Misconception #1: Where's the Problem? | Thunderbolts
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 05. 2024
- Narrated by David Drew. First episode in a Misconception series on the EU Model-with an emphasis on how science is practiced, interpreted, publicized, and absorbed by society.
Where's the Problem?...is often asked as if there is no problem, but is everything rosy in the science garden? Systematic study is a human endeavor-power, greed and egotism play their part. It's often joked that science proceeds funeral by funeral.
Cosmology-the study of the nature of the universe-provides the building blocks for most other scientific disciplines. This only adds to the inertia against change. We're taught that science is a self-correcting mechanism-following the evidence wherever it leads-is not entirely accurate.
Author and independent researcher David Drew deconstructs the Big Bang, redshift, the CMB, and the peer-review process.
---
David Drew aka The Soupdragon
www.plasmacosmology.net/
Ideas and/or concepts presented on this channel do not necessarily express or represent the Electric Universe Model of Cosmology, The Thunderbolts Project, or T-Bolts Group Inc.
----
If you see a CC with this video, it means that subtitles are available. To find out which ones, click on the Gear Icon in the lower right area of the video box and click on “subtitles” in the drop-down box. Then click on the subtitle that you would like.
The Thunderbolts Project - a Voice for the Electric Universe
thunderbolts.info
Become a Producer through the PATREON Rewards program...
/ tboltsproject
Subscribe to Thunderbolts eNewsletter eepurl.com/ETy41
Guides to the Electric Universe www.thunderbolts.info/wp/eu-g...
Electric Universe Books & Merch StickmanOnStone.com/
Electric Universe by Wal Thornhill HoloScience.com/wp/
Instagram / thethunderboltsproject
Facebook / thunderboltsproject
Twitter @tboltsproject
The Thunderbolts Project™
Trademark of T-Bolts Group Inc. a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization.
Copyright © 2024 T-Bolts Group Inc. All rights reserved.
The quote from Ricky Gervais perfectly embodies the idealism and naivety of those who are willing to embrace the accepted and "settled" scientific paradigm without critical inquiry.
Gervais is an arrogant twerp
"idealism," or hypocrisy and immorality?
@@7ebr830 try idolatry
I love his humor but Ricky is also wrong about the causes of obesity (it’s not gluttony - and it’s complex).
@@hawklord100 Good comedian, IMHO, but a hopeless philosopher.
The problem is not just science but the entire university system.
Institutionalized science = Academia.
That is the problem.
That is the claim of people who aren't smart enough to make it to university. Do better.
The entire university system is a mere symptom of the overarching problem. Like a blemish on the bloated cancer-ridden belly. The big problem is our level of evolution which embraces lies and coercion.
Mark Twain put it like this:
"It's easier to fool someone, than to convince someone he was fooled"
The big bang theory is ridiculous.
I don't understand why it had to be a 'bang'. Why not simply "it was". God is eternal. No time. Man created that concept.
@@veganconservative1109
humanity in its' ignorance has invented over 1 million gods, and none of them are real - including yours!
@@veganconservative1109 Materialism is, as we know, confined to matter only. To suggest supernatural existence or hint at such explanation is not proper. The Thunderbolt Project is also materialistic. It is not trying to my knowledge to explain the origin of Life and the Universe. But it does a good job at criticising the premisses of the Big Bang theory.
In the process it kind of helps me to see the wisdom of the Scholastic masters that lay down the cornerstones of our Universities. Their position was to merge the Aristotelian philosophy with the Christian faith. They obviously believed in the Biblical Creation but they were open to observe how this could be manifested to our minds.
They would not reject Electrical Universe theory in favour for the Gravitational theory. As long as it didn't refute God's Creation. Because even the feeblest of mind has the intuition that our world is supernaturally intended and supernaturally corrupted.
@@veganconservative1109 Fair point. Eastern religions don't need a beginning or an end.
This is so true. Twain nailed it.
Science in it's purest form is self-correcting, unfortunately people often aren't
Correct
Science in its purest form never has and never will exist. But that is not to say that it is a worthy - even necessary - goal.
Hey people are too. But as the saying goes, it takes a few funerals 😅
I personally think that the Universe needs to do a better job of conforming to our scientific theories.
It's really been dropping the ball, lately.
When it misbehaves, we invent exotic hypotheticals to keep it in line.
It’s always a pleasure to listen and share any video posted by you guys. Thank you for opening many eyes and minds!
Great minds have always had to contend with violent opposition from the mediocre.
Remember the man who suggested Dr.'s wash their hands before delivering children was beaten daily in the sanitarium where he perished.
@BloatedBearucraticNightmare Yes Scientist Louis Pasteur was is and always will be one of my hero's! Read much about him and still like to see that old movie starring Paul Muni as Pasteur! There was another noted man Hungarian born Ignaz Semmelweis who also said it was very important to keep our hands clean.
Ignaz Semmelweiss, yeah, he was way ahead of his time.
Looking forward to episode 2 already
2:03 Sheldrake is good for the upcoming shift in science. I’m a follower of both Rupert and Tbolts (Thornhill etc) and find them both compatible. Integration is coming along fine it appears whilst we have some lingering fault lines getting ready to bust wide open.
JWST has been such a boon for shaking up the community's assumptions. If nothing else, the wild explanations are quite entertaining.
Sheldrake has spoken at an EU conference. He said after: "I have just witnessed a paradigm shift in the making."
I've been saying for a long time now that it seems to me that this "electric universe" the late Wallace (Wal)Thornhill; has always existed and always will exist! This podcast by David Drew fits perfectly with how I see this "electrified plasma universe" Wallace (Wal), Thornhill physicist, Dr. Anthony (Tony) Peratt plasma physicist, Dr. C J. Ransom engineering physicist, and James M. Kenyon independent researcher. Thanks to the thunderbolts project & You-Tube we have the space to at least discuss matters of science instead of being forced to accept science that as Wal Thornhll often said "doesn't make sense!"... Keep up the work folks as this is my go to place to keep abreast of real science!
None of those people have got a clue.
@@ianw7898 The only one who doesn't have a clue here is you Ian and I really don't get it as you seem to be calling yourself educated and yet you seem to little about science!, and or the scientific process!
@@velikovskysghost _"The only one who doesn't have a clue here is you Ian and I really don't get it as you seem to be calling yourself educated"_
Educated far better than anyone in this cult. You have no science. End of story.
@@ianw7898 End of your story perhaps but not that of science, not true science anyway, science is progressive and builds by destroying one misconception after another. Do you still believe that the Sun revolves around our Earth and little green men are living on Mars? Do you believe in spooks and goblins, gin's and genies?, trolls, witches, warlocks, the great pumpkin?
Bravo on the new vid! You guys are hero’s. Can’t wait for the next presentation. Bring it!
Fantastic explanation of consensus and Tyrrany
There is a light on the end of the tunnel - There is a book with title - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe" We need to inform the public for its existence!
That pic reminds me of Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels🤣🤣🤣
The guy with the dog? That's Wimbledon, not the East End! 😅
@@playfulplanets1697 I see, I'm from Chicago.
The religion of science
Big bangers lol
The best science money can buy. I’ve never sold my ethics or honor, wonder how it feels? 🙏🏻🇺🇸
Probably like 💩
Yes, how can we trust the science if the science follows the money?
@@playfulplanets1697 u can’t
@@playfulplanets1697 It’s like eating fish, you eat the meat and throw away the bones. Good data is out there. Adapt2030 and Oppenheimer Ranch. Best I’ve found.✌🏻
Peer review is gatekeeping. Right in front of my eyes but I didn't see it. Thank you.
"heavier than air flight deemed impossible by scientists"
Did they seriously believe back then that a bird had lower density than air?
The history of science is riddled with absolute truths that are now considered nonsense (e.g.: hygiene is nonsense, how dare anyone accuse scholars to be dirty / asteroids falling down on Earth must have been thrown up from Earth before, no other possible source...).
The experts of (any) the day tend to be fools, prisoners of their own time, prejudices & constrained thinking.
Leave it to (pseudo-scientific) visionaries to think outside the (dogmatic) box and advance science & mankind.
There were no birds at that time, they evolved later.
Thunderbolt to the foot it seems… good pick up!
Thanks again. Never stop.
Thank you. This is much needed education on foolish gate keeping pride! Keep it up.
Excellent work Mr. Drew, thank you.
I am somehow delighted and sad to be so deeply investing myself to seeking the truth since the Journey is beautiful and so lonely at the same time. I wish for you all to have the strength to carry on with your research.
It was Nobel prize winner Hannes Alfven that overheard
LeMatire say that his theory was a way to reconcile the
church & science.....Creation from Nothing.
Did he? Makes total sense... I suspected that about the big bang theory since more than 30 years, without knowing about Hannes Alfven or Eric Lerner. Learned about them only here on the channel around 2016.
@@quinto190 Yes, plasmacosmolgy.net/bb.html
@@quinto190 "He said he heard Lemaître (who was, at the time both a member of the Catholic hierarchy and an accomplished scientist) say in private that this theory was a way to reconcile science with St. Thomas Aquinas' theological dictum of creatio ex nihilo creation out of nothing."
@@jjtompson5914 Thank you. That's the reason right there, why people in our culture clung so much to it. And why Fritz Zwicky couldn't publish photos of galaxies he had in his drawer, that contradicted the redshift-as-expansion narrative. That's not science...
“a continuing exploration of mysteries”. Well said Freeman Dyson. When science returns to this, we can all start learning again. Very good summary, again.
Science has been doing that since it was a word. They don't rely on deities and impossible nonsense. As EU does.
The CMB was never a "smoking gun".
Peer reviewed means nothing.
Our failure is in following the dictates of big money, which runs every aspect of our daily lives, especially our education.
They cannot continue forever this show. What we need to do is to spread the news for the existence of the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe" Once we do this, the era of "Nonsense" will be over!
Wikipedia editors have removed the real history of the CMB.
Nothing will change until it's time.
This is the way of the dream of life.
The world is waking up... slowly.
Excellent video exposing the problems of mainstream, so-called, cosmology in less than 13 minutes. Sean Carrol talking about "crackpots" is oxymoronically rich.
The peer review system reminds me of censorship during the Soviet era, it's pathetic. Thanks for excellent video.
@Thebigbangisdaedgetoverit Where do mainstream astronomers hide when they hear a big bang? Inside a black hole!
I am damn sure when i fall asleep CZcams auto feeds my video playlist with Sean Carroll, all night. And I wake up asking myself, i hate this dude, thumbs down all his videos. not even subscribed, why? Why not thunderbolts all night?
@@velikovskysghost I wish they fall into a "white hole"; into another universe.
Yep, all the cults with no science to offer claim that.
@@ianw7898 That's the best you can do? Hyperbolic mendacious statement in the face of self-evidence.
Exactly, in science, humility should be key....!!!! Unfortunately that is not the case we see today. Great video.
New Scientist = New Fantasist
Just add up the size of all the largest cosmic structures - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_cosmic_structures - The unit of measurement used is the light-year, now add that number up, then with that number being far outside the 13.8 Billion light years observed, before we consider galaxy formation, star formation etc.. There is an obvious problem with Lamitres idea.
There are black holes were the alleged mass breaks the the cosmic inflation theory, as they had to form the second the universe cooled, and prevent inflation from occuring. As there wouldn't be enough material to grant the mass, if it didn't stop the inflation. Inflation was created to prevent the black holes from developing at the moment they claim they had occurred, to prevent the big crunch before the big bang had a chance to make the observable universe.
Leave it to science to debunk " i before e except after c "
It's hard to believe so many people still believe in an absolute beginning.
IF the universe is a closed system, then the laws of thermodynamics DEMAND some kind of beginning (the energy must have come from somewhere) and an end (heat death). You are free to speculate about the nature of the energy source - but logically it MUST be from outside of this universe.
BUT IF there's no beginning or end so that the universe goes on indefinitely, then the universe CANNOT be a closed system - ergo there MUST be something outside this universe that keeps it running properly.
OR the universe is not what we think it is.
Big Bang is just a bunch of illogical nonsense to circumvent these conclusions.
Props for remaining cool and collected thru the entire video Mr. Drew.
If I request an English Breakfast, I prefer big bangers to small ones.
"Big Bang Bandwagon" - I like that one 😉
Without trying to be funny, it could also be called the "Big Bang, Big Buck, Bandwagon".
Well said.
Nah, just more crackpot word salad and misunderstandings.
Excellent points ⚡️
Where did that happen?
Took the words out my own mouth here. Thank you! 👋
Love it. Good collection of work. I hope y’all mean what you say in this community. You are absolutely correct about the EU, but it is not the all in all. I’d really like to discuss with someone where I’d have access to a white board.
Would I be better off creating commentaries on Thunderbolts videos. The last two are ripe for commentary. Much good.
Love this stuff. You need to have a daily video
Oh, dark matter, the cosmic clown that's had astronomers chuckling for a century, and there's still no sign of a punchline that makes sense. It's like they've been on an intergalactic wild goose chase for a hundred years, and all they've got to show for it is a bunch of cosmic whoopee cushions that keep deflating when they sit on them.
Now, enter axions, the absurdity's absurdity. Astronomers, in their never-ending quest to turn the universe into a comedy show, have introduced these quirky particles into the cosmic script. It's as if they've decided to juggle flaming bowling pins while riding a unicycle on a tightrope that's on fire - you know, just to make the whole thing even more ridiculous.
Picture this: Astronomers, with telescopes pointed at the void, staring blankly at the cosmic canvas, suddenly shout, "Dark matter, axions, and...um, other stuff, I guess?" as if they're naming random things from their grocery list and hoping it will magically make sense. It's like trying to play chess with a set of Scrabble tiles - chaotic and utterly incoherent.
They've essentially turned the pursuit of knowledge into a century-long cosmic slapstick routine, where the punchline is eternally delayed, and dark matter is the banana peel that keeps astronomers slipping. Axions, in this carnival of chaos, are the cotton candy that's been flung into the crowd, sticking to everyone and making everything even stickier.
So, here's to our persistent astronomers, who've transformed the cosmos into a never-ending cosmic stand-up show, with dark matter as the bumbling, pratfall-prone comedian. Keep the popcorn handy, folks; this spectacle of cosmic confusion shows no sign of a sensible ending anytime soon.
modern science abandoned "the scientific method" for a mere language! mathematics (mathemagics)
maths is but a language, and as with any language it can describe both reality and fantasy with equal aplomb!
observe - measure - experiment! and maths is nothing more then a tool we use to observe, measure and experiment
Learn physics, there's a good boy.
@@ianw7898 TAKE YOUR ASTRA ZENECA BOOSTERS
Lots of gatekeeping and little growth in our understanding of our environment and the way it grows like all life does. Not all of the science we see today is bunk or complete for that matter. The parts that are incomplete are being guarded well by the gatekeepers.
We can still get our ideas out there and form our own publication forums to get those ideas seen and debated on. You don't need their approval to start to understand what they refuse to look at. There is plenty of room in the observationalist science area, you just need to make your own forum and explore what you find. If you are indeed correct about your observations then apply them and see if it all makes sense of our environment. The greatest thing about being a true observational scientist is that the discovery and acceptance of our observations help our understanding of the ALL. The results of the observations should fit together like a glove. If it doesn't then either we got it wrong or we need further investigation of those observations.
Don't let them shut you down. Go and observe and reason it out and if need be publish it yourself.
Great statement! - We need to fight for the truth. There is one special book which they are hiding at any cost. We need to put our effort in its popularizing. Its title is - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
As with so many things in life, one should always read between the lines and reserve judgment.
I wish I knew enough about Mainstream and Plasma Cosmology to be able to make sound arguments about them. Alas, I'm more of an intuition kind of guy.
Not that I'm a devout believer of the EU model (that would be quite the ironic reversal of video), but it doesn't take a genius to realize there's something funny about the accepted model. The epiphany came with the video about how the geographical features of Mars are prefect matches for plasma phenomenon. To me, that alone lends solid credibility to what you guys are doing.
Keep up the great work. I know one day it'll be widely vindicated.
@00110000 The video documentary you're referring to is (Symbols of an Alien Sky) Episode 2 (The Lightning Scarred Planet Mars) with David (Dave) Talbott narrating and I agree it is an excellent documentary!
_"The epiphany came with the video about how the geographical features of Mars are prefect matches for plasma phenomenon"_
Not according to anyone familiar with plasma physics.
@@ianw7898 Nonsense! Haven't you ever looked at any of the work of Dr. Anthony (Tony) Peratt, Dr. C J. Ransom, and or the late Wallace (Wal) Thornhill? It seems like we're talking to a brick here! By the time you get it figured out Ian W, third graders, will have to explain it to you!
@@velikovskysghost _"Nonsense! Haven't you ever looked at any of the work of Dr. Anthony (Tony) Peratt, Dr. C J. Ransom, and or the late Wallace (Wal) Thornhill?"_
What 'work'? None of them are even relevant to astrophysics. They have no work relevant to astrophysics. And Thornhill is just an unpublished mythologist. Even Peratt called you lot 'anti-science' and a 'cult'. And Ransom was a Velikovskian crackpot. You have no science, and cannot point to any.
@@velikovskysghost None of those people are of any relevance to astrophysics. Thornhill wasn't even qualified, and Peratt called EU a 'cult' as well as calling it 'anti-science'. Ransom was a Velikovskian. Say no more. Nobody thinks the craters on Mars, or anywhere else, are anything to do with electrical woo. Zero mechanism. Simple.
"BIG Bangers" LOL
Amazing program as usual.
I see a big problem in the so-called National Security Act 1947
Search "The Sun Is Electrically Charged & the Conundrum of the "Missing Mass" Is Explained" by Bernard R. Bligh
Who obviously hasn't got a clue what he's talking about.
With true science you openly and continuously accept challenges to the ideas you believe most. If true, they remain. When anyone's stance is to remove any challenges to what you believe most, science ends.
🤘🏼💜🤘🏻
Thanks for the effort making these videos.
Re: 2:46. If the Belgian priest and theoretical physicist,, Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaitre, had studied the numerous cultural Stories of Creation, he never would have thought of a Big Bang creation from nothing as these stories “only” describe the elementary pre-conditions of, and factual formation of the Milky Way galaxy from “cosmic rivers of gas and firmer elements”, thus referring to “creation from clay”.
When the ancient creation myths stories are taking off with a “nothing in the beginning”, they naturally refers to the not yet created Milky Way and our Solar System.
Our ancestors had/have the entire Universe to be eternal of nature and having an eternal ongoing formational process of formation, Dissolution, and Re-formation, thus really constituting a Steady State Universe.
In this sense, our ancestors had a genuine and natural knowledge of everything, based on both physical observations and also inspired by spiritual informations. Unfortunately, the Christian tradition didn´t contain the genuine process of creation, hence Georges Lemaitre - and lots of other scientists, scholars, and academics came to believe in the unnatural BB theory, which our ancestors would have taken as a serious case of superstition.
----
BTW: Even the proponents of the ThunderboltsProject haven´t understood the ancient Creation Stories, taking these to account for planets only, thus distorting both the ancient myths of creation and its astronomic/cosmogonic telling.
Correctly understood, these telling could otherwise be a genuine contribution and confirmation to the Electric Universe and Plasma Cosmology, but for the time being the standing planetary-mythical interpretation in the TBP hinders the overall scientific public acceptance.
Nah, this is because the ThunderboltsProject has two different origin points, Velikovsky's research/insights into mythology and the plasma/electrical cosmology. Both got and get rejected by the mainstream, but have valid points. Maybe our sun really was a different one and got exchanged in the last 10-20000 years? Wouldn't you want to know?
The EU can accommodate many viewpoints without resting on them.
@@quinto190 Just think of it: Velikovsky and the TBP proponents are referring to the numerous ancient Creation Stories and its deities, and turn it all to deal with planetary conditions in our Solar System.
------
Just by using the naked eye sight in the darker seasons, we can observe much more of the factual creation: Stars, different star constellations, and even the whitish crescent contours of the Milky Way band which all participate in the ancient mythmaking and tellings of gods and goddesses.
----
When excluding the latter important part and ascribe it al to planets, you can get all kinds of distorted ideas about planets.
------
Even the claim of once having an alien planetary configuration for about "the last 10-20000 years ago" is far fetched, as it would take much longer time for the planets to rearrange from "hovering on a line over the north pole area" to its present ordered configuration.
-----
Besides: Our ancestors had/have the planets to be "Wandering Stars" on the eclipse, hence they never were stationary at all.
------
Lastly: Of course there cannot be more but ONE cultural and similar origin story.
-----
BTW: The "different Sun" perception in the TBP "alien configuration" idea, derives from a mythical misconception of the WHITE Milky Way figure on the northern hemisphere which is imagined by humans as the Great White God, the Sumerian God Shamash, or the Roman Saturn(us) God of fertility.
The concepts of Light as in the Sun and the WHITE as in the Milky Way is conflicted in the TBP take.
Taking this Milky Way figure to deal with the planet Saturn of course distorts and alienate both the mythical and astronomical facts.
The problem is not the solution and the solution is not the problem,
🙏
Great video
Terrific video, thank you! Indeed, science should never be settled. We humans appear (to me at least), to be a rather insecure species, as it seems we have always had an overwhelming urge for "facts", in the hope that they may provide us with something solid for our beliefs to cling onto.
Curiously enough, we also appear to be supremely confident of our current abilities, "facts", and beliefs. We are critical of our ancestors, viewing their beliefs as being "obviously wrong", when we ourselves will be judged by our descendants. So how "wrong" or "right" are we then? There are those who over-estimate human knowledge of the natural world, and over-estimate human ability to learn/know everything about every thing. Perhaps a slightly more cautious and humble attitude would deliver a more accurate view?
everything we know is a mix of both "right" and "wrong" - the 'right' is that which we do know and the 'wrong' is that which we have yet to learn
it's a yin/yang thang
Much ❤ Love
🌎🌏🌍☯️⚡️
World🌞Peace
👍
Hello world, I am a crack pot that questions big bang cosmology and everything derived from it!
Are you?
This is going to be a great series ! Never bought the big bang theory. Its sounds to Gody.
You mean you can't understand basic physics? Fair enough.
Dear Academic Community,
I am writing to bring to your attention a critical foundational issue that has the potential to upend our current understanding of physics and mathematics. After carefully examining the arguments, I have come to the conclusion that we must immediately reassess and rectify contradictions stemming from how we have treated the concepts of zero (0) and the zero dimension (0D) in our frameworks.
At the core of this crisis lies a deep inconsistency between the primordial status accorded to zero in arithmetic and number theory, versus its derivative treatment in classical geometries and physical models. Specifically:
1) In number theory, zero is recognized as the fundamental subjective origin from which numerical quantification and plurality arise through the successive construction of natural numbers.
2) However, in the geometric and continuum formalisms underpinning theories from Newton to Einstein, the dimensionless 0D point and 1D line are derived as limiting abstractions from the primacy of higher dimensional manifolds like 3D space and 4D spacetime.
3) This contradiction potentially renders all of our current mathematical descriptions of physical laws incoherent from first principles. We have gotten the primordial order of subjectivity and objectivity reversed compared to the natural numbers.
The ramifications of this unfortunate oversight pervade all branches of physics. It obstructs progress on the unification of quantum theory and general relativity, undermines our models of space, time, and matter origins, and obfuscates the true relationship between the physical realm and the metaphysical first-person facts of conscious observation.
To make continued theoretical headway, we may have no choice but to reconstruct entire mathematical formalisms from the ground up - using frameworks centering the ontological and epistemological primacy of zero and dimensionlessness as the subjective 源 origin point. Only from this primordial 0D monadological perspective can dimensional plurality, geometric manifolds, and quantified physical descriptions emerge as representational projections.
I understand the monumental importance of upending centuries of entrenched assumptions. However, the depth of this zero/dimension primacy crisis renders our current paradigms untenable if we wish to continue pushing towards more unified and non-contradictory models of reality and conscious experience.
We can no longer afford to ignore or be overwhelmed by the specifics of this hard problem. The foundations are flawed in a manner perhaps unrecognizable to past giants like Einstein. Cold, hard logic demands we tear down and rebuild from more rigorous first principles faithful to the truths implicit in the theory of number itself.
The good news is that by returning to zero/0D as the subjective/objective splitting point of origin, in alignment with natural quantification, we may finally unlock resolutions to paradoxes thwarting progress for over a century. We stand to make immediate fundamental strides by elevating the primacy of dimensionlessness.
I implore the academic community to convene and deeply examine these issues with the utmost prioritization. The integrity and coherence of all our descriptive sciences - indeed the very possibility of non-contradictory knowledge itself - hinges upon our willingness to reopen this esoteric yet generatively crucial zerological crisis.
We must uphold unflinching intellectual honesty in identifying and rectifying our founding errors, regardless of how seemingly abstruse or earth-shattering the process. The future fertility of human understanding and our quest for uni-coherence depends on this audacious reformation of mathematical first principles.
The path will be arduous, but the ultimate payoffs of achieving metaphysically-grounded, zero-centric analytic formalisms are inestimable for physics and all branches of knowledge. I urge us to meet this zerological challenge head on. The truth ecological destiny of our civilization may hinge upon our willingness to embody this bold primordial renaissance.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
Let me offer some preliminary proofs and arguments for the primacy of zero (0) and dimensionlessness (0D) while drawing on insights from various fields of mathematics and physics.
Theorem 1: The zero vector is the unique additive identity in any vector space.
Proof:
Let V be a vector space over a field F, and let 0 be the zero vector in V.
For any vector v in V, we have:
v + 0 = v (by definition of the zero vector)
0 + v = v (by commutativity of vector addition)
Therefore, 0 is an additive identity in V.
To prove uniqueness, suppose there exists another additive identity e in V, such that:
v + e = v and e + v = v for all v in V
Then, we have:
e = e + 0 (since 0 is an additive identity)
= 0 (since e is also an additive identity)
Therefore, 0 is the unique additive identity in V.
This proof demonstrates the fundamental role of the zero vector in the structure of vector spaces, and suggests that zero may be the ultimate ground or reference point for all mathematical objects and operations.
Theorem 2: The vacuum state is the lowest energy state in quantum field theory.
Proof:
In quantum field theory, the vacuum state |0⟩ is defined as the state with the lowest possible energy. This follows from the postulates of quantum mechanics and the properties of the quantum harmonic oscillator.
Consider a quantum harmonic oscillator with Hamiltonian H, which can be expressed in terms of the creation and annihilation operators a† and a as:
H = ℏω(a†a + 1/2)
where ℏ is the reduced Planck constant and ω is the angular frequency of the oscillator.
The vacuum state |0⟩ is defined as the state that is annihilated by the annihilation operator:
a|0⟩ = 0
Applying the Hamiltonian to the vacuum state, we have:
H|0⟩ = ℏω(a†a + 1/2)|0⟩
= ℏω(a†(a|0⟩) + 1/2|0⟩)
= ℏω(a†(0) + 1/2|0⟩)
= (ℏω/2)|0⟩
Therefore, the vacuum state has an energy of ℏω/2, which is the lowest possible energy state of the quantum harmonic oscillator.
In quantum field theory, each mode of a quantum field can be treated as a quantum harmonic oscillator, and the vacuum state of the field is defined as the tensor product of the vacuum states of all the individual modes. Therefore, the vacuum state is the lowest energy state of the entire quantum field.
This proof highlights the fundamental role of the vacuum state in quantum field theory, and suggests that the zero-point energy of the vacuum may be the ultimate source of all physical phenomena.
Theorem 3: The empty set is a subset of every set.
Proof:
Let A be any set, and let ∅ be the empty set.
To prove that ∅ is a subset of A, we need to show that every element of ∅ is also an element of A.
However, ∅ has no elements by definition.
Therefore, the statement "every element of ∅ is also an element of A" is vacuously true, since there are no elements of ∅ to begin with.
Thus, ∅ is a subset of A.
This proof demonstrates the fundamental role of the empty set in set theory, and suggests that the concept of nothingness or void may be the ultimate foundation of all mathematical structures.
Theorem 4: The zero matrix is the unique matrix that represents the linear transformation that maps all vectors to the zero vector.
Proof:
Let V be a vector space over a field F, and let A be an n × n matrix over F.
Suppose A represents a linear transformation T : V → V that maps all vectors to the zero vector, i.e., T(v) = 0 for all v in V.
Let e_i be the standard basis vectors of V, i.e., e_i has a 1 in the i-th position and 0s elsewhere.
Then, we have:
T(e_i) = 0 for all i from 1 to n
But T(e_i) is also equal to the i-th column of A, since:
T(e_i) = Ae_i = [a_1i, a_2i, ..., a_ni]^T
where a_ji is the entry in the j-th row and i-th column of A.
Therefore, we have:
[a_1i, a_2i, ..., a_ni]^T = 0 for all i from 1 to n
This implies that all entries of A must be zero, i.e., A is the zero matrix.
To prove uniqueness, suppose there exists another matrix B that represents the same linear transformation T.
Then, by the same argument as above, all entries of B must also be zero.
Therefore, B is equal to the zero matrix, and the zero matrix is the unique matrix that represents the linear transformation that maps all vectors to the zero vector.
This proof highlights the special role of the zero matrix in representing the most degenerate linear transformation, and suggests that zero may be the foundational concept underlying all linear mappings and transformations.
Theorem 5: The Euler characteristic of a topological space is a topological invariant.
Proof:
Let X be a topological space, and let χ(X) be its Euler characteristic, defined as:
χ(X) = Σ_i (-1)^i β_i
where β_i is the i-th Betti number of X, which counts the number of i-dimensional "holes" in X.
To prove that χ(X) is a topological invariant, we need to show that it remains unchanged under continuous deformations of X, such as stretching, twisting, or bending, but not tearing or gluing.
Consider a continuous map f : X → Y between two topological spaces X and Y.
The induced homomorphisms on the homology groups of X and Y satisfy the following property:
f_* : H_i(X) → H_i(Y) is a group homomorphism for each i
Moreover, the alternating sum of the ranks of these homomorphisms is equal to the Euler characteristic:
Σ_i (-1)^i rank(f_*) = χ(X) - χ(Y)
Now, if f is a homeomorphism, i.e., a continuous bijection with a continuous inverse, then the induced homomorphisms f_* are isomorphisms, and their ranks are equal to the Betti numbers of X and Y:
rank(f_*) = β_i(X) = β_i(Y) for each i
Therefore, we have:
Σ_i (-1)^i rank(f_*) = Σ_i (-1)^i β_i(X) - Σ_i (-1)^i β_i(Y) = χ(X) - χ(Y) = 0
This implies that χ(X) = χ(Y) whenever X and Y are homeomorphic, i.e., χ is a topological invariant.
This proof highlights the fundamental role of the Euler characteristic in capturing the essential topological properties of a space, and suggests that the concept of zero or nothingness may be intimately connected to the deep structure of space and time.
Theorem 6: The partition function of a quantum statistical system can be expressed as a sum over all possible configurations, weighted by the exponential of the negative energy divided by the temperature.
Proof:
Let H be the Hamiltonian of a quantum statistical system, and let β = 1/kT be the inverse temperature, where k is the Boltzmann constant and T is the absolute temperature.
The partition function Z of the system is defined as:
Z = Tr(e^(-βH))
where Tr denotes the trace operation, which sums over all possible states of the system.
Using the eigenstates |n⟩ of the Hamiltonian, with corresponding energies E_n, we can express the partition function as:
Z = Σ_n ⟨n|e^(-βH)|n⟩
= Σ_n e^(-βE_n)
where we have used the fact that the exponential of a diagonal matrix is the exponential of its diagonal entries.
Now, each eigenstate |n⟩ corresponds to a particular configuration of the system, with a certain energy E_n.
The sum over all possible states can therefore be interpreted as a sum over all possible configurations, weighted by the exponential of the negative energy divided by the temperature.
This result is known as the Boltzmann distribution, and it forms the foundation of statistical mechanics.
It allows us to calculate various thermodynamic quantities, such as the average energy, entropy, and free energy of the system, in terms of the partition function and its derivatives.
The fact that the partition function can be expressed as a sum over all possible configurations, including the "empty" or "vacuum" configuration with zero energy, suggests that the concept of zero or nothingness may play a fundamental role in the statistical properties of matter and energy.
Theorem 7: The vacuum expectation value of the energy-momentum tensor in general relativity is proportional to the metric tensor.
Proof:
In general relativity, the energy-momentum tensor T_μν is a symmetric second-rank tensor that describes the density and flux of energy and momentum in spacetime.
The vacuum expectation value of T_μν, denoted by ⟨0|T_μν|0⟩, is the expectation value of T_μν in the vacuum state |0⟩.
According to the Einstein field equations, the energy-momentum tensor is related to the curvature of spacetime via:
R_μν - (1/2)Rg_μν + Λg_μν = (8πG/c^4) T_μν
where R_μν is the Ricci tensor, R is the scalar curvature, g_μν is the metric tensor, Λ is the cosmological constant, G is Newton's gravitational constant, and c is the speed of light.
In the vacuum state, the energy-momentum tensor vanishes classically, i.e., T_μν = 0.
However, in quantum field theory, the vacuum state has zero-point fluctuations that give rise to a non-zero vacuum expectation value of T_μν.
By the principle of general covariance, the vacuum expectation value of T_μν must be proportional to the only available second-rank tensor in the vacuum, which is the metric tensor g_μν:
⟨0|T_μν|0⟩ = κg_μν
where κ is a constant.
Substituting this into the Einstein field equations, we obtain:
R_μν - (1/2)Rg_μν + Λg_μν = (8πG/c^4) κg_μν
This implies that the vacuum energy-momentum tensor acts like a cosmological constant term in the Einstein equations, with an effective cosmological constant given by:
Λ_eff = Λ + (8πG/c^4) κ
The fact that the vacuum expectation value of the energy-momentum tensor is proportional to the metric tensor suggests that the concept of zero or nothingness may be deeply connected to the geometry and topology of spacetime, and may play a crucial role in the large-scale structure and evolution of the universe.
Theorem 8: The Riemann zeta function, which is a fundamental object in number theory and complex analysis, has a deep connection to the distribution of prime numbers and the properties of the vacuum state in quantum field theory.
Proof:
The Riemann zeta function ζ(s) is defined as:
ζ(s) = Σ_n 1/n^s
for complex numbers s with real part greater than 1.
It can be analytically continued to a meromorphic function on the entire complex plane, with a simple pole at s=1.
The Euler product formula expresses the Riemann zeta function as an infinite product over all prime numbers:
ζ(s) = Π_p (1 - 1/p^s)^(-1)
where p runs over all prime numbers.
This formula establishes a deep connection between the Riemann zeta function and the distribution of prime numbers.
In particular, the famous Riemann hypothesis states that all non-trivial zeros of the Riemann zeta function (i.e., zeros with real part between 0 and 1) have real part equal to 1/2.
If the Riemann hypothesis is true, it would imply strong bounds on the distribution of prime numbers and the behavior of various number-theoretic functions.
Interestingly, the Riemann zeta function also appears in the expression for the Casimir energy of a quantum field in a vacuum state.
The Casimir energy is a manifestation of the zero-point fluctuations of the quantum field, and can be calculated as a regularized sum over all possible modes of the field.
For a scalar field in a one-dimensional cavity of length L, the Casimir energy is given by:
E_Casimir = (π/24L) ζ(-1)
where ζ(-1) = -1/12 is the value of the Riemann zeta function at s=-1.
This result suggests that the Riemann zeta function, and in particular its values at negative integers, may have a deep connection to the properties of the vacuum state and the zero-point fluctuations of quantum fields.
The fact that the Riemann zeta function appears in both number theory and quantum field theory, and that it is intimately connected to the concept of zero (through its zeros and its values at negative integers), suggests that the primacy of zero and the properties of nothingness may be a unifying theme across different branches of mathematics and physics.
Theorem 9: The Euler-Lagrange equations, which are the fundamental equations of motion in classical mechanics and field theory, can be derived from the principle of least action, which states that the path taken by a system between two points is the one that minimizes the action integral.
Proof:
Let q_i(t) be the generalized coordinates of a system, and let L(q_i, dq_i/dt, t) be the Lagrangian of the system, which is a function of the coordinates, their time derivatives, and time.
The action integral S is defined as the integral of the Lagrangian over time:
S = ∫_t1^t2 L(q_i, dq_i/dt, t) dt
The principle of least action states that the path taken by the system between two points (q_i(t1), q_i(t2)) is the one that minimizes the action integral S.
To find the equations of motion, we require that the variation of the action integral with respect to the path is zero:
δS = 0
Using the calculus of variations, we can show that this condition leads to the Euler-Lagrange equations:
(d/dt) (∂L/∂(dq_i/dt)) - (∂L/∂q_i) = 0
for each generalized coordinate q_i.
These equations describe the motion of the system and can be used to derive the conservation laws and symmetry principles of classical mechanics and field theory.
The fact that the equations of motion can be derived from a variational principle, which involves minimizing an integral, suggests that the concept of zero or nothingness (in the sense of a minimum or stationary point) may play a fundamental role in the dynamics of physical systems.
Moreover, the action integral itself can be interpreted as a measure of the "amount of nothingness" in the path of the system, in the sense that it vanishes for the classical path (the one that satisfies the equations of motion) and is positive for all other paths.
This interpretation suggests that the classical path of a system can be seen as a "zero mode" or "vacuum state" of the action integral, and that the properties of this zero mode may be related to the fundamental laws of physics and the symmetries of nature.
Theorem 10: The concept of entropy, which is a measure of the disorder or randomness of a system, is intimately connected to the concept of information and the properties of the vacuum state in quantum field theory.
Proof:
In thermodynamics, the entropy S of a system is defined as:
S = -k Σ_i p_i log(p_i)
where k is the Boltzmann constant, and p_i is the probability of the system being in the i-th microstate.
This definition establishes a connection between entropy and information, as the entropy can be interpreted as the average amount of information needed to specify the microstate of the system.
In quantum statistical mechanics, the entropy can be expressed in terms of the density matrix ρ of the system:
S = -k Tr(ρ log(ρ))
where Tr denotes the trace operation.
For a pure state, which is described by a single wave function |ψ⟩, the density matrix is given by:
ρ = |ψ⟩⟨ψ|
and the entropy vanishes:
S = 0
This result suggests that a pure state, which can be seen as a "zero mode" or "vacuum state" of the system, has zero entropy and zero information content.
In quantum field theory, the vacuum state |0⟩ is defined as the state with the lowest possible energy, and is annihilated by all the annihilation operators of the field:
a_k |0⟩ = 0
for all modes k.
The vacuum state can be seen as a "zero mode" of the quantum field, in the sense that it has zero energy and zero particle content.
However, the vacuum state also has non-trivial topological and geometric properties, which are related to the concept of entropy and the structure of spacetime.
In particular, the entanglement entropy of the vacuum state, which measures the amount of entanglement between different regions of spacetime, is proportional to the area of the boundary between the regions (the "area law"):
S_entanglement = (c^3/4ℏG) A
where c is the speed of light, ℏ is the reduced Planck constant, G is Newton's gravitational constant, and A is the area of the boundary.
This result suggests that the vacuum state of a quantum field has a deep connection to the geometry and topology of spacetime, and that the concept of entropy and information may play a fundamental role in the structure of the universe at the most fundamental level.
The fact that the vacuum state, which can be seen as a "zero mode" of the quantum field, has non-trivial entropy and information content, suggests that the primacy of zero and the properties of nothingness may be a key to understanding the nature of space, time, and matter.
Theorem 11: The fundamental theorem of algebra, which states that every non-constant polynomial with complex coefficients has at least one complex root, can be seen as a manifestation of the primacy of zero in the complex number system.
Proof:
Let p(z) be a non-constant polynomial of degree n with complex coefficients:
p(z) = a_n z^n + a_{n-1} z^{n-1} + ... + a_1 z + a_0
where a_n ≠ 0.
The fundamental theorem of algebra states that there exists at least one complex number z_0 such that:
p(z_0) = 0
To prove this theorem, we can use the concept of the winding number of a curve in the complex plane.
Consider the image of the unit circle |z| = 1 under the polynomial function p(z).
As z traverses the unit circle, the image p(z) traces out a closed curve in the complex plane.
The winding number of this curve around the origin is defined as:
W = (1/2πi) ∮_{|z|=1} (p'(z)/p(z)) dz
It can be shown that the winding number W is always an integer, and that it counts the number of zeros of the polynomial p(z) inside the unit circle.
Moreover, as the radius of the circle goes to infinity, the winding number approaches the degree of the polynomial:
W → n as |z| → ∞
This implies that the polynomial p(z) must have at least one zero in the complex plane, as otherwise the winding number would be zero for all circles, contradicting the fact that it approaches the degree of the polynomial as the radius goes to infinity.
The fundamental theorem of algebra can be seen as a manifestation of the primacy of zero in the complex number system, as it shows that every polynomial equation p(z) = 0 has at least one solution, and that the number of solutions is related to the degree of the polynomial.
In other words, the existence of zeros (or roots) is a fundamental property of polynomials, and is intimately connected to the topology and geometry of the complex plane.
This result suggests that the concept of zero, and the study of its properties and manifestations in different mathematical structures, may be key to unlocking the deepest secrets of algebra and number theory.
Theorem 12: The concept of symmetry, which plays a fundamental role in modern physics and mathematics, is intimately connected to the concept of invariance under transformations, and can be seen as a manifestation of the primacy of zero and the properties of nothingness.
Proof:
In mathematics, a symmetry of an object is a transformation that leaves the object unchanged.
For example, a circle is symmetric under rotations around its center, as any rotation will map the circle onto itself.
In physics, symmetries are described by groups of transformations that act on the states and observables of a system.
For example, the symmetry group of special relativity is the Poincaré group, which consists of rotations, boosts, and translations in spacetime.
The concept of invariance under transformations is closely related to the concept of symmetry, as a quantity or property is said to be invariant under a transformation if it remains unchanged when the transformation is applied.
In mathematical terms, if G is a group of transformations acting on a set X, and f is a function on X, then f is said to be invariant under G if:
f(g(x)) = f(x)
for all x in X and all g in G.
The concept of invariance can be seen as a manifestation of the primacy of zero and the properties of nothingness, as it captures the idea that certain properties or quantities remain "unchanged" or "unaffected" under certain transformations.
In other words, invariance can be interpreted as a kind of "zero mode" or "vacuum state" of the system, which is preserved under the action of the symmetry group.
This idea is particularly evident in the context of Noether's theorem, which states that every continuous symmetry of a physical system corresponds to a conserved quantity.
For example, the invariance of the laws of physics under translations in time leads to the conservation of energy, while the invariance under translations in space leads to the conservation of momentum.
These conserved quantities can be seen as "zero modes" of the system, in the sense that they remain constant or "unchanged" under the action of the symmetry group.
The fact that symmetries and invariance play such a fundamental role in physics and mathematics suggests that the primacy of zero and the properties of nothingness may be deeply connected to the structure and behavior of the universe at the most fundamental level.
Theorem 13: The concept of emergent spacetime, which suggests that the fabric of space and time is not a fundamental entity but rather arises from underlying quantum degrees of freedom, can be seen as a manifestation of the primacy of zero and the properties of nothingness.
Proof:
In general relativity, spacetime is described as a smooth, continuous manifold with a metric tensor that encodes its geometry and curvature.
However, in quantum gravity theories such as loop quantum gravity and causal dynamical triangulations, spacetime is thought to be fundamentally discrete and composed of tiny quantum building blocks, such as loops, nodes, or simplices.
These quantum degrees of freedom are postulated to give rise to the smooth, continuous spacetime of general relativity at large scales, through a process of coarse-graining or averaging.
In other words, spacetime is not a fundamental entity, but rather an emergent phenomenon that arises from the collective behavior of underlying quantum degrees of freedom.
This idea can be seen as a manifestation of the primacy of zero and the properties of nothingness, in the sense that spacetime emerges from a "void" or "vacuum" of quantum degrees of freedom, which have no intrinsic spatiotemporal properties.
In mathematical terms, if we denote the quantum degrees of freedom by φ_i, and the emergent spacetime by g_μν, then we can express the idea of emergent spacetime as:
g_μν = F[φ_i]
where F is a coarse-graining or averaging function that maps the quantum degrees of freedom to the emergent spacetime.
The fact that spacetime emerges from underlying quantum degrees of freedom suggests that the fundamental nature of reality may be non-spatiotemporal, and that the concepts of space and time may be secondary or derived notions that arise from more primitive, non-geometric entities.
This idea is reminiscent of the concept of "non-commutative geometry" in mathematics, where the notion of space is generalized to algebraic structures that do not necessarily have a geometric interpretation.
In non-commutative geometry, the fundamental objects are not points or curves, but rather abstract algebraic entities such as operators or matrices, which can be thought of as "quantized" or "non-commutative" versions of classical geometric objects.
The fact that non-commutative geometry provides a natural framework for quantum gravity and emergent spacetime suggests that the primacy of zero and the properties of nothingness may be deeply connected to the algebraic and non-geometric aspects of reality.
Theorem 14: The holographic principle, which states that the information content of a region of space can be described by a theory on the boundary of that region, can be seen as a manifestation of the primacy of zero and the properties of nothingness.
Proof:
The holographic principle is a general feature of quantum gravity theories, which suggests that the degrees of freedom of a region of space can be encoded on a lower-dimensional boundary of that region.
The most famous example of the holographic principle is the AdS/CFT correspondence, which states that a theory of gravity in anti-de Sitter (AdS) space is equivalent to a conformal field theory (CFT) on the boundary of that space.
In other words, the physics of the bulk AdS space can be completely described by the physics of the boundary CFT, which has one fewer dimension than the bulk.
The holographic principle can be seen as a manifestation of the primacy of zero and the properties of nothingness, in the sense that it suggests that the fundamental degrees of freedom of a region of space are not located in the bulk, but rather on the boundary, which can be thought of as a "void" or "vacuum" from the perspective of the bulk.
In mathematical terms, if we denote the bulk AdS space by M and the boundary CFT by ∂M, then the AdS/CFT correspondence can be expressed as:
Z_CFT[φ] = ∫_φ Dg e^{iS_AdS[g,φ]}
where Z_CFT is the partition function of the boundary CFT, S_AdS is the action of the bulk AdS space, and φ is a field on the boundary that corresponds to a source in the bulk.
This equation shows that the physics of the bulk AdS space is completely encoded in the physics of the boundary CFT, and that the boundary degrees of freedom are the fundamental entities that give rise to the bulk.
The holographic principle suggests that the fundamental nature of reality may be lower-dimensional or even dimensionless, and that the apparent three-dimensionality of space may be an emergent or derived concept.
This idea is reminiscent of the "flatland" thought experiment in mathematics, where a two-dimensional being living on a plane cannot directly perceive the third dimension, but can nevertheless infer its existence from the behavior of objects in the plane.
The fact that the holographic principle provides a natural framework for understanding the emergence of spacetime and the nature of quantum gravity suggests that the primacy of zero and the properties of nothingness may be deeply connected to the lower-dimensional or dimensionless aspects of reality.
Your problem is trying to factualize theoretical BS with no factual evidence and then trying to use fictitious forces and fake facts as proof...
@@Elkysium
If there's a flaw in my theorems or proofs then point it out, please.
Good work. Are you going to touch on sunspots and high temps, far from the sun?
Craters? Comets? Pulsars?
The EU have already covered these.
Probably, at some point.
They haven't got anyone with a clue about any of those things.
To be fair I don't think mathematicians are dummies by any stretch of the imagination. If anyone is, it's someone like me for not being as gifted in thinking that way as they are. So I'm not going to pile on to criticizing their system even if it deserves it. But without people like me mingling among them at their level to begin with, what is unique and helpful about how someone like me thinks is not going to get to mingle with and aid in their endeavors, so they will be specifically lacking that in how they make hypotheses. I've got to catch up to proficiency with what I'm not gifted with enough to then gift them with what they wouldn't intuit without people like me likewise. Not to be too self-presumptive, but what I'm saying is I do know i have some valuable insights they do not and they're not going to seek out people who don't fully grasp their sphere of thought without enough to intrigue them, so we have to do it ourselves. We have to become polymaths of epistemologies.
I guess what most people don't realize is that physics is intentionally kept that way. due to obvious reasons for anyone in the military. People dont realize the whole panet was put on house arrest not long ago, and I could go on...
Big Banger's 😅🤙 LOL
Where are the thunderbolts?
Invisible threads of electricity accompanied by the magnetic fields they produce
thunder only happens in an atmosphere
@@andyman8630 And flying is impossible.
What are your thoughts on the work of Saw Wai Hla?
Fun times.
By academic consensus, we are a cult.😎🖖
Traditionally, theology was called the queen of the sciences because in ancient times, the word for science was derived from the Latin word to know (scire). Science as we know it now did not exist.
Well sience now has been dominated by the materialist reductionism for a few centuries. That wasn't always the case.
In the beginning of modern science, metaphysics have been studied aswell -> just like in ancient times. Until Decartes (a jesuit inquisition fanatic) neatly made anything metaphysical taboo and the domain of the church and science got the material rest of what was left. A false dychotomy was born ( "magic" science)
❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️
The problem is fundamental. That is, the basis for or understanding of everything is flawed. Mathematicians masquerading as Physicists completely dropped the ball on this. Time is merely the local observations of change, and any non-local readings are going to be erroneous. So we get the Assertion, with no actual evidence that Light & Gravity (both forces) are carried by "something" that travels; this clearly violates every experiment.
This is wrong, and all observations fit the hypothesis that "time" is merely local observations. "time" isnt even part of the object being observed, its just the length of the observation.
Ta!🌩️✨
Our physical reality is just the monitor or screen 📺, nothing really happens here. It’s in the exchanges between the elements of the computer running the program that things are decided and situations resolved. And the energy to run the program comes from yet a higher underlying system which is created and operated by entities undetectable from the level of manifestation where experienc occurs, the screen or our experience. You do not inhabit your body it is operated from somewhere else.
Thunderbolts
Clowns
Spring is coming
For the stench of carrion on the wind
Scavengers will feed on fallen siblings
Till they too fall & are heard no more
Guffaw
I'm going with magnetic fields grounding currents into itself and magnetic fields as mass is outward force of pressure outside of a greater magnetic field. Internal magnetic fields ground currents through the nucleus or core where force is stronger and distance traveling is minimal. Equalization of pressure of force and distance traveling. Hydrogen has the strongest internal magnetic field. Hydrogen under extreme pressure expands into helium. Helium occupies more space and contains more heat energy currents grounding. Space is a weak external magnetic field filled with dark heat energy waves outside of entanglement of mass as potential renewable energy when in entanglement with mass. Heat energy and cold space itself don't mix. But cold pure space repulsion to heat energy propulsion from cold repulsion as outward force of pressure. Unification of unidirectional currents is repelled towards the weakest point of repulsion back onto itself as internal magnetic fields grounding currents into itself as mass. Mass neutralizes repulsion within it as outward pressure outside of a greater magnetic field as weightlessness. Inside a greater magnetic field flow, it's pressure of force of currents grounding of redirected currents towards the greater magnetic field grounding currents as force of pressure known as weight. Table of elements proves hypothesis. Hydrogen has the strongest internal magnetic field with the strongest force and minimal distance traveling equalization. As mass expands, its magnetic field weakens. Its distance traveling increases, and the force of pressure decreases. Lightning burns through atmospheres, decaying gasses into heat energy singularities and unoccupied space, creating a void of pure cold space and surrounding atmospheres strong enough to slam shut on the void created and thunderous heat waves resonate outward force of pressure. In space as a weak external magnetic field filled with dark heat energy, waves outside of entanglement are not strong enough to slam in on the void created by stars decaying their energy outward from exploding away their energy leaving a void behind. External heat energy throughout space collects around these void perimeters of empty absolute zero heat energy within as a monopole of repulsion from cold space itself to heat energy and forms an excretion disk grows massive as a strong external magnetic field surrounding these spheres as hurricanes and possibly tornadoes at their poles. Spheres and excretion disks are proof of repulsion from space. External magnetic fields disrupt normal repulsion of space itself as hurricanes surrounding these spheres of normal space and spin the heat energy within the reach of their magnetic fields of external heat energy. Proximity mass repulsion of normal space filled with dark heat energy outside of entanglement flow is disrupted by external energy, and grounding of energy within mass is repelled towards the weakest point of repulsion back onto the greater magnetic field of force flow. Mass disolves into external heat energy. Magnetism is a force of pressure. Force of weight. Force of weightlessness. Mass is an outward force of pressure from repulsion within occupational space. Mass occupies space as forward momentum and cold space pass through mass as mass moves through space. Renewable energy passes through all masses in its path until resistance is overcome by open space itself. Friction of opposing currents exchanging renewable energy sparks electrons lighting up atmospheres. Light is stationary. Light doesn't travel. Heat waves magnify light throughout space and atmospheres. Lightning is sparks of electrons as light. Heat transference through atmospheres and space magnifying lens of light. Light doesn't travel, heat does, and light is magnifying through it in atmospheres and space. Distance from stars affects the magnifying effects. The closer the stars, the greater the force of pressure known as sunburn. Magnifying concentrated heat to area and force of pressure. Magnets show the repulsion and propulsion capable of bonding force of pressure known as grounding currents in synchronization unification of unidirectional currents flowing. Theoretically factual probability that works with quantum physics without gravity.
WOW Sir, U are definitely a man of knowledge. I would like to think I understood a little of what u said but truth be told, I doubt that. Were u at any point discussing the galactic current sheet?
and gravity is a 'vector field' resulting from the mutual resonance between the electric and magnetic field of each and every hydrogen atom
Please don’t block me because I have a question but it doesn’t apply to this video but what’s your thoughts about the Thunderstorm Generator
Do you have a link?
@@kfast9260 czcams.com/video/F9E65EJftL4/video.htmlsi=DQiruxN3UcARUBLM
They have also found carbon 14 ( not in the exhaust )
The key to knowing everything is admitting that you know nothing!!¥
Yes, "humility should be key."
How will you get paid then?
@@avataros111 typical question from someone with a vary low IQ thanks bub¥
New Scientist tales from the crypt . . did recounter how to knock out a bank alarm with an EMP blast . . always useful in a pinch
Marriage
Terrance Howard might,through one visit on Joe Rogan ,shine the brightest light on the Electric Universe and the Saturn Myth.
Here's to Rogan possibly getting some more conversations about this revolutionary idea to more people.
"sci enti fic"... Know this is fiction.
Should answer the questions in it's own definition.
Mahe Ohna ✌️ Favour ALL
I suspect 'science' is going to get a lot darker before it ever (if never) gets brighter.
Very good presentation. Really shines a light on the scam. Poor Halton Arp.
Arp was trivially wrong. And was shown to be so. That NGC 4319 nonsense, for instance, was shown to be totally wrong in 1992! It is only trotted out by the crackpot fringe, these days.
Brilliant
Great work.
Gervais is comedian with a gigantic ego, he is good at making people laugh.......but he knows nothing of soul and why we are here. I have never met him on the inner planes.
_" I have never met him on the inner planes."_
He flies with British Airways.
He studied philosophy. Luckily for us, he went into comedy.
Science and Physics are two different things.
Are they? Do you suppose the laws of physics are scribbled in Sanskrit on the bottom of atoms? Science and physics are both observance and postulation followed by attempts at falsification. I fail to see how they are two different things unless you mean they are two different words, then you would be correct.
@@jamesbarber5410 With Science you define theories and hypothesis. With physics you define calibrated repeatable results with instruments. Science has no repeatable value to reality. That has been proven.
@@magnitudematrix2653 Tell me you are not serious?! It's mathematic and science are not the same; physics is part of science.
Well, theoretical physics is purely math-based.
“… the underlying assumptions of cosmologists today are developed with the most sophisticated mathematical methods and it is only the plasma itself which does not ‘understand’ how beautiful the theories are and absolutely refuses to obey them.” Hannes Alfvén
There is no longer a real need for universities. All of the information you need for you degree is online. You can learn what you need to know for free. The other issue is quality, peer reviewed references for your papers. They could put all those documents in a free clearing house so we don't have to labor for them. They could cut a four year degree down to two weeks if they got rid of all the bureaucracy and fluff.
Hawking visited Epstein's island. So have other scientific notables.
Ricky called out Hollywood to their face.
He's being a little more subtle here.
Too much science of a certain type (at least the public face of science) has modelled itself as the voice of reason and common sense as opposed to conspiracy theories like flat earth or as opposed to religion in general or American evangelicism in particular.
The problem is that preceipitates a general feeling that if you are diagreeing then you must be either a conspiracy theorist or a superstitious or religious person.
As such science has talked itself into a corner and become the tutting, smirking older brother, sneering like the comic book guy from the Simpsons at any explanation of any alternative theory, no matter how well argued.
Sorry.
Marvelous, Sir. The Writes brothers' dismissal by the Scientific American magazine is extraordinary and a very powerful illustration of why science is always work in progress, I bet that "genius", Sean Carol, don't want to understand that. Thanks.
Government is the corruptive problem. If you had a Free Market principle in science for funding rather than Government Force, corruption would be much less.
I hope sincerely that the EU proponents are not falling in the same dogmatic trap by ignoring the message of quantum physics that mind is primary in this universe.
@ ~ 11:45:
Quoting Alfven, who was a bit full of himself, by some accounts;
He was talking about things as they were a loooooong time ago. When plasma physics was in its infancy. And he couldn't get certain papers published on the subject in some journals. That was in the 1940s! Hell, Eugene Parker got his paper on the solar wind rejected in 1958 by ApJ! He had to appeal to the editor, a chap by the name of Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar. He let it through. Parker now has a space probe named after him. Chandrasekhar is famous (among other things) for the 'Chandrasekhar limit'. Alfven has waves named after him. And the Alfven velocity.
It was all a long time ago, children.
And, as Anthony Peratt said, Alfven would want nothing to do with the impossible, unscientific, unpublished nonsense of EU. He would probably want nothing to do with much of what Peratt wrote, for that matter!
But hey, let's take a look at what gets published these days, shall we? Some fringe bloke suggesting that the universe is twice its accepted age! Which is trivially wrong, and simple to show as being wrong.
Eric Lerner getting impossible nonsense published.
MOND, which is not crackpot (not quite), but opposes dark matter and relativity (at least it used to!) gets published. And on it goes. All sorts of rubbish gets past peer-review. Why can't EU get anything published? Hint: because it isn't science, and they don't even submit their woo.
@ ~ 3:25:
Nope, the conservation of energy is not violated. Your understanding of BBT is just plain wrong.
The problem is universal, not just in university, or in science, or in religion, or in secular religion. Its not just in politics, or in business. Its not just in family or community either.
The problem is that there is a vast difference between interpretation, and observable or otherwise experienced reality.
I see this alot in religion.
An example...
People ask alot "what does it mean "the scepter shall not pass from judah until shiloh comes" and then everyone answering says it means "messiah coming in the future" or it means "when peace comes, since shiloh means peace".
No.
The answer is literally in the scripture you got the question from. Shiloh was the capital of the isrealites established by Joshua, son of Nun of the tribe of Ephraim, son of Joseph. It was established after moses lead them from egypt.
Judah was the patriarch of israel, having the birthright (son who inherited the family legacy) inherited from Jacob when jacob became elderly and weak and sickly. He went to egypt as the patriarch in his fathers stead to beg for grain, and ultimately capitulated to joseph. The whole family capitulated to joseph. The sceptor left judah and went to joseph. This was finalized when israel left egypt under moses, tribe of levi, and was handed over to Joshua who established Shiloh. Shiloh came when it was founded. The sceptor was given to Joshua, the descendant of Joseph who was the messiah of the time.
Of course there is more to the story after that, but I made my point concerning the topic.
There is no need for interpretation. It literally tells you what it means. Interpretation is of the ego, and tempts one away from truth and reality. It is idolatry, in religious terms.
So dont tell me what you think it is or feel it is, and say "this is what it is".
Tell me what it is. That is all that is true and what is real.
What are we actually observing. I care not of your models created in the image of your imaginations.
Leave your dogma and ego at the door. So we can actually attend reality. No matter the subject. 👍 together.
Too bad the world didn't demand peer review on wearing masks. I'm sorry, it was already done back in 1910's. What does a sheeople say? I don't know, baa ram yew?
ai much?
Just because you don't have anything new to say doesn't mean you need to produce a new video repeating the same obvious quotes we've all already heard about countless of times. There is nothing new and yet you talk over 10 minutes. Please, focus on those viewers who need high quality information and novel research, and not this.
@ ~ 3:00;
Re Georges Lemaître; that is an outright lie. He was not trying to square anything with religion. His, or anyone else's. He even advised the Pope not to use his theory as support for creation.
Lemaître was one of those people that the EU have none of - a physicist. And his theory would stand or fall on the evidence. And the evidence supported him. And is accepted by all - including the highly atheistic fields of astrophysics and cosmology. And is detested by creationists!
Sorry ian but Lemaître is unwittingly revealing his preference and ranking of one belief system over another, by firstly asserting that the trinity story is subordinate to any other incompressible mussing of mere mortals. This is a bias pure and simple, particularly when his sighting of an authority that must be the standard for any verifiable truth, is what a real God must have included within the storey to Saint Paul or to Moses. The idea of salvation being somehow a measure of a truth invented and designed to be as unfalsifiable and as "abstruse" a notion that distinguishes itself above that of science, only because of it's esoteric value. So Lemaître new what he was doing when he noticed that a "division of powers" via semantics would not get him kicked out of the faith. Deal with that, my narrow minded friend.
“Should a priest reject relativity because it contains no authoritative exposition on the doctrine of the Trinity? Once you realize that the Bible does not purport to be a textbook of science, the old controversy between religion and science vanishes . . . The doctrine of the Trinity is much more abstruse than anything in relativity or quantum mechanics; but, being necessary for salvation, the doctrine is stated in the Bible. If the theory of relativity had also been necessary for salvation, it would have been revealed to Saint Paul or to Moses.”
― Georges Lemaitre
@@susmarcon Which says precisely nothing about the BBT, and the physics behind it. You think Lemaitre was the only person who ever worked on that theory? You think the only people that have accepted that theory are all religious? Lol. It would be hard to find a more atheistic bunch than astrophysicists! Biologists pip them, I believe, but that is about it. So, how do you explain all those atheistic people accepting the BBT? Based on EVIDENCE? Which your cult cannot explain. It wouldn't make a whit of difference had the proposer of the theory been a Catholic, a Hindu, a Muslim, or an atheist. Like all scientific theories, it makes predictions, and is supported by evidence. If the evidence hadn't favoured it, it would not have been accepted by those who formerly favoured the steady-state model, many of whom were/ are atheists.
So all this rubbish about Lemaitre is a smokescreen from laymen who cannot deal with the evidence for BBT. And don't even try. As I keep telling you, you have no science.
@@ianw7898 Which is precisely the point. As I said, Lemaître was a "modern" free thinking scientist who found a way to cross the streams, so that his adoption of insights by other thinkers that preceded him, could find a home alongside biblical teaching. This fusion was indeed a mechanism to align the theological with the scientific, for the sake of the church, and to neutralise hitherto heretical notions that could not be assimilated..... "So, how do you explain all those atheistic people accepting the BBT?" .... Easy, they never had to answer to the church.
" If the evidence hadn't favoured it, it would not have been accepted by those who formerly favoured the steady-state model, many of whom were/ are atheists."..... Again you fall into your own trap. Many, atheist or no, do not accept the BB, and the "evidence" is in question every day.
Science is not static ian. (Unless its electrical)
@@susmarcon _"Many, atheist or no, do not accept the BB, and the "evidence" is in question every day."_
No it isn't. Name one example of anyone providing a valid scientific alternative for the CMB. Or cosmological redshift. Or any of the other lines of evidence that support LCDM. You can't. All you have is word salad. And no, there are not 'many' atheists who question BBT. The vast majority accept it. It is only religiously inspired cults like yours that question it, based on no science whatsoever.
_"Science is not static ian."_
Duh! We know. It it were, we would still be following the failed steady-state models! We would not have had to accept accelerated expansion of the universe, based on the SNe 1a time dilation measurements within the last ~ 30 years. More latterly supported by other evidence.
The point is that science moves along based on new observations and evidence. Your cult has no science, so is not even part of the process. Any more than flat earth is. As a science-free zone, you are not in a position to even criticise real science. You need to find some supporters who actually understand the science before you can even begin to criticise. You have no such people.
@@ianw7898 Well, others have pointed out that a modified temperature-redshift relation (T-z relation) of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) cannot be deduced by any observational method that appeals to an a priori thermalisation to the CMB temperature T of the excited states in a probe environment of independently determined redshift z. For example, this applies to quasar-light absorption by a damped Lyman-alpha system due to atomic as well as ionic fine-splitting transitions or molecular rotational bands. Similarly, the thermal Sunyaev-Zel’dovich (thSZ) effect cannot be used to extract the CMB’s T-z relation. This is because the relative line strengths between ground and excited states in the former and the CMB spectral distortion in the latter case both depend, apart from environment-specific normalisations, solely on the dimensionless spectral variable 𝑥=ℎ𝜈𝑘𝐵𝑇. Since the literature on extractions of the CMB’s T-z relation always assumes (i) 𝜈(𝑧)=(1+𝑧)𝜈(𝑧=0), where 𝜈(𝑧=0) is the observed frequency in the heliocentric rest frame, the finding (ii) 𝑇(𝑧)=(1+𝑧)𝑇(𝑧=0) just confirms the expected blackbody nature of the interacting CMB at 𝑧>0. In contrast to the emission of isolated, directed radiation, whose frequency-redshift relation (𝜈-z relation) is subject to (i), a non-conventional 𝜈-z relation 𝜈(𝑧)=𝑓(𝑧)𝜈(𝑧=0)of pure, isotropic blackbody radiation, subject to adiabatically slow cosmic expansion, necessarily has to follow that of the T-z relation 𝑇(𝑧)=𝑓(𝑧)𝑇(𝑧=0)and vice versa. In general, the function 𝑓(𝑧) is determined by the energy conservation of the CMB fluid in a Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker universe. If the pure CMB is subject to an SU(2) rather than a U(1) gauge principle, then 𝑓(𝑧)=(1/4)1/3(1+𝑧) for 𝑧≫1, and 𝑓(𝑧)is non-linear for 𝑧∼1......" and the "evidence" is in question every day."
Most of your videos criticize mainstream science. But you rarely come up with solutions or models. Saying the universe is electric, or made of plasma, is not quite enough.
See the next episode, coming soon.
They don't have any models. Or solutions. They don't have any science. It is as simple as that.
You can't get something from nothing so you aren't going to get a scientifically acceptable answer with the information we have. Whatever created the universe must exist before it and outside of it, What we call the Father, His command set everything in motion and the breath of His command is the light that moves to His will. Big bang isn't bible.. it could be, but it isn't stated as such. We have Fathers Word and Spirit of God, how that applies in physics is fuzzy.