Відео

Thank you for this explanation 🙏🏾

Was wondering in your model where does the background radiation come from if not from the big bang? Or is just there?

Hahaha😂

I Suggest that you please read the works of Mr. Parmahansa Tewari, in his seminal thesis titled “Space Vortices of Energy and Matter” he describes in a simple manner many of the most complex manifestations of nature. He calls the Ether the S S Medium, and ascribes very simple properties to it, such as 1) S S Medium is incompressible 2) S S Medium moves but only at the speed of light 3) S S Medium has no mass (Though it forms mass and inertia) Through such properties Mr. Tewari is able to explain the existence and stability of electron, inertia, mass, gravity and even light (light is understood as a collapsing gravity wave, it actually comes in from infinity to what we understand to be the source of light). The most profound and yet simple explanations of magnetism and current are derived. I found the work very inspiring in the fact that it explains the paradox of “ single photon double slit experiment” and time dilation as well. The work of Mr. Paramhansa Tewari can be seen at www.tewari.org/about.html I see that his books are on Amazon. With me you can connect at adess.singh@gmail.com

Truly nonsense! Thanks for saying that!

"Gravitational constant does not change over time, and is the same everywhere in the universe." Thank you, sir. Now, how is this news?

How is your frozen chicken doing? Change still happens in time.

❤

Good to see you sir.❤

I was at first boosting Kerr's talks, but a lot of relativists have pushed-back. However, Kerr states the Penrose singularity theorems are good. What he was arguing was that it does not logically follow that every _physical_ black hole has an actual singularity where light rays end. The singularities are mathematical idealizations, and inside any real black hole (which will be a hot mess) one cannot really say what happens. Only if there is no hot matter inside will there be necessarily an actual ring singularity. I think Kerr's critics have been a bit unfair to him and have been talking only about the formal mathematical solutions, which are analytic, and not "realistic". Having noted that, it does not matter a damn if GR admits singularities, all it means is that the equations are nondeterministic. But is that not what you need to get a quantum theory? (Yes it is.)

How is consciousness infinite? Since most people think it is ephemeral finite creatures. Or is there an infinite consciousness that created life?

That was good that theory always bothered me. I always said it's either eternal or needs would have to be created by something not nothing lol

What do you think about this 21 reasons? m.ua-cam.com/video/PKMD7ELiAIs/v-deo.html&pp=ygUScmF5IGZsZW1pbmcgcHJvdG9u

Interesting that this kind of experiments have not been done before, geniuses are spitting abstract theories every now and then, instead should be sweating in a lab. Good luck

You might consider looking up a Faraday disc, homopolar generator, unipolar inductor or cyclotron.

I resonate with you.

This is obviously pushed by them to discredit "conspiracist"

Voda je ravna od tod tudi beseda vodoravno in horizont je vedno raven… Ahhh in ja veliko je razlag o letnih casih in kako poteka noc in dan na “ravni” zemlji. In ja seveda človek je bil na luni s predpotopno tehnologijo, ki jo je NASA izgubila…. danes tega nismo zmozni narediti… ma ne me J**** Kdor razume razume.

Kake neumnosti...nič ti ne.pomaga fizika ...vse tu razložijo...nisi raziskal nič in bluzis...si v platonovi jami

Buonasera finalmente ti sto ascoltando. Complimenti Massimo

Guarderei i tuoi video molto volentieri ma conosco solo l'italiano. Massimo

People have been telling me i don't know anything about physics for years because I agree with you. Thanks you for coming forward with this!

Gran bel video inoltre. Concetti molto profondi

Bellissimo il suo libro,ho appena finito di leggerlo . Complimenti perché è l'unico che sa staccarsi da idee a cui tutti devono adeguarsi Grazie Mi sono iscritto al suo canale sperando faccia sempre nuovi video. Complimenti e grazie

Ho comprato il suo libro: stupendo eccezionale Finalmente uno che ha il coraggio di andare controcorrente. Anch'io la penso come lei Complimenti e grazie

Similar bullsh*t is the idea of a "big bang" in the sense, that everything was created out of nothing. The origin of the big bang is not a singularity, but it just "is". The question "what is the beginning of the universe?" is nonsense. This question can not be answered by scientifc or mathematical reasoning. Every serious mathematician/scientist knows that.

Please look at this atomic orbital explanation and tell me what you think. ua-cam.com/video/Kl0-sKbZsKM/v-deo.html

At least the eleven mentioned quantum properties were a good refresher

The word "quantum" plays in 2024 for New Age clowns like Deepak Chopra the same role the word "magnetism" did for Theosophy clowns like Helena Blavatsky

Chopra is nothing but a snake oil salesman. You have to be an absolute imbecile to believe anything he says.

I think this idea of analogy keeps repeating itself in history. When we invented books, people thought the universe was a book. Same with wheels, and clocks. People thought the universe was a clockwork or cyclical wheel. That's what is happening with computers right now.

He's an arrogant shit. I remember when he was at a conference with a bunch of different scientists and he claimed that he knew more than all of them. Ok, bud.

❤

You should probably say science as we know it.

You and your group has a long hard fight ahead of you. I also believe that it's time to expose the Big Bang for what it is. I wish you and your group the best.

ua-cam.com/video/RsZcMRp2CrI/v-deo.html уніполярний генератор змінного струму. Принцип дії уніполярного генератора той самий що у МГД генератора.

There's no such thing as ghosts

The Mystics of Old stated that time is a construct [a consequence of mass/gravity and space] that ensures that everything does not occur simultaneously. They used a book as an example; the pages of a book separates one event from another.

One problem you may be encountering is that to an astrophysicist, the big bang model does not explain the beginning of the universe; it means something very different to what someone with no education in cosmology thinks it means. When we look at other galaxies, they are all moving away from each other, this implies that if you go backward in time, they will have been closer together. That is all the big bang model says. Things used to be less spread out and now they are more spread out. No astrophysicist will claim to understand how the universe began, nor will they say the big bang created the universe. Someone without a proper education in cosmology, or someone who has been taught some things by someone who doesn't have a proper education in cosmology, might think that the big bang model attempts to explain the start of the universe and that it makes no sense. Which of course this makes no sense, its not explaining the start of the universe, as I previously explained. It explains the general trend of matter in the universe since the start. All of this has been observed and our models are trying to explain what we observe in space. This brings me nicely to singularities. These were theorized, models were developed, hypotheses were created, and then we went and tested these hypotheses through observation and found them to exist. We now have a radio-astronomy "photo" of a singularity, we see the effects of singularities in space through pulsars and quasars. There is no debate on whether they exist or not, they do, we can see them everywhere in space. They might not make sense unless you have a good understanding of relativistic physics, which I imagine someone with no or little education doesn't have, and I know that astrophysicists do have. The universe doesn't care about what makes sense to the human mind. It just does what it does. We educate ourselves to try and understand what it does better. Don't expect someone without an education in astrophysics to fully understand extremely complicated topics. The real problem you are facing, is that physicists suck at explaining things in simple terms, and they suck at educating the public about their work.

Kudos to you for calling out stupid people. The social stigma to doing so has given these people traction and power in our modern world. So what we have now are the lunatics running the asylum, and any attempt to block them results in being cancelled. What we're left with is a world where black is white, up is down, and men are women.

Totally agree! The big bang theory is possible because we allow these academia's to foo themselves and then in turn fool our children

He studied at the University of Ljubljana. Seeing that he is somewhat educated we can dismiss what he says.

another clickbait YT production with zero information content

Generalise much?

Saying the quiet part out loud. It's all speculative gibberish.

and....you are....? who the fuck are you man? a highly educated person?

''La fisica quantistica non è la pasta''. Potrei usarla come frase di introduzione alla mia tesi triennale

You’re clutch is slipping, buddy

Every industry has now become a self-licking ice cream cone. I expected that from Wall Street, and Big Pharma, but Physics is the one place I would have thought could have stood up to the University Ponzi scheme in the name of science. Turns out, not so much.

The issue you are having is that you are asking physicists about what they THINK might happen in regions outside of their theories. The fact that you missed that no physicist in the field likes the singularites at all (neither the one at the start of the big bang, nor the gravitational ones) shows me that you have not attended the General Relativity courses. Since that is precisely why there is the hope to be able to quantize gravity or to gravitze QM, as this would resolve some of the issues concerning the singularities. Heck, even Kerr himself dislikes the black hole singularities like the plague! Also, nobody really says that the universe came from nothing. Big Bang itself does not care what was there before (be it nothing, or the inflaton field or whatever) it is just concerned with what happend after time 0. Big Bang is the best we're having, deal with it, or make a better proposition. That would however need to reproduce things like the Cosmic Microwave Background (which relates to Lambda-CDM, the flattness and the horizon problem) and our current measurements of Hubbels constant. If you think you have that, publish in Nature or Science and then wait for the invitation to Stockholm.