a great career in physics you need big money and who will give it. a few fools in an expensive laboratory become heroes of science

[@lukiepoole9254]

How would parametric coupling between two tank circuits with air cored inductors work? Obviously the frequency is very high, but the coils are perpendicular to each others and span a distance of 1m.

[@Khepramancer]

I wouldn't say 'yaddah yaddah' about what Tesla was up to after AC. Just like the reactants of a circuit change when going from DC to AC current, so too they change again going from AC to monopolar impulse currents.

[@chaorrottai]

flux lines don't exits, it's just the way that the filing clump together in the field

[@hermes_logios]

The word "field" is just a term for describing non-local effects that we don't fully understand. It's the space in which some predictable (but not fully explained) effect occurs. "Locality" is a euphemism for "causality." If you can't explain the (apparent) non-locality, you can't explain the causality.

[@rdistinti]

I agree with your definition of field except that it will NEVER be fully understood so it will never be anything other than a field. Once you know what causes a field, then you have to explain what causes that etc etc etc. Example, humans recently (about 150 years agon) learned that fire is a chemical reaction. But then what causes chemical reactions, etc etc. For your other remark, I agree, but is a matter of scale. We humans historically notice correlations among events and then postulate causal relationships. Then we look for the linkages from one event to the other (locality or causality of a finer scale) to ensure that the correlation was not coincident. Even then the possibility exists that a Locality/Causalty could be a coincidence.

[@yannisvaroufakis9395]

You are in error in stating that Einstein suggested that nature was probably non-local. He maintained the opposite: that all physics is local and that the apparent nonlocal effects of entangled particles must be due to some hidden local variables that gave the illusion that tampering with one of a pair of entangled particles instantly influenced the behavior of its counterpart that had been separated from it and was many miles away. This is why he ridiculed the idea of nonlocality as “spooky action at a distance” because he thought it was nonsense. Read the Einstein-Rosen and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen papers (ER and EPR). It was John Stuart Bell who in the 60s came up with a mathematical way of determining statistically whether the influence on a distant tangled particle was due to a local hidden variable or whether it was indeed a nonlocal phenomenon. It was decades later that instruments were decided that could do the measurements, and it was shown that entangled quantum pairs influenced each other in a nonlocal manner. Read Bell’s paper too. You need to correct this video. Your other videos are remarkable and wonderful.

[@kentecklund]

Great video. I'm telling my friends about your videos. It's too bad we have to spend time undoing Einstein's flawed ideas. I made 10 videos called Questioning Einstein's Relativity. They might be unpostable because of copyright laws and what-have-you. In each video of mine I showed 30 seconds to a minute of a physicist's KZbin video then stopped it and in my own words explained why the video is wrong. I was going on the pretext that party A can show party B's work if party A is critiquing it, not copying it. But I might still be sued if a physicist claims I damaged his career and cost him money. I'll have to consult a lawyer. I might redo my videos without showing any posted material.

[@codetech5598]

Isn't that called "peer review"?

[@dollabz777]

You've got it completely backwards about Einstein and locality. Einstein's viewpoint (see EPR paradox) was that local elements that we just weren't seeing (hidden local variables) could explain some of the strange behaviors that quantum mechanics attempted to explain by non local elements. Bell's theorem proved the effect of non local elements is a real thing. There's really no other way to explain the behavior of entangled particles. Einstein couldn't explain it, and he had to admit he was wrong. If you can't explain it, you should do the same.

[@rajeev_kumar]

Good video

[@ZeroInDaHouse]

I have performed simulations using Weber's electrodynamics force which is also a RELATIONAL model. If something does not move with to respect to something else there is no effect to measure between them. The observer or his frame of reference has no role in their interaction. This would also mean that in a homopolar motor where the magnet and disc are rotating together (no relative motion between them) AAALL of the voltage is produced in the outside stationary circuit. This is controversial as this would imply a longitudinal force/EMF in this circuit for it to induce a current. Weber (and recently Andre Assis) were way ahead of the game and physicists for some reason wanted the glory of solving a problem that was solved before their time. Weber's electrodynamics gives ALL the correct solutions to EM problems. And Weber himself proved that it's also a conservative force to shut the criticism down of Heaviside and Maxwell but sadly this was lost to history as well. I highly recommend to watch the presentations on Weber's electrodynamics by Andre Assis on KZbin. It's not by chance that Weber was the first to ever introduce the speed of light constant in EM equations.

[@lukiepoole9254]

It does not solve how parametric excitation of electrical oscillations would work based on the equations however. They are all perpendicular to each other. No electromagnetic induction. Instead, it is based on parametric excitation by modulating the inductance or capacitance of a resonant tank circuit twice the resonant frequency. Mathieu equations are useful but not that much.

[@chrimony]

Einstein and the EPR paper was an argument AGAINST quantum mechanics as a fundamental theory because it implied non-locality. It was Bohr who embraced non-locality.

[@codetech5598]

Einstein's prizewinning "particle" explanation of the Photoelectric Effect gave QM a big boost.

[@chrimony]

@@codetech5598 While that's true, that has nothing to do with what was said in the video.

[@codetech5598]

@@chrimony The first slide has the question _"Did Einstein Sabotage Science"_ written in red. I answer that he (or his promoters) did.

[@chrimony]

@@codetech5598 Explain why Einstein's 1905 QM was wrong, instead of just "QM bad". Distinti at least has a reason, non-locality. Yet he wrongly claimed Einstein then gave QM a pass with the EPR paper, when Einstein was doing the exact OPPOSITE. So how was Einstein "sabotaging" science with QM when he consistently spoke out against it as a fundamental theory after he learned its flaws?