Відео

don't we have images of galaxies that very clearly collided, and are not fixed in space

"Speed of light"? or Rate of propagation?

"Space and Time might be illusions" - Let that unzicker in 😂

We've spent almost a century to find Dark Matter and Dark Energy but still there's no sign of them. No matter what we do, a thing that doesn't exist cannot be found even if we can justify its existence mathematically. May be it is time to find an Alternative Way to Explain Dark Matter and Dark Energy. 4-D Hypershere model of Universe can easily explain Gravity, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Void and even the reason why the measurement values of Expansion Rate are around 70 km/sec-Mpc. Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Gravity, Void and Antigravity, ... all these are same phenomena. They just look different. I agree to the idea that the interaction between mass and space must be explained with quantum mechanics. But that doesn't mean gravity is the QM phenomena. That's because gravity is not a force. Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Gravity, Antigravity, Void... all these are just joint effects of the expansion of the Universe and the curvature of spacetime. Details are given below. Einstein’s theory of General Relativity states that spacetime is curved by the presence of mass. This curvature influences the motion other objects with mass and gives rise to gravitation. Thus, gravity is a result of geometric features in spacetime. However, we also observe gravitational effects - curvature of spacetime - in areas without any detectable mass. This has given rise to the concept of dark matter, which is matter that does not interact in any detectable way with normal matter, except through gravity. So, there is some large quantity of dark matter scattered throughout the universe, which curves spacetime and causes gravitational effects just like normal matter, but we cannot see or detect it with any known method. An alternative theory to the identity of dark matter is proposed - it is not matter at all, but rather an intrinsic curvature of spacetime. In other words, spacetime is not naturally flat. Even in the absence of matter, we observe some inherent curvature of spacetime. So, the question is now - why is spacetime naturally curved? Why is it not flat in the absence of mass? The universe is 4-dimensional, with 3 spatial dimensions and one dimension in time. Rather than consider time as a linear dimension, we can consider it as a radial one. Therefore, rather than describing the universe with a Cartesian coordinate system, we describe it with a 4-dimensional spherical coordinate system - 3 angular coordinates, φ1, φ2, φ3, and one radial coordinate in time, t. We live on the 3-dimensional surface of a 4-dimensional bubble which is expanding radially in time. Thus, the Big Bang represents t=0, the beginning of time. The crucial point is that the expansion of the universe is not homogeneous in all directions. The expansion rate at one point on the bubble’s surface may differ slightly from another point near it. The universe is only roughly spherical in 4 dimensions, the same way that the Earth is only roughly spherical in 3 dimensions. The same way we observe local mountains and valleys on the surface of Earth, we observe local “mountains” and “valleys” on the surface of the universe bubble. The inhomogeneity of the expansion of the universe has given rise to natural curvature of spacetime. This natural curvature causes the phenomenon of “dark matter”. “Valleys” in spacetime pull matter in, similarly to the warping of spacetime of massive objects. So “dark matter” is really “valleys” in spacetime that are expanding slower than the regions surrounding it. These valleys tend to pull matter in and create planets, stars, and galaxies - regions of space with higher-than-average densities of mass. Conversely, “mountains” in spacetime will repel matter away, an “anti-gravitational” effect, which gives rise to cosmic voids in space where we observe no matter. Each point on the surface of the universe bubble traces out a time arrow in 4-dimensional space, perpendicular to the surface. These time arrows are not parallel to each other since the universe is not flat. This causes points to have nonzero relative velocity away from each other. It is generally accepted that the universe is expanding faster than observable energy can explain, and this is expansion is believe to be still accelerating. The “missing” energy required to explain these observations has given rise to the theory of dark energy. The time dilation caused by non-parallel time arrows can be proposed as an explanation for dark energy. Alternatively, dark energy is real energy coming from potential energy gradients caused by non-parallel time arrows. As a sanity check, we can calculate the expansion rate of the universe based on the universe bubble model. Since the radius of the universe bubble is expanding at the speed of light in the time direction, it increases at 1 light second per second. Therefore, the “circumference” of the 3-dimensional surface increases by 2π light seconds per second, or about 1.88*10^6 km/s. This expansion is distributed equally across the 3-dimensional surface, so the actual observed expansion rate is proportional to the distance from the observer. At present, the age of the universe is estimated to be 13.8 billion years, so the radius of the universe bubble is 13.8 billion light years, or about 4233 megaparsecs (3.26 million light years to 1 Mpc). Thus, we can calculate the expansion rate of the universe, per megaparsec from the observer, as: Expansion rate = ((d(circumference))/dt)/radiusofuniverse=(1.88*〖10〗^6 km⁄s)/(2π*4233Mpc)=(1.88*〖10〗^6 km⁄s)/26598Mpc=70.82(km⁄s)/Mpc The popularly accepted empirical expansion rate is 73.5 +/- 2.5 km/s/Mpc, so our calculated value is close. There may be some additional source of expansion (or observed red shift) to make up for the discrepancy. For example, if two adjacent points have some gravitational gradient due to non-parallel time arrows, then light passing through these points will be red-shifted. - Cited from www.academia.edu/82481487/Title_Alternative_Explanation_of_Dark_Matter_and_Dark_Energy

Fineman was proven correct by several other overhyped physicists

phi x pi/35 = planck length lol

Thank you for the video.

This may be a bit trivial, but Sciama was not British-Egyptian. He was just British. His ancestry was Syrian Jewish.

Hi, Dr Unzicker Lately there has been a debate in about Dr abdussalam. There are several allegations being levelled against him claiming he plaigarized research papers and used his political contacts to win the nobel prize.Was abdusallam a good physicist or a charlatan??

Thank you for the video and I would buy a new microphone

Meters per kilogram. How many units of charge viewed by the all seeing eye, at radius D.

Few dare to ask because bad things might happen to your career if you speak too sensibly.

So is the fact that science is hard a failure of modern science?

Hello, when I physically model out S1, S2, S3, ect. What is I realize is that in mathematics 2^2, 3^3, ect, these contain a hidden presupposition; this is revealed through the engineering method of using actual blocks. You cannot endlessly divide a space, because it is a violation of the First thermodynamic law. So you have to keep in mind we're literally working with blocks no matter what. In binary space, which is what S3 technically is; we have undesirable co-planar faces. What to visualize is S4, because there is no 4th dimension, S4 represents the connection between the two planes that naturally occur that are co-planner. The reason this happens in binary space is because we're a finite grid. The reason this happens in reality is because the atom is a block. In order to go from a 3^3 cube to a 4^4 cube, you need a lot of extra blocks, because each edge is enlarge and more demanding every time you scale. Mathematics forgets that you get to 4^4 one block at a time; you do not add all the blocks you need at once. That is the hidden presupposition; you're seeing dislocation and I'm saying it is because the size of the object you're perceiving is in-between two integrals in size. What is amusing about the equation of S4 when you physically model it out, you can deduce the photon does not exist; because it would be a violation of the First thermodynamic law for a photon to be able to travel a light year, and to fill all parallax space. The conical structure of light is the clue that there is no photon because if the photon existed it technically would be able to bridge co-planar gaps and it would not respect parallax limitations. So in simple terms, we should not be able to see Jupiter from Earth because photons should spread out and reach an end to their division; and we should fall within the natural co-planar parallax gaps that would form over the distance, otherwise the First is violated.

It ain't gonna work if you want entanglement, right? You need non-trivial topology too, wormhole substructure to elementary particles. Describe that local topology using a Clifford frame and you can get su(2)xu(1). Include bipartite structure and you can also get su(3). All in 4D gravity. It's nonclassical GR since you've permitted nontrivial topology, hence closed timelike curves exist. This is a feature, not a bug, since CTCs are exactly what one needs to obtain the nondistributive orthomodular lattice of measurement propositions from GR (i.e., "Quantum Logic"). There is no classical FTL signalling since ER=EPR wormholes are not classically traversable (Geroch's topological censorship theorem).

Heute aktueller den je. 31:37

Das Standardmodell der Teilchenphysiker erinnert mich an die Kollegen der Klimamodellierer, kein Klimamodell funktioniert Adhoc, sprich ohne historische Daten. Es muss erst mit historischen Daten angefüttert (kalibriert) werden um halbwegs einen nahen zukünftigen Trend abbilden zu können. Aber die Kollegen behaupten wild dass das Modell eine gültige Prognose bis ins Jahr 2100 geben kann. Weiters werden die Modelle immer erweitert, und es kommen neue, freie Parameter hinzu. Wir wissen heute das Turbulenz eine wichtige Rolle speilt und wir wissen dass die Klimamodelle unvollständig sind.

17:28 Prof. Unzicker is right. At first large expensive machines are built. Then there are so much data measured that you can store the raw data, and throw them away. How could any body reproduce the lost data? No-one can analyze or check the raw data. And the other problem with theories like the string theory, you can't falsify it, because you can't test and proof it... So the theory is useless. Until the 2nd world war, europe was the intellectual and philosophical center of physics. The experiments were simple, the theories elegant. Today we have so much theories which are crap, if you can't explain a phenomena just add some free parameter and voila, its working...

ok, so we cannot measure the decrease of the speed of light directly. in 12:50 the speed of light should decrease in the order of 10^-26, the fastest clock which are currently developed are in the order of atto seconds (10^-18) how could we test or falsify this theory?

I have a new book on " introduction to Physically Realizable Physics to share". Some of your question may be found in this book.

This has all the intellectual rigor of "the Earth looks flat, so it must be flat". Nobody thinks the Sun is a gas. It is plasma, which (surprise!) typically behaves as a fluid, not as a gas. Nothing in this video contradicts the sun being plasma, and we have very good reasons to believe this is the case. Perhaps present at the next flat-earth conference. I'm certain they will eat this up!

👍

1- p=E/c. 2-p=mc. 3- E/c=mc. 4- E=mc^2? Simple classical equations concerning ‘light.’ Light is a cluster of expanding electrons- particles, objects, matter with mass. Too simple for the modern brain. “The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics including the CAUSE of gravity, electricity, magnetism, light and well..... everything.

I'm french, I 'm not a physicist, I'm interested in your research, but I really am not able to follow a video with such poor audio. Think about your international audience !

Mr. Unzicker you can either feed on me like a cannibal or you can be my friend.

Awesome explanation ...

Okay I made a final video describing alpha the fine structure constant. Just search "The electron is made of 101 unit particles.

@1:10 to answer your question >>> nature invented asymmetric CHIRAL spin/motion to BREAK ACHIRAL perfect symmetry at rest so that CHIRAL life could emerge

In my humble opinion, the concept of an inertial mass as the product of a gravitational mass times the gravitational potential divided by c² makes only sense in the context of electro-gravitic- and magneto-gravitic fields, because these are not Lorentz invariant. E.g. if a vessel in such a field makes an instantaneous U-turn at a velocity of Mach 10, upon changing the sign of the potential, passengers would always feel a free-fall condition and not turned into steak tartare. This is exactly, we can observe.

In fact inertia is a self-referring concept. Gravitation has an absolute significance but only globally, which is the gist of general relativity and the equivalence principle. That's why it doesn't and can't implement the Mach principle.

Do you have a Discord channel where to discuss these, or, have your team joined DemystifySci’s server already? We should open a VSL topic there.

We've got plenty of bullshitons already in fantasy physics.

I'm really proud of you Prof. Unzicker! Its rare to see the olden generation guide the younger these days.

There are days when I wish I were this smart. Sounds like he just made Einstein his bitch. I hope this means we can keep ignoring String Theory.

The sine-Gordon equation is Lorenz invariant, then it necessarily gives back the kinematics of special relativity. This idea was already proposed by Enz in 1963, but then there was the Derrick theorem that shows it doesn't work in more than two dimensions, at least with such a simple model.

But.....a pendulum that is pushed 5 inches (input) will have about 15 swings after the initial push and all of those are (output)! The pull on the middle axle is output and clearly far more than the initial push. Isn’t that over unity??

What do we make of the experimental evidence for the Higgs boson? Consider the thesis of de Cesare, which has a scalar gravitational field that couples to the Higgs field for Mach-like ideas that may match experimental evidence from the LHC.

C'est possible 😊🥰🤣

This is really interesting. I hope you can make real progress with developing these ideas further.

What I would pay to hear Dr.Witten comment on this… Great presentation!!

Two masses not colliding at a point? I am thinking of how metals bend and transform in sheets of atoms and am guessing that a "point" is being used as smaller than the aria of contact.

Back to square one.

How can there be a gravitational constant when gravitation here on earth is different in different environments, like up high in a mountain, in the ocean, deep in the ocean, in a deep valley, deep deep in the earth, all have different gravitational measurements.

You cannot see what is at rest because what is at Rest has no cartesian, What is at rest has no mass, no magnitude, no time measure. It used to be called aether. The sound of a Sharp intake of breath could be heard in the deafening silence.

how can distant, moving rotating masses out in the universe determine what is rest? Illogical.

Nope. Look, its very simple, aether allows photons to act gravitationally & inertially on other photons, but aether itself (the fundamental fluid of our infinite eternal universe) has no mass or inertia. This photon to photon action (a reverberation) occurs at at least 20 billion c. Hence distant photons have less effect. All particles are photons. Ok, i have given u all a good start, now u can all have a proper think.

What is gravity? Oh... very simple, it is solitons. Nobel prize next year!

Using the Electro-statics (ES) and ELectro-gravitics (EG) model, and translating what he is saying ... In regards to the electro-static objects with their (corrected) weak nuclear force ... and the electro-gravitic objects with their (corrected) strong nuclear force, they have different Aether domain sub-particulate and matter particle properties. Only the higher electro-gravitic composite objects have portions of internal gravity cores and outward gravity wave functions. Whereas the electro-static composite objects have minimal properties (of non-gravity and non-gravity waves). This shows that there are 2 different properties of the electron and positron colums, ... while their compatriot graviton (pure graviton composition) has the highest of any electro-gravitic composite and gravity wave function. So the ES and EG model further explain all these otherwise observed properties : EG EG ES EG ES EG/ES ES/ES EG/EG strong strong weak strong weak strong/weak weak/weak strong/strong ES/EG Electron/Positron Electron/Positron weak/strong Electron/Positron Tensor Matter universe particles and quantum entanglement : Electron Transitions Tau electron level : Graviton - and + Electron Electron Positron Positron Boson (Higgs-1) Neutron Photon (Lyman) Muon electron energy level : Graviton - and + Electron Electron Positron Positron Boson (Higgs-2) Neutron Photon (Balmer) Electron energy level : Graviton - and + Electron Electron Positron Positron Boson (Lord-1) Neutron Photon (Paschen) Quantum foam (Cosmic microwave background raditation) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Aether domain particulates and sub-quantum entanglement : Small electron energy level : Graviton - and + Electron Electron Positron Positron Bosino (Lord-2) Neutrino Photino (Pfund) Electrino energy level : Graviton - and + Electrino Electrino Positrino Positrino Bosino (Lord-3) Neutrino Photino (Humphrey) Base graviton energy level : Graviton - and + Graviton - (=) Graviton - Graviton + (=) Graviton + Bosino (Lord-4) Neutrino Photino --------------- Looking at the various energy levels on the chart, we notice those EG composites have full gravity as a strong nuclear force and gravity waves. Those with EG/ES or ES/EG (tensor bosons and tensor bosinos) composition have half gravity strong force and halved gravity waves. Those with ES or ES/ES have no gravity strong force (only weak nuclear force) and no gravity waves. Those photons and photinos with ES/ES have no gravity and no gravity waves. Thusly, you can see how photons have gravitational lensing (with full energy light speed), while the lesser variable light speed photinos (are gravitationally captured). Neutrons and neutrinos as ES/ES have no gravitational atraction or manifested gravity waves to anything else. Tensor bosons and bosinos, acting as the explicit and pure fusion agents for stellar engines (photosphere fusion of Hydrogen to Helium up to Iron, chromosphere fusion of Cobalt up to Element 118), having both ES and EG properties, allowing fusion to overwhelm the Van der Wahl's radius, and the Coulomb nuclear boundary) providing a fusion slipstream process. The end result is the electrons returning to their rest state, having emanated their excess energies as their electron transition properties. When looking at the EG gravitons - and +, ... and the EG electron/electrino and EG positron/positrino composites, ... they display their own gravity energy level and gravity wave values. All of these 6 energy levels have differing gravity and gravity wave values. There is no G constant !!! This shows that the ES and EG model fully explains ... and gives the expected quantitative energy range values of these composite particulates and particles. No more BS of the faked Bell curve, and explicit ignorant, arrogant, and hubris of stating absolute values of the energy levels of electrons etc. as 0.511 meV/c2 etc. The lower and upper composite energy ranges are all valid for these objects. The same applies to the EG, EG/EG, ... and the ES/EG and EG/ES objects having full, partial, or minimal gravity and gravity wave values. So when discussing gravity and gravity wave fields, one must properly assign which and what EG, EG/EG, ES/EG, or EG/ES particles or particulates they are attempting to document and chart.

What they don't tell you is, that the difference in mass between the proton and the neutron is exactly 2.5 times the mass of an electron. Has anyone ever heard of the, "Fractional Quantum Hall Effect?" The FQHE is indisputable proof, that the Electron is not a fundamental elementary particle. What if there is only one fundamental elementary particle, with a mass of one half the mass of an electron? It would be an easy test to prove for anyone with a working knowledge of the excel spreadsheet.

Dennis Braun shows some great physical insight in terms of trying to understand how gravity and inertia are potentially related. However a major problem with current physics is not being able to uniquely specify how "energy" is distributed in the field around stationary and moving masses and charges. I hope a "Machian Unified Field Theory Meeting" is on the way to discuss this and other things.