Видео

Professor there is guy explaining some ideas like double slit experiment and photo electric effect, saying is nonsense. Hope you can have a look on his theory, it say some aspect in physics are nonsense just like wave particule duality. Hope you can have a look and tell us about his ideas 🙏🙏🙏🙏

Professor what i do not understand is that they say quarks exist but they have not seen any quarks because they cannot be isolate them. Is it why this theory is also flat?

I came to the same conclusion - light emitted from distant galaxies degrades over time and distance. Zwicky also suggested this and described it as 'light becomes tired'. I suggest light is high energy particles travelling in helical motion. These particles lose energy in collisions with other particles and progress their way through the electromagnetic spectrum until they become radio waves. Hence radio waves detected on these large array systems are coming from the most distant galaxies. Other telescopes can only detect stars closer to Earth.

In my independent research project, much of which I describe on my You-tube Channel, I noticed that the orbital velocity of a planet around a central body is inversely proportional to its distance from it. This suggested to me that, rather than a Newtonian attraction between two large objects, there is an increase in velocity of, say a planet, as it enters a closer orbit to the Sun. So, in other words, an apple doesn't fall straight to the ground - it's path is curved in the direction of the Earth's rotation as it enters a higher energy zone. All the atoms in the apple increase their energy levels ever so slightly. From this we could envisage an energy/temperature gradient existing within planets and at their centres there must be a 'spindle' of plasma - with the highest energy levels. The leakage of this high energy plasma from both ends of this spindle would explain aurorae.

And with the horizon of the visible universe, you're always at the center of the universe so this works out everywhere!

Ai won't solve turbulence. I will. The future Nobel prize winner

These new "great minds" in physics are just science fans rather than scientists. They know how to hype up topics and appeal to the masses, but little more.

Ignoramus has opinions about a Nobel laureate. Great

Edison was a tinkerer without scientific knowledge or integrity, and Tesla was a scientist.

It is tragic that Feynman didn't have someone like you to turn to for guidance. He might have made something of himself.

r/iamverysmart vibes

Why are they all german

What happened to the whole lecture of university of munich? Why there is no yiur question

The main issue that we currently have is that we don't understand that static water is heavier than turbulent water and laminar water is heavier than static water. Think of a water jet in a static body, why does the water bubble up? Why does it not go down when it is supposed to be heavier? What happens at the boundary layer between the Jet and the Static medium?

What physics needs is more Carver Meads and less Edward Wittens. Have you been in touch with Carver since this interview? When is he doing his optical frequency comb experiment? I can’t wait for the results!

Of course we need another collider, bigger and better. The last one obviously wasn't big enough as it failed to make the black hole that would destroy the world like the media promised us.

Tesla is very popular right now, but Nernst would be a good example too.

Well, they're called theories and models for a reason. Unless and until better ideas emerge sitting around pointing fingers and fallacies at people isn't going to accomplish anything.

Subbed

Dr. Unzicker, you both scare me and enlighten me as a 24 year old Physicist in training. HEP touts their studies as the coolest, most fundamental, yet I believe everything you say about their scientific 'scheming'-especially after you evoked the ridiculousness of symmetry breaking that would discredit a mind such as Dirac. What a time to come of academic age in. You either are a part of the Particle cult or doing research that should be in the domain of engineering. I just want to do real Physics 😢

Please excuse my ignorance, but I don't understand what the fundamental problem of gravity is. To me the gravitational problem is that we don't understand why mass bends spacetime.

I've always been confused about what the problem here even is. fundamentally the issue is that turbulence is random... which you can't predict by definition... so only an extremely stupid person would obsess over this question.

Any thoughts on Mike McCulloch's Quantised Inertia theory?

Formula for calculating the fine structure constant from mathematical constants: α = (-πe𝛾-e𝛾)+[(π^2+π)/2] = 0,0072953058 α = 0,0072973525 (fine-structure constant) π = 3,1415926535 (PI) e = 2,7182818284 (Napier's constant, Euler's number) 𝛾 = 0,5772156649 (Euler's constant) (1/137 + 0,0072953058)/2 = 0,0072972879 (Arithmetic mean) Discrepancy with experimental results: 0,000884 %

This problem seems so obvious to me. Magnetic field lines would appear to be the place where nonlinear dynamics manifest, whereas between fields lines flow should be mechanical and predictable. This goes back to the molecular structure of water being determined by cis-trans hydrogen bonds being ordered and sequenced by fluid flow around the inertial plane of a magnetic field. When I first saw one of Ken Wheeler's (Theoria Apophasis) structured water devices, I knew that it "worked," but I had to devise a proof of concept experiment to prove the mechanism of action. Line the tube with PH sensors and you will see the PH perturbations in the water as it flows around the inertial plane of the magnet. I really hope Nick Lane sees this. It is the source of the motive force of biology. Also the basis of a gene drive. Lane's lab didn't even know they needed PH gradients for the electrodynamics of the system to work. Structuring water and sequencing RNA are fundamentally the same electrodynamic process. I'll wait for AI to have my insight into basic phenomena.

Few days ago I stumbled upon a quite interesting analysis about the very same problem, but from a philosophical frame of reference, worth examining by anyone interested in the topic: ruclips.net/video/TzadkHXIUOs/видео.html

The US Navy used the study of cavitation to unlock the secrets of LENR (so-called Cold Fusion) and succeeded. It's slowly making its' way into the mainstream and the Indian government is already implementing the first phase of the tech. This has not been covered any news outlet as far as I know.

I love the ideas of the Ancient Greeks; they first thought water precedes everything. Later then went on the idea that fire precedes everything. I believe this idea can be refined with light or photons ∆E=hf preceding everything. In flowing water we hydrogen bonds continuously forming and breaking with the exchange of light photon energy. Everything is continuously radiating light of EM waves even water LOL.

Vortex modeling may be the key to quantifying the ground-state properties of nucleons. See "Unbound low-energy nucleons as semiclassical quantum networks"

As one who no doubt can read and understand complex German science articles, I'm wondering if you've read Ott Christoff Hilgenberg's papers? Such as: "Über Gravitation, Tromben und Wellen in bewegten Medien" and, "Über Strömungsversuche mit Senken und Quellen, die das Wesen der Schwerkraft grundlegend erklären" or, "Über den Magnus-Effekt, die experimentelle Bestätigung seiner Umkehrung und den Zusammenhang dieser Strömungseffekte mit meteorologischen, ballistischen und elektrischen Vorgängen" He studied hydrodynamics extensively and the mechanics of tornadoes and hurricanes. I would very much appreciate your reading and evaluation of his papers.

We need to make simulations for predictions.

Discovering non-linear oscillators, chaos and all that in my Junior Level Classical Mechanics course (1983) put the "WOW!" back into Physics for me. (Thanks, Professor Scott!) I took Fluid Dynamics the following quarter; it revealed that ordinary, everyday physical phenomena are intractable. I find all of this more fascinating than the "strangeness" of Quantum Mechanics, Relativity and Cosmology, etc.. Prior to that, it seemed that any physical problem could be boiled-down to either an initial-value or boundary-value problem with the solution composed of series of eigenfunctions; the hard part was computing the coefficients, which didn't seem very interesting.

❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤ I have loved unz for years ……… now he is going kookoo

If calculate energy losses of river where pebbles rocks in bottom of river and rough terrain of embankment (sharp corners). Reynolds number was temporary solution and became ingrained in science consciousness, viscosity is somehow internal friction, even Brownian motion for water has 10^14 collisions per seconds mixing rate. Only small dust (paint) particles flows in laminar pattern, or microscopic flower pollens in Brownian observation. Couette laminar flow description is laughable. You take very fine dye potassium permanganate and it has laminar flow exist for short time but at same conditions take very very small dust particles, for example, use inkjet printer ink that same laminar layers due to Brownian motion mixes togethers immediately. Shear roughness of channel or pipe creates stooping. If you try present mathematical model of turbulence and laminar flow solutions to scientist they call you deletant oh my God Reynolds number how dear you, even he used as temporary measure in 19 century.

The problem with AI is that it really needs to see every possible permutation before it can regurgitate the right answer on demand. Cramming all of the text conveniently generated by humanity creates a lifelike chat bot. Who's going to passively collect data of all of the various behavior of water, soluble material, and the interactions with every type of surface, and what methods would actually achieve that?

Buy a canoe, buy a kayak, take a sailboat out on the ocean. The brain can be trained to see what math can't do.

taylor curls lol

Last

Thanks for your interesting video. Area under a curve is often equivalent to energy. Buckling of an otherwise flat field shows a very rapid growth of this area to a point. If my model applies, it may show how the universe’s energy naturally developed from the inherent behavior of fields. Your subscribers might want to see this 1:29 minutes video showing under the right conditions, the quantization of a field is easily produced. The ground state energy is induced via Euler’s contain column analysis. Containing the column must come in to play before over buckling, or the effect will not work. The sheet of elastic material “system”response in a quantized manor when force is applied in the perpendicular direction. Bonding at the points of highest probabilities and maximum duration( ie peeks and troughs) of the fields “sheet” produced a stable structure when the undulations are bonded to a flat sheet that is placed above and below the core material. Some say this model is no different than plucking guitar strings. You can not make structures with vibrating guitar strings or harmonic oscillators. ruclips.net/video/wrBsqiE0vG4/видео.htmlsi=waT8lY2iX-wJdjO3 At this time in my research, I have been trying to describe the “U” shape formed that is produced before phase change. In the model, “U” shape waves are produced as the loading increases and just before the wave-like function shifts to the next higher energy level. Over-lapping all frequencies together using Fournier Transforms, can produce a “U” shape or square wave form. Wondering if Feynman Path Integrals for all possible wave functions could be applicable here too? If this model has merit, seeing the sawtooth load verse deflection graph produced could give some real insight in what happened during the quantum jumps between energy levels. The mechanical description and white paper that goes with the video can be found on my LinkedIn and RUclips pages. You can reproduce my results using a sheet of Mylar* ( the clear plastic found in some school essay folders. Seeing it first hand is worth the effort!

Please improve your english pronunciation and stop representing the eternal German Besserwisser . Good critical arguments need a bit more time and deep reflexion . Don't overhype yourself ! ( PS: I am a German myself )

Honest question Ive never seen anyone answer in 3 parts: 1a) Is there a single citable case where either Bnought or Hnoght has been observed to be actually 0? 1b) If yes to 1a, then what lenght and time scales? 1c) If yes to 1b, then how do these domains scale? I ask becuase fundementally I cannot after several years find even a thought experiment that could allow for these scenarios to occur over any conditons, and thus am left wondering if we've choosen to use an impossible premise as the linchpin of physics, simply becuase it is mathmatically convenient in the short term. If we consideration every minute defect in the lattice of any real conductor (which is realistic experimental viable) we cannot have any feild truely equal to 0, just limit functions that simply approach it.

I have never seen a person mispronounce every single English word, plus points for being a physicist and pronounce body as 'buddie'

Steven Weinberg understood that physics needed mythology too - which might explain his 'First 3 Minutes' book. It read well, as many fantasy books do.

Edison, and his chum JP Morgan, are single handedly responsible for the climate crisis and energy poverty we experience today. They put profit over the wellbeing of fellow humans, actively opposed Tesla's embryonic research into low cost energy production, and promoted/built a centralised power generation and distribution system despite the drawbacks of power loss over distance and the immense cost of building an infrastructure to support it. Morgan and Edison are a disgrace, and that is without accounting for Edison's blatant plagiarising and theft of other people's work.

Feynman mag menschliche Schwächen gehabt haben. Warum auch nicht? Aber er war brillant. Wer seine Texte liest, kann alles Wort für Wort nachvollziehen und nachprüfen. Ich habe irgendwo gehört, dass er einen Studenten schlecht beurteilt hat, der einen Fehler in seiner Vorlesung nachgebetet hat. Heute würde dieser Mann keinen Lehrstuhl bekommen. Er konnte nicht einmal richtig gendern.

Wodoo physics

In order for the physicist to see his experiment he must think about it first. Which is what the philosopher does. Thinks about it first.

Unzicker has a very different view from the mainstream, which is very GOOD. Even if it proves to be wrong, it illuminates important questions. I especially loved his CALCULATION of the Gravitational Constant. It may be wrong, but it also may be right. Time will tell.

If no one understands gravity, isn't this just plain machery?

I can't help feeling this is a gross misinterpretation of the evidence. Every large body in space has an atmosphere of some kind that doesn't just stop at a certain point above the surface of the object. It stretches out for tens of thousands of miles in an ever more tenuous manner until its density matches the space around it. This means that there's a notable region around the object with a measurable fluid density, and since we know fluids bend light, it makes sense that we'd see a distortion to light as it passes such objects. Gravity has nothing to do with it.