SPONSOR (THE ECONOMIST): As a listener of TOE, you can now enjoy full digital access to The Economist. Get a 20% off discount by visiting: www.economist.com/toe TIMESTAMPS: 00:00 - Intro 01:20 - Lack of Scientific Progress 06:22 - The Academic System 12:03 - Crisis in ‘Fundamental’ Physics 18:18 - Ancient Societies (Greece, Egypt, Alexandria) 23:05 - European Bureaucracy 27:08 - Albert Einstein 29:14 - Heterodox Experiments (Cold Fusion) 34:34 - Outro / Support TOE
I have a friend who is neuroscientist. He states categorically that peer review is nothing but an excellent way of ensuring that no one works on anything truly novel or interesting.
He probably only looks at neurons and completely ignores the underlying microtubles complexity, its understandable, but its not providing humanity any progress.
I heard a lot of this kind of talk among scientists regarding research grants in the 1980's. Robert O. Becker even stated that he wrote his book, "The Body Electric" on Electromagnetism and Life because he wanted the public to know that science did not work the way the public thought it did. David Hestenes and Edwin T. Jaynes have also published essays on these matters. Jaynes even wrote about cycles of innovation in science. And then, on education I can go way back to the Greeks and Roman complaints reiterated by Roger C. Schank decades ago and things have not changed since H.G. Wells commented on education and live lecturing in his 1921 book, "The Salvaging of Civilization". Compartmentalization in Big Government Science and Big Business exists for a reason and was published widely in the 1960's and 1970's by men like R. Buckminster Fuller in his books such as Spaceship Earth, Critical Path and Grunch of Giants. Numerous historians of science and Robert Root-Bernstein have been pointing these things out for almost a century so that when some objectivist says, "bureaucracy" people tune out in boredom. In the 1970's everybody seemed to be fighting the system from within according to Hollywood and television shows but the more things change the more they seem to have stayed the same and more entrenched. "We have adopted a flipped classroom approach during the pandemic so our students can more easily access their lecture mayerials online." And the University Chancellor and President retires with quite a nice nest egg.
When I joined Bell Labs in 1979, I joined the Unix development lab. My first day on the job I was told, "Yes, you joined this lab but you know, you're allowed to work on whatever you want. You can work on Unix or whatever good idea you might have." Where can that attitude be found today? That was the magic of Bell Labs.
Can't even be poor and do research cause being poor is too expensive so you need a good job to be poor with bad boss and toxic coworkers who sap all your strength.
Yeah 100% credit to old-school AT&T for the way they allowed the Bell System to evolve and operate. They were an amazing entity allowing scientists at the Labs the freedom to choose their own area of research - blows my mind. The transistor, the BJT, the MOSFET, and most of the processes still used in modern chip making .. legendary! I personally still use the old BSTJ and BLR volumes for my own knowledge gathering. Absolute inspirational!
It's too bad that IBM didn't go to Bell Labs and Pick Systems for their OS. They could have had solid database capabilities built in on top of a robust Unix based system for the IBM PC. Pick Systems could already have 4 people working simultaneously on a 8088 using dumb terminals. There were of the few doing multi-tasking on that machine.
Einstein said he spent his last years researching the unlikely because no young scientist could afford to "waste time" on fringe ideas if he wants a career.
@@friendlyskiespodcast Einstein spent his last years trying to unify physics via by allowing the metric tensor to be anti-symmetric. This was pure nonsense which had no physical interpretation motivating it, essentially just making random mathematical abstractions in the hope something would stick … sort of like string theory does today. Einstein’s theory unfortunately is the fringe theory… physics will never progress until all that magical relative space&time nonsense is forgone.
@@friendlyskiespodcast he spent it trying to unify physics by making the metric tensor antisymmetric, which had no physical motivation but was essentially just making random mathematical abstractions in the hope that something would stick. Now this is still what all the theoretical physicists are still doing today. Einstein’s theory IS the fringe theory, or at least it should have been regarded as such. Deifying the behavior of light as absolute and invariant when such a thing could never be measured should never have been accepted as science - this is the reason physics hasn’t progressed in 70 years
But he also said that his later work wasn't of great significance and he was only going to work, so he can have the pleasure of walking back home with Godel.
At age 23, my major contribution to avionics was falsely assigned to a Russian mathematician because I lacked rank. Since then, I’ve earned a PhD and met meany scientists that are pretenders, scientist in name only.
29:45 Le Claire Effect is water based electrochemical Cold Fusion using simple plates with one solid and ome grated with round holes to create energy vortex cavitation phenomenon. Seemingly elated to the mathmatical hallmark which predicts the casmire effect will lead to over-unity / cold fusion / negentropy.
@@joshuac.6437 You're just mad that there's nothing you can repost or share to make noise about on social media. If he doesn't wanna share, leave it. He merely agreed with the speakers view.
When I realized that the illusion that scientists were somehow above Lying, Greed, Jelousy, Narcissim, was not only fal;se but one of the biggest jokes ever perpetuated on young intellectual minds...If anything it's worse....Yes when I was a kid watching Moon Landings and Jetsons Cartoons and Sci-Fi movies I thought the Future would be very different .... What happened to the prosperous Future?...The same thing that happened to the now almost extinct Middle Class.... SIN.... Greed, corporate and political corruption and even Treason..... Sin destroyed our Future
Bingo. I’d add IMHO the defense industries / blob (see Mike Benz) are suppressing advancement at only a rate they want and can control. See how well the atomic bomb was hidden during WW2. The UAP and whispers of black budget committees - I think we’re being majorly misled somewhere. DARPA/ defense industry has created every major scientific breakthrough and the gov has the rights to take any inventions or research they want at any time. Idk I’m not a physicist just a curious and open minded engineer trying to understand how we’re supposed to be technologically advancing at an increasing rate but all we get is new iPhones? (to put it shortly)
I think the same concerns pretty much everything that people can be passionate about. Modern music and cinema are garbage. Modern cars according to Jeremy Clarkson are garbage. Even computer games and computer graphics got worse. Many professions, like consulting, are total scam. I think this is what happens to everything that it is being managed with a typical style of management nowadays: high competition for money and jobs, very superficial criteria of job evaluation such as how much money it brings to the company.
Rich people are buying authorship. There are entire FB groups where people advertise approved papers and you can put your name in for a price. As someone from Brazil with zero funding, it's impossible to compete with them for a postdoc in neuropsych.
@@DrVictorVasconcelos "People buying authorship?" How totally a dastardly concept that is. Not that I care about such deviousness, but is there a waiting list? -- (signed) Poverty Stricken Illiterate
Unfortunately, true. As a consultant, I worked on the articles whose first authors were professors who made almost no contribution (except for superficially reviewing it). If I stayed in academia, I couldn't compete against them.
@@DrVictorVasconcelos you're absolutely right. I personally know a woman named kavitaprabhaa in Bengaluru, India who is backed by the team of a ruling party minister. This woman is uneducated, did nothing in her life until the age of 53 then met with this fraud group online and within three years she has fake degrees of ph.D, now a settled writer poet by publishing other's work on her name, getting awards by fake NGOs involved in money laundering, faking her family profile, age, drug addiction, cheap peddler background, photos and videos. An uneducated, untalented, inexperienced woman getting honour, awards, money for indulging in frauds with the gang .
@@yaelz6043 Not the last -- "Some people see things that are and ask, 'Why?' Some people dream of things that never were and ask, 'Why not?' Some people have to go to work and don't have time for all that." George Carlin, a modern Marc Twain. I think Carlin would have been an awesome physicist if his educational experiences had been different -- but perhaps we needed his social insights more than another theory.
What?! Lol. Nature is school. Nature is meant to educate all as we already possess universal knowledge...born with it. Y'all just say anything these days. Lol. ALL creations are of universal principles. By experiencing earth via senses within your physical body, the essence of earth, through it being (behavior), will reveal its knowledge (results of it creating).
Back in the late 1960's and 1970's, the social science of economics was taken over by economic religious free market fundamentalists here in the USA hell bent on a political agenda. They set the science of economics back 50 years, but the damage they did down stream to the education system and public policy was unprecedented and horrendous. Crops of School administrators (all graduates of that system) are stifling future innovation. The for profit motive with its command and control motivation of patent-able ideas and nondisclosure contracts are stealing those ideas from their creators creating armies of disgruntled genius passively aggressively living out their lives in anguish. Another issue is that adjunct teachers living in poverty are great for higher education's bottom line, but we are never going to quantify the opportunity costs of the missing innovations that have been lost down stream over 50 year time. I too am disappointed by scientific progress. The idea of waiting for the next empire to rise and replace the currently failing one is depressing. Time in a closed environment is the only thing that is infinite in a closed environment.
@@crypton_8l87 why do you say that? Clearly it isn't because you need to steal it. You are using it as currency. Spirituality comes from understanding the supernatural, which comes from understanding the natural which you could NOT do, without science.
I studied electrical engineering, and my first job was with a defense contractor. The joy and appreciation for learning left at that job. I have never fitted in anywhere but NASA when I was an intern. Thanks for sharing
@@NphiniT okay, the fellow in the video doesn’t devalue education. Education is very important, and one’s environment dictates their “ ceiling “. My comment is from personal experience; I am not sure what the issue you have against my statement
@@hectron-gon I did not have any issue with your statement lol. I was just wondering if you still worked at NASA cos I thought it was cool that you interned there
As a scientist who worked in academia and in industry, I can say for sure that each word is true. My wife and I have started nonprofit organization to tackle this issue. Whish us luck!
I was a budding physicist about 50 years ago. But i gave it up. It's kind of nice to hear Gregory Chaitin say things i was sensing even back in the day. Especially how we're in a phase of tech innovation but in a basic research slump. Mostly because committees have to cater to the dumbest in the group.
It's going to take a billionaire who just assembles a lab of young geniuses and says "go nuts", and then creates a massive trust to find their experiments
@@jadedandbitter FUND their experiments. And i believe most billionaires are careful with their money. They wouldn't just say "go nuts." Researchers would still need to write proposals that justify the money to be spent.
@@piehound it was a phone keypad error, u is right next to i. I very clearly meant "fund" contextually. And if I were doing it, I'd give each scientist a use or lose quarterly research budget with the option to contribute part of his budget to another scientist, so that basically you're not appealing to some suit for approval and funding, but your colleagues, who would be far more likely to understand and see potential merit. So yeah, I would tell them "go nuts", but expect them to naturally check and balance each other.
Thomas Kuhn actually addressed this problem way back in the 1960s in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." Seems nothing much has changed since then
It’s gotten worse as the funding needs and competition increases. I have described it as a psychological grid which filters out new ideas and creativity. It is the absolute best structure imaginable to do that because of what it requires of students, how it rewards them, the “don’t re-invent the wheel” ideas from increasing complexity. The limited opportunity to really and truly allow intuition to be a part of things. Think of it this way-memory gets you good grades. But all true creativity is from making your mind work like the universe actually does. We make memory palaces and mnemonic devices when they already exist in the form of natural working wholes. I literally cannot memorize arbitrary things. But if they have a larger meaning, I never forget. I have no trouble with relevant facts. And the way intuition works is organized differently than what we do to socially use knowledge as an interpersonal or competitive lever in this regard. Pretty much every huge change in human knowledge came from intuitive understanding not declarative walls against creativity. Much of schooling is building that kind of wall. Even Pink Floyd knew that. 😂❤
@@spiralsun1 I couldn't have said that better! Well said👍How higher learning has turned into a dystopian rat race to solicit research and grant funding🤑🤑🤑🤑 Ken Robinson would find you a kindred spirit no doubt
@@spiralsun1perfectly stated. The rot goes deeper, as all sorts of self preserving elements have calcified to enable it to perpetuate and resist change, but you’ve nailed it here. I’ll add to the original commenter, that 20 years after Kuhn came Feyerabend’s Against Method, which took it further to argue against “method” altogether to reignite science. Chaitlin’s critique, whether realized on his own, or incorporating Feyerabend’s analysis, incorporates this even more fundamental freedom as essential to decoupling scientism from science and unleashing the latter. Ian McGilchrist’s the Matter With Things includes several chapters on institutional science, science and life, science and truth that are a truly masterful deconstruction of ‘all of the above’ with a great deal of specific challenges to various pillars of dogma we are stuck in. He references Denis Noble’s work (which Curt has featured) specific to the ongoing dominance of reductionist gene essentialism, and the growing body of work it continues to ignore clinging to its misguided overweighting of genetics and the machine metaphor, ignoring the frontier-like complexity that has clearly emerged in the microcosmos and the teleological orchestration of genetics performed by cells and organisms which demonstrate genetics should be seen as a dynamic tool, not a blueprint.
@@rockpadstudios You must have met the wrong people. I was there working on Unix. It was an incredible environment in which to work, like no place I've been in since.
Just saw F.W. Bell, or rather who aquired them, systematically kill very useful and obscure tech. Really sad. Soon to be replace with cheap crap, prob via China.
25 years ago I chose to leave physics after grad school after I noticed how uninspired the research was conducted. Everything you said checks with my experience.
I am no egghead, but from my point of view, the truly astounding innovations of the last 300 years, did not come from academics. Rather, they came from tinkerers, and fixers of broken things, whose motivation came out of pure necessity or pure curiosity. Not a rush to turn in a paper, win a scholarship, or receive ridiculous accolades form their peers. If fact it was those, who took those innovations, and proceeded to build lifetimes of well paying minutia based careers. My academic period was marked with stifling, chasing grades, grants and loans. Very little innovation or inspiration.
@@raderator The Ruling Elite don't want imaginative, independently-minded people. They want robots they can control, so everything is reduced to the lowest common denominator. Good movies and music make you think. Can't have that.
If you search a bit, you can find very good stuff. Try the band Jakob, the tune called Blind Them with Science. I don't know what your musical preferences are, but recently I have been listening to bands like God is an Astronaut and Tars.
New good things are still being made, but they are no longer for the "general audience" unless it's a blockbuster. The stifling is also due to the same bureaucratisation.
I strongly disagree. You can find plenty of good music, it's just not always broadcast in the mainstream. You can find plenty of good movies that aren't superhero movies, they're just not likely going to be blockbusters. You can find plenty of good to great TV. One recent groundbreaking example would be that TV show Shogun.
You know what happens to organizations that become insular and so overly protective of themselves that they can no longer innovate or respond? They become irrelevant. Academia's issue is that the institutions make themselves an obstacle to everything until everyone works around that obstacle and suddenly they're just museum artifacts. In 30 years I don't even think universities will be offering competitive research programs in comparison to private ones. They may get more research money, but it's hard to tell if even that will last in perpetuity.
All the longstanding institutions are corrupt, they have for years put profit over everything else, and they are all collapsing. We are witnessing the end of capitalism.
Yep, majority of super highly skilled and intelligent scientific individuals are scooped up by our good friends such as Dupont, Monsanto, Nestlé and other wonderful places to work on their next set of diabolical creations.
Not only. Communism killed science in Russia. The left are destroying science now in the West. All those fat feminists that have no brain or passion for discovery but entitlement to success and priviledge. Disgusting.
Brilliant thank you both. I was born in 1942 here in the UK. The house we lived in was in a semi rural area on a housing estate, the house’s back garden faced into a school playing field. Therefore, one door led through a hallway onto the door facing the street. I do not know for sure, but am guessing it was a warm September day as my mother told me both the garden door and the street door were open. She was eight months pregnant with me. My mother has told me since i was very young that on that day, she opened the door from the lounge to the hallway and at the moment she opened the lounge door a Ball of Lightening simply floated past her pregnant stomach and passed through one doorway (presumably) (Im not sure which) and passed through the other. She was so shocked, she told me, that she reentered the lounge and drank half a bottle of Drambuie (a very delicious Scottish whiskey liqueur). She told everyone and thinks nobody believed her. I believed her in her tellings of this as she seemed perfectly certain. She said it was a glowing ball (I dont think it made a noise), which just bounced/floated gently. I wish i had questioned her for more details but Im not sure what other questions I could have asked. By the way, I didnt turn out to be an Alcoholic as a result 😂😂😂. I hope both you and Mr Chaitin find this of some interest
As a successfull ex-academic I would advice young admirers of science to use the internet and books to educate themselves and to found independent institutes with likemindeds. Just learn to think for yourself, to selforganize and to circle around the eternal questions: WHY and HOW?
Another example is Halton Arp and his analysis of galaxies' distances from Earth, which was totally rejected upfront. He was chased out of the scientific community by the ruling physicist's ideologies, silenced, overlooked, not published, etc. Now others are trying to take credit for his remarkable idéas as recent observations and deep space photographs seem to support his theories.
No-one can take the achievement of Halton Arp away. A few bright people as him make possible the formation of the final theory in Physics. It is in the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and the Universe" Unfortunately, "They" is hiding the existence of this book even this channel.
Another good example is Kristian Birkeland and his proposed theory of the Solar origins of the Aurorae around 1905. He was ridiculed and ostracized by the scientific community until NASA probes in the 70's finally confirmed his ideas. Among his fiercest critics was Arthur Eddington who came up with the idea of the thermonuclear star and promoted the theories of gravitational collapse and General Relativity. Incidentally these theories were canonized in the 1920's and have ever since prevented any real scientific progress in these areas, including dismissing Halton Arp.
I worked a bit with Chip Arp. He wasn't "chased out of the scientific community", but his observational data were sometimes rather noisy or under-exposed. He thought that quasars were local, but the advent of better photographic emulsions and then CCDs allowed Jerry Kristian to show that quasars were active nuclei in distant galaxies.
@@awuma The various challenges Arp´s faced as he came forth with his controversial hypothesis are also found in quite a few videos here on YT. Especially those concerning the red-shift and quasars. th-cam.com/video/6qhd_TibDIs/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/3UV9AaN1ZNI/w-d-xo.html - And many, many others.
"Geniuses Love Simplicity" - Terry A. Davis If you tell a real genius that they have to deal with the insane bureaucracy of todays academic world just so the stuff they say and think has validity... There are reasons why the average competency of college graduates has been decreasing for decades.
I completely agree with this. In the past universities used to be a place of excellence. It were mainly the most talented few percent of people who had a chance of getting into universities. Most of the students had great talent and passion for the field they decided to study. Nowadays universities are basically a business targeted at the masses. For many jobs a degree is now a requirement and hence almost half of the younger people are now going to university to get a degree, not because they are particularly talented or passionate about a field but because they often kinda have to in order to get a decent job (or at least they believe so). Purely based on the numbers the average university student is now much closer to the overall population mean than to the top percentiles in terms of intellect. The consequent lack of depth probably can make universities even less attractive to the true top percentiles.
One of the last people who could write a compiler. All of the 'Strong-Brave' 'on Wed, we code!' idiots are just patching and stitching Davis' work and patting themselves on the back. Rewarding medocrity because of identity politics has made people dumb.
Heidegger also pointed this problem , calculative thinking where outcome is already decided forehand , as it is , where there is no room for creativity or poetry as he describe it. Money making kills art and creativity.
TH-cam is the new science school. This is where real true research and innovation is. What I have learnt about neutrino and human diet has changed my life. It has also shown how corrupt the food and pharmaceutical companies are.
I am leaving behind me a carreer in fundamental science in Europe, and am transitioning to the aerospace sector, for the exact reasons which Gregory layed out masterfully in this podcast. He is right with everything! In particular his point with it being benficial to have many smaller pockets of science, devided by geography and/or culture, rather than having one big one, leveraged by a centralised institution like the European Commission, is something rarely stated, and very few people appear to be aware of it, but I think it is 100% true. Thank you both for this fascinating podcast!
Since we are here mostly talking of fundamental physics, it is a question how much of the actual knowkedge in the field is actually open. We had these landmark discoveries in fundamental physics in the beginning of the 20th century. Than came WWII and it became clear that the new physics had military applications. The leading physicists got enrolled in the military to design nuclear weapons. And then came the cold war, where the race for weapons of mass destruction just continued. Fundamental physics became military secrets in the cold war arms race. And the question is if that ever stopped... Can we be sure that all there is known in fundamental physics is open and public?
I was very creative and did so well on their testing that guys in suits came to my school in 8th grade to try to recruit me into "something" and made me go to high school to take exams. They wanted me in advanced classes then early college courses but wouldn`t say why. Very shady! UFOs had been swarming our home at this time for over 13 years. I wanted to be a scientist (1979) but already knew I could never do great things because it would be weaponized. I just gave up on the "American Dream" and lived simply. I was right too. Even the fruit orchard, berries and organic vegetable gardens I`ve worked so hard on will be destroyed by idiocy and ignorant greed when I`m gone. How long will they last I wonder...will they even make it two years before the bulldozers arrive? Months? Weeks? Humans truly deserve what`s coming.
You've got it! And it was all stolen from dubious origin, like probably the right method to ignite the nuclear bombs, because funnily and curiosly only after May45 and German capitulation (totally!) the things on the nuclear bombs which were very stuck all of a sudden got speed! There is also uranium isotopes being recovered in Germany in the amout of tons that probably were captured in submarines on their way to Japan incl. the know-how to do it. What an irony of history that that stuff was eventually thrown on japanese cities! Too bad to imagine! 😮
Lord Kelvin and a few other Physics Honchos at the end of the 19th Century stated that Physics seemed complete, except for a few open questions: (1) "What causes discrete spectral lines?"; and (2) "What makes the Sun shine?" Kelvin conjectured that solving these problems would require "something new". (His actual statement is more elegant.)
Love your thinking Greg. I'm in your camp. Had a vivid dream many years ago... was flying through the atmosphere, unassisted, came across a old man sitting on a carpet high up in the air. I stopped mid-flight, reversed to him and looking me in the eyes he said: "Learn everything you can... you going to need it", after which I flew off! Today, I'm doing just that and a few things already popped forward after my mind started fitting pieces from different puzzles together making the new! Nice innovative pictures on your wall.
Aah, the one who can see the dreams. There are different beings in the dreams. There are good an bad entities in there. Most of the time the bad ones just go there and produce nonsense and mock. They need physical body to attack you. And there have been a lot of attack irl too. Somehow i managed to stay alive. Anyhow. The reason why you need the data, is because they are about to erase everything, incl ppl (if you have not noticed). If hard to understand, lets use illu words - as above, so below - with an addition: . as below, so above, psychos down here, psychos up there. Universe is demonic prison.
Along with my company, I gradually developed and patented a type of ion thruster that lifts its power supply against Earth's gravity! There are about 45 videos of them on my TH-cam channel. Other ion thrusters are orders of magnitude too heavy to lift their power supplies against gravity, so no one else even made a serious try. In essence the problem was "thrust to weight ratio" and efficiency. This invention solved those problems. It seems that most all the funding goes to colleges or NASA, even though they don't have anything at all competitive. There is even a group at MIT that claims incorrectly that they built the "first of any kind" ion propelled aircraft to lift its power supply. They are just ignoring my patents. The system is definitely completely broken.
Ive thought this for a minute, im no expert but ive always loved science and throughout my early days what made it fun was the idea of what could and the imaginative exploration of what I or someone else could do if we sought it out; this is a breathe of fresh air, I've been extremely hesitant to go into the scientific field specifically because the things i wanna do and the ideas i have have all been thrown into the realm of fringe science or make believe (anti-gravity propulsion, harvesting energry from the earths ionsphere) and although im not again not an expert and i wont pretend to have enough knowledge in these fields to be able to make those leaps and bounds, uve always been extremely turned off by how modern science just scoffs and says, "your crazy, not possible" Maybe im crazy, who knows. But so were many others. Id rather be crazy and love the idea of what science is supposed to be rather then delude myself for what im told it should be. I believe true science is the playing ground of madmen, those who are so driven by curiosity and what could be that theyre willing to stand up even when the world would rather force them to sit down. This has motivated me to take my personal interests more seriously; im willing to go the distant, even if I never move an inch.
When I was at university -- eons ago, admittedly -- the two best professors in my department were, over the summer between my freshman and sophomore years, fired for not publishing enough. Their getting easily the best student evaluations meant less than nothing... Damn you, damn you, Staub! Damn you...!
“Publish or perish” was a 60s 70s thing. For quite a long time the rule has been, “Bring in money or perish.” The usual money quota is your own salary plus enough money to support 5 to 10 graduate student stipends plus the lab/computer expenses.
Gregory Chaitin is right. Creativity is a lonely undertaking, though progress often requires a discussion partner for the ideas to ripen and be redeemed. The Internet brought us transparency. You can hardly think of anything that hasn't already been discovered. The step to originality feels steeper and higher. How do you earn a doctor's degree? You don't challenge. You elaborate on the uncontroversial, just enough for your work to qualify as an original contribution to science. Scientists are not the only ones submitted by the whip of conformity. The race to the top has largely become a game of walkover. We end up cheering over the mediocre. Yes, this video really got me going. Thank you for this strong beam of energy. Well done!
Interesting, i was just reading that most influential chinese philosophy arised during the warring states period, because there was no central authority to limit what was acceptable knowledge. It seems that when there is no central authority man is most creative. This also is a warning against global governance, that would mean no theoretical contributions, only technological innovation to control the people.
We were expected only a published paper every so often, every couple years or more, in the 19th and early 20th centuries - now, if you don't constantly and consistently publish, you're gone. It is sad because this framework doesn't produce anything of substance. It's a waste of human life, intellect, and resources. Quantity over quality is detrimental to many things, especially science. Having to be essentially restricted to what your advisor studies in graduate school is a large problem. You're not allowed to research your true interests unless they just happen to be in line with where you go and whom you are under. This is a large reason many don't go on in their academic careers - when we realized we were not truly allowed to do the science we are interested in, what's the reason to continue? If we aren't allowed to "break the paradigm," then what are we doing? Refereeing papers is, by their own definition, a process of gatekeeping. Can't believe this has ever been tolerated in science, it's something cults do.
@dcorgard Science is the new religion in case you haven't noticed. It has dogma, priests, methods of excommunication, low IQ fanatical followers who believe everything the science man says, etc... It's not Science anymore, it's science(tm).
I got out of science myself as an undergrad when I saw this effect and realized how political academic science is. If any crazy revolutionary science occurs now it'll be a billionaire independently funding a new bell labs or something.
@@piggypiggypig1746 Bolyai was also told by his father not to tackle the fifth postulate like he did and near ruined his life. He proved his dad wrong and opened the way to non-Euclidian geometry.
@@xjuhox May be spinor theories will inspire the potential solvers of the Riemann hypothesis. I am too old to worry about going mad now. I quite like the thought of putting two different halves together and the prime numbers appearing.
I'm there with you........ I can't believe how little innovation has been stifled in the medical/dental field. It's a real problem and demoralizing. I'm doing procedures pretty much like I did 40 years ago. This can't be., I'm retiring in 6 weeks with such sorrow in my heart. I know that new products and procedures are being kept from us. Nothing else makes sense to me. Thank you anyway, for helping me feel not quite so alone.
When I received my Ph.D. from the Notre dame High Energy physics group, everyone who graduated from the group was guaranteed a job at Bell Labs if they wanted it. I interviewed for a week and had 17 different job offers within Bell Labs. There was no DEI at the time.
Discussion by peers in itself is important. The problem is when you factor in the journal mafia (elsevier, etc) and the tying of career progress and funds to citation amounts. This is in part why one should be extremely cautious around the "Studies show" peddlers. Many studies agreeing on something ("consensus" is a fallacy in science) may be because they are closer to describing reality, but it may also be that the positioning of their thesis got them much more money than the more "unpopular" option. This is especially true in medical relared fields, where big BIG money is on the line.
I can say my undergraduate studies were amazing. The vast majority of my professors never looked down or discouraged any ideas we had - they encouraged us to pursue them. They also have caveats on what they were teaching - e.g. "the electron has no structure" was explained correctly - we model it mathematically without structure for two reasons: 1. It's easier 2. We have not discovered the structure yet. It does NOT mean it has no structure. The velocity curve of (stars in) galaxies was explained in the late 1980's by Anthony Peratt - showing electromagnetic forces can very easily explain it to very, very high accuracy - with no need for bandage hypotheses of dark matter and energy which fundamentally can't be observed directly (how convenient...). Christian Birkeland, Hans Alfven, Ralph Juergens, Anthony Peratt, etc. also gave a wonderful hypothesis of the wholly unexplained phenomenae we observe on and from the sun - yet it is largely ignored. Not to speak of Halton Arp and his studies on redshift via quasars and "peculiar galaxies." I agree with 1920's being the last time of true scientific inquiry. We were having breakthroughs all the time before that, then things greatly changed.
Thank you. Electro-magnetism can explain most celestial phenomenon without creating things to make the explaination fit. Einsteinian cosmology is full of smoke and mirrors.
Chaitin is absolutely correct. Science started with a desire to know, to read, "the Handbook of the Heavens" as Galileo phrased it, but now it's to get a "career" as a professor at a good college, get Grants, perhaps even fame and money. No one can propose a project unless they know it will work, so nothing new comes out of it except more citations (of and additions to their CVs helping them get new grants and teach their (exploited) students their way towards "success". That's why I and others go towards the start-ups.
Startups will not save you. You may have a lot of room for innovation initially but as soon as the money people get their grubby paws on the thing, it’s a shitshow all over again. We need true Monks who work on technology.
Back when I was in college, I wondered if this would eventually come up in the lexicon. There was so much pressure to conform in order to be considered "educated," it sometimes made me resent feeling like I had to be there. I thought maybe I had a tendency to think too much and let things get to me. But I always felt my doubts in the system were valid.
I'm living on an island in the Philippines. We have a huge plastic pollution problem with tons and tons being added daily. Biodegradable materials processed into wrappers and bottles needs innovation and marketing ideas. We live however in an age where profit rules over environment. Legislation is passed but never enforced upon the big players like Coke and Nestle etc. I'm watching current presidential debate and I don't see or hear leadership ever bring up the fact that innovation must rule over profit when it comes to environment if we want to keep it healthy. Money isn't important beyond what we REALLY need. I see that USA is gearing up to start manufacturing energy production from renewables. That's a good start. We really have to get away from single use convenience plastics too. I'd love to see it become a mandate and no longer a choice. The beaches and forests are getting full of plastic micro particles.
I have a PhD. I don't work for a university and don't seek funding for my research. And i publish regularly in my field. Too many PhDs have become merely technocrats achieving nothing in the name of incrementalism.
We’ve had a hell of a lot of innovations since the 1920s but it’s odd how it’s all science which is derived from military technology. The only branch of science which has unarguably been pushed by academia in recent years is biology but aside from that a staggering number of inventions are directly linked to the military. Space technology all came from technology intended for the military. The internet came from a networking system intended for the military. Nuclear technology came from a secret military project. Jet engines are also an innovation intended for military use. Hell even the damn microwave was designed for military purposes. It seems as though science generally creates new things when there’s a military incentive to do so. So while it’s obvious technology has exponentially grown it seems the initial innovations come from the military and not academia.
The answer is funding. Huge amounts of money are going into military research. The money that goes into research that doesn't have potential military use is a pittance compared to that.
@XS69 Perhaps in the public education sphere but not in the private sector. Huge money is dumped into private R&D. Also you have to realise that the vast majority of military spending disappears into corruption. Unless you want to tell me those military grade toilet seats really cost $5000 to produce?
A huge chunk of the defense budget goes into antigravity projects. But you don’t hear about them in public academia because that area of physics is highly classified.
@@CeoMacNCheese No, I mean piloted craft which defy gravity and travel at enormous speeds. Lockheed and Raytheon are two of the contractors. Whenever there are reports of triangular-shaped UFOs, it’s your tax dollars at work (assuming you’re a US citizen)
The most important problem in the academia is that you can not survive in it if you do not have sufficient financial resources. Salaries are abysmal, hence most academicians have to do a lot of nonsense/fake projects/papers to get funding.
In 2011, I presented my observations to the ANU for an opinion. The Vice-Chancellor ( degrees in Law and Arts) opined that it couldn't be so and that there was no money in it. He was too lazy to take it down the corridor to the physics department. Now retired, I wish him everything that he deserves. Newton would have grasped it.
publish or perish is one thing. garbage publications being published on so-called "esteem" journals like PRL is another problem. Research is really in bad conditions and getting worse by the day. Noone wants to recognize anymore who is understanding and who is not. Garbage environment.
I manage to publish my work, but "They" make nearly impossible for the people to find it. I believe will be a big surprise to you when you learn the title of my work - It is the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe".
Already 30 years ago when I was in university people where telling that research papers are on average red by 2 people. Including the author. It's just that doesn't interest anyone. There is a reason you have to pay to get published.
@@drgetwrekt869 publish or perish really got work when activists started journals. A lot of journals are effectively lobbyist organizations pretending to be scientists.
@@rosomak8244almost all the papers I read for my research came from people who at the same university. It’s difficult to find research and get access to it sometimes even when you know the author you are looking for.
I have heard that there are a lot of German scientists. Papers that were not published that were fabulous now are coming out. Thanks. To all of them for their contribution.
I remember when doing my physics degree I told my physics tutor about the ball lightning I once seen, he told me I was “mistaken” because it was impossible to see what I seen, what can one do🤷.
I've had people tell me about their experience with ball lightning or UFOs, and I had a physics professor say that what I had observed was impossible. They even deny basic stuff like telepathy, without even trying to explain how it might work.
It's not just in science. Bureaucrats love regimental structures that fit a paradigm for auditing, and for teaching. Uncertainty just does not fit, and so every industry now has set rules. Diet in relationship to food or facts in medical or any other orthodoxy seeks out order, and conformity.
@@valentinmalinov8424 I love this. I'm one of those who conducted his own inquiry and ended up somewhere completely unique. It must be outside of the imaginations of the scientific establishment that an outsider will come to contribute something special, because all doors that I've knocked on have been closed. Not even a basic hearing. Either outside of their imagination, or maybe its a feirce competition for the prestigious breakthorugh that leads the establishment to their indifference towards independant researchers. Either ither doesnt matter, it results in the same thing. An enviroment which is suprisinlgy well setup to limit our reach for being heard and or pubished. But I've used my time for having been silenced well, for the benefit having improved my work and refined its explinations. I have a youtube channel now with a video series. Lets see how that goes. And I wish everybody in my ambiations and shoes the very best
@@valentinmalinov8424 I love this. I'm one of those who conducted his own inquiry and ended up somewhere completely unique. It must be outside of the imaginations of the scientific establishment that an outsider will come to contribute something special, because all doors that I've knocked on have been closed.
The logical methods of getting reliable knowledge, established themselves around 18th century, were popularized and applied at the end of 19th century. This is how much we got from basic logic thinking, the discoveries made by Einstein and others from that time. But in order to get new discoveries, we need new methods of thinking, also using devices, computers etc. That's what we are doing now, but current methodologies don't change anything fundamental like what happened at the end if 19th century.
«Science has become big business. It's not a hobby anymore for a small group that really loves it and does it only out of curiosity. I think that has destroyed fundamental innovation» Chaitin is SOOO right!! It is for this reason that I have been suggesting a sort of a 'punk revolution' in science for almost two decades now!
@@thorebergmann1986 Good and fair question! Well, the first thing would be to 'gather' some discontent researchers, people who REALLY love science above almost everything else and are open minded to new ideas (it doesn't work if you don't share this frame of mind). Once you sarting to have a community of like-minded people things follow naturally. You would have a (hpefully groing) community of people reading each others papers, aiding each other, publishing alternative sites and journals/zines and even promoting meetings and conferences where people would crash on other peoples homes instead of staing at expensive hotels. This is just a simple and brief sketch, but in essence it wouldnot be very far from this. With current technology this is actually something very easy to do!... Would you join in?
@@Xcalator35 I just lost my drummer over scientific disagreements (he keeps trying to stop me from experimenting, thinking outside the box and basically won't listen ever just tries to shut me up) but yes I very much agree. I hope I can get my band back on the rails and never will I stop looking for answers and truth. 3 chords and the truth was my starting point and never will I compromise when it comes to truth. No matter how hungry and lonesome I am getting as a consequence.
Einstein was wrong about the "particle properties of light." There is no such thing as a "particle property." Every property attributed to particles is also attributed to waves. That is why they cannot make a distinction between the two. If anyone cares to argue otherwise, start by listing all of the "particle properties" that are not "wave properties." Good luck! Also, Einstein did not come up with the energy mass equivalent. Woldemar Voigt published the E=mc^2 equation in his paper "On the Doppler Effect," in 1876 before Einstein was even born. Voigt's paper was a discussion of Christian Dopper's "Doppler Effect" which requires a medium of propagation. That is correct... E=mc^2 was derived in aether theory, just as was "time dilation," "length contraction" and other concepts often falsely attributed to Einstein that were actually postulated by other people before Einstein took them and reified them into his theory.
Very good explanation. Looks like you understand of Physics and this is the reason to inform you for the existence of the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe" I hope that will give you good ideas.
We’re being misled majorly somewhere IMO. These UAP that have been seen since the 40s break all known laws of physics - if I was a budding young physicist I would start there and what would possibly allow for an object to experience and survive these forces and speeds
I wonder if it can be initiated by something to do with the structure of old wooden homes and possible the lacquers used to protect and beautify them or even the structure of the desiccated wood itself. I says this because it’s seems as though sightings were much more common when most of the homes and buildings were entirely made of wood.
What color was it? We got a ball lightning appear after an electrolysis experiment went very wrong with an old 12volt battery charger that overheated and caught fire (it was forgotten for hours and almost no water was left in the jar, thus, only very salty water remained and it probably melted the transformer's coils and shorted it and released all the energy stored in the coil at once). I did not personnally observe it, but a sibling did and it floated slowly,then accelerated when near the electrical pannel down the hall and struck it.
Wood is an excellent conductor of torsion energy because of the chiral nature of cellulose. Torsion energy also persists in space, so it is very likely to be a component of ball lightning.
I realized that academia was a racket 30 years ago during grad school when I noticed that a 30-page paper suitable for "Physical Review" would get submitted as ten 3-page papers to "Physics Letters".
As people get dumber (parents aren’t reading to their babies and small children anymore) and kids offload more of their brains to tech at earlier and earlier ages, it seems that we are heading for some kind of technological dark age. Kids aren’t learning fine motor skills like handwriting (necessary for muscle memory), basic language and grammar. Neither do they learn basic mathematics. Such skills are seen as boring, difficult and “obsolete” to the iPad generation. Passive, overworked parents are too exhausted to actually parent their children, and afraid of using assertive discipline out of fear they’ll repeat a cycle of abuse. Instead of “Gentle” parenting (which is assertive and uses non-angry discipline), many of them are completely passive and spoil their children, or just give the baby an iPad to shut them up. As of now there are college students who arrive at elite colleges now who have never completely read a full Book, and are barely literate by past standards, barely able to read, write without the use of AI tools, or do math by hand. Nevertheless, they were not held back in grade or high because “that would have harmed their self-esteem,” or “would have been racist”… this doesn’t bode well for the future, even with AI, because the systems are derivative of human-generated work. What happens when humans stop inputting into the system? In the future, we are Devo: De-evolution, and degrading into Rule by Corporate Overlords and the all-Important Algorithm.
@@celiacresswell6909True, but minimal strings attached venture capital funds are a whole lot easier to work with than grants. Grants are a nightmare in our current year.
About Einstein's time in the Swiss patent office, the ai summarizes, interestingly: During his tenure from 1902 to 1909, Einstein was exposed to numerous patents related to clock synchronization, which was a major area of innovation in early 20th century Europe
Wholehartedly agree. My father (as a university professor) warned for this in the early 1980's when politicians here in the Netherlands decided that part of university funding was to come from business (it was called 'derde geldstroom', as I recall it). As a former college. student and a father of one, I've also noticed the change in mentality of both students and staff.
What is truly sad is the corporate monopolies are trying to make a one world government where everything is centralized we are going to end up with one government one corporation and nobody will be able to tell them apart. We need to put a end to this insanity
nah, the bankers will continue with having multiple corporations owned by them pretending to be competing. It has worked so well for them so far. See pepsi/coca cola, and all the media etc. As long as people think there are multiple entities no one will rebel.
I admire this man for what he says. All great inventions and konwldge which in past served humanity in best way like electricity, cars cinema, electron tubes were derived from experimenting not limited by set on top goal,. It was a spark which wasnt expected. It had changed opposite in last 100 years - scientist set up results in front and then they match models to achieve what was their intention (were told to have) at start. This way all inventions now are limited by humnan imagination and they serve only from top expected goals
I'm an interdisciplinary Math-CS Education developer in my '70s. I remember being inspired by Greg Chaitin's thinking when young. My quest to teach algorithmic-computational math to high school kids climaxed with 2 years of encouraging results in Calif. public schools. The current "Dataflow Geometry" version, available free online, is summarily ignored, and the Math Ed PhD reviewers don't understand it. Now I'm self-supporting on pension. I agree that future science innovators are "hatched" in high school.
What a fabulous presentation, very liberating and refreshing, thank you so much. There are no doubt many many great minds that have been marginalised by the established system. The biologist Rupert Sheldrake is just one that comes to mind, whose potentially paradigm shifting ideas around what he calls morphic resonance and the morphic field are tremendously exciting but have been ignored and ridiculed by the orthodox academia and those lacking imagination generally. On another note I have long believed that the phenomena of synchronicity also provides a key into a much deeper understanding of the universe, though conservative and safe thinkers invariably trundle out cliche ways of dismissing it rather than engage in serious inquiry... Here's to open mindedness and curiosity...
I'd recommend watching Angela Collier's video "a physicist responds: physics has done very little for like 70 years." TL;DR: it's done a lot, actually.
Just by reading the title I can confirm this is true, my grandfather bought an iPhone 16 back in the 30’s and I couldn’t believe my eyes when I walked into an Apple Store yesterday and saw the same device on displays everywhere. He passed his phone on to me and it holds up pretty well but yeah it would be nice to see something new in our life time and none of that perseverance landing on Mars and medical advances nonsense we’re all used to so far
My point is that research now shows that the speed of light is not constant as once thought. This desproves Relativity, since it assumes the speed of light is constant. If Relativity is wrong then so is General Relativity since it based on it. A better theory of gravity known to predict all observed gravitational effects is Gravitoelectromagnetism, which is a field theory and is fully compatible with quantum mechanics.
He’s 100% correct… The power of control is fear. YT would cancel this channel in a heartbeat if Curt actually entertained unique and novel TOEs , instead of the same old TOEs already available from dozens of other YT channels.
@MikeKing-cj9cx Why? Because if YT's handlers decided something was dangerous to their power, it would be scrubbed. But enough must remain that we sheep not notice some of us get slaughtered.
@MikeKing-cj9cx Gee I wish you were right. But alas… Being shadow banned on YT happens so often on so many forums your optimism is ….cute. To So far Curt has not rocked the boat. He is a great interviewer, don’t get me wrong. but he is channel is the “funny cat videos” of physics. He knows that YT can and is likely to pull his revenue stream if he steps out of line. He even alludes so at the end of every single Video.
It's already being broken up, why do you think they were forced to import tens of millions of browns? It's a literal takeover and they're bending over and taking it because they're so thoroughly compromised.
That Greek idea is amazing. To what extent is the internet "flat"? Which is to say, the Greek city states had these diverse characteristics that would develop in isolation their own way, but be shared. But with the Internet, the is not enough isolation for any paths to develop in isolation long enough to be developed, these dominant narratives suppress them.
Alexandria's library is largely hype: science was already in trouble then because the freedom of thought that some more "liberal" city states like Athens or Syracuse had promoted was already being endangered under the Macedonians and then the Romans. Just consider how much the Greeks and Phoenicians explored, including probably circumnavigating Africa, and how little did the Romans instead. Alexandria's library was like a fossil of bygone times: it may have hosted the last great thinker of Antiquity (Ptolemy the Astronomer) but it was a dying light, not a promoter of research.
Modern physics is about to undergo a major paradigm shift! The speed of light is not a constant speed as once thought, and this has now been proved by Electrodynamic theory and by Experiments done by many independent researchers. The results clearly show that light propagates instantaneously when it is created by a source, and reduces to approximately the speed of light in the farfield, about one wavelength from the source, and never becomes equal to exactly c. This corresponds the phase speed, group speed, and information speed. Any theory assuming the speed of light is a constant, such as Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong, and it has implications to Quantum theories as well. So this fact about the speed of light affects all of Modern Physics. Often it is stated that Relativity has been verified by so many experiments, how can it be wrong. Well no experiment can prove a theory, and can only provide evidence that a theory is correct. But one experiment can absolutely disprove a theory, and the new speed of light experiments proving the speed of light is not a constant is such a proof. So what does it mean? Well a derivation of Relativity using instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity. This can easily seen by inserting c=infinity into the Lorentz Transform, yielding the Galilean Transform, where time is the same in all inertial frames. So a moving object observed with instantaneous nearfield light will yield no Relativistic effects, whereas by changing the frequency of the light such that farfield light is used will observe Relativistic effects. But since time and space are real and independent of the frequency of light used to measure its effects, then one must conclude the effects of Relativity are just an optical illusion. Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, then it has the same problem. A better theory of Gravity is Gravitoelectromagnetism which assumes gravity can be mathematically described by 4 Maxwell equations, similar to to those of electromagnetic theory. It is well known that General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism for weak fields, which is all that we observe. Using this theory, analysis of an oscillating mass yields a wave equation set equal to a source term. Analysis of this equation shows that the phase speed, group speed, and information speed are instantaneous in the nearfield and reduce to the speed of light in the farfield. This theory then accounts for all the observed gravitational effects including instantaneous nearfield and the speed of light farfield. The main difference is that this theory is a field theory, and not a geometrical theory like General Relativity. Because it is a field theory, Gravity can be then be quantized as the Graviton. Lastly it should be mentioned that this research shows that the Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics can no longer be criticized for requiring instantaneous interaction of the pilot wave, thereby violating Relativity. It should also be noted that nearfield electromagnetic fields can be explained by quantum mechanics using the Pilot Wave interpretation of quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (HUP), where Δx and Δp are interpreted as averages, and not the uncertainty in the values as in other interpretations of quantum mechanics. So in HUP: Δx Δp = h, where Δp=mΔv, and m is an effective mass due to momentum, thus HUP becomes: Δx Δv = h/m. In the nearfield where the field is created, Δx=0, therefore Δv=infinity. In the farfield, HUP: Δx Δp = h, where p = h/λ. HUP then becomes: Δx h/λ = h, or Δx=λ. Also in the farfield HUP becomes: λmΔv=h, thus Δv=h/(mλ). Since p=h/λ, then Δv=p/m. Also since p=mc, then Δv=c. So in summary, in the nearfield Δv=infinity, and in the farfield Δv=c, where Δv is the average velocity of the photon according to Pilot Wave theory. Consequently the Pilot wave interpretation should become the preferred interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. It should also be noted that this argument can be applied to all fields, including the graviton. Hence all fields should exhibit instantaneous nearfield and speed c farfield behavior, and this can explain the non-local effects observed in quantum entangled particles. *TH-cam presentation of above arguments: th-cam.com/video/sePdJ7vSQvQ/w-d-xo.html *More extensive paper for the above arguments: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: vixra.org/abs/2309.0145 *Electromagnetic pulse experiment paper: www.techrxiv.org/doi/full/10.36227/techrxiv.170862178.82175798/v1 Dr. William Walker - PhD in physics from ETH Zurich, 1997
Relativity itself contains a "proof" the speed of light cannot be a constant. According to Einstein's famous E = mC^2 or, using first year algebra, (E/m)^1/2 = C, which says the speed of light is a ratio of the total energy of the universe divided by the total mass (the square root, but we're talking about such big quantities , for simplicity's sake, I'm just going to concentrate on the ratio part. We have learned energy and matter are two versions of the same thing, nuclear bombs are an example of matter turning into energy. If E = 0 and it's all one hunk of matter, C = 0, logical since there's no place to go. If m approaches 0, and it's all energy, C will increase; in fact, C will approach infinity. Does the universe’s ratio E/m change? It does so within stars and atomic bombs, so why not the universe as a whole? The Big Bang Theory claims in the ancient past it was all m, E = 0, and C must have been 0, since there was no place to go. Similar to how a Gaussian closed 3-D surface can be treated as if its center of mass point contained all of its mass, can an area of space be treated as if its average E/m ratio were the universe’s E/m ratio? In other words, if in interstellar space, can a space station behave as if the mass of the universe were much less than it is, thus raising the speed of light on the station? Would that make the distant stars closer than they appear?
@@hdthorIt was the basis of my PhD thesis from ETH Zurich, 1997. See the description of my video. The thesis and all the researchers papers corroborating my results are there.
Interesting the truly creative and educated started their own companies -- money from real world results. Grant money necessarily panders to the grant writers, real world results are less important than pandering to the preconceptions of the check writers. In the future, will bio's about private employment become more important than schools attended and awards given?
Look into the Invention Secrecy Act of 1951. The public never gets to see the newest discoveries and inventions. The best stuff gets classified and locked away, like most likely, anti-gravity.
This assumes that A) the inventors of antigravity technology were American, B) these inventors were so cowed that they didn't appeal or take their discovery to the media - as other inventors have, see the Phasorphone, and C) not a single scientist outside of the US has replicated this discovery.
@@Sifar_Secure Unfortunately, I think this channel - through its boosting and platforming of crackpots - fosters a community that includes a lot of conspiracy theorists and loons. I mean, even George Chaitin gives some legitimacy to cold fusion. Other videos boost UFO conspiracies. And on and on. I want a channel that is dedicated to talking about real theoretical frameworks that compete with string theory, and evaluating their relative merits. This video is just sour grapes disguised as critique.
You are a conteoist. Inventing cost money. Returns are desired. Therefore production must be facilitated. Patent protection time is limited. Therefore: 1. Either the original invention is released after 20 years. 2. Or someone else invent it again, but can not patent it, and therefore is not allowed to manufacture it, but can publish it, thus making the patent owner to start production to prevent patent applications elsewhere. You know there is no world patent. So even if the owner want to manipulate the market, its time extent almost certainly will not be as long as wished. Because if it is not used in production soon, there will be fierce competitors when it is finally released from protection.
Great interview, 100% agree with his views. Just one inaccuracy was said, i.e. that Aristotle was not Greek. What was he then? Aristotle was born in Stagira, a Greek city in the north, founded by Ionian Greeks. Greek was his native language and culture. Without getting into the weeds of how you define "Greek", and who a "true Scotchman" is (such debates exist within every ethnic identity I know of), I will simply say that if _anyone_ can call himself Greek, so can Aristotle. BTW, because I don't know the exact definition of "Greek", and I think it's more linguistic than anything (and others violently disagree with me on this), I call myself Grecophone, to avoid using a term ("Greek") that I cannot define without circularity. But this is already part of those "weeds" I want to avoid. For the average person out there, there is something called "a Greek nation / identity / culture / whatever". And for the average person out there, Aristotle was part of it, front and center.
@@ronrothrock7116 My best guess would be that he thinks that because Aristotle was born in Macedonia (near today's Thessaloniki) he wasn't Greek. Some people may think ancient Greeks and ancient Macedonians were different ethnic groups. No archeologist could support that. There isn't a single piece of evidence that Macedonia wasn't part of the Greek world. The language was Greek, the Gods worshiped were Greek, the names of the people (including Alexander, Aristotle, and their parents' names) had clear Greek etymology, the signs and buildings and statues from the region were all Greek. This is not disputed by anyone AFAIK. Warning, long text follows. TLDR; The confusion may be related to the modern country called Northern Macedonia (a.k.a. FYROM), which is not a country of Greeks but of Slavs. One possible reason for the mistake is that, starting in the 7th century AD (1000 years after Aristotle), Slavic tribes migrated to the Balkans from the North, and a subset of those Slavs today call themselves "Macedonians". They are Macedonians only in the geographic sense, because they inhabit a part of the region that was always known as Macedonia. (Another big part of Macedonia is today in Greece and another small part is in Bulgaria). But they are not ethnically Greek (they admit that!), and they are not ethnically/culturally/linguistically/genetically related to the ancient Macedonians from the time of Aristotle. They came later, and we know when, because it wasn't that long ago. If you ask a Bulgarian, he will tell you that the modern "Macedonians", who live in the country of "Northern Macedonia", a.k.a. "FYROM" = "Former Yugoslav Republic Of Macedonia", are ethnically Bulgarians with a slightly different dialect. If you ask a "Macedonian" today, though, he may respond differently. He will most likely admit he is a Slav. (It's kind of obvious! They can watch Bulgarian TV shows without subtitles; I cannot, the Greek language is totally different. But I can read Aristotle's texts, and they cannot.) Unfortunately, there has been a concerted effort by the government of Northern Macedonia, since the 1990s, to usurp the ancient Macedonian identity, with often comical results. E.g., they named their airport "Skopje Alexander the Great Airport", they built an enormous statue of Alexander, they put an ancient Greek symbol (the Sun of Vergina) in their flag and coinage... This is the result of a recent nationalist movement that followed (or maybe predated?) the dissolution of Yugoslavia. The new state that was formed needed some legitimacy, some prestige, and a good way to do that is to claim that you are somehow linked to a very ancient and very glorious civilization of that area. (Some ultra-nationalists would go even further and claim that the whole geographic region of Macedonia should be under their young government.) Note, other Slavs don't feel the need to do that. Bulgarians, for example, don't usurp ancient symbols and names, AFAIK, because their state has been well-established. The historical record is very clear, but whatever, if some Slavs want to name their airport "Alexander the Great" and call themselves "Macedonian", I personally don't mind it. "Imitation is the best form of flattery", people say.
@@kanalarchis Thanks for the geography/history lesson. I did not find it TLDR material, but then I like to learn new things. So it sounds like he thought Aristotle was not Greek because he was Macedonian. Without having learned any of the historical context you presented, he came to an incorrect conclusion. Not to be derogatory of him in any way, but I've learned this is what can happen to "self taught" people like him. They are super smart and absorb info like a sponge and they can logically reason out what scientists take years to prove with experiments. But when it comes to basic facts vs having that broader knowledge surrounding the topic, they can make comments/statements like he did. It is a blessing and a curse to be like him. I, my self, have a MS in biotech (I've made GMOs), but on many of the other science topics I am like him. I understand science and how the scientific method is taught and used as well as how the publishing of papers works. But I love all forms of science (when first out of high school I started to go into aerospace engineering, but life took me a different direction.) In the other fields of science I, like him, am more self-taught. It helps to be able to see things from that different angle; out of the box if you will. But you lose a lot of credibility when you make a statement like he did that is incorrect.
@@ronrothrock7116 The Athenians of his time viewed Macedonians as closely related but not qualifying as Greeks, because they were barbarians, semi-Greek at best.
@@ronrothrock7116They did not speak Greek as their first language..Alexander the Great was Macedonian and he did not speak Greek as his native language.
I’ve been developing a model and a new language that takes various concepts in analytical psychology, the functions of the various aspects of our psyche, and melds it into a meta-physical framework that parallels our understanding of the physical nature of the human brain. I’ve pretty much had to turn my back on the academic community to work in this model. And it’s rare to get any academics, experts, or professors to provide insight and critique because of that. But what choice do I have? The work I’m doing feels like my life’s purpose. I just keep hoping, as I develop the model and continue to learn and improve upon it, eventually it’ll be so good they will have to take it seriously. Perhaps that’s naive, but it’s my only hope. It’s already a fantastic language, despite its current state being an in-formalized pile of notes and thoughts in my head. The simple fact that this model challenges conventional understandings ostracizes me frequently. And the people who have helped me, pointed me towards learning, provide scrutiny or insight or anything, are people who also work on or are working on something that challenges conventional understandings. Funny.
@@PeterKoperdan way ahead of you! That’s how I spot mistakes and fallacies, I feed it to the a.i. and then become very critical of the a.i.s response. This often spurs new research. The robot can make some pretty huge mistakes and that’s actually a big help in the development process.
@@PeterKoperdan I’ll feed it chunks of my work and then ask it to scrutinize and challenge my notes and then I’ll research and seek knowledge to either refute its challenges or validate them and get back to the drawing board.
![[안방1열 직캠4K] 베이비몬스터 치키타 'DRIP' (BABYMONSTER CHIQUITA FanCam) @SBS Inkigayo 241110](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tnlxo79cAqY/mqdefault.jpg)
SPONSOR (THE ECONOMIST): As a listener of TOE, you can now enjoy full digital access to The Economist. Get a 20% off discount by visiting: www.economist.com/toe
TIMESTAMPS:
00:00 - Intro
01:20 - Lack of Scientific Progress
06:22 - The Academic System
12:03 - Crisis in ‘Fundamental’ Physics
18:18 - Ancient Societies (Greece, Egypt, Alexandria)
23:05 - European Bureaucracy
27:08 - Albert Einstein
29:14 - Heterodox Experiments (Cold Fusion)
34:34 - Outro / Support TOE
I know it's flawed and I have all the information on how to change it... Lol hello read my channel name 😂
Innovation will have to outpace extinction. Have homo-sapiens ever faced extinction by their own hands?
We need to consider that the current stagnation in human thought is caused by the thinkers we need never engaging with the university system at all.
@@mattphillips538 The thinkers outside the university system need to engage with it the most.
@@therealdesidaru Why would you wish that on them?
I have a friend who is neuroscientist. He states categorically that peer review is nothing but an excellent way of ensuring that no one works on anything truly novel or interesting.
Was/is that the goal?
@@greggweber9967 The goal is the primary benefit of Investors that are collecting big Return on Investments on patented previous technologies.
He probably only looks at neurons and completely ignores the underlying microtubles complexity, its understandable, but its not providing humanity any progress.
I heard a lot of this kind of talk among scientists regarding research grants in the 1980's. Robert O. Becker even stated that he wrote his book, "The Body Electric" on Electromagnetism and Life because he wanted the public to know that science did not work the way the public thought it did. David Hestenes and Edwin T. Jaynes have also published essays on these matters. Jaynes even wrote about cycles of innovation in science. And then, on education I can go way back to the Greeks and Roman complaints reiterated by Roger C. Schank decades ago and things have not changed since H.G. Wells commented on education and live lecturing in his 1921 book, "The Salvaging of Civilization". Compartmentalization in Big Government Science and Big Business exists for a reason and was published widely in the 1960's and 1970's by men like R. Buckminster Fuller in his books such as Spaceship Earth, Critical Path and Grunch of Giants. Numerous historians of science and Robert Root-Bernstein have been pointing these things out for almost a century so that when some objectivist says, "bureaucracy" people tune out in boredom. In the 1970's everybody seemed to be fighting the system from within according to Hollywood and television shows but the more things change the more they seem to have stayed the same and more entrenched. "We have adopted a flipped classroom approach during the pandemic so our students can more easily access their lecture mayerials online." And the University Chancellor and President retires with quite a nice nest egg.
Ya im sure a world without any peer revue wouldn't be an absolute circus filled with endless pseudo science
When I joined Bell Labs in 1979, I joined the Unix development lab. My first day on the job I was told, "Yes, you joined this lab but you know, you're allowed to work on whatever you want. You can work on Unix or whatever good idea you might have."
Where can that attitude be found today? That was the magic of Bell Labs.
@drcannata3355 also at 3M labs and small start ups.
It's all about returning value to stockholders, thanks to Jack Welch and his ilk.
Can't even be poor and do research cause being poor is too expensive so you need a good job to be poor with bad boss and toxic coworkers who sap all your strength.
Yeah 100% credit to old-school AT&T for the way they allowed the Bell System to evolve and operate. They were an amazing entity allowing scientists at the Labs the freedom to choose their own area of research - blows my mind. The transistor, the BJT, the MOSFET, and most of the processes still used in modern chip making .. legendary! I personally still use the old BSTJ and BLR volumes for my own knowledge gathering. Absolute inspirational!
It's too bad that IBM didn't go to Bell Labs and Pick Systems for their OS. They could have had solid database capabilities built in on top of a robust Unix based system for the IBM PC. Pick Systems could already have 4 people working simultaneously on a 8088 using dumb terminals. There were of the few doing multi-tasking on that machine.
Einstein said he spent his last years researching the unlikely because no young scientist could afford to "waste time" on fringe ideas if he wants a career.
Now those would be interesting notes to read
@@friendlyskiespodcast Einstein spent his last years trying to unify physics via by allowing the metric tensor to be anti-symmetric. This was pure nonsense which had no physical interpretation motivating it, essentially just making random mathematical abstractions in the hope something would stick … sort of like string theory does today.
Einstein’s theory unfortunately is the fringe theory… physics will never progress until all that magical relative space&time nonsense is forgone.
@@friendlyskiespodcast he spent it trying to unify physics by making the metric tensor antisymmetric, which had no physical motivation but was essentially just making random mathematical abstractions in the hope that something would stick. Now this is still what all the theoretical physicists are still doing today.
Einstein’s theory IS the fringe theory, or at least it should have been regarded as such. Deifying the behavior of light as absolute and invariant when such a thing could never be measured should never have been accepted as science - this is the reason physics hasn’t progressed in 70 years
But he also said that his later work wasn't of great significance and he was only going to work, so he can have the pleasure of walking back home with Godel.
Einstein is the problem. The iconic figure who created chaos in physics stifles thinking. He himself 1913 said the GRT has a fundamental flaw,
At age 23, my major contribution to avionics was falsely assigned to a Russian mathematician because I lacked rank. Since then, I’ve earned a PhD and met meany scientists that are pretenders, scientist in name only.
Please enlighten us? What was your invention that got stolen from you?
Innovation is hated and yet stolen. It's very sad, and dangerous
29:45 Le Claire Effect is water based electrochemical Cold Fusion using simple plates with one solid and ome grated with round holes to create energy vortex cavitation phenomenon. Seemingly elated to the mathmatical hallmark which predicts the casmire effect will lead to over-unity / cold fusion / negentropy.
@@gator1984atcomcast pics or it didn't happen. No one believes you
@@joshuac.6437 You're just mad that there's nothing you can repost or share to make noise about on social media. If he doesn't wanna share, leave it. He merely agreed with the speakers view.
When I realized that the illusion that scientists were somehow above Lying, Greed, Jelousy, Narcissim, was not only fal;se but one of the biggest jokes ever perpetuated on young intellectual minds...If anything it's worse....Yes when I was a kid watching Moon Landings and Jetsons Cartoons and Sci-Fi movies I thought the Future would be very different .... What happened to the prosperous Future?...The same thing that happened to the now almost extinct Middle Class.... SIN.... Greed, corporate and political corruption and even Treason..... Sin destroyed our Future
Hear hear!!
Been railing about the same stuff to whomever listens ha
Bingo. I’d add IMHO the defense industries / blob (see Mike Benz) are suppressing advancement at only a rate they want and can control. See how well the atomic bomb was hidden during WW2. The UAP and whispers of black budget committees - I think we’re being majorly misled somewhere. DARPA/ defense industry has created every major scientific breakthrough and the gov has the rights to take any inventions or research they want at any time. Idk I’m not a physicist just a curious and open minded engineer trying to understand how we’re supposed to be technologically advancing at an increasing rate but all we get is new iPhones? (to put it shortly)
Cultural Marxism happened
I think the same concerns pretty much everything that people can be passionate about. Modern music and cinema are garbage. Modern cars according to Jeremy Clarkson are garbage. Even computer games and computer graphics got worse. Many professions, like consulting, are total scam. I think this is what happens to everything that it is being managed with a typical style of management nowadays: high competition for money and jobs, very superficial criteria of job evaluation such as how much money it brings to the company.
Not SIN, but Capitalism destroyed our future.
Rich people are buying authorship. There are entire FB groups where people advertise approved papers and you can put your name in for a price. As someone from Brazil with zero funding, it's impossible to compete with them for a postdoc in neuropsych.
So true. Vc brasileiro. Eu tambem
I am self taught. And stuck on moving on in research I have made
@@DrVictorVasconcelos "People buying authorship?" How totally a dastardly concept that is. Not that I care about such deviousness, but is there a waiting list? -- (signed) Poverty Stricken Illiterate
Unfortunately, true. As a consultant, I worked on the articles whose first authors were professors who made almost no contribution (except for superficially reviewing it). If I stayed in academia, I couldn't compete against them.
@@DrVictorVasconcelos you're absolutely right. I personally know a woman named kavitaprabhaa in Bengaluru, India who is backed by the team of a ruling party minister. This woman is uneducated, did nothing in her life until the age of 53 then met with this fraud group online and within three years she has fake degrees of ph.D, now a settled writer poet by publishing other's work on her name, getting awards by fake NGOs involved in money laundering, faking her family profile, age, drug addiction, cheap peddler background, photos and videos. An uneducated, untalented, inexperienced woman getting honour, awards, money for indulging in frauds with the gang .
He's living example of Mark Twin's life-experience: “I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.”
Probably the last great thinker America will produce. At least from those that get to do something.
@@yaelz6043 Not the last -- "Some people see things that are and ask, 'Why?' Some people dream of things that never were and ask, 'Why not?' Some people have to go to work and don't have time for all that." George Carlin, a modern Marc Twain.
I think Carlin would have been an awesome physicist if his educational experiences had been different -- but perhaps we needed his social insights more than another theory.
@@friendlyone2706 Indeed.
What?! Lol. Nature is school. Nature is meant to educate all as we already possess universal knowledge...born with it. Y'all just say anything these days. Lol. ALL creations are of universal principles. By experiencing earth via senses within your physical body, the essence of earth, through it being (behavior), will reveal its knowledge (results of it creating).
@@friendlyone2706 just f-off. Do you get what he is saying you dumb old woman?
I 100% agree with this, science was subject of fascination before, now its just industrial machine
@@csjaybit
science is an old god now
Back in the late 1960's and 1970's, the social science of economics was taken over by economic religious free market fundamentalists here in the USA hell bent on a political agenda. They set the science of economics back 50 years, but the damage they did down stream to the education system and public policy was unprecedented and horrendous. Crops of School administrators (all graduates of that system) are stifling future innovation. The for profit motive with its command and control motivation of patent-able ideas and nondisclosure contracts are stealing those ideas from their creators creating armies of disgruntled genius passively aggressively living out their lives in anguish. Another issue is that adjunct teachers living in poverty are great for higher education's bottom line, but we are never going to quantify the opportunity costs of the missing innovations that have been lost down stream over 50 year time. I too am disappointed by scientific progress. The idea of waiting for the next empire to rise and replace the currently failing one is depressing. Time in a closed environment is the only thing that is infinite in a closed environment.
@@crypton_8l87 why do you say that? Clearly it isn't because you need to steal it.
You are using it as currency.
Spirituality comes from understanding the supernatural, which comes from understanding the natural which you could NOT do, without science.
@@crypton_8l87 the Internet is a disgusting pirate and it is on it's way out.
oyvey
I studied electrical engineering, and my first job was with a defense contractor. The joy and appreciation for learning left at that job. I have never fitted in anywhere but NASA when I was an intern.
Thanks for sharing
@@hectron-gon This video 😁
@@NphiniT okay, the fellow in the video doesn’t devalue education. Education is very important, and one’s environment dictates their “ ceiling “. My comment is from personal experience; I am not sure what the issue you have against my statement
@@hectron-gon I did not have any issue with your statement lol. I was just wondering if you still worked at NASA cos I thought it was cool that you interned there
@@hectron-gon And also, I agree with the fellow in the video.
As a scientist who worked in academia and in industry, I can say for sure that each word is true. My wife and I have started nonprofit organization to tackle this issue. Whish us luck!
I was a budding physicist about 50 years ago. But i gave it up. It's kind of nice to hear Gregory Chaitin say things i was sensing even back in the day. Especially how we're in a phase of tech innovation but in a basic research slump. Mostly because committees have to cater to the dumbest in the group.
Welcome to a DEI society.
Activists demanded it be this way.
It's going to take a billionaire who just assembles a lab of young geniuses and says "go nuts", and then creates a massive trust to find their experiments
@@jadedandbitter FUND their experiments. And i believe most billionaires are careful with their money. They wouldn't just say "go nuts." Researchers would still need to write proposals that justify the money to be spent.
@@piehound it was a phone keypad error, u is right next to i. I very clearly meant "fund" contextually.
And if I were doing it, I'd give each scientist a use or lose quarterly research budget with the option to contribute part of his budget to another scientist, so that basically you're not appealing to some suit for approval and funding, but your colleagues, who would be far more likely to understand and see potential merit. So yeah, I would tell them "go nuts", but expect them to naturally check and balance each other.
@@jadedandbitter i really don't care. It's just a discussion with no real results possible. At least not from my angle.
Thomas Kuhn actually addressed this problem way back in the 1960s in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." Seems nothing much has changed since then
So true! Group think rules.
It’s gotten worse as the funding needs and competition increases. I have described it as a psychological grid which filters out new ideas and creativity. It is the absolute best structure imaginable to do that because of what it requires of students, how it rewards them, the “don’t re-invent the wheel” ideas from increasing complexity. The limited opportunity to really and truly allow intuition to be a part of things. Think of it this way-memory gets you good grades. But all true creativity is from making your mind work like the universe actually does. We make memory palaces and mnemonic devices when they already exist in the form of natural working wholes. I literally cannot memorize arbitrary things. But if they have a larger meaning, I never forget. I have no trouble with relevant facts. And the way intuition works is organized differently than what we do to socially use knowledge as an interpersonal or competitive lever in this regard. Pretty much every huge change in human knowledge came from intuitive understanding not declarative walls against creativity. Much of schooling is building that kind of wall. Even Pink Floyd knew that. 😂❤
@@spiralsun1 I couldn't have said that better! Well said👍How higher learning has turned into a dystopian rat race to solicit research and grant funding🤑🤑🤑🤑 Ken Robinson would find you a kindred spirit no doubt
Yes of course. The current system crushes Einsteins
@@spiralsun1perfectly stated. The rot goes deeper, as all sorts of self preserving elements have calcified to enable it to perpetuate and resist change, but you’ve nailed it here.
I’ll add to the original commenter, that 20 years after Kuhn came Feyerabend’s Against Method, which took it further to argue against “method” altogether to reignite science. Chaitlin’s critique, whether realized on his own, or incorporating Feyerabend’s analysis, incorporates this even more fundamental freedom as essential to decoupling scientism from science and unleashing the latter.
Ian McGilchrist’s the Matter With Things includes several chapters on institutional science, science and life, science and truth that are a truly masterful deconstruction of ‘all of the above’ with a great deal of specific challenges to various pillars of dogma we are stuck in. He references Denis Noble’s work (which Curt has featured) specific to the ongoing dominance of reductionist gene essentialism, and the growing body of work it continues to ignore clinging to its misguided overweighting of genetics and the machine metaphor, ignoring the frontier-like complexity that has clearly emerged in the microcosmos and the teleological orchestration of genetics performed by cells and organisms which demonstrate genetics should be seen as a dynamic tool, not a blueprint.
Killing the Bell system and with it Bell Laboratories was the most destructive blow to innovation ever.
So true.
Bell Labs was over by the time they killed it from the Bell Labs people I've met.
@@rockpadstudios You must have met the wrong people. I was there working on Unix. It was an incredible environment in which to work, like no place I've been in since.
Just saw F.W. Bell, or rather who aquired them, systematically kill very useful and obscure tech. Really sad. Soon to be replace with cheap crap, prob via China.
My dad said bell laboratories was a national treasure.
25 years ago I chose to leave physics after grad school after I noticed how uninspired the research was conducted. Everything you said checks with my experience.
Uninspiredly*
Ten years ago I left Christianity for the same reasons.
I am no egghead, but from my point of view, the truly astounding innovations of the last 300 years, did not come from academics. Rather, they came from tinkerers, and fixers of broken things, whose motivation came out of pure necessity or pure curiosity. Not a rush to turn in a paper, win a scholarship, or receive ridiculous accolades form their peers. If fact it was those, who took those innovations, and proceeded to build lifetimes of well paying minutia based careers. My academic period was marked with stifling, chasing grades, grants and loans. Very little innovation or inspiration.
real breakthroughs from tinkerers are systematically seized by the 3 letter agency anyway
Music is also dead. Most young people listen to 60s-90s stuff. Movies and TV suck as well.
@@raderator The Ruling Elite don't want imaginative, independently-minded people. They want robots they can control, so everything is reduced to the lowest common denominator. Good movies and music make you think. Can't have that.
If you search a bit, you can find very good stuff. Try the band Jakob, the tune called Blind Them with Science. I don't know what your musical preferences are, but recently I have been listening to bands like God is an Astronaut and Tars.
Nailed it.
New good things are still being made, but they are no longer for the "general audience" unless it's a blockbuster. The stifling is also due to the same bureaucratisation.
I strongly disagree. You can find plenty of good music, it's just not always broadcast in the mainstream. You can find plenty of good movies that aren't superhero movies, they're just not likely going to be blockbusters. You can find plenty of good to great TV. One recent groundbreaking example would be that TV show Shogun.
You know what happens to organizations that become insular and so overly protective of themselves that they can no longer innovate or respond?
They become irrelevant. Academia's issue is that the institutions make themselves an obstacle to everything until everyone works around that obstacle and suddenly they're just museum artifacts.
In 30 years I don't even think universities will be offering competitive research programs in comparison to private ones. They may get more research money, but it's hard to tell if even that will last in perpetuity.
@@Sanchuniathon384 No. You spent all your time writing paragraphs just to reveal that you don't know how research/inquiry works.
All the longstanding institutions are corrupt, they have for years put profit over everything else, and they are all collapsing. We are witnessing the end of capitalism.
Academia is bullshit nowadays. 😢 College is a scam
@@Sanchuniathon384 they become america. The country won't ever grow.
@@galek75 Bunch of bogus
Science as a big Business is a death blow to science
Science is a death to established systems
Imagine free electricity is achieved how will the rich get richer?
Yep, majority of super highly skilled and intelligent scientific individuals are scooped up by our good friends such as Dupont, Monsanto, Nestlé and other wonderful places to work on their next set of diabolical creations.
@@Shrouded_reaper yeah, they are making evil biscuits
Not only. Communism killed science in Russia. The left are destroying science now in the West. All those fat feminists that have no brain or passion for discovery but entitlement to success and priviledge. Disgusting.
Brilliant thank you both. I was born in 1942 here in the UK. The house we lived in was in a semi rural area on a housing estate, the house’s back garden faced into a school playing field. Therefore, one door led through a hallway onto the door facing the street. I do not know for sure, but am guessing it was a warm September day as my mother told me both the garden door and the street door were open. She was eight months pregnant with me. My mother has told me since i was very young that on that day, she opened the door from the lounge to the hallway and at the moment she opened the lounge door a Ball of Lightening simply floated past her pregnant stomach and passed through one doorway (presumably) (Im not sure which) and passed through the other. She was so shocked, she told me, that she reentered the lounge and drank half a bottle of Drambuie (a very delicious Scottish whiskey liqueur). She told everyone and thinks nobody believed her. I believed her in her tellings of this as she seemed perfectly certain. She said it was a glowing ball (I dont think it made a noise), which just bounced/floated gently. I wish i had questioned her for more details but Im not sure what other questions I could have asked. By the way, I didnt turn out to be an Alcoholic as a result 😂😂😂. I hope both you and Mr Chaitin find this of some interest
As a successfull ex-academic I would advice young admirers of science to use the internet and books to educate themselves and to found independent institutes with likemindeds. Just learn to think for yourself, to selforganize and to circle around the eternal questions: WHY and HOW?
Another example is Halton Arp and his analysis of galaxies' distances from Earth, which was totally rejected upfront. He was chased out of the scientific community by the ruling physicist's ideologies, silenced, overlooked, not published, etc. Now others are trying to take credit for his remarkable idéas as recent observations and deep space photographs seem to support his theories.
No-one can take the achievement of Halton Arp away. A few bright people as him make possible the formation of the final theory in Physics. It is in the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and the Universe" Unfortunately, "They" is hiding the existence of this book even this channel.
Another good example is Kristian Birkeland and his proposed theory of the Solar origins of the Aurorae around 1905.
He was ridiculed and ostracized by the scientific community until NASA probes in the 70's finally confirmed his ideas.
Among his fiercest critics was Arthur Eddington who came up with the idea of the thermonuclear star and promoted the theories of gravitational collapse and General Relativity.
Incidentally these theories were canonized in the 1920's and have ever since prevented any real scientific progress in these areas, including dismissing Halton Arp.
I worked a bit with Chip Arp. He wasn't "chased out of the scientific community", but his observational data were sometimes rather noisy or under-exposed. He thought that quasars were local, but the advent of better photographic emulsions and then CCDs allowed Jerry Kristian to show that quasars were active nuclei in distant galaxies.
@@awuma The various challenges Arp´s faced as he came forth with his controversial hypothesis are also found in quite a few videos here on YT. Especially those concerning the red-shift and quasars.
th-cam.com/video/6qhd_TibDIs/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/3UV9AaN1ZNI/w-d-xo.html
- And many, many others.
@@awuma He WAS chased out of the country for telescope time.
"Geniuses Love Simplicity" - Terry A. Davis
If you tell a real genius that they have to deal with the insane bureaucracy of todays academic world just so the stuff they say and think has validity... There are reasons why the average competency of college graduates has been decreasing for decades.
"Of all of the knowledge that I have acquired, the greatest has been a reverence for simplicity" I can't recall the author or if I correctly quoted.
I completely agree with this. In the past universities used to be a place of excellence. It were mainly the most talented few percent of people who had a chance of getting into universities. Most of the students had great talent and passion for the field they decided to study. Nowadays universities are basically a business targeted at the masses. For many jobs a degree is now a requirement and hence almost half of the younger people are now going to university to get a degree, not because they are particularly talented or passionate about a field but because they often kinda have to in order to get a decent job (or at least they believe so). Purely based on the numbers the average university student is now much closer to the overall population mean than to the top percentiles in terms of intellect. The consequent lack of depth probably can make universities even less attractive to the true top percentiles.
One of the last people who could write a compiler. All of the 'Strong-Brave' 'on Wed, we code!' idiots are just patching and stitching Davis' work and patting themselves on the back. Rewarding medocrity because of identity politics has made people dumb.
I graduated University and spent 21 years in my field. The best class I ever took was typing in High School.
Every generation says that but sure...
Heidegger also pointed this problem , calculative thinking where outcome is already decided forehand , as it is , where there is no room for creativity or poetry as he describe it. Money making kills art and creativity.
Mmm
TH-cam is the new science school. This is where real true research and innovation is. What I have learnt about neutrino and human diet has changed my life. It has also shown how corrupt the food and pharmaceutical companies are.
I am leaving behind me a carreer in fundamental science in Europe, and am transitioning to the aerospace sector, for the exact reasons which Gregory layed out masterfully in this podcast. He is right with everything! In particular his point with it being benficial to have many smaller pockets of science, devided by geography and/or culture, rather than having one big one, leveraged by a centralised institution like the European Commission, is something rarely stated, and very few people appear to be aware of it, but I think it is 100% true. Thank you both for this fascinating podcast!
Since we are here mostly talking of fundamental physics, it is a question how much of the actual knowkedge in the field is actually open. We had these landmark discoveries in fundamental physics in the beginning of the 20th century. Than came WWII and it became clear that the new physics had military applications. The leading physicists got enrolled in the military to design nuclear weapons. And then came the cold war, where the race for weapons of mass destruction just continued. Fundamental physics became military secrets in the cold war arms race. And the question is if that ever stopped... Can we be sure that all there is known in fundamental physics is open and public?
I was very creative and did so well on their testing that guys in suits came to my school in 8th grade to try to recruit me into "something" and made me go to high school to take exams. They wanted me in advanced classes then early college courses but wouldn`t say why. Very shady! UFOs had been swarming our home at this time for over 13 years. I wanted to be a scientist (1979) but already knew I could never do great things because it would be weaponized.
I just gave up on the "American Dream" and lived simply. I was right too. Even the fruit orchard, berries and organic vegetable gardens I`ve worked so hard on will be destroyed by idiocy and ignorant greed when I`m gone. How long will they last I wonder...will they even make it two years before the bulldozers arrive? Months? Weeks? Humans truly deserve what`s coming.
You've got it! And it was all stolen from dubious origin, like probably the right method to ignite the nuclear bombs, because funnily and curiosly only after May45 and German capitulation (totally!) the things on the nuclear bombs which were very stuck all of a sudden got speed! There is also uranium isotopes being recovered in Germany in the amout of tons that probably were captured in submarines on their way to Japan incl. the know-how to do it. What an irony of history that that stuff was eventually thrown on japanese cities! Too bad to imagine! 😮
NO!
Bad science is open.
Good science is closed.
That should tell you all you need to know about what Quantum Mechanics is.
It isn't. And, they are not going to share it with us. It would upset too many economic apple carts.
Lord Kelvin and a few other Physics Honchos at the end of the 19th Century stated that Physics seemed complete, except for a few open questions: (1) "What causes discrete spectral lines?"; and (2) "What makes the Sun shine?"
Kelvin conjectured that solving these problems would require "something new". (His actual statement is more elegant.)
Love your thinking Greg. I'm in your camp. Had a vivid dream many years ago... was flying through the atmosphere, unassisted, came across a old man sitting on a carpet high up in the air. I stopped mid-flight, reversed to him and looking me in the eyes he said: "Learn everything you can... you going to need it", after which I flew off! Today, I'm doing just that and a few things already popped forward after my mind started fitting pieces from different puzzles together making the new! Nice innovative pictures on your wall.
Aah, the one who can see the dreams. There are different beings in the dreams. There are good an bad entities in there. Most of the time the bad ones just go there and produce nonsense and mock. They need physical body to attack you. And there have been a lot of attack irl too. Somehow i managed to stay alive. Anyhow. The reason why you need the data, is because they are about to erase everything, incl ppl (if you have not noticed).
If hard to understand, lets use illu words - as above, so below - with an addition: .
as below, so above, psychos down here, psychos up there. Universe is demonic prison.
Along with my company, I gradually developed and patented a type of ion thruster that lifts its power supply against Earth's gravity! There are about 45 videos of them on my TH-cam channel. Other ion thrusters are orders of magnitude too heavy to lift their power supplies against gravity, so no one else even made a serious try. In essence the problem was "thrust to weight ratio" and efficiency. This invention solved those problems. It seems that most all the funding goes to colleges or NASA, even though they don't have anything at all competitive. There is even a group at MIT that claims incorrectly that they built the "first of any kind" ion propelled aircraft to lift its power supply. They are just ignoring my patents. The system is definitely completely broken.
Ive thought this for a minute, im no expert but ive always loved science and throughout my early days what made it fun was the idea of what could and the imaginative exploration of what I or someone else could do if we sought it out; this is a breathe of fresh air, I've been extremely hesitant to go into the scientific field specifically because the things i wanna do and the ideas i have have all been thrown into the realm of fringe science or make believe (anti-gravity propulsion, harvesting energry from the earths ionsphere) and although im not again not an expert and i wont pretend to have enough knowledge in these fields to be able to make those leaps and bounds, uve always been extremely turned off by how modern science just scoffs and says, "your crazy, not possible"
Maybe im crazy, who knows. But so were many others. Id rather be crazy and love the idea of what science is supposed to be rather then delude myself for what im told it should be.
I believe true science is the playing ground of madmen, those who are so driven by curiosity and what could be that theyre willing to stand up even when the world would rather force them to sit down.
This has motivated me to take my personal interests more seriously; im willing to go the distant, even if I never move an inch.
Gregory Chaitin is absolutely right.
When I was at university -- eons ago, admittedly -- the two best professors in my department were, over the summer between my freshman and sophomore years, fired for not publishing enough. Their getting easily the best student evaluations meant less than nothing... Damn you, damn you, Staub! Damn you...!
Every institution in our society is rigged, every table is tilted in favor of powerful narcissists.
“Publish or perish” was a 60s 70s thing. For quite a long time the rule has been, “Bring in money or perish.” The usual money quota is your own salary plus enough money to support 5 to 10 graduate student stipends plus the lab/computer expenses.
And there`s a war against the brightest based upon racism....anti white, anti Asian.
Self supporting.
But granting agencies check your h index before releasing 💰
Great, so an even worse system
Well put.
Very good information sorely needed - objective appraisal of science and the economics and politics involved.
Gregory Chaitin is right. Creativity is a lonely undertaking, though progress often requires a discussion partner for the ideas to ripen and be redeemed. The Internet brought us transparency. You can hardly think of anything that hasn't already been discovered. The step to originality feels steeper and higher. How do you earn a doctor's degree? You don't challenge. You elaborate on the uncontroversial, just enough for your work to qualify as an original contribution to science. Scientists are not the only ones submitted by the whip of conformity. The race to the top has largely become a game of walkover. We end up cheering over the mediocre. Yes, this video really got me going. Thank you for this strong beam of energy. Well done!
Interesting, i was just reading that most influential chinese philosophy arised during the warring states period, because there was no central authority to limit what was acceptable knowledge. It seems that when there is no central authority man is most creative. This also is a warning against global governance, that would mean no theoretical contributions, only technological innovation to control the people.
That’s what those Mother WEF’ers want !
@@Marco-wq7nn So glad there is so much decentralised info sharing going on here on youtube
@@GVSHvids Decentralised? Are you delusional?
@@rosomak8244 oh good point theres a lot of banning and demonitisation
Aye
We were expected only a published paper every so often, every couple years or more, in the 19th and early 20th centuries - now, if you don't constantly and consistently publish, you're gone. It is sad because this framework doesn't produce anything of substance. It's a waste of human life, intellect, and resources. Quantity over quality is detrimental to many things, especially science.
Having to be essentially restricted to what your advisor studies in graduate school is a large problem. You're not allowed to research your true interests unless they just happen to be in line with where you go and whom you are under.
This is a large reason many don't go on in their academic careers - when we realized we were not truly allowed to do the science we are interested in, what's the reason to continue? If we aren't allowed to "break the paradigm," then what are we doing?
Refereeing papers is, by their own definition, a process of gatekeeping. Can't believe this has ever been tolerated in science, it's something cults do.
Science is just another cult my friend.. just another box to trap the fine faculty of the mind
@dcorgard Science is the new religion in case you haven't noticed. It has dogma, priests, methods of excommunication, low IQ fanatical followers who believe everything the science man says, etc... It's not Science anymore, it's science(tm).
I got out of science myself as an undergrad when I saw this effect and realized how political academic science is. If any crazy revolutionary science occurs now it'll be a billionaire independently funding a new bell labs or something.
@@jadedandbitter What is your profession now?
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 I got into the Nunyo field.
Andrew Wiles was told to forget his childhood dream of proving Fermat's Last Theorem and instead build his career on more mainstream mathematics.
Many (unknown) mathematicians have end up in nutshouse for being obsessed with the Riemann hypothesis 😵💫
@@piggypiggypig1746 Bolyai was also told by his father not to tackle the fifth postulate like he did and near ruined his life. He proved his dad wrong and opened the way to non-Euclidian geometry.
@@xjuhox
May be spinor theories will inspire the potential solvers of the Riemann hypothesis.
I am too old to worry about going mad now.
I quite like the thought of putting two different halves together and the prime numbers appearing.
I'm there with you........ I can't believe how little innovation has been stifled in the medical/dental field. It's a real problem and demoralizing. I'm doing procedures pretty much like I did 40 years ago. This can't be., I'm retiring in 6 weeks with such sorrow in my heart. I know that new products and procedures are being kept from us. Nothing else makes sense to me. Thank you anyway, for helping me feel not quite so alone.
When I received my Ph.D. from the Notre dame High Energy physics group, everyone who graduated from the group was guaranteed a job at Bell Labs if they wanted it. I interviewed for a week and had 17 different job offers within Bell Labs. There was no DEI at the time.
This man has great taste in art.
@@culturemanoftheages agreed! I didn’t notice the picture of the naked woman until I read your comment and took a closer look 🙄
Is That Imre VANGA
@@ufukguven2354probably playboy magazine.
@@culturemanoftheages back left. 👍
@@culturemanoftheages man of culture… 😋
Universities even back in my time at Sydney Uni in the 80's there was no room for innovation or new ideas.
There is a lot of evidence that the USA classifies and hides scientific breakthroughs. So, innovation is pointless unless it serves consumerism.
This is an outstanding guest, Curt. I have enjoyed every minute of this podcast
I’m so glad!
The peer review is a system of gatekeeping.
I called this out in my first year and really POed some doctor.
yes,I´ve seen many cases of researchers changing their data so they could get published bc the reviewers would not accept the results.
@@marcelomc781 yup. Retardation of the highest order
Discussion by peers in itself is important.
The problem is when you factor in the journal mafia (elsevier, etc) and the tying of career progress and funds to citation amounts.
This is in part why one should be extremely cautious around the "Studies show" peddlers. Many studies agreeing on something ("consensus" is a fallacy in science) may be because they are closer to describing reality, but it may also be that the positioning of their thesis got them much more money than the more "unpopular" option. This is especially true in medical relared fields, where big BIG money is on the line.
You mentioned that a committee in scientific research produces bad results. Have you ever heard of the movie production system in Hollywood?
Bad results every time. I haven't seen a new movie in decades. Only roboots it's shameless
I can say my undergraduate studies were amazing. The vast majority of my professors never looked down or discouraged any ideas we had - they encouraged us to pursue them. They also have caveats on what they were teaching - e.g. "the electron has no structure" was explained correctly - we model it mathematically without structure for two reasons: 1. It's easier 2. We have not discovered the structure yet. It does NOT mean it has no structure.
The velocity curve of (stars in) galaxies was explained in the late 1980's by Anthony Peratt - showing electromagnetic forces can very easily explain it to very, very high accuracy - with no need for bandage hypotheses of dark matter and energy which fundamentally can't be observed directly (how convenient...).
Christian Birkeland, Hans Alfven, Ralph Juergens, Anthony Peratt, etc. also gave a wonderful hypothesis of the wholly unexplained phenomenae we observe on and from the sun - yet it is largely ignored. Not to speak of Halton Arp and his studies on redshift via quasars and "peculiar galaxies."
I agree with 1920's being the last time of true scientific inquiry. We were having breakthroughs all the time before that, then things greatly changed.
Thank you. Electro-magnetism can explain most celestial phenomenon without creating things to make the explaination fit. Einsteinian cosmology is full of smoke and mirrors.
Chaitin is absolutely correct. Science started with a desire to know, to read, "the Handbook of the Heavens" as Galileo phrased it, but now it's to get a "career" as a professor at a good college, get Grants, perhaps even fame and money. No one can propose a project unless they know it will work, so nothing new comes out of it except more citations (of and additions to their CVs helping them get new grants and teach their (exploited) students their way towards "success". That's why I and others go towards the start-ups.
You do realise that scientists are underpaid, right?
Startups will not save you. You may have a lot of room for innovation initially but as soon as the money people get their grubby paws on the thing, it’s a shitshow all over again. We need true Monks who work on technology.
Back when I was in college, I wondered if this would eventually come up in the lexicon. There was so much pressure to conform in order to be considered "educated," it sometimes made me resent feeling like I had to be there. I thought maybe I had a tendency to think too much and let things get to me. But I always felt my doubts in the system were valid.
I'm living on an island in the Philippines. We have a huge plastic pollution problem with tons and tons being added daily. Biodegradable materials processed into wrappers and bottles needs innovation and marketing ideas. We live however in an age where profit rules over environment. Legislation is passed but never enforced upon the big players like Coke and Nestle etc. I'm watching current presidential debate and I don't see or hear leadership ever bring up the fact that innovation must rule over profit when it comes to environment if we want to keep it healthy. Money isn't important beyond what we REALLY need. I see that USA is gearing up to start manufacturing energy production from renewables. That's a good start. We really have to get away from single use convenience plastics too. I'd love to see it become a mandate and no longer a choice. The beaches and forests are getting full of plastic micro particles.
Plastic is not "degrad"ing
I have a PhD. I don't work for a university and don't seek funding for my research. And i publish regularly in my field. Too many PhDs have become merely technocrats achieving nothing in the name of incrementalism.
We’ve had a hell of a lot of innovations since the 1920s but it’s odd how it’s all science which is derived from military technology.
The only branch of science which has unarguably been pushed by academia in recent years is biology but aside from that a staggering number of inventions are directly linked to the military. Space technology all came from technology intended for the military. The internet came from a networking system intended for the military. Nuclear technology came from a secret military project. Jet engines are also an innovation intended for military use. Hell even the damn microwave was designed for military purposes.
It seems as though science generally creates new things when there’s a military incentive to do so. So while it’s obvious technology has exponentially grown it seems the initial innovations come from the military and not academia.
The answer is funding. Huge amounts of money are going into military research. The money that goes into research that doesn't have potential military use is a pittance compared to that.
@XS69 Perhaps in the public education sphere but not in the private sector. Huge money is dumped into private R&D. Also you have to realise that the vast majority of military spending disappears into corruption. Unless you want to tell me those military grade toilet seats really cost $5000 to produce?
A huge chunk of the defense budget goes into antigravity projects. But you don’t hear about them in public academia because that area of physics is highly classified.
@@wyganterand in antigravity you mean very expensive fancy furniture.
@@CeoMacNCheese No, I mean piloted craft which defy gravity and travel at enormous speeds. Lockheed and Raytheon are two of the contractors. Whenever there are reports of triangular-shaped UFOs, it’s your tax dollars at work (assuming you’re a US citizen)
The most important problem in the academia is that you can not survive in it if you do not have sufficient financial resources. Salaries are abysmal, hence most academicians have to do a lot of nonsense/fake projects/papers to get funding.
Thus the flourishing career category of the “grant writer”. Get one of them on your team, and you’re golden.
Realized this sad fact as an undergrad
Can we have a close up of that photo next to his head?
🧐😂
What! You cant recognize your mum???
I was wondering if anyone else noticed that. lol
@@rilock2435yes we all did - just did not know how to ask...😂
i love that you don't interrupt the guests, u are great
💯% Agree… genius is being suppressed by ‘the system’. I too am disappointed by the lack of progress in physics in my lifetime - well said sir…
In 2011, I presented my observations to the ANU for an opinion. The Vice-Chancellor ( degrees in Law and Arts) opined that it couldn't be so and that there was no money in it. He was too lazy to take it down the corridor to the physics department. Now retired, I wish him everything that he deserves. Newton would have grasped it.
publish or perish is one thing. garbage publications being published on so-called "esteem" journals like PRL is another problem. Research is really in bad conditions and getting worse by the day. Noone wants to recognize anymore who is understanding and who is not. Garbage environment.
I manage to publish my work, but "They" make nearly impossible for the people to find it. I believe will be a big surprise to you when you learn the title of my work - It is the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe".
Already 30 years ago when I was in university people where telling that research papers are on average red by 2 people. Including the author. It's just that doesn't interest anyone. There is a reason you have to pay to get published.
@@rosomak8244 i can get no... satisfaction - the average senior scientist
@@drgetwrekt869 publish or perish really got work when activists started journals. A lot of journals are effectively lobbyist organizations pretending to be scientists.
@@rosomak8244almost all the papers I read for my research came from people who at the same university. It’s difficult to find research and get access to it sometimes even when you know the author you are looking for.
Remove MBAs in the fields of research and things will improve
I have heard that there are a lot of German scientists. Papers that were not published that were fabulous now are coming out. Thanks.
To all of them for their contribution.
I remember when doing my physics degree I told my physics tutor about the ball lightning I once seen, he told me I was “mistaken” because it was impossible to see what I seen, what can one do🤷.
I've had people tell me about their experience with ball lightning or UFOs, and I had a physics professor say that what I had observed was impossible. They even deny basic stuff like telepathy, without even trying to explain how it might work.
Both myself and my late mother have seen ball lightning , 40 years apart. It's a mystery to me why the existence of ball lightning is "controversial".
Wow, absolutely riveting conversation. Thanks both.
Glad you enjoyed it Roland!
It's not just in science. Bureaucrats love regimental structures that fit a paradigm for auditing, and for teaching. Uncertainty just does not fit, and so every industry now has set rules. Diet in relationship to food or facts in medical or any other orthodoxy seeks out order, and conformity.
Outsiders have got no such restrictions on time and focus, so I guess the advantage is in our court
The sharing of ideas, one way or another.
You are right - "We" manage to publish (independently) the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
@@valentinmalinov8424 I love this. I'm one of those who conducted his own inquiry and ended up somewhere completely unique. It must be outside of the imaginations of the scientific establishment that an outsider will come to contribute something special, because all doors that I've knocked on have been closed. Not even a basic hearing. Either outside of their imagination, or maybe its a feirce competition for the prestigious breakthorugh that leads the establishment to their indifference towards independant researchers. Either ither doesnt matter, it results in the same thing. An enviroment which is suprisinlgy well setup to limit our reach for being heard and or pubished. But I've used my time for having been silenced well, for the benefit having improved my work and refined its explinations. I have a youtube channel now with a video series. Lets see how that goes. And I wish everybody in my ambiations and shoes the very best
@@valentinmalinov8424 I replied to you but yt deleted it
@@valentinmalinov8424 I love this. I'm one of those who conducted his own inquiry and ended up somewhere completely unique. It must be outside of the imaginations of the scientific establishment that an outsider will come to contribute something special, because all doors that I've knocked on have been closed.
Profit ruins passion
The logical methods of getting reliable knowledge, established themselves around 18th century, were popularized and applied at the end of 19th century. This is how much we got from basic logic thinking, the discoveries made by Einstein and others from that time.
But in order to get new discoveries, we need new methods of thinking, also using devices, computers etc.
That's what we are doing now, but current methodologies don't change anything fundamental like what happened at the end if 19th century.
«Science has become big business. It's not a hobby anymore for a small group that really loves it and does it only out of curiosity. I think that has destroyed fundamental innovation»
Chaitin is SOOO right!! It is for this reason that I have been suggesting a sort of a 'punk revolution' in science for almost two decades now!
But how to do it?
@@thorebergmann1986 Good and fair question!
Well, the first thing would be to 'gather' some discontent researchers, people who REALLY love science above almost everything else and are open minded to new ideas (it doesn't work if you don't share this frame of mind). Once you sarting to have a community of like-minded people things follow naturally. You would have a (hpefully groing) community of people reading each others papers, aiding each other, publishing alternative sites and journals/zines and even promoting meetings and conferences where people would crash on other peoples homes instead of staing at expensive hotels.
This is just a simple and brief sketch, but in essence it wouldnot be very far from this. With current technology this is actually something very easy to do!...
Would you join in?
I'm building a company to do just that essentially, always on the lookout for people who want to get involved.
@@Xcalator35 I just lost my drummer over scientific disagreements (he keeps trying to stop me from experimenting, thinking outside the box and basically won't listen ever just tries to shut me up) but yes I very much agree. I hope I can get my band back on the rails and never will I stop looking for answers and truth. 3 chords and the truth was my starting point and never will I compromise when it comes to truth. No matter how hungry and lonesome I am getting as a consequence.
Einstein was wrong about the "particle properties of light." There is no such thing as a "particle property." Every property attributed to particles is also attributed to waves. That is why they cannot make a distinction between the two. If anyone cares to argue otherwise, start by listing all of the "particle properties" that are not "wave properties." Good luck! Also, Einstein did not come up with the energy mass equivalent. Woldemar Voigt published the E=mc^2 equation in his paper "On the Doppler Effect," in 1876 before Einstein was even born. Voigt's paper was a discussion of Christian Dopper's "Doppler Effect" which requires a medium of propagation. That is correct... E=mc^2 was derived in aether theory, just as was "time dilation," "length contraction" and other concepts often falsely attributed to Einstein that were actually postulated by other people before Einstein took them and reified them into his theory.
Very good explanation. Looks like you understand of Physics and this is the reason to inform you for the existence of the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe" I hope that will give you good ideas.
@@wesbaumguardner8829 einstein stole every idea he read from others!!
You should read the physics papers of Nader Butto.
eistein was the biggest intellectual thief who ever lived!!!😳😳😿😿😳🤯🤯🤮🤮🤢🤢
The fact that only a handful of Nikola Tesla's inventions seen the light of day should tell you everything you need to know.
Even Teslas inventions were stolen from him by other inventors and the FBI
We’re being misled majorly somewhere IMO. These UAP that have been seen since the 40s break all known laws of physics - if I was a budding young physicist I would start there and what would possibly allow for an object to experience and survive these forces and speeds
Same goes for studies on us EMF sensitives. Science took a huge step back instead of forward like the excellent studies in the past.
Another Nobel Prize for Bell Labs awarded today
I have personally seen “ball lightning” float down the wooden handrails of my friends old house.
I wonder if it can be initiated by something to do with the structure of old wooden homes and possible the lacquers used to protect and beautify them or even the structure of the desiccated wood itself. I says this because it’s seems as though sightings were much more common when most of the homes and buildings were entirely made of wood.
What color was it? We got a ball lightning appear after an electrolysis experiment went very wrong with an old 12volt battery charger that overheated and caught fire (it was forgotten for hours and almost no water was left in the jar, thus, only very salty water remained and it probably melted the transformer's coils and shorted it and released all the energy stored in the coil at once).
I did not personnally observe it, but a sibling did and it floated slowly,then accelerated when near the electrical pannel down the hall and struck it.
Wood is an excellent conductor of torsion energy because of the chiral nature of cellulose. Torsion energy also persists in space, so it is very likely to be a component of ball lightning.
I realized that academia was a racket 30 years ago during grad school when I noticed that a 30-page paper suitable for "Physical Review" would get submitted as ten 3-page papers to "Physics Letters".
As people get dumber (parents aren’t reading to their babies and small children anymore) and kids offload more of their brains to tech at earlier and earlier ages, it seems that we are heading for some kind of technological dark age.
Kids aren’t learning fine motor skills like handwriting (necessary for muscle memory), basic language and grammar. Neither do they learn basic mathematics. Such skills are seen as boring, difficult and “obsolete” to the iPad generation. Passive, overworked parents are too exhausted to actually parent their children, and afraid of using assertive discipline out of fear they’ll repeat a cycle of abuse. Instead of “Gentle” parenting (which is assertive and uses non-angry discipline), many of them are completely passive and spoil their children, or just give the baby an iPad to shut them up.
As of now there are college students who arrive at elite colleges now who have never completely read a full Book, and are barely literate by past standards, barely able to read, write without the use of AI tools, or do math by hand. Nevertheless, they were not held back in grade or high because “that would have harmed their self-esteem,” or “would have been racist”… this doesn’t bode well for the future, even with AI, because the systems are derivative of human-generated work. What happens when humans stop inputting into the system?
In the future, we are Devo: De-evolution, and degrading into Rule by Corporate Overlords and the all-Important Algorithm.
you are absolutely right . Universities are dead weight these days only small startups are going to advance teach
Even they can’t escape the gravity well of money and bureaucracy
@@celiacresswell6909True, but minimal strings attached venture capital funds are a whole lot easier to work with than grants. Grants are a nightmare in our current year.
Startups are no panacea. As soon as the money people arrive, it’s the same shit show.
About Einstein's time in the Swiss patent office, the ai summarizes, interestingly: During his tenure from 1902 to 1909, Einstein was exposed to numerous patents related to clock synchronization, which was a major area of innovation in early 20th century Europe
Wholehartedly agree. My father (as a university professor) warned for this in the early 1980's when politicians here in the Netherlands decided that part of university funding was to come from business (it was called 'derde geldstroom', as I recall it). As a former college. student and a father of one, I've also noticed the change in mentality of both students and staff.
If you want to solve this problem, go around it.
You can’t go around it. The bureaucracy follows the go arounder.
What is truly sad is the corporate monopolies are trying to make a one world government where everything is centralized we are going to end up with one government one corporation and nobody will be able to tell them apart. We need to put a end to this insanity
nah, the bankers will continue with having multiple corporations owned by them pretending to be competing. It has worked so well for them so far. See pepsi/coca cola, and all the media etc. As long as people think there are multiple entities no one will rebel.
You don’t have to comply
@@davruck1 Sorry but I like to not be starving to death.
@@werpseudonymouswerlegume3153 so you are dependent on another man to feed you? Got it.
Last years conspiracy theory is this years truism
I admire this man for what he says. All great inventions and konwldge which in past served humanity in best way like electricity, cars cinema, electron tubes were derived from experimenting not limited by set on top goal,. It was a spark which wasnt expected. It had changed opposite in last 100 years - scientist set up results in front and then they match models to achieve what was their intention (were told to have) at start. This way all inventions now are limited by humnan imagination and they serve only from top expected goals
Bias confirmed.
I'm an interdisciplinary Math-CS Education developer in my '70s. I remember being inspired by Greg Chaitin's thinking when young. My quest to teach algorithmic-computational math to high school kids climaxed with 2 years of encouraging results in Calif. public schools. The current "Dataflow Geometry" version, available free online, is summarily ignored, and the Math Ed PhD reviewers don't understand it. Now I'm self-supporting on pension. I agree that future science innovators are "hatched" in high school.
What a fabulous presentation, very liberating and refreshing, thank you so much. There are no doubt many many great minds that have been marginalised by the established system. The biologist Rupert Sheldrake is just one that comes to mind, whose potentially paradigm shifting ideas around what he calls morphic resonance and the morphic field are tremendously exciting but have been ignored and ridiculed by the orthodox academia and those lacking imagination generally. On another note I have long believed that the phenomena of synchronicity also provides a key into a much deeper understanding of the universe, though conservative and safe thinkers invariably trundle out cliche ways of dismissing it rather than engage in serious inquiry... Here's to open mindedness and curiosity...
Einstein did his breakthrough papers as an outsider
@@ThomasHaberkorn yes he was a clerk when he achieved all that and Newton was at home when he made calculas so yeh your are right
Not so. He stole a lot of stuff from Lorentz and his wife who was also a physicist.
@@tedolphbundler724Lorentz for sure, but wife?
@@rajanya7408 Mileva.
What was his breakthrough work
Liked and i agree 100% with everything that was said👍
I'd recommend watching Angela Collier's video "a physicist responds: physics has done very little for like 70 years." TL;DR: it's done a lot, actually.
Just by reading the title I can confirm this is true, my grandfather bought an iPhone 16 back in the 30’s and I couldn’t believe my eyes when I walked into an Apple Store yesterday and saw the same device on displays everywhere.
He passed his phone on to me and it holds up pretty well but yeah it would be nice to see something new in our life time and none of that perseverance landing on Mars and medical advances nonsense we’re all used to so far
My point is that research now shows that the speed of light is not constant as once thought. This desproves Relativity, since it assumes the speed of light is constant. If Relativity is wrong then so is General Relativity since it based on it. A better theory of gravity known to predict all observed gravitational effects is Gravitoelectromagnetism, which is a field theory and is fully compatible with quantum mechanics.
love this guy!
He’s 100% correct…
The power of control is fear.
YT would cancel this channel in a heartbeat if Curt actually entertained unique and novel TOEs , instead of the same old TOEs already available from dozens of other YT channels.
Or if they thought he would persuade too many. Let us hope he remain successful, but not too successful.
@MikeKing-cj9cx Why? Because if YT's handlers decided something was dangerous to their power, it would be scrubbed. But enough must remain that we sheep not notice some of us get slaughtered.
@MikeKing-cj9cx Gee I wish you were right. But alas…
Being shadow banned on YT happens so often on so many forums your optimism is ….cute.
To So far Curt has not rocked the boat.
He is a great interviewer, don’t get me wrong. but he is channel is the “funny cat videos” of physics.
He knows that YT can and is likely to pull his revenue stream if he steps out of line. He even alludes so at the end of every single Video.
@@4pharaoh Pretty much.
The truth is already out there.
But nobody can mention it.
Chaitin is right. The EU should be broken up. It's a disaster in every way.
The EU is a Pentagon proxy. It was created to circumvent the will of the people. They are starting to understand this.
It's already being broken up, why do you think they were forced to import tens of millions of browns?
It's a literal takeover and they're bending over and taking it because they're so thoroughly compromised.
I agree, being portuguese
It was always meant to be a disaster
Best content on TH-cam.
That Greek idea is amazing. To what extent is the internet "flat"? Which is to say, the Greek city states had these diverse characteristics that would develop in isolation their own way, but be shared. But with the Internet, the is not enough isolation for any paths to develop in isolation long enough to be developed, these dominant narratives suppress them.
The Internet is not preventing you or anyone else from innovating.
Alexandria's library is largely hype: science was already in trouble then because the freedom of thought that some more "liberal" city states like Athens or Syracuse had promoted was already being endangered under the Macedonians and then the Romans. Just consider how much the Greeks and Phoenicians explored, including probably circumnavigating Africa, and how little did the Romans instead. Alexandria's library was like a fossil of bygone times: it may have hosted the last great thinker of Antiquity (Ptolemy the Astronomer) but it was a dying light, not a promoter of research.
Modern physics is about to undergo a major paradigm shift! The speed of light is not a constant speed as once thought, and this has now been proved by Electrodynamic theory and by Experiments done by many independent researchers. The results clearly show that light propagates instantaneously when it is created by a source, and reduces to approximately the speed of light in the farfield, about one wavelength from the source, and never becomes equal to exactly c. This corresponds the phase speed, group speed, and information speed. Any theory assuming the speed of light is a constant, such as Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong, and it has implications to Quantum theories as well. So this fact about the speed of light affects all of Modern Physics. Often it is stated that Relativity has been verified by so many experiments, how can it be wrong. Well no experiment can prove a theory, and can only provide evidence that a theory is correct. But one experiment can absolutely disprove a theory, and the new speed of light experiments proving the speed of light is not a constant is such a proof. So what does it mean? Well a derivation of Relativity using instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity. This can easily seen by inserting c=infinity into the Lorentz Transform, yielding the Galilean Transform, where time is the same in all inertial frames. So a moving object observed with instantaneous nearfield light will yield no Relativistic effects, whereas by changing the frequency of the light such that farfield light is used will observe Relativistic effects. But since time and space are real and independent of the frequency of light used to measure its effects, then one must conclude the effects of Relativity are just an optical illusion.
Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, then it has the same problem. A better theory of Gravity is Gravitoelectromagnetism which assumes gravity can be mathematically described by 4 Maxwell equations, similar to to those of electromagnetic theory. It is well known that General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism for weak fields, which is all that we observe. Using this theory, analysis of an oscillating mass yields a wave equation set equal to a source term. Analysis of this equation shows that the phase speed, group speed, and information speed are instantaneous in the nearfield and reduce to the speed of light in the farfield. This theory then accounts for all the observed gravitational effects including instantaneous nearfield and the speed of light farfield. The main difference is that this theory is a field theory, and not a geometrical theory like General Relativity. Because it is a field theory, Gravity can be then be quantized as the Graviton.
Lastly it should be mentioned that this research shows that the Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics can no longer be criticized for requiring instantaneous interaction of the pilot wave, thereby violating Relativity. It should also be noted that nearfield electromagnetic fields can be explained by quantum mechanics using the Pilot Wave interpretation of quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (HUP), where Δx and Δp are interpreted as averages, and not the uncertainty in the values as in other interpretations of quantum mechanics. So in HUP: Δx Δp = h, where Δp=mΔv, and m is an effective mass due to momentum, thus HUP becomes: Δx Δv = h/m. In the nearfield where the field is created, Δx=0, therefore Δv=infinity. In the farfield, HUP: Δx Δp = h, where p = h/λ. HUP then becomes: Δx h/λ = h, or Δx=λ. Also in the farfield HUP becomes: λmΔv=h, thus Δv=h/(mλ). Since p=h/λ, then Δv=p/m. Also since p=mc, then Δv=c. So in summary, in the nearfield Δv=infinity, and in the farfield Δv=c, where Δv is the average velocity of the photon according to Pilot Wave theory. Consequently the Pilot wave interpretation should become the preferred interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. It should also be noted that this argument can be applied to all fields, including the graviton. Hence all fields should exhibit instantaneous nearfield and speed c farfield behavior, and this can explain the non-local effects observed in quantum entangled particles.
*TH-cam presentation of above arguments: th-cam.com/video/sePdJ7vSQvQ/w-d-xo.html
*More extensive paper for the above arguments: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: vixra.org/abs/2309.0145
*Electromagnetic pulse experiment paper: www.techrxiv.org/doi/full/10.36227/techrxiv.170862178.82175798/v1
Dr. William Walker - PhD in physics from ETH Zurich, 1997
Relativity itself contains a "proof" the speed of light cannot be a constant. According to Einstein's famous E = mC^2 or, using first year algebra, (E/m)^1/2 = C, which says the speed of light is a ratio of the total energy of the universe divided by the total mass (the square root, but we're talking about such big quantities , for simplicity's sake, I'm just going to concentrate on the ratio part.
We have learned energy and matter are two versions of the same thing, nuclear bombs are an example of matter turning into energy.
If E = 0 and it's all one hunk of matter, C = 0, logical since there's no place to go.
If m approaches 0, and it's all energy, C will increase; in fact, C will approach infinity.
Does the universe’s ratio E/m change? It does so within stars and atomic bombs, so why not the universe as a whole? The Big Bang Theory claims in the ancient past it was all m, E = 0, and C must have been 0, since there was no place to go.
Similar to how a Gaussian closed 3-D surface can be treated as if its center of mass point contained all of its mass, can an area of space be treated as if its average E/m ratio were the universe’s E/m ratio? In other words, if in interstellar space, can a space station behave as if the mass of the universe were much less than it is, thus raising the speed of light on the station? Would that make the distant stars closer than they appear?
Wow! Thank you for introducing me to these new ideas! How did you originally stumble upon it?
@@hdthorIt was the basis of my PhD thesis from ETH Zurich, 1997. See the description of my video. The thesis and all the researchers papers corroborating my results are there.
@@williamwalker39 Thank for the additional info!
This is 100% wrong.
Spectacularly wrong.
Relativity is woven into quantum field theory.
Interesting the truly creative and educated started their own companies -- money from real world results.
Grant money necessarily panders to the grant writers, real world results are less important than pandering to the preconceptions of the check writers.
In the future, will bio's about private employment become more important than schools attended and awards given?
I agree the whole point of doing an experiment is to get unexpected results that you have to think about!!
Without a doubt! I am glad I'm not the only one who observed this phenomenon.
Look into the Invention Secrecy Act of 1951. The public never gets to see the newest discoveries and inventions. The best stuff gets classified and locked away, like most likely, anti-gravity.
anti-what?
This assumes that A) the inventors of antigravity technology were American, B) these inventors were so cowed that they didn't appeal or take their discovery to the media - as other inventors have, see the Phasorphone, and C) not a single scientist outside of the US has replicated this discovery.
@@Sifar_Secure Unfortunately, I think this channel - through its boosting and platforming of crackpots - fosters a community that includes a lot of conspiracy theorists and loons. I mean, even George Chaitin gives some legitimacy to cold fusion. Other videos boost UFO conspiracies. And on and on. I want a channel that is dedicated to talking about real theoretical frameworks that compete with string theory, and evaluating their relative merits. This video is just sour grapes disguised as critique.
You are a conteoist. Inventing cost money. Returns are desired. Therefore production must be facilitated. Patent protection time is limited. Therefore:
1. Either the original invention is released after 20 years.
2. Or someone else invent it again, but can not patent it, and therefore is not allowed to manufacture it, but can publish it, thus making the patent owner to start production to prevent patent applications elsewhere. You know there is no world patent.
So even if the owner want to manipulate the market, its time extent almost certainly will not be as long as wished. Because if it is not used in production soon, there will be fierce competitors when it is finally released from protection.
Anti gravity tech is a big jump from the atomic bomb
Great interview, 100% agree with his views. Just one inaccuracy was said, i.e. that Aristotle was not Greek. What was he then? Aristotle was born in Stagira, a Greek city in the north, founded by Ionian Greeks. Greek was his native language and culture. Without getting into the weeds of how you define "Greek", and who a "true Scotchman" is (such debates exist within every ethnic identity I know of), I will simply say that if _anyone_ can call himself Greek, so can Aristotle. BTW, because I don't know the exact definition of "Greek", and I think it's more linguistic than anything (and others violently disagree with me on this), I call myself Grecophone, to avoid using a term ("Greek") that I cannot define without circularity. But this is already part of those "weeds" I want to avoid. For the average person out there, there is something called "a Greek nation / identity / culture / whatever". And for the average person out there, Aristotle was part of it, front and center.
Interesting. Any idea where this speaker might have gotten the idea Aristotle was not Greek? Are there anthropologists saying he was not Greek?
@@ronrothrock7116 My best guess would be that he thinks that because Aristotle was born in Macedonia (near today's Thessaloniki) he wasn't Greek. Some people may think ancient Greeks and ancient Macedonians were different ethnic groups. No archeologist could support that. There isn't a single piece of evidence that Macedonia wasn't part of the Greek world. The language was Greek, the Gods worshiped were Greek, the names of the people (including Alexander, Aristotle, and their parents' names) had clear Greek etymology, the signs and buildings and statues from the region were all Greek. This is not disputed by anyone AFAIK.
Warning, long text follows.
TLDR; The confusion may be related to the modern country called Northern Macedonia (a.k.a. FYROM), which is not a country of Greeks but of Slavs.
One possible reason for the mistake is that, starting in the 7th century AD (1000 years after Aristotle), Slavic tribes migrated to the Balkans from the North, and a subset of those Slavs today call themselves "Macedonians". They are Macedonians only in the geographic sense, because they inhabit a part of the region that was always known as Macedonia. (Another big part of Macedonia is today in Greece and another small part is in Bulgaria). But they are not ethnically Greek (they admit that!), and they are not ethnically/culturally/linguistically/genetically related to the ancient Macedonians from the time of Aristotle. They came later, and we know when, because it wasn't that long ago. If you ask a Bulgarian, he will tell you that the modern "Macedonians", who live in the country of "Northern Macedonia", a.k.a. "FYROM" = "Former Yugoslav Republic Of Macedonia", are ethnically Bulgarians with a slightly different dialect. If you ask a "Macedonian" today, though, he may respond differently. He will most likely admit he is a Slav. (It's kind of obvious! They can watch Bulgarian TV shows without subtitles; I cannot, the Greek language is totally different. But I can read Aristotle's texts, and they cannot.) Unfortunately, there has been a concerted effort by the government of Northern Macedonia, since the 1990s, to usurp the ancient Macedonian identity, with often comical results. E.g., they named their airport "Skopje Alexander the Great Airport", they built an enormous statue of Alexander, they put an ancient Greek symbol (the Sun of Vergina) in their flag and coinage... This is the result of a recent nationalist movement that followed (or maybe predated?) the dissolution of Yugoslavia. The new state that was formed needed some legitimacy, some prestige, and a good way to do that is to claim that you are somehow linked to a very ancient and very glorious civilization of that area. (Some ultra-nationalists would go even further and claim that the whole geographic region of Macedonia should be under their young government.) Note, other Slavs don't feel the need to do that. Bulgarians, for example, don't usurp ancient symbols and names, AFAIK, because their state has been well-established. The historical record is very clear, but whatever, if some Slavs want to name their airport "Alexander the Great" and call themselves "Macedonian", I personally don't mind it. "Imitation is the best form of flattery", people say.
@@kanalarchis Thanks for the geography/history lesson. I did not find it TLDR material, but then I like to learn new things. So it sounds like he thought Aristotle was not Greek because he was Macedonian. Without having learned any of the historical context you presented, he came to an incorrect conclusion. Not to be derogatory of him in any way, but I've learned this is what can happen to "self taught" people like him. They are super smart and absorb info like a sponge and they can logically reason out what scientists take years to prove with experiments. But when it comes to basic facts vs having that broader knowledge surrounding the topic, they can make comments/statements like he did.
It is a blessing and a curse to be like him. I, my self, have a MS in biotech (I've made GMOs), but on many of the other science topics I am like him. I understand science and how the scientific method is taught and used as well as how the publishing of papers works. But I love all forms of science (when first out of high school I started to go into aerospace engineering, but life took me a different direction.) In the other fields of science I, like him, am more self-taught. It helps to be able to see things from that different angle; out of the box if you will. But you lose a lot of credibility when you make a statement like he did that is incorrect.
@@ronrothrock7116 The Athenians of his time viewed Macedonians as closely related but not qualifying as Greeks, because they were barbarians, semi-Greek at best.
@@ronrothrock7116They did not speak Greek as their first language..Alexander the Great was Macedonian and he did not speak Greek as his native language.
I’ve been developing a model and a new language that takes various concepts in analytical psychology, the functions of the various aspects of our psyche, and melds it into a meta-physical framework that parallels our understanding of the physical nature of the human brain. I’ve pretty much had to turn my back on the academic community to work in this model. And it’s rare to get any academics, experts, or professors to provide insight and critique because of that. But what choice do I have? The work I’m doing feels like my life’s purpose. I just keep hoping, as I develop the model and continue to learn and improve upon it, eventually it’ll be so good they will have to take it seriously. Perhaps that’s naive, but it’s my only hope. It’s already a fantastic language, despite its current state being an in-formalized pile of notes and thoughts in my head. The simple fact that this model challenges conventional understandings ostracizes me frequently. And the people who have helped me, pointed me towards learning, provide scrutiny or insight or anything, are people who also work on or are working on something that challenges conventional understandings. Funny.
Try discussing your model with GPT-4.
@@PeterKoperdan way ahead of you! That’s how I spot mistakes and fallacies, I feed it to the a.i. and then become very critical of the a.i.s response. This often spurs new research. The robot can make some pretty huge mistakes and that’s actually a big help in the development process.
@@PeterKoperdan I’ll feed it chunks of my work and then ask it to scrutinize and challenge my notes and then I’ll research and seek knowledge to either refute its challenges or validate them and get back to the drawing board.
Absolutely, 100%, completely correct!