Both GR & QM are descriptions of phenomena where the context's of each are wildly different. Given that each describes rather than explains the phenomena, I do not find it surprising that the discrepancy is so larger.
I don't agree about GR. In GR Everything follows from few simple axioms, which are hard to refuse. While QM is more like a receipt to make a soup. Also QM ( to be gentle) really struggles in describing the macroscopic world and it is really an old view that apparatus are passive devices, not interacting with what we want to observe, there to tell us objectives things about matter. While are actives actors of the final outcomes. Are apparatus forced , by a non linearity we still don't have in our equations, to produce the illusion of "quantas" because they can give just a classical outcomes... since they obey a macroscopic physics that is not the same of the microphysics?
The title reminded me of a scene from Airplane 2. The Space Shuttle was off course headed towards the sun and a cabinet says : DANGER VACUUM. The cabinet doors open and Ted is attacked by a vacuum cleaner. 😂😊
If dig into the history of both, TR and QM with opened mind, you will come to the conclusion that both of them must be wrong interpretation of reality and both came into public domain and being recycled as a result of conflict of interests and greed. People go after credibility which advances one within organization not the expertise. This is the root of catastrophic state of all science today. I am very pessimistic about the way out of this dead end.
"In order to question preconceived or fabricated assertions that the molecular manufacturing of antiseptic moist towelettes is best when enriched with trace elements leached from astroturf, the fine structure constant of rabid dogmas are dipped in buttter that mirrors the gravitational lensing of the special theory of echo chambers. Bio-neural subspace modules with argyle socks will then display an amazing charge density of windsurfing talk radio. And what does it squarely point to? Infrared spectroscopy that measures scientific orthodoxy emissions from materials in specific wavelengths of non-mammalian dinosaurs dancing the batusi. Truth prevails over imagination, diligently and efficiently binding to simple protein metabolic enzymes. This is so obvious that it isn’t even funny and improves overall health with sensible changes to whirlpools of popcorn. A rose by any other name is still a sunflower produced by the degassing of basaltic lava in thermal equilibrium. There has been much conversation on this and potato salad in deep sea sediment samples emitting ultrashort flashes of light. So it stands to reason that quantum level oscillations of cane toads are similar to the angular momentum of data analysis. The Wigner effect is the displacement of atoms in a solid caused by neutron radiation." ---Albert Einstein
Once Sonny got old enough and she no longer had to worry about him falling down a well all the time, Skippy left Waratah National Park and hopped west to get herself her dream education. Skippy got her doctorate in astrophysics from the University of Jerramungup in Western Australia and was one of the first to point out that Australia should really be called the Land Up Over since regarding the solar system from the southern ecliptic is the correct view and on world maps the South Pole should be at the top. Professor Skippy is a bit of a nitpicker when it comes to actual, specific details. Professor Skippy is currently teaching multiverse hyperdimensional dynamics at the University of Toowoomba in Queensland. "No wonder world affairs are so topsy-turvy if everyone always keeps seeing the planet upside down!" ---Professor Skippy
@@cyclonasaurusrex1525 it is well known but look at QED for example. They keep saying it gives the most accurate measurements ever. They even gave Nobel Prizes to Feynman and others. But at the same time they ignored the infinities than are renormalized away. Isn’t that a big example of shoving under the rug?
I very much appreciate Wal's life and work but he lost me on the Saturn Velikovsky stuff. What's great about Gareth is that he's more parsimonious and I don't think he's accepted the Velikovsky stuff either. He and Andy Hall are my favourites.
@@Vice81 I'd say ANdy and Gareth accept Velikovsky's catastrophism. If you dont agree Saturn's planetary system, then explain *¿why and how 2 AXIAL TILT FAMILIES?*
@@nobigbang825 Yes and Big Bang is a Fallacy because it is Religion (faith in the ideas of OTHER PEOPLE) not thinking by oneself (Herd Behaviour=Hive Mind) which goes against the Jungian INDIVIDUATION principle.
Moshe Carmeli expanded the theory of general relativity to the cosmological scale. John Hartnett expanded on that idea and the resulting equations not only matched observations of redshift but did so without invoking nonsensical ideas like dark matter/energy. See "Starlight, Time and the New Physics" (2011) for a layman-friendly explanation.
If you have a better insight, then please develop the theory. Just be sure to include something that can be observed and a prediction that is different from what GR predicts, and we’ll all see together.
It's so weird when they try to apply these models that are only adapted to earth to the whole Universe and take it so seriously, as if there's something to it.
there is something to it in almost every scenario, even stars or galaxies thousands of lightyears away follow this model theres just something that they're missing
The Ron Hatch model of gravity solves this issue, based upon the ether medium density gradient, not "Curvature of Space," Dipole gravity, Maxwellian Gravity, or Newtonian force between masses. His equation is based upon energy level, which he shows in his book to be a function of ether medium density, from the ether medium pervading the smallest atom to the Galactic functions in the Universe. Find his preliminary equation for gravity at 'Ron Hatch: Searching for a Better Way -John Deere.' Newton called this shell of aether condensed around objects the "evanescent Aether.' According to Hatch, Planck's constant is the only true constant in the Universe. Redshift, emission and absorption spectra, speed of light, gravity, clock frequency, clock speed all an ether medium density function. Another paper of interest is - Gravitational Energy and the Flatness Problem Ronald R. Hatch I would take this a step further under the Dirac Model of the aether, in that the aether must consist of dipole particle or photons, real photons not just virtual. This dipole particle nature to an ether medium solves the Casimir Effect issues and the quantum entangled photon issue. There is no 'spooky action, at a distance, but photons always entangle in a crystalline manner. One of the few things Einstein did get right, there is no spooky action at a distance.
I confess to not knowing much about anything for sure but I have got ideas from what I read, hear and experience and from that I would say that I could believe in that we live in a sea of photons. I would not call it an aether but I could live with that with your explanation. I tend to believe that photons are the basis of everything. They are the energy carier that can change into matter in my oppinion. Photons are generated (from matter) all over the place. They also get absurbet all over the place. Any change in electricity generates a photons be it a radio transmitter, turning on a switch, lightning, heat being radiated from something and so on. Any energy radiation is a photon radiation. Photons can be extreamly small with very high energy or enormously large with very low energy. I could see that the so call spooky action at a distance is just one photon acting. At long wave radio transmission a single photon must be kilometers in size. If a photon is absorbet in say a radio receiver the whole photon must be absurbet at one spot as it is the lowest possible amount of energy and that may happen instantanuesly meaning that it may breake the speed of light in vacuum (c). My thought of gravity is that it could be photons pushing on and being absurbet by mass. This mass would then later reemmit a photon but in a randum direction. Two masses close together would shade for each other and would there fore be pushed together. I am not capable of calculating if this idea is even possible I admit. I do believe that the speed of light IN VACUUM is a contant and is the maximum transmission speed. The speed of light varies according to the medium it is in. In obtical fibers it should be about 69% of c. If it contains the same energy it must then change in frequency (color).
@@leonhardtkristensen4093 According to electrical theory electrons and charged particles are condensers and carriers of photons. In fact, Charles P. Steinmetz shows in his works that there is a one-to-one relationship between (charge flow in a conductor, capacitor, or inductor coil) and dielectric storage in them. Nikola Tesla has shown in his radiant energy experiments, that he can separate the ether medium from the electrons, as a radiant energy source without the electrons in the flow. A radio signal then is the creation of an energy wave, by condensation and refraction of a fluid medium, without the electrons that are used to condense and rarefy the ether. Ditto for electron transitions, according to Hatch. A spectral emission is not by photon emission but by condensation and rarefaction as an energy wave. A laser beam, or particle beam, however is a streaming of photons or entangled photons as a particle beam with or without charged particles in the flow. The fact is that everything that applies to sound in air generally applies to light in an EM medium. IF your follow the works of former NASA Employee Dr. Edward Henry Dowdye Junior, he shows evidence that that speed of light in a vacuum varies with distance from the Sun, in the vacuum of space. So, the speed of light is not a constant in a vacuum. Just like sound in air, the speed of light is also dependent upon the density of the medium, and speed also varies as a function of frequency. According to Hatch, GNSS data, the speed of light in a vacuum is not a constant but is dependent upon the ether medium density. Basically, Einstein's time-dilation is an artifact of mathematical errors in his SRT derivation. And clock speed, according to Hatch has an actual physical reason for it, density or back EMF that is a function of ether density that pervades the clock circuitry. Hatch is basically saying that whatever causes buoyancy is thing that causes, gravity of matter to buoy inwards towards the Earth, via an ether medium density gradient. The higher the ether medium density gradient the greater the force of gravity.
@@leonhardtkristensen4093 Einstein's claim is that light is transmitted by particle ejection rather than by energy wave. So, a radio wave according to Einstein would be that particles or photons are being ejected and propagated rather than just an energy wave, like sound is. If Einstein were right, then MRI of your brain, which uses radio frequency, would probably not be very safe and would do some damage to your brain rather than just getting an image of your brain. So, an MRI is akin to an ultrasound but using radio waves, not particle ejection as Einstein claims.
@@JoeDeglman I can not remember where I have got my information and understanding from so I can not quote many other people as you can but that does not make it wrong what I say. In addetion I use my own experience in electronics to help my understanding. I may well be wrong but so you say Einstein was. I tend to aggree with you there to some degree. I believe he was right in postulating that photons must have a given amount of energy to be able to knock electrons free. That was what gave the theori about a photon being a particle I believe. In regardt to electromagnetism I believe it to be carryed by photons. I believe that to be proven by enough people to be very likely true. You will allways be able to find some body that sais something different. I believe that all radiation including light, heat and radio signals to be photon transmission. Enough people have proven that too. Nicola Tesla was quite right in saying that you can transmit energy without electrons however it is very difficult to keep it together to the receiving point without wires. You may have a small radio transmitter transmitting say 100w or a laser emmitting 100w but you will have a big problem receiving anywhere near that amount of power at any distance. It is easy to believe that any energy transmission needs a medium like sound and wave energy in water but we have to remember that those energy forms are much more phycical. Shure an electron it a phycical thing too (or at least close to, it changes it's energy by receiving and transmitting photons). The thing is just if we have an aether we then have the problem trying to find out what that is made up of. I believe a photon can be a wavey excisting particle without the need for any media (In other words a or possibly the basic particle or excistance form). If you look at the field emmitted from a dipole antenna you will see that the electric field goes from zero to maximum to zero. That could in my oppinion be one photon. Admittingly I have a problem explaning energy levels at a given frequency other than multiple photons are admitted at the same time. That a NASA employee sais something doesn't mean much to me. To be in the forefront of technology you must gain employees with all sorts of ideas. The more ideas the better. that means that you must employ cracy people as well. You then test the ideas and if it works it must have been right. Some of the people will hang on to their ideas even if the majority believe it to be wrong. It could still be right but so could my ideas. I do not say that my ideas are right only I have the right to believe in them until I am proven wrong. I would not be suppriced if Einsteins time dialation was a mathematical error. As I have heard he was not the best mathematisian. If your Hatch is right I can not say. I can say however that I don't like formulas that goes to infinity. What I see in nature and electronichs such formulas are missing some thing.
@@leonhardtkristensen4093 You seem to be on the right trail and very knowledgeable. I just enjoy studying this. One thing that an ether medium model does is require a dipole particle make up, or an electron-positron pair to be the particles in the sea of Dirac photons. One thing that is true is that if you move a wire antenna to a place of maximum polarity, then move it another half wavelength from the radio source, you will get another maximum, but of an opposite polarity on the antenna or wire. This indicates to me that the EM medium must have a dipole alignment every half wavelength, or a dipole particle rotation within the medium, just like in sound transmission. So, a dipole particle makeup to the medium makes sense. There may be other explanations for this, as you say. But as far as a radio transmission, such as satellite dish or communicating to the Voyager probes, a high gain antenna can focus a signal into a direct flux ribbon? I think this is basically what Nikola Tesla was experimenting with for wireless transmission of energy, basically a laser beam, but without the charged particles in it. There are companies experimenting with laser or particle beam wireless transmission of power. I do know that they can get a laser beam to the lunar reflectors and back, but a very weak signal returns.
in this new picture expansion happens at a certain rate because of a rate of dissipation which is related to an increase in entropy of the vacuum configuration, so this issue of energy densities in "quantum" fields is not an issue at all, the energy density of empty space found in the Friedman equation is just a wrong way to think about it, we just assume the right energy density currently, so the whole process is essentially just curve fitting.
While the Casimir effect may be contraversial, the existence of a quantum vacuum is not. The quantum vacuum is the origin of shot noise, which places a hard limit on precision measurements. This noise can be manipulated, in a process called squeezing. For example, a squeezed vacuum is used in the LIGO and VIRGO gravitational wave observatories to increase the sensitivity of the detectors. This is a different demonstration that the vacuum has structure.
I had a thought pop up while I was doing dishes a minute ago; what if scale determines whether things appear as particles or as energy, similar to the way solids move like liquids over a long time-scale?
What a great explanation or should I say “explication” [$10 Word🤔]! This video is definitely going to be filed away for future reference. Sorta the “Yin and Yang” of the difference between QM & GR. It seems like the two will never make nice with the prevailing attempts. Since this basic incompatibly suggests incompleteness, it makes me pounder about why we are stuck in this situation for a 100 years.
An issue with the "observations" at cosmological scales is that those observations are all interpretations of evidence, not evidence itself. That is, these interpretations rely on cosmological red shift (CRS) as "evidence" of an expanding universe. If the CRS is not caused by expansion of space-time, then everything downstream from that interpretation is troublesome. Note that this does reject CRS as something real, it just questions the interpretation. In fact there could well three or more cause of red shift. We know that one is Doppler shift, and we also should be aware that initially CRS was attributed to Doppler shift as remote objects accelerated away. Hubble rejected this idea and refused to attribute CRS to Doppler effects of any sort. He even seems to have avoided discussing an expanding universe.
"At the quantum scale scientists cannot make direct observation" (so NO SCIENTIFIC METHOD). Unfortunatelly, *NEITHER THEY CAN IN THE WHOLE UNIVERSE* (not knowing distances [redshift deity], mass-energy [gravitational deity], and time lapse [radio decay deity]).
I had great physics teachers that told me to look at units. How is a vacuum energy density measured as a mass density g/cm³? Are they in faith assuming e=mc² is for real?
I think that Newtonian or GRT derived mass function is the problem, most of the time, from the smallest atom to large galaxies. There are dwarf planets with ring radii that defy the standard mass function. Beehive and open clusters defy standard mass function. Galaxies defy mass function. The search for dark matter comes from the failure of the standard mass function. Newton and GRT are derived from the hypothesis that there is a big G gravitational constant. In reality, there is no big G, just endless attempts to defibrillate the standard mass function. E=MC^2 was originally derived from fluid dynamics. When you apply energy as a function of a fluid medium density, aether density, dielectric density, or magnetic flux density it solves these issues with mass function and redshift, and puts the Evanescent Aether experiments of Newton back as a bubble around matter to solve the Casimir effect. When you look at galaxies, solar systems, etc. as energy systems or energy vortices in a fluid medium, a density function, it solves these issues. MHD with a density function define mass function better; correspond to energy level, E= MC^2, and momentum better. 1/2 mv^2 For example, using standard mass function, a star with a planet outside the galactic plane, they calculate planet density from the orbital period and conclude that the planet is 9 times the density of a regular planet. But using a fluid medium function or flux density, or aether density, you would conclude that the planet is at standard density with a local energy system density or medium density at about 1/3 of the standard flux density.
A singularity is falsified by the vacuum catastrophe. Theoretically when the distance goes to zero an infinite attraction and collapse should result. Instead, a repulsive force manifests. Look at wiki on nuclear force, as similar thing happens. "The nuclear force is powerfully attractive between nucleons at distances of about 0.8 femtometre (fm, or 0.8×10−15 metre), but it rapidly decreases to insignificance at distances beyond about 2.5 fm. At distances less than 0.7 fm, the nuclear force becomes repulsive. This repulsion is responsible for the size of nuclei, since nucleons can come no closer than the force allows. " This is the probable reason why in every known case when a singularity should occur, per the Schwarzschild math, that a singularity is prevented, and relativistic jets manifest instead. AGN, solar flares, tokamak plasmoids, Herbig-Haro objects, etc. This makes "neutron stars" impossible.
@@JoeDeglman At the end of your thread, I thought you were going to say This makes Black Holes with singularities impossible” Instead, you say Neutron stars are impossible. So when they fond objects orbiting a very small tegion in space, what do you claim isbat the center? A heavy white dwarf? By the way, “a singularity” is not a theory as far as I know, since a singularity is a violation of our physical laws. We have no theory that can describe or deal with singularities. If you think we do, point me to them pls.
@@pedrosura A singularity is falsified by the Casimir effect and the Vacuum Catastrophe. The Casimir effect is evidence against singularity but does not debunk it completely. However, in every case where the magnetic flux density indicates that a singularity should occur, relativistic jets form that seem to prevent a singularity by venting off the overpressure somehow. Black holes have other explanations for them, in that other plasmoids appear to be blue shifted due to the high density of magnetic storage there. The center of an AGN or sunspot just appear dark in the visible range but are highly illuminated in Xray or gamma. However, that fact that both protons and 'neutrons' have the same repulsion at less than .7 fm means that there is something wrong with what we know about neutrons, also the fact that neutrons have a magnetic dipole moment. More likely the Edo Kaal model of the neutron, as a proton- electron-pair is a better model. What they have found is space, with stars orbiting them, is an indicator that those are not "black holes that shouldn't exist," but they match the description of a plasmoid at a plasma node along the spiral arms, or along an electric current or cosmic web filament in space. All stars form at current connections in space or along filaments, just like ball lightning does. Try an article called 'HERSCHEL'S HUNT FOR FILAMENTS IN THE MILKY WAY'
@@JoeDeglman I see. The book “Seeing Red” opened up my eyes to the nature of Quasars and the impact that a different interpretation of red shift would have on Cosmology. I will continue to read and learn. I am amazed that nobody is acknowledging the fact that JWST is not observing the predicted optical illusion that should be observed if space was expanding where early galaxies would appear abnormally large at high red shifts. They have swept that under the rug.😂
@@pedrosura An article on the bulge size of a galaxy vs color and star formation rate. arXiv:1403.5269 'Bulge mass is king: The dominant role of the bulge in determining the fraction of passive galaxies in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey' There are two assumptions used in the report. 1. younger stars are bluer in color; older stars are redder in color. 2. older galaxy have a higher redshift and are the furthest away. The report claims that bulge size corresponds to star color. But star color, according to the standard model, red means old and blue means young.
So, if you assume that redshift means that a galaxy is older and further away, then the data on star formation rate ought to correspond to bulge size and color as well. But it doesn't. Buried in the conclusion on page 21 of the report... The only way to tie star formation rate to the age of the galaxy is through the assumption that high redshift means older, further, higher velocity. This is what is known as a logical fallacy, or a catch-22. Either the assumption about color being an indicator of age is wrong or the assumption that redshift means older galaxies on the edge of the Universe and higher velocity is wrong. Both assumption 1 and 2 cannot be true. Peratt shows data that a higher input current means a flatter bulge, which dove tails with the EU theory that red means lower input current and blue means higher input current. Halton Arp also has two other things in his book that get ignored by the EU models. Matter creation out of the galactic core via the relativistic jets and Halton Arp claims that the 'tired light theory' simply fails by observation, chapter 4 of seeing red. arxiv.org 2007.09717 The Origin of Matter at the Base of Relativistic Jets in Active Galactic Nuclei
Thank you so much for this video - It has only been now with the simplicity with which you explained the vacuum catastrophe that I have in my own mind at lest resolved the conflict. To perhaps clarify - the smaller the vibration (wavelength) the higher the energy. Wavelength and frequency being inverse to one another. E=hf. High frequency = high energy (i.e. gamma versus microwave) QM uses the shortest wavelength. Why I don't know. GR is using the longest wavelength. The vacuum of space. This is like comparing the two different sides of the MTS equation. A long long wavelength (small frequency) exists at the Dark Energy side (S side of MTS) (10 to the minus 29 g/cm3) while the shortest wavelength (Planck & 5.16 to the 93rd g/cm3) (high frequency) exists as the extreme density of a black hole (M side of the MTS equation) . Remember The MTS equation is from 0 mph to "c" in the MTS direction. In the STM direction, we go from "c" to 0mph. And with Lorentz transformations along the way. [As a side note I recall I believe out of Chicago two scientists saying that as things were brought an Bose-Einstein condensate, they approached a black hole, well, this appears evident in the MTS equation as the M (black hole) side of the equation is one of no motion. I believe I left a nervous and blathering phone message to one of them some ten or so years ago. ] What I have just realized now is that there are some 10 to the order of 120 magnitudes between the M and S side of the MTS equation. In your vacuum catastrophe you are comparing a short wavelength (high mass-high frequency ) QM environment to a long wavelength (low mass - high space-low frequency) GR environment. Why? The zero point energy of QM has nothing to do with the vacuum of space. You are mixing apples and peanuts.
The majority of features of General Relativity prove that their concepts are ludicrous. The rubber mat with bowling balls and balls etc has the white lines of force spreading outward, when in reality the gravity would distort space-time and scrunch in the lines. Model bogus. Also the true design of this concept must be shown in 3D hologram, as gravity is 360x360 and not some flat rubber matting. The rubber matting also displays an earth downward gravity on the 2D planar model - which is NOT VALID in open 3D space, but would have to have gravity of various levels (from the sun and other planets and moons) interacting upon its distorted 3D space-time fabric. There is NO Einstein-Rosenburg bending and folding of space-time and making wormhole travel. It shows a flat planar dimension of space being folded back like paper and then having the vortex hole of both locations (like a black hole) open up. Even a 3D black hole doesn't warp space-time like this. This is another BS concept. True wormholes are worm "bubbles" that move through the dark universe (outside of regular space-time) with no friction ... appearing as worm holes. The only true wormholes must be from such stargates of circular portals opening up space-time and connecting to another such stargate portal. This is the only true wormhole and warp speed travel zone. Otherwise, worm bubbles surrounding a space vehicle moves the vehicle from the physical universe into the dark universe, and transits from point A to point B, and then pops out, drops with worm bubble shielding and is back in the physical universe. Making a vacuum device, is proof that you attempt to have 2 plates of such closeness that a regular atom of nanometers of diameter are removed from this vicinity - and only the sub-particulates (and energies and forces) of the dark universe are present - and what remains is within a vacuum area. The Aether still has existence and pressure within this space - as well as all space ... so there is no true vacuum. This region is just a manifestation of the Aether with no physical universe atoms and particles being there. Also there is no vacuum of space, as space is just a lowered PSI far below that of our current earth's atmosphere pressure of 14.7 sea level PSI. And atoms (1-6 hydrogen atoms / square meter) and solar/cosmic winds still flow in this medium. So there is no vacuum of space.
you can only write a correct formula, which i wont even if, if you find the true core, cause the true core emits true time. its at least further away as the observable universe.
you need to know the define in speed and distance from true rim waves to true core. and you can calculate all other cores and write a correct physiques for earth. for this to ever happen you need to build jumpgates first
sure i calculate all planets and galaxies in the formula to give you a correct formula, i have nothing better to as calculate it all from here to 1 quadrillion lighyears away
@@paulthomas963 Well it has many names; ether, neutrino-antineutrino, quantum springs, quantum foam. But ether was used by old sanskrit scriptures as the "5th element" (akaša) And Nikola Tesla used this word to describe this medium/substance in his Theory of Dynamic Gravity. (which is hidden from us by the secret cabal who pushing lies about curvature of space)=
The ratio of ballistic gravity is given as 1:1000 for the sun and Jupiter. The actual ratio is 1 for Jupiter and 4 for the Birkeland current in dark mode.That means the space ratio of the vacuum is also a ratio of 1:4 so the 120 orders of difference is the correct value as the relativity gravity is 30 order or one portion of the total of 120 orders. There is no failure as the ratio is completely natural in space.
Einstein's General Relativity equivalence is not a Universal truth. Einstein ignores the fact that gravity is subject to the inverse square law. An elevator car pulled at an accelerated 9.8 m/sec by a magical genie is not the same thing as standing still on Earth's surface. A compass also shows us how wrong Einstein's GR ideas are. By the way, Einstein thought of GR as his gravitational ether theory. By the time he got to General Relativity, Einstein switched horses and started to claim how important the ether was to things like light paths.
Space is cold resistance. Pressure created by repulsion to propulsion of forward maximum in repulsion. Resistance is always equalization of pressure in mass. Hydrogen under extreme pressure expands cold resistance of repulsion required to equalization of pressure in mass to expand into helium. More pressure exerted within, more pressure exerted without in equalization of pressure in mass. Hydrogen expands into helium. More pressure exerted, more repulsion exerted. Expansion of mass in equalization to internal pressure. Force of pressure is equalization of resistance as mass.
Something has been bothering me, and perhaps you can shed some light on a question. For this, I will use a thought experiment. Stationary charges repel if like, and attract if opposite. Assume that two charges are set moving in the same direction so that their velocities are parallel. Moving charges have a motional magnetic field that causes the opposite effect. So for given charge values there is a velocity at which the repulsion (due to like charges), or the attraction (due to opposite charges), exactly equals the motional magnetic force trying to oppose this. In such circumstance, they should continue on, the distance between charges remaining the same. Question: So assuming I have that configured correctly, my question is, is there a force, or pseudo force, or something, which causes the particles' trajectories to take on a helical structure, in essence causing them to "orbit" one another around in a helical fashion? This stems from my concern over what exactly causes birkeland currents to take on this helical structure.
Wouldn't the magnetic field, and therefore magnetic force, cause these helical trajectories in your example? If we use vectors, then for the like charges, each charge has a vector pointing away from the other charge, which is the electric repulsion, and then there's a perpendicular vector at the tip of each of those vectors representing the magnetic force. If these two vectors point in the same direction, the vectors would rotate into each other as if they're physical entities, but the like charges repel, so one vector must point the other way. These vectors then rotate until they interlock with each other, thus forcing the like charges to rotate around each other in a helical fashion. As for opposite charges, well, I'm not sure. They may as well crash into each other and annihilate.
@@pronounjow I dunno. It seems to me that the B fields produced by each moving charge would oppose one another between the charges, in the case of like charges, the Lorentz force causing an attraction; but in the case of unlike charges, the B fields between the charges would point in the same direction, the Lorentz force causing a repulsion. Maybe the helical trajectories don't occur unless the situation is more complicated. It seems to me that if two wires are placed side by side, and if current passing in the same direction causes attraction of the wires, and if current in opposite directions causes repulsion of the wires, and since nobody ever observed the wires wrapping around each other in a corkscrew pattern, that the origin of this corkscrew pattern must lie in the force free nature of the Birkeland current. The current flows along the helical B field instead of orthogonal to it, yet the charges still must produce their motional magnetic fields, which themselves are still orthogonal to their trajectories. I can sort of understand that the vector sum of these B fields with the main Birkeland current B field, might result in other B fields pointing in some interesting directions, but why is there a main helical B field in the first place? Why does plasma left to its own agenda form force free helical flow? I dunno. Don Scott says it's the lowest energy state. Okay. I still feel slighted on an intuitive explanation. Now charged particles are economists.
In the rest frame of each particle the other particle is not moving, so it will just experience an attractive/repulsive electric force. In other frames it will look like a magnetic force, but time will run differently.
Our love of illustrating in two dimensions apart, as a pure thought experiment; Time, is an illusion solely reliant on short-lived biological structures. If you ascribed a personality to the Universe, you might say that Time is irrelevant to the Universe; ergo, does not exist. Further to this, build a model of the universe where the mythical substance called 'Time' does not exist. I might try and dream about that tonight, but only if I get the 'Time'.
;-) Aside: When the kids rubber sheets, coordinate systems, bend and stretch. First they have to paint on. Matter or light, in "motion", step by step. Then they can see how bending and stretching affect matter and light!
I always wondered what radio waves propagate on in space? Sound waves propagate in air or water. Waves by themselves aren't anything but a disturbance. What is being disturbed in space?
Current theory invented 96% of the universe that can't be measured, can't be seen or anything else. If you have to invent 96% of the universe your theory might have a flaw or two.
So what would be the "vacuum energy" of a "Dirac Sea", superfluid fermionic condensate of electron positron Cooper pair lattice as Quintessence? Since Big bang appears to be dead and the cosmic microwave background must therefore be the energy dump at the critical temperature of the fermionic condensate, It seems like any variability in the microwave background must be due to higher densities locally associated with mass density. So there cannot be a universal cosmological constant, or a fixed speed of light in a "vacuum". Since magnetism refracts light, it seems obvious that it works by polarising the cooper pair chains of the quintessence. "Many things in this Age may not be as they seem" I watched Eric Laithwaites demonstration video with flywheels and gyroscopes video yesterday. It seriously challenged my notions of how gravity works. How the hell can a flywheel weighing ten kilograms sit on a pivot hanging out over the edge of the table and precess around, when at all times the centre of mass is far out from the edge of the table that the lightweight plate that it's sitting on the edge of has its toe on? Is it entraining its own spinning reference frame of quintessence that is laminarly detached from the quintessence inertial reference frame of the earth?
There is a theory the sun is made of metallic hydrogen. For us to get the readings from the sun that we collect there must be a surface but could the containment fields of a plasmoid act as that surface?
So does this mean there’s is something fundamentally wrong with Quantum Mechanics. If so dies reduce the credence of claims the Many Worlds version is correct.
What do you expect from people in 1915? The had no computers, they had no TV, they had a pen made from a feather. I don't know how Einstein is still thought of as a genius, and not a crazy person.
Thank you! No mention of motion. Does anyone really think elements at the quantum scale are static? No, as with all things, it is in motion, at scale. Vast rivers and oceans. Think about it. Consider the ramifications.
Theoretically when the distance goes to zero an infinite attraction and collapse should result. Instead, a repulsive force manifests. Look at wiki on nuclear force, as similar thing happens. "The nuclear force is powerfully attractive between nucleons at distances of about 0.8 femtometre (fm, or 0.8×10−15 metre), but it rapidly decreases to insignificance at distances beyond about 2.5 fm. At distances less than 0.7 fm, the nuclear force becomes repulsive. This repulsion is responsible for the size of nuclei, since nucleons can come no closer than the force allows. " So, while the Universe didn't blow up because the standard theory is wrong, it does show a possible reason why in every case where as 'singularity' should occur, relativistic jets manifest instead.
nah the mathematical arguments about global geometry and expansion are erroneous, they are only necessary because of an interpretation of the geometric equations and how they relate to the energy content and stress. it isnt necessary, if you reformulate in a slightly different language you get more freedom, but then when you extend it the freedom goes away in favor of another mechanism related to dissipation of processes in the vacuum that gives rise to the structure of mass and fields, the effect in euclidian coordinates is identical to expansion, it is the scale of matter contracting and a lot of stuff changing in concert with the contraction which gives rise to certain equilibrium of rotations of fundamental particles and a bunch of other stuff, keeping coupling constant equilibrated and so on and the result is intrinsic expansion. the only counter argument to the construction is basically dogmatic bs so i am pretty sure it is right, it is a much more comprehensive and sensible description where the function of expansion is directly related to physical effects and not an assumption of a constant scalar field or energy density.
Without the gravitational constant - 6.67408 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2 and dark matter.....gravitational and relativity models fail to explain the observed universe....EU.......
Either approach, much speculation, little observation. Should we not attempt to see if there is a gravitational induction at the moment of an electrical discharge? Relatively simple experiment but the mindset in our era is not there. Next century, perhaps. Perhaps Winston Churchill's comment on Americans could be applied to physics: "Americans Will Always Do the Right Thing - After Exhausting All the Alternatives" 🙂
"If you clean your vacuum, does that make you a vacuum cleaner? So take to its logical conclusion that black holes make an excellent framework for mounting rear channel speakers onto potato salad. The best time to wear a striped sweater is all the time because a quantum state represented by the probability distribution of air bubbles in soy sauce has been astounding and unprecedented. A more concise synopsis is difficult to imagine. Your ceiling is talking to me again, so it's time to turn that frown upside down. Traditional chinese medicine is absolutely critical to changing the paradigm about species 8472. But many people miss the reasons behind it all. Obsolete magical thinking is what has been going on in the background all this time. Being fermions, no two electrons can occupy the same quantum state. Ask your doctor if sudden death from an unknown cause is right for you. Fluctuations in the black hole transporter frames are unstable and are affecting the bio-neural subspace modules. Follow the science of pet messes to balance the quantum polarities." ---Albert Einstein
As usual an epic simple explanation of the reality of the differences. Electric Universe is what is now the Paradigm. Quantum physics is not the way. Thanks again for your help to us all in understanding that difference!
the problem is lays within them both. they both are missing one very very important thing. matter is light and we observe illumination. and this absurd notion time and space can act on something. did you learn nothing from nicola tesla. or where the royal names furious someone not of there blood line was much more intelligent and creative.? theres no photon its a disturbance in the low energy medium a emf we are not able to detect yet see its presence everywhere as all things are made of it. long live the Æther. Lux Æterna
@@fkeyvan Plus thousands of scientists around the world from multiple disiplines and the bulk of the electrical and Plasma scientists and the many peer approved papers submitted covering many different sections of the better cosmology
I think gravity is the subatomic expression of the long range attraction/short range repulsion of the electric force. I think this explains why gravity becomes a negligible effect in the presence of the human scale expression of the electric force and why there seems to be evidence of repulsive gravitational effect in certain cases. Additionally, one might expect to see a macro-scale effect of the electric force at the galactic scale and above should you subscribe to the concept of similarity at all fractal scales. Perhaps someone much, much better at theoretical mathematics then myself might try and deduce what that might look like? *Cough*Gareth*cought*cough*... 🤔😁
Your channel is great! It seems as if the great minds of the 20th century got lost by ignoring the role of electrodynamics in the cosmos. In so doing, we as observers are in an ambiguous position. Biologically we are at least as dependent on electricity as artificial intelligence. Our neurons and nervous system are obviously part of the circuitry of the universe. Just as significant an oversight is the neglect of the electrodynamic relationship between the sun and the earth, and the rest of the planets in the solar system; how the sun itself may be wired into the Milky Way and how the Milky Way is part of a local supercluster and so on. Your channel has taught me much about the history of science, thank you!!!
Maybe there is no catastrophe because some part of your theory is wrong. When do we stop indulging the belief in dark energy? It’s crap videos like this that perpetuate the myth!
It is the attempt to defibrillate Newtonian gravity or GRT that keep the myth alive. Dark energy or Dark matter is merely a patch to try to defibrillate the standard model. A singularity is falsified by the vacuum catastrophe. Theoretically when the distance goes to zero an infinite attraction and collapse should result. Instead, a repulsive force manifests. Look at wiki on nuclear force. A similar thing happens. "The nuclear force is powerfully attractive between nucleons at distances of about 0.8 femtometre (fm, or 0.8×10−15 metre), but it rapidly decreases to insignificance at distances beyond about 2.5 fm. At distances less than 0.7 fm, the nuclear force becomes repulsive. This repulsion is responsible for the size of nuclei, since nucleons can come no closer than the force allows. " This is the probable reason why in every known case when a singularity should occur, per the Schwarzschild math, that a singularity is prevented, and relativistic jets manifest instead. AGN, solar flares, tokamak plasmoids, Herbig-Haro objects, etc. This makes "neutron stars" impossible. Neutron stars and singularities are only theoretical, but the vacuum catastrophe falsifies both along with the standard model.
Love this channel's hard-hitting skepticism. Keep up the great work!
Both GR & QM are descriptions of phenomena where the context's of each are wildly different. Given that each describes rather than explains the phenomena, I do not find it surprising that the discrepancy is so larger.
I don't agree about GR. In GR Everything follows from few simple axioms, which are hard to refuse. While QM is more like a receipt to make a soup. Also QM ( to be gentle) really struggles in describing the macroscopic world and it is really an old view that apparatus are passive devices, not interacting with what we want to observe, there to tell us objectives things about matter. While are actives actors of the final outcomes. Are apparatus forced , by a non linearity we still don't have in our equations, to produce the illusion of "quantas" because they can give just a classical outcomes... since they obey a macroscopic physics that is not the same of the microphysics?
Thanks!
The title reminded me of a scene from Airplane 2. The Space Shuttle was off course headed towards the sun and a cabinet says : DANGER VACUUM. The cabinet doors open and Ted is attacked by a vacuum cleaner.
😂😊
I recall that time when movies were dominated by desire to entertain rather than subvert or preach or replace.
When a basic premise is wrong somewhere, difficulties like this are bound to pop up.
If dig into the history of both, TR and QM with opened mind, you will come to the conclusion that both of them must be wrong interpretation of reality and both came into public domain and being recycled as a result of conflict of interests and greed. People go after credibility which advances one within organization not the expertise. This is the root of catastrophic state of all science today. I am very pessimistic about the way out of this dead end.
The way out -- Electric Universe Theory. th-cam.com/video/NvETRWSulk8/w-d-xo.html
"In order to question preconceived or fabricated assertions that the molecular manufacturing of antiseptic moist towelettes is best when enriched with trace elements leached from astroturf, the fine structure constant of rabid dogmas are dipped in buttter that mirrors the gravitational lensing of the special theory of echo chambers. Bio-neural subspace modules with argyle socks will then display an amazing charge density of windsurfing talk radio. And what does it squarely point to? Infrared spectroscopy that measures scientific orthodoxy emissions from materials in specific wavelengths of non-mammalian dinosaurs dancing the batusi. Truth prevails over imagination, diligently and efficiently binding to simple protein metabolic enzymes. This is so obvious that it isn’t even funny and improves overall health with sensible changes to whirlpools of popcorn. A rose by any other name is still a sunflower produced by the degassing of basaltic lava in thermal equilibrium. There has been much conversation on this and potato salad in deep sea sediment samples emitting ultrashort flashes of light. So it stands to reason that quantum level oscillations of cane toads are similar to the angular momentum of data analysis. The Wigner effect is the displacement of atoms in a solid caused by neutron radiation."
---Albert Einstein
Skippy the Bush Kangaroo says... "True!"
🦘
Once Sonny got old enough and she no longer had to worry about him falling down a well all the time, Skippy left Waratah National Park and hopped west to get herself her dream education.
Skippy got her doctorate in astrophysics from the University of Jerramungup in Western Australia and was one of the first to point out that Australia should really be called the Land Up Over since regarding the solar system from the southern ecliptic is the correct view and on world maps the South Pole should be at the top.
Professor Skippy is a bit of a nitpicker when it comes to actual, specific details.
Professor Skippy is currently teaching multiverse hyperdimensional dynamics at the University of Toowoomba in Queensland.
"No wonder world affairs are so topsy-turvy if everyone always keeps seeing the planet upside down!"
---Professor Skippy
@@satanofficial3902 All story telling. And you just proved it.
Nice job. Thanks for showing how these problems are shoved under the rug
Shoved under a rug?? It’s one of the most well-known issues in physics! Nobody thinks the model is complete. This is exactly how science works.
This to me shows how wrong we have it and in-order to not admit it they "shove it under the rug" I believe we are nowhere near the right answer.
@@cyclonasaurusrex1525 it is well known but look at QED for example. They keep saying it gives the most accurate measurements ever. They even gave Nobel Prizes to Feynman and others. But at the same time they ignored the infinities than are renormalized away. Isn’t that a big example of shoving under the rug?
@@forbidden-cyrillic-handle “Sweeping it under the rug” sounds conspiratorial when in reality there’s neither sweeping nor conspiracy.
@@cyclonasaurusrex1525 even Dirac thought renormalization was an act of "sweeping under the rug" the embarrassing infinities in QED.
Very sad news about Wallace Thornhill passing. Gareth Samuel is the MOST proper scientist to take him over and continue his work.
Omg! What a sad news.
I very much appreciate Wal's life and work but he lost me on the Saturn Velikovsky stuff. What's great about Gareth is that he's more parsimonious and I don't think he's accepted the Velikovsky stuff either. He and Andy Hall are my favourites.
@@Vice81 I'd say ANdy and Gareth accept Velikovsky's catastrophism. If you dont agree Saturn's planetary system, then explain *¿why and how 2 AXIAL TILT FAMILIES?*
Yes, it was a sudden terrible news. RIP Mr. Thornhill.
@@nobigbang825 Yes and Big Bang is a Fallacy because it is Religion (faith in the ideas of OTHER PEOPLE) not thinking by oneself (Herd Behaviour=Hive Mind) which goes against the Jungian INDIVIDUATION principle.
Great one as usual
Moshe Carmeli expanded the theory of general relativity to the cosmological scale. John Hartnett expanded on that idea and the resulting equations not only matched observations of redshift but did so without invoking nonsensical ideas like dark matter/energy. See "Starlight, Time and the New Physics" (2011) for a layman-friendly explanation.
Einstein should have developed the variable speed of light version of Relativity, instead of this ridiculous warped spacetime monstrosity.
If you have a better insight, then please develop the theory.
Just be sure to include something that can be observed and a prediction that is different from what GR predicts, and we’ll all see together.
It's so weird when they try to apply these models that are only adapted to earth to the whole Universe and take it so seriously, as if there's something to it.
there is something to it in almost every scenario, even stars or galaxies thousands of lightyears away follow this model theres just something that they're missing
The Ron Hatch model of gravity solves this issue, based upon the ether medium density gradient, not "Curvature of Space," Dipole gravity, Maxwellian Gravity, or Newtonian force between masses.
His equation is based upon energy level, which he shows in his book to be a function of ether medium density, from the ether medium pervading the smallest atom to the Galactic functions in the Universe.
Find his preliminary equation for gravity at 'Ron Hatch: Searching for a Better Way -John Deere.'
Newton called this shell of aether condensed around objects the "evanescent Aether.'
According to Hatch, Planck's constant is the only true constant in the Universe.
Redshift, emission and absorption spectra, speed of light, gravity, clock frequency, clock speed all an ether medium density function.
Another paper of interest is - Gravitational Energy and the Flatness Problem Ronald R. Hatch
I would take this a step further under the Dirac Model of the aether, in that the aether must consist of dipole particle or photons, real photons not just virtual. This dipole particle nature to an ether medium solves the Casimir Effect issues and the quantum entangled photon issue.
There is no 'spooky action, at a distance, but photons always entangle in a crystalline manner. One of the few things Einstein did get right, there is no spooky action at a distance.
I confess to not knowing much about anything for sure but I have got ideas from what I read, hear and experience and from that I would say that I could believe in that we live in a sea of photons. I would not call it an aether but I could live with that with your explanation. I tend to believe that photons are the basis of everything. They are the energy carier that can change into matter in my oppinion.
Photons are generated (from matter) all over the place. They also get absurbet all over the place. Any change in electricity generates a photons be it a radio transmitter, turning on a switch, lightning, heat being radiated from something and so on. Any energy radiation is a photon radiation.
Photons can be extreamly small with very high energy or enormously large with very low energy. I could see that the so call spooky action at a distance is just one photon acting. At long wave radio transmission a single photon must be kilometers in size. If a photon is absorbet in say a radio receiver the whole photon must be absurbet at one spot as it is the lowest possible amount of energy and that may happen instantanuesly meaning that it may breake the speed of light in vacuum (c).
My thought of gravity is that it could be photons pushing on and being absurbet by mass. This mass would then later reemmit a photon but in a randum direction. Two masses close together would shade for each other and would there fore be pushed together. I am not capable of calculating if this idea is even possible I admit.
I do believe that the speed of light IN VACUUM is a contant and is the maximum transmission speed. The speed of light varies according to the medium it is in. In obtical fibers it should be about 69% of c. If it contains the same energy it must then change in frequency (color).
@@leonhardtkristensen4093 According to electrical theory electrons and charged particles are condensers and carriers of photons. In fact, Charles P. Steinmetz shows in his works that there is a one-to-one relationship between (charge flow in a conductor, capacitor, or inductor coil) and dielectric storage in them.
Nikola Tesla has shown in his radiant energy experiments, that he can separate the ether medium from the electrons, as a radiant energy source without the electrons in the flow.
A radio signal then is the creation of an energy wave, by condensation and refraction of a fluid medium, without the electrons that are used to condense and rarefy the ether. Ditto for electron transitions, according to Hatch.
A spectral emission is not by photon emission but by condensation and rarefaction as an energy wave.
A laser beam, or particle beam, however is a streaming of photons or entangled photons as a particle beam with or without charged particles in the flow.
The fact is that everything that applies to sound in air generally applies to light in an EM medium.
IF your follow the works of former NASA Employee Dr. Edward Henry Dowdye Junior, he shows evidence that that speed of light in a vacuum varies with distance from the Sun, in the vacuum of space. So, the speed of light is not a constant in a vacuum.
Just like sound in air, the speed of light is also dependent upon the density of the medium, and speed also varies as a function of frequency.
According to Hatch, GNSS data, the speed of light in a vacuum is not a constant but is dependent upon the ether medium density.
Basically, Einstein's time-dilation is an artifact of mathematical errors in his SRT derivation. And clock speed, according to Hatch has an actual physical reason for it, density or back EMF that is a function of ether density that pervades the clock circuitry.
Hatch is basically saying that whatever causes buoyancy is thing that causes, gravity of matter to buoy inwards towards the Earth, via an ether medium density gradient. The higher the ether medium density gradient the greater the force of gravity.
@@leonhardtkristensen4093 Einstein's claim is that light is transmitted by particle ejection rather than by energy wave. So, a radio wave according to Einstein would be that particles or photons are being ejected and propagated rather than just an energy wave, like sound is.
If Einstein were right, then MRI of your brain, which uses radio frequency, would probably not be very safe and would do some damage to your brain rather than just getting an image of your brain. So, an MRI is akin to an ultrasound but using radio waves, not particle ejection as Einstein claims.
@@JoeDeglman I can not remember where I have got my information and understanding from so I can not quote many other people as you can but that does not make it wrong what I say. In addetion I use my own experience in electronics to help my understanding. I may well be wrong but so you say Einstein was. I tend to aggree with you there to some degree. I believe he was right in postulating that photons must have a given amount of energy to be able to knock electrons free. That was what gave the theori about a photon being a particle I believe.
In regardt to electromagnetism I believe it to be carryed by photons. I believe that to be proven by enough people to be very likely true. You will allways be able to find some body that sais something different.
I believe that all radiation including light, heat and radio signals to be photon transmission. Enough people have proven that too. Nicola Tesla was quite right in saying that you can transmit energy without electrons however it is very difficult to keep it together to the receiving point without wires. You may have a small radio transmitter transmitting say 100w or a laser emmitting 100w but you will have a big problem receiving anywhere near that amount of power at any distance.
It is easy to believe that any energy transmission needs a medium like sound and wave energy in water but we have to remember that those energy forms are much more phycical. Shure an electron it a phycical thing too (or at least close to, it changes it's energy by receiving and transmitting photons). The thing is just if we have an aether we then have the problem trying to find out what that is made up of. I believe a photon can be a wavey excisting particle without the need for any media (In other words a or possibly the basic particle or excistance form).
If you look at the field emmitted from a dipole antenna you will see that the electric field goes from zero to maximum to zero. That could in my oppinion be one photon. Admittingly I have a problem explaning energy levels at a given frequency other than multiple photons are admitted at the same time.
That a NASA employee sais something doesn't mean much to me. To be in the forefront of technology you must gain employees with all sorts of ideas. The more ideas the better. that means that you must employ cracy people as well. You then test the ideas and if it works it must have been right. Some of the people will hang on to their ideas even if the majority believe it to be wrong. It could still be right but so could my ideas. I do not say that my ideas are right only I have the right to believe in them until I am proven wrong.
I would not be suppriced if Einsteins time dialation was a mathematical error. As I have heard he was not the best mathematisian. If your Hatch is right I can not say. I can say however that I don't like formulas that goes to infinity. What I see in nature and electronichs such formulas are missing some thing.
@@leonhardtkristensen4093 You seem to be on the right trail and very knowledgeable. I just enjoy studying this.
One thing that an ether medium model does is require a dipole particle make up, or an electron-positron pair to be the particles in the sea of Dirac photons.
One thing that is true is that if you move a wire antenna to a place of maximum polarity, then move it another half wavelength from the radio source, you will get another maximum, but of an opposite polarity on the antenna or wire.
This indicates to me that the EM medium must have a dipole alignment every half wavelength, or a dipole particle rotation within the medium, just like in sound transmission. So, a dipole particle makeup to the medium makes sense.
There may be other explanations for this, as you say.
But as far as a radio transmission, such as satellite dish or communicating to the Voyager probes, a high gain antenna can focus a signal into a direct flux ribbon?
I think this is basically what Nikola Tesla was experimenting with for wireless transmission of energy, basically a laser beam, but without the charged particles in it.
There are companies experimenting with laser or particle beam wireless transmission of power.
I do know that they can get a laser beam to the lunar reflectors and back, but a very weak signal returns.
in this new picture expansion happens at a certain rate because of a rate of dissipation which is related to an increase in entropy of the vacuum configuration, so this issue of energy densities in "quantum" fields is not an issue at all, the energy density of empty space found in the Friedman equation is just a wrong way to think about it, we just assume the right energy density currently, so the whole process is essentially just curve fitting.
While the Casimir effect may be contraversial, the existence of a quantum vacuum is not. The quantum vacuum is the origin of shot noise, which places a hard limit on precision measurements. This noise can be manipulated, in a process called squeezing. For example, a squeezed vacuum is used in the LIGO and VIRGO gravitational wave observatories to increase the sensitivity of the detectors. This is a different demonstration that the vacuum has structure.
That doesn't suck.
I had a thought pop up while I was doing dishes a minute ago; what if scale determines whether things appear as particles or as energy, similar to the way solids move like liquids over a long time-scale?
I like to pretend that I understand these, but I'm glad there's not a quiz afterwards. 😬
What a great explanation or should I say “explication” [$10 Word🤔]! This video is definitely going to be filed away for future reference.
Sorta the “Yin and Yang” of the difference between QM & GR. It seems like the two will never make nice with the prevailing attempts. Since this basic incompatibly suggests incompleteness, it makes me pounder about why we are stuck in this situation for a 100 years.
Scientist-inertia to change.
I LOVE YOUR VIDEOS
An issue with the "observations" at cosmological scales is that those observations are all interpretations of evidence, not evidence itself. That is, these interpretations rely on cosmological red shift (CRS) as "evidence" of an expanding universe. If the CRS is not caused by expansion of space-time, then everything downstream from that interpretation is troublesome. Note that this does reject CRS as something real, it just questions the interpretation. In fact there could well three or more cause of red shift. We know that one is Doppler shift, and we also should be aware that initially CRS was attributed to Doppler shift as remote objects accelerated away. Hubble rejected this idea and refused to attribute CRS to Doppler effects of any sort. He even seems to have avoided discussing an expanding universe.
My vacuum cleaner broke down this morning, it was a catastrophe
Be brave, be curious, the truth is waiting for us. Beautiful words
"All measurements of the curvature of the Universe" .... Gareth??? Wouldn't you mean *all the Calculations* ?
"At the quantum scale scientists cannot make direct observation" (so NO SCIENTIFIC METHOD).
Unfortunatelly, *NEITHER THEY CAN IN THE WHOLE UNIVERSE* (not knowing distances [redshift deity], mass-energy [gravitational deity], and time lapse [radio decay deity]).
10^93 g/cm3 isn't extremely large? We don't notice something like this in the vacuum
I had great physics teachers that told me to look at units. How is a vacuum energy density measured as a mass density g/cm³? Are they in faith assuming e=mc² is for real?
Often in GR we use units with c=1, with leads to energy measured in mass units.
I think that Newtonian or GRT derived mass function is the problem, most of the time, from the smallest atom to large galaxies.
There are dwarf planets with ring radii that defy the standard mass function. Beehive and open clusters defy standard mass function. Galaxies defy mass function. The search for dark matter comes from the failure of the standard mass function. Newton and GRT are derived from the hypothesis that there is a big G gravitational constant.
In reality, there is no big G, just endless attempts to defibrillate the standard mass function.
E=MC^2 was originally derived from fluid dynamics. When you apply energy as a function of a fluid medium density, aether density, dielectric density, or magnetic flux density it solves these issues with mass function and redshift, and puts the Evanescent Aether experiments of Newton back as a bubble around matter to solve the Casimir effect.
When you look at galaxies, solar systems, etc. as energy systems or energy vortices in a fluid medium, a density function, it solves these issues.
MHD with a density function define mass function better; correspond to energy level, E= MC^2, and momentum better. 1/2 mv^2
For example, using standard mass function, a star with a planet outside the galactic plane, they calculate planet density from the orbital period and conclude that the planet is 9 times the density of a regular planet. But using a fluid medium function or flux density, or aether density, you would conclude that the planet is at standard density with a local energy system density or medium density at about 1/3 of the standard flux density.
What theory is falsified by the vaccuum castrastophy.?
A singularity is falsified by the vacuum catastrophe.
Theoretically when the distance goes to zero an infinite attraction and collapse should result. Instead, a repulsive force manifests.
Look at wiki on nuclear force, as similar thing happens.
"The nuclear force is powerfully attractive between nucleons at distances of about 0.8 femtometre (fm, or 0.8×10−15 metre), but it rapidly decreases to insignificance at distances beyond about 2.5 fm. At distances less than 0.7 fm, the nuclear force becomes repulsive. This repulsion is responsible for the size of nuclei, since nucleons can come no closer than the force allows. "
This is the probable reason why in every known case when a singularity should occur, per the Schwarzschild math, that a singularity is prevented, and relativistic jets manifest instead. AGN, solar flares, tokamak plasmoids, Herbig-Haro objects, etc.
This makes "neutron stars" impossible.
@@JoeDeglman At the end of your thread, I thought you were going to say This makes Black Holes with singularities impossible” Instead, you say Neutron stars are impossible. So when they fond objects orbiting a very small tegion in space, what do you claim isbat the center? A heavy white dwarf?
By the way, “a singularity” is not a theory as far as I know, since a singularity is a violation of our physical laws. We have no theory that can describe or deal with singularities. If you think we do, point me to them pls.
@@pedrosura A singularity is falsified by the Casimir effect and the Vacuum Catastrophe.
The Casimir effect is evidence against singularity but does not debunk it completely.
However, in every case where the magnetic flux density indicates that a singularity should occur, relativistic jets form that seem to prevent a singularity by venting off the overpressure somehow.
Black holes have other explanations for them, in that other plasmoids appear to be blue shifted due to the high density of magnetic storage there.
The center of an AGN or sunspot just appear dark in the visible range but are highly illuminated in Xray or gamma.
However, that fact that both protons and 'neutrons' have the same repulsion at less than .7 fm means that there is something wrong with what we know about neutrons, also the fact that neutrons have a magnetic dipole moment. More likely the Edo Kaal model of the neutron, as a proton- electron-pair is a better model.
What they have found is space, with stars orbiting them, is an indicator that those are not "black holes that shouldn't exist," but they match the description of a plasmoid at a plasma node along the spiral arms, or along an electric current or cosmic web filament in space.
All stars form at current connections in space or along filaments, just like ball lightning does.
Try an article called 'HERSCHEL'S HUNT FOR FILAMENTS IN THE MILKY WAY'
@@JoeDeglman I see. The book “Seeing Red” opened up my eyes to the nature of Quasars and the impact that a different interpretation of red shift would have on Cosmology. I will continue to read and learn.
I am amazed that nobody is acknowledging the fact that JWST is not observing the predicted optical illusion that should be observed if space was expanding where early galaxies would appear abnormally large at high red shifts. They have swept that under the rug.😂
@@pedrosura An article on the bulge size of a galaxy vs color and star formation rate.
arXiv:1403.5269 'Bulge mass is king: The dominant role of the bulge in determining the fraction of passive galaxies in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey'
There are two assumptions used in the report.
1. younger stars are bluer in color; older stars are redder in color.
2. older galaxy have a higher redshift and are the furthest away.
The report claims that bulge size corresponds to star color.
But star color, according to the standard model, red means old and blue means young.
So, if you assume that redshift means that a galaxy is older and further away, then the data on star formation rate ought to correspond to bulge size and color as well.
But it doesn't.
Buried in the conclusion on page 21 of the report...
The only way to tie star formation rate to the age of the galaxy is through the assumption that high redshift means older, further, higher velocity.
This is what is known as a logical fallacy, or a catch-22.
Either the assumption about color being an indicator of age is wrong or the assumption that redshift means older galaxies on the edge of the Universe and higher velocity is wrong.
Both assumption 1 and 2 cannot be true.
Peratt shows data that a higher input current means a flatter bulge, which dove tails with the EU theory that red means lower input current and blue means higher input current.
Halton Arp also has two other things in his book that get ignored by the EU models. Matter creation out of the galactic core via the relativistic jets and Halton Arp claims that the 'tired light theory' simply fails by observation, chapter 4 of seeing red.
arxiv.org 2007.09717 The Origin of Matter at the Base of Relativistic Jets in
Active Galactic Nuclei
Thank you so much for this video - It has only been now with the simplicity with which you explained the vacuum catastrophe that I have in my own mind at lest resolved the conflict.
To perhaps clarify - the smaller the vibration (wavelength) the higher the energy. Wavelength and frequency being inverse to one another. E=hf. High frequency = high energy (i.e. gamma versus microwave) QM uses the shortest wavelength. Why I don't know. GR is using the longest wavelength. The vacuum of space. This is like comparing the two different sides of the MTS equation. A long long wavelength (small frequency) exists at the Dark Energy side (S side of MTS) (10 to the minus 29 g/cm3) while the shortest wavelength (Planck & 5.16 to the 93rd g/cm3) (high frequency) exists as the extreme density of a black hole (M side of the MTS equation) . Remember The MTS equation is from 0 mph to "c" in the MTS direction. In the STM direction, we go from "c" to 0mph. And with Lorentz transformations along the way. [As a side note I recall I believe out of Chicago two scientists saying that as things were brought an Bose-Einstein condensate, they approached a black hole, well, this appears evident in the MTS equation as the M (black hole) side of the equation is one of no motion. I believe I left a nervous and blathering phone message to one of them some ten or so years ago. ] What I have just realized now is that there are some 10 to the order of 120 magnitudes between the M and S side of the MTS equation. In your vacuum catastrophe you are comparing a short wavelength (high mass-high frequency ) QM environment to a long wavelength (low mass - high space-low frequency) GR environment. Why? The zero point energy of QM has nothing to do with the vacuum of space. You are mixing apples and peanuts.
The majority of features of General Relativity prove that their concepts are ludicrous. The rubber mat with bowling balls and balls etc has the white lines of force spreading outward, when in reality the gravity would distort space-time and scrunch in the lines. Model bogus. Also the true design of this concept must be shown in 3D hologram, as gravity is 360x360 and not some flat rubber matting.
The rubber matting also displays an earth downward gravity on the 2D planar model - which is NOT VALID in open 3D space, but would have to have gravity of various levels (from the sun and other planets and moons) interacting upon its distorted 3D space-time fabric.
There is NO Einstein-Rosenburg bending and folding of space-time and making wormhole travel. It shows a flat planar dimension of space being folded back like paper and then having the vortex hole of both locations (like a black hole) open up. Even a 3D black hole doesn't warp space-time like this. This is another BS concept. True wormholes are worm "bubbles" that move through the dark universe (outside of regular space-time) with no friction ... appearing as worm holes. The only true wormholes must be from such stargates of circular portals opening up space-time and connecting to another such stargate portal. This is the only true wormhole and warp speed travel zone. Otherwise, worm bubbles surrounding a space vehicle moves the vehicle from the physical universe into the dark universe, and transits from point A to point B, and then pops out, drops with worm bubble shielding and is back in the physical universe.
Making a vacuum device, is proof that you attempt to have 2 plates of such closeness that a regular atom of nanometers of diameter are removed from this vicinity - and only the sub-particulates (and energies and forces) of the dark universe are present - and what remains is within a vacuum area. The Aether still has existence and pressure within this space - as well as all space ... so there is no true vacuum. This region is just a manifestation of the Aether with no physical universe atoms and particles being there. Also there is no vacuum of space, as space is just a lowered PSI far below that of our current earth's atmosphere pressure of 14.7 sea level PSI. And atoms (1-6 hydrogen atoms / square meter) and solar/cosmic winds still flow in this medium. So there is no vacuum of space.
Einstein's Relativity work is filled with errors. None of it can withstand a logical audit.
It's hard to write a formula about stuff we don't understand. Great video.
you can only write a correct formula, which i wont even if, if you find the true core, cause the true core emits true time. its at least further away as the observable universe.
you need to know the define in speed and distance from true rim waves to true core. and you can calculate all other cores and write a correct physiques for earth.
for this to ever happen you need to build jumpgates first
sure i calculate all planets and galaxies in the formula to give you a correct formula, i have nothing better to as calculate it all from here to 1 quadrillion lighyears away
van der vaal/casimir needs a medium non-the-less; as a pushing source, not the inbetween lack of it
@@paulthomas963 Well it has many names; ether, neutrino-antineutrino, quantum springs, quantum foam.
But ether was used by old sanskrit scriptures as the "5th element" (akaša)
And Nikola Tesla used this word to describe this medium/substance in his Theory of Dynamic Gravity. (which is hidden from us by the secret cabal who pushing lies about curvature of space)=
The ratio of ballistic gravity is given as 1:1000 for the sun and Jupiter. The actual ratio is 1 for Jupiter and 4 for the Birkeland current in dark mode.That means the space ratio of the vacuum is also a ratio of 1:4 so the 120 orders of difference is the correct value as the relativity gravity is 30 order or one portion of the total of 120 orders. There is no failure as the ratio is completely natural in space.
welcome back!
Einstein's General Relativity equivalence is not a Universal truth.
Einstein ignores the fact that gravity is subject to the inverse square law. An elevator car pulled at an accelerated 9.8 m/sec by a magical genie is not the same thing as standing still on Earth's surface. A compass also shows us how wrong Einstein's GR ideas are.
By the way, Einstein thought of GR as his gravitational ether theory. By the time he got to General Relativity, Einstein switched horses and started to claim how important the ether was to things like light paths.
Yep, notice how the vacuum energy density units are normal mass density? It's as if they assume e=mc² is true
God you guys are clueless
Oooh, those physicists and their rubber bed-wetting sheets! They must think we're stupid.
So can we start talking about Aether again? Maybe then we reconcile GR and QM into one theory..
Space is cold resistance. Pressure created by repulsion to propulsion of forward maximum in repulsion. Resistance is always equalization of pressure in mass. Hydrogen under extreme pressure expands cold resistance of repulsion required to equalization of pressure in mass to expand into helium. More pressure exerted within, more pressure exerted without in equalization of pressure in mass. Hydrogen expands into helium. More pressure exerted, more repulsion exerted. Expansion of mass in equalization to internal pressure. Force of pressure is equalization of resistance as mass.
Something has been bothering me, and perhaps you can shed some light on a question. For this, I will use a thought experiment. Stationary charges repel if like, and attract if opposite. Assume that two charges are set moving in the same direction so that their velocities are parallel.
Moving charges have a motional magnetic field that causes the opposite effect. So for given charge values there is a velocity at which the repulsion (due to like charges), or the attraction (due to opposite charges), exactly equals the motional magnetic force trying to oppose this. In such circumstance, they should continue on, the distance between charges remaining the same.
Question:
So assuming I have that configured correctly, my question is, is there a force, or pseudo force, or something, which causes the particles' trajectories to take on a helical structure, in essence causing them to "orbit" one another around in a helical fashion?
This stems from my concern over what exactly causes birkeland currents to take on this helical structure.
Wouldn't the magnetic field, and therefore magnetic force, cause these helical trajectories in your example? If we use vectors, then for the like charges, each charge has a vector pointing away from the other charge, which is the electric repulsion, and then there's a perpendicular vector at the tip of each of those vectors representing the magnetic force. If these two vectors point in the same direction, the vectors would rotate into each other as if they're physical entities, but the like charges repel, so one vector must point the other way. These vectors then rotate until they interlock with each other, thus forcing the like charges to rotate around each other in a helical fashion. As for opposite charges, well, I'm not sure. They may as well crash into each other and annihilate.
@@pronounjow I dunno. It seems to me that the B fields produced by each moving charge would oppose one another between the charges, in the case of like charges, the Lorentz force causing an attraction; but in the case of unlike charges, the B fields between the charges would point in the same direction, the Lorentz force causing a repulsion. Maybe the helical trajectories don't occur unless the situation is more complicated. It seems to me that if two wires are placed side by side, and if current passing in the same direction causes attraction of the wires, and if current in opposite directions causes repulsion of the wires, and since nobody ever observed the wires wrapping around each other in a corkscrew pattern, that the origin of this corkscrew pattern must lie in the force free nature of the Birkeland current. The current flows along the helical B field instead of orthogonal to it, yet the charges still must produce their motional magnetic fields, which themselves are still orthogonal to their trajectories. I can sort of understand that the vector sum of these B fields with the main Birkeland current B field, might result in other B fields pointing in some interesting directions, but why is there a main helical B field in the first place? Why does plasma left to its own agenda form force free helical flow? I dunno. Don Scott says it's the lowest energy state. Okay. I still feel slighted on an intuitive explanation. Now charged particles are economists.
In the rest frame of each particle the other particle is not moving, so it will just experience an attractive/repulsive electric force. In other frames it will look like a magnetic force, but time will run differently.
Our love of illustrating in two dimensions apart, as a pure thought experiment; Time, is an illusion solely reliant on short-lived biological structures. If you ascribed a personality to the Universe, you might say that Time is irrelevant to the Universe; ergo, does not exist.
Further to this, build a model of the universe where the mythical substance called 'Time' does not exist.
I might try and dream about that tonight, but only if I get the 'Time'.
;-) Aside: When the kids rubber sheets, coordinate systems, bend and stretch. First they have to paint on. Matter or light, in "motion", step by step. Then they can see how bending and stretching affect matter and light!
How exactly does mass change the space time ?
Time is a construct - it changes space entropy.
I always wondered what radio waves propagate on in space? Sound waves propagate in air or water. Waves by themselves aren't anything but a disturbance. What is being disturbed in space?
Electricity -- th-cam.com/video/NvETRWSulk8/w-d-xo.html
Just read that solar flares contain radio waves.
The ether.
Sparse Gas.....
Dark matter was invented to have an 'answer' for galactic that should have more mass. To explain it's inner force vs observed mass.
Current theory invented 96% of the universe that can't be measured, can't be seen or anything else.
If you have to invent 96% of the universe your theory might have a flaw or two.
So what would be the "vacuum energy" of a "Dirac Sea", superfluid fermionic condensate of electron positron Cooper pair lattice as Quintessence?
Since Big bang appears to be dead and the cosmic microwave background must therefore be the energy dump at the critical temperature of the fermionic condensate, It seems like any variability in the microwave background must be due to higher densities locally associated with mass density.
So there cannot be a universal cosmological constant, or a fixed speed of light in a "vacuum".
Since magnetism refracts light, it seems obvious that it works by polarising the cooper pair chains of the quintessence.
"Many things in this Age may not be as they seem"
I watched Eric Laithwaites demonstration video with flywheels and gyroscopes video yesterday. It seriously challenged my notions of how gravity works.
How the hell can a flywheel weighing ten kilograms sit on a pivot hanging out over the edge of the table and precess around, when at all times the centre of mass is far out from the edge of the table that the lightweight plate that it's sitting on the edge of has its toe on?
Is it entraining its own spinning reference frame of quintessence that is laminarly detached from the quintessence inertial reference frame of the earth?
There is a theory the sun is made of metallic hydrogen. For us to get the readings from the sun that we collect there must be a surface but could the containment fields of a plasmoid act as that surface?
Thank God, we still have people providing alternative theories to all the problems with big bang cosmology!
So does this mean there’s is something fundamentally wrong with Quantum Mechanics. If so dies reduce the credence of claims the Many Worlds version is correct.
Many Worlds is just an interpretation, not a theory
@@HouseMusicLover001 exactly. Should there be interpretations if it’s not correct enough.
This has nothing to do with the many worlds theory.
@@cyclonasaurusrex1525 I know. But I’m asking if QM can be shown to be incomplete enough, that interpretations are over confident.
What do you expect from people in 1915? The had no computers, they had no TV, they had a pen made from a feather. I don't know how Einstein is still thought of as a genius, and not a crazy person.
When I was at school, all the terms were defined. In Inglish; and then applied to the equations.
This looks like Mathterbation to me.
according to what physics law QM density is 10x93 g/cm, may i ask?
Cos, you know, the number itself look like meaningless bs
It is meaningless BS.
When I was a school and you could not explain your maths you failed yet in Quantum Maths you just fudge it .
This is what happens when you forget to cary 10^122 ones!
Im sure the mainstream scientists are working right now on a new model that better describes the universe 🤔
The problem Physics has is thinking that the energy density of vacuum is constant..
Or that it's governed and sustained by Einsteinian relativity or quantum mechanics at all..
If Nature abhors a vacuum, then I guess it's perfectly understandable for a vacuum to abhor Nature.
Nature is a vacuum. The vacuum is nature.
Thank you! No mention of motion. Does anyone really think elements at the quantum scale are static? No, as with all things, it is in motion, at scale. Vast rivers and oceans. Think about it. Consider the ramifications.
Not a single physicist claims “elements at the quantum scale are static”
@@sputnik6651 and almost every one of them will talk only about kinetics. Or worse, try to invoke gravitational force.
Go look up Tom Bearden, and see for yourself that the latter quantum dynamics estimation of the vacuum density is the more accurate one.
This presentation is the most concise, even the ''professor'' will understand. 👍
er...where's the catastrophe?
Theoretically when the distance goes to zero an infinite attraction and collapse should result. Instead, a repulsive force manifests.
Look at wiki on nuclear force, as similar thing happens.
"The nuclear force is powerfully attractive between nucleons at distances of about 0.8 femtometre (fm, or 0.8×10−15 metre), but it rapidly decreases to insignificance at distances beyond about 2.5 fm. At distances less than 0.7 fm, the nuclear force becomes repulsive. This repulsion is responsible for the size of nuclei, since nucleons can come no closer than the force allows. "
So, while the Universe didn't blow up because the standard theory is wrong, it does show a possible reason why in every case where as 'singularity' should occur, relativistic jets manifest instead.
So...theories based on imaginary matter, energy, particles, fields and multiple universes make predictions that are catastrophically wrong?
Aether? Yes
nah the mathematical arguments about global geometry and expansion are erroneous, they are only necessary because of an interpretation of the geometric equations and how they relate to the energy content and stress. it isnt necessary, if you reformulate in a slightly different language you get more freedom, but then when you extend it the freedom goes away in favor of another mechanism related to dissipation of processes in the vacuum that gives rise to the structure of mass and fields, the effect in euclidian coordinates is identical to expansion, it is the scale of matter contracting and a lot of stuff changing in concert with the contraction which gives rise to certain equilibrium of rotations of fundamental particles and a bunch of other stuff, keeping coupling constant equilibrated and so on and the result is intrinsic expansion. the only counter argument to the construction is basically dogmatic bs so i am pretty sure it is right, it is a much more comprehensive and sensible description where the function of expansion is directly related to physical effects and not an assumption of a constant scalar field or energy density.
Without the gravitational constant - 6.67408 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2 and dark matter.....gravitational and relativity models fail to explain the observed universe....EU.......
Either approach, much speculation, little observation.
Should we not attempt to see if there is a gravitational induction at the moment of an electrical discharge? Relatively simple experiment but the mindset in our era is not there. Next century, perhaps.
Perhaps Winston Churchill's comment on Americans could be applied to physics: "Americans Will Always Do the Right Thing - After Exhausting All the Alternatives" 🙂
yeah cause time fractal, event horizon.
Einstein was a waste of spacetime.
"If you clean your vacuum, does that make you a vacuum cleaner? So take to its logical conclusion that black holes make an excellent framework for mounting rear channel speakers onto potato salad. The best time to wear a striped sweater is all the time because a quantum state represented by the probability distribution of air bubbles in soy sauce has been astounding and unprecedented. A more concise synopsis is difficult to imagine. Your ceiling is talking to me again, so it's time to turn that frown upside down. Traditional chinese medicine is absolutely critical to changing the paradigm about species 8472. But many people miss the reasons behind it all. Obsolete magical thinking is what has been going on in the background all this time. Being fermions, no two electrons can occupy the same quantum state. Ask your doctor if sudden death from an unknown cause is right for you. Fluctuations in the black hole transporter frames are unstable and are affecting the bio-neural subspace modules. Follow the science of pet messes to balance the quantum polarities."
---Albert Einstein
"It is my scientific conjecture that those who are related to you are your relatives. And this is my theory of relativity."
---Albert Einstein
"Do you feel lucky? Well, do you, punk? Go ahead, make my day and say something that can scientifically proven to be wrong!"
---Albert Einstein
As usual an epic simple explanation of the reality of the differences. Electric Universe is what is now the Paradigm. Quantum physics is not the way. Thanks again for your help to us all in understanding that difference!
@@paulthomas963
define quantum
define field
define quantum field
the problem is lays within them both. they both are missing one very very important thing. matter is light and we observe illumination. and this absurd notion time and space can act on something. did you learn nothing from nicola tesla. or where the royal names furious someone not of there blood line was much more intelligent and creative.? theres no photon its a disturbance in the low energy medium a emf we are not able to detect yet see its presence everywhere as all things are made of it. long live the Æther. Lux Æterna
Once again the the science hints at a universe which is conscious
No such conclusion except in your mind
@@fkeyvan Thank you Dr Science. Where's your Nobel Prize?
@@fkeyvan Plus thousands of scientists around the world from multiple disiplines and the bulk of the electrical and Plasma scientists and the many peer approved papers submitted covering many different sections of the better cosmology
@@fkeyvan only in the mind... yeah... haha
Of course the universe is conscious.
I think gravity is the subatomic expression of the long range attraction/short range repulsion of the electric force. I think this explains why gravity becomes a negligible effect in the presence of the human scale expression of the electric force and why there seems to be evidence of repulsive gravitational effect in certain cases. Additionally, one might expect to see a macro-scale effect of the electric force at the galactic scale and above should you subscribe to the concept of similarity at all fractal scales.
Perhaps someone much, much better at theoretical mathematics then myself might try and deduce what that might look like? *Cough*Gareth*cought*cough*... 🤔😁
"Gravity" is an unproven theory. All theories is kaput in terms of this.
So in other words, you are (ten to the 132nd power) times better-off if you don’t rely on physics professors.
Not counting the hundreds of thousands spent seeking a doctorate of preposterously of science
Garbage IN GARBAGE out🤣😪😁
Both theories are dead wrong, therefore so is your "prediction".
Your channel is great! It seems as if the great minds of the 20th century got lost by ignoring the role of electrodynamics in the cosmos. In so doing, we as observers are in an ambiguous position. Biologically we are at least as dependent on electricity as artificial intelligence. Our neurons and nervous system are obviously part of the circuitry of the universe. Just as significant an oversight is the neglect of the electrodynamic relationship between the sun and the earth, and the rest of the planets in the solar system; how the sun itself may be wired into the Milky Way and how the Milky Way is part of a local supercluster and so on. Your channel has taught me much about the history of science, thank you!!!
radii of epicycles on which the physics wheelchair rickets dont match.. who woulve thunk^^
Maybe there is no catastrophe because some part of your theory is wrong. When do we stop indulging the belief in dark energy? It’s crap videos like this that perpetuate the myth!
It is the attempt to defibrillate Newtonian gravity or GRT that keep the myth alive. Dark energy or Dark matter is merely a patch to try to defibrillate the standard model.
A singularity is falsified by the vacuum catastrophe.
Theoretically when the distance goes to zero an infinite attraction and collapse should result. Instead, a repulsive force manifests.
Look at wiki on nuclear force. A similar thing happens.
"The nuclear force is powerfully attractive between nucleons at distances of about 0.8 femtometre (fm, or 0.8×10−15 metre), but it rapidly decreases to insignificance at distances beyond about 2.5 fm. At distances less than 0.7 fm, the nuclear force becomes repulsive. This repulsion is responsible for the size of nuclei, since nucleons can come no closer than the force allows. "
This is the probable reason why in every known case when a singularity should occur, per the Schwarzschild math, that a singularity is prevented, and relativistic jets manifest instead. AGN, solar flares, tokamak plasmoids, Herbig-Haro objects, etc.
This makes "neutron stars" impossible.
Neutron stars and singularities are only theoretical, but the vacuum catastrophe falsifies both along with the standard model.
I apologize for watching crime videos. I have space timed to the proper constant. 🫤
Thanks!