Real Physics Talk: Carver Mead
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 มิ.ย. 2024
- Carver Mead on G4v: • G4v: An Engineering Ap...
Carver Mead on Semiconductors: • Lessons from the Early...
Carver Mead Press conference: • BBVA Press Conference ...
2023 paper on Gravitation: authors.library.caltech.edu/1...
His Book on Collective Electrodynamics:
mitpress.mit.edu/978026263260...
www.kyotoprize.org/en/2022/ca...
einsteinpapers.press.princeto...
0:00 Mead's career
2:30 Moore's Law
3:15 Physical Law's
4:30 How did Mead's interest in fundamental physics arise?
6:00 Why bother with fundamental problems?
7:10 In view of new experiments, would you craft a physical law in the same form?
8:05 Mead's critique of GR and his theory of gravitation G4v
9:00 Brief comments on Quantum Theory
10:00 Do we have a proper description of reality?
10:30 Gravity again
11:15 Einstein's 1911 and 1912 papers and Mead's theory
17:25 Shapiro time delay and variable speed of light (VSL)
19:00 Pulsars
20:00 Taylor-Hulse
21:00 Methodological problems and VSL
24:00 standing waves and propagating light
25:00 Proposed experiment for the above difference
26:50 Mach's principle
27:15 Sciama's paper
28:40 Gravitational constant - one fundamental problem
29:30 Fiber optic gyroscopes
29:50 Accelerated frames - the other fundamental problem unsolved by Newton
31:20 Missing Mach's principle in current theories
32:30 Communication with experts
34:00 Intuitive and formal thinking
36:20 How much theory is hidden in observations?
37:30 Gravity Probe B
40:10 Gravitational waves
41:10 Open data
43:00 Microworld
45:00 The engineer's approach
46:10 comments on string theory
47:45 Science advances with one funeral at a time
48:50 Are we in the dark ages again?
51:30 Technology and physics
52:00 Tunneling and semiconductors- a groupthink example
53:30 On Bardeen
56:00 What hinders progress?
57:00 Americas computer revolutions
58:15 Sillicon valley research climate
1:01:00 Lasers and superconductors
1:03:00 Coevolution of physics and cosmology
1:04:00 Superconductors
1:05:40 High temperature superconductors
1:06:30 Ray Kurzweil
1:08:45 Neural networks and superintelligence
1:11:00 An optimist statement
1:14:00 Heinrich Hertz
1:15:00 Rooted in Nature
1:17:30 To young people: think in your own way
Apologies for the missing gallery view in zoom... next time I'll know how to do that!
Mind also my backup channel:
odysee.com/@TheMachian:c
My books: www.amazon.com/Alexander-Unzicker/e/B00DQCRYYY/ - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
Carver Mead is a rock star
Damn straight!
What an exceptional talk. I really feel that Carver Mead deserves the Nobel Prize in Physics for the sheer scale of his achievements.
I wish I could upvote this more. Carver is a favorite.
What a wonderful human being. A humble man with such a clear mind. Thank you for sharing this interview.
Carver Mead said more than once that he is an engineer. And I could not help but smile at the humbleness shown by the man with utmost honesty. And another thing that I also cannot help but think and be awed about is that, he in his age is still trying to figure out things that he had not earlier figured out or understood. It does not matter to him, whether it has been already done or not, he still needed to understand it deeply. I wish more people would think in his 'engineering' way and as he said make things accessible.
The fact that he is still struggling with this field is proof that I’m not stupid when I say much of modern quantum physics is bunk scam grifting
After watching, I got on Amazon and ordered "Collective Electrodynamics".
Very cool book. I enjoyed it. Hope you do too :)
I am thinking about getting the book. What do you think so far?
@@cornfall I had a stroke and only finished a minor in physics. I can monkey see, monkey do the math and most of the written is stories of "the how and why" that the textbooks and some professors left out of the lectures. Table of contents is soupier and easy to get to specific subjects. As for what I have read so far, I don't feal that it is making an argument for a new line of thought but more of general text on the collective works of electromagnetism like the title suggests. For my level, it's a good read.
@@martinsoos thanks for sharing your views
a role model to all physics and ECE students out there
You need someone like Faraday first, then Maxwell it does not work the other way round! Great talk!!!
The collaboration between Faraday & Maxwell is grossly under-appreciated for its consequences.
Thanks for introducing Carver Mead, I didn't know he had such a well-formulated theory rivaling Einstein's GR.
It's also Einstein's theory :)
Absolute great discussion, needs a lot more views! 👍
This talk is a real gem. I am deeply inspired.
Really good video.
what an amazing MAN !!!!
I like to think that when I'm learning, I'm studying someone's idea/process of answering a big question. I feel many "intellectuals" get their self worth out of being right and knowing stuff. But the "correctness" of that stuff is probably faulty.
I don't entangle my ideas with my ego, since they aren't really my ideas. At best I can synthesize. For example I like studying psychology and neurology, but I can't build a functioning brain so I'm certain that I don't fully understand it. At least not a deep enough level. However that doesn't mean that even technically "wrong" ideas can be pragmatic/useful.
Mr.Unzicker id love to see an episode of you having a conversation with Particle physicist Lawrence Krauss
He also has a podcast
The best defense of the individual vs the political consensus is to reduce The Argument Surface. The Argument Surface is the number of ways that rhetoric may be used to escape fair comparison of models. The way to do this is to pick a dataset used to "benchmark" competing models, and then challenge the proponents of those models to create the smallest algorithm that outputs _exactly_ that dataset, without loss of even one bit of information.
One might call this "The Algorithmic Information Criterion for Model Section".
This applies in any controversy but it is particularly easy to see in the case of physics.
People frequently point to "falsification" as the tool to use here rather than Algorithmic Information, but, tragically, that leaves a gaping hole in the philosophy of science, large enough to drive financing for Large Hadron Collider through. This we can see using a most-obvious example:
Newton stands on the moon and drops a feather and an apple simultaneously so as to measure how long they take to hit the surface in vacuum. He measures 1.00003 sec for the feather and 1.00002 for the apple.
They're supposed to fall equally fast according to his theory, so it's FALSIFIED!!!
Popper and Kuhn did unspeakable damage to science right at the dawn of Moore's Law when it was discovered by Solomonoff that by adopting the assumption _implicit_ in the natural sciences (that predictions can be calculated at all), it can be _proven_ that the most probable model is the one that can be used to take all the data in evidence and produce the smallest algorithm that outputs that data, exactly without missing a single bit.
This reduces the argument surface to who can produce the smallest executable archive of the data in evidence. It is one number. The argument surface then reduces to evaluating a numeric comparison.
In natural language models this has been endorsed by Deep Mind senior scientist, but it applies across the entire range of the natural sciences.
good talk; Prof Carver = awesome!
his gravity physics is blowing my mind.
also, imo: curiosity > self confidence; cultivate courage
When I entered computer science graduate school, so long ago I don't want to say, AI was starting it's wandering decades. The new graduate students who said they were going to study AI made me say "I feel so sorry for you" under my breath. Thirty years later, the first real breakthrough with DNNs and convolution came. (Expert systems made an appearance and were hailed at the time as the realization of the promise of AI, but they weren't.) Another ten years, LLMs. Boom. And, the basic idea already existed (the perceptron, though we needed multiple layers and a learning algorithm and enough training data and ....), it just needed to scale. Perhaps physics is in a similar situation but we just can't see it. Perhaps there will be a breakthrough based on ideas that are already available. And, maybe it will take someone like Mead to see it.
What I am getting out of all of this, is that everyone is talking passed everyone and the theories that are being taught are just the most popular ones who get the most research grants, not necessarily the ones that explain nature on a fundamental level.
To Unzicker, some interesting wonderings about the universe, understanding, and theory:
Something and Nothing. Mass, matter, light, particles, waves etc. are somethingsness. Travel in any direction slightly less than infinite miles and let's presume eventually we run out of things and find some notion of absolute nothing: how much absolute nothing exists in the universe? How compressed, pressurized is the universe as a whole?
What is the existing condition of the EM field: though no experiments have been done with magnets outside the galaxy, they have been done in earthly and just beyond, vacuum. The implication that every tiniest spec of space is covered by the potential the bridge the gap between magnets, action at distance.
So too, gravity is action at distance. Nothing, that absolute nothing aforementioned cannot force objects to interact at distance. Thus, the ability of magnets and gravity masses, to function at any point in the universe implies Somethingness which mediates the function.
Does the field exist all around 2 magnets (brought to distant vacuum space away from absolutely all other particles) and the internal actions interact with external to cause the effect of magnet action;
Or in distant from all matter and energy vacuum space, does purely the internal actions of 2 magnets, create external actions which cause the effect of magnet interaction.
Is there invisible light stuff and invisible gravity stuff at every point in 3d space or not.
How compressed is all the things, particles, parts of the universe, so that everytime an electron spins or moves it is necessarily touching and moving/being moved by "something".
Every single thing, every single point in space there is some thingness, and every thing moving and spinning makes every thing surrounding move and spin.
The constant movings and spinnings of the micro, and constant movings and spinnings of macro.
What does charge physically, objectly mean?
Nature of Object. Nature of Surroundings.
A particle has quantities, qualities
A particles surrounding has quantities, qualities.
They interact, and quantities and qualities occur.
Some of this has been called, Charge.
Gorgeous.
More thinking of this quality may eventually overcome the unfortunate misunderstandings, wierdnesses and wildly infectious woo which physics has been generating for near a century.
Escaping chronocentric atomism is going to be even more refreshingly clarifying than was the escape from geocentricism.
What physics needs is more Carver Meads and less Edward Wittens. Have you been in touch with Carver since this interview? When is he doing his optical frequency comb experiment? I can’t wait for the results!
Engineers are going to provide the break through by the looks of things.
The waxing and waning solar cycle is simple when you use a central toroidal Quadrupole processing over 2 polar vortex quadrupoles with a procession rate of 1.1° per solar day.
Simply say 360° ÷ 1.1°= 327 × 25 days which equals 22.5 earth years. The quadrupole gives 4 waxing and waning sun spot cycles and the 22 year magnetic cycle.
Is charge just another facet of that which allows gravity to occur?
A micro subatomic reaction with a bit of local medium
While macro planetary object interacts with the same medium
Just effects a larger volume of it
Charge isn't some magical action at distance but:
Object interacting with medium
Medium is disturbed
Disturbed medium can interact with other objects
What keeps the electron around nucleus
Is what keeps planet around sun
Object interacting with medium.
Different effects, medium of air can be a gentle breeze, every sound you've ever heard, a tornado, and hurricane, same medium, different circumstances and scales and effects.
Water can be gentle waves, whirlpools and tsunamis and still.
A giant ship experiences the water one way, a microscopic organism another
Apparently the universes non atomic medium, can have effects x, y, z on the subatomic scale; and with a quigillion subatomics stuck together, have effects on the medium a, b, c on the star planet scale. Likely even signs of a, b, c, x , y, z in each.
--------
When object A interacts with medium X: quality B occurs
When object C interacts with medium X: quality D occurs.
All activities that create gravity, also create light?
All activities that create light, also create gravity?
All charge is also mass; all mass interacts with medium and results in a style/quality of activity
All mass is not charge?
Some mass on the subatomic scale shows no sign of interacting with any medium?
Those are the inner titans!
What is the nature of light before it is propagated?
What is its physical existence and state, prior to being propagated/produced/generated?
Call propagating light (all wavelengths and frequencies)
B
Call light prior to being propagated, A.
How much of the universes volume is composed of A, how much is composed of B?
How closely, in what forms by what means, with what reactions, do subatomic particles touch A?
Electrons are trapped in nucleus because combination of what the electron does to local A and B
What the nucleus does to local A and B, and what the surrounding universe does to local A and B?
Though often electron and nucleus and what they are doing to local A and B and what such is doing to them, quite stabley protects them from outside.
How is the electrons body so attracted to the nucleus:
What are they continuously so doing to their shared local space that so remains them in proximity
Mr Alexander Unzicker what do you think about Milo Wolf's (matter waves) hypothesis? it combines Mach's principle, Louis de Broglie's postulates, large Dirac numbers, Galileo's principle. It may be a transitional approach, i.e. it does not give a new perspective on space time, but it is simpler than currently accepted theories.
I have taken a glance at the website. I guess we share a couple of points, yet I do not see a concisely formulated combination of Mach's principle, de Broglie waves and Dirac's large numbers - although I believe that one must work along these lines! ... feel free to contact me via email (ChannelInfo) if you have a paper that discusses these issues.
@@TheMachianI read Milo's book and I also looked at Gabriel LaFreniere's website (unfortunately he died and there is only an archive of his website) who independently of Milo came to similar conclusions. In my opinion, there is Mach's principle and large Dirac numbers (wave centers depend on all others, gravity is just an emergent phenomenon), de Broglie waves (matter waves), time dilation (the Doppler effect of waves and their apparent contraction in the direction of motion) but Unfortunately, I'm too weak to contribute anything meaningful to the conversation. I am looking for answers myself and I have only questions :)
@@TheMachian I wonder how important Galileo's principle of relativity is, I guess I didn't pay attention if that came up in your lectures. I think you are doing a great job together with Sabine Hossenfelder and I am watching the materials with great curiosity, greetings.
There is the gravity medium and the light medium (possibly the gravity/light medium) And matter interacting with, which changes, the gravity medium and light medium.
The medium.
The interaction with the medium.
The change in the medium caused by that interaction.
Moving mass causes gravity medium to warp.
Moving charge causes light medium to wave.
How much volume is in-between electron/s and nucleus and physically, geometrically, materially, energetically what occurs in that volume?
What occurs in the volume surrounding that electron nucleus orbit, that prevents the electron from escaping; what percent is what the nucleus does to the surrounding, what percent is what electron does to the surrounding, what percent is what surrounding does to electron and nucleus that keeps the electron where it is?
I appreciate your aspiration to really understand Physics. I think it could be useful for both of you to give a look to the book Only Spacetime (free Pdf) with a humble spirit. The author, while an amateur (he is a Phd that worked in his own laser and optics company) and, once retired, reconsidered modern physics, starting from the great big scientists, up to Shapiro and many others. I can't say that he is totally correct but is quite coherent, original and competent. So I think that some of his ideas can help the development of a better and understandable theory of the reality . Thank again for your effort.
Carver Mead has more to say about Physics than any QM theoretician ... thank God for common sense and real World engineering to understand things
it seems so odd to consider the speed of light as a constant. every wave up to that speed changes but suddenly the wavelength changes not the speed. however the speed does change through different materials and gravitational fields. and the proof is decay rates in atomic clocks in space, but clocks at different heights on earth affects the clocks also. this is then assumed time is changing not the decay rate of the isotope.
I want that arxiv paper he's going to release.
40:20 gravity, gravitational wave, field,……etc!
Very enjoyable discussion. Watching a bunch of your videos, it seems to me you're saying that a proper theory will ultimately have no free or measured parameters, so ultimately the fundamental nature of the Universe will prove to be the single physical system which is compatible with mathematics; that is, mathematics itself will explain all these parameters, so effectively a Universe in which 1+1=2 has to be this way physically. Is that a correct understanding of your position?
I particularly like the end of this video, about Hertz. Hertz's simply made, but profound experiment, validated what Maxwell's equations was implying on propagating EM waves. What turned into radio, which is always improperly attributed to Tesla or Marconi. Also the current 'gloom and doom' outlook on climate change. Yes, its a problem, but a solvable problem. And the politicians that getting into it, on both sides, are idiots. There is always hope.
Nice, to see an interview of Carver Mead. When I was a young EE, Mead was (still is) a pillar in the semiconductor world. And nearby me too. He had a small semi lab at Caltech, where students could fab their own projects ! Not, like the current semi industry, which are multli billion dollar setups, like TSMC, halfway around the planet, in Taiwan.
I 100 agree I have full degree Astronomy astrophysics thought to calculate smth and no big idea figureing it out pls let him explain what his big idea is pls!
Take a look at this to understand why they wonder mathematics , physics and the role of logic : 13:40 EXCLUSIVE: Dialogue with Cormac McCarthy About Science, on the occasion of his newest book releases
If you have a large fish tank of water, and 5 different metal spheres each one increase in mass from the previous 100x, and you perform 2 trials for each sphere, 1 dropped into the fish tank, the 2nd trial, fired out of a cannon; do all the water waves made in all the trials always propagate at the same speed?
Then other trials can be done where the fish tank is moving different speeds, different rotations, under different gravities, all with the different spheres interacting, and the water waves always travel at the same rate?
Is it possible the universe is a large fish tank and it's water is light
And if water waves propagate at different speeds depending on conditions, is this mainly due to their being in a gravity well, and if there were no gravity wells, only a medium of water, then would all made waves in the water propagate the same speed?
The light/gravity medium of the universe not being a small local pool or tank of medium near this or that gravity well, but the universe being a tank, full to the brim with light and gravity medium, and the material that interacts with the ultimate pool, causes gravity and light
One of the craziest things, is nuclear power/energy.
How is so much trapped in so little, what is it that is so strongly and tightly keeping such a grip.
What is occuring when that grip is pried, what is slow motion frame by frame locally occuring, that exits that location.
Magnets bind, you can pry them apart. Atoms bind, you can pry them apart. Nucleus binds, which apparently is nothing but magnets, and yet prying them apart is not only hard, but so energetic.
Proton neutron binding, very interesting. What physically of themselves and their surroundings keeps them so close.
And are they so close their bodies touch, do their bodies fuse into a new sum of parts object, or their bodies grasp one another and remain their independent selves but just holding on.
And why do their bodies do this, what forces them to do this and nothing other.
And when they are seperated, where does all the energy released come from.
Resonance...Resonance...Resonance...
Radioactivity is a resonance phenomenom, radioactivity of elements are induced by higher frequency waves!!
I really enjoyed this discussion. And to think that the tragedy is rooted in the work of Lienard and Wiechert. Had they only chosen different assumptions about point charges, we would have solved nature a century ago. It's not difficult with the correct assumptions about point charges.
I would really appreciate if the interviewer let the speaker speak of an idea bs he’s constantly confirming smth interrupting that I can not cuptture clear as a listener what is the topic even yet like I want to hear what it is in fact
32:55 encrusted with this obscure mathematics: I have wrote about that in more details, but to concise: it’s about the quality of scientific logic, the better logic the closer to the correct scientific formula that already there, there are unlimited possibilities there so without a specific type of logic it’s impossible to figure it out,…..
they can make mathematical representation for anything they like including their nonsense but mathematics alone will never make it valuable!
without reducing the unlimited possibilities there is no choice to make real progress in science.
Once more to concise: it depends on the logic behind mathematics not mathematics itself!
48:21 well we are talking about money, jobs, and prestige in the central cathedral
Still human beings after all
What causes the phenomenon of light to occur at all?
Are there circumstances in which any object causes no light to occur, what is the difference?
Can an object that causes no light to occur in one moment, cause light to occur in another, how, what is the difference.
Object. Surroundings.
No light occuring, no light occuring, no light occuring... Light occuring: how?
What is the process by which light is made to come into existence, from apparently previously that circumstance of light not existing.
Once this relationship between objects, surroundings, causes and effects, is understood, than it can be wondered how and why the action of objects and causes and effects could occur at precisely a rate of speed no less and no greater, every single time.
What is the smallest amount of light that can occur. What is the next smallest amount.
And what is the physical difference between their causes, and why is there no in between quantity.
Out of all the different lines that can be drawn away from the center of a sphere; when light is made to occur, which of those lines does light propagate on?
What is occuring precisely before light is propagated, then the process as light is just beginning to be propagated, the physical interaction that bridges that gap.
What's the minimum amount of acceleration that causes light?
The subatomic realm of physics is sleek, sophisticated, high tech, quick, extravagant, electric, complex, intricate, brilliant, sublime, astonishing, incredible, glorious. It's funny and fun to think everything from trees to mountains to water to cheese to computers to air to poop to lions to stars are made out of these few types of innumerable identical mysterious uncomprehendable, fundamentally particularly qualitative dots of...
The totality of reality, the total history of reality is the physical aesthetic it is, In video games aesthetic and ideas can be imagined and altered, reality happens to be of the very stuff it is, and to us that appears to be these subatomic particles, little electrons, etc.
We are so familiar with things when we name them and know all their names and live with our words, consider not the word electron but the thing electron, that very real thing, those very many real things.
I would think to say why couldn't why didn't why isn't this essential timeless substance of reality not all globed up together, why all seperated into the tiniest of little parts, instead of not all closely bubbled, united together, how is there any difference between the fundamental stuff of eternal reality, astonishing that there is so much sameness, astonishing that there is so much sameness among the differences (protons are different than electrons, there are a lot of protons and a lot of electrons), and then I thought well the stuff does glob together, as mountains and trees and planets and rivers and people.
The many micro seperate parts, do form legitamate novel wholes.
Electrons cannot fuse together and form a large substance of fundamental universal essence, but as macro molecular objects, they sort of can. They don't need to, or perhaps to create the complex constructed effect, they could not, fuse together as a singular perfect substance goo, with many interesting powers and abilities, so I geuss the nearly infinite particulates need to be tiny and fundamentally different, to combine in sophisticated ways.
...one of thoughts I intended to make; maybe it is possible, maybe it happened long ago, 9999999999999999^999999999999999999 light years ago, or that much in the future, that the puzzle pieces of fundamental universal reality substance wiggles it's way into non repulsively uniting. That as there is only 1 ultimate eternal reality, that there is 1 ultimate insignia of essence of that reality, and as different as it can particulate and be made to be, it is unavoidably, every most minute and micro piece, an accounted for part of the whole.
27:06 Gravitational potential times the amount of matter is the rest energy,….
please read what I have wrote before about equivalence principle,….
Gravity deals with each particle independently regardless of its location to other particles in the same object,…… potential energy,….. etc
But I think to get deeper understanding of the fundamentals of physics could take up to hundreds of years of continuous scientific hard work (that will open the gate of science).
actually that will change human history and the way humans think,… forever.
If speed of light is constant , doesn't change to observers speed. Does speed of sound change to observer ? How ?
Hmm Isn't one thing not comparable to the other?
Speed of things in general has a maximum that's lowered by other factors like friction, except if it can't be affected by anything on it's way.
Idealising speed and putting it into a fixed center may be the same problem as considering earth as a center of solar system.
On the other hand if energy is in the center of things..
There is no speed of light, it's a rate of induction that does slow down through glass and water and speeds back up after it's through.
Wow, the godfather of VLSI engineering doing basic physics and challenging the high priesthood of physics. Awesome .
Could the Earths velocity have any effect on the generation and detection and notion of the speed of light?
Light does not come (shedding off) from the material of atoms right, it is the material of atoms reacting with the surrounding non atomic material.
So Earth is traveling at some velocity, is the non atomic light producing material surrounding atomic material, also traveling with earth at that velocity or some other?
So imagine a motor boat traveling very fast on water, and hanging over the edge with a stick you tap the water with.
Or is it like a boat on the river where the water is flowing with you.
Either way the speed of light is insane, that on Earth, a charge boat smacking with a stick it's local light water is registered 1000 miles away nearly instantly.
Ironically, this interview manifests the different attitudes of the interviewer and interviewee. The latter is humble, saying as an engineer he cannot fully handle sophisticated mathematics of GR and so on, and he might be wrong. He, furthermore, does not repeat himself in so many ways ... The point is that if one can explain the current observed data, all s/he has to do is to write a rigorous paper___ no matter if it is simpler in its mathematical formulations, especially if it can explain away the phenomenal problems more clearly ... This would be the source of real revolution in physics not a series of videos with bombastic claims but flimsy vulgarized salad words.
you know the thing mr edison the thing you can not know the onion that can not be peeled bring you to your knees with tears through the years skull walled
A wave cannot exist without something being the wave, right?
So is a wave, a thing, waving?
There are things, and they wave.
Particles can be next to each other, bump into some and they wave.
Call a string a long particle, pluck it, is that string a wave, or is it connected particles forming a long particle, temporarily waving.
Is there such thing as an ocean wave, or only h20 particles moving up and down.
A wave is not an object, it is an activity of objects.
I am not sure of any of this I'm looking for these statements to be challenged.
If a wave was made to exist stable and continual, perhaps we could call that location of activity a thing, an object, an objective event,
But usually when we think of particle, object, thing, matter, solid, stable, we think of it's similarity to itself over time.
The idea of wave includes regular motion, regular change in shape, orientation, it includes time. The idea of particle is often, if you press play, then pause, then play, then pause, it's identity equals itself in all circumstances, it maintains it's qualities and characteristics.
Is a sphere being forced up and down up and down up and down a wave?
The government monopoly on education greatly increases the groupthink phenomenon. It’s time to return to the principle of separation of education and state.
Mathematics is the most important scientific field but at the end they have to understand that it is just a tool in the hands of a physicist (of course mathematics is more than a tool but here is just to be specific).
without mathematics current physics wouldn’t exist but they have to understand what is mathematics!
It's rather a problem that the way physicist and in esp. the theoretical flavour are actually using mathematics in a very improper way. Assumptions are made all over a place without proper justification. Terms are thrown out just to made the result fit and so on. Suddenly infinities turn out not to be flags signaling divergence but are used in calculations. Credibility is given to numerical models which over and over again are later verified to be pure non-sense as expected by any mathematician. The list is very long.
44:13 When the theory determines the experimental results instead of the other way around you have a political church of science and the church of political science makes demands on other fields to obey its dogma. Id like to see his light propagation cone test made and see what the result is. It always seemed to me that light in a gravity field must necessary slow to turn it must gain energy and mass as it approaches and lose it as recceds from a star and energy slash mass implys curvature in tragectory which is equivalent to curvature of space time. I guess you could say the wavelength and frequency is changing but the path is still curved, curved rods don't fit together perfectly as straight rods would something gotta give. This is a pretty interesting idea to just go back to the history and start rethinking some things that were guessed at but the opposite ideas were not disproved and reconsider them like variable light speed. This isn't the first person who thought about this Fred zwicky had a similar idea with tired light.
Albert Einstein - 'If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.'
Probably it’s not clear yet: human logic made mathematics, as long as it is tested, reliable,….etc then physicists can use it as a tool in other logical realm of physics ,…. then they do the same process (testing,…etc)
what’s logic? It’s a long story, but they have to understand what is mentioned above!
29:30….
You keep interrupting your guest. Why would you interview him if you're not interested in what he has to say?
27:42 please pay attention to what he said about mass and gravity,… (the rest energy of matter is 100% gravitational in origin, people say gravity is a weak force,….)
please read carefully what I have wrote before about connecting both levels (subatomic and cosmological levels)
please read carefully what I have wrote about equivalence principle,…. I have wrote more details about that on other locations but I think it’s enough to understand the idea out of what I have wrote on your TH-cam channel,….
LNH must be taken seriously (Dirac had the right to wonder about that)
unfortunately there was more (mostly are old thoughts and hardly can focus lately)..
My own thoughts are only for future generations, I wouldn’t write one word for the irrational thieves.
they are your descendants (they will need what I wrote to survive “no exaggeration at all “)
I have wrote about existence, consciousness, …… and other topics.
they have stolen and polluted all I have written badly (became useless)!
so...cell phones? being able to order cheeseburgers online? that's your pride?
Oh please
Human fights the apes for the sake of future generations (their descendants) while the apes are busy with stealing and polluting and protecting their faked imaginary irrational realm!
what an irony!
the planet of the irrational apes!
The doom and gloom is a political cash and power grab at this point
Mead luvs Einstein -- not good. Mead recognises Shapiro Delay -- good -- but SD is true despite Einstein -- Einstein's spacetime etc are wrong.
Mead mentions the present dark age of physics -- good -- but this dark age can only end with the acceptance of aether & aetherwind.
If you are provided with the tools of a Carpenter, trained as a Plumber, put to work assembling a Mercedes Benz in an Iron Mine because this is how previous generations learned, no problem?
All knowledge is in AM-FM Timing-spacing vector-values format and imaginary projection-drawing Actuality, approximately identifying Math-Art-Philosophy..?
Common sensing observation in QM-TIME Singularity-resonance Completeness is all about 0-1-2-ness Orientation in 1-0-infinity probability and 0-1-2-3-4-etc exponentiation-ness frequency-amplitude alignment of log-antilog e-Pi-i interference waves. This is THE beginning in Actuality.., virtual vector-value reality of conscious awareness.
Understanding everywhere-when all-ways all-at-once sync-duration holography is not an idea we have the ability to calculate, because it's composed of AM-FM e-Pi-i sync-duration Fluxion-Integral Temporal Superspin superposition, Logarithmic Time.
Working with First Principle Observation approach means starting over with nothing but imagination.
Can't fault a Revision of Circular Slide Rule exercises in basic Engineering Techniques.
You might not want to blend so much jargon in your sentences and use some grammar if you want someone to understand what the hell you're saying.
@@philipm3173your choice to understand or not. What you think or believe is entirely your own responsibility.
The Gold-Silver Rules apply equally to everyone.
I think I followed the part about exponential dimensions of an infinite number of infinite series in the critical continuum but I'm not seeing where the AM-FM fits in.
Halfway throo -- i hav not seen any mention of aether or aetherwind -- these are critical when looking at the speed of light -- hence i dont expect to see much good from this discussion.
And the aether connects all parts (mass) of our infinite eternal universe with local parts (mass) -- via the speed of gravity in the aether (at least 20 billion c) -- hence Mach was correct(ish).
Mead should get familiar with the works/ideas of Williamson, & Ranzan, & VV Demjanov.
You might want to time travel back a couple centuries
Gravity and light have been demonstrated to share identical speeds of causality. If you want to understand aether, you have to first grasp chaos. We keep clawing for some smaller motes of dust when we're among it all the time. It's foolish to look for some obscure substance when we haven't attempted to directly study the medium it acts within. And we have had the tool for it all along: pure consciousness. To all our tools, 'void' is transparent, empty, inert. When we endeavor to study this chaos, we will understand both its limitlessness and the limitlessness of consciousness.
@@philipm3173
Consciousness & causality are indeed very deep mysterys. But gravity & the speed of gravity have nothing to do with light or with the speed of light. The speed of gravity has been reckoned to be at least 20 billion c. So called gravity waves do not exist. LIGO & Co are a farce. We are in a dark age of science -- but the times they are a-changin'.
The use of the word real in anyone's title, heading or subject matter does indicate an attitude to seeing one's own perception of the world around them as the only truth.
I would love for you to get Standard Model advocates on the program so they can justify the statement "Most Successful Theory in History" because despite it being able to produce a long decimal point value that is largely caused by number fudging and the only thing its capable of predicting is itself. I am so sick of hearing that parroted statement I want to see justification for it as the actual theory has had to modify everytime we discovered something new. Its useless for prediction like a theory should, like relativity. THAT is a successful theory.
I don't think standard model is useless for prediction. I'm certain, relativity is an approximate theory(valid at low energies).
I agree, relativity is fundamental. For some reason people don't know that Einstein said that singularities are not possible. In the 1939 journal "Annals of Mathematics" he wrote "the essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the Schwarzchild singularities (Schwarzchild was the first to raise the issue of GR predicting singularities) do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters whose particles move along circular paths it does seem subject to reasonable doubt that more general cases will have analogous results. The Schwarzchild singularities do not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light."
We have all heard the phrase "mass becomes infinite at the speed of light" this phenomenon is illustrated in a common relativity graph with velocity (from stationary to the speed of light) on the horizontal line and dilation (sometimes called gamma or y) on the vertical line. Mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer.
General relativity does not predict singularities when you factor in dilation. Einstein is known to have repeatedly spoken about this. Nobody believed in black holes when he was alive for this reason.
Wherever you have an astronomical quantity of mass, dilation will occur because high mass means high momentum. There is no place in the universe where mass is more concentrated than at the center of a galaxy. According to Einsteins math, the mass at the center of our own galaxy must be dilated, in other words that mass is all around us. This is the reason for the abnormally high rotation rates of stars in spiral galaxies (the reason for the theory of dark matter), the missing mass is dilated mass.
It was recently discovered that low mass galaxies (like NGC 1052-DF2) have normal star rotation rates, this is what relativity would predict because there is an insufficient quantity of mass at the center to achieve relativistic velocities. This is virtual proof that dilation is the governing phenomenon in galactic centers.
@@frun I personally can't think of a single thing it successfully predicted before being discovered. I can think of tons of particles that were hypothesized prior to discovery but their masses and behaviors are always incorrect. On the other hand Relativity predicted stuff decades in advance with values dead on within reason for our current experimental values of the time. Standard model has taken so much number fudging to make things work many have called out the fine tuning issues as they are piling up quick. Take for instance the more recent Muon G2. If the standard model was so great these anomalous results simply wouldn't be. Idk man, good predictive powers should not have us adjusting mass and theory everytime a new particle is discovered and should not have us chasing nonsense axions for close to a decades upon decades. Super computers at the very least should be predicting all this stuff well in advance yet it does not.
@@shawns0762 I think there is a large disconnect between what the public believe and what physicist believe in this case. I don't think most physicist actually believe in physical singularities as they are more of just a mathematical artifact. Infinitys are clear indicators that a theory is incorrect. Einstein knew this and most scientist know this. The general public on the other hand not so much. There are a ton of singularities in physics not just the BH and I think its great Relativity predicts not only reality but the parts of reality where its own theory falls apart.
@@seditt5146 You made things very clear, i agree.