Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
Why I am Doing Science on YouTube?
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 02. 2024
- A couple of questions that come to my mind when reflecting the current status of fundamental physics...
Mind also my backup channel:
odysee.com/@Th...
My books: www.amazon.com/Alexander-Unzicker/e/B00DQCRYYY/
Your CZcams videos are always interesting, Dr. Unzicker. Retired computer programmer, here, who studied maths and physics some 50 years ago.
Alex, please keep it up. I'm a physicist who left academia and worked 20 years in IT. I'm back now and looking into VSL theories. I agree. The flood of low-value scientific papers was a problem even back in the late 90s. It is now much worse. Anything I publish will most certainly be swallowed into that black hole and get lost under the massive weight of gibberish. I'm looking to the Internet, CZcams in particular, as a vehicle to get new ideas out there.
I jettisoned Grad School after assembling 10 3-page papers from "Physics Letters" into what should have been 1 30-page paper in "The Physical Review". It felt like a racket.
science isn't a democracy or popularity contest.
So, Alex, don't let us amateurs encourage you to please keep it up.
@user-vp1vl6yp9t Speak for yourself. Even though I don't seek outside funding, I don't consider myself an amateur. I am a scientist, but I'm definitely not an academic. This gives me a lot of intellectual freedom and lifts from me the publish or perish burden. So, as a non-academic scientist, I'll continue to encourage Alex to, keep it up. ❤️
For what it's worth, I subscribed and will get notified when you decide to upload your thoughts.
@@No_handle839I wholly disagree. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy and 1 of the main reasons why academia has become corrupted. Some notable academics have already announced that we've ushered in a scientific dark age through the advent of scientism.
If you want to know more and a concrete suit of scandals, you should check out Elisabeth Bik. She's responsible for unveiling numerous Nobel winning data fraudsters.
Peer review has been put above critical thinking and the scientific method. Probably due to financial incentives. PhDs need citations, journals need interesting papers, peer reviewers just need to blind approve or try to reproduce every study they come across. A strict peer review process takes more time and makes less money for everyone involved.
"science as a means of subsistence"
Subsistence has always been a game of knowledge and experimentation. We flatter ourselves to see a difference between a gladiator, a lab technician, and a field worker in different lights. They are all alike slaves of an empire that serves itself.
Thank you for your refreshingly challenging point of view Sir.
Alex, I couldn't agree more. As a graduated electronics engineer with additional education in applied quantum electronics, nuclear engineering and aerospace engineering, I was used to accept state of basic research simply as an input to create practical products from. Everything changed, when my professor and my humble self built and apparatus for measuring gravity according to Newton's law of gravity by a completely new method with a low viscosity non-polar liquid by optical-ratiometric means (h
Do you have any links to follow up on this? You should make a blog post about it or consider talking to a news agency.
Sounds cool. I discovered planet formation is stellar evolution, in that life is formed directly from the energy of a star’s evolution. Meaning it is forming anywhere a star is evolving.
you state "but the principal of our university patented the apparatus. After publication of the patent" What is the patent number? Even if somehow the publication is erased from the patent server, there would still be a number associated with the erasure.
@@mmotsenbocker Patent-Number is PCT/CH2008000027 However, you will find nothing. Also, the «good stuff» is not in the patent, but in the NDAs, we had to sign. Physics however is not affected, because it can't be kept secret. If you are interested and familiar with calculus, basic principles of relativity, quantum physics and QFT (Quantum Field Theory) I can tell you, why nobody ever has found a quantum exchange particle for gravity, but coheerently excited and polarized Cooper-pairs can be persuaded to bend spacetime in a dipolar manner (one business end attractive, the other repulsive).
I admire what you do, Dr Unzicker.
science isn't a democracy or popularity contest.
So, Alex, don't let us amateurs encourage you to please keep it up.
He's not a Dr.
I'm an Old Bastard.
I remember when CZcams's motto was: "Broadcast yourself".
Who remembers Google's motto: "Don't be evil."?
Ah, good times back then.
Thank you for doing so. I am not an academic, but I love to get informed about science. You are a great source of knowledge to me.
Thanks to Alexander Unzicker, I have known of Andre Assis's "Relational Mechanics", and immediately downloaded the pdf.
It seems that in many fields of physics there is a scientific revolution going on and starting to come out. Very glad to see it.
If learning the ultimate truth is the goal of a scientist, then he ought to doubt every thing previously told and you are in the correct path. Allways allthe way sincerely respect you Unzicker!
I find VSL theories and Large Number Hypothesis interesting too.
The physics that I did at school was interesting for me but convoluted and there were many experiments and devices yet to be built and tested. The results of such things as colliders and other data recovery device did not seem to prove anything without further convolutions. Today however due in the main I think to CZcams presentations a new and rational model for the cosmos has emerged I can even understand a great deal of what is shown and the criticisms of that which went before. It`s refreshing for me to realise that I was not particularly stupid in not understanding the original cosmology, because todays non-mainstream cosmology clearly function well and fits all observations. Thank you very much I believe I am most fortunate to have discovered your [ and others ] work.
I'm glad you're on CZcams! I have been pointing people to your videos where you discuss 'the big flash vs. the big bang', gravitational red shift, and your discussions on how the surface of the sun is liquid.
Physics "has become a mess, its boring and its bureaucratic..." and most importantly "physics is detached from reality."
You nailed it.
I have consulted a number of professional particle physicists over the last few years and pointed out the very extensive data that clearly shows linear acceleration of electrons (from vaccum tubes to linear accelerators) does not produce photons but that angular acceleration (such as transverse deflection by magnetic field) is required. In every case, the expert refused to even acknowledge the exhaustive evidence and just told me to "follow the (contradictory) 100 year old equation and shut up." I spent much time getting data on photon generation, accidently discovered a property of photon spin, and submitted my paper to 5 established physics journals last year and in every case each refused to acknowledge my data, or to even consider my experimental design or find faults in it. (I finally published in Asia) The Anglo-European physics community does not publish evidence or hypothesis testing for the most part but conflates dream states with science. I have given up on the physics community and am now going around them by building out advanced technical devices that exploit my discovery as faster communications that are not subject to or limited by the Fourier Transform, which requires a long wave train to encode each bit of information. The so called physics research community seems to be the main impediment to progress in physics, and we truly have already entered the next dark age.
Finding you, Sabine, Eric Weinstein, and his brother Bret on the internet has been wonderful. As Bret Weinstein recently pointed out, those of us who search for truth are indirectly being pushed together, as we are pushed out of politicized "Science!" Perhaps the truth seekers should build out and inhabit new spaces made possible by the internet to get together and continue objective reality checked enquiry in a new modality. We need to build a new tradition based on the new tools available to us. In this overall context your videos are very inspiring.
I noticed that too. Accelerating electrons don't produce light. We have ac circuit and no light. We open up the circuit and beget the dipole antenna. I heard that monopole antenna is a dipole in disguise. I am only aware of dipoles that produce light. Electrons would need to be near a nucleus to produce light. Dipole again. Sky scholar youtube channel is also good.
thank you. you can find my 2 papers on this topic by googling my name Motsenbocker with "photon spin" I learned how to generate photons with direct current at individual wavelength duration, isolated pulses. btw I just subscribed sky scholar@@natashashvetz405
Resistance produces light and raises the thermal dynamics, color of light will range from red to white. The fastest the acceleration the quicker it will change from red to white...
Physics has always had a problem with talking about unclear or not well-defined concepts.
For example, "doing science" on CZcams, so, what is it?
Is "doing science" on CZcams the same as "speaking science" on CZcams to amateur enthusiasts?
Physicists live in their universe, which is in their imagination. The most obvious question is whether the universe is continuous or discrete.
Specifically, the physicists only do continuous universe. Einstein's universe is even better because it is smooth. For example, Einstein and his followers use differential equations, and the curvature is the combination of second-order derivatives.
So, never mind just one gravitational constant. The General Theory of Relativity needs the matrix of metrics with the second derivatives, which are many functions.
Where and how did Einstein obtain these smooth functions? Is it even possible to get them?
Talking about "physics is detached from reality."
The physics and physicists don't even care about the universe being continuous or discrete.
Schrodinger's cat is the most well-known example of whether our universe is continuous or discrete because the concept of the half-life of radioactive atoms' decay is continuous, and the radioactive atoms are finite and discrete. What is a half of an odd number of atoms? So, the continuous half-life of some discrete and finite radioactive atoms is illogical. Of course, our physicists could say that the half-life is only an approximate concept. If that is the case, Schrodinger's cat cannot logically argue life and death, such as black and white issues, with the approximate quantity of half-life.
You are doing a great job! You are putting your knowledge and expertise where people can see and learn from it. If you were 5000 y ago you would be writng on papyrus or on cuneiform tablets! You are a light in the dark ages of XXl century media and corporate science! Please, dr Unzicker keep up the superb job going! 👏🏻
The second that quality of universities were determinated by the QUANTITY of peer reviewed papers - the battle for quality of science was indeed doomed.
Dr. Unziger - respect for your work!
He's not a doctor of any kind!
Dr. Alexander Unzicker is right. The reason history shows time and time again that civilisations lasts on average 10 generations is because the structure of civilisation become too complex. We are once again at the point of collapse. Our legacy organizations are moribund and can no longer carry out their prime objectives. We must rebuild - with new bricks.
He's not a doctor of any kind!
Relativity is essentially an ideology: "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox" Peter Hayes, Social Epistemology journal 2009.
False ideologies can be debunked quite easily. Go for it - you got a 2-7 offsuit.
"Science has turned from a purpose of life into a means of subsistence." I believe this also to be profoundly true of the arts, and also, clearly, of politics. Humanity has allowed itself to be completely corrupted by the ideology of the market. We're in crisis as a species.
Science is presently in a shocking state and desperately needs those actively involved to speak up.
I've been offering my unifying theory for sale, satisfaction guaranteed, for years. No 1 is listening. Physicists say they want a unifying theory. But they don't really want it. If they did they could have bought it years ago.
We need to get this collider stuff over with, I figure if we just build a 20 trillion dollar large equator collider we can get this all wrapped up.
They’d just want a Dyson sphere sized one
Today, science is not only business but also a big show. There are a lot of people who make a living from science, but in essence they are not scientists but actors in a scientific role. So, keep on being the torchbearer of science on CZcams.
Rephrasing what Schrödinger said (image at 07:20): today’s physics community, in its hubris prevents ideas from outside of its community from even being heard.”
The ideas are there, they are just being aggressively squelched.
can you suggest a location to publish "the ideas" that you refer to? bty I suggest STM journals, which are published from India.
@@mmotsenbocker I wish I knew?
I think “The solution” will only come following the next “patent clerk” that makes his ideas known through social media, thereby embarrassing the entire physics community, and exposing how it has crippled innovation and progress.
Hopefully this video inspires more high school physics teachers to think deeply and not merely completely submit to drinking all of the mainstream coolaid.
Fundamental physics breakthroughs involving high-school level math are waiting to be discovered...
Time is not an illusion. It is a relationship. Time= distance/speed (2 hours= 60 miles/30 mph). Then time is a comparison of rates of change.
Yes, modern physics is indeed detached from reality.
Only because you are scared of Whitten
I appreciate your style and videos.
I grew up as a musician who is also the son and grandson of architects, engineers, and surveyors. After failing at becoming a rock star, I became an electronics tech and started reading books about physics. I discovered Dr. Pierre-marie Robitaille after finding the Electric Universe people and watching videos of some of their conferences. I also discovered S.J. Crothers and Eric Lerner among others who are pointing out that the various standard models of our understanding regarding speed of light, big bang, expanding universe, star formation, etc. and other voices pointing out discrepancies in our understanding of history, prehistory, civilizations, mans ascent from apes or descent from space aliens, etc. (again). Then I also find things like magick, mind control, life after death, telekinesis, telepathy, spooky-action-at-a-distance, quantum entanglement, and why electrons actually don't move very fast compared with the speed at which current travels as a field. At this point I find the quote (forgive me if I butcher it) "The universe is not only queerer than we suppose; it is queerer than we CAN suppose!" to be the sanest view to take. I hope you will continue shining your light into the darkness through which we all are stumbling. My question has always been "Why are we here and what's going on?" Cheers.
Blah blah blah
anyone who would question your use of open platforms like this has an implicit belief that science is a very specific publication industry.
given that this is the most widespread belief surrounding science, I generally just cut the middleman and straight up point out that for most people what they really mean by 'science' is not rigor, investigation into the workings of nature, or anything along those lines at all, but simply the publication industry wherein the concept of peer review and publishing papers for fame exists.
I have absolutely no interest in that meaning of 'science', and as such, I would pretty flatly deny that anything I do is science or an attempt at science. and the reason is that I am genuinely interested in rigor and investigating the workings of nature. and frankly, regardless of your definition of science, that often falls outside of it anyway, since no interpretation of 'science' has a monopoly on rigor or truth.
not to mention the fact that published science has a terrible track record regarding hoaxes and perpetuating just obviously absurd claims for generations. from things like Clovis First, to Piltdown, to cat vocalizations vs the composition of their hyoid, published science is simply more full of absolute nonsense that is maintained for long periods specifically because of peer review, than it is of correct claims which came about due to a proper critical response mediated by peer review.
1:33 Those stacks of books *literally* speak volumes.
I'm gonna need to find that pic (or something like it), print it out and shove it in the face of anybody who says that science isn't moving anymore.
Social media is a type of peer review after you weed out the trolls 😁👍
if a court of justice consists of a jury of your peers, wouldn't your peers vouch for your behaviour given those peers would be benefiting from the same racket.
Euclid did not publish every month.
and Darwin wrote a single work.
Check Vivian Robinson's exact gravitation, and real physics behind: g=GM/(R×D)², where D is time dilation, compared to Einstein's g≈GM/(R²×(1+2Z)), where Z is redshift. Close, because D=1+Z, but application difference is revolutionary. The simplest difference in short popular article:
New Explanation of Black Hole Images, Without Holes in Spacetime.
Logic isn't dependent on the medium it is transferred with.
If you don't agree, point me to the blackboard I need to write it on. So that you do agree.
I love science and new breakthrough discoveries like you and Robitaille have presented. Your kind is the reason I love this. Keep going and forget about the hyped peer review process and just continue to make new great discoveries.
When nobody in science talks about the breakthrough, it isn't a breakthrough. Trust me. The Noble would bring them a whole lot of cash...
Keep going, you get a bigger audience with less of the constraints. You are free to propose ideas you couldn't elsewhere.
You don't have to be correct, just stay founded with science that can discussed with observable data, or what's based on it. Your rational arguments are very thought provoking.
Also glad you don't get angry at a contradictory evedence, that is a sign of a quack.
"stay founded with science that can discussed with observable data, or what's based on it" you are so right. We need to find or establish a location where we can find such to focus our limited time. My experience-the physics community/journals dont respect data or experimentation that evaluates basic hypotheses.
We need to go back to r² and the inverse square law, 3+1 physics!
Peer review and authoritarianism in modern science reminds me of the Catholic Church's insistence on a knowledge of Latin to enter the priesthood. It is human nature to arrange barriers to protect one's position. The phenomenon is wider than science with the MSM now being rejected in favour of finding occasional nuggets in YT.
As a science communication tool [populist CZcamsing], one must also consider how one explains the misunderstandings of others [contradictory theorists], especially when they present 'true' facts in a misunderstood way. New and controversial science only 'wins' once one is able to assist disbelievers in coming to an appreciation of the nuances they have stepped over. And hopefully acknowledging it.
Age of search engine, real physics as subscribe for fundamental. Issue is a symmetry of U and E around a central point.
Sun's surface is a burning background for peers. Decide seen and unseen ; derive known and unknown.
Engraved in nature's law , relativity and quantum. Is science clean on motivation and the problems are real as physics.
Thank you for your concern.
There is really a lot of noise and redundancy in the scientific literature. And this has been happening for 50 years or more. A high proportion of peer review committees act as censors and not as impartial professionals or editors seeking to help authors present their points of view or results as clearly as possible. Many members of these committees actively seek to block access to the journal they represent to those they perceive as competitors or as representatives of other schools of thought. Many committees are made up of authors who have banded together to propose a new journal to a publisher, simply because they were unable to publish in a peer-reviewed journal.
Thank you for your great work! I was away from physics for many years. I have a B.S. and M.A. in Physics. However, beginning with the Electric Universe, Sabine, P.M. Robetaille, and your channel, I've had to rethink a lot of concepts. I had never heard of Variable Speed of Light, nor did I understand that the Sun IS a black body and the early universe IS NOT. I agree with your approach that science must be simpler and we should not have all these arbitrary constants. Popular science seems to perpetuate so many erroneous concepts, i.e. cosmology, dark matter, dark energy, red-shifts, etc.. Thanks again!
CERN is the reason you can do physics on CZcams. Thank Tim Berners-Lee for that.
No, Lilienfeld and Heil are the reason.
I totally support your bringing science to You Tube, current science is driven by investment. Science for it's own sake is no longer supported. Bringing science back to reality through debate is sorely missed. The whole science regarding new models of liquid sun and plasma cosmology and the lack of evidence regarding dark matter after spending billions seems pigheaded at best.
Please help me understand the difference between the following: Paul Dirac predicted antimatter using theoretical arguments. Nowadays, physicist are using theoretical arguments to predict things that have not been discovered yet; akin Paul Dirac's prediction of anti-matter which wasn't discovered yet. If the physicist of today use the same method,, why is it so "bad""?
Yeah a year ago you hated CZcams science..... Another communicator... Just what the world needs.
Watching flies trapped in a covered empty aquarium. Some remain still at the bottom, others walk along the walls and others bump their heads flying against the glass, looking for passage. We do exactly the same, perhaps by instinct. Physicists racking their brains to understand the invisible limits of our reality in the hope to find an explanation or a way to another place. To me, this is the only option. Those who have chosen to stop exploring will have the same fate as the sand at the bottom.
My biology teacher at high school, talking about anthills, asked: "how is it possible for such simple and primitive beings to have such a complex organization so similar to ours?". I think he’s asked the wrong question. The question I ask myself is: how is it possible that individuals as complex and intelligent as us humans behave the same way as ants?
The answer seems obvious: we don't fully understand the basic rules that create such behavior and, most likely, they are exactly the same in both cases.
Hello Mr. Unzicker. Long time watcher here. So, did you ever do a deep dive on Wilhelm Eduard Weber, the German physicist and his interesting "alternative" to Maxwell's equations?
Wal Thornhill was a big fan of this guy.
What is the experimental endgame? Geon based acceleration tests of electron neutrinos in the oort cloud? I agree plenty of insights can be obtained with table top scale devices, but some energy configurations can only be harvested from the sun or formed past 10AU.
If he were still alive, I wonder what Fritz Zwicky would think of the lack of progress in fundamental physics. He developed his own method for creative thinking called Morphological Analysis.
Not easy to have serious debates on CZcams, with its insane anti-spam algorithm. It makes no distinction between real spam and legitimate comments. I have a tendency to write a lot, and under many videos. But CZcams doesn't like that. I've recently had my channel wiped out by YT without even a single warning. I lost a lot of important content. You basically cannot post links in your comments to your channel and videos, and that's too bad. Sometimes, those links are the only way to get your points across.
Why dont you start a science debate channel, following rules of evidence that have been developed by the courts for truth discovery? I would join.............
.....THIS IS DOING SCIENCE.....
I like to say to other people: scientists are not gods or special people, the only difference between scientists and the rest, is that scientists write what they observe and they share with it people
the other is magic religion and occultism...
keep it up Fritz! ;)
Of all the online commentators I have viewed, you may be the best for considering my question: How do computer models constitute science? Computer models can't be falsified, merely adjusted. This violates Popper's falsifiability requirement for real science. I come from philosophy, not science, so I'm probably missing something. Please tell me what that might be. Thank you.
A computer model can still be falsified the same way a model written down on paper is: if it predicts the future incorrectly then its been falsified. When they adjust it, it's because the previous model's predictions were false. One issue I see with computer models is that they can be used to make thousands of predictions very quickly, some of which will inevitably be true even if the majority are false, and the successful percentage can then be more easily cherry picked while the errors get dismissed.
@@rumfordc So...a computer model can be falsified only by checking the accuracy of its prediction? What about along-term predictions? For instance, how can a computer model that predicts global warming in the distant future be falsified, except to wait and find out if its predictions come true hundreds of years from now? (!!) Waiting that long renders the prediction useless. The element of time here strikes me as critical.
@@composerlafave Those are great questions, which I think should be directed toward whoever is presenting you the long-term predictions, but I think you've already answered them well-enough for yourself: "waiting that long [is] useless" exactly right. Anybody making long-term predictions should be able to justify it as a longer series of short-term predictions. If the long-term prediction comes true, each of the short-term predictions must come true. As soon as one of those short-term predictions fails, the long-term prediction is falsified even if its final prediction by chance comes true.
To put it simply, you shouldn't trust people who are only willing to make useless long-term predictions without putting anything on the line in the case that they're wrong.
You are not. “The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics. See the “rethinking “ part.
I like yuor Videos , its very interesting to known your points of view about Modenr Particle Phisycs , all the "strange" things that the Oficial Community say ""The Model is done, its perfect" or something , but there are very biass things
A few years ago I watched a video by the editor in chief of the NEJM if I recall, stating that about 80% of the papers brought to his attention did not meet scientific criteria. Peer review is a sham.
It would be better to ask, why nobody takes me seriously? (Except for some frustrated people and amateurs).
I have often thought one of the problems with fundamental theoretical physics is simply the increasing amounts of energy and precision required to do the critical experiments and make the critical measurements. At some point, the marginal increases in knowledge become either prohibitively expensive or simply impossible. This tends to result in an increasing tolerance for increasingly wild speculation and an increasing dependence on the derived-or simply invented-mathematical structures: a kind of quantified fairy tale.
There will come a point where fundamental physics has to stop because the requisite base of knowledge is unattainable. It will not stop, however, because that curve is asymptotic and you can always squeeze, or seem to squeeze, a bit more out of the untenable situation, thus justifying your salary or research grants.
On the other hand, I don’t find the end of fundamental physics particularly troublesome since I am in the camp (American?) that views theoretical and experimental physics as merely the facilitation of engineering, not some sort of prolegomenon to philosophy. The actual philosophical implications of physics are quite limited and generally negative in character.
Excellent! CZcams and the internet is the new “print media” of centuries ago. Science needs to adapt. And you are driving that change.
Dr. Unzicker, using youtube to communicate science to a less educated audience can be fruitful. However, the communicators need to be clear and not spead misinformation. Some of the ideias you present in various videos can be thought-provoking, albeit being somewhat controversial. My question is why don't you take your ideias and beliefs and try to build a theory or do any research work, instead of only doing exposition?
He's not a doctor of any kind!
I hope you have seen Dr. Edward Dowdye's video concerning the bending of light ONLY in the limb's of our sun. What are your thoughts on this topic? Also, I really appreciate your video's. Thank You Sir !
CZcams provides an opportunity for the censored minority of scientists to be published.
Have you read "the science of can and can't" by chiara marletto? I found it novel, refreshing and it agrees with you about the state of physics. A review of it would be interesting
people who printed less were way smarter.
imagine what a genius, for example, a Democrites was, 3000 years before microscopes.
Thank you for putting your information on CZcams!
Such questions involve the logical fallacy of appeal to authority, when in science, the only authority is reason.
100% Agree, keep doing what your doing !
Greetings from Sri Lanka.
Making your ideas and views freely available must have some value to someone, somewhere.
You should continue your work in yt or any other platform like Odysee ... I would place content on Odysee also. thank you for your Work and keep posting.
I wonder about space and time and the notion of Euclids postulates not being truth in fact. Phycisists tell us that they are not true because energy minimization leads to curved space and time. But curved space and time requires the conflation of space and time. Space and time are separate dimensions. I believe in Euclids postulates. Pls tell me how I am wrong. This stuff prevents me from being interested in Establishment physics.
Yes, Unzicker! Your approach is absolutely the right one.
You are not doing Science on CZcams. You presented Sciama's work and Mach's Principle as the basis for your Science and yet failed to take into consideration LIGO observations of Gravitational "Waves" and Light arriving at the same time at detectors.
There is no reason to consider that Gravitation has infinite velocity and inertia is a non-local property (determined by the Gravitational Interaction with ALL THE MASSES IN THE UNIVERSE.
For you to do Science, you have to learn from your mistakes and it doesn't seem you do. That is the basis for your Scientific Project and somehow you are still here...:)
I have a similar project. That said, I dotted the is and crossed the ts.
There seem to be alot of anger in your words.
Speaking of CZcams, did you see what Run Ze Cao did to 'relativity' on youtube? The Mindshock channel has a great break down.
If a new independent scientist suddenly discovered a theory outside of Academia and published peer-reviewed papers, would any of you experts even notice it?
I appreciate your CZcams channel, don't give up!
About 600 years ago, the science of that time - even if not verbally communicated under the term "science", but rather "religion" - that science run into a runaway buildup of parameterized models of the world - that at that time not jet constituted an unmanageable barrier, but they were well on the way of approaching such one. As is the case today with our today world models.
The way out of that situation was complicated back then - as it is no less today. The people who invented ideas which could have the potential to help out of the mounting misery got suppressed by the vast majority of the established "holders of truth". As is the case in our time now.
People inventing new ideas of course never come up with a perfectly elaborated masterpiece. But rather with some raw principles that at first glance (from the viewpoint of the "holders of truth") look repulsively "otherworldly" - throwing many things "sacred" so far overboard, most time even without conclusively delivering a closed new model. But rather a method of approach, with wich mounting problems in the "ruling truth" can be addressed.
In the medieval times, those people got murdered before they could start with that process.
Nowadays, those people get ignored or suppressed. Sir Unzicker could tell stories of that for himself. When he offers new ideas in forums (i know him from Heise Verlag), he typically gets a majority of content-wise empty, but nevertheless offensive comments. If you dig deeper in a discussion with those people, you more then seldom notice that your hardest "enemies" do not even have the ability to deliver anything remotely remembering "proof" for their arguments, but simply prophetically defend the indoctrinated wisdom. Not that things get easier if your "enemies" do have profound arguments - that's the point where the inventor has to support his ideas with deeper, no less profound content (at least that counts towards the parts of the discussion that are constructive and make fun).
So, the start of discussions about new ideas to treat problems with the "current truth" is a very stony one. But the possibilities of creating own channels of discussion on social medias is a new achievement of our time that permits the circumvention of censorship by the "establishment". I think video channels like this one here are a perfect addition to our science world. I do not expect criticizers of the established models to come up with conclusive models. It is perfectly sufficient to deliver the critics and suggestions for principles of solution. If those ideas will manifest into new truths in the future is not necessarily the obligation of the inventors.
Without having such channels, new ideas have an exceptionally hard time to come through.
Best channel on the new vanguard
Maybe we dont need a new theory, just a new way of looking at an old theory? Using coloured patterns rather than maths to explain interactions between gyrokinetic electromagnetism. My theory claims that increasing velocity of fluid in a vortex increases the density. Using water i proved this correct using engineering drawings to calculate the volume of a vortex in a cointainer against the static volume and it reduced by 1.6% which is the equivalent of 3000m of head height of mass generating gravitational potential energy by compressing the molecule. This shows the effect of vorticity on density which is important around a plasma toroid.
Too scared of Whitten to hang with the real players. Has to go play by himself.
Thanks amen ❤
Alex, how do I contact you? Would like to have a 30 min discussion, if possible
How does it all work ? truthfully, is something that would be nice to know....cheers.
Good video. Interesting point of view. I had no idea so much peer reviewed science publication was occurring. I've noticed the number of views a CZcams science video gets tends to be inversely proportional to its scientific importance. Repeat the same old illogical theory that no 1 can understand, get lots of views. Invent a more logical theory, get few views. What do you think?
Belief in this concept "invent a more logical theory" is a big part of the problem. Imagining more beautiful logic such as 11 dimensions of strings is not the way to advance. Instead, we need to formulate a hypothesis and then test via experimentation, and follow the data trail as revealed by reality, and abandon our hubris on what feels and looks beautifully "more logical"...
@@mmotsenbockerI've already invented a unifying physics theory that is consistent with what we observe. My theory has no unobservables. Beauty and the number of dimensions it has has never been of any concern to me. My theory simply and logically explains 23 fundamental physics observables the standard model can not explain and instead implicitly assumes. My theory is for sale, satisfaction guaranteed. I have CZcams videos promoting it for sale. Dr. Unzicker is also showing his own original work in some of his videos. His videos get many times the views of my videos. Many other physicists make videos, often not about their own work, but about the work of others, or about what some students find confusing, and they get many times the views of Dr. Unzicker. What do you think?
I agree. If you point out how ridiculous it is to accept general relativity, you are rejected. But general relativity fails in reality. First we are on a globe so how does the earth accelerate upward in every direction so we feel the acceleration referred to as gravity. Just writing it off as movement in time doesn't work. Second if nothing can go faster than C how can the universe expand faster than C. And third, what is this space that changes size due to tome dilation. Ether was rejected. So what is the fabric of space time that does the heavy lifting? Just like, what is the dark matter that supposed to fix cosmology? Just addagic to fix the math then insist the math works.
I agrre with yuo about some phisycs loose contact with reality (String Theorie, for example) , but its very concern, like yuo and Sabine H say about the new big Colider and hiw we are making science today, in a wrong way
Danke für die vielen interessanten Beiträge.
The system is designed to thwart anything outside the fairy tales they tell.
I figured out How Universe Really Works❤️
I am very interested to learn how the Universe works. Would you give me a short explanation?
@@valentinmalinov8424 Savorinen asks. Are there any electrons around the nuclei at all❤️
The atomic model has had time to be modified into a different form even before❤️
Sometimes was theory that the electrons go around the nucleus, etc❤️
Nowadays, there is talk of electron curtains around the nuclei, etc.?❤️
I assume that there is nothing around the cores. In the cores, there would be congestion areas of❤️
expanding energy that would circulate energy scattered in space with all other similar congestion❤️
areas, and at the same time these congestion areas of expanding energy would automatically❤️
push each other away from each other in the same proportion as they expand.
Thus, it can be stated that the nuclei of atoms expand and circulate the expanding dark energy❤️
as zillions of separate expanding condensations whose expansion can be accelerated so fast by the❤️
expanding photon, they do not have time push each other away from each other as fast as they expand❤️
At this stage, a new registrable electron is created/combined from the expanding dark energy❤️
pushing away from the expanding core, which still consists of energy which expanding❤️
Physicists therefore think that they can remove electrons that already exist around the nuclei,❤️
although possibly they can create completely new electrons❤️
In my opinion, physicists should consider this point of view❤️
What makes this view very interesting is that stars would be born on the same principle from❤️
zillions of expanding condensations of dark matter, which would constantly be pushed out❤️
of the expanding supermassive objects in the centers of galaxies❤️
Expanding galaxies would have been formed in space in the early days of the expanding❤️
visible universe when two expanding supermassive objects passed close to each other❤️
The separate expanding concentrations of dark matter would have pushed through each other❤️
again and again and that would have caused them to expand so fast that they wouldn’t have had❤️
time to push each other away from each other as fast as they expand❤️
At this point, they would have started to coalesce into new expanding stars❤️
Perhaps with the James Webb telescope it will be observed that stars were born❤️
as if from nothing. But of course not really out of nowhere, you know❤️
The Expanding supermassive objects in the centers of galaxies would have been born❤️
in their own 3D big bangs on the same principle❤️
So that the expanding galaxies would be large particles that convey information from the object,❤️
which is quite massive and dense because it radiates energy that has the character of galaxies❤️
Naturally, we wouldn’t be able to detect the object we are moving away from❤️
Galaxies would then be particles that transmit information about it❤️
❤️
@@valentinmalinov8424 Savorinen tells how the Moon causes matter and thus also the internal pressure of the sea to increase along the line that is in the area between the center of the Earth and the center of the Moon.
I assume so. I don’t know for sure if this is the case. The internal pressure of matter can increase so that the repulsion between atomic nuclei becomes stronger.
Or it happens deep in the nuclei of atoms so that the repulsion between protons and neutrons becomes stronger.
Or the repulsion between quarks becomes stronger. Of course, the strengthening of the repulsion between the quarks transfers to the fact that the mutual repulsion of the atomic nuclei also strengthens. 🤔
Ok, to the point. Inside each quark that expands in space, more and more of what everything basically consists of is pushed inside all the time. Let’s call it energy.
Question. How is this energy enough for the expanding quarks all the time more and more. Doesn’t its amount decrease as it gets pushed into the expanding quarks?
It would decrease if the visible universe expanding in space stayed in the same area of space and expanded outwards into the already existing space.
In my view, the visible universe expanding in space is moving at a very fast speed from a certain direction to a certain direction. That movement in space takes the expanding visible universe all the time towards a region where there is more and more of this very small-scale energy that is pushed inside the expanding quarks.
And thus this ”food” / energy is enough for the ever-expanding quarks. 🤔
Ok, every expanding quark on the expanding Earth recycles this space-dissipating energy with all the expanding quarks on the expanding Moon.
Thus, there is a continuous flow of expanding dark energy in the region between the expanding Earth and the expanding Moon.
These propulsive expanding compressions cannot be registered with our expanding devices. Under suitable conditions, they combine into new registrable electrons and photons, the energy of which continues to spread / expand in space outward into the already existing space.
These expanding densities that transmit the pushing force, moving in the area between the expanding Earth and the expanding Moon, push through each other and during the push through, they interact strongly with each other, causing the energy in each other to disperse faster in space outwards into the already existing space.
Because of this, these propulsive expanding condensations from the Moon interact more strongly with the expanding atomic cores of the expanding Earth along the line between the center of the Earth and the center of the Moon.
The internal pressure of the expanding substance increases and thus e.g. the sea expands faster along this line. This is how the tidal phenomenon is explained without particles transmitting the pulling force. And it doesn’t need the so-called even curved space.
🤔
Peer review is Gate Keeping.
Are you having to admit VSL is a "Controversial issue" that could be traumatic to followers of the "Physicist Orthodoxy"?
Kiitos että teet.
So, you're a philosopher?
bc you are awesome🤟
All you are saying is that you see the questions but you are not happy with the answers people say they have given to those questions. The fact is that you yourself don't know the answers, but it is crucial that you try to answer them at some point! And your answers should be convincing, if if they are I believe people will follow you!
Where do you find logical answers in physics today? Nowhere. That is why I try to solve the scientific mysteries myself with surprising success sometimes.
You should also do book about LIGO. This biggest lie of all time... for now. Also about this fake 'black hole' photo. That do same 'science' like LIGO did.
Peer review amounts to the gate keepers of scientism...
Expert; One who ex-cludes otherwise pert-inent information.
The reason... BDE.
(Big Debunker Energy)
Better than your erstwhile fellow physicist, Ms. Sabine. She merely parrots orthodoxy, and doesn't question much of anything. AND, she believes practically everything she's told by her writers.
I would just scrap science. After that whole thing science is bad.
never heard of mediocristan but I immediately love it. ty for the book ref Dr.
He's not a doctor of any kind!