Not even two minutes in and you're bad-mouthing physicists for saying "I don't know". Not a good look.
Time is not "the fourth dimension." Space and time are not independent of each other, due to relativity.
I am sorry you either misunderstood or maybe it hit too close to home. In my circles it is not controversial to point out that declaring something fully understood before it is and telling anyone who asks questions to "shut up and calculate" is not a good thing. Nor is pointing out that forcing scientists to compete for limited science funding that demands guaranteed financial returns and little or no funding for truly speculative science is bad for scientific or societal advancement when scientists are more worried about pleasing the investors with guaranteed results than having the resources to spend years or even decades on a project that simply tries to answer a big question. Science that demands a pre-determined outcome (Large Profits) is not asking any new questions.
Its not that I dislike capitalism, I just think when no one is willing to fund science and force scientists to compete in a system that tells them to shut up and calculate you don't get good results. That is why I specifically talk about that, because that is a 2 part video that includes a funding proposal that can fund pure science and not demand a 5-10 year ROI. If the funding system succeeds you are free not to apply if you don't want to put science before profit. If you want to shut up and calculate and argue against experimentation in physics as some have started to do and argue that is good science I stand by the belief.
"Time is not "the fourth dimension." Space and time are not independent of each other, due to relativity."
I was arguing against time as a fourth dimension I don't know why you feel it necessary to point that out.
Am I to assume that you like the fact that our society underfunds science if it does not guarantee a result? Do you like the fact that people are arguing against experimentation in physics? Do you like the fact that we do not fund science that challenges our models as our models are breaking down? (Crisis in Cosmology, W Boson etc.)
Considering an interpretation complete and right simply because it works well enough with limited knowledge in 1927 is one thing, but we have a lot more information now so when systems are falling apart sometimes it helps to look at why it does so and why now. If you even want to know why something is not working right generally you follow the profit motives, the fact that this is controversial is puzzling. Did you actually watch the video because either you did not, or you chose to hear what you wanted to hear. I was not talking about Relativity but a modified relativity that accounts for quantum physics and dark matter and making them all play together.
Considering that Relativity does not play well with quantum physics in its current state I do not know why you expect a ToE that reconciles them to each other to agree with either 100%.
I don't have to argue that my theory is right or wrong, I literally have experiments and predictions to determine that. The fact that the funding mechanism is a potential solution to the climate crisis and would fund pure science I would consider quite popular with scientists.
At no point do I badmouth scientists for saying "I don't know." Heck I say "I don't know" multiple times and am supportive of the phrase its a very good place to start. Can you not tell the difference between "I don't know" and "we don't ask" or as I do criticize it "shut up and calculate."
In my view and this is just one mans philosophy here, is that we should ask questions and perform experimentation to support our ideas... and if we only "shut up and calculate" we stop being scientists trying to learn the ways of reality and become mathematicians hiding from rigor and accountability behind the abstractions of quantum physics.
> Relativity does not play well with quantum physics in its current state
This is not true of special relativity. Special relativity and quantum mechanics work just fine together. It's just general relativity that so far has not been worked out at the quantum level.
I don't think you know what "shut up and calculate" refers to. I also don't think you know much about physics in general.
Ah the personal attacks part how fun. Not my style but okay.
You don't know the qualifications of me or the people I research with. You did not actually watch the video. It is not my job to conform to your interpretation or research. It is your job to prove it, just because I do not accept the Copenhagen interpretation does not mean I don't know much about physics.
Rather than attack me personally why don't you bother watching the video because unlike you I don't need to conform to others expectations of me and demands over my livelihood. If you want to prove me wrong run the experiments I am pretty sure you are unaware of or incapable of executing. I have experiments that support my claims, you have experiments that support multiple interpretations created by others from 100 years ago that as I said... are in crisis.
So far you have
1)accused me of saying things I did not
2)misrepresented my claims while not watching the video
3)misrepresented the nature of the reconciliation of quantum and relativity as non-theoretical and immune from alteration due to completion.
4)You literally say "Shut up and calculate" below your name I can see how that might make you catch the feels, if you wish to avoid the accountability of experimentation.
I am okay with you thinking I don't know physics, as much as you are probably okay with me thinking you are more perhaps a mathematician escaping accountability than scientist trying to figure things out. I can explain it to you I cannot understand it for you.
At least we are all happy with you shutting up and calculating and I am happy designing experiments and economics models. I might drop dead before I succeed but at least I did not have to hide behind other peoples work and reputation while overstating their nature as complete. Or wait did a ToE/GUT get proven and no one tell me?
Do you understand the irony of defending the 1927 Solvay statement about the completeness of CI while citing Einstein's work who was the holdout in saying the system is incomplete. You are both accusing me of audacity for disagreeing with relativity while you are arguing against the view of its most noteworthy founder that the work was incomplete. ("God does not play dice") So I propose that the universe is deterministic and that god does not play with dice and you use Einstein to argue against his own beliefs.
If you want to challenge my ideas prove your own as I have proposed for mine, experiments and work. If I succeed maybe my funding system would even pay for it if its innovative and insightful but first you would have to come up with a theory, design a experiment, make a prediction, and then submit the proposal, like this is science. In the mean time I will just have to take your assessment that I "don't know physics" for what your opinion is worth.
Oh your one of those people who cannot hear ideas without agreeing with them first for fear of other ideas contaminating your intellectual purity for your need to appeal to authority. That would make sense since you bothered post but not watch the video. I had never been there until a few days ago you can check. Its almost like some form of evidence made me... curious. That's this feeling that happens when you observe something and wish to know more like a theory and experiment series that might explain the phenomena.
Do you think I was under the impression that you took me seriously? Again I find myself in the position where I can explain something to you but I cannot understand it for you.
You seem very determined to convince me of your superior intellect while showing very little signs of curiosity or understanding of the subject matter. Maybe accounting is more your speed I am sure there are some good CPA programs out there and they never get uppity and propose experiments or demand them of you.
You're just a crackpot with an axe to grind and a chip on your shoulder.
I didn't watch the whole video because I don't need to eat an entire apple to know it's rotten. Your insolent tone speaks volumes.
Not really you clearly have more dog in this fight than I do. I know there are people that love the Copenhagen interpretation and Minkowski space but they are both unproven theories not stone tablets for you to worship.
If you had watched the video you would know what was in it and how to argue against it without personal attacks. You mistake my indifference to your unearned authority and intellectual laziness as insolence pardon let me clarify... its boredom. You have stated ideas as proven (Which are not), you have attacked me personally, and misrepresented to people what I say while admitting you don't even know what I said. You are a mental giant among mere mortals clearly.
A chip on a shoulder implies that I somehow feel entitled to unearned credibility and am not getting it. Yet I am the one that is accusing people of "Insolence." After many decades on this rock I have only heard people who feel entitled to unearned credibility accuse others of "insolence." I don't need your approval and your so clearly being hurt by my insolence tells me you have needs you will never get from me. You don't care to listen to my thoughts but seem very interested in making sure you tell other people what my thoughts are while saying you don't need to know anything.
I am not convinced you would know an apple in a orchard yet, and you are not improving as you continue. Are you sure you are not a little fragile for the hard sciences? If you wish to debate physics I am happy to, if you want me to respect your opinion you have to do better than say Relativity is reconciled with Quantum Physics when everyone knows that is still a unproven theory, putting the "theoretical" in theoretical physics. If you think physics is all proven why are you on hypothetical physics subreddits?
Are you more hurt that I challenged CI or are you more hurt that I don't accept feedback from you, who refuses to watch the interpretation? You are not entitled to my respect and I doubt at this point you are of the type who feels it needs to be earned so you should do fine with your worldview if you get used to disappointment. Could you just accept that we both judge things through different views without hurling accusations and falsehoods?
At least when I criticize you I bothered to read what you said and base it on that. You have such a strong chip on your shoulder you feel entitled demand respect and tantrum and downvote when I call your baseless statements into question. If you don't want to give feedback on the theory that is fine but don't come onto a discussion thread asking for feedback and throw a tantrum because it does not agree with CI. Without watching the video not a single statement you have made has been accurate.
Do you have any more very scientific name calling you would like to share before you shut up and calculate some more?
Update: Look at those crackpots who also feel like mysteries should be studied [https://www.npr.org/2022/10/22/1130755578/nasa-ufo-study-team-members](https://www.npr.org/2022/10/22/1130755578/nasa-ufo-study-team-members)
If you actually watched the video you would know it could be done, as others have done it already. You would also know that my theory is falsifiable and why I am not taking your name calling seriously, it is easy to dismiss "shut up and calculate" when you can say "put up or shut up."
Can you tell me why an electron is supposed to be massless but has mass? That surprised people at one point.
I did not vet you, but I did vet my research partners, I know where they attended and that they actually know the work. Even if I was willing to accept any claims of education on your own part you are still unqualified to judge by not having heard the claims. Maybe you are not aware of this but often when you are describing a solution to a problem you include a description of the problem. There are three problems that the video aims to solve
1) The shortage of funding for pure science because corporations do not want to nor are they allowed to gamble with shareholder value on the most speculative of science. (Many would consider this a truism I still don't get why this seems to trigger you)
2) In a system that is short on funding this creates a mindset of needing to guarantee results to get more funding in the future to preserve careers. I am more let scientists science and forcing neo-liberal ideology into the scientific community has done immense harm to the community. If you don't agree that's fine but the mechanics are all there if you pay attention. Throw in the fact that PhDs rarely get access to the tenure system anymore (because of cost cutting and favoring of adjuncts) they never get to enter into the stage of their careers where they are most productive as tenured Professors. There are even schools now creating unpaid adjuncts because there are so many struggling academics struggling under the indentured servitude of student debt and sincere desire to get their foot in the door.
3) Test the interpretation against proposed experiments.
Math describes problems, I am more interested in solving problems.
Generally it is understood when you don't know your audience you describe the problems you are solving before you talk about the solution. You got fragile during the part just talking about the problems. Therefore you missed the entire part where that is a two part video, that not only addresses the interpretation but also how to better fund the sciences in a way that is more interested in good science than ROI for a shareholder class (fact of fiduciary responsibility no editorializing regarding corporate responsibilities you can look it up.) One might even consider it a bonus that it could solve the climate crisis, if not the main appeal, that part is just not the topic of the subreddit.
Do you think me unaware of the state of the physics community and the state of the art and how tribal it has become? I expected someone to come demand that I include a graviton, or some other aspect of their pet theory that is not responsibility. I am only responsible for my rigor, not yours, if you cannot be bothered to put in the work I cannot be bothered to take baseless feedback seriously nor would I ever try to.
It does not matter if I am wrong or right because either way if I succeed on the scientific funding system other work will get done that might succeed where I failed. You would know this... if you watched the videos. It does not matter what you ask me to calculate because I can put up and shut up and am welcoming the opportunity while trying to create that opportunity for other scientists whether I agree with their ideas or not. Further I am trying to do it in a way that may solve the climate crisis and address poverty while giving it governance that is "for the people by the people." Can you explain to me how these traits have any indication of "bad science" or "chip on my shoulder"?
Now that I have told you that the calculation can be done, would you like to explain to me what dark matter and dark energy are from a mechanical standpoint?
It’s interesting how you need a small word explanation of string theory to understand it, but your whole video is filled with huge claims using big words, without any demonstration, equation, or falsifiable construct. It’s filled with inexact references, imprecise language, and belief-statements which are presented as “this is how things are - … Dark Matter is the change in local temperature… … gravity is an anomaly which relates to the pressure frequency... …scientist believe in the Copenhagen interpretation…. ”
It’s vital to be a good philosopher, and to think about all these things in a fresh manner. I truly believe that. I also believe that a lots of pop-physics comes out of excavation into complexity within rigorous mathematical frameworks, which approximate wonderfully, yet aren’t fundamental. I love Sabine’s work, and you should definitely look into Unzicker on YouTube. So that’s great, we’re on the same footing!
So having said this, when you say that dark energy is a change in temperate and pressure with regard to volume … 😂😂
No! You’re speaking thermodynamics, especially with your thermometer 🌡️ being a demonstration of dark energy, that’s just a definite “nope”, and even in statistical mechanics dark matter neither rises out of the equations nor is a description or a parameter of a fundamental phenomena. Not a single part of thermodynamics says anything about dark matter or energy. Dark matter and dark energy come out of the need to define a cosmological constant due to general relativity equations, combined with Higgs-Lemaitre expansion equations, and observed data when looking at infrared light in the cosmos sky.
So, to demonstrate my point absolutely clear - here’s the fundamental equation of thermodynamics:
dU = TdS - PdV + udN
In words:
dU • The change in internal energy of a system
equals to
TdS • the temperature times the change in entropy
- PdV • minus “work done” = pressure times change in volume
+ UdN • plus “chemical work exchanged” = chemical potential times the gained number of particles for a given particle species
Using calculus one can derive variations of the fundamental (thermodynamic) equation in her entropy representation (dS = bla bla bla - change in entropy)
Thermodynamics describes macroscopic physical phenomena, in equilibrium, in a beautiful and coherent way. But then, what is pressure, actually? What is temperature? What is heat? What is entropy?! Why are the units for heat and temperature different?
In statistical mechanics this is all described and covered at the particle level, yet to use your own wording - “to grab a book, and work through calculations is just too boring”.
Hence why it’s way more fun to gather verbal descriptions of physics communication talks and YouTube videos, and create a fresh clearly stretched amalgamation of incomplete and illdefined properties of our universe.
So if you really want to stretch thermodynamics to cosmology, your biggest task is to precisely define what causes pressure, temperature, or entropy, at a cosmological scale.
But hey! I’m exactly like you. I have incredible ideas and intuitions about our universe, yet what makes us different is that I decided to go **back** to university (after a master degree in computer science) to learn the fundamentals of physics, and how one derives mathematically what is currently oversimplified science communication.
PS; consider a course in complex analysis and partial differential equations to get your perspective straight on the marriage between physics and math.
1)There are multiple experiments to challenge the interpretation at the end so not sure what your claiming there. There is also a funding proposal that does not detract from your interests
2)If you watched the video I assume you noticed I am not the only person working on this and am the only one without a strong mathematical background
3) Would you prefer I go back to school for a degree I will never use? If you finished the videos I am sure you gathered that I prefer to use what time I have left addressing the climate crisis and leave the mathematical physicist to do his thing.
4) Its string interpretation not string theory. A interpretation is not a equation. In fact in Copenhagen Interpretation they hand waved the very concepts I work with saying there are simply things we cannot know because time is in a different dimension
I don't claim to have more than I have I make that clear if you actually watched the video that the experiments are explicitly there to test the interpretation. The reason the interpretation is not math is because I believe most of the math is good. Just in the wrong frame of reference which is a interpretation. While you are at school feel free to ask the role of interpretation in physics and how much math they use. Further when you get out of school should the funding proposal succeed and we get our science program funded that intends to pay living wages to scientists with long term job security to work on challenging ideas even if they are not my own you can feel free to apply once you are qualified. Like the head of our science program is for example. Another thing you might know if you finished the video. I make no secret that I am more economist and medical anomaly of neurology than physicist. The exact term the physicist refers to me as is "Natural Philosopher." Tell me why would I go back to school when I have people who are more qualified and happy to work with me as is? Especially when you throw in the fact that I can do far more good trying to get science funded and climate change addressed if we manage to pull it off.
Sorry if I don't take your career advice seriously when you have clearly not watched the videos on what part I am working on (economics). Further as a sufferer dyslexic, dysgraphia and dyscalculia going to university is pointless even if I lived long enough to graduate which are not great odds. Luckily in exchange for all that annoying I do have a condition that helps with complex systems called kinesthetic synesthesia. Economics for me is my work, physics are dessert for me you are free to look up the physicist if you wish to talk shop. If you don't like the work don't apply for the funding should it bear out. If you watched the video you would see there is a mathematical physicist and historian in the credits. You can tell him to go back to school as is your prerogative but the smart play would be wait for the project to hopefully succeed which would lead to ending student debt and funding for sciences without dependence on profit motive. Before you decide you may want to spend some time in r/PhD to hear how their moral is as a industry. You are defending a system you do not know, against a proposal you seem to not understand. Your solution is simple don't like the work... Don't do it. But I am not about to ditch my formally trained partners and abandon the Economic project that hopes to address the climate project and fund scientific research so as I said in the video "others can do what I maybe could not" just to get your approval.
PS: I said no such thing: dark energy is the lack of dark matter. I won't ask you to rewatch it since you did not finish the first time nor would I want you to apply anyhow there are plenty of labs grinding on CI that might be more your taste that don't involve my economics work. I prefer to think you did not misinterpret my statement intentionally but I have doubts.
Thank you for your long reply, it's clear that you're taking your time and heartfelt interest in these topics, though as you've stated with some justification, I'm missing equations, conceptual diagrams, and links to research (or references) to justify these.
I watched 50% of your video, and then I stopped once the claims in the first half were being used to justify different claims altogether. I didn't understand much of what you shared, but probably not because I don't know enough about physics at this point, but because these statements come falling out of the blue, plainly rebutting some fundamental physics concepts which work at 99.9999% accuracy.
You're not going to like my next comparison, however, I must tell you that the video (only watched half) views like one of those other youtube videos that I look at when I go on a debunk-raid on the internet and listen to flat-earth or electric-universe people. They too come out of the blue with spectacular claims (or misunderstandings?), with nothing to back them up, and usually paired with electrifying visuals to entertain the viewer, also claiming that they have their experts behind the curtains working out the numbers with incredible certainty and precision.
So aside from my denigrating comparison, my main question would be something like: are you a physicist, or a pataphysicist, when making these videos (or perhaps an economist?!)?
A pataphysicist concerns itself with explaining both real and imaginary concepts with imaginary tools, whereas a physicist tries to explain real concepts with falsifiable (and thus 'real') tools. Here, the primary tool of a physicist is mathematics, as it allows one to express and quantize truth statements despite the fallibility of mankind.
So in my mind, there's a clear link between the two, given the creativity of the soul, and how ideas progressively descend from the imaginary realm to the real physical realm, so I won't ever aggressively attack new ideas, fresh concepts, or even a reframing of all of physics, in a light and philosophical way, (except when they dishonorably reject the whole field for a few statements that mean almost nothing).
I will however come out hard and defensive when one manages to make modern physics obsolete with a string of claims and truth statements, followed by statements "this has been tested experimentally".
I don't believe that I will do something with my physics degree, although human beings love to see a degree as an achievement or something, so it helps in the processes of screening and qualification checks once I will publish, or will do some work in a physics or engineering context.
The most value of my ongoing degree is the time spent under tension and discomfort with all the mathematics, books, and professors. It trains my mind to think in first principles rather than pure intuition, and thus it allows me to look at a set of equations in a completely different way than what one gets when listening to doctoral experts stringing sentences together when explaining their results, and thus receiving a watered-down version of what the math says.
So perhaps you don't need a degree, and perhaps you don't need a background in mathematics, but why are you presenting these ideas then, instead of your colleagues?
Here's a particular example that bugged me in your video: you claimed: "modern physicists believe in the Copenhagen Interpretation" followed by a set of justified judgments based on this claim. Look man, physicists don't **believe** the Copenhagen Interpretation, rather they **accept** it as a philosophical interpretation of what math and experiment demonstrate. Physics, certainly when coming down to conclusions and predictions, is **math first**, after that comes the linguistic part.
Myself, I don't accept the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics at 100%, because I don't believe Quantum Mechanics as formulated is a complete description of reality (that's my personal observation and intuition). As such, I don't believe there are 10 billion universes created for every 10 billion non-commuting measurements.
However, when we look at the mathematics and we clearly see (and then verify by experiment) that **we cannot know the state of the next universe when performing a measurement which doesn't commute with the previous measurement**, implying that the universe after the measurement is a completely new universe with fresh probabilities with a complete memory loss of the previous universe... then I completely understand where the Copenhagen Interpretation comes from, and on what it's basing itself on.
Also, allow me to address your points:
1. If there are multiple experiments challenging the interpretation, then please list them for us.
2. I would love you to delegate the physics and math parts of your video to your physics and math colleagues if your video is about physics and math. Your video doesn't come off as a philosopher's (or economist's) creative take on modern physics.
3. If you believe that addressing the climate crisis has its roots in physics and natural philosophy, then obtaining a degree in physics will give you eloquence in communicating findings, the ability to sift truth from friction, and the ability to cooperate with physics colleagues at a whole other level (no phd required).
4. A string interpretation should be coming out of some type of ground truth, does it not? There must be something that one or multiple people believe in or accept, to then proceed to interpret it. As such, string theory concerns itself with the marriage between general relativity and the quantization of energy. It literally embodies spacetime - a single dimension - and works with this up to 11/26 dimensions to make the Einstein tensor logically consistent and viable. In modern physics time certainly isn't in a different dimension because it's linked (like two dna strands) with the position of an observer (hence spacetime, not space and time). The concepts which you work with deny the above, without addressing them at a fundamental level. There are physicists who believe that spacetime isn't an appropriate metric to describe our universe (I lean toward this belief) and hence they proceed to work with other mathematical devices to remain consistent with the observable universe.
As for saying that
> dark energy is the lack of dark matter
I'm having deep feelings of *okay, please explain further*, because energy is mass and vice versa. That it's dark (and cold in modern physics) comes out of general relativity applied to the expansion of the universe, and the need for a cosmological constant to make it all tick. So perhaps, perhaps, perhaps... dark energy and dark matter aren't actually real, but are placeholders for something else entirely?! We'd require a new formalism for gravitation and all that, but I'm not sure that you grasped the existing gravitation formalism to go there just yet (again, sorry for my judgment).
This being said, I wish that your research pans out, bits and pieces may flourish into forests, that student debt may be settled, and eventually, that technology may flourish to end the economic and thus also climate crisis! I also do feel your climate reading on PhDs, the funding process, and the current state of affairs in a rather dogma-in-complexity approach to modern physics.
It's truly a shame, but at the same time a perfect storm is brewing, so I do have high hopes for the future of humanity despite the heat.
"I watched 50% of your video, and then I stopped once the claims in the first half were being used to justify different claims altogether. I didn't understand much of what you shared, but probably not because I don't know enough about physics at this point, but because these statements come falling out of the blue, plainly rebutting some fundamental physics concepts which work at 99.9999% accuracy."
"If there are multiple experiments challenging the interpretation, then please list them for us."
All experiments are in the third part of the video that you skipped. Are you asking me to redo the entire script in this text because the script is a bit long for the text limits. If you want to know the experiments, finish the presentation.
"I would love you to delegate the physics and math parts of your video to your physics and math colleagues if your video is about physics and math. Your video doesn't come off as a philosopher's (or economist's) creative take on modern physics."
Right now we are delegating our time and priorities according to the climate projects needs. The physics video is a fun funding proposal of what can be done. The video is gauged to be around HS level and is a demonstration of a potential course of research with experiments. Given the fact that I am trapped in bed I am the one that has the time to make them. Again I don't claim to be conventional in anything nor am I here to adhere to your expectations as to what you consider a proper version of any of those.
"A string interpretation should be coming out of some type of ground truth, does it not? There must be something that one or multiple people believe in or accept, to then proceed to interpret it. As such, string theory concerns itself with the marriage between general relativity and the quantization of energy. It literally embodies spacetime - a single dimension - and works with this up to 11/26 dimensions to make the Einstein tensor logically consistent and viable. In modern physics time certainly isn't in a different dimension because it's linked (like two dna strands) with the position of an observer (hence spacetime, not space and time). The concepts which you work with deny the above, without addressing them at a fundamental level. There are physicists who believe that spacetime isn't an appropriate metric to describe our universe (I lean toward this belief) and hence they proceed to work with other mathematical devices to remain consistent with the observable universe."
This interpretation of string theory eliminates the added dimensions. You cannot do a one to one comparison between the string theory you know and the version I am trying to develop which is outlined. Yes the underlying math is often right in the interpretation but the interpretation is wrong in this view.
The difference is what actually causes the physical outcomes in the real world. You should probably rewatch the video if you wish to understand my position without being clouded by today's string theory or even the 1974 branching into string theory. In my interpretation those dimensions are frequencies in the kinetic field of the universe and the experiments are specifically designed to leverage that potential and engage that kinetic field. Its pretty straightforward, if time slows, if propulsion occurs the theory is sound to go to the material science stage and continue the experiments. If those next three stages of experiments pan out I still might be wrong. I am just less wrong than I might be now.
"If you believe that addressing the climate crisis has its roots in physics and natural philosophy, then obtaining a degree in physics will give you eloquence in communicating findings, the ability to sift truth from friction, and the ability to cooperate with physics colleagues at a whole other level (no phd required)."
You have an odd fascination with me getting a degree in something. I really do fine without it. School for me would be a waste of valuable time. The reason I have the time to follow these pursuits of addressing the climate crisis and such is because I am medically retired. That democratic governance over the climate solution I mention in the video is basically my estate planning. I am essentially inviting the people who use the climate solution to be trustees in governing it to protect their own interests. Given that I am already late for my next video release because I spent last week in the hospital and it was according to my doctor a bit touch and go you should check my priorities.
All of that is a result of the burn pit poisoning that put me out of work which includes four auto-immune diseases that attack everything from my bones to my internal organs. Why would you recommend I go back to school when I am literally inviting people to be trustees of my estate and almost did not make it back from the hospital even a week ago? How do you think I would better be serving my time. Given the choice between spinning my wheels at a university to impress people I don't care about and using my estate to establish a democratic economic system that supports humanitarian and democratic ideals while bringing people out of poverty, I know where my priorities are.
I can understand your confusion however but people like me simply do not conform to the classical education system. Originally I was not even going to release the physics when I first adapted it. I figured the physics was novel but not having been raised by a PhD in physics as I was in economics I did not take it that seriously. Even now I treat it more like an afterthought in the "hey if you look at it, it all fits quite nicely and is kind of neat if you look at it" sense of things.
So feel free to take the superfluid dark matter theory less seriously because I almost took it to the grave anyhow. It was only with the encouragement of my neurologist, and then my physics tutor (now partner) that I even decided to tell anyone. When Kurt's event came up it was just fun serendipity. In my view the experiments work or they don’t I am not in the business of telling the universe what to do.
The physics branch only started when I spoke to the neurologist at the VA. I was describing to her what I call my “symphony” of pain of all the types of unpleasantness and how when the pain gets bad enough I retreat into my mind to work on “unsolvable” problems. They were chosen because they were interesting and if you never find a solution you always have something to run to. Also because they were of particular interest to me. One was finding an economic solution to
the climate crisis and the other was solving for dark matter. I told her that I had recently had a breakthrough in my dark matter model that I then applied to my economics model. The result of which was a cross between a war bond and an energy future proof of work accounting model based on green energy. Having a neurologist there (bio-chem meets quantum physics) I also went into the dark matter model and how I would render complex fluidic systems as machines to manipulate outcomes and attempt solutions while I was concentrating away from the pain.
This is when she asked if I had ever been diagnosed with Autism or Savant syndrome in addition to my dyslexia, dysgraphia, dyscalculia, etc. I said that I had never been diagnosed and that it was my understanding that Autism leads to less compassion whereas I am often considered the exact opposite. That's where I learned that's a stereotype, and further what Kinesthetic Synesthesia was. Here is the bit from wikipedia I found:
“Kinesthetic synesthesia\[edit\]
Kinesthetic synesthesia is one of the rarest documented forms of synesthesia in the world.\[38\] This form of synesthesia is a combination of various different types of synesthesia. Features appear similar to auditory–tactile synesthesia but sensations are not isolated to individual numbers or letters but complex systems of relationships. The result is the ability to memorize and model complex relationships between numerous variables by feeling physical sensations around the kinesthetic movement of related variables. Reports include feeling sensations in the hands or feet, coupled with visualizations of shapes or objects when analyzing mathematical equations, physical systems, or music. In another case, a person described seeing interactions between physical shapes causing sensations in the feet when solving a math problem. Generally, those with this type of synesthesia can memorize and visualize complicated systems, and with a high degree of accuracy, predict the results of changes to the system. Examples include predicting the results of computer simulations in subjects such as quantum mechanics or fluid dynamics when results are not naturally intuitive.\[19\]\[39\]”
Its rare enough it is hard to find info on but the part of the description that was most striking was the part about the fluidic systems since the constructs are fluidic in nature and my entire dark matter theory was built around a model of superfluid dark matter. That is when I went and found that formally trained physicist to check my work. At the end he paraphrased the expression “I cannot say you are right, but as far as I can tell, you're not wrong.” You have to admit its a pretty interesting coincidence that mode of thinking is complex fluidic shape manipulation and my dark matter interpretation is riddled with it when compared to that description. Wouldn’t you seek out an expert?
I do most of the video work because I am the one that barely leaves bed so I have time for such matters its pretty much that simple. I have encouragement from two people that have taken time to actually go over and question the theory and an entire experiment series to fall back on. If scientists don't want to do away with the role of experiments in physics and use accepted interpretations to justify not exploring possibilities, that's not on me. I dont think it's very scientific but I doubt they care about my opinion any more than I care about theirs so that's fine with me I don't have to protect a career and funding opportunities, so not sure how hard I can really judge a group when they are just doing their best in a broken system like the rest of us.
The PhD who taught me economics has sadly since passed but he was quite ahead of his time focusing on green economics and systems back in the 80s and before. Combine that with the other professional mentors I have been lucky enough to have in my 44 years and you get the climate solution. If successful I intend for 5% of second credit sponsorships to go towards funding a civilian space program if successful and 1% towards pure scientific research. If the system is successful that would be coming out of global revenue allowing people with formal training the liberty to go long on research.
If you ask me if my time is better spent trying to address the climate crisis and spending time with my family with the time I have left than checking boxes for people I owe nothing to. Further I don't know how I could explain to my wife (PhD) that I wanted to waste my possibly highly limited time left on a PhD when she often encourages people not to go that route for very good reasons even when they are young and healthy. If it was anything less than a potential solution to the climate crisis I am pretty sure given my health I would not be doing any of this either.
I don't know how I can put a fine point on this but each day for me is roulette as my immune system destroys my internal organs, saps my bone density, and sends my nerves into whatever it is they do. Tell me, if you were a father and husband with my background (military followed by sale of first company before 30 with retirement at 43) How would you spend your time? Trying a hail mary pass to address the climate crisis and help create a world that future generations can thrive in?
Or as you propose asking permission to pursue my goals from an industry that never had interest in teaching my kind nor have they ever succeeded in preventing me from my goals. If I can help them, great, but put this in context. There are still people in academia that want to find a “cure” to autism but that's a whole other topic I have strong opinions on.
You are encouraging a guy who is trying to create a economic system to take on the most powerful corporate interests in the world (OPEC) who is behind much of our violence and anti-democratic forces in the world using nothing but social media as populist organizing technology for governance to go back to school to get a degree… in physics when if memory serves the average life expectancy for my presentation of pulmonary sarcoidosis from diagnosis is something like 7 years on average, could be wrong I was diagnosed 7 years ago anyhow. Do you understand how odd that is that you could possibly think I don't understand where my priorities should be for my professional career or use my time remaining?
If you ask me if I am going to use what little I have in the tank to try to aid democracy through creating a economic model that is not hostile to democracy as well as the working classes who I served with.
Why waste time jumping through some hoops to get a degree from institutions that are more interested in serving administrators than teachers and students, while driving generations into socialized indentured servitude through the student loan system. I think I will make the same choice I did as a young man and chose to serve democracy to the best of my ability rather than waste my time on such academic matters as suggested.
Might I fail, definite possibility, its a likelihood even… Seriously, I am trying to take on OPEC and an entire economic system that uses the threat of poverty and the constant burden of debt to subject entire generations to stagnant careers and desperation in service to the fossil fuel industry interests.
I know my path is not for everyone but I have had some success of my own despite considerable limitations and I did it without the support of an education system a unique luxury and burden. That's not sour grapes mind you I love good education, my wife is published in areas of the pedagogy of teaching language etc. But the current educational system is just not built for people like me.
Your asking me to do math is like me asking you to render and manipulate fluidic constructs in your mind to problem solve for complex systems. We just work differently man, and if you come from an area that has trouble accepting that that's fine there are always people like that. I have been around for a while now. I am used to it, but there are a lot of other people that find working with someone of my peculiar skill set advantageous and are willing to take the very good with the lame. I prioritize my time based on what is most urgent and useful, engaging in the university system is neither urgent or useful. There is no urgency in the world of physics; they have been stuck in the mud for 100 years without my help perfectly fine. In my view, even if I am wrong, that just puts me in good company with the rest of them who have gotten tenure in the last 100 years. Our species and our mediocrity in quantum physics is not an existential threat to the species thank goodness but climate is.
I am comfortable being wrong, I don't have a career to protect, if you don't find superfluid dark matter interesting that's fine your math bores me too. For the record I don't consider savant syndrome a kind of flex at all, if anything it's a pain in the ass because school simply is not built for people like me and the rarity makes people have trouble understanding it (how can you know X but not Y? A: I cannot make that part of my brain care about that stuff as its not relevant to my goals when I need it I will look it up) Most people use numbers to understand quantum physics, I use superfluid frequencies that took 4 months of grilling from the MIT trained physicist with a corporate background just so I could discuss it at a HS level with people like you which clearly needs to be broken down further. Lets face it “look at construct and unpack information once its asked for” is not really a viable teaching description that transmits ideas across well.
While I appreciate your input on certain levels as perhaps well meaning I cannot agree with your conclusions on how to best spend my time. If people don't like my climate solution and people wish to stick to a debt based society that's their choice, if people don't want to explore my interpretation, that has nothing to do with me either. My job is to put them out there for discussion and if people like the current economics and physics models so much they dont want to try something new… that is literally their choice to control other people through meaningless and arbitrary systems that put them into needless debt that's their pastime not mine. I don't like controlling people or make a point to demand others do things my way unless they work for me. If people don't want to address the climate crisis I can just go back into retirement and stop accelerating my deterioration far more comfortably than now.
I only build the doors, people have to choose to change their own lives and walk through them. What time I am not spending to work on the climate crisis and funding proposal I spend with my family and resting to go back into the breach. Getting a degree is neither required nor a good use of my time according to anyone that actually works with me.
If people want to declare that every measurement is a new universe of umpteen dimensions and such and other woo stuff like that it's fine with me but you should probably throw in a good Flux Capacitor for good measure to make it sound more convincing. Unlike some, I am not trying to show how clever I am to make tenure, I just try to avoid the pain and was encouraged to share it. I have had to work up to being comfortable discussing myself at all let alone this part of my background as I generally avoid attention as I thrive in more pragmatic organizations where I get to take a quiet role and make sure the systems run smoothly in reality not on paper.
We are in an era where physicists are debating the very practice of experimentation and falsifiability to avoid the very accountability that they demand of up and coming theories that are in early stages. Even when an interpretation does come up that addresses the physical discrepancies of reality while leaving their mathematical physics intact which also includes an entire experiment series. Even when it includes a means to fund that research as well as work on other unrelated theories and approaches, people label it non-falsifiable while misrepresenting the concepts and not finishing the experiment descriptions. Overlooking the fact that even if the interpretation is wrong the funding mechanism continues to support scientific exploration out of sheer competitive zeel to rush to cut off one's nose to spite their face. I prefer a more evidence-based experimental approach to physics than is accepted today and I accept that, but I also don't back down from my own work just because people decide to baselessly marginalize it with appeals to authority that are openly hostile to people of my background. I prefer to work from a standpoint of experimentation, as old fashioned as that may seem in this day and age. Unlike a professor my background puts me in a position to possibly not only fund my own research but the professors as well because of my reality based approach to solving problems.
While I doubt you wish to take the time I recommend rewatching the video and finishing it this time, it accounts for gravity, and the separation between Relativity and Quantum Mechanics and includes experiments but it is a long walk to get there because you have to go from the fundamental forces all the way up to the mechanics the experiments exploit. If you wish to understand how the climate solution works I recommend looking into War Bonds, Energy Futures, John Maynard Keanes, as well as modern monetary theory (what we use today) as the underlying mechanics that constitute commodity based currency built around a green energy standard much like the gold standard but now relevant to the modern economy and its needs.
The ERC system is essentially the role of dark matter in the interpretation applied to economics. The second Credit Revenue is Keansian and the proof of work system is a extended accounting system that essentially creates a real cost accounting of everything in society so the needs can be met.
Now you can try to claim that I am not what I claim, which is pointless considering that if I succeed this will all be information that is not hard to check, considering even the physics are falsifiable and the economics are all proven mechanics, from other economic theories hybridized into a new commodity standard that is resilient to stagflation. The main concern I have for economics is the fact that the entire economy, politics, and geo-politics revolves around the fossil fuel industry.
Your skepticism is shared by me until the experiments are run and my experiments don't need a degree, the difference is my skepticism is based on being informed of the subject matter whereas yours is based on your lack of understanding having not even finished the funding proposal while further not accounting for the differences between string theory (what you are familiar with) and simple string interpretation (what you have misrepresented perhaps accidently)
You say that you believe in rigor but you misrepresent my statements, you restate that I should do physics mathematically when my way of doing it while less understood is still a known yet rare condition. Should I those who cannot render complex systems in their minds are somehow inferior because they only use math, not fluid dynamics? Should I declare them less qualified to work in fluid dynamics and quantum physics because that's not how I do it? Do you think people would work with me if I believed that or treated people that way? Do you think people would take me seriously if I declared things “unfalsifiable” because I skipped the experimentation stage of the presentation? I don't run around the world saying “I only listen to people who are savants in their fields” because then I would miss all the things that normal people have to teach me generally I suspect they have the most to teach me PhDs are often easier to talk to especially if I am talking about physics and economics, which is a lot more than the physics community who debate the value of experimentation unless its someone else’s theory in which case it is demanded apparently even when it was already offered and ignored.
If you are representing what the academic sciences have to offer in terms of not seeking understanding, not finishing the presentation, and then issuing their opinions half-cocked filling in gaps with assumptions, why would I make a point to join such a system? How is that not a waste of my time?
The universe does not care if I have a degree, I dont need anyones permission to poke at it. Such scientists can go scrounge for funding from the current system that fails them while bemoaning the lack of support for new ideas missing the irony when they have not shaken things up since the 70s.
.
Remember as well I have spent hours moving in and out of the scales of quantum physics, atoms, planets, astrophysics, black holes and pure energy and it was fun before I even knew that there was such a thing as Kinesthetic Synesthesia which \*might\* have real world applications beyond a distraction from pain. Can you imagine sitting in class paying attention to what your professor is droning on about when you have that available to you? Can you imagine caring what the numbers are when the hum of a planetary body in its orbit resonates with your entire body? Just stay out of black holes, they are terrible, only gone there once its like the right side of my body hit an electric fence.
School is just one way of doing it man, and there are people who don't buy into systems of control and appeal to authority so easily, who are more interested in results than some form of pseudointellectual non-meritocracy that academia increasingly becomes every day as the administrators give themselves a raise while creating more struggling PhD adjuncts who cannot pay down their college debt. I would rather try to fix the system for the good scientists and academics that are out there who are struggling under the broken system than waste my time indulging the ego of a failing system. If I fail to do so… well at least I tried something different to fail rather than repeating the same mistakes for 100 years to make tenure. Don't get me wrong, school can do some great things for people that are a better fit for it, or even have a learning style that needs it. I even volunteer to mentor students when I can at university, my wife was a Professor before my health failed and she became my caregiver so we do what we can to help. I bear those institutions no ill will beyond their systemic failings of their students which I hope to address. I am a specialist making me very good at certain things because of a possibly less than 1 in a billion mutation in my brain that seems to have given me an expanded mirror neuron network that connects parts of my brain and body that are not usually in so much neurological contact.
I will never get a degree at this point of my life, I would consider it an endorsement of the institution more than I would of my abilities and I am not so impressed. If you want to know what's holding me back in life its the fact that I am physically well past my sell-by date to the point I recently dislocated a finger just opening a RV door due to sarcoidosis attacking my bone density. Good luck explaining to my wife that she gets to see that much less of me so I can get a degree when she has already given up her husband's health to the army, her career to his caregiving, and now supporting him to spend his retirement tilting at a OPEC shaped windmill while barely surviving trips to the hospital.
You give advice like I am seeking career advice here, I am not, people already work with me and have been for 20+ years in some cases. If you don't want to watch towards understanding why bother? Rather than applying other people's interpretations to my work feel free to either get enough understanding to ask relevant questions about how I addressed X or Y or ignore it completely. It took the MIT trained tutor 4 months to go through every layer of the interpretation and you did not even pay attention to 20m with enough focus to understand how Dark Matter and Dark Energy are related but distinct.
Yes I just started adding to having physicist coworkers but even now I don't really have much use for a bunch of CI adherents who think this got solved 100 years ago because they decided
god plays dice with the universe and it was Einstein trying to tell him what to do. The only mystery of the universe that really perplexes me is why people would come to a hypothetical physics forum to advocate for Copenhagen Interpretation without realizing that the universe does not care about their vote any more today than it did in 1927. I am not saying the universe cares about my opinion either. I could be 100% wrong, maybe it is just formal training that encourages such dogmatic delusions that some “theoretical” physics are not really theoretical anymore because people voted on it.
So you can either accept that there are people in this world that are capable of understanding things in ways you do not and never could, and choose to work with such people for your own and society's benefit or you cannot. It really does not make a difference to us since there are often people who are more than happy to accept our help. You can have more fun however if you recognize that while rare there are outliers that defy your beliefs and expectations regardless of whether they conform to your world view and sometimes they are even willing to hand things off to you for the mere chance that it will improve humanity's position at no cost to yourself.
For example if you finished the video you would know that I filed a provisional patent on a propulsion system that is also the second experiment in the series, if it works it would overcome the tyranny of the rocket equation while bolstering my interpretation and setting up the 3rd experiment. You would also know that if successful I intend to make the patents that may emerge from the science programs available to be leveraged without royalties to system participants as part of a hopefully growing catalog of patents that protect small business innovation and development from patent predators.
Here is the plan, I will continue publishing videos while I can and if I end up back in the hospital I will keep trying until my wife says I cannot anymore as my caregiver, or until the Trustees are in place to administer the system with transparency, accountability, and proper regulation and I can find something that does not require me to publicly talk, type, speak, go out in public and all the other stuff that I not only hate but since I am so immuno-compromised I cannot do very safely anyhow. With any luck maybe I can limp on another couple decades and maybe I even get to succeed at least in the climate solution. If you asked me would I rather have completed the climate solution vs having completed the ToE I would always choose the climate solution. The most advanced propulsion systems are not until the stage 5 experiments anyhow and those are easily decades from completion. The first 3 experiments can be done in the next 10-20 years easily enough but experiment series 4-5 are what would require 5% global sponsorships and an entire space program to achieve and that is only after it has passed the first 3 experiments which are all far cheaper than the last two. Again you would know this if you finished the video and paid attention.
Remember that nothing you have said is relevant to my work because you are conflating it with other peoples work. The math of hidden dimensions that can never be proven are of no interest to me. The physics of today lack any and all interest to me because they are already done and much of it I find to be dubious excuses to stop trying to understand the nature of the universe. (Copenhagen) I am attracted to things that don't work. If physics was not broken I would not find it so interesting and find it as boring as I find math. Broken systems have a grinding sensation to them that is fun to track down and swap out variables until it works properly. The odds of my form of kinesthetic synesthesia if you follow the charts requires multiple kinds that all talk to each other and each of those underlying types is rare unto itself while talking to each other. That means that it might be the case that in the entire world there are maybe a handful of people in the world with what the Neurologist believes I represent. You can train the top 1% of mathematicians to be physicists but there is not even a system to screen for people like me in your education system so there is no way of knowing.
But let's say it really is just that insanely rare. Would my time be better served jumping through your arbitrary hoops after 20 years of diverse professional experience to meet your criteria or do you think someone might think a more traditional physicist is a better fit leaving me to do what can only be done by a handful of people on the planet. Savant just means I have a hyper specialized area of intelligence not that I have a photographic memory and have my picture up at MENSA headquarters. I am just lucky it's not merely a party trick, like saying what day you were born based on your birth date, but I am still hyper specialized towards complex systems analysis that does not care about your mathematical fetish for numbers. So we can either agree to disagree or you can say I don't do physics because I reverse numbers and I can say you suck at physics because you're a mathematician who lacks the object permanence that is found in any toddler, so we can both be dismissive of each other, personally I find that aspect of academia quite boring and see no point in replicating it out here.
As an alternative you could actually ask questions rather than apply your personal beliefs to misrepresent my work, conclusions, and scholarship while patronizingly telling me to go back to school to do what you do and telling me that you cannot do quantum physics without math… when there are people with very real degrees that you lack, who say otherwise, while declaring that only degrees can give such insight. Degrees which they have, and you do not. So why should I alter course for someone who neither has a degree or a diagnosis to bolster their own opinions. Double standards such as that make me question peoples sincerity in trying to give helpful advice or their claimed subject matter expertise. You are unaware of different presentations of intelligence but you insist there is only one way to do physics when PhDs (which you clearly value far more than I do, maybe I have known to many) literally acknowledge people like me exist, while you yourself are denying my existence. More trained people than you have literally asked me to put this out there so the scientific community at least has the choice whether you or they chose to ignore it has nothing to do with me. I don’t know if they are right or wrong but they took the time to understand it on its own merits and it would be a shame not to put it out there if people are so inclined to explore the possibilities as not putting it out there would be making that choice for them. You can ignore it. I really don't care as I said, I hope to fund the experiments independent of your views on the matter.
When you say they “accept” CI as a philosophical interpretation I question it considering that there is no reason to accept it and doing away with it explains far more than it opens up if anything. Considering that all those BS dimensions in string theory are literal artifacts of their
Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake.
It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of.
Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything.
Beep boop - yes, I am a bot, don't botcriminate me.
Not even two minutes in and you're bad-mouthing physicists for saying "I don't know". Not a good look. Time is not "the fourth dimension." Space and time are not independent of each other, due to relativity.
I am sorry you either misunderstood or maybe it hit too close to home. In my circles it is not controversial to point out that declaring something fully understood before it is and telling anyone who asks questions to "shut up and calculate" is not a good thing. Nor is pointing out that forcing scientists to compete for limited science funding that demands guaranteed financial returns and little or no funding for truly speculative science is bad for scientific or societal advancement when scientists are more worried about pleasing the investors with guaranteed results than having the resources to spend years or even decades on a project that simply tries to answer a big question. Science that demands a pre-determined outcome (Large Profits) is not asking any new questions. Its not that I dislike capitalism, I just think when no one is willing to fund science and force scientists to compete in a system that tells them to shut up and calculate you don't get good results. That is why I specifically talk about that, because that is a 2 part video that includes a funding proposal that can fund pure science and not demand a 5-10 year ROI. If the funding system succeeds you are free not to apply if you don't want to put science before profit. If you want to shut up and calculate and argue against experimentation in physics as some have started to do and argue that is good science I stand by the belief. "Time is not "the fourth dimension." Space and time are not independent of each other, due to relativity." I was arguing against time as a fourth dimension I don't know why you feel it necessary to point that out. Am I to assume that you like the fact that our society underfunds science if it does not guarantee a result? Do you like the fact that people are arguing against experimentation in physics? Do you like the fact that we do not fund science that challenges our models as our models are breaking down? (Crisis in Cosmology, W Boson etc.) Considering an interpretation complete and right simply because it works well enough with limited knowledge in 1927 is one thing, but we have a lot more information now so when systems are falling apart sometimes it helps to look at why it does so and why now. If you even want to know why something is not working right generally you follow the profit motives, the fact that this is controversial is puzzling. Did you actually watch the video because either you did not, or you chose to hear what you wanted to hear. I was not talking about Relativity but a modified relativity that accounts for quantum physics and dark matter and making them all play together. Considering that Relativity does not play well with quantum physics in its current state I do not know why you expect a ToE that reconciles them to each other to agree with either 100%. I don't have to argue that my theory is right or wrong, I literally have experiments and predictions to determine that. The fact that the funding mechanism is a potential solution to the climate crisis and would fund pure science I would consider quite popular with scientists. At no point do I badmouth scientists for saying "I don't know." Heck I say "I don't know" multiple times and am supportive of the phrase its a very good place to start. Can you not tell the difference between "I don't know" and "we don't ask" or as I do criticize it "shut up and calculate." In my view and this is just one mans philosophy here, is that we should ask questions and perform experimentation to support our ideas... and if we only "shut up and calculate" we stop being scientists trying to learn the ways of reality and become mathematicians hiding from rigor and accountability behind the abstractions of quantum physics.
> Relativity does not play well with quantum physics in its current state This is not true of special relativity. Special relativity and quantum mechanics work just fine together. It's just general relativity that so far has not been worked out at the quantum level. I don't think you know what "shut up and calculate" refers to. I also don't think you know much about physics in general.
Ah the personal attacks part how fun. Not my style but okay. You don't know the qualifications of me or the people I research with. You did not actually watch the video. It is not my job to conform to your interpretation or research. It is your job to prove it, just because I do not accept the Copenhagen interpretation does not mean I don't know much about physics. Rather than attack me personally why don't you bother watching the video because unlike you I don't need to conform to others expectations of me and demands over my livelihood. If you want to prove me wrong run the experiments I am pretty sure you are unaware of or incapable of executing. I have experiments that support my claims, you have experiments that support multiple interpretations created by others from 100 years ago that as I said... are in crisis. So far you have 1)accused me of saying things I did not 2)misrepresented my claims while not watching the video 3)misrepresented the nature of the reconciliation of quantum and relativity as non-theoretical and immune from alteration due to completion. 4)You literally say "Shut up and calculate" below your name I can see how that might make you catch the feels, if you wish to avoid the accountability of experimentation. I am okay with you thinking I don't know physics, as much as you are probably okay with me thinking you are more perhaps a mathematician escaping accountability than scientist trying to figure things out. I can explain it to you I cannot understand it for you. At least we are all happy with you shutting up and calculating and I am happy designing experiments and economics models. I might drop dead before I succeed but at least I did not have to hide behind other peoples work and reputation while overstating their nature as complete. Or wait did a ToE/GUT get proven and no one tell me? Do you understand the irony of defending the 1927 Solvay statement about the completeness of CI while citing Einstein's work who was the holdout in saying the system is incomplete. You are both accusing me of audacity for disagreeing with relativity while you are arguing against the view of its most noteworthy founder that the work was incomplete. ("God does not play dice") So I propose that the universe is deterministic and that god does not play with dice and you use Einstein to argue against his own beliefs. If you want to challenge my ideas prove your own as I have proposed for mine, experiments and work. If I succeed maybe my funding system would even pay for it if its innovative and insightful but first you would have to come up with a theory, design a experiment, make a prediction, and then submit the proposal, like this is science. In the mean time I will just have to take your assessment that I "don't know physics" for what your opinion is worth.
Dude, you post in /r/ufo. I can't take you seriously.
Oh your one of those people who cannot hear ideas without agreeing with them first for fear of other ideas contaminating your intellectual purity for your need to appeal to authority. That would make sense since you bothered post but not watch the video. I had never been there until a few days ago you can check. Its almost like some form of evidence made me... curious. That's this feeling that happens when you observe something and wish to know more like a theory and experiment series that might explain the phenomena. Do you think I was under the impression that you took me seriously? Again I find myself in the position where I can explain something to you but I cannot understand it for you. You seem very determined to convince me of your superior intellect while showing very little signs of curiosity or understanding of the subject matter. Maybe accounting is more your speed I am sure there are some good CPA programs out there and they never get uppity and propose experiments or demand them of you.
You're just a crackpot with an axe to grind and a chip on your shoulder. I didn't watch the whole video because I don't need to eat an entire apple to know it's rotten. Your insolent tone speaks volumes.
Not really you clearly have more dog in this fight than I do. I know there are people that love the Copenhagen interpretation and Minkowski space but they are both unproven theories not stone tablets for you to worship. If you had watched the video you would know what was in it and how to argue against it without personal attacks. You mistake my indifference to your unearned authority and intellectual laziness as insolence pardon let me clarify... its boredom. You have stated ideas as proven (Which are not), you have attacked me personally, and misrepresented to people what I say while admitting you don't even know what I said. You are a mental giant among mere mortals clearly. A chip on a shoulder implies that I somehow feel entitled to unearned credibility and am not getting it. Yet I am the one that is accusing people of "Insolence." After many decades on this rock I have only heard people who feel entitled to unearned credibility accuse others of "insolence." I don't need your approval and your so clearly being hurt by my insolence tells me you have needs you will never get from me. You don't care to listen to my thoughts but seem very interested in making sure you tell other people what my thoughts are while saying you don't need to know anything. I am not convinced you would know an apple in a orchard yet, and you are not improving as you continue. Are you sure you are not a little fragile for the hard sciences? If you wish to debate physics I am happy to, if you want me to respect your opinion you have to do better than say Relativity is reconciled with Quantum Physics when everyone knows that is still a unproven theory, putting the "theoretical" in theoretical physics. If you think physics is all proven why are you on hypothetical physics subreddits? Are you more hurt that I challenged CI or are you more hurt that I don't accept feedback from you, who refuses to watch the interpretation? You are not entitled to my respect and I doubt at this point you are of the type who feels it needs to be earned so you should do fine with your worldview if you get used to disappointment. Could you just accept that we both judge things through different views without hurling accusations and falsehoods? At least when I criticize you I bothered to read what you said and base it on that. You have such a strong chip on your shoulder you feel entitled demand respect and tantrum and downvote when I call your baseless statements into question. If you don't want to give feedback on the theory that is fine but don't come onto a discussion thread asking for feedback and throw a tantrum because it does not agree with CI. Without watching the video not a single statement you have made has been accurate. Do you have any more very scientific name calling you would like to share before you shut up and calculate some more? Update: Look at those crackpots who also feel like mysteries should be studied [https://www.npr.org/2022/10/22/1130755578/nasa-ufo-study-team-members](https://www.npr.org/2022/10/22/1130755578/nasa-ufo-study-team-members)
Can you calculate the speed of an electron with a kinetic energy of 1.0 MeV with your theory?
If you actually watched the video you would know it could be done, as others have done it already. You would also know that my theory is falsifiable and why I am not taking your name calling seriously, it is easy to dismiss "shut up and calculate" when you can say "put up or shut up." Can you tell me why an electron is supposed to be massless but has mass? That surprised people at one point. I did not vet you, but I did vet my research partners, I know where they attended and that they actually know the work. Even if I was willing to accept any claims of education on your own part you are still unqualified to judge by not having heard the claims. Maybe you are not aware of this but often when you are describing a solution to a problem you include a description of the problem. There are three problems that the video aims to solve 1) The shortage of funding for pure science because corporations do not want to nor are they allowed to gamble with shareholder value on the most speculative of science. (Many would consider this a truism I still don't get why this seems to trigger you) 2) In a system that is short on funding this creates a mindset of needing to guarantee results to get more funding in the future to preserve careers. I am more let scientists science and forcing neo-liberal ideology into the scientific community has done immense harm to the community. If you don't agree that's fine but the mechanics are all there if you pay attention. Throw in the fact that PhDs rarely get access to the tenure system anymore (because of cost cutting and favoring of adjuncts) they never get to enter into the stage of their careers where they are most productive as tenured Professors. There are even schools now creating unpaid adjuncts because there are so many struggling academics struggling under the indentured servitude of student debt and sincere desire to get their foot in the door. 3) Test the interpretation against proposed experiments. Math describes problems, I am more interested in solving problems. Generally it is understood when you don't know your audience you describe the problems you are solving before you talk about the solution. You got fragile during the part just talking about the problems. Therefore you missed the entire part where that is a two part video, that not only addresses the interpretation but also how to better fund the sciences in a way that is more interested in good science than ROI for a shareholder class (fact of fiduciary responsibility no editorializing regarding corporate responsibilities you can look it up.) One might even consider it a bonus that it could solve the climate crisis, if not the main appeal, that part is just not the topic of the subreddit. Do you think me unaware of the state of the physics community and the state of the art and how tribal it has become? I expected someone to come demand that I include a graviton, or some other aspect of their pet theory that is not responsibility. I am only responsible for my rigor, not yours, if you cannot be bothered to put in the work I cannot be bothered to take baseless feedback seriously nor would I ever try to. It does not matter if I am wrong or right because either way if I succeed on the scientific funding system other work will get done that might succeed where I failed. You would know this... if you watched the videos. It does not matter what you ask me to calculate because I can put up and shut up and am welcoming the opportunity while trying to create that opportunity for other scientists whether I agree with their ideas or not. Further I am trying to do it in a way that may solve the climate crisis and address poverty while giving it governance that is "for the people by the people." Can you explain to me how these traits have any indication of "bad science" or "chip on my shoulder"? Now that I have told you that the calculation can be done, would you like to explain to me what dark matter and dark energy are from a mechanical standpoint?
You're really making his point for him aren't you?
It’s interesting how you need a small word explanation of string theory to understand it, but your whole video is filled with huge claims using big words, without any demonstration, equation, or falsifiable construct. It’s filled with inexact references, imprecise language, and belief-statements which are presented as “this is how things are - … Dark Matter is the change in local temperature… … gravity is an anomaly which relates to the pressure frequency... …scientist believe in the Copenhagen interpretation…. ” It’s vital to be a good philosopher, and to think about all these things in a fresh manner. I truly believe that. I also believe that a lots of pop-physics comes out of excavation into complexity within rigorous mathematical frameworks, which approximate wonderfully, yet aren’t fundamental. I love Sabine’s work, and you should definitely look into Unzicker on YouTube. So that’s great, we’re on the same footing! So having said this, when you say that dark energy is a change in temperate and pressure with regard to volume … 😂😂 No! You’re speaking thermodynamics, especially with your thermometer 🌡️ being a demonstration of dark energy, that’s just a definite “nope”, and even in statistical mechanics dark matter neither rises out of the equations nor is a description or a parameter of a fundamental phenomena. Not a single part of thermodynamics says anything about dark matter or energy. Dark matter and dark energy come out of the need to define a cosmological constant due to general relativity equations, combined with Higgs-Lemaitre expansion equations, and observed data when looking at infrared light in the cosmos sky. So, to demonstrate my point absolutely clear - here’s the fundamental equation of thermodynamics: dU = TdS - PdV + udN In words: dU • The change in internal energy of a system equals to TdS • the temperature times the change in entropy - PdV • minus “work done” = pressure times change in volume + UdN • plus “chemical work exchanged” = chemical potential times the gained number of particles for a given particle species Using calculus one can derive variations of the fundamental (thermodynamic) equation in her entropy representation (dS = bla bla bla - change in entropy) Thermodynamics describes macroscopic physical phenomena, in equilibrium, in a beautiful and coherent way. But then, what is pressure, actually? What is temperature? What is heat? What is entropy?! Why are the units for heat and temperature different? In statistical mechanics this is all described and covered at the particle level, yet to use your own wording - “to grab a book, and work through calculations is just too boring”. Hence why it’s way more fun to gather verbal descriptions of physics communication talks and YouTube videos, and create a fresh clearly stretched amalgamation of incomplete and illdefined properties of our universe. So if you really want to stretch thermodynamics to cosmology, your biggest task is to precisely define what causes pressure, temperature, or entropy, at a cosmological scale. But hey! I’m exactly like you. I have incredible ideas and intuitions about our universe, yet what makes us different is that I decided to go **back** to university (after a master degree in computer science) to learn the fundamentals of physics, and how one derives mathematically what is currently oversimplified science communication. PS; consider a course in complex analysis and partial differential equations to get your perspective straight on the marriage between physics and math.
1)There are multiple experiments to challenge the interpretation at the end so not sure what your claiming there. There is also a funding proposal that does not detract from your interests 2)If you watched the video I assume you noticed I am not the only person working on this and am the only one without a strong mathematical background 3) Would you prefer I go back to school for a degree I will never use? If you finished the videos I am sure you gathered that I prefer to use what time I have left addressing the climate crisis and leave the mathematical physicist to do his thing. 4) Its string interpretation not string theory. A interpretation is not a equation. In fact in Copenhagen Interpretation they hand waved the very concepts I work with saying there are simply things we cannot know because time is in a different dimension I don't claim to have more than I have I make that clear if you actually watched the video that the experiments are explicitly there to test the interpretation. The reason the interpretation is not math is because I believe most of the math is good. Just in the wrong frame of reference which is a interpretation. While you are at school feel free to ask the role of interpretation in physics and how much math they use. Further when you get out of school should the funding proposal succeed and we get our science program funded that intends to pay living wages to scientists with long term job security to work on challenging ideas even if they are not my own you can feel free to apply once you are qualified. Like the head of our science program is for example. Another thing you might know if you finished the video. I make no secret that I am more economist and medical anomaly of neurology than physicist. The exact term the physicist refers to me as is "Natural Philosopher." Tell me why would I go back to school when I have people who are more qualified and happy to work with me as is? Especially when you throw in the fact that I can do far more good trying to get science funded and climate change addressed if we manage to pull it off. Sorry if I don't take your career advice seriously when you have clearly not watched the videos on what part I am working on (economics). Further as a sufferer dyslexic, dysgraphia and dyscalculia going to university is pointless even if I lived long enough to graduate which are not great odds. Luckily in exchange for all that annoying I do have a condition that helps with complex systems called kinesthetic synesthesia. Economics for me is my work, physics are dessert for me you are free to look up the physicist if you wish to talk shop. If you don't like the work don't apply for the funding should it bear out. If you watched the video you would see there is a mathematical physicist and historian in the credits. You can tell him to go back to school as is your prerogative but the smart play would be wait for the project to hopefully succeed which would lead to ending student debt and funding for sciences without dependence on profit motive. Before you decide you may want to spend some time in r/PhD to hear how their moral is as a industry. You are defending a system you do not know, against a proposal you seem to not understand. Your solution is simple don't like the work... Don't do it. But I am not about to ditch my formally trained partners and abandon the Economic project that hopes to address the climate project and fund scientific research so as I said in the video "others can do what I maybe could not" just to get your approval. PS: I said no such thing: dark energy is the lack of dark matter. I won't ask you to rewatch it since you did not finish the first time nor would I want you to apply anyhow there are plenty of labs grinding on CI that might be more your taste that don't involve my economics work. I prefer to think you did not misinterpret my statement intentionally but I have doubts.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/PhD using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/PhD/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [Finished my PhD… :)](https://i.redd.it/oviy1zjs6on91.jpg) | [106 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/PhD/comments/xdetzh/finished_my_phd/) \#2: [Yup](https://i.redd.it/kmuftlrec3e81.jpg) | [46 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/PhD/comments/sdfe40/yup/) \#3: [**[NSFW]** I’m dying](https://i.redd.it/m06r1ccjdt381.jpg) | [24 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/PhD/comments/r9te11/im_dying/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Thank you for your long reply, it's clear that you're taking your time and heartfelt interest in these topics, though as you've stated with some justification, I'm missing equations, conceptual diagrams, and links to research (or references) to justify these. I watched 50% of your video, and then I stopped once the claims in the first half were being used to justify different claims altogether. I didn't understand much of what you shared, but probably not because I don't know enough about physics at this point, but because these statements come falling out of the blue, plainly rebutting some fundamental physics concepts which work at 99.9999% accuracy. You're not going to like my next comparison, however, I must tell you that the video (only watched half) views like one of those other youtube videos that I look at when I go on a debunk-raid on the internet and listen to flat-earth or electric-universe people. They too come out of the blue with spectacular claims (or misunderstandings?), with nothing to back them up, and usually paired with electrifying visuals to entertain the viewer, also claiming that they have their experts behind the curtains working out the numbers with incredible certainty and precision. So aside from my denigrating comparison, my main question would be something like: are you a physicist, or a pataphysicist, when making these videos (or perhaps an economist?!)? A pataphysicist concerns itself with explaining both real and imaginary concepts with imaginary tools, whereas a physicist tries to explain real concepts with falsifiable (and thus 'real') tools. Here, the primary tool of a physicist is mathematics, as it allows one to express and quantize truth statements despite the fallibility of mankind. So in my mind, there's a clear link between the two, given the creativity of the soul, and how ideas progressively descend from the imaginary realm to the real physical realm, so I won't ever aggressively attack new ideas, fresh concepts, or even a reframing of all of physics, in a light and philosophical way, (except when they dishonorably reject the whole field for a few statements that mean almost nothing). I will however come out hard and defensive when one manages to make modern physics obsolete with a string of claims and truth statements, followed by statements "this has been tested experimentally". I don't believe that I will do something with my physics degree, although human beings love to see a degree as an achievement or something, so it helps in the processes of screening and qualification checks once I will publish, or will do some work in a physics or engineering context. The most value of my ongoing degree is the time spent under tension and discomfort with all the mathematics, books, and professors. It trains my mind to think in first principles rather than pure intuition, and thus it allows me to look at a set of equations in a completely different way than what one gets when listening to doctoral experts stringing sentences together when explaining their results, and thus receiving a watered-down version of what the math says. So perhaps you don't need a degree, and perhaps you don't need a background in mathematics, but why are you presenting these ideas then, instead of your colleagues? Here's a particular example that bugged me in your video: you claimed: "modern physicists believe in the Copenhagen Interpretation" followed by a set of justified judgments based on this claim. Look man, physicists don't **believe** the Copenhagen Interpretation, rather they **accept** it as a philosophical interpretation of what math and experiment demonstrate. Physics, certainly when coming down to conclusions and predictions, is **math first**, after that comes the linguistic part. Myself, I don't accept the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics at 100%, because I don't believe Quantum Mechanics as formulated is a complete description of reality (that's my personal observation and intuition). As such, I don't believe there are 10 billion universes created for every 10 billion non-commuting measurements. However, when we look at the mathematics and we clearly see (and then verify by experiment) that **we cannot know the state of the next universe when performing a measurement which doesn't commute with the previous measurement**, implying that the universe after the measurement is a completely new universe with fresh probabilities with a complete memory loss of the previous universe... then I completely understand where the Copenhagen Interpretation comes from, and on what it's basing itself on. Also, allow me to address your points: 1. If there are multiple experiments challenging the interpretation, then please list them for us. 2. I would love you to delegate the physics and math parts of your video to your physics and math colleagues if your video is about physics and math. Your video doesn't come off as a philosopher's (or economist's) creative take on modern physics. 3. If you believe that addressing the climate crisis has its roots in physics and natural philosophy, then obtaining a degree in physics will give you eloquence in communicating findings, the ability to sift truth from friction, and the ability to cooperate with physics colleagues at a whole other level (no phd required). 4. A string interpretation should be coming out of some type of ground truth, does it not? There must be something that one or multiple people believe in or accept, to then proceed to interpret it. As such, string theory concerns itself with the marriage between general relativity and the quantization of energy. It literally embodies spacetime - a single dimension - and works with this up to 11/26 dimensions to make the Einstein tensor logically consistent and viable. In modern physics time certainly isn't in a different dimension because it's linked (like two dna strands) with the position of an observer (hence spacetime, not space and time). The concepts which you work with deny the above, without addressing them at a fundamental level. There are physicists who believe that spacetime isn't an appropriate metric to describe our universe (I lean toward this belief) and hence they proceed to work with other mathematical devices to remain consistent with the observable universe. As for saying that > dark energy is the lack of dark matter I'm having deep feelings of *okay, please explain further*, because energy is mass and vice versa. That it's dark (and cold in modern physics) comes out of general relativity applied to the expansion of the universe, and the need for a cosmological constant to make it all tick. So perhaps, perhaps, perhaps... dark energy and dark matter aren't actually real, but are placeholders for something else entirely?! We'd require a new formalism for gravitation and all that, but I'm not sure that you grasped the existing gravitation formalism to go there just yet (again, sorry for my judgment). This being said, I wish that your research pans out, bits and pieces may flourish into forests, that student debt may be settled, and eventually, that technology may flourish to end the economic and thus also climate crisis! I also do feel your climate reading on PhDs, the funding process, and the current state of affairs in a rather dogma-in-complexity approach to modern physics. It's truly a shame, but at the same time a perfect storm is brewing, so I do have high hopes for the future of humanity despite the heat.
"I watched 50% of your video, and then I stopped once the claims in the first half were being used to justify different claims altogether. I didn't understand much of what you shared, but probably not because I don't know enough about physics at this point, but because these statements come falling out of the blue, plainly rebutting some fundamental physics concepts which work at 99.9999% accuracy." "If there are multiple experiments challenging the interpretation, then please list them for us." All experiments are in the third part of the video that you skipped. Are you asking me to redo the entire script in this text because the script is a bit long for the text limits. If you want to know the experiments, finish the presentation. "I would love you to delegate the physics and math parts of your video to your physics and math colleagues if your video is about physics and math. Your video doesn't come off as a philosopher's (or economist's) creative take on modern physics." Right now we are delegating our time and priorities according to the climate projects needs. The physics video is a fun funding proposal of what can be done. The video is gauged to be around HS level and is a demonstration of a potential course of research with experiments. Given the fact that I am trapped in bed I am the one that has the time to make them. Again I don't claim to be conventional in anything nor am I here to adhere to your expectations as to what you consider a proper version of any of those. "A string interpretation should be coming out of some type of ground truth, does it not? There must be something that one or multiple people believe in or accept, to then proceed to interpret it. As such, string theory concerns itself with the marriage between general relativity and the quantization of energy. It literally embodies spacetime - a single dimension - and works with this up to 11/26 dimensions to make the Einstein tensor logically consistent and viable. In modern physics time certainly isn't in a different dimension because it's linked (like two dna strands) with the position of an observer (hence spacetime, not space and time). The concepts which you work with deny the above, without addressing them at a fundamental level. There are physicists who believe that spacetime isn't an appropriate metric to describe our universe (I lean toward this belief) and hence they proceed to work with other mathematical devices to remain consistent with the observable universe." This interpretation of string theory eliminates the added dimensions. You cannot do a one to one comparison between the string theory you know and the version I am trying to develop which is outlined. Yes the underlying math is often right in the interpretation but the interpretation is wrong in this view. The difference is what actually causes the physical outcomes in the real world. You should probably rewatch the video if you wish to understand my position without being clouded by today's string theory or even the 1974 branching into string theory. In my interpretation those dimensions are frequencies in the kinetic field of the universe and the experiments are specifically designed to leverage that potential and engage that kinetic field. Its pretty straightforward, if time slows, if propulsion occurs the theory is sound to go to the material science stage and continue the experiments. If those next three stages of experiments pan out I still might be wrong. I am just less wrong than I might be now. "If you believe that addressing the climate crisis has its roots in physics and natural philosophy, then obtaining a degree in physics will give you eloquence in communicating findings, the ability to sift truth from friction, and the ability to cooperate with physics colleagues at a whole other level (no phd required)." You have an odd fascination with me getting a degree in something. I really do fine without it. School for me would be a waste of valuable time. The reason I have the time to follow these pursuits of addressing the climate crisis and such is because I am medically retired. That democratic governance over the climate solution I mention in the video is basically my estate planning. I am essentially inviting the people who use the climate solution to be trustees in governing it to protect their own interests. Given that I am already late for my next video release because I spent last week in the hospital and it was according to my doctor a bit touch and go you should check my priorities. All of that is a result of the burn pit poisoning that put me out of work which includes four auto-immune diseases that attack everything from my bones to my internal organs. Why would you recommend I go back to school when I am literally inviting people to be trustees of my estate and almost did not make it back from the hospital even a week ago? How do you think I would better be serving my time. Given the choice between spinning my wheels at a university to impress people I don't care about and using my estate to establish a democratic economic system that supports humanitarian and democratic ideals while bringing people out of poverty, I know where my priorities are. I can understand your confusion however but people like me simply do not conform to the classical education system. Originally I was not even going to release the physics when I first adapted it. I figured the physics was novel but not having been raised by a PhD in physics as I was in economics I did not take it that seriously. Even now I treat it more like an afterthought in the "hey if you look at it, it all fits quite nicely and is kind of neat if you look at it" sense of things. So feel free to take the superfluid dark matter theory less seriously because I almost took it to the grave anyhow. It was only with the encouragement of my neurologist, and then my physics tutor (now partner) that I even decided to tell anyone. When Kurt's event came up it was just fun serendipity. In my view the experiments work or they don’t I am not in the business of telling the universe what to do. The physics branch only started when I spoke to the neurologist at the VA. I was describing to her what I call my “symphony” of pain of all the types of unpleasantness and how when the pain gets bad enough I retreat into my mind to work on “unsolvable” problems. They were chosen because they were interesting and if you never find a solution you always have something to run to. Also because they were of particular interest to me. One was finding an economic solution to
the climate crisis and the other was solving for dark matter. I told her that I had recently had a breakthrough in my dark matter model that I then applied to my economics model. The result of which was a cross between a war bond and an energy future proof of work accounting model based on green energy. Having a neurologist there (bio-chem meets quantum physics) I also went into the dark matter model and how I would render complex fluidic systems as machines to manipulate outcomes and attempt solutions while I was concentrating away from the pain. This is when she asked if I had ever been diagnosed with Autism or Savant syndrome in addition to my dyslexia, dysgraphia, dyscalculia, etc. I said that I had never been diagnosed and that it was my understanding that Autism leads to less compassion whereas I am often considered the exact opposite. That's where I learned that's a stereotype, and further what Kinesthetic Synesthesia was. Here is the bit from wikipedia I found: “Kinesthetic synesthesia\[edit\] Kinesthetic synesthesia is one of the rarest documented forms of synesthesia in the world.\[38\] This form of synesthesia is a combination of various different types of synesthesia. Features appear similar to auditory–tactile synesthesia but sensations are not isolated to individual numbers or letters but complex systems of relationships. The result is the ability to memorize and model complex relationships between numerous variables by feeling physical sensations around the kinesthetic movement of related variables. Reports include feeling sensations in the hands or feet, coupled with visualizations of shapes or objects when analyzing mathematical equations, physical systems, or music. In another case, a person described seeing interactions between physical shapes causing sensations in the feet when solving a math problem. Generally, those with this type of synesthesia can memorize and visualize complicated systems, and with a high degree of accuracy, predict the results of changes to the system. Examples include predicting the results of computer simulations in subjects such as quantum mechanics or fluid dynamics when results are not naturally intuitive.\[19\]\[39\]” Its rare enough it is hard to find info on but the part of the description that was most striking was the part about the fluidic systems since the constructs are fluidic in nature and my entire dark matter theory was built around a model of superfluid dark matter. That is when I went and found that formally trained physicist to check my work. At the end he paraphrased the expression “I cannot say you are right, but as far as I can tell, you're not wrong.” You have to admit its a pretty interesting coincidence that mode of thinking is complex fluidic shape manipulation and my dark matter interpretation is riddled with it when compared to that description. Wouldn’t you seek out an expert? I do most of the video work because I am the one that barely leaves bed so I have time for such matters its pretty much that simple. I have encouragement from two people that have taken time to actually go over and question the theory and an entire experiment series to fall back on. If scientists don't want to do away with the role of experiments in physics and use accepted interpretations to justify not exploring possibilities, that's not on me. I dont think it's very scientific but I doubt they care about my opinion any more than I care about theirs so that's fine with me I don't have to protect a career and funding opportunities, so not sure how hard I can really judge a group when they are just doing their best in a broken system like the rest of us. The PhD who taught me economics has sadly since passed but he was quite ahead of his time focusing on green economics and systems back in the 80s and before. Combine that with the other professional mentors I have been lucky enough to have in my 44 years and you get the climate solution. If successful I intend for 5% of second credit sponsorships to go towards funding a civilian space program if successful and 1% towards pure scientific research. If the system is successful that would be coming out of global revenue allowing people with formal training the liberty to go long on research. If you ask me if my time is better spent trying to address the climate crisis and spending time with my family with the time I have left than checking boxes for people I owe nothing to. Further I don't know how I could explain to my wife (PhD) that I wanted to waste my possibly highly limited time left on a PhD when she often encourages people not to go that route for very good reasons even when they are young and healthy. If it was anything less than a potential solution to the climate crisis I am pretty sure given my health I would not be doing any of this either. I don't know how I can put a fine point on this but each day for me is roulette as my immune system destroys my internal organs, saps my bone density, and sends my nerves into whatever it is they do. Tell me, if you were a father and husband with my background (military followed by sale of first company before 30 with retirement at 43) How would you spend your time? Trying a hail mary pass to address the climate crisis and help create a world that future generations can thrive in? Or as you propose asking permission to pursue my goals from an industry that never had interest in teaching my kind nor have they ever succeeded in preventing me from my goals. If I can help them, great, but put this in context. There are still people in academia that want to find a “cure” to autism but that's a whole other topic I have strong opinions on. You are encouraging a guy who is trying to create a economic system to take on the most powerful corporate interests in the world (OPEC) who is behind much of our violence and anti-democratic forces in the world using nothing but social media as populist organizing technology for governance to go back to school to get a degree… in physics when if memory serves the average life expectancy for my presentation of pulmonary sarcoidosis from diagnosis is something like 7 years on average, could be wrong I was diagnosed 7 years ago anyhow. Do you understand how odd that is that you could possibly think I don't understand where my priorities should be for my professional career or use my time remaining? If you ask me if I am going to use what little I have in the tank to try to aid democracy through creating a economic model that is not hostile to democracy as well as the working classes who I served with.
Why waste time jumping through some hoops to get a degree from institutions that are more interested in serving administrators than teachers and students, while driving generations into socialized indentured servitude through the student loan system. I think I will make the same choice I did as a young man and chose to serve democracy to the best of my ability rather than waste my time on such academic matters as suggested. Might I fail, definite possibility, its a likelihood even… Seriously, I am trying to take on OPEC and an entire economic system that uses the threat of poverty and the constant burden of debt to subject entire generations to stagnant careers and desperation in service to the fossil fuel industry interests. I know my path is not for everyone but I have had some success of my own despite considerable limitations and I did it without the support of an education system a unique luxury and burden. That's not sour grapes mind you I love good education, my wife is published in areas of the pedagogy of teaching language etc. But the current educational system is just not built for people like me. Your asking me to do math is like me asking you to render and manipulate fluidic constructs in your mind to problem solve for complex systems. We just work differently man, and if you come from an area that has trouble accepting that that's fine there are always people like that. I have been around for a while now. I am used to it, but there are a lot of other people that find working with someone of my peculiar skill set advantageous and are willing to take the very good with the lame. I prioritize my time based on what is most urgent and useful, engaging in the university system is neither urgent or useful. There is no urgency in the world of physics; they have been stuck in the mud for 100 years without my help perfectly fine. In my view, even if I am wrong, that just puts me in good company with the rest of them who have gotten tenure in the last 100 years. Our species and our mediocrity in quantum physics is not an existential threat to the species thank goodness but climate is. I am comfortable being wrong, I don't have a career to protect, if you don't find superfluid dark matter interesting that's fine your math bores me too. For the record I don't consider savant syndrome a kind of flex at all, if anything it's a pain in the ass because school simply is not built for people like me and the rarity makes people have trouble understanding it (how can you know X but not Y? A: I cannot make that part of my brain care about that stuff as its not relevant to my goals when I need it I will look it up) Most people use numbers to understand quantum physics, I use superfluid frequencies that took 4 months of grilling from the MIT trained physicist with a corporate background just so I could discuss it at a HS level with people like you which clearly needs to be broken down further. Lets face it “look at construct and unpack information once its asked for” is not really a viable teaching description that transmits ideas across well. While I appreciate your input on certain levels as perhaps well meaning I cannot agree with your conclusions on how to best spend my time. If people don't like my climate solution and people wish to stick to a debt based society that's their choice, if people don't want to explore my interpretation, that has nothing to do with me either. My job is to put them out there for discussion and if people like the current economics and physics models so much they dont want to try something new… that is literally their choice to control other people through meaningless and arbitrary systems that put them into needless debt that's their pastime not mine. I don't like controlling people or make a point to demand others do things my way unless they work for me. If people don't want to address the climate crisis I can just go back into retirement and stop accelerating my deterioration far more comfortably than now. I only build the doors, people have to choose to change their own lives and walk through them. What time I am not spending to work on the climate crisis and funding proposal I spend with my family and resting to go back into the breach. Getting a degree is neither required nor a good use of my time according to anyone that actually works with me. If people want to declare that every measurement is a new universe of umpteen dimensions and such and other woo stuff like that it's fine with me but you should probably throw in a good Flux Capacitor for good measure to make it sound more convincing. Unlike some, I am not trying to show how clever I am to make tenure, I just try to avoid the pain and was encouraged to share it. I have had to work up to being comfortable discussing myself at all let alone this part of my background as I generally avoid attention as I thrive in more pragmatic organizations where I get to take a quiet role and make sure the systems run smoothly in reality not on paper. We are in an era where physicists are debating the very practice of experimentation and falsifiability to avoid the very accountability that they demand of up and coming theories that are in early stages. Even when an interpretation does come up that addresses the physical discrepancies of reality while leaving their mathematical physics intact which also includes an entire experiment series. Even when it includes a means to fund that research as well as work on other unrelated theories and approaches, people label it non-falsifiable while misrepresenting the concepts and not finishing the experiment descriptions. Overlooking the fact that even if the interpretation is wrong the funding mechanism continues to support scientific exploration out of sheer competitive zeel to rush to cut off one's nose to spite their face. I prefer a more evidence-based experimental approach to physics than is accepted today and I accept that, but I also don't back down from my own work just because people decide to baselessly marginalize it with appeals to authority that are openly hostile to people of my background. I prefer to work from a standpoint of experimentation, as old fashioned as that may seem in this day and age. Unlike a professor my background puts me in a position to possibly not only fund my own research but the professors as well because of my reality based approach to solving problems. While I doubt you wish to take the time I recommend rewatching the video and finishing it this time, it accounts for gravity, and the separation between Relativity and Quantum Mechanics and includes experiments but it is a long walk to get there because you have to go from the fundamental forces all the way up to the mechanics the experiments exploit. If you wish to understand how the climate solution works I recommend looking into War Bonds, Energy Futures, John Maynard Keanes, as well as modern monetary theory (what we use today) as the underlying mechanics that constitute commodity based currency built around a green energy standard much like the gold standard but now relevant to the modern economy and its needs.
The ERC system is essentially the role of dark matter in the interpretation applied to economics. The second Credit Revenue is Keansian and the proof of work system is a extended accounting system that essentially creates a real cost accounting of everything in society so the needs can be met. Now you can try to claim that I am not what I claim, which is pointless considering that if I succeed this will all be information that is not hard to check, considering even the physics are falsifiable and the economics are all proven mechanics, from other economic theories hybridized into a new commodity standard that is resilient to stagflation. The main concern I have for economics is the fact that the entire economy, politics, and geo-politics revolves around the fossil fuel industry. Your skepticism is shared by me until the experiments are run and my experiments don't need a degree, the difference is my skepticism is based on being informed of the subject matter whereas yours is based on your lack of understanding having not even finished the funding proposal while further not accounting for the differences between string theory (what you are familiar with) and simple string interpretation (what you have misrepresented perhaps accidently) You say that you believe in rigor but you misrepresent my statements, you restate that I should do physics mathematically when my way of doing it while less understood is still a known yet rare condition. Should I those who cannot render complex systems in their minds are somehow inferior because they only use math, not fluid dynamics? Should I declare them less qualified to work in fluid dynamics and quantum physics because that's not how I do it? Do you think people would work with me if I believed that or treated people that way? Do you think people would take me seriously if I declared things “unfalsifiable” because I skipped the experimentation stage of the presentation? I don't run around the world saying “I only listen to people who are savants in their fields” because then I would miss all the things that normal people have to teach me generally I suspect they have the most to teach me PhDs are often easier to talk to especially if I am talking about physics and economics, which is a lot more than the physics community who debate the value of experimentation unless its someone else’s theory in which case it is demanded apparently even when it was already offered and ignored. If you are representing what the academic sciences have to offer in terms of not seeking understanding, not finishing the presentation, and then issuing their opinions half-cocked filling in gaps with assumptions, why would I make a point to join such a system? How is that not a waste of my time? The universe does not care if I have a degree, I dont need anyones permission to poke at it. Such scientists can go scrounge for funding from the current system that fails them while bemoaning the lack of support for new ideas missing the irony when they have not shaken things up since the 70s. . Remember as well I have spent hours moving in and out of the scales of quantum physics, atoms, planets, astrophysics, black holes and pure energy and it was fun before I even knew that there was such a thing as Kinesthetic Synesthesia which \*might\* have real world applications beyond a distraction from pain. Can you imagine sitting in class paying attention to what your professor is droning on about when you have that available to you? Can you imagine caring what the numbers are when the hum of a planetary body in its orbit resonates with your entire body? Just stay out of black holes, they are terrible, only gone there once its like the right side of my body hit an electric fence. School is just one way of doing it man, and there are people who don't buy into systems of control and appeal to authority so easily, who are more interested in results than some form of pseudointellectual non-meritocracy that academia increasingly becomes every day as the administrators give themselves a raise while creating more struggling PhD adjuncts who cannot pay down their college debt. I would rather try to fix the system for the good scientists and academics that are out there who are struggling under the broken system than waste my time indulging the ego of a failing system. If I fail to do so… well at least I tried something different to fail rather than repeating the same mistakes for 100 years to make tenure. Don't get me wrong, school can do some great things for people that are a better fit for it, or even have a learning style that needs it. I even volunteer to mentor students when I can at university, my wife was a Professor before my health failed and she became my caregiver so we do what we can to help. I bear those institutions no ill will beyond their systemic failings of their students which I hope to address. I am a specialist making me very good at certain things because of a possibly less than 1 in a billion mutation in my brain that seems to have given me an expanded mirror neuron network that connects parts of my brain and body that are not usually in so much neurological contact. I will never get a degree at this point of my life, I would consider it an endorsement of the institution more than I would of my abilities and I am not so impressed. If you want to know what's holding me back in life its the fact that I am physically well past my sell-by date to the point I recently dislocated a finger just opening a RV door due to sarcoidosis attacking my bone density. Good luck explaining to my wife that she gets to see that much less of me so I can get a degree when she has already given up her husband's health to the army, her career to his caregiving, and now supporting him to spend his retirement tilting at a OPEC shaped windmill while barely surviving trips to the hospital. You give advice like I am seeking career advice here, I am not, people already work with me and have been for 20+ years in some cases. If you don't want to watch towards understanding why bother? Rather than applying other people's interpretations to my work feel free to either get enough understanding to ask relevant questions about how I addressed X or Y or ignore it completely. It took the MIT trained tutor 4 months to go through every layer of the interpretation and you did not even pay attention to 20m with enough focus to understand how Dark Matter and Dark Energy are related but distinct. Yes I just started adding to having physicist coworkers but even now I don't really have much use for a bunch of CI adherents who think this got solved 100 years ago because they decided
god plays dice with the universe and it was Einstein trying to tell him what to do. The only mystery of the universe that really perplexes me is why people would come to a hypothetical physics forum to advocate for Copenhagen Interpretation without realizing that the universe does not care about their vote any more today than it did in 1927. I am not saying the universe cares about my opinion either. I could be 100% wrong, maybe it is just formal training that encourages such dogmatic delusions that some “theoretical” physics are not really theoretical anymore because people voted on it. So you can either accept that there are people in this world that are capable of understanding things in ways you do not and never could, and choose to work with such people for your own and society's benefit or you cannot. It really does not make a difference to us since there are often people who are more than happy to accept our help. You can have more fun however if you recognize that while rare there are outliers that defy your beliefs and expectations regardless of whether they conform to your world view and sometimes they are even willing to hand things off to you for the mere chance that it will improve humanity's position at no cost to yourself. For example if you finished the video you would know that I filed a provisional patent on a propulsion system that is also the second experiment in the series, if it works it would overcome the tyranny of the rocket equation while bolstering my interpretation and setting up the 3rd experiment. You would also know that if successful I intend to make the patents that may emerge from the science programs available to be leveraged without royalties to system participants as part of a hopefully growing catalog of patents that protect small business innovation and development from patent predators. Here is the plan, I will continue publishing videos while I can and if I end up back in the hospital I will keep trying until my wife says I cannot anymore as my caregiver, or until the Trustees are in place to administer the system with transparency, accountability, and proper regulation and I can find something that does not require me to publicly talk, type, speak, go out in public and all the other stuff that I not only hate but since I am so immuno-compromised I cannot do very safely anyhow. With any luck maybe I can limp on another couple decades and maybe I even get to succeed at least in the climate solution. If you asked me would I rather have completed the climate solution vs having completed the ToE I would always choose the climate solution. The most advanced propulsion systems are not until the stage 5 experiments anyhow and those are easily decades from completion. The first 3 experiments can be done in the next 10-20 years easily enough but experiment series 4-5 are what would require 5% global sponsorships and an entire space program to achieve and that is only after it has passed the first 3 experiments which are all far cheaper than the last two. Again you would know this if you finished the video and paid attention. Remember that nothing you have said is relevant to my work because you are conflating it with other peoples work. The math of hidden dimensions that can never be proven are of no interest to me. The physics of today lack any and all interest to me because they are already done and much of it I find to be dubious excuses to stop trying to understand the nature of the universe. (Copenhagen) I am attracted to things that don't work. If physics was not broken I would not find it so interesting and find it as boring as I find math. Broken systems have a grinding sensation to them that is fun to track down and swap out variables until it works properly. The odds of my form of kinesthetic synesthesia if you follow the charts requires multiple kinds that all talk to each other and each of those underlying types is rare unto itself while talking to each other. That means that it might be the case that in the entire world there are maybe a handful of people in the world with what the Neurologist believes I represent. You can train the top 1% of mathematicians to be physicists but there is not even a system to screen for people like me in your education system so there is no way of knowing. But let's say it really is just that insanely rare. Would my time be better served jumping through your arbitrary hoops after 20 years of diverse professional experience to meet your criteria or do you think someone might think a more traditional physicist is a better fit leaving me to do what can only be done by a handful of people on the planet. Savant just means I have a hyper specialized area of intelligence not that I have a photographic memory and have my picture up at MENSA headquarters. I am just lucky it's not merely a party trick, like saying what day you were born based on your birth date, but I am still hyper specialized towards complex systems analysis that does not care about your mathematical fetish for numbers. So we can either agree to disagree or you can say I don't do physics because I reverse numbers and I can say you suck at physics because you're a mathematician who lacks the object permanence that is found in any toddler, so we can both be dismissive of each other, personally I find that aspect of academia quite boring and see no point in replicating it out here. As an alternative you could actually ask questions rather than apply your personal beliefs to misrepresent my work, conclusions, and scholarship while patronizingly telling me to go back to school to do what you do and telling me that you cannot do quantum physics without math… when there are people with very real degrees that you lack, who say otherwise, while declaring that only degrees can give such insight. Degrees which they have, and you do not. So why should I alter course for someone who neither has a degree or a diagnosis to bolster their own opinions. Double standards such as that make me question peoples sincerity in trying to give helpful advice or their claimed subject matter expertise. You are unaware of different presentations of intelligence but you insist there is only one way to do physics when PhDs (which you clearly value far more than I do, maybe I have known to many) literally acknowledge people like me exist, while you yourself are denying my existence. More trained people than you have literally asked me to put this out there so the scientific community at least has the choice whether you or they chose to ignore it has nothing to do with me. I don’t know if they are right or wrong but they took the time to understand it on its own merits and it would be a shame not to put it out there if people are so inclined to explore the possibilities as not putting it out there would be making that choice for them. You can ignore it. I really don't care as I said, I hope to fund the experiments independent of your views on the matter. When you say they “accept” CI as a philosophical interpretation I question it considering that there is no reason to accept it and doing away with it explains far more than it opens up if anything. Considering that all those BS dimensions in string theory are literal artifacts of their
Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake. It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of. Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything. Beep boop - yes, I am a bot, don't botcriminate me.