Відео

7:10. 15:35 landau 24:00 35:20 Pippin

6:00 13:55 24:00 milisec. Pulsar 35:30 39:29

It does it both ways, believe me, as a Centrist debater. The only properly proven boson is indeed The Photon, and it carried the EM 'force', and the electric force is the base force, all other 'forces' are emergent. There is a unified field of 2 particles, + and - cells in superposition forming +- cells that can be split, bonding to neighbours to form a positron (+-+) and electron (-+-)... Next level is proton (pep) and anti-proton (epe).. Neutron (pep_e).. Beta- decay = pep_e => pep e... -- Beta+ 'decay' = NEW e_p pair with the electron retained (pep_e) and proton expelled.. Muon (ep_e, anti pep_p).. Tau (epep_e, anti pepe_p), Kaons / Pions as some combination of , + and + (non-split) free cells that turn back into balanced, +- field. Neutral, empty field has no resistance, gravity and part of the strong force is the field inwardly repelling matter= broken free field.. Mathematicians who can be bothered should be able to GUTOE it with a bit of sums. -- POLECTRON FIELD: cell: a + & a - particle split by Full Split Energy as a positron+ & electron-. Bonds to 12 neighbours MATTER: p+ / e- = 1.5 cells, +−+ /−+−. Splits field into + & − shells. particle bits: free +, −, +− SPIN: centre polarisation axis LECKY: absolute charge. MASS: particle lecky. INERTIA: rebalancing field kicks mass. STRONG GRAVITY: field repels mass MOND: lecky density slows acceleration/TIME and shrinks cells, loss to gravity gradients grows voids, aids acceleration BIG BANG: more proton-antiproton pairs malformed as proton-muon than antiproton-antimuon so hydrogen beat antihydrogen POSITRONIUM: e_p. Muon: ep_e. Proton: pep. Neutron: pep_e. Tau: epep_e. Neutron mass is halfway between muon and tau ANTIMATTER: 1,2 e_p pairs annihilate. 3: proton+anti proton or muon+anti muon. 4: neutron+anti neutron. 5: tau+anti tau WEAK FORCE: unstable atoms form and annihilate e_p pairs. BETA- DECAY: pep_e => pep e. BETA+: pep + new e_p => pep_e p NUCLEAR FORCE: neutron electrons bond to protons. ENTANGLEMENT: correlation broken by interaction? Physical link? BLACK HOLE: atoms cut into neutrons fused as higher mass tau cores (epep). Field rotates. Core annihilates: ep => cell? PHOTON: cell polarisation/lateral shift wave. LONGITUDINAL WAVE: gravitational wave, neutrino: 1 to 3 cell wave DOUBLE SLIT: photon/particle field warps diffract and interfere, guiding the core. Detectors interfere with guides COMPLEXITY: Closed system complexity reduces over time. Uniformly (dis)ordered (hot)/cold field is simplest

Thank you very much for this great lecture

Behind successful man, there is strong woman…They’re twin flame, even in the end, they separated

intro @1:30. Lecture @3:20

Very nice and I do thank you

Yt listeners thx

Professora, você não falaria algo ruim de Einstein, só falaria a verdade sobre ele.

Consider... Free Neutrons are unstable. Neutrons are only stable when they are in a high energy density condition such as a nucleus or neutron star. The two different methods for determining neutron lifespan impart very different energy densities. The beam method which has longer lifetime measures IMPARTS more energy to the neutron environment than does bottle method. This is why the discrepancy.

Albert was a bad character. She helped him so much and he cheated on her. Perhaps this destroyed Edward too.

Great talk❤

M sorry

I love physics 💙

There is an elephant in the room explanation for dark matter.. General Relativity predicts dilation, not singularities. In the 1939 journal "Annals of Mathematics" Einstein wrote - "The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the Schwarzchild singularities (Schwarzchild was the first to raise the issue of General Relativity predicting singularities) do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters (star clusters) whose particles move along circular paths it does seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that more general cases will have analogous results. The Schwarzchild singularities do not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light." He was referring to the phenomenon of dilation (sometimes called gamma or y) mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer. It's the phenomenon behind the phrase "mass becomes infinite at the speed of light". Time dilation is just one aspect of dilation. Dilation will occur wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass because high mass means high momentum. It's the original and correct explanation for why we cannot see light from the galactic center. It can be inferred mathematically that dilation is occurring in our own galactic center. In other words that mass is all around us. Sound familiar? This is the explanation for the abnormally high rotation rates of stars in spiral galaxies. The "missing mass" is dilated mass. It also explains why all planets and all binary stars have normal rotation rates, not 3 times normal. Dilation does not occur in galaxies with low mass centers because they do not have enough mass to achieve relativistic velocities. To date, 6 very low mass galaxies including NGC 1052-DF2 and DF4 have been confirmed to show no signs of dark matter. There was clarity in astronomy before television and movies popularized singularities starting in the 1960's. Einstein is known to have repeatedly said that they cannot exist. Nobody believed in them when he was alive including Plank, Bohr, Schrodinger, Dirac, Heisenberg, Feynman etc.

Thanks for a Great presentation helped settle a bar bet for me yes for the win.

Typical, a woman trying to take credit for the man's work.

🧐

If AI were real it would tell us all about manmade weather manipulation, the HAARP program, chemtrailing, aerosol injection, atmospheric heating of the ionosphere and all the other dangerous things we're doing to the atmosphere. I asked Chat GPT, open AI about 9/11 and it spouted off about the 19 hijackers and all the nonsense broadcasted by the mainstream since that day, so that's how we know it's all just programming, this stuff is nothing to fear and it's also not going to rescue us, we're here to fix things ourselves.

Great talk, thank you

Great lecture.

Brilliant question!

Thanks for upload.

The Bernie Sanders meme 😂❤

What knows Jonathan Oppenheim about the universal soundhelix which he is using? The Semantics of Derivational Morphology: Theory, Methods, Evidence (Linguistische Arbeiten, 586) by Sven Kotowski (editor), Ingo Plag (Editor) Since Radboud University confirmed that Nomen est Omen (our names say who we are), we know that a name like Ingo PLAG helixes in PLAGIARISM, because words lengthen from the back (adjectio) and dissolve from the front (detractio) like in Dutch WRAAK (revenge) that helixes in German (w)RACHE. In the announcement, Plag talks about “innovative methodologies” by which he means the “universal sound helix”. Unfortunately, Plag copied these “new and very interesting insights” from the books about the Universal soundhelix (klankhelix, Lauthelix) that are in the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek (German National Libraries) in Leipzig and Frankfurt. Plag worked at the same time with a Dutch female teacher at the Philipps-Universität-Marburg. She was falsely accused of sexual harassment, which was followed by immediate dismissal, while the actual background came to light by a notorious German whistleblower. He accused the president, several deans and the ombudsman of covering up her research results with which Ingo Plag plagiarizes in all his publications. In the announcement he talks about “oft-neglected fields” of certain directions in linguistics. It is indeed true that Plag and all his colleagues (including Noam Chomsky) never came up with the idea of sound rules expressed by Goropius Becanus. In addition to adjectio and detractio mentioned, Becanus pointed out the permutatio in which words must be read from back to front. Instead of 'neglect', one should speak of ignorance. In addition to the well-known rows P, T and K, Becanus also pointed out a fourth row W that was never understood by Plag and Co. It is indeed painful that linguists themselves never came up with these ideas, but what falls under the heading of criminality is the fact that they completely ignore the research results of Becanus and the soundhelix (klankhelix, Lauthelix). The question is therefore not whether we should judge this book here, but rather the authors, professors and employees who are given carte blanche through publishers affiliated with their university when it comes to offenses such as plagiarism and making false accusations. For example, the Horizon 2020 project, with subsidies amounting to millions of euros, is solely due to the rediscovery of the soundhelix. With the soundhelix one can not only reconstruct the past, and then correctly; one can also use it to spell and therefore predict the future. It is therefore not just about 'predicting semantic properties' but about a whole system that, like the Oracle of Delphi, can indicate future discoveries. If we look at religious books such as the Torah and the Bible, for example, we can predict the words to which these books refer using the soundhelix. From STAR helixes STER because vowels helix alphabetically (a > e > i > o > u). Via detractio helixes out of STER > (s)TORA while the adjectio is the cause of the extension of the word. From TORA helix (t)ORAK > ORACLE, but through the permutatio we now also know that from ORAK / KARO is helixing, that helixes in KORAN, because there is a second octave available, which gives the vocals a higher pitch, just like in Canaan. In addition to TORA, however, TUAS also is helixing, which is TUAS GLOS, the BIBLE, which literally means 'second writing'. The Oracle of Delphi is never taken seriously by male scientists, because this knowledge was controlled by women. And here is the point, because it now appears that women during pre-Jewish matriarchy already had more knowledge of linguistics than men do today. So that's where the shoe pinches. So the KORAN is not the third book, but the fourth! KORAN helixes in QUA'RAN, but than in QUINTESSENCE, which deals with FIVE. This fifth book has a pointe, a clou, because that is the discovery of the soundhelix self! The soundhelix forms words automatically over which humans themselves have no influence. This phenomenon is therefore 'divine' (i.c. female, but also related with ‘devil’), which leads one to conclude that beliefs in a God (or Allah) is based on a kind of superstition. It has nothing to do with a male God, but only with a Mother Nature! The soundhelix has a MA-the-MA-tic pattern, which is indeed related to the mama’s who were the first human beings who could count, but which is indeed related to the algorithms referred to by Plag in his announcement. The concept of GOD can be translated via permutatio into GOD/DOG, which in Dutch means HOND, which via adjectio helixes in HONDERD, which helixes in HUNDRED in English. But in Dutch, HONDERD is helixing in HUN DRIETJES (their three) alias 1-0-0 in which the ones and zeros refer to algorithms. In Plag’s books, you will never find a reference to the Dutch language, while it is now indisputable that not only German helixes out of the Dutch language, but also English ánd French. And this finding turns the history of Europe upside down. But what is even much more interesting is the discussion going on in astrophysics. Jonathan Oppenheim wants to have discovered something new by combining certain theories when it comes to quantum mechanics, gravity and string theory. In English, a ‘string’ refers to 'underpants'. During the pre-Jewish matriarchy, women were in charge, which is indicated by the saying 'wearing the pants'. Now the image of the molecule that refers to the SAMARIUM is shaped like a pair of pants, which deals with the number five: the pentagram! SAMARIUM contains the name of the Holy Mary who had a baby as a virgin. A synonym for baby in Dutch is a 'broekie' (pants)! The soundhelix is able to give us insight into knowledge about cosmology without us having to study the universe. GRAVITY helixes out of Dutch KRAP which helixes via permutatio in PARK, but P > F and K > C which is pronounced as S, resulting in GRAVITY > FORCE, i.c. FIFTH FORCE! Particles split in two, which is associated with SCHAAR (scissors). Astrophysicists still don't know why Schrödinger's CAT can be dead and alive at the same time. Women are called FOTZE in German, which means helixes out of Dutch VOD which means RAGS in English. Out of SCHAAR(s) > RAGS is about reduction. The VOD / DOV helixes in DUIF (pigeon, but also ‘peace”) ánd VOODOO, which gives the connection between the soundhelix alias THE WORD (Jesus) and religion a different dimension. For centuries, people have been led to believe that bad behavior will get them into hell. This threat came from outside. People now hardly believe in an all-powerful God. Knowledge about the soundhelix should lead to the conviction that there is indeed something like an omniscient mechanism through which people are stimulated from within to behave well. We call this behavior charity. Books like this by Ingo Plag are therefore extremely relevant. But it has now also been proven that Ingo Plag himself is an idiot, because through knowledge of the soundhelix he should know that his plagiarism will come true! Pale(s)tin(t) means "white faces", since the Jewish people are not coming from Israel but out of the North of France: IJZERHOEK! Ingo Plag knows this. Nice regards, Ans (Johanna) Schapendonk

It seems wrong to me that the notion that the superposition of the moon on the left and moon on the right is equivalent to 1/2/moon on the left and 1/2 moon on the right is wrong. It's a superposition of orthogonal states and just as with spin, if you do a measurement (like dropping a test mass) you will get one or the other not some combination.

I don't get why there a 'black hole' information paradox. Since black hole horizons take forever to form for an external observer the paradox never occurs.

So if matter remains quantum and space-time classical, and both at the end are expressions of the same, how happens that transition?

Very interesting and well presented. Thank you.

@13:00 Feynman's argument was erroneous, far too idealistic. Many people have pointed out before that in classical mechanics we have measurement limits too, but they are not so crisp, they are operational, you can think of it as ħ → 0 but not ħ =0. The reason is because matter is clumpy, which is really a "quantum" postulate, but CM has to use it or it cannot well-describe the world. However, it is also erroneous to assume the Moon can be placed into superposition. It's atomic parts can, but maybe not the whole thing. That "maybe not" is critical, if it holds then Feynman's argument does not work. A Moon or large rock will always go through only one slit and you'll never see interference. That can be a prediction of JO's team's theory (and many other gravity theories too that admit classical--quantum coupling, like Gauge Gravity in the STA).

where does the stochasticity comes from?

@4:00 There is more nuance than Jonathan provides. If you wish a more natural physics, and accept *_global_* spacetime is distinct to *_local_* matter, so GR is not going to get quantised, there is a remaining problem, which is what the heck is matter, and why does it couple to spacetime (i.e., why is gravity a thing?) The obvious answer is they are not entirely different, matter _is_ spacetime, but with local symmetry (local rotations between states). But that gives you a completely different fresh perspective - you realise gravity was always quantum mechanical, because particles are topological defects in spacetime, they have to be★, if they couple to gravity/geometry. ★ Otherwise you are doing magical metaphysics, like Newton, with angels, or whatever, responsible for ensuring things behave according to the sterile mathematical cosmic rulebook.

I've been saying for 20 years it doesn't make sense to quantize gravitation

Both the video & audio are glitching. In some spots, this makes it very hard to follow the lecture. They need to fix this. PS - I’m watching this on a very fast fiber feed & I don’t see this problem on any other videos, so it’s almost certainly a problem with what was uploaded, not at my end.

video lagging

😮

We come from the future

whow, 4 years ago, huh?

goat

Probably gaining some traction now....

Amazing work! Noble for sure, if this theory is proven 👍 Wow!

Very nice talk!

She was greater than Einstein she did the Mathematics, but together briliant. Sir Isaac Newton was greatest scientist ever.

Most Nobel prizes are a collaboration and they give award only to the lead professor.

Manoj kumar 2nd lieutenant general 9th infantry hertzen forest Italy..

Einstein seemed to have a high regard for Emmy Noether, who’s contributions to mathematics and physics are on a par with those of Einstein .

Albert is the reason she is famous.

I love to think of Mileva as the maths, and the practical side to Einstein great imagination and infinite questioning on the true essence of reality.

By the way regarding basic physics: S. I. RASOOL and S. H. SCHNEIDER from NASA GISS wrote in 1971 the following in an very important pioneering SCIENCE article: "From our calculation, a doubling of CO2., produces a tropospheric temperature change of 0.8°K. However, as more CO2, is added to the atmosphere, the rate of temperature increase is proportionally less and less, and the increase eventually levels off. Even for an increase in CO2, by a factor of 10, the temperature increase does not exceed 2.5 °K. Therefore, the runaway greenhouse effect does not occur because the 15 micron absorption CO2 band, which is the main source of absorption, "saturates," and the addition of more CO2, does not substantially increase the infrared opacity of the atmosphere. " S. Ichtiaque Rasool (1930-2016) was then Chief Scientist for Global Change at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and Steven Schneider, worked then for NASA GISS and became later a co-founder of the IPCC. The basic physics of the greenhouse effect were very well understood since the 1910s, based on the quantum mechanical studies of Max Planck and Karl Schwarzschild. Rasool and Schneider calculated therefore on firm and proven basis already in 1971 the warming due to additional CO2 emissions as so small, that the water vapor feedback could not create much additional radiative forcing. Highly exact satellite measurents confirm today, 51 years later, that they calculated spot-on correctly. CO2 was obviously already 1971 a "toothless tiger" regarding its greenhouse effect. My question to Mark Zelinka: did the basic physics change since 1971 or better, since 1910?

From the cosmic 🪨 oils within ✨️ and out, the universe organic materials visible and invisible looms Supreme as it's rocks 🪨 of gold flies throughout the milkyway and beyond. The liquid mineral befriend the star's from its sweats of fire 🔥 creates infinity of pure blood particals of life, an at its realm behold the God of the cosmos!