Offset your carbon footprint on Wren: www.wren.co/start/unzickersrealphysics The first 100 people who sign up will have 10 extra trees planted in their name!
@@ExcelinusCom Not true. Most if not all of the carbon in a tree comes from atmospheric CO2. This, however, is beside the point. It is shocking to find someone with "Real Physics" in his name pushing this unscientific nonsense about carbon footprints. Carbon is not a pollutant. It's plant food. [Edit: OK, I watched the rest of the video and Unzicker expresses skepticism. I stand corrected.]
@@ExcelinusCom First thorium then nuclear fusion once that tech matures. Offshore wind turbines should be used to desalinate sea water, but nothing beyond that.
Planting trees is still a good idea. The animals need them. The best thing we can do right now is boycott the commercial fishing industry. They drag nets across the ocean floor destroying the ecosystem
@@User53123 if you count the forests that coal plants produce burning coal is carbon negative - so switching from 'gas' power to coal is "green" - the problem is the "greenhouse" problem has been mythologized - It disappears when oil gets to costly. The "problem" self solves ...
Hello there. I am a fan of your videos. I think that my overview of the topic is broader than most. Your concerns are marginally answered for the case of inhomogeneous material properties, where obviously the speed of light changes within the material, based on the various inhomogeneities, and Maxwell's equation performs sufficiently well. This is typically overlooked by the physicists' educations where mostly the equations are considered in a vacuum, but in the computational mathematics and engineering community this is a well-known fact. Regarding the Lorentz invariance and the structure of equations, the root of the explanation and why it is appropriate goes back to the topological structure of the Maxwells equation. It assigns the physical, measurable quantities to the proper three-dimensional mathematical structures, differential forms, and forms a de Rham complex. Consequently, the assigned physical quantities are independent of the coordinate system of the physical coordinate frame, thus Lorentz-invariants as well. Some references: Bossavit, A.: Differential geometry for the student of numerical methods in electromagnetism. Technical Report, Électricité de France (1991) Hehl, F.W., Obukhov, Y.N.: Foundations of Classical Electrodynamics - Charge, Flux, and Metric. Progress in Mathematical Physics. Birkhäuser, Basel (2003)
In Born & Wolf's Principles of Optics, they split up the 4 Maxwell Equations in the way you indicate on your slide near the end. Their justification is that the pair of B/E equations Lorentz transform together as a "six-vector" (skew-symmetric tensor) as do the D/H pair. This is natural as the D/H pair account for the presence of matter (charges/currents) while the B/E pair are the vacuum equations.
The problem with the Lorentz Transformation (which Unzicker is probably aware of) is that it absolutely destroys the orthogonal relationships between previously known independent variables. In effect, E bleeds into B, etc., That is extremely shaky mathematics and permanently ruins your ability to model the entire situation of multi-body interactions and multi-directional interactions. Furthermore, it is quite unnecessary. You can use the Maxwell Equations properly to describe moving particles or charges without the LT and arrive at far more accurate Physics. The current Physics community only needs to get educated on the proper use of the Maxwell Equations.
Quite interesting! I would like to offer several hints: 1) de Broglie pointed out, very early, that a photon may not be perfectly massless. That is, that it would have some aspect of weight with regard to the EM elastic background field. 2) De Broglie also found that c squared does not mean the speed of light squared but rather it results from the dispersion or wave equations that any matter or light particle encounters when it nears another charged particle or EM field fluctuation. 3) De Broglie also clearly said that there exists both a particle and a wave that results from the particle's transition through space. That important observation has apparently been either ignored or forgotten and thus wave/particle interaction can never be resolved without considering such repercussions. 4) The Maxwell equations in vector expression lack the ability to properly express micro rotations of basic particles. Maxwell was not remiss in understanding that limitation and, in fact, attempted to express his equations in quaternion formulation.
A photon is superconductors gains mass due to interactions with all the stuff (it is no longer the same photon, but resembles...). But light is not always the fastest object. Hint: when a charged particle moves in some medium faster than the speed of light in that medium, it emits Cherenkov radiation.
Wow Unzicker. Your VSL describes what actually is happening with ether and transparent matter (matter is attracted to the planets). It's the same thing. I no longer think mass increases at high velocities after I found out about Einstein's e=mc2 derivation atrocity.
When I was in a Thermodynamics class, we derived E=MC2 from Maxwell's equations. I couldn't do it now, but it's cool to know I did it once upon a time.
Yes, but for electromagnetic energy, this is only math and is a physical wrong, because electromagnetic waves are massless, and their energy is through the quantized law of Plank.
@@user-dialectic-scietist1 The quantisation of the EM field is not what gives it energy! Even something massless can have energy. It can even have momentum!
In addition to my previous comment, the modified metric system without kilogram can also eliminate coulomb and amper. Electric charge unit is replaced by derived unit also [m^3/s^2] and Ampere converts to [m^3/s^3] It would be useful to rewrite metric system form of Maxwell equations into kilogram Coulomb Ampere free system remaining fully within the base units of second and meter.
Spherical geometry can give you the topological surface for positive and negative charge. We have to square the wave function Ψ² representing the radius being squared r² because the process is relative to the two-dimensional spherical 4π surface. We then see 4π in Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π representing our probabilistic temporal three dimensions life. The charge of the electron e² and the speed of light c² are both squared for the same geometrical reason.
"Electromagnetic Fields and Waves" by Lorrain & Corson (2nd Edition) contains two problems relating Electrodynamics and Cosmology. Problem 4-22 starts with: "In 1959 Lyttelton and Bondi [Proc. Roy. Soc. (London) A, vol. 232, p.313] suggested that the expansion of the Universe could be explained on the basis of Newtonian Mechanics if matter contained a [tiny] net electric charge." A follow-on problem, Problem 10-11, mentions that correction terms to curlB and divE due to the creation of this charge should be on the order of R^-2 where R is on the order of the radius of the Universe, so that the new terms would be negligible at all length scales but cosmological situations. This hypothesis is consistent with the linear velocity-distance observations. Rather thought-provoking questions for an Undergraduate E&M textbook!
14:07 > _"Superposition principle: Electric field is a rotation of volume elements"_ 14:31 > _"oscillating electric as a superposition of fields superimposed in x-/y- direction to create a slight electric field in z direction"_ woww, this is something similar to what i was thinking last year.
i'm not a physicist by any stretch, just enjoy watching your videos. my question regarding something like Michelson-Morley is: We are assuming that the photon is moving in a straight line from its source. i.e. how do we know that the photon that was emitted at point A is the same photon that will be measured at point B?
So there must be a reason why Dicke himself didn’t pursued this idea further… Basically it would add some complication to the GR without any tantalizing advantages(like reducing the number of constants of nature). And when I think of it now, it reminds me of MOND! Another set of alternative theories, that works well… but only on exceptional case while complicating the GR…. None the less I wish you luck on your search Dr.Unzicker!
@@TheMachian Do you professor follow the work or had any interest in scalar-tensor-vector gravity of Dr.John Moffat? It is kind of a MOND but with very interesting proposals that at least to me looks promising.
Honest question Ive never seen anyone answer in 3 parts: 1a) Is there a single citable case where either Bnought or Hnoght has been observed to be actually 0? 1b) If yes to 1a, then what lenght and time scales? 1c) If yes to 1b, then how do these domains scale? I ask becuase fundementally I cannot after several years find even a thought experiment that could allow for these scenarios to occur over any conditons, and thus am left wondering if we've choosen to use an impossible premise as the linchpin of physics, simply becuase it is mathmatically convenient in the short term. If we consideration every minute defect in the lattice of any real conductor (which is realistic experimental viable) we cannot have any feild truely equal to 0, just limit functions that simply approach it.
Loving your videos. Would love to see you work through stuff with pen and paper or marker or whiteboard. You would be a good tutor. Reminds me of Oxford.
Arnold Sommerfeld starts his "Electrodynamics" (1952) with discussions on §6 - "The Role of the Velocity of Light in Electrodynamics", §7 - "The Coulomb Field and the Fundamental Constants of the Vacuum" and §8 - "Four, Five or Three Fundamental Units". He concludes with two intriguing sections: §37 - "Approaches to the Generalization of Maxwell's Equations and to the Theory of Elementary Particles" and §38 - "General Theory of Relativity: Unified Theory of Gravitation and Electrodynamics". Sommerfeld's selection and sequence of topics are completely different from those presented in graduate-level texts; it is a refreshing change.
Everybody makes the wholistic wrong assumption (and presumption) that the photon is a singular object - when in reality there are 3 photons and 2 photinos. So there is no singular light, energy, mass, and velocity constant. The bigger 3 photons are bosons, with light speed (a constant), but with different h constants with different mass and radius. The smaller 2 photinos are dark matter bosons, with less-than-light speed (variable light constants), also with different h constants with different mass and radius. So electron photon, muon photon, tau photon have their own h constant. electron photon boson h = c (mass electron radius electron) muon electron proton boson h = c (mass muon, radius muon) tau electron photon boson h = c (mass tau, radius tau) Electrino photino and graviton photino have their own h constant. electrino photino bosino h = (
Doesn't nuclear decay depend on the fine structure constant raised to something ridiculous like the 400th power? it's probably safe to assume it's constant - or changing very slowly indeed
@@alexshenderov4975 Some isotopes do change their decay rate over the course of the year or day, or with the position of the moon, but these changes are rather small to be explained by changes in the fine structure constant itself, unless those changes were ridiculously tiny. The current models explain this with slight variations in neutrino flux, but I suspect it's something important to do with gravity. If you look at how the fine structure constant behaves in atoms, it is analogous to a refractive index. Thus in the VSOL model, gravitational field could indeed superimpose a tiny change in the refractive index/fine structure constant of atoms. If that is true, it leads to a testable hypothesis: compare decay rates to the measurements of an atomic clock, which would be less affected by changes in fine structure constant, as a probe heads from earth's surface into deep space. We should see some disagreement if this is true.
@14'10. It is the picture of 2 wires with electric current going in the same (parallel) direction where the magnetic induction field creates Florenz. I remember this experiment at school many years ago. 😁
Would a Maxwell equations in quadtrernions be fruit full here? Not sure but didnot Maxwell write the equations in quadterians but was reformated into a vector field?
Did you notice that when Faraday discovered electromagnetic induction, the electron hadn't been found yet? Electromagnetic induction shows change in magnetic field → generation of electric field, but if electrons are used, change in magnetic field → movement of electrons → change in electric field. This means that the electromagnetic wave travels through the medium through electrons-charged particles. The speed of light varies with the density of the medium. Light in space travels faster than the speed of light on Earth.
Alexander, you are on the right track except for a few things: 1.) Time is an emergent property of C. 2.) C is a momentum wave through Aether. 3.) C remains locally the same speed because of #1 above. 4.) From a static view C is changing. 5.) There is no electro-magnetic waves (only magnetic) unless you are arguing that electrons are everywhere and light is being carried by that - which would be dumb. 6.) Contraction ideas are dumb because of #1... 7.) Red shift is 100% caused by #1 because as the universe ages it has more aether within it - so time is faster. 8.) Black holes are emitting this aether (from their poles) because they are the largest and most powerful mass crushing objects in the universe. 9.) The reason light speed diminishes around masses is because "shadows" are cast by nucleons within the ether field. This is because C has two parts to it. There is a momentum wave and then there is the particle moving through space. The denser the field the more momentum exchanges. This is why light speed is greatest in clean space. All the above can be modeled using nothing more than F=M*A calculations with absolutely no created terms except for mass size. Because...the size of eather is unknown. But if you simply say 1 aether is 1 then we can derive mass scaled from it.
@@fredzemail74 Thanks for the encouragement. I have THE solution but it will make people look dumb to have believed what they do now. But I give them a break and say it was not their faults but a group think effect.
1) 'c' can be a scalar function of space-time coordinates. This means that epsilon_0 and mu_0 are no longer constants in a theory that is not strictly linear, and there are many examples of this in physics theory (a transition of linear to non linear theory where non linear terms are not longer negligible). 2) Maxwell-Lorentz theory (Lorentz force) does not satisfy Newton's third principle of motion for the specific case of Magneto-statics, such that the Lorentz force law must be replaced for a force law that DOES satisfy all Newton's principles of motion. 3) Coulomb field speed measurements prove that the Coulomb field velocity is superluminal, much higher than 'c'. 4) Maxwellian CED mass theory shows that E = 4/3 mc^2 for a spherical charge distribution that has velocity 'v', which is not correct So we need more corrections to the Maxwell-Lorentz than 'variable c', and it turns out that real scalar fields -div(A) and -d(Phi)/dt have to be introduced in order to solve all the mentioned inconsistencies. This is NOT a breaking of U(1) theory, however (has nothing to do with the introduction of 'photon mass'), but it is a breaking of Maxwell-Lorentz gauge invariance, such that A and Phi are no longer over-determined. The resulting Classical ElectroDynamics theory (I called it General CED theory, because it describes a much wider class of CED phenomena than standard Maxwell theory) shows a link with spin 1/2 of elementary particles (a combined transverse-longitudinal wave), and describes a spin 0 superluminal and longitudinal Phi-wave (longitudinal E = -grad(Phi) , scalar B = -d(Phi)/dt ), which can be interpreted as an electrodynamic Pilot wave (has v >> c), which was introduced by Louis de Broglie. The pilot Phi wave interacts with (guides) an electrodynamic spin=1/2 elementary particle that has a spacial 'extended' charge distribution. Elementary particles are certainly not "point like", which gives rise to the notorious infinities that cannot be "normalised" away. It was proven by Freeman Dyson that the QED Feynman diagram series leads to infinitely high values, so QED is fundamentally incorrect. It is absurd that QED predicts an instantaneous Coulomb near field (virtual photon entanglement, infinitely high Coulomb field velocity), where QED "normalisation" depends on the potential gauge freedom of Maxwell's CED theory, and secondly, Maxwell's theory describes (on a macroscopic level) that the Coulomb field velocity is just "c" and not infinitely high! This is just another contradiction! This 'linear' model of pilot waves and elementary particles cannot be fully realistic, it is a linearisation of a non-linear reality with fractal dimensions of an infinite number of terms that DO converge to finite values (according to well known chaos theory and fractal dimensions of finite values).
Also keep up the great work! I'd love to put you in touch with Todd Desiato, David Chester and others who are working on similar theories: if we all put our heads together, I'm sure we can flesh out the rest of this VSOL model
It is possible to derive the inverse square laws for electricity and gravity from conservation of momentum. Then using the retarded potential integral derive all of Maxwell equations and similar equations for gravity to take account of the delay in the propagation of forces. This says that Maxwell equations should remain the same for empty space. If the space contains charges as well as fields then the permittivity and permeability change from those of empty space and the equations become nonlinear Maxwell. The same is true for gravity equations. I worked this in more detail here; www.m-hikari.com/astp/astp2021/astp5-8-2021/p/alrabehASTP5-8-2021-2.pdf
It's not only a questions of variable speed of light, it's a question of variable speeds at all. Rememder speed is a combined unit - distance over time or distance times frequency. If we remember how clocks work and why they run slower if they're in motion, we will know, why we can't really mesure only one speed for a single motion. Now think about some near superfluid particles, which motion is constant against empty space or some aether in it, if you like - you'll have to define a speed for it and this could be the speed of light against the vacuum or better the speed of light against empty space (or aether). Second we'll have to define a meter in a way like once the so called "Urmeter". Then we all will know what time is all about. It only manifests in clocks and nowhere else. So yes, the Maxwell equations are correct. Our wisdom about time, speed and movements aren't.
Of course the speed of light is variable, depending on the density of the medium it travels through. Our idea of lightspeed has always been noted explicitely in a vakuum, and even then a gravity well has its effects on light.
@Unzicker's Real Physics Alexander, I made some errors when typing my response to yours, They are nested. I cannot see time stamps on any replies other than in relative days.. I put my previous response with unfortunate errors corrected below. UA-cam is not the best way for message exchanges. Researchgate is so much better... Corrected response: Andrew Wutke 2 days ago @Unzicker's Real Physics Thanks for you suggestions. Your book is now in my Kindle.. . Although laws of physic do not depend on the choice of units of measure, some choices give clarity others obscure. The [m^3/s^2] suggested by Maxwell have some advantages. 1. Gravitational Constant G disappears (Newton did not know it) 2. Ampere and Coulomb disappear and, 3. Mass and charge have the same units [m^3/s^2]] 4.Guess what is non dimensional ratio of (electron charge to electron mass) squared? - the electrical to gravitational force ratio for two electrons 5. Planck mass = Planck Length ^3/Planck Time^2 as expected 7. Electric Field E has units of linear acceleration [m/s^2] while Magnetic Induction B has unit of angular velocity instead of Tesla 8. No G in Einstein Field equation just K=2*Pi/c^4 - Space time without kilograms sounds exciting They may be more interesting consequences. I will be interested in rationale and effects of mass unit being inverse of acceleration unit. Reading your book now. It’s a great read….
Not only is the speed of light variable, but time is also variable… in perspective, one hour in summer appears longer than one hour in the winter.. mechanical measuring tools live in the present reality, but the human conscience lives in relative time.. where time for us speeds up or slows down according to necessity..
Speed of light _at a distance_ is variable according to the standard general relativity (it's called the Shapiro delay). It's an effect in a sense analogous to light bending near masses.
Well, the speed of light (of course!) varies in material objects (say: glass). The form of Maxwell equations suitable for non-vacuum is the one with E, D, B, H. 4 equtions are no longer enough, of course. You need to add equations that explain how D depends on E and H on B. The dependence need not be neither linear nor local in time. This is what is a very standard knowledge. You may try to treat vacuum as a kind of a material and set D(t)= integral K(t, t') D(t') dt' for some integral kernel K. Now, K(t, t') = epsilon_0 * delta(t - t') in the vacuum we normally assume. H(t)= integral L(t, t') B(t') dt' for... Check something else - look for observable consequences etc. Or, instead of simple non-locality in time go general and assume non-locality in space and time... But I cannot believe this approach wasn't tried. Even if just for fun.
Cosmologically, let us consider that the B field locally is not worth considering, because the electric field gives rise to it based on relativistic travel of the electron anyway ( "No, Changing Electric Fields DON'T Cause Magnetic Fields": ua-cam.com/video/uZnXhRgztEg/v-deo.html). I like what you're doing. Don't stop, no matter what the uneducated spam you with. you are on to something important.
The topic of scalar waves meaning longitudinal and only transverse waves in electromagnetism is a discussion that goes back to Hertz vs Maxwell. Whereas Maxwell wanted rot (b) = 0 but Hertz was inclined to thing they have an element there too. - this was becoming a topic again between Konstantin Meyl and Turtur but is widely dismissed. - I wonder if we cannot simply measure the effects of Maxwell missed a part. - this would allow wireless transfer of energy and might therefore be hidden science...
Put an eyeball into atomic orbit and atomic size relative to its environment, turn a similar flashlight on. I would assume this perspective which we cannot attain but is there would obviously yield a variable light speed. Leaving light speed is like leaving the atmosphere of speed size and space. Light speeds are constant, but they are octaves away and different as well. If you think light speed isn't variable you can look at black space. The still black background is an octave above ours, where light (motion) is too slow and big to ever see. The things we can see on our octave of light are the componenets of the above octave.
Electromagnetism was my favourite area in physics: i was fascinated by the properties of magnets and puzzled how or why a moving magnet could produce a corresponding electrical current/field. Maxwell is a true hero. Einstein said one needs intuition to be a good scientist, and viewing gravitational lensing effects over great distances it seems obvious the speed of light must be variable... but who would dare push such a notion when the mainstream have galvanised it's a constant. Except we are forced to believe that in the very beginning there was this so-called inflationary miracle, where all our known laws were broken, & somehow everything expanded at speeds greater than that of light... which is impossible for anything with any mass. [sigh] {edit} ... the math is over my head. [We've planted ten more trees in our garden already this year!.... and the 17 hectares we have in SE France has been left to regenerate as natural woodland]
Re testability, if c is position-dependent, wouldn't one expect it to also be anisotropic? That might be a simpler initial test rather than trying to directly measure the local field of c(r). (Field as in a function of position.)
The increase in carbon dioxide is related to the climate. Oceans hold about 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere. When the climate warms, more CO2 is outgassed to the atmosphere. Likewise when climate cools, as in the last global glaciation, the oceans suck CO2 out of the atmosphere. During the last major glaciation, CO2 atmospheric levels fell to only 180 ppm. This is only 30 ppm above the level required for land plants. Life on land came close to extinction. At 150 ppm CO2 plants cannot grow. They will die. Then the rest of life on land will die too.
Interesting association of mu0 with density of ether. It is possible to eliminate kg unit from the metric system and replace it with derived unit of [m^3/s^2]. In such system of units mass density dimension is [1/s^2] just like inverse speed squared. Given eps0 can be made non dimensional 1 like in Gaussian cgs system mu0=1/c^2. Interesting coincidence.
@@TheMachian Thanks for you suggestions. Your book is now in my Kindle.. Although laws of physic do not depend on the choice of units of measure, Some choices give clarity others obscure. The [m^3/s^2] suggested by Maxwell have some advantages. 1. Gravitational Constant G disappears (Newton did not know it) 2. Ampere and Coulomb disappear 3. Mass and charge have the same units 4.Guess what is non dimensional ratio of electron charge to electron mass squared 5. Planck mass = Planck Length ^3/Planck Time^2 as expected 7. Electric Field E has units of linear acceleration while Induction B has unit of angular acceleration 8. No G in Einstein Field equation just c squared only They may be more interesting consequences. I will be interested in rationale and effects of mass unit being inverse of acceleration unit.
In my opinion if we call the constant c =cm (m for maximum) then we have no problems. The speed of light can vary as much as it want's to without causing troubles. We have lots of other constants in physics that are not connected to anything physical so why must maximum speed be connected to speed of light? It appears to me that you are trying to justify VSL. I would have thought that it it is obvious that the speed of light can vary. We keep saying in vacuum so obviously it is slowed down when not in vacuum. What should be a constant is what we specify as c but why must that be the speed of light? I would say that there is probably a maximum possible speed and in vacuum light may equal or at least get very close to that speed but why lock light speed to maximum speed? We wouldn't call it human spaceship super if we miraculously managed that speed. In regards to power usage and co2 yes every body should do their best to reduce power usage but if every person that wants to support it go out and plant one tree they may do better than joining an organization that plants 10 trees due to their overhead in administration. Make your own energy in stead with solar panels.
That just tells me you did not watch the video (in which I presented my latest publication, hm...) Btw, why are you trolling a channel you dislike? Are you Rajiv Kumar from KIT#?
@@rajivkumar-gw3ig Yes, science took a huge leap forward when theorists replaced one "aether" with no less than 5 disparate "fields" that still require magic particle interactions in extra dimensions with splitting timelines and alternate universes just to explain the lack of an explanation for the fundamentals. Bravo!
@@rajivkumar-gw3ig "Aether" as a specific theory may have been discredited, due mainly to its absurd level of incompleteness, but aether as a concept has never gone away. It has only been renamed to explain gravity and magnetism and subatomic mass and the very existence of fundamental particles. And considering the documented accounts of scientific achievements throughout history, I am extremely honored to be called a heretic by the zealots at the church. Thank you.
Another theory of Dirac states that physical constants aren't constant; their value depends on the age of the universe (or where in spacetime they exist) This would be huge if proven to be true because it would create a theory that reaches even further than Einstein's
@@TheMachian Thanks! I think a lot of these theories seem plausible. I think the next big step is to devise a way to show that they are true. Einstein showed that light bent in a gravitational field. How can we prove VSL? Well, I thought of something simple and easy- it could possibly be similar to a space probe mission; where we send a space satellite deep into space outside of our solar system, and have it send signals back to us. Based on the speed we anticipate it to be moving, we can estimate where we expect it to be during a certain period of time, and we can calculate how long the signal should take to get back to us vs. its actual time to determine if VSL exists... Of course there are some obstacles to get over: like creating a module powerful enough to drive a signal that far through space without any interference or distortion blocking it from us and what not Also, we should have a general idea of the area outside of our solar system we are sending it to that way we can anticipate its environment and prepare for its surroundings. It may not be an experiment with 0% risk, but how many experiments are? You could maybe at least get a std. deviation of error you would expect to have so you could compare the results to... Ex. 1: An asteroid could hit the satellite, but where we are sending the satellite or based on the large gravity fields elsewhere in space- asteroids may be easily avoidable... Ex. 2: It would probably be nuclear powered, but if it has a solar power module on it as well, then what are the chances sunlight isn't shining directly where we want it to on the satellite? how can we adjust its equilibrium to position it how we want it while its traveling? will it effect its speed? So based on some of this, you could give a room for error around 1-5% or so of whatever you calculated the time it takes the signal to get back versus what it actually is... and that actually may be a bit high so you may have to take into account other factors or has to try to make your results more reliable...equip the satellite with sensing abilities so you can have some other variables to play around with and let you adjust your calculations even more to reduce the error % when comparing results...
Also suppose gravity (and other constants) is different in this newer area of the universe. Will our satellite be prepared to handle it? Maybe we can use a special material to build it that way it can constrict or expand a bit based on its surroundings... I wouldn't expect the change to be too drastic when traveling at a consistent speed from one area to the other, but you never know...
When light is born it has many legs to walk on, however as it travels far and wide it encounters other creatures which it bumps into and some of its legs get broken resulting in a slower gait.
(1) At 2:00 Unzicker mentions the VSOL near mass. (2) At 19:50 Unzicker mentions the VSOL in a gravitational field. (1) is correct. (2) is not correct. (2) is due to (1). (2) duznt cause (1). In the past i have said that Einstein said that light is slower near mass, ie Einstein predicted (1). But today i am thinking that Einstein actually said that light is slower (or seems to be slower) in a stronger gravitational field. Anyhow, i have always given plaudits to Einstein for saying (1), albeit even tho he used erroneous reasoning. But today i am thinking that he actually said (2) - in which case he didn’t predict (1) - in which case the sweet plaudits must be less sweet. So, i can't remember which gedanken Einstein used to lead him to his VSOL - i don’t think that it was his silly elevator (chest) gedanken - i think it was his silly spinning disc gedanken. Einstein had at least say 30 gedankens, & none of them could possibly have been re the effect of mass on the speed of light - in fact it is almost impossible to contrive a gedanken that could tell us that light slows near mass, ie (1). In future i will try to refrain from saying that it was Einstein that told us that light slows near mass - he didn’t - it was me that told us.
They are surely correct to a high degree, like Newtonian mechanics! But it is not easy to test very strong fields. Only there deviations are expected, if ever.
"We have a huge increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, which humanity is repsonsible for" - according to Unzicker. Q: How do we know that? A: We measured it. Q: Where was it measured? A: At one SINGLE location, in Mauna Loa beginning in 1957. Q: You mean prior to 1957, no one measured atmospheric CO2? A: Of course they did. They measured CO2 all over the place using chemical means. From values of 440ppm in 1820, to 410ppm in 1940, ... There were 90000 measurements of CO2 done at 138 locations, on 4 continents between 1810 and 1961; showing variations from 440ppm to 290ppm. Murray Salby on CO2 emissions: ua-cam.com/video/YrI03ts--9I/v-deo.html
:( I can not see where the 'glitch' is here. Is it the over interpretation of the mathematical models? The syntactic error of interpreting parameters as constants? Or the philosophical hole in mathematics - the 'theory' of REAL's and 'real numbers'? I understand the mathematics BUT I am ignorant of the conventions and 'jargon' of the physics here - The question of when you can cancel the/a "divide by ZERO" - thank you for your efforts to disentangle this.
What is this « discussion » on EM constants ? Since their value is 1 anyway in natural units ! Meters and seconds, etc, are human arbitrary irrelevant units, as arbitrary as Babylonians feet and pharao arms…
@@TheMachian Have you? Because you don’t answer my question…taking the tangent in a sort of stonewalling. No clear and neat answer from you. And more generally are you sure not to build a clay giant, with sand feet. Because to paraphrase Newton, « aether » for you, seems to be a sphere whose circumtalking is everywhere and the central definition nowhere. So where is your serious definition of « aether »? And idem for « space » and « time » concepts. And when you talk about « defects theory », what is the thing that is defectuous? What characteristics? What structure? What experimental evidence? Without any cristal clear definition, all the theory of « aether », is based on sand. Finally are you conscious that the very word « aether » that you use all the time, is itself a highjack of the immemorial central concept of « Alchemy », which is also named « Quintessence ». Do you seriously believe that an extravagant fantomatic « elastic matter » is actually this « Aether » which is the central concept of the great Tradition? Quintessence is not matter, not a phenomenology, nor a « vacuum ». It’s beyond those two complementary categories. So what is this « aether » you’re talking about? What is you clear definition of it? What are his characteristics? Which experimental data confirms its existence? What is the mathematical model that represent it?
The universe might be like an ocean awash in a variable spectrum of acceleration waves, but also riven with more focussed acceleration currents? A common example, when looking at the galaxies with our photon sensing eyes, our acceleration sensing bodies are not sensitive enough to record the simultaneous acceleration waves produced by the galaxies, though their motions are likely responding to both their more-local galactic spin in spiral galaxy cases, and the spin of the larger helical vortices channeling their free fall through the universe, toward the attractive spacetime curvature in their direction of corkscrew movement? This may be a reason why spiral galaxy components appear to spin "too quickly", the larger acceleration information is not being included and compensated for, by the 3D vector matrices being used, as the total acceleration vectors are not included. More simply put, we are observers in an increasingly accelerating universe where its constituents are in free fall, and their visualized acceleration reflects this. We, when calculating mass, using the constant speed of light and gravity, given our position firmly planted on a moving spheroid, see local gravity as always appearing to be attractive. But electromagnetic and acceleration radiation both traverse through spacetime at the constant c, it's time and spacetime curvature, and their spectrum of frequency and wavelengths, i.e. universal acceleration, that is locally variable/flexible? Perhaps if astronomers had access to the universal filament helical acceleration data and added this helical acceleration tensor to their vector math calculations, they'd see galaxies are free falling and accelerating as such? So would light and universal acceleration then be entangled at the constant c from Planck tick 1? Forget sterile neutrinos where are the new "graviton" sensors so we can put that particle's discovery to rest, pun intended!
The problem is that you are not taking into account general relativity. You aren’t considering the variable rate of time and the differing measures of distance. Einstein burned into peoples minds that the speed of light doesn’t change. The units of measurement to measure the speed of light do change over large distances and galaxies cover large distances. That means that the speed of light does change over large distances as observed by us. The speed of light doesn’t change. The rate of time changes and the measure of distance changes… *which effectively changes the speed of light as we observe it over great distances.* Time runs faster in outer space where there is no matter and much less gravity. This is the reason the outer spiral arms of the galaxies move much faster than expected. It’s because events take place at a faster rate the less gravity there is. Distance is expanded in outer space (not expanding). Plasma jets do not stream of five times the speed of light since the distance is expanded away from gravity wells. Time doesn’t run at the same rate everywhere in the universe. Time runs faster in outer space. It just dawned on me the other day that a thousand years and a single day happen at the same time in different places in the universe. It's simple (observed) general relativity. Time slows down and distance is contracted because of gravity where there is a lot of matter. Conversely, time speeds up and distance is greatly expanded where there is no matter in outer space. This eliminates the need for dark matter since time is sped up in the outer spiral arms of a galaxy where there is not nearly as much matter. It eliminates the need for dark energy where distance in outer space is expanded where there is no matter. So the result of general relativity is that billions of years pass by in outer space (13 billion years) at the same time as thousands of years pass by where we are inside of the Milky Way galaxy. ...! Billion of years and mere thousands of years are the same thing *at the same time* in deep outer space and where we are, according to physics and according to relativity. In review, time slows down where we are. Time speeds up with less gravity so the outer spiral arms of galaxies move faster. There is no need for dark matter. Distance increases where there is no matter in outer space. There is no need for dark energy to expand space since the expansion of space is from not having any matter far away from the galaxies. Deep time (billions of years) and thousands of years exist simultaneously in this universe where there is no single rate of time or measure of distance! Just think what could be the reality *when* the photons register with our eyes or our cameras/detectors and there is a collapse of the wave function as seen or detected by us within our dilated time and distance. (Our rate of time is not the universal rate of time, especially for photons.) Conclusion: The time it took for Creation and since Creation in the Bible is absolutely true! Time itself is a (real) fabrication.
There is a conflict in using mathematics in physics; to understand it, one needs to realize Euclid made a mistake in his first assumption that a point has no measure:?) That mistake leaves Euclid and all of its derivatives irrational. Only rational numbers are necessary and sufficient for usage in the scientific method. This is why Planck's discovery E=hv is an irrational geometry; to make a rational geometry, Planck's constant h must be rational. Currently, the irrationality comes from the garbage in the units assigned. This is the reason Gauss did not publish the n-geometries he discovered. Try to find anything in space:?) E=nv is the geometry, and n has to be a rational number, and it s the only rational geometry suitable for physics and the scientific method. The observable is the rotational Energy, and its uncertainty is +/- one revolution unless the object being observed is polar, then the error is 1/number of poles.
Alexander, I would like to contact you and engage in a conversation with you, I might have a few answers, if you are interested? I can only refer to my ideas as conjecture at best, due to not having any degrees myself (if physicists are using AI and machine learning to attempt to explain things, without understanding how AI works, I might be worth a shot). Don't look at Aether as a solid with stress tensors. Think of space as a kind of Aether, I like to think of it as causal mass made of voxels (Empty vacuum space consists of voxels at the lowest energy state). Space is a fluid of voxels with no space between them. This is why compressing space with movements cases increases of mass. This also explains momentum. Renee Descarte was wrong with vortex theory, but not completely, just on scales of magnitude. Everything is compatible with VSL.
Feel free to contact me via ChannelInfo, yet do not be disappointed if I do not have time to dive into your theory - there are simply too many such requests. Instead, try to write your ideas down in a decent manner and publish it on vixra.
@@TheMachian Fair enough. Unfortunately, there is more on the subject than I can put in a paper or two, that is going to sit in an archive that most are not aware of, or access. I do thank you for your time and wish you well in your pursuit of science and the truth. I would be better off writing and publishing a book, even if no one reads it. If my book is correct, and discoveries are made that I predicted ahead of time, I can at least say..."Like in my book, lol. With all sincereness, thank you for at least responding Dr. Unzicker.
@@plasmaphysics1017 Electron charge, sorry (not electric charge). I need to find the paper suggesting electron charge may not be fundamental, that is, it may be different depending on external conditions (it was big news last year, so it's around somewhere - blasphemy in physics to suggest this). As we all know, the dark matter hypothesis was a solution to the "missing matter in the galaxy" problem. If electron charge is not constant, that would certainly affect matter at a large scale, how it accumulates, aggregates, etc (even the frequency of light emitted from atoms) and the gravitational constant G would have to be variable as well (more blasphemy). A gradient value of G going from the center of a galaxy to it's rim could be worked in to describe the problem of angular momentum. So G where we are at 27K ly would be different than G at 50K ly from the hub of the Milky Way. We've obtained G to high accuracy in our solar system and local cluster, but extrapolated this to the entire cosmos. Perhaps it is not accurate to presume this constant is, well, constant. I don't believe anyone has a paper on this. I'll investigate the news of electron charge i heard a year or so ago and post the link.
I'll be the heretic for a moment. Let's take a volume of space between a perfect absorber of light and a collumated source of, say, infrared light. Now, we accelerate the absorber toward the source at 0.75C. What is the amount of energy absorbed? Not only do we have a normal doppler blue shift, but we have a further lorentz length contraction. The energy in a photon is the square of its frequency, or inverse square of its wavelength. We then have to ask where the energy over that emitted by the source comes from, and that creates some problems for the idea of relativity being... relative. As such, I am more a fan of scalar fields as a model for things, and generally dismiss tensor models, as you can effectively derive a scalar model from a tensor model as space is volumetric and the speed of light not instant, as it would need to be for relativity to work.
@@TheMachian Having watched some of your videos it’s clear that you go into the history of physics however afaik you’ve not touched on the history of epsilon naught although you mention that constant often. Epsilon naught can be given any value at all. It’s a meaningless confusing constant. Ofcourse “epsilon r” with its square root “n” is a meaning full concept.
Under probabilistic correlations circumstances, what is correct correlation-tuning is the same question-answer as What is Truth, cause-effect. Reiterate e-Pi-i superposition identification in terms of log-antilog relative-timing Quantum-fields properties and you get bubble-mode quantization formed of i-reflection reciprocation-recirculation that scribes the features presented in Geometrical Drawing and Perspective Projection holography dimensionality.., which is merely a clue to students who have Faraday type visualisation abilities and can extend their perceptions to QM-TIME Completeness Actuality.
Please provide a breakdown on how academia and the scientific community has falsified climate data to embellish global warming. ...Then provide a accurate assessment of the real data that supports this global warming hypothesis.
Dr Unzicker, you are excellent but you're credulity towards atmospheric carbon dioxide being significantly the result of human activity is disappointing. It without a doubt is the result of the planet being warmed by the Sun as part of a long-standing cycle, causing the oceans to heat up and release carbon dioxide. That's how it's always been with prior warming events. The oceans hold 54 times more dissolved carbon dioxide that exists in the atmosphere. And you know from chemistry that the balance between carbonic acid and carbon dioxide solubility is temperature dependent. Warming proceeds the off-gassing of carbon dioxide not the other way around. Man's contribution is minimal until someone can prove the opposite which they have not done.
Fine Structure Constant Copyright 2022 Wardell Lindsay (ne*/25e/3)^2=n^2e^2/2 9/625e^2 Alpha=9/1250 n^2=7.2m n^2 ! I have the answer, but I am not in the "Club". Faraday was listened but not in the Club!
Don't forget that mass effects time--greater mass=slower time, infinite mass=infinite time, no mass=no time--and that speed is distance over time. So: relativistic time relative to mass=variable speed of light. Photons have no mass in a perfect vacuum, there ain't one, though, and whenever light strikes an object it creates energy. Also, don't forget that gravity was debunked in 1919 and replaced with General Relativity. GravitY is explained by "Newton was wrong." GravitATION is explained by General Relativity. My own opinion is that "dark energy" is just anti-photons, but they can only be measured as ordinary photons because of the photoelectric effect, but whenever two photons interact they create matter and antimatter; light is noninteractive with light, so one of those interacting photons must be an anti-photon. Whatever, I never went to high school (secondary school).
@@maskon1724 Which parts are "Mostly all of it"? What makes it "word salad"? What in specific is "nonsense"? Show your work. Prove that it is nonsense. Demonstrate that you have some notion of the meaning of what you claim to be nonsense. That you hate me does not mean I am wrong about anything, it just means you hate me.
How you amateurishly derive VSL, claiming Newton was when his equations are still relevant in certain situations, claiming that anti photons are dark energy, basically all of it. Hilarious how you want others to show work when you don’t here or while attempting to discredit a title of a video you never watched. Hate isn’t involved here, just a fundamental disagreement with your ideas, which of themselves show no work, showing only that you should have furthered your education beyond middle school.
Human emissions of warm water vapor, which is not in natural equilibrium with natural bodies of water, explains both the urban heat island effect and recent climate change far better than does CO2. My firm prediction is that eliminating CO2 emissions will have almost no effect, because human emissions of warm water vapor will continue and are unavoidable. I also think that increased atmospheric water vapor is hugely beneficial with little downside. Importantly, Arctic sea ice extent has stabilized. Fears of accelerated sea level rise are only fears. Tide gauge evidence shows a constant long term trend.
And let go of the sponsor too. You surely don't accept the global warming nonsense, and it is affecting your scientific integrity. Mark Martens, Accidental Scientist
Great idea. I thought of same form (a donut) as the representation of gravity. My thought was like covering the earth surface with donuts. (Mathematicaly speaking). For every(!) point. Gravity (following my thought bending in 3D) is a dynamic "force" (possibly time making it 4D).
The math is pretty basic. I believe in the theory of variable speed of light, especially as it concerns and is compared with both time and relativity. With that said, I also don't expect E=mc2 to hold up, someday I believe someone clever will come along and prove its also flawed. Not everything Einstein put forward is sacrosanct (in my opinion). Why would I say such a blasphemy? Well he also believed in God, and even worse a "so-called" "spooky action at a distance" which to me is pure rubbish philosophy. He was a human after all, so I don't mind criticizing him as one. None of us are always right, all of the time.
CO2 reduction is the least of nature's man-made problems but reforested nature reserves and commercial forests are always welcome...... The 'solid space' crystal dislocation experiment is interesting. I prefer doing itty-bitty discrete solid state maths to proper elastic graphics of connected nodes. Vectors are a good compromise between the two. -- Each point is surrounded by / connected to 12 surrounding points in a close-packed giant ball of tiny little sub-space balls (base field quanta). One can abstract stretchy space down to a 1D 'curve' (gradient) with points getting further apart / closer together and/or growing / shrinking, then rotate it in 2D and 3D to make a sphere but it's not the same as working with a solid, 3D, connected, graphical spatial model. PBallNode = ^TBallNode; TBallNode = Object id: Integer; x,y,z,r: Double; neighbour: Array [0..11] of PBallNode; end; TField = Object node: Array [0..256, 0..255, 0..255] of PBallNode; // not big enough by a long, long way! Doable on a PC end; The cells can move and then reconnect to 12 new neighbours, Moving / growing / shrinking one recursively effects the surrounding field (squeezes and stretches it).. Each field cell node ID is set to its 3D node array start address.
Let go of the mathematics Alexander. All of it. And start again from scratch with physical models only. Bet you can't do it. Mark Martens, Accidental Scientist.
Offset your carbon footprint on Wren: www.wren.co/start/unzickersrealphysics The first 100 people who sign up will have 10 extra trees planted in their name!
@@ExcelinusCom Not true. Most if not all of the carbon in a tree comes from atmospheric CO2. This, however, is beside the point. It is shocking to find someone with "Real Physics" in his name pushing this unscientific nonsense about carbon footprints. Carbon is not a pollutant. It's plant food. [Edit: OK, I watched the rest of the video and Unzicker expresses skepticism. I stand corrected.]
@@ExcelinusCom First thorium then nuclear fusion once that tech matures. Offshore wind turbines should be used to desalinate sea water, but nothing beyond that.
This video is boring. Can you make something else?
Planting trees is still a good idea. The animals need them. The best thing we can do right now is boycott the commercial fishing industry. They drag nets across the ocean floor destroying the ecosystem
@@User53123 if you count the forests that coal plants produce burning coal is carbon negative - so switching from 'gas' power to coal is "green" - the problem is the "greenhouse" problem has been mythologized - It disappears when oil gets to costly.
The "problem" self solves ...
Hello there. I am a fan of your videos. I think that my overview of the topic is broader than most. Your concerns are marginally answered for the case of inhomogeneous material properties, where obviously the speed of light changes within the material, based on the various inhomogeneities, and Maxwell's equation performs sufficiently well. This is typically overlooked by the physicists' educations where mostly the equations are considered in a vacuum, but in the computational mathematics and engineering community this is a well-known fact.
Regarding the Lorentz invariance and the structure of equations, the root of the explanation and why it is appropriate goes back to the topological structure of the Maxwells equation. It assigns the physical, measurable quantities to the proper three-dimensional mathematical structures, differential forms, and forms a de Rham complex. Consequently, the assigned physical quantities are independent of the coordinate system of the physical coordinate frame, thus Lorentz-invariants as well. Some references:
Bossavit, A.: Differential geometry for the student of numerical methods in electromagnetism. Technical Report, Électricité de France (1991)
Hehl, F.W., Obukhov, Y.N.: Foundations of Classical Electrodynamics - Charge, Flux, and Metric. Progress in Mathematical Physics. Birkhäuser, Basel (2003)
In the current stagnant state of theoretical physics, it is such bold thinkers the subject needs, regardless his ideas pan out or not.
In Born & Wolf's Principles of Optics, they split up the 4 Maxwell Equations in the way you indicate on your slide near the end. Their justification is that the pair of B/E equations Lorentz transform together as a "six-vector" (skew-symmetric tensor) as do the D/H pair. This is natural as the D/H pair account for the presence of matter (charges/currents) while the B/E pair are the vacuum equations.
The problem with the Lorentz Transformation (which Unzicker is probably aware of) is that it absolutely destroys the orthogonal relationships between previously known independent variables. In effect, E bleeds into B, etc., That is extremely shaky mathematics and permanently ruins your ability to model the entire situation of multi-body interactions and multi-directional interactions. Furthermore, it is quite unnecessary. You can use the Maxwell Equations properly to describe moving particles or charges without the LT and arrive at far more accurate Physics. The current Physics community only needs to get educated on the proper use of the Maxwell Equations.
> _"The current physics community ..."_
@ColdSteel "current" as in _today's_ or as in _moving charges_ ?
just for myself:
This above comment relates to a part of video after 14:56
@@yash1152 Yes, the first meaning: "today's". Any pun is entirely unintentional (but fun anyways) :)
> _"but fun anyways :)"_
@@coldsteelprogressive haha yeah, that is how i felt too (:
Quite interesting! I would like to offer several hints: 1) de Broglie pointed out, very early, that a photon may not be perfectly massless. That is, that it would have some aspect of weight with regard to the EM elastic background field. 2) De Broglie also found that c squared does not mean the speed of light squared but rather it results from the dispersion or wave equations that any matter or light particle encounters when it nears another charged particle or EM field fluctuation. 3) De Broglie also clearly said that there exists both a particle and a wave that results from the particle's transition through space. That important observation has apparently been either ignored or forgotten and thus wave/particle interaction can never be resolved without considering such repercussions. 4) The Maxwell equations in vector expression lack the ability to properly express micro rotations of basic particles. Maxwell was not remiss in understanding that limitation and, in fact, attempted to express his equations in quaternion formulation.
A photon is superconductors gains mass due to interactions with all the stuff (it is no longer the same photon, but resembles...). But light is not always the fastest object. Hint: when a charged particle moves in some medium faster than the speed of light in that medium, it emits Cherenkov radiation.
Wow Unzicker. Your VSL describes what actually is happening with ether and transparent matter (matter is attracted to the planets). It's the same thing. I no longer think mass increases at high velocities after I found out about Einstein's e=mc2 derivation atrocity.
@@rogerphelps9939 why believe in magic? We see all waves require a medium. It's harder to believe that light is an exception.
When I was in a Thermodynamics class, we derived E=MC2 from Maxwell's equations.
I couldn't do it now, but it's cool to know I did it once upon a time.
Alternatively, you can derive Maxwell's Equations from Gauss's Law alone under the transformations of special relativity.
Yes, but for electromagnetic energy, this is only math and is a physical wrong, because electromagnetic waves are massless, and their energy is through the quantized law of Plank.
@@user-dialectic-scietist1 The quantisation of the EM field is not what gives it energy! Even something massless can have energy. It can even have momentum!
@@gbormann71 Why? Where I have been told that? The energy is given from the source in quanta of energy.
Quanta of energy? The energum particle? 😂
For massless things (or EM waves), the magnitude of their energy is proportial to their frequency.
In addition to my previous comment, the modified metric system without kilogram can also eliminate coulomb and amper.
Electric charge unit is replaced by derived unit also [m^3/s^2] and Ampere converts to [m^3/s^3]
It would be useful to rewrite metric system form of Maxwell equations into kilogram Coulomb Ampere free system remaining fully within the base units of second and meter.
It’s much more useful to replace the meter and define that in charge and time
@geekswithfeet9137
This is of course possible but speed becomes somewhat not intuitive.
@@AndrewWutke speed doesn’t really matter though, just phase and causality
Spherical geometry can give you the topological surface for positive and negative charge. We have to square the wave function Ψ² representing the radius being squared r² because the process is relative to the two-dimensional spherical 4π surface. We then see 4π in Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π representing our probabilistic temporal three dimensions life. The charge of the electron e² and the speed of light c² are both squared for the same geometrical reason.
"Electromagnetic Fields and Waves" by Lorrain & Corson (2nd Edition) contains two problems relating Electrodynamics and Cosmology. Problem 4-22 starts with: "In 1959 Lyttelton and Bondi [Proc. Roy. Soc. (London) A, vol. 232, p.313] suggested that the expansion of the Universe could be explained on the basis of Newtonian Mechanics if matter contained a [tiny] net electric charge."
A follow-on problem, Problem 10-11, mentions that correction terms to curlB and divE due to the creation of this charge should be on the order of R^-2 where R is on the order of the radius of the Universe, so that the new terms would be negligible at all length scales but cosmological situations. This hypothesis is consistent with the linear velocity-distance observations.
Rather thought-provoking questions for an Undergraduate E&M textbook!
14:07 > _"Superposition principle: Electric field is a rotation of volume elements"_
14:31 > _"oscillating electric as a superposition of fields superimposed in x-/y- direction to create a slight electric field in z direction"_
woww, this is something similar to what i was thinking last year.
i'm not a physicist by any stretch, just enjoy watching your videos. my question regarding something like Michelson-Morley is: We are assuming that the photon is moving in a straight line from its source. i.e. how do we know that the photon that was emitted at point A is the same photon that will be measured at point B?
So there must be a reason why Dicke himself didn’t pursued this idea further…
Basically it would add some complication to the GR without any tantalizing advantages(like reducing the number of constants of nature).
And when I think of it now, it reminds me of MOND! Another set of alternative theories, that works well… but only on exceptional case while complicating the GR….
None the less I wish you luck on your search Dr.Unzicker!
I guess he was misled later by what is called Brans-Dicke model.
@@TheMachian Do you professor follow the work or had any interest in scalar-tensor-vector gravity of Dr.John Moffat?
It is kind of a MOND but with very interesting proposals that at least to me looks promising.
Variable light speed makes so much more sense
Honest question Ive never seen anyone answer in 3 parts:
1a) Is there a single citable case where either Bnought or Hnoght has been observed to be actually 0?
1b) If yes to 1a, then what lenght and time scales?
1c) If yes to 1b, then how do these domains scale?
I ask becuase fundementally I cannot after several years find even a thought experiment that could allow for these scenarios to occur over any conditons, and thus am left wondering if we've choosen to use an impossible premise as the linchpin of physics, simply becuase it is mathmatically convenient in the short term.
If we consideration every minute defect in the lattice of any real conductor (which is realistic experimental viable) we cannot have any feild truely equal to 0, just limit functions that simply approach it.
Loving your videos. Would love to see you work through stuff with pen and paper or marker or whiteboard. You would be a good tutor. Reminds me of Oxford.
Arnold Sommerfeld starts his "Electrodynamics" (1952) with discussions on §6 - "The Role of the Velocity of Light in Electrodynamics", §7 - "The Coulomb Field and the Fundamental Constants of the Vacuum" and §8 - "Four, Five or Three Fundamental Units". He concludes with two intriguing sections: §37 - "Approaches to the Generalization of Maxwell's Equations and to the Theory of Elementary Particles" and §38 - "General Theory of Relativity: Unified Theory of Gravitation and Electrodynamics".
Sommerfeld's selection and sequence of topics are completely different from those presented in graduate-level texts; it is a refreshing change.
Everybody makes the wholistic wrong assumption (and presumption) that the photon is a singular object - when in reality there are 3 photons and 2 photinos. So there is no singular light, energy, mass, and velocity constant. The bigger 3 photons are bosons, with light speed (a constant), but with different h constants with different mass and radius. The smaller 2 photinos are dark matter bosons, with less-than-light speed (variable light constants), also with different h constants with different mass and radius.
So electron photon, muon photon, tau photon have their own h constant.
electron photon boson h = c (mass electron radius electron)
muon electron proton boson h = c (mass muon, radius muon)
tau electron photon boson h = c (mass tau, radius tau)
Electrino photino and graviton photino have their own h constant.
electrino photino bosino h = (
Doesn't nuclear decay depend on the fine structure constant raised to something ridiculous like the 400th power? it's probably safe to assume it's constant - or changing very slowly indeed
Why exactly is it safe to assume the constancy of nuclear decay rate? 🤔
@@alexshenderov4975 Some isotopes do change their decay rate over the course of the year or day, or with the position of the moon, but these changes are rather small to be explained by changes in the fine structure constant itself, unless those changes were ridiculously tiny. The current models explain this with slight variations in neutrino flux, but I suspect it's something important to do with gravity. If you look at how the fine structure constant behaves in atoms, it is analogous to a refractive index. Thus in the VSOL model, gravitational field could indeed superimpose a tiny change in the refractive index/fine structure constant of atoms. If that is true, it leads to a testable hypothesis: compare decay rates to the measurements of an atomic clock, which would be less affected by changes in fine structure constant, as a probe heads from earth's surface into deep space. We should see some disagreement if this is true.
@@michaelperrone3867 Would be interested if you show the link to the publication about variable decay rates.
I guess there are a lot of assumptions in between, 400th power...
@@TheMachian Indeed the 400th power thing requires many of the assumptions of the standard model to be true.
@14'10. It is the picture of 2 wires with electric current going in the same (parallel) direction where the magnetic induction field creates Florenz. I remember this experiment at school many years ago. 😁
Would a Maxwell equations in quadtrernions be fruit full here? Not sure but didnot Maxwell write the equations in quadterians but was reformated into a vector field?
You are right. I should dive into that.
Yea, Maxwell, not Heaviside.
Yes, appropriate labelling of relative-timing ratio-rates in balanced Equations, for a first approximation to Principle.
Did you notice that when Faraday discovered electromagnetic induction, the electron hadn't been found yet? Electromagnetic induction shows change in magnetic field → generation of electric field, but if electrons are used, change in magnetic field → movement of electrons → change in electric field. This means that the electromagnetic wave travels through the medium through electrons-charged particles. The speed of light varies with the density of the medium. Light in space travels faster than the speed of light on Earth.
Alexander, you are on the right track except for a few things:
1.) Time is an emergent property of C.
2.) C is a momentum wave through Aether.
3.) C remains locally the same speed because of #1 above.
4.) From a static view C is changing.
5.) There is no electro-magnetic waves (only magnetic) unless you are arguing that electrons are everywhere and light is being carried by that - which would be dumb.
6.) Contraction ideas are dumb because of #1...
7.) Red shift is 100% caused by #1 because as the universe ages it has more aether within it - so time is faster.
8.) Black holes are emitting this aether (from their poles) because they are the largest and most powerful mass crushing objects in the universe.
9.) The reason light speed diminishes around masses is because "shadows" are cast by nucleons within the ether field. This is because C has two parts to it. There is a momentum wave and then there is the particle moving through space. The denser the field the more momentum exchanges. This is why light speed is greatest in clean space.
All the above can be modeled using nothing more than F=M*A calculations with absolutely no created terms except for mass size. Because...the size of eather is unknown. But if you simply say 1 aether is 1 then we can derive mass scaled from it.
If you want to promote another model, I guess the best thing is you write a paper of make a video...
I love what you wrote here. Hopefully you do make a video about it. I would very much like to see it!
@@fredzemail74 Thanks for the encouragement. I have THE solution but it will make people look dumb to have believed what they do now. But I give them a break and say it was not their faults but a group think effect.
1) 'c' can be a scalar function of space-time coordinates. This means that epsilon_0 and mu_0 are no longer constants in a theory that is not strictly linear, and there are many examples of this in physics theory (a transition of linear to non linear theory where non linear terms are not longer negligible). 2) Maxwell-Lorentz theory (Lorentz force) does not satisfy Newton's third principle of motion for the specific case of Magneto-statics, such that the Lorentz force law must be replaced for a force law that DOES satisfy all Newton's principles of motion. 3) Coulomb field speed measurements prove that the Coulomb field velocity is superluminal, much higher than 'c'. 4) Maxwellian CED mass theory shows that E = 4/3 mc^2 for a spherical charge distribution that has velocity 'v', which is not correct So we need more corrections to the Maxwell-Lorentz than 'variable c', and it turns out that real scalar fields -div(A) and -d(Phi)/dt have to be introduced in order to solve all the mentioned inconsistencies. This is NOT a breaking of U(1) theory, however (has nothing to do with the introduction of 'photon mass'), but it is a breaking of Maxwell-Lorentz gauge invariance, such that A and Phi are no longer over-determined. The resulting Classical ElectroDynamics theory (I called it General CED theory, because it describes a much wider class of CED phenomena than standard Maxwell theory) shows a link with spin 1/2 of elementary particles (a combined transverse-longitudinal wave), and describes a spin 0 superluminal and longitudinal Phi-wave (longitudinal E = -grad(Phi) , scalar B = -d(Phi)/dt ), which can be interpreted as an electrodynamic Pilot wave (has v >> c), which was introduced by Louis de Broglie. The pilot Phi wave interacts with (guides) an electrodynamic spin=1/2 elementary particle that has a spacial 'extended' charge distribution. Elementary particles are certainly not "point like", which gives rise to the notorious infinities that cannot be "normalised" away. It was proven by Freeman Dyson that the QED Feynman diagram series leads to infinitely high values, so QED is fundamentally incorrect. It is absurd that QED predicts an instantaneous Coulomb near field (virtual photon entanglement, infinitely high Coulomb field velocity), where QED "normalisation" depends on the potential gauge freedom of Maxwell's CED theory, and secondly, Maxwell's theory describes (on a macroscopic level) that the Coulomb field velocity is just "c" and not infinitely high! This is just another contradiction! This 'linear' model of pilot waves and elementary particles cannot be fully realistic, it is a linearisation of a non-linear reality with fractal dimensions of an infinite number of terms that DO converge to finite values (according to well known chaos theory and fractal dimensions of finite values).
Also keep up the great work! I'd love to put you in touch with Todd Desiato, David Chester and others who are working on similar theories: if we all put our heads together, I'm sure we can flesh out the rest of this VSOL model
Hi Michael 👋 yes we're cracking the code!
With respect to VSL vs Maxwell , as Maxwell s equations originally described current flow in (around) a conductor in which Vmax
When Maxwells Eq are incorrect.. would our machines work the way they do??
It is possible to derive the inverse square laws for electricity and gravity from conservation of momentum. Then using the retarded potential integral derive all of Maxwell equations and similar equations for gravity to take account of the delay in the propagation of forces.
This says that Maxwell equations should remain the same for empty space. If the space contains charges as well as fields then the permittivity and permeability change from those of empty space and the equations become nonlinear Maxwell. The same is true for gravity equations. I worked this in more detail here;
www.m-hikari.com/astp/astp2021/astp5-8-2021/p/alrabehASTP5-8-2021-2.pdf
Very interesting work; thanks for sharing!
Nice physics you deliver. What software do you use to produce these video
I love your channel and lectures.
The number of Maxwell equations is 20. The nice 4 vector equations were derived by Oliver Heavyside.
Cool presentation!
It's not only a questions of variable speed of light, it's a question of variable speeds at all. Rememder speed is a combined unit - distance over time or distance times frequency. If we remember how clocks work and why they run slower if they're in motion, we will know, why we can't really mesure only one speed for a single motion. Now think about some near superfluid particles, which motion is constant against empty space or some aether in it, if you like - you'll have to define a speed for it and this could be the speed of light against the vacuum or better the speed of light against empty space (or aether). Second we'll have to define a meter in a way like once the so called "Urmeter". Then we all will know what time is all about. It only manifests in clocks and nowhere else. So yes, the Maxwell equations are correct. Our wisdom about time, speed and movements aren't.
How would the Variable Speed of Light explain the gravitational red shift?
That's not a problem. Dicke first explained it in 1957.
Of course the speed of light is variable, depending on the density of the medium it travels through. Our idea of lightspeed has always been noted explicitely in a vakuum, and even then a gravity well has its effects on light.
@Unzicker's Real Physics
Alexander,
I made some errors when typing my response to yours, They are nested.
I cannot see time stamps on any replies other than in relative days..
I put my previous response with unfortunate errors corrected below.
UA-cam is not the best way for message exchanges. Researchgate is so much better...
Corrected response:
Andrew Wutke
2 days ago
@Unzicker's Real Physics
Thanks for you suggestions. Your book is now in my Kindle.. .
Although laws of physic do not depend on the choice of units of measure, some choices give clarity others obscure.
The [m^3/s^2] suggested by Maxwell have some advantages.
1. Gravitational Constant G disappears (Newton did not know it)
2. Ampere and Coulomb disappear and,
3. Mass and charge have the same units [m^3/s^2]]
4.Guess what is non dimensional ratio of (electron charge to electron mass) squared? - the electrical to gravitational force ratio for two electrons
5. Planck mass = Planck Length ^3/Planck Time^2 as expected
7. Electric Field E has units of linear acceleration [m/s^2] while Magnetic Induction B has unit of angular velocity instead of Tesla
8. No G in Einstein Field equation just K=2*Pi/c^4 - Space time without kilograms sounds exciting
They may be more interesting consequences.
I will be interested in rationale and effects of mass unit being inverse of acceleration unit. Reading your book now. It’s a great read….
The answer my friend is blowing on the wind at ftl speeds.
"Blowing In The Wind" ~ Bob Dylan
ua-cam.com/video/vWwgrjjIMXA/v-deo.html
Not only is the speed of light variable, but time is also variable… in perspective, one hour in summer appears longer than one hour in the winter.. mechanical measuring tools live in the present reality, but the human conscience lives in relative time.. where time for us speeds up or slows down according to necessity..
What practical experiment can you propose that with prove that the speed of light is variable?
Speed of light _at a distance_ is variable according to the standard general relativity (it's called the Shapiro delay). It's an effect in a sense analogous to light bending near masses.
Well, the speed of light (of course!) varies in material objects (say: glass). The form of Maxwell equations suitable for non-vacuum is the one with E, D, B, H. 4 equtions are no longer enough, of course. You need to add equations that explain how D depends on E and H on B. The dependence need not be neither linear nor local in time. This is what is a very standard knowledge.
You may try to treat vacuum as a kind of a material and set D(t)= integral K(t, t') D(t') dt' for some integral kernel K. Now, K(t, t') = epsilon_0 * delta(t - t') in the vacuum we normally assume. H(t)= integral L(t, t') B(t') dt' for... Check something else - look for observable consequences etc. Or, instead of simple non-locality in time go general and assume non-locality in space and time...
But I cannot believe this approach wasn't tried. Even if just for fun.
Cosmologically, let us consider that the B field locally is not worth considering, because the electric field gives rise to it based on relativistic travel of the electron anyway ( "No, Changing Electric Fields DON'T Cause Magnetic Fields": ua-cam.com/video/uZnXhRgztEg/v-deo.html). I like what you're doing. Don't stop, no matter what the uneducated spam you with. you are on to something important.
The topic of scalar waves meaning longitudinal and only transverse waves in electromagnetism is a discussion that goes back to Hertz vs Maxwell. Whereas Maxwell wanted rot (b) = 0 but Hertz was inclined to thing they have an element there too. - this was becoming a topic again between Konstantin Meyl and Turtur but is widely dismissed. - I wonder if we cannot simply measure the effects of Maxwell missed a part. - this would allow wireless transfer of energy and might therefore be hidden science...
Put an eyeball into atomic orbit and atomic size relative to its environment, turn a similar flashlight on. I would assume this perspective which we cannot attain but is there would obviously yield a variable light speed.
Leaving light speed is like leaving the atmosphere of speed size and space. Light speeds are constant, but they are octaves away and different as well.
If you think light speed isn't variable you can look at black space. The still black background is an octave above ours, where light (motion) is too slow and big to ever see. The things we can see on our octave of light are the componenets of the above octave.
I like this type of honest video much more than the rants.
Electromagnetism was my favourite area in physics: i was fascinated by the properties of magnets and puzzled how or why a moving magnet could produce a corresponding electrical current/field. Maxwell is a true hero. Einstein said one needs intuition to be a good scientist, and viewing gravitational lensing effects over great distances it seems obvious the speed of light must be variable... but who would dare push such a notion when the mainstream have galvanised it's a constant. Except we are forced to believe that in the very beginning there was this so-called inflationary miracle, where all our known laws were broken, & somehow everything expanded at speeds greater than that of light... which is impossible for anything with any mass. [sigh]
{edit} ... the math is over my head.
[We've planted ten more trees in our garden already this year!.... and the 17 hectares we have in SE France has been left to regenerate as natural woodland]
Could you please define what you call a vacuum?
Re testability, if c is position-dependent, wouldn't one expect it to also be anisotropic? That might be a simpler initial test rather than trying to directly measure the local field of c(r). (Field as in a function of position.)
I hate to admit this, but sometimes it feels like time is variable too.
Interesting video
Well done 👏
The increase in carbon dioxide is related to the climate. Oceans hold about 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere. When the climate warms, more CO2 is outgassed to the atmosphere. Likewise when climate cools, as in the last global glaciation, the oceans suck CO2 out of the atmosphere. During the last major glaciation, CO2 atmospheric levels fell to only 180 ppm. This is only 30 ppm above the level required for land plants. Life on land came close to extinction. At 150 ppm CO2 plants cannot grow. They will die. Then the rest of life on land will die too.
One must always be careful what he reveals of himself. We do not second-guess Euclid - or Maxwell
You rocks every time!
CONSTANTS in physics are ASSUMED to BE CONSTANT. THE MATH depends on that constancy.
Absolute time is the first mistake.
That is not a problem, even if it may seem. Observed time depends on cariable scales, see the video about the cosmological redshift.
@@TheMachian What about Halton Arp's explanation of redshift?
If CONSTANTS are not constant, physics FALLS APART.
Interesting association of mu0 with density of ether.
It is possible to eliminate kg unit from the metric system and replace it with derived unit of [m^3/s^2]. In such system of units mass density dimension is [1/s^2] just like inverse speed squared. Given eps0 can be made non dimensional 1 like in Gaussian cgs system mu0=1/c^2. Interesting coincidence.
I'd prefer express masses in inverse accelerations, that is, kg become s2/m. See my book "The mathematical Reality"
@@TheMachian
Thanks for you suggestions. Your book is now in my Kindle..
Although laws of physic do not depend on the choice of units of measure, Some choices give clarity others obscure.
The [m^3/s^2] suggested by Maxwell have some advantages.
1. Gravitational Constant G disappears (Newton did not know it)
2. Ampere and Coulomb disappear
3. Mass and charge have the same units
4.Guess what is non dimensional ratio of electron charge to electron mass squared
5. Planck mass =
Planck Length ^3/Planck Time^2 as expected
7. Electric Field E has units of linear acceleration while Induction B has unit of angular acceleration
8. No G in Einstein Field equation just c squared only
They may be more interesting consequences.
I will be interested in rationale and effects of mass unit being inverse of acceleration unit.
Correction
In point c squared should have been "c to the power of 4"
Correction
point 7 "angular acceleration should have been "angular vocity"
Can you specify the time stamp where the error occurs?
In my opinion if we call the constant c =cm (m for maximum) then we have no problems. The speed of light can vary as much as it want's to without causing troubles. We have lots of other constants in physics that are not connected to anything physical so why must maximum speed be connected to speed of light?
It appears to me that you are trying to justify VSL. I would have thought that it it is obvious that the speed of light can vary. We keep saying in vacuum so obviously it is slowed down when not in vacuum. What should be a constant is what we specify as c but why must that be the speed of light? I would say that there is probably a maximum possible speed and in vacuum light may equal or at least get very close to that speed but why lock light speed to maximum speed? We wouldn't call it human spaceship super if we miraculously managed that speed.
In regards to power usage and co2 yes every body should do their best to reduce power usage but if every person that wants to support it go out and plant one tree they may do better than joining an organization that plants 10 trees due to their overhead in administration. Make your own energy in stead with solar panels.
If your ideas are so “right”, why don’t you publish?
That just tells me you did not watch the video (in which I presented my latest publication, hm...)
Btw, why are you trolling a channel you dislike? Are you Rajiv Kumar from KIT#?
@@TheMachian I see you are bringing “ether” back. Next is flat earth.
@@rajivkumar-gw3ig Yes, science took a huge leap forward when theorists replaced one "aether" with no less than 5 disparate "fields" that still require magic particle interactions in extra dimensions with splitting timelines and alternate universes just to explain the lack of an explanation for the fundamentals. Bravo!
This is the hallmark of unscrupulous contrarians, and heretics everywhere, as well as those who support long-discredited theories.
@@rajivkumar-gw3ig "Aether" as a specific theory may have been discredited, due mainly to its absurd level of incompleteness, but aether as a concept has never gone away. It has only been renamed to explain gravity and magnetism and subatomic mass and the very existence of fundamental particles.
And considering the documented accounts of scientific achievements throughout history, I am extremely honored to be called a heretic by the zealots at the church. Thank you.
in which scenarios would c decrease to zero/increase to infinity?
I can predict the orbit of mercury using a variable speed of light
it can also give dickes equation for the diffraction of light
Me too. Use general relativity and assume c'=c+0.000000*t
@@Noam_.Menashe lol
Another theory of Dirac states that physical constants aren't constant; their value depends on the age of the universe (or where in spacetime they exist)
This would be huge if proven to be true because it would create a theory that reaches even further than Einstein's
That's what I am arguing. You may want to watch the video about VSl and Dirac's large numbers.
@@TheMachian Thanks!
I think a lot of these theories seem plausible.
I think the next big step is to devise a way to show that they are true. Einstein showed that light bent in a gravitational field. How can we prove VSL? Well, I thought of something simple and easy- it could possibly be similar to a space probe mission; where we send a space satellite deep into space outside of our solar system, and have it send signals back to us. Based on the speed we anticipate it to be moving, we can estimate where we expect it to be during a certain period of time, and we can calculate how long the signal should take to get back to us vs. its actual time to determine if VSL exists...
Of course there are some obstacles to get over: like creating a module powerful enough to drive a signal that far through space without any interference or distortion blocking it from us and what not
Also, we should have a general idea of the area outside of our solar system we are sending it to that way we can anticipate its environment and prepare for its surroundings.
It may not be an experiment with 0% risk, but how many experiments are? You could maybe at least get a std. deviation of error you would expect to have so you could compare the results to...
Ex. 1: An asteroid could hit the satellite, but where we are sending the satellite or based on the large gravity fields elsewhere in space- asteroids may be easily avoidable...
Ex. 2: It would probably be nuclear powered, but if it has a solar power module on it as well, then what are the chances sunlight isn't shining directly where we want it to on the satellite? how can we adjust its equilibrium to position it how we want it while its traveling? will it effect its speed?
So based on some of this, you could give a room for error around 1-5% or so of whatever you calculated the time it takes the signal to get back versus what it actually is... and that actually may be a bit high so you may have to take into account other factors or has to try to make your results more reliable...equip the satellite with sensing abilities so you can have some other variables to play around with and let you adjust your calculations even more to reduce the error % when comparing results...
Also suppose gravity (and other constants) is different in this newer area of the universe. Will our satellite be prepared to handle it? Maybe we can use a special material to build it that way it can constrict or expand a bit based on its surroundings... I wouldn't expect the change to be too drastic when traveling at a consistent speed from one area to the other, but you never know...
"Carbon neutral" is an ACCOUNTING GIMMICK....
Really enjoying these thought provoking videos.
Hi sir please suggest some good resources for learning physics from scratch, some people have tried to do this but i guess they are not that good
Depends on what level you start. Feynman's lectures are not bad.
“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon.
When light is born it has many legs to walk on, however as it travels far and wide it encounters other creatures which it bumps into and some of its legs get broken resulting in a slower gait.
Can I have the data to see that Dickies equation of a variable speed of light is correct
Great stuff. I wouldn't have known about this if it weren't for you.
(1) At 2:00 Unzicker mentions the VSOL near mass. (2) At 19:50 Unzicker mentions the VSOL in a gravitational field.
(1) is correct. (2) is not correct. (2) is due to (1). (2) duznt cause (1).
In the past i have said that Einstein said that light is slower near mass, ie Einstein predicted (1). But today i am thinking that Einstein actually said that light is slower (or seems to be slower) in a stronger gravitational field.
Anyhow, i have always given plaudits to Einstein for saying (1), albeit even tho he used erroneous reasoning. But today i am thinking that he actually said (2) - in which case he didn’t predict (1) - in which case the sweet plaudits must be less sweet.
So, i can't remember which gedanken Einstein used to lead him to his VSOL - i don’t think that it was his silly elevator (chest) gedanken - i think it was his silly spinning disc gedanken. Einstein had at least say 30 gedankens, & none of them could possibly have been re the effect of mass on the speed of light - in fact it is almost impossible to contrive a gedanken that could tell us that light slows near mass, ie (1).
In future i will try to refrain from saying that it was Einstein that told us that light slows near mass - he didn’t - it was me that told us.
I am warming up to the Variable Speed of Light explanatory power
if they aren't correct, we'll have to start electrical engineering all over again!
They are surely correct to a high degree, like Newtonian mechanics! But it is not easy to test very strong fields. Only there deviations are expected, if ever.
"We have a huge increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, which humanity is repsonsible for" - according to Unzicker.
Q: How do we know that? A: We measured it.
Q: Where was it measured? A: At one SINGLE location, in Mauna Loa beginning in 1957.
Q: You mean prior to 1957, no one measured atmospheric CO2? A: Of course they did. They measured CO2 all over the place using chemical means. From values of 440ppm in 1820, to 410ppm in 1940, ... There were 90000 measurements of CO2 done at 138 locations, on 4 continents between 1810 and 1961; showing variations from 440ppm to 290ppm.
Murray Salby on CO2 emissions: ua-cam.com/video/YrI03ts--9I/v-deo.html
:( I can not see where the 'glitch' is here. Is it the over interpretation of the mathematical models? The syntactic error of interpreting parameters as constants? Or the philosophical hole in mathematics - the 'theory' of REAL's and 'real numbers'?
I understand the mathematics BUT I am ignorant of the conventions and 'jargon' of the physics here - The question of when you can cancel the/a "divide by ZERO" - thank you for your efforts to disentangle this.
What is this « discussion » on EM constants ? Since their value is 1 anyway in natural units ! Meters and seconds, etc, are human arbitrary irrelevant units, as arbitrary as Babylonians feet and pharao arms…
You have not thought this to the end. Considering units is necessary to a certain point. See my TOE video.
@@TheMachian Have you? Because you don’t answer my question…taking the tangent in a sort of stonewalling. No clear and neat answer from you. And more generally are you sure not to build a clay giant, with sand feet. Because to paraphrase Newton, « aether » for you, seems to be a sphere whose circumtalking is everywhere and the central definition nowhere.
So where is your serious definition of « aether »? And idem for « space » and « time » concepts.
And when you talk about « defects theory », what is the thing that is defectuous? What characteristics? What structure? What experimental evidence?
Without any cristal clear definition, all the theory of « aether », is based on sand.
Finally are you conscious that the very word « aether » that you use all the time, is itself a highjack of the immemorial central concept of « Alchemy », which is also named « Quintessence ». Do you seriously believe that an extravagant fantomatic « elastic matter » is actually this « Aether » which is the central concept of the great Tradition? Quintessence is not matter, not a phenomenology, nor a « vacuum ». It’s beyond those two complementary categories.
So what is this « aether » you’re talking about? What is you clear definition of it? What are his characteristics? Which experimental data confirms its existence? What is the mathematical model that represent it?
I have reduced alpha to a second order constant as it contain both E0 and e^2 which are first order constants
The universe might be like an ocean awash in a variable spectrum of acceleration waves, but also riven with more focussed acceleration currents?
A common example, when looking at the galaxies with our photon sensing eyes, our acceleration sensing bodies are not sensitive enough to record the simultaneous acceleration waves produced by the galaxies, though their motions are likely responding to both their more-local galactic spin in spiral galaxy cases, and the spin of the larger helical vortices channeling their free fall through the universe, toward the attractive spacetime curvature in their direction of corkscrew movement?
This may be a reason why spiral galaxy components appear to spin "too quickly", the larger acceleration information is not being included and compensated for, by the 3D vector matrices being used, as the total acceleration vectors are not included.
More simply put, we are observers in an increasingly accelerating universe where its constituents are in free fall, and their visualized acceleration reflects this. We, when calculating mass, using the constant speed of light and gravity, given our position firmly planted on a moving spheroid, see local gravity as always appearing to be attractive. But electromagnetic and acceleration radiation both traverse through spacetime at the constant c, it's time and spacetime curvature, and their spectrum of frequency and wavelengths, i.e. universal acceleration, that is locally variable/flexible?
Perhaps if astronomers had access to the universal filament helical acceleration data and added this helical acceleration tensor to their vector math calculations, they'd see galaxies are free falling and accelerating as such? So would light and universal acceleration then be entangled at the constant c from Planck tick 1?
Forget sterile neutrinos where are the new "graviton" sensors so we can put that particle's discovery to rest, pun intended!
The problem is that you are not taking into account general relativity. You aren’t considering the variable rate of time and the differing measures of distance.
Einstein burned into peoples minds that the speed of light doesn’t change. The units of measurement to measure the speed of light do change over large distances and galaxies cover large distances. That means that the speed of light does change over large distances as observed by us.
The speed of light doesn’t change. The rate of time changes and the measure of distance changes… *which effectively changes the speed of light as we observe it over great distances.*
Time runs faster in outer space where there is no matter and much less gravity. This is the reason the outer spiral arms of the galaxies move much faster than expected. It’s because events take place at a faster rate the less gravity there is.
Distance is expanded in outer space (not expanding). Plasma jets do not stream of five times the speed of light since the distance is expanded away from gravity wells.
Time doesn’t run at the same rate everywhere in the universe. Time runs faster in outer space. It just dawned on me the other day that a thousand years and a single day happen at the same time in different places in the universe. It's simple (observed) general relativity. Time slows down and distance is contracted because of gravity where there is a lot of matter. Conversely, time speeds up and distance is greatly expanded where there is no matter in outer space.
This eliminates the need for dark matter since time is sped up in the outer spiral arms of a galaxy where there is not nearly as much matter. It eliminates the need for dark energy where distance in outer space is expanded where there is no matter.
So the result of general relativity is that billions of years pass by in outer space (13 billion years) at the same time as thousands of years pass by where we are inside of the Milky Way galaxy. ...!
Billion of years and mere thousands of years are the same thing *at the same time* in deep outer space and where we are, according to physics and according to relativity.
In review, time slows down where we are. Time speeds up with less gravity so the outer spiral arms of galaxies move faster. There is no need for dark matter.
Distance increases where there is no matter in outer space. There is no need for dark energy to expand space since the expansion of space is from not having any matter far away from the galaxies.
Deep time (billions of years) and thousands of years exist simultaneously in this universe where there is no single rate of time or measure of distance!
Just think what could be the reality *when* the photons register with our eyes or our cameras/detectors and there is a collapse of the wave function as seen or detected by us within our dilated time and distance. (Our rate of time is not the universal rate of time, especially for photons.)
Conclusion: The time it took for Creation and since Creation in the Bible is absolutely true! Time itself is a (real) fabrication.
There is a conflict in using mathematics in physics; to understand it, one needs to realize Euclid made a mistake in his first assumption that a point has no measure:?) That mistake leaves Euclid and all of its derivatives irrational. Only rational numbers are necessary and sufficient for usage in the scientific method. This is why Planck's discovery E=hv is an irrational geometry; to make a rational geometry, Planck's constant h must be rational. Currently, the irrationality comes from the garbage in the units assigned.
This is the reason Gauss did not publish the n-geometries he discovered.
Try to find anything in space:?) E=nv is the geometry, and n has to be a rational number, and it s the only rational geometry suitable for physics and the scientific method. The observable is the rotational Energy, and its uncertainty is +/- one revolution unless the object being observed is polar, then the error is 1/number of poles.
Alexander, I would like to contact you and engage in a conversation with you, I might have a few answers, if you are interested? I can only refer to my ideas as conjecture at best, due to not having any degrees myself (if physicists are using AI and machine learning to attempt to explain things, without understanding how AI works, I might be worth a shot). Don't look at Aether as a solid with stress tensors. Think of space as a kind of Aether, I like to think of it as causal mass made of voxels (Empty vacuum space consists of voxels at the lowest energy state). Space is a fluid of voxels with no space between them. This is why compressing space with movements cases increases of mass. This also explains momentum. Renee Descarte was wrong with vortex theory, but not completely, just on scales of magnitude. Everything is compatible with VSL.
Feel free to contact me via ChannelInfo, yet do not be disappointed if I do not have time to dive into your theory - there are simply too many such requests. Instead, try to write your ideas down in a decent manner and publish it on vixra.
@@TheMachian Fair enough. Unfortunately, there is more on the subject than I can put in a paper or two, that is going to sit in an archive that most are not aware of, or access. I do thank you for your time and wish you well in your pursuit of science and the truth. I would be better off writing and publishing a book, even if no one reads it. If my book is correct, and discoveries are made that I predicted ahead of time, I can at least say..."Like in my book, lol. With all sincereness, thank you for at least responding Dr. Unzicker.
So... bring back the dielectric medium.. ditch the dark and black and space time fabric things.. back to the single force?
What if the electric charge was not constant (this was suggested as a solution to the dark matter debacle)?
@@plasmaphysics1017 Electron charge, sorry (not electric charge). I need to find the paper suggesting electron charge may not be fundamental, that is, it may be different depending on external conditions (it was big news last year, so it's around somewhere - blasphemy in physics to suggest this).
As we all know, the dark matter hypothesis was a solution to the "missing matter in the galaxy" problem. If electron charge is not constant, that would certainly affect matter at a large scale, how it accumulates, aggregates, etc (even the frequency of light emitted from atoms) and the gravitational constant G would have to be variable as well (more blasphemy). A gradient value of G going from the center of a galaxy to it's rim could be worked in to describe the problem of angular momentum. So G where we are at 27K ly would be different than G at 50K ly from the hub of the Milky Way. We've obtained G to high accuracy in our solar system and local cluster, but extrapolated this to the entire cosmos. Perhaps it is not accurate to presume this constant is, well, constant.
I don't believe anyone has a paper on this. I'll investigate the news of electron charge i heard a year or so ago and post the link.
I'll be the heretic for a moment. Let's take a volume of space between a perfect absorber of light and a collumated source of, say, infrared light.
Now, we accelerate the absorber toward the source at 0.75C. What is the amount of energy absorbed?
Not only do we have a normal doppler blue shift, but we have a further lorentz length contraction. The energy in a photon is the square of its frequency, or inverse square of its wavelength. We then have to ask where the energy over that emitted by the source comes from, and that creates some problems for the idea of relativity being... relative.
As such, I am more a fan of scalar fields as a model for things, and generally dismiss tensor models, as you can effectively derive a scalar model from a tensor model as space is volumetric and the speed of light not instant, as it would need to be for relativity to work.
Ah... so many questions...
A past mistake was the introduction of epsilon naught in em theory. Get rid of it.
Can you elaborate on that?
@@TheMachian
Having watched some of your videos it’s clear that you go into the history of physics however afaik you’ve not touched on the history of epsilon naught although you mention that constant often. Epsilon naught can be given any value at all. It’s a meaningless confusing constant. Ofcourse “epsilon r” with its square root “n” is a meaning full concept.
🙏
Under probabilistic correlations circumstances, what is correct correlation-tuning is the same question-answer as What is Truth, cause-effect.
Reiterate e-Pi-i superposition identification in terms of log-antilog relative-timing Quantum-fields properties and you get bubble-mode quantization formed of i-reflection reciprocation-recirculation that scribes the features presented in Geometrical Drawing and Perspective Projection holography dimensionality.., which is merely a clue to students who have Faraday type visualisation abilities and can extend their perceptions to QM-TIME Completeness Actuality.
Sir please make a video on quantum computing!
Please provide a breakdown on how academia and the scientific community has falsified climate data to embellish global warming.
...Then provide a accurate assessment of the real data that supports this global warming hypothesis.
SPRICH DOCH "DEUTSCH" ::: SONST MUSS ICH MIR DAS ALLES MIT DEM ÜBERSETZER ZUSAMMENREIMEN
Dr Unzicker, you are excellent but you're credulity towards atmospheric carbon dioxide being significantly the result of human activity is disappointing. It without a doubt is the result of the planet being warmed by the Sun as part of a long-standing cycle, causing the oceans to heat up and release carbon dioxide. That's how it's always been with prior warming events. The oceans hold 54 times more dissolved carbon dioxide that exists in the atmosphere. And you know from chemistry that the balance between carbonic acid and carbon dioxide solubility is temperature dependent. Warming proceeds the off-gassing of carbon dioxide not the other way around.
Man's contribution is minimal until someone can prove the opposite which they have not done.
Fine Structure Constant
Copyright 2022 Wardell Lindsay
(ne*/25e/3)^2=n^2e^2/2 9/625e^2
Alpha=9/1250 n^2=7.2m n^2 !
I have the answer, but I am not in the "Club". Faraday was listened but not in the Club!
Don't forget that mass effects time--greater mass=slower time, infinite mass=infinite time, no mass=no time--and that speed is distance over time.
So: relativistic time relative to mass=variable speed of light.
Photons have no mass in a perfect vacuum, there ain't one, though, and whenever light strikes an object it creates energy.
Also, don't forget that gravity was debunked in 1919 and replaced with General Relativity.
GravitY is explained by "Newton was wrong."
GravitATION is explained by General Relativity.
My own opinion is that "dark energy" is just anti-photons, but they can only be measured as ordinary photons because of the photoelectric effect, but whenever two photons interact they create matter and antimatter; light is noninteractive with light, so one of those interacting photons must be an anti-photon.
Whatever, I never went to high school (secondary school).
It figures you’d end up here spouting nonsense like the rest of Unzicker’s comment section. It’s a good fit for you.
@@maskon1724 Which part is nonsense?
Show you work.
;)
@@ZeroOskul mostly all of it. You toss a wonderful word salad.
@@maskon1724 Which parts are "Mostly all of it"?
What makes it "word salad"?
What in specific is "nonsense"?
Show your work.
Prove that it is nonsense.
Demonstrate that you have some notion of the meaning of what you claim to be nonsense.
That you hate me does not mean I am wrong about anything, it just means you hate me.
How you amateurishly derive VSL, claiming Newton was when his equations are still relevant in certain situations, claiming that anti photons are dark energy, basically all of it. Hilarious how you want others to show work when you don’t here or while attempting to discredit a title of a video you never watched. Hate isn’t involved here, just a fundamental disagreement with your ideas, which of themselves show no work, showing only that you should have furthered your education beyond middle school.
Human emissions of warm water vapor, which is not in natural equilibrium with natural bodies of water, explains both the urban heat island effect and recent climate change far better than does CO2.
My firm prediction is that eliminating CO2 emissions will have almost no effect, because human emissions of warm water vapor will continue and are unavoidable.
I also think that increased atmospheric water vapor is hugely beneficial with little downside. Importantly, Arctic sea ice extent has stabilized. Fears of accelerated sea level rise are only fears. Tide gauge evidence shows a constant long term trend.
And let go of the sponsor too. You surely don't accept the global warming nonsense, and it is affecting your scientific integrity. Mark Martens, Accidental Scientist
Just plant the trees yourself.....
Great idea. I thought of same form (a donut) as the representation of gravity. My thought was like covering the earth surface with donuts. (Mathematicaly speaking). For every(!) point.
Gravity (following my thought bending in 3D) is a dynamic "force" (possibly time making it 4D).
The math is pretty basic. I believe in the theory of variable speed of light, especially as it concerns and is compared with both time and relativity. With that said, I also don't expect E=mc2 to hold up, someday I believe someone clever will come along and prove its also flawed. Not everything Einstein put forward is sacrosanct (in my opinion). Why would I say such a blasphemy? Well he also believed in God, and even worse a "so-called" "spooky action at a distance" which to me is pure rubbish philosophy. He was a human after all, so I don't mind criticizing him as one. None of us are always right, all of the time.
Pay money for an app to guilt me for living? No thanks.
CO2 reduction is the least of nature's man-made problems but reforested nature reserves and commercial forests are always welcome...... The 'solid space' crystal dislocation experiment is interesting. I prefer doing itty-bitty discrete solid state maths to proper elastic graphics of connected nodes. Vectors are a good compromise between the two.
--
Each point is surrounded by / connected to 12 surrounding points in a close-packed giant ball of tiny little sub-space balls (base field quanta). One can abstract stretchy space down to a 1D 'curve' (gradient) with points getting further apart / closer together and/or growing / shrinking, then rotate it in 2D and 3D to make a sphere but it's not the same as working with a solid, 3D, connected, graphical spatial model.
PBallNode = ^TBallNode;
TBallNode = Object
id: Integer;
x,y,z,r: Double;
neighbour: Array [0..11] of PBallNode;
end;
TField = Object
node: Array [0..256, 0..255, 0..255] of PBallNode; // not big enough by a long, long way! Doable on a PC
end;
The cells can move and then reconnect to 12 new neighbours, Moving / growing / shrinking one recursively effects the surrounding field (squeezes and stretches it).. Each field cell node ID is set to its 3D node array start address.
Let go of the mathematics Alexander. All of it. And start again from scratch with physical models only. Bet you can't do it. Mark Martens, Accidental Scientist.