This is awesome. Thank you for taking us through the development. I remember when I had an epiphany the whole of sin(x) is a "state" when you bound. I've been treating states like numbers, so representing 1, 2, 3, 4 as waves, in a computer architecture I am working on. Trying to modeling that sphere you mention, in real time.
From one physicist to another - this is really good; nicely done. I may try and help answer some questions down in the comments, while you're busy preparing more lectures.
How does acknowledging the physical and chemical properties that constitute the human body dismiss our conscious experiences? At what point do atoms transition into sentient and living entities? It's fallacious to equate our understanding of the chemical makeup of our bodies with the denial of a soul's existence. This perspective fails to account for the richness of human experience, such as the sensation of sipping hot coffee on a chilly winter morning, reducing it merely to neuronal activity, not being able to deduce anything from it, except neuronal activity, which we know, through first person experience, exists more than just neurons firing.
Sir, how these radioactive elements exist in the very first place as we say that these atoms can't hold its nucleus tightly so they lose theirs alpha particle in the form of radiation as if they can't hold its particle together ,how it come up together at the very beginning ?
Unstable elements can be formed in stars just like they can be formed in nuclear reactors. Whether any is left around today depends on the rate of nuclear transformation ("decay"). Some have very long half lives of billions of years while some have only microseconds. Tc99m with a half-life of 6 hours and used in medical diagnoses, has to be made continuously.
Describing scientific terms as "forces of nature" seems inappropriate because it implies that scientific terminology itself possesses inherent power or agency, which it does not. Instead, scientific terms are linguistic constructs that humans use to describe and understand the workings of the world we live in, which non of us created
I don't think it's about terminology, rather it's a description of what we see operating in the world. Why these thjngs happen is another question, but they do happen.
@@briankelly5828 i agree that science is purely a description of the operations in the world. But the terminology "forces OF NATURE" is purposely used as it takes away the obvious pointer to a creator, in all of chemistry, biology, physics. It's like referring to how great the iPhone is without mentioning Steve jobs, Wozniak, or heck, even Apple. Can it be a true praise of the phone or description of the phone without mentioning where it really comes from, who designed it. With the phone example, it doesnt even need to be said that it was designed, but how many people will think the same for the entire heavens and the earth. This is because, the scientists teaching us these laws and mechanics use vague, incorrect terms to obscure how stupid an idea of a random generation of events leading to this really is. How can you see such design and precision to the BILLIONTH x 1000000000000000000000, yet purposely deceive your audience and say "hey no, this is a force of nature" as if nature created it. Nature is not an acting force, yet it's forced to be, because then where did it come from? Imagine, he said, now this was created by a designer. This would shake nobody if it was said about the iphone, but nature, "oh no!" It shows your the deep phycological conditioning we've been through by an establishment that purports atheism en masse. How many people would rightly start questioning, well who is this creator fi they were just a bit more honest with the term "forces of nature".
You have marketing forces, law and order forces, armed forces, peer pressure, etc.... "Forces of Nature" is an old-fashioned term that is perfectly understood by everyone except those with learning disabilities who don't understand the basics of science but who think they know more than the rest of us and want to "engage" in daft arguments to feel important.
![The Discovery of Atomic Structure (Chemistry & Physics) - [1-2-5]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/jeDP200x-HE/mqdefault.jpg)
![The Discovery of Atomic Structure (Chemistry & Physics) - [1-2-5]](/img/tr.png)
![โรงเรียนตอนตี 2 โคตรหลอน..!! [โรงเรียนไดเม่]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/2MAEMwqVYh8/mqdefault.jpg)
![[UNCUT] “บอสณวัฒน์” ลากไส้!! ใครหนุนหลัง "แม่ตั๊ก ป๋าเบียร์" I คนดังนั่งเคลียร์ I 30 ก.ย. 67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QlD7mU2KKRk/mqdefault.jpg)
I wish there were an award for people as gifted as you are and explaining this type of material...
I love been given information on past experiments ,the thought processes they used and the explanation of technical issues
I've never had it so clearly explained before, Thank you for your contribution to our understanding.
Glad it was helpful!
I have always liked your presentations. Two thumbs up for your presentations.
Thank you very much!
You're a great teacher. This was fun and educational. Thank you
You're very welcome!
This is awesome. Thank you for taking us through the development. I remember when I had an epiphany the whole of sin(x) is a "state" when you bound. I've been treating states like numbers, so representing 1, 2, 3, 4 as waves, in a computer architecture I am working on. Trying to modeling that sphere you mention, in real time.
I appreciate this lection. Made me realize the atom like never before. Well done!
From one physicist to another - this is really good; nicely done. I may try and help answer some questions down in the comments, while you're busy preparing more lectures.
Please do!
Teacher of the Century
Sir can we've a lec.on Millikan oil drop
Thank you - very nice... Would like to know prerequisite and follow up recommendations, or related articles in current events...
Uranium came second nature to me. Everywhere in Big Bear Lake Ca. Fun stuff! My cat is named Atom. Fairwinds! Great Video!
Thank you so much prof.
You are welcome
Dude that was great!!
How does acknowledging the physical and chemical properties that constitute the human body dismiss our conscious experiences? At what point do atoms transition into sentient and living entities? It's fallacious to equate our understanding of the chemical makeup of our bodies with the denial of a soul's existence. This perspective fails to account for the richness of human experience, such as the sensation of sipping hot coffee on a chilly winter morning, reducing it merely to neuronal activity, not being able to deduce anything from it, except neuronal activity, which we know, through first person experience, exists more than just neurons firing.
❤ Very good 👍🏼
What a great teacher
Many thanks
Sir, how these radioactive elements exist in the very first place as we say that these atoms can't hold its nucleus tightly so they lose theirs alpha particle in the form of radiation as if they can't hold its particle together ,how it come up together at the very beginning ?
Unstable elements can be formed in stars just like they can be formed in nuclear reactors. Whether any is left around today depends on the rate of nuclear transformation ("decay"). Some have very long half lives of billions of years while some have only microseconds. Tc99m with a half-life of 6 hours and used in medical diagnoses, has to be made continuously.
Born explainer. Quite impressive
Right doc, we really don't know⚡️⚫️
A Twitter account to share and creating community ?
I want my son to learnt from you.
You can violate uncertainty, it takes a little alcohol and some bad manners but you can do it boys and girls of the library underworld, you can do it.
Describing scientific terms as "forces of nature" seems inappropriate because it implies that scientific terminology itself possesses inherent power or agency, which it does not. Instead, scientific terms are linguistic constructs that humans use to describe and understand the workings of the world we live in, which non of us created
I don't think it's about terminology, rather it's a description of what we see operating in the world. Why these thjngs happen is another question, but they do happen.
@@briankelly5828 i agree that science is purely a description of the operations in the world. But the terminology "forces OF NATURE" is purposely used as it takes away the obvious pointer to a creator, in all of chemistry, biology, physics. It's like referring to how great the iPhone is without mentioning Steve jobs, Wozniak, or heck, even Apple. Can it be a true praise of the phone or description of the phone without mentioning where it really comes from, who designed it. With the phone example, it doesnt even need to be said that it was designed, but how many people will think the same for the entire heavens and the earth. This is because, the scientists teaching us these laws and mechanics use vague, incorrect terms to obscure how stupid an idea of a random generation of events leading to this really is. How can you see such design and precision to the BILLIONTH x 1000000000000000000000, yet purposely deceive your audience and say "hey no, this is a force of nature" as if nature created it. Nature is not an acting force, yet it's forced to be, because then where did it come from? Imagine, he said, now this was created by a designer. This would shake nobody if it was said about the iphone, but nature, "oh no!" It shows your the deep phycological conditioning we've been through by an establishment that purports atheism en masse. How many people would rightly start questioning, well who is this creator fi they were just a bit more honest with the term "forces of nature".
same thing when people say "physics works, or physics is awesome"
You have marketing forces, law and order forces, armed forces, peer pressure, etc.... "Forces of Nature" is an old-fashioned term that is perfectly understood by everyone except those with learning disabilities who don't understand the basics of science but who think they know more than the rest of us and want to "engage" in daft arguments to feel important.
How do you think you'd explain science to somebody who isn't interested in it, huh?
Attosecond spectroscopy used in observing the motion of the electron debunked the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
Were it not for grace
Were it not for grace