Would have loved to hear more from this man, but got seriously frustrated when the interviewer kept interrupting him before he had finished his train of thought. Guess I'll just have to buy the book.
The Bryan guy is yet another wanna-be trying to emulate the fools who wish to rise, but their own ignorance hold them back. If the old boy is so smart then let him speak!!
This is like when I try to explain to my wife and kids that digging a hole in the backyard and filling it with water won't make for a good swimming pool.
My first thought here (after only reading the intro) is be careful about falling for the "appeal to authority" fallacy. Many "intelligent" people have said and done very stupid things. * cough cough Dr. Fauci* - "Mr Science" himself.
Lee Smolin wrote an interesting book. "The Trouble with Physics". Current theories have some deep flaws. and the physics community doesn't seem interested in examining them as they will have to sacrifice sacred cows.
@@dodatroda WHY THE DENSITY OF THE SUN IS ONE QUARTER OF THAT OF WHAT IS THE EARTH: Consider what is THE EYE. The fourth dimension is consistent with WHAT IS E=MC2, AS c squared CLEARLY represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE; AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. So, a given PLANET (including WHAT IS THE EARTH) sweeps out equal area in equal TIME. Consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE); AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE; AS the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution. Indeed, consider what is the fully illuminated AND setting/WHITE MOON. Now, consider that WHAT IS the ORANGE AND setting Sun is (ON BALANCE) the SAME SIZE as THE EYE. Notice the TRANSLUCENT AND BLUE sky ON BALANCE, AS THE EARTH is ALSO BLUE. I have mathematically proven why the density of what is THE SUN IS about ONE QUARTER of that of what is THE EARTH. The bulk density of WHAT IS THE MOON IS comparable to that of what are (volcanic) basaltic lavas ON THE EARTH. By Frank Martin DiMeglio
This is great man, you are like a sherpa for the ignorant. Thanks for taking us on this trip. Wolfgang won't be here a whole lot longer, but you will forever have this and the knowledge he left behind for us.
@guitarszen There is a long form interview of him by Curt Jaimungal who has a physics background. But if the complaint is that he is not a materialistic physicist, but also a mathematician (shocking) and a philosopher (Oh NO) then it probably won't satisfy you there either.
I wish the host wouldn’t interrupt Dr. Wolfgang Smith so much. I don’t mind his contributions to make the interview more conversational, but he definitely was cutting Wolfgang off several times. Let the man speak!
What a delightful surprise of a crossover. Bryan is a true renaissance man. If ya'll wish to go deeper, Dr. Smith's two discussions with cognitive scientist John Vervaeke are tremendous (would love to see Bryan sit down with Vervaeke too!), ua-cam.com/video/5G9gk49VhKM/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/1Lm3y_4a--0/v-deo.html
The lattice of Sub-atomic particles in ‘our universie’ are the footprints from a higher dimension. Much like when a pencil intersects with a piece of paper, the lead mark is what’s left behind (not the evidence of an entire pencil). Consciousness has a massless ‘sub-atomic particle’ but it cannot be observed because it travels faster than the SOL (See the double-slit experiment). The purpose of a universal existence is for the ‘universe’ to understand itself. ‘God’ doesn’t have redundancies. We’re on the ground working things out in non-linear time. We’re all ONE, conscious or not of the fact that each individual reality (or perspective) is dependent upon the other for a grand. Understanding/intellect. Put it this way, God wouldn’t think about all possible outcomes, matter would just arrange itself in all possible ways. Thats what ‘reality’ is. God and his thoughts are not separate from reality, they’re one and the same. God is all of us precisely because we are all of God (aka his children). It’s much deeper than our linear perception. The river flows both ways and it’s easily proven.
Wolfgang seems to be aligning with Roger Penrose's three world model. This also underpins Probacism and explains why if you follow the Guidelines of Problacism, whatever your belief or religion, you eventually find out how the universe actually works.
Callen you're a savage for bringing this content.. Shits so fascinating...People could learn so damn much from this but we know most won't listen. ✌️Man
once upon a time on pre dumbed down earth we had the trivium,quadrivium and only after that work one was ready for astrology and metaphysics.this was a classic education.most of todays students are computer operators or laborers with few exceptions
Guaranteed a catholic would take this point of view but if it ain't working you need a new bag of tricks. You are stuck with the old Ideas if your bag is full and you are out of bags.
Great episode! It's so cool that you started doing these types of talks, I look forward to more interesting conversations and if I could recommend one guest who Wolfgang actually knows to is John vervaeke! Won't disappoint I promise, he was great on lex's podcast!
@@ms.pirate It probably IS false information, and that guy is probably a fraud. Saying that everything that Einstein said is wrong, except one thing which he stole? And you're dumb enough to believe such sh_t? Seriously?
His book "physics and vertical causation" is a good read, its only around 112 pages long so if anyone is interested in this topic its not a daunting read.
You people have the wrong idea.... I actually hate people that call others stupid. And who's the authority on Intelligence btw? There's NONE. Because the beginnings of Science... Was due to "stupid questions"!!! The second you stop asking questions because you're afraid of being labelled stupid... That's when Ignorance starts to settle in! And that's actually WORSE than being labelled stupid. What is actually stupid is people that don't try to understand.... That's what dumb/stupid means for me. Science is actually about being wrong, discovering truths and gain knowledge (if I can put it that simply). Then there are those ideas... It has to make predictions, be mathematical, blablablabla. That's the mathematical side of Science... I don't approach Science that way... Others can try, it sure does seem to show results
Brian is curious and patient. Great at asking questions and letting the conversation flow! With more deeply informative discussions like this, he will begin to comprehend more of what these mega IQ people are describing (and then form even better questions and followups). That's not a dis. It's about exposure, and genuine interest. really enjoyed this
This guy isn't a scientist, he's a fraud. No scientist would go "c is a big number, so by losing a little mass you gain a lot of energy", that's absulutely unscientific bullsh_t and misinformation, which you are believing. Next you gonna believe the earth is flat... Also scientists are finding out to this day how right Einstein was with many things. This channel isn't informative, it's concerning.
I got some goosebumps when Brian mentioned the Buddhist monk burned himself in protest of the Vietnam war. I had the same line of thinking when I was little. This monk transcended beyond the reality of fire. Bc we associate fire with hell in the Judeo Christian, hell has nothing over him. It's the most powerful thing I witnessed when I was young. It made me realize that we made hell from ourselves. He made heaven (earth) into hell with greed, deception, and destruction. And because of greed, we blind ourselves with willful ignorance and allow or participate in violence towards other beings and destroy our planet for short-term gain. The list of bi-products (sufferings) from greed goes on and on.
The concept “nothing” cannot have the ability to act, otherwise it would be a thing that exists. If the universe came from “nothing” then this nothing would have had to have acted in order to have become the universe. Therefore, the universe could not have come from nothing on its own. Since the universe obviously exists, then “something” which had the ability to act, must have always existed. If time had ever in the past, proceeded at an infinite rate, we would not be here today because all events would have already occurred in a single instant. Therefore, time had to have always proceeded at a finite rate and any mathematician can prove that since time has always progressed at a finite rate, it could never have reached an infinite time interval. Therefore, time could not have started a finite time ago and therefore had a beginning. And you cannot just say, all we need to do is to wait an infinite amount of time and then we would reach an infinite amount of time, because then you are assuming that you can wait an infinite amount of time, but this is what you were trying to prove and so that is not a proof at all. Since this “something” always existed, it had to have existed before time started. Since space and time are one entity as Einstein pointed out, and since all material things must exist in space and time, then this “something” had to have existed outside of space and time and is not made up of material things. And this “something” could not be just chaos which has no order, because as we have already proved, something cannot come from nothing on its own, and therefore order cannot come from pure disorder. Hence, this “something” had to have had the ability to cause order and since we call ourselves beings, then we should at least call this “something” the greatest Being of all, who we call God.
Walter Russell while A LOT to handle at first... is amazingly concise!!! Wolfgang's vertical and horizontal causation shares many similarities to his own ideas bought out in the 1920's by Mr. Russell
You have great guests, no doubt. But you should let them speak for themselves. Trying to finish someone else's thoughts is distracting. This gentleman said several times, "That's not really what I'm saying." Otherwise, you're doing a great job, which we all appreciate.
I like this presenter or interviewer, this is my first time coming to his channel 5 minutes into his channel and I love his style. I will subscribe to his channel
Love your podcast! this is very interesting. I am a blinded veteran served in Iraq 2007 i lost allll vision and light perception, by ied Ramadi shrapnel right through my eyepro inoculated my brown eyes now force to explore the unknown new alternative way of life. Just in one flash, it’s all gone, then fades to blak. I want more of this dude! especially the retina imagery about the physics, and the pluTeutonic verse atomic philosophy . Love to chat Monday with you! I please look up Dan Winters. would love to see you interview this guy I am very interesting easy super super intelligent and smarter than you, so it would be perfect for your podcast ! that’s an order private Calan lol. JK medically retired specialist Werda .
I hope you are doing well Casimir. I recommend the searching for the theories of everything channel interview with Wolfgang and just the theory of everything channel itself
This is possibly the most enlightening bit of information I've ever encountered. The concepts are reinforced in so many ways and disciplines, including genetics. Whereas a unique genome may be pathologized so as to explain things like hair color and predisposition to certain diseases, it can't explain things like creativity, motivation, talent, intelligence, etc. The quantum view is reductive, as is the genomic view. Life, intuition, expression, comprehension, individuality - none of these things can be rationally explained in terms of neuro-interpretive absolutes or arrays of interference patterns within the realm of quantum possibility. So many aspects of human perception are beyond explanation as to discredit any and every attempt to quantify them, relegating those attempts to the level of superstition - the very thing that these disciplines seek to discredit! It's a wonderful journey into chaos, and doubtful that we'll ever reach an understanding within the timeframe allotted to this12,500 year dispensation. Maybe next time...
It sounds like you've not studied much about the genome/genetics, or human biology and psychology. If so, it's pretty egregious to assert that an area of science of which you haven't acquired a deep understanding has failed to explain things that aren't even necessarily within its remit. Also, there are areas in science that have only recently started to be studied, such as consciousness and perception, so there's currently not a lot of data. Unless you already know the answers yourself, it's foolish to then conclude that these things are _"beyond explanation"_ and can't possibly have a rational formulation within whatever a _"neuro-interpretive absolute"_ is. If humanity makes it past the next 30 years, I'm pretty sure 12,500 years will be enough time to acquire a decent amount of knowledge and understanding to achieve useful things with-which is kinda the only thing science is for, but you wouldn't get that unless you've got a background in science. One thing science *_doesn't_* deal in is _absolutes_ although it's usually the first mistake people who don't do any science make. Here are some others: science doesn't and will not ever *_prove_* anything to be _true_ or _false_ ; it's never tried to. Granted, some scientific voices can have the tendency to communicate things in a manner that makes them sound certain beyond any doubt. But whenever science refers to the notion of _knowledge_ or _knowing_ something, it does not mean this in absolute tems. Science accrues data and evidence, which can add to the current understanding around a subject, but likely raises just as many questions in the process and highlights gaps in understanding. But no scientist will earnestly claim to _know_ (in absolute terms) anything.
Evolution, taught as an absolute, or as close an approximation as can be gotten away with, is a total leap of faith. Arriving at Darwin's origin of species hypothesis occurred long before there was any understanding of DNA, protein synthesis, etc. It was recently announced that life had been "created" without a prior living host. But they didn't create anything. At best, they assembled bits of already existing components. There's still no explanation whatsoever how those components came to be. I can't remember the premise of the video that I watched over a month ago, but a lot of your criticism of my post sounds more like a restatement than a contradiction. Anyway, you're entitled to your beliefs, views, and analysis. And so am i.
This is great, I hope he has more such people on the podcast. I like the way he does it, first some jokes, some intro and then the interview with interesting and very smart people.
I'm a minute 25.16 and here's my reaction. I don't understand why every here is gushing about Wolfgang Smith. He strikes me as a BS artist. If you're going to deny Einstein's discovery of E=MC2, you need to provide proof. Smith just says it was 'in journals'. Smith had to know that any half way competent intellectual would demand a specific citation. He didn't provide a citation. The assumption, therefore, is that he couldn't. Smith said that Einstein's famous formula, which he says Einstein didn't discover, was the 'only thing Einstein got right'. We'll, that's BS. Einstein predicted that gravity causes the curvature of space. That's proven to be true. Or has someone proven overwise? Or does Smith attribute that some previous 'journal'.
@@ebrahimprice2154 Apples and oranges. Yes, a similar mathmatical formula was in discussion, also, between Poincare and Einstein. But,, "Einstein was the first to propose the correct relationship, E = mc2,'. My complaint about Smith remains the same. He should have provided citations. What he says, in effect, is 'I'm smarter than Einstein.' So, where is Smith's great insight that surpasses Einstein? All he offers is double-talk headed in the direction of spiritualism.
** You seem pretty dum-dum and have fallen for the Einstein heroism lies. Can you even search on your own? You can start with "was Einstein the first to invent e=mc2 scientific american." Or a lesser known search for "Olinto De Pretto" Just look at the unit for energy! Joule = kg * m/s * m/s or Energy (J) = Mass (kg) * Velocity (speed of light, c) * Velocity (speed of light, c) Duh? ** No, the correct statement is that YOU CAN'T EVEN LOOK ON YOUR OWN! He just probably couldn't remember the exact references to JJ Thomson, Oliver Heaviside, Poincare and others, which were journal papers from 25 years prior to Einstein. Einstein's "Miracle Year" is pure propaganda and you fell for it!! His 1905 "e=mc2" paper was an AFTER-TOUGHT of his early Special Relativity paper. He starts the paper with these words, which were based on feedback/questioning of his SR paper: "The results of the previous investigation lead to a very interesting conclusion, which is here to be deduced." *
@@ebrahimprice2154 the 1888 result didn’t apply to all systems of course (4/3) and had errors. I don’t know why you would cite that. It also was only an attempt at a relationship for black body radiation.
Einstein's contribution was clearing up the confusion that stemmed from considering a fixed or moving lumiferous ether. It's true that the mass energy relationship appeared before him (so did Lorentz transformations, which is why we don't call them Einstein transformations) but those relationship were only partially understood and only in terms of Newtonian laws applied to the motion relative to the ether. What Einstein did was remove the necessity of an ether completely and derive all those relationships on a completely new set of principles, namely the equivalence principle and the constancy of the speed of light.
Honestly, I totally understood Dr. Smith however, you not getting his point was like pulling teeth. I kept wanting you to let him talk without so many questions. Thanks for the video.
I think this is the first time you appeared in my feed. Thanks for interviewing Wolfagang. I don't know him but I will be investigating his writings. Also it is rare for a video as in this case to be such that I had to rewind segments because I missed something.
@22:13 -ish... I have this theory that a large percentage of physicists aren't able to conceptualize others' theories, not because they're deeply ingrained in the pervading theory, but rather, because a large portion of those, [technically minded], cannot visually conceptualize, at all. The more I research, the more I find those with a proclivity for the sciences, engineering, mathematics, tend to be on the "Aphantasic" [spectrum]. This would explain their focus on 'rules', and their inability to deviate therefrom.
@@Aelea No issue, I was agreeing that its hard to make sense of someone else's reality when they can't conceptualize what you can. He is got some odd religious views, like grandpa fiddling with iphone.
I don't know that E=mc^2 predates Einstein and you need to cite your source otherwise it's a gratuitous and meaningless statement. Mr Callen needed to press him harder on the source because Dr Smith seems reluctant to divulge it.
** Then go fcking look it up!! Can you even search on your own? You can start with "was Einstein the first to invent e=mc2 scientific american." Or a lesser known search for "Olinto De Pretto" Just look at the unit for energy! Joule = kg * m/s * m/s or Energy (J) = Mass (kg) * Velocity (speed of light, c) * Velocity (speed of light, c) Duh? ** He just probably couldn't remember the exact references to JJ Thomson, Oliver Heaviside, Poincare and others, which were journal papers from 25 years prior to Einstein. You have just fallen for the Einstein heroism lies. His 1905 "e=mc" paper was an AFTER-TOUGHT of his early Special Relativity paper. He starts the paper with these words, which were based on feedback/questioning of his SR paper: "The results of the previous investigation lead to a very interesting conclusion, which is here to be deduced."
He’s wrong on this. You have some scattered attempts with specific situations. No one made an argument for all mass and energy to have the relationship including Poincaré. Second, the equation is a simpler form of the one Einstein ended at.
It’s so great to have a giant of the scientific world on your program. It left me anxious for more. Get Wolfgang back for a follow-up and have him explain exactly why he thinks Einstein was wrong about everything except E=mc2. What’s wrong with special and general relativity? Was his explanation of the photoelectric effect, for which he got his Nobel Prize, wrong too? Why?
This guy surprised me with his ultra based Plato take. Although I would argue Plotinus was even superior and came after Tesla, Steinmetz and Heaviside would be proud of this guy. The best electrical engineers have always understood reality far deeper than the pure maths dorks
Two issues any Egghead should realize but they don't; 1)If you cannot explain something so that "average Joes" can UNDERSTAND the implications and instead validate through obfuscation supported by "Fishy Math Formulas" then you should be ignored. 2)If you do not approach ANY investigation without first examining Consciousness then you are like the man in the parable of searching for lost keys under a streetlight because he can see better than in the dark woods where he lost them. If he would invest a few evenings with Magic Mushrooms he would directly experience that the "Cartesian Bifurcation" is correct-that everything is "imagined" and a product of the mind. We NEVER truly "measure" anything with accuracy because it is NOT a "thing" in the standard sense. When we interact with Reality through our physical senses we are NEVER present in the "now". Speed of Light is faster than speed of sound-yet when we clap our hands we imagine the "clap" corresponding with contact. If our senses operated reflecting the "rules" of Reality we would "hear" the clap after the strike (like with lightning and thunder). Instead our brain "buffers" the video track for up to 1/2 a second and imposes concurrency!!! This easy example then makes everything suspect if Science does not factor for this aspect of Consciousness. From a personal perspective-I have encountered Mandelbrot Patterns in altered states of Consciousness. These though are not 2-D but 3-D with "pulsing". Can you write a formula for this? Can we use technology to express it like we do with 2-D in YT clips?
Haha, which is not even close to historical reality. Just read a paper of Einstein responding to his critics about QM, it’s subtle, and philosophically deep. Just a simple example.
I’m bet that this guy (like many people past and present) has no idea of Einstein’s ACTUAL ideas on Quantum Theory, and makes no reservations in speaking about it.
The atheists in physics tend to poison everything. It's why Einstein invented special relativity. Because the Michelson-Morley experiment proved the earth was not moving through space, but standing still. Which is not only evidence for the existence of God, but the belief that the Catholic Church stood up for against Galileo. They would rather reinvent physics than admit anything that points so strongly to God, especially the Christian idea of God.
I agree, the physics world is a hot mess. I was turned-off from studying physics because scientists were changing the definitions of things. My point of view is that if they have to change the definition of terms to get their therories to fit, they are doing it wrong.
Whatever works. Whatever works best. The same words used in Newtonian Mechanics, Thermodynamics, Electromagnetism, Quantum Mechanics, General Relativity stand for different concepts. Things and words and concepts don't have a fixed meaning. They evolve. Form follows function. It's all about creating models for the purpose of prediction and control. See Heisenberg's Physics and Philosophy and Feyerabend's Against Method.
I loved it when you throw out your theory of when burn the table it turns into energy, and he basically calls you an idiot, and it looks like you shrink in your chair down to the size of a pea.
You really needed Eric W. On this on Bryan. It's an enjoyable show. Just wish you had someone who understood the language he is using to ask deeper questions. Thanks man. Keep up the good work.
My question about the observed and acted upon idea is that, when is an atom or anything not observed and acted upon. If gravity is supposed to make all mass attract each other than all matter is always observed and acted upon by all other matter. This is also my problem with the double slit experiment. That one photon should be detected and observed by everything it passes yet only this one machine being on or off makes a difference. Why does only this one observer that changes the outcome. Why are the other observers ignored.
Mach's Principle always applies. gravity isn't what binds matter. matter must meet a threshold of size to affect "space-time". 2 body experiment = false according to Mach's Principle galactic inertia always applies. Double-slit experiment = misconception. the photon is only a broken bit of the wave.
Might some qualia be subjectively measurable at perception, and are they consistently associated with a repeatable quantification of some attribute, for example redness and wavelength. This suggests an affinity or commonality .
"Einstein only got one thing right (E=MC^2) .... and it was already in the literature." Sorry, but that is nonsense. And to make such a claim without reference to even one physicist who said it before Einstein is irresponsible. And to say that Relativity is wrong, when it has been confirmed over and over and over, is bizarre. Wolfgang (pronounced volf-gong, not wolf-gang) has evidently done some good mathematics, but his physics is seriously retrograde. He reminds me of the German physicists of the early 20th century, all of the non-Jewish physicists in Germany in fact, who signed a document saying that Relativity is wrong. (Draw your own conclusion about the basis of their sentiment.) A journalist interviewed Einstein and asked him for a response. He simply said "If they had proven Relativity wrong, one signature would be enough(!)" There are lots of great mathematicians who make terrible (physics) ontologists. Smith is just the oldest.
** You sound like an absolute, complete douche. Can you even search on your own? You can start with "was Einstein the first to invent e=mc2 scientific american." Or a lesser known search for "Olinto De Pretto" Just look at the unit for energy! Joule = kg * m/s * m/s or Energy (J) = Mass (kg) * Velocity (speed of light, c) * Velocity (speed of light, c) Duh? ** It's bizarre that people believe in a theory that predicts that two inertial frames are both moving with clocks that slow relative to each other. It doesn't even make 1 fck worth of common sense.
Roman "Lucretius" (200 BC) created the theory of "atoms." The author of "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" wrote a subsequent book in which he states that "being" does NOT create "quality," but, instead, "quality" creates "being"!
No, it's not, don't be silly Science is just the the systematization of experience. Saying it's wrong it's like saying experiences are all "flawed" or "wrong" It literally makes no sense
His story sounds similar to my grandmother's who also fled both , her family was killed or jailed for political opposition etc. She had to put her firstborn in an orphanage but was able to go back for him before she left the country , escaped.on a train her uncle ran to get to Austria where she met my grandfather, came to the US and eventually became an awarding winning journalist and small newspaper owner ,!
It's a bad interview. Wolfgang tries to explain that e= mc2 was a known formula even in Einstein's day and that it is not a product of (general) relativity ...and mr Callen starts waffling about the fact that Greek philosophers deduced that there must be something like an atom
Olinto De Pretto came out with e=mc2 in his 1903 paper "hypothesizing the aether...." and derived it via radioactive deacy. Einstein really did steal it lol
When a mistake is made it's a celebration in the eyes of the scientists. The point being there's still so much to learn. I like to learn from my mistakes. I'm only human after all.
This is untrue. Usually the last thing scientists want to do is admit they were wrong. Einstein is the perfect example of this. He literally reinvented physics to prop up the Copernican Principle because scientists did not want to admit they were wrong about something that they took to be a proven fact. From the Big Bang theory to dark matter and energy, modern physics is literally just a constant refusal to accept that they are wrong. Wolfgang actually knows this, and has said as much in other interviews.
Would have loved to hear more from this man, but got seriously frustrated when the interviewer kept interrupting him before he had finished his train of thought. Guess I'll just have to buy the book.
or instead of crying like a little girl , buy the book in the first place. oh wait, you just wanted a freebie
Yeah, I noticed that too...
The Bryan guy is yet another wanna-be trying to emulate the fools who wish to rise, but their own ignorance hold them back. If the old boy is so smart then let him speak!!
This is like when I try to explain to my wife and kids that digging a hole in the backyard and filling it with water won't make for a good swimming pool.
Mudcrab, related to Millipond.
If you do a good enough job ..... it will.
If you pack it with the clay you dug up and cover that with sand it'll be pretty 👍
Please don't give my family any ideas, y'all 😑
Will work for a few days lol
Beethoven wrote the Moonlight Sonata. Mozart is Nacht Muzik, I think
A little, I guess...
Can't imagine the rush of endorphins through Bryan's body when a man of this stature tells hims that is a very very good point.
As long as it wasn't from condescension...
I'm still bugged that a man named Wolfgang would attribute the moonlight sonata to his namesake!
If you get named wolfgang you instantly get +30 IQ points
So what names give negative points? We need to know, for science… I’ll assume, based on first-hand observation, that ‘Mike’ is one of them ;)
The hindu's do believe, you mark your child's path a bit, even through the name you chose for the kid.
Like Amadeus Mozart? Pauli? Goethe?
Have kids and name them Wolfgang. The world needs it.
@Mike Rother
Bing-O !
Mike, you got it !
My first thought here (after only reading the intro) is be careful about falling for the "appeal to authority" fallacy. Many "intelligent" people have said and done very stupid things. * cough cough Dr. Fauci* - "Mr Science" himself.
15:15
Lee Smolin wrote an interesting book. "The Trouble with Physics". Current theories have some deep flaws. and the physics community doesn't seem interested in examining them as they will have to sacrifice sacred cows.
Its amazing him and sir Roger Penrose are still pumping out theory and working in their fields
Yeah and legions of ignorant followers adore them and hang by their every fantastical word.
@@dodatroda WHY THE DENSITY OF THE SUN IS ONE QUARTER OF THAT OF WHAT IS THE EARTH:
Consider what is THE EYE. The fourth dimension is consistent with WHAT IS E=MC2, AS c squared CLEARLY represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE; AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. So, a given PLANET (including WHAT IS THE EARTH) sweeps out equal area in equal TIME. Consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE); AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE; AS the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution. Indeed, consider what is the fully illuminated AND setting/WHITE MOON. Now, consider that WHAT IS the ORANGE AND setting Sun is (ON BALANCE) the SAME SIZE as THE EYE. Notice the TRANSLUCENT AND BLUE sky ON BALANCE, AS THE EARTH is ALSO BLUE. I have mathematically proven why the density of what is THE SUN IS about ONE QUARTER of that of what is THE EARTH. The bulk density of WHAT IS THE MOON IS comparable to that of what are (volcanic) basaltic lavas ON THE EARTH.
By Frank Martin DiMeglio
@@dodatroda but we have you, a brilliant materialistic and Scientism guy to illustrate and illuminate all of us....
@@ernestodejosue607 if the shoe fits
They both seem slightly delusional to me but, they are certainly still doing something!
This is great man, you are like a sherpa for the ignorant. Thanks for taking us on this trip. Wolfgang won't be here a whole lot longer, but you will forever have this and the knowledge he left behind for us.
Lack of knowledge and being ignorant are very different things.
@@diggie9598 lack of knowledge is called nescience
@@diggie9598 I'll ignore your comment.
@Guitarzen yeah I felt that, but I believe it was because the interview was cut short. He didn’t get enough time.
@guitarszen There is a long form interview of him by Curt Jaimungal who has a physics background. But if the complaint is that he is not a materialistic physicist, but also a mathematician (shocking) and a philosopher (Oh NO) then it probably won't satisfy you there either.
Well done, Bryan. Thank you Dr. Smith for sharing your thoughts.
He's a fraud, man. Scientists are finding out to this day that Einstein was right about a lot of things.
Dr Smith is a true genius & wise philosopher..his books on the Quantum Enigma changed how I view the world and physics.
He understand what is Real.
He is senile and was never smart enough to discard religion
lol YGBKM
I wish the host wouldn’t interrupt Dr. Wolfgang Smith so much. I don’t mind his contributions to make the interview more conversational, but he definitely was cutting Wolfgang off several times. Let the man speak!
What a delightful surprise of a crossover. Bryan is a true renaissance man.
If ya'll wish to go deeper, Dr. Smith's two discussions with cognitive scientist John Vervaeke are tremendous (would love to see Bryan sit down with Vervaeke too!),
ua-cam.com/video/5G9gk49VhKM/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/1Lm3y_4a--0/v-deo.html
I can’t believe I haven’t seen this guy on anywhere else, you did a great service, sir bringing this interview to us. Thank you.
Looks to me like he's interviewing a fraud. And you're believing it.
Love that Bryan found someone much younger than him to explain how stupid his materialistic views are.
I concur...........
kind regards Leg-Ends
the young man was like "sup wrinks?"
Li9kkjñ
The lattice of Sub-atomic particles in ‘our universie’ are the footprints from a higher dimension. Much like when a pencil intersects with a piece of paper, the lead mark is what’s left behind (not the evidence of an entire pencil). Consciousness has a massless ‘sub-atomic particle’ but it cannot be observed because it travels faster than the SOL (See the double-slit experiment). The purpose of a universal existence is for the ‘universe’ to understand itself. ‘God’ doesn’t have redundancies. We’re on the ground working things out in non-linear time. We’re all ONE, conscious or not of the fact that each individual reality (or perspective) is dependent upon the other for a grand. Understanding/intellect. Put it this way, God wouldn’t think about all possible outcomes, matter would just arrange itself in all possible ways. Thats what ‘reality’ is. God and his thoughts are not separate from reality, they’re one and the same. God is all of us precisely because we are all of God (aka his children). It’s much deeper than our linear perception. The river flows both ways and it’s easily proven.
Nice double gaslight. 😅😑🙃
Wolfgang seems to be aligning with Roger Penrose's three world model. This also underpins Probacism and explains why if you follow the Guidelines of Problacism, whatever your belief or religion, you eventually find out how the universe actually works.
It's fascinating listening to two men in their 90's conversate.
LOLOL!!! Almost spit out my coffee. Daaammnnn! Hottest take by far : )
Converse
Omg give it a rest
Converse
Hahhahhaa
A depth of wisdom that is sorely needed in the world right now
lol
It wont make you grow one more peanut per acre
Callen you're a savage for bringing this content.. Shits so fascinating...People could learn so damn much from this but we know most won't listen. ✌️Man
once upon a time on pre dumbed down earth we had the trivium,quadrivium and only after that work one was ready for astrology and metaphysics.this was a classic education.most of todays students are computer operators or laborers with few exceptions
Thank you so much for bringing this extraordinary Man to public view!
May God Bless you, both, and all of us worldwide!!
Guaranteed a catholic would take this point of view but if it ain't working you need a new bag of tricks. You are stuck with the old Ideas if your bag is full and you are out of bags.
This man is an extraordinary fraud.
Wonderful guest and interview. Thanks for introducing me to Wolfgang Smith!
Been following Dr Wolfgang for a little bit and great to see him on your show Bryan. Thanks for the pod.
Bryan: "You want to break down the Moonlight Sonata by Mozart?"
You, whispering: "What?"
Me: "Forget it, he's on a roll."
I'm actually angry that when the dude asked "what do yogis do?" Brain didn't answer "steal picnic baskets?"
picanic*
YOUUU …. YOU URSAPHOBE !!!
*Brian*
Great episode! It's so cool that you started doing these types of talks, I look forward to more interesting conversations and if I could recommend one guest who Wolfgang actually knows to is John vervaeke! Won't disappoint I promise, he was great on lex's podcast!
top podcast! now you know how Brendan feels in most conversations
Such joy to have programs like this one available on UA-cam
Physics is.
Save it before youtube shuts it down for "false information"
@@ms.pirate It probably IS false information, and that guy is probably a fraud.
Saying that everything that Einstein said is wrong, except one thing which he stole? And you're dumb enough to believe such sh_t? Seriously?
His book "physics and vertical causation" is a good read, its only around 112 pages long so if anyone is interested in this topic its not a daunting read.
This was an amazing discussion, thank you for sharing it!!!
You’re the person in class we all admire because he’s willing to sound stupid.
You people have the wrong idea.... I actually hate people that call others stupid. And who's the authority on Intelligence btw? There's NONE. Because the beginnings of Science... Was due to "stupid questions"!!! The second you stop asking questions because you're afraid of being labelled stupid... That's when Ignorance starts to settle in! And that's actually WORSE than being labelled stupid. What is actually stupid is people that don't try to understand.... That's what dumb/stupid means for me. Science is actually about being wrong, discovering truths and gain knowledge (if I can put it that simply). Then there are those ideas... It has to make predictions, be mathematical, blablablabla. That's the mathematical side of Science... I don't approach Science that way... Others can try, it sure does seem to show results
If I could meet like ten people who are famous in my eyes. Bryan Callen would be one for sure !
Brian is curious and patient. Great at asking questions and letting the conversation flow! With more deeply informative discussions like this, he will begin to comprehend more of what these mega IQ people are describing (and then form even better questions and followups). That's not a dis. It's about exposure, and genuine interest. really enjoyed this
This guy isn't a scientist, he's a fraud. No scientist would go "c is a big number, so by losing a little mass you gain a lot of energy", that's absulutely unscientific bullsh_t and misinformation, which you are believing. Next you gonna believe the earth is flat...
Also scientists are finding out to this day how right Einstein was with many things.
This channel isn't informative, it's concerning.
I've been following the JRE circle since 2013 and the work of Prof Wolfgang Smith since 2016. They finally cross.
Dope Wrinks! Really liking your pod lately, cool topics..
I got some goosebumps when Brian mentioned the Buddhist monk burned himself in protest of the Vietnam war. I had the same line of thinking when I was little. This monk transcended beyond the reality of fire. Bc we associate fire with hell in the Judeo Christian, hell has nothing over him. It's the most powerful thing I witnessed when I was young. It made me realize that we made hell from ourselves. He made heaven (earth) into hell with greed, deception, and destruction. And because of greed, we blind ourselves with willful ignorance and allow or participate in violence towards other beings and destroy our planet for short-term gain. The list of bi-products (sufferings) from greed goes on and on.
Bryan is the perfect balance of deep/silly
I’m trying. Hard to listen to this freaking pumpkin pie hair cutted guy
Good description of life it self.
Where do you see the "deep" part???
@@4Everlast it/self
@@Sulayman.786 I keep forgetting how illogical English actually is, thanks for the daily reminder.
Congrats on inviting Dr Smith!!🎉🎉
I wonder if this guy knows that Bryan used to fart into the microphone on Ten Minute Podcast
Lol
The concept “nothing” cannot have the ability to act, otherwise it would be a thing that exists. If the universe came from “nothing” then this nothing would have had to have acted in order to have become the universe. Therefore, the universe could not have come from nothing on its own.
Since the universe obviously exists, then “something” which had the ability to act, must have always existed. If time had ever in the past, proceeded at an infinite rate, we would not be here today because all events would have already occurred in a single instant. Therefore, time had to have always proceeded at a finite rate and any mathematician can prove that since time has always progressed at a finite rate, it could never have reached an infinite time interval. Therefore, time could not have started a finite time ago and therefore had a beginning. And you cannot just say, all we need to do is to wait an infinite amount of time and then we would reach an infinite amount of time, because then you are assuming that you can wait an infinite amount of time, but this is what you were trying to prove and so that is not a proof at all.
Since this “something” always existed, it had to have existed before time started. Since space and time are one entity as Einstein pointed out, and since all material things must exist in space and time, then this “something” had to have existed outside of space and time and is not made up of material things. And this “something” could not be just chaos which has no order, because as we have already proved, something cannot come from nothing on its own, and therefore order cannot come from pure disorder. Hence, this “something” had to have had the ability to cause order and since we call ourselves beings, then we should at least call this “something” the greatest Being of all, who we call God.
To me, great philosophers are competent physicists and great physicists are competent philosophers
By it self amazing to hear this man has changed my life at 62 thank you for clearing up the cloudly vision that was taught.
Walter Russell while A LOT to handle at first... is amazingly concise!!!
Wolfgang's vertical and horizontal causation shares many similarities to his own ideas bought out in the 1920's by Mr. Russell
This video made me subscribe to your channel, Bryan. Comedy and philosophy are intertwined.
Yep it's the key to exiting the cave.
Why isn't it titled comedy, I've wasted time,... ...., couldn't understand why!
i just hear physics
1:10 Moonlight Sonata is Beethoven's, not Mozart's.
Physics may very well be wrong, but one shouldn't mix up Beethoven & Mozart.
You have great guests, no doubt. But you should let them speak for themselves. Trying to finish someone else's thoughts is distracting. This gentleman said several times, "That's not really what I'm saying." Otherwise, you're doing a great job, which we all appreciate.
I like this presenter or interviewer, this is my first time coming to his channel 5 minutes into his channel and I love his style. I will subscribe to his channel
Love your podcast! this is very interesting. I am a blinded veteran served in Iraq 2007 i lost allll vision and light perception, by ied Ramadi shrapnel right through my eyepro inoculated my brown eyes now force to explore the unknown new alternative way of life. Just in one flash, it’s all gone, then fades to blak. I want more of this dude! especially the retina imagery about the physics, and the pluTeutonic verse atomic philosophy
. Love to chat Monday with you! I please look up Dan Winters. would love to see you interview this guy I am very interesting easy super super intelligent and smarter than you, so it would be perfect for your podcast ! that’s an order private Calan lol. JK medically retired specialist Werda .
I hope you are doing well Casimir. I recommend the searching for the theories of everything channel interview with Wolfgang and just the theory of everything channel itself
MOONLIGHT SONATA is from BEETHOVEN, not MOZART. But the vid remains interesting
Keep upthe good work. I'm going to listen to it a second time to absorb all of his wisdom.
This explains why I don't seem to exist at home until my wife talks to me.
Thanks for uploading this, Brian! This is quality over quantity🤯 Keep it up!🤙🤘
This is a fraud, you know? No real scientist talks like this.
Interview guy needs to smoke a joint
You’re a god send Bryan Callen. Well done 👏👏👏
This is possibly the most enlightening bit of information I've ever encountered. The concepts are reinforced in so many ways and disciplines, including genetics. Whereas a unique genome may be pathologized so as to explain things like hair color and predisposition to certain diseases, it can't explain things like creativity, motivation, talent, intelligence, etc. The quantum view is reductive, as is the genomic view. Life, intuition, expression, comprehension, individuality - none of these things can be rationally explained in terms of neuro-interpretive absolutes or arrays of interference patterns within the realm of quantum possibility. So many aspects of human perception are beyond explanation as to discredit any and every attempt to quantify them, relegating those attempts to the level of superstition - the very thing that these disciplines seek to discredit! It's a wonderful journey into chaos, and doubtful that we'll ever reach an understanding within the timeframe allotted to this12,500 year dispensation. Maybe next time...
It sounds like you've not studied much about the genome/genetics, or human biology and psychology. If so, it's pretty egregious to assert that an area of science of which you haven't acquired a deep understanding has failed to explain things that aren't even necessarily within its remit. Also, there are areas in science that have only recently started to be studied, such as consciousness and perception, so there's currently not a lot of data. Unless you already know the answers yourself, it's foolish to then conclude that these things are _"beyond explanation"_ and can't possibly have a rational formulation within whatever a _"neuro-interpretive absolute"_ is. If humanity makes it past the next 30 years, I'm pretty sure 12,500 years will be enough time to acquire a decent amount of knowledge and understanding to achieve useful things with-which is kinda the only thing science is for, but you wouldn't get that unless you've got a background in science. One thing science *_doesn't_* deal in is _absolutes_ although it's usually the first mistake people who don't do any science make. Here are some others: science doesn't and will not ever *_prove_* anything to be _true_ or _false_ ; it's never tried to. Granted, some scientific voices can have the tendency to communicate things in a manner that makes them sound certain beyond any doubt. But whenever science refers to the notion of _knowledge_ or _knowing_ something, it does not mean this in absolute tems. Science accrues data and evidence, which can add to the current understanding around a subject, but likely raises just as many questions in the process and highlights gaps in understanding. But no scientist will earnestly claim to _know_ (in absolute terms) anything.
Evolution, taught as an absolute, or as close an approximation as can be gotten away with, is a total leap of faith. Arriving at Darwin's origin of species hypothesis occurred long before there was any understanding of DNA, protein synthesis, etc. It was recently announced that life had been "created" without a prior living host. But they didn't create anything. At best, they assembled bits of already existing components. There's still no explanation whatsoever how those components came to be. I can't remember the premise of the video that I watched over a month ago, but a lot of your criticism of my post sounds more like a restatement than a contradiction. Anyway, you're entitled to your beliefs, views, and analysis. And so am i.
This is great, I hope he has more such people on the podcast. I like the way he does it, first some jokes, some intro and then the interview with interesting and very smart people.
"Modern" Physics is far away from Reality:
Speculations + Assumptions + Hypotheses + Speculations + Assumptions + Hypotheses + Speculations + Assumptions + Hypotheses + Speculations + Assumptions + Hypotheses + Speculations + Assumptions + Hypotheses...
and weird conclusions, weird conclusions, weird conclusions,
weird conclusions, weird conclusions, ...
I'm a minute 25.16 and here's my reaction. I don't understand why every here is gushing about Wolfgang Smith. He strikes me as a BS artist. If you're going to deny Einstein's discovery of E=MC2, you need to provide proof. Smith just says it was 'in journals'. Smith had to know that any half way competent intellectual would demand a specific citation. He didn't provide a citation. The assumption, therefore, is that he couldn't. Smith said that Einstein's famous formula, which he says Einstein didn't discover, was the 'only thing Einstein got right'. We'll, that's BS. Einstein predicted that gravity causes the curvature of space. That's proven to be true. Or has someone proven overwise? Or does Smith attribute that some previous 'journal'.
1900: HENRI POINCARÉ
m = E/c^2
1888: OLIVER HEAVISIDE
m = (4/3)E/c^2
@@ebrahimprice2154 Apples and oranges. Yes, a similar mathmatical formula was in discussion, also, between Poincare and Einstein. But,, "Einstein was the first to propose the correct relationship, E = mc2,'. My complaint about Smith remains the same. He should have provided citations. What he says, in effect, is 'I'm smarter than Einstein.' So, where is Smith's great insight that surpasses Einstein? All he offers is double-talk headed in the direction of spiritualism.
**
You seem pretty dum-dum and have fallen for the Einstein heroism lies. Can you even search on your own? You can start with "was Einstein the first to invent e=mc2 scientific american." Or a lesser known search for "Olinto De Pretto"
Just look at the unit for energy! Joule = kg * m/s * m/s or Energy (J) = Mass (kg) * Velocity (speed of light, c) * Velocity (speed of light, c)
Duh?
**
No, the correct statement is that YOU CAN'T EVEN LOOK ON YOUR OWN! He just probably couldn't remember the exact references to JJ Thomson, Oliver Heaviside, Poincare and others, which were journal papers from 25 years prior to Einstein. Einstein's "Miracle Year" is pure propaganda and you fell for it!! His 1905 "e=mc2" paper was an AFTER-TOUGHT of his early Special Relativity paper. He starts the paper with these words, which were based on feedback/questioning of his SR paper:
"The results of the previous investigation lead to a very interesting conclusion, which is here to be deduced."
*
@@ebrahimprice2154 the 1888 result didn’t apply to all systems of course (4/3) and had errors. I don’t know why you would cite that. It also was only an attempt at a relationship for black body radiation.
Einstein's contribution was clearing up the confusion that stemmed from considering a fixed or moving lumiferous ether. It's true that the mass energy relationship appeared before him (so did Lorentz transformations, which is why we don't call them Einstein transformations) but those relationship were only partially understood and only in terms of Newtonian laws applied to the motion relative to the ether. What Einstein did was remove the necessity of an ether completely and derive all those relationships on a completely new set of principles, namely the equivalence principle and the constancy of the speed of light.
Honestly, I totally understood Dr. Smith however, you not getting his point was like pulling teeth. I kept wanting you to let him talk without so many questions. Thanks for the video.
I love this format.... I listen to Callen anywhere I can, this is what intrigues his mind and it shows.
I think this is the first time you appeared in my feed. Thanks for interviewing Wolfagang. I don't know him but I will be investigating his writings. Also it is rare for a video as in this case to be such that I had to rewind segments because I missed something.
@22:13 -ish... I have this theory that a large percentage of physicists aren't able to conceptualize others' theories, not because they're deeply ingrained in the pervading theory, but rather, because a large portion of those, [technically minded], cannot visually conceptualize, at all. The more I research, the more I find those with a proclivity for the sciences, engineering, mathematics, tend to be on the "Aphantasic" [spectrum]. This would explain their focus on 'rules', and their inability to deviate therefrom.
There was only one Nikola Tesla, most people just imitate greatness to the best of their limited comprehension.
@lymphy12 Did you have someone in particular in mind, as endeavoring to do so?
@@Aelea Someone more interesting then a dude who can't conceptualize how sin works?
@lymphy12 can you try to be less mysterious and just succinctly state your issue? No offense. I'm just trying to get to the heart of your problem.
@@Aelea No issue, I was agreeing that its hard to make sense of someone else's reality when they can't conceptualize what you can. He is got some odd religious views, like grandpa fiddling with iphone.
"if you love comedy, you come and see me" is probably the funniest thing he's ever said
I don't know that E=mc^2 predates Einstein and you need to cite your source otherwise it's a gratuitous and meaningless statement. Mr Callen needed to press him harder on the source because Dr Smith seems reluctant to divulge it.
**
Then go fcking look it up!! Can you even search on your own? You can start with "was Einstein the first to invent e=mc2 scientific american."
Or a lesser known search for "Olinto De Pretto"
Just look at the unit for energy! Joule = kg * m/s * m/s or Energy (J) = Mass (kg) * Velocity (speed of light, c) * Velocity (speed of light, c)
Duh?
**
He just probably couldn't remember the exact references to JJ Thomson, Oliver Heaviside, Poincare and others, which were journal papers from 25 years prior to Einstein. You have just fallen for the Einstein heroism lies. His 1905 "e=mc" paper was an AFTER-TOUGHT of his early Special Relativity paper. He starts the paper with these words, which were based on feedback/questioning of his SR paper:
"The results of the previous investigation lead to a very interesting conclusion, which is here to be deduced."
He’s wrong on this. You have some scattered attempts with specific situations. No one made an argument for all mass and energy to have the relationship including Poincaré. Second, the equation is a simpler form of the one Einstein ended at.
It’s so great to have a giant of the scientific world on your program. It left me anxious for more. Get Wolfgang back for a follow-up and have him explain exactly why he thinks Einstein was wrong about everything except E=mc2. What’s wrong with special and general relativity? Was his explanation of the photoelectric effect, for which he got his Nobel Prize, wrong too? Why?
This guy is one of the smartest ppl in the world, has been living in the US for around 80yrs and STILL has an accent...?!?
Great video , he really knows philosophy and physics , a rare combination
srsly? that explains the state of things...
93 years old? Absolutely Incredible
This guy surprised me with his ultra based Plato take. Although I would argue Plotinus was even superior and came after Tesla, Steinmetz and Heaviside would be proud of this guy.
The best electrical engineers have always understood reality far deeper than the pure maths dorks
Two issues any Egghead should realize but they don't;
1)If you cannot explain something so that "average Joes" can UNDERSTAND the implications and instead validate through obfuscation supported by "Fishy Math Formulas" then you should be ignored.
2)If you do not approach ANY investigation without first examining Consciousness then you are like the man in the parable of searching for lost keys under a streetlight because he can see better than in the dark woods where he lost them. If he would invest a few evenings with Magic Mushrooms he would directly experience that the "Cartesian Bifurcation" is correct-that everything is "imagined" and a product of the mind. We NEVER truly "measure" anything with accuracy because it is NOT a "thing" in the standard sense. When we interact with Reality through our physical senses we are NEVER present in the "now". Speed of Light is faster than speed of sound-yet when we clap our hands we imagine the "clap" corresponding with contact. If our senses operated reflecting the "rules" of Reality we would "hear" the clap after the strike (like with lightning and thunder). Instead our brain "buffers" the video track for up to 1/2 a second and imposes concurrency!!! This easy example then makes everything suspect if Science does not factor for this aspect of Consciousness.
From a personal perspective-I have encountered Mandelbrot Patterns in altered states of Consciousness. These though are not 2-D but 3-D with "pulsing". Can you write a formula for this? Can we use technology to express it like we do with 2-D in YT clips?
This is an awesome thing to watch. Thank you! I'm going to need a couple playthroughs with this depth.
I talk to people who are smarter too - that's how I learn. You're a good man, Wolf!
Moonlight Sonata is Beethoven, not Mozart, Bryan! Don’t make yourself to be a fool, old man! ❤
Beethoven was deaf!
WHAT????
Simmer down mrbuttlover
I'm not sure that's relevant to the conversation
Thanks. They are getting closer to what is real.
Good job holding and carrying such a weighted convo Bryan, Schaub would've tried teaching Dr.Wolfgang a thing or three
He woulda told him all about a “docamenary” he watched about “quanten” physics
@@danielstrother2494 haha that's a gooder!!
@@danielstrother2494 lol
Moon light Sonata by Mozart... oh, boy and this is just a beginning...
This was great! We need more minds like this. Thanks for the video.
Bring him back, he is treasure and a lot to give before he will say bye
Bryan is appallingly uneducated, but his enthusiasm and good nature redeem him and uplift us all.
For example he says Moonlight Sonata is by Mozart, not Beethoven. Forgiven, I guess, but it is off-putting.
Facts, my dear boy, facts.....
I'd like to hear the The Moonlight Sonata by Mozart, especially since Beethoven composed it.
So basically, Einstein was the Carlos Mencia of physics 😂
Haha, which is not even close to historical reality. Just read a paper of Einstein responding to his critics about QM, it’s subtle, and philosophically deep. Just a simple example.
I’m bet that this guy (like many people past and present) has no idea of Einstein’s ACTUAL ideas on Quantum Theory, and makes no reservations in speaking about it.
So why do other animals see different colours to us!? Colour must therefore be an interpretation of who/whatever is looking at it? Just asking🤔
The atheists are pissed because the physicists are starting to say God is real. 😂
The religion concept of god still is wrong. I can say god exist but not the way religion portrait
@@mmor7380 look at religions as languages and it becomes easier. Everyone has their own way of saying it and they all make it theirs.
@@oldhollywoodbriar exactly. Atheists believe in God cause its all they ever talk about they’re just in denial
The atheists in physics tend to poison everything. It's why Einstein invented special relativity. Because the Michelson-Morley experiment proved the earth was not moving through space, but standing still. Which is not only evidence for the existence of God, but the belief that the Catholic Church stood up for against Galileo.
They would rather reinvent physics than admit anything that points so strongly to God, especially the Christian idea of God.
This physicist doesn’t even believe in the physics
The MoonIght Sonata by Mozart... come on,man!
I agree, the physics world is a hot mess. I was turned-off from studying physics because scientists were changing the definitions of things. My point of view is that if they have to change the definition of terms to get their therories to fit, they are doing it wrong.
Whatever works. Whatever works best. The same words used in Newtonian Mechanics, Thermodynamics, Electromagnetism, Quantum Mechanics, General Relativity stand for different concepts. Things and words and concepts don't have a fixed meaning. They evolve. Form follows function. It's all about creating models for the purpose of prediction and control. See Heisenberg's Physics and Philosophy and Feyerabend's Against Method.
Same reason I got turned off on religion.
They're doing that in every branch of science
Do you have an example of word definition changing?
I loved it when you throw out your theory of when burn the table it turns into energy, and he basically calls you an idiot, and it looks like you shrink in your chair down to the size of a pea.
Would have loved to listen but Bryan callens constant impulse to say something is intolerable
You really needed Eric W. On this on Bryan. It's an enjoyable show. Just wish you had someone who understood the language he is using to ask deeper questions. Thanks man. Keep up the good work.
With the utmost respect, knowing I could not hold the conversation either. Just some friendly advice.
How does one with such impressive resume becomes so incredibly wrong and misses so hard on everything?
Care to elaborate?
@@itzrewiind9399 he won't.
Because this guy has figured it out.
@@itzrewiind9399 you can see my comment for simple errors.
So far I’m hearing a lot wrong.
THANK YOU
Brendan suppresses your personality with his ego and insecurities…you shine brighter without Brendan.
My question about the observed and acted upon idea is that, when is an atom or anything not observed and acted upon. If gravity is supposed to make all mass attract each other than all matter is always observed and acted upon by all other matter.
This is also my problem with the double slit experiment. That one photon should be detected and observed by everything it passes yet only this one machine being on or off makes a difference. Why does only this one observer that changes the outcome. Why are the other observers ignored.
Mach's Principle always applies.
gravity isn't what binds matter. matter must meet a threshold of size to affect "space-time". 2 body experiment = false according to Mach's Principle galactic inertia always applies.
Double-slit experiment = misconception. the photon is only a broken bit of the wave.
Might some qualia be subjectively measurable at perception, and are they consistently associated with a repeatable quantification of some attribute, for example redness and wavelength. This suggests an affinity or commonality .
"Einstein only got one thing right (E=MC^2) .... and it was already in the literature." Sorry, but that is nonsense. And to make such a claim without reference to even one physicist who said it before Einstein is irresponsible. And to say that Relativity is wrong, when it has been confirmed over and over and over, is bizarre. Wolfgang (pronounced volf-gong, not wolf-gang) has evidently done some good mathematics, but his physics is seriously retrograde. He reminds me of the German physicists of the early 20th century, all of the non-Jewish physicists in Germany in fact, who signed a document saying that Relativity is wrong. (Draw your own conclusion about the basis of their sentiment.) A journalist interviewed Einstein and asked him for a response. He simply said "If they had proven Relativity wrong, one signature would be enough(!)" There are lots of great mathematicians who make terrible (physics) ontologists. Smith is just the oldest.
**
You sound like an absolute, complete douche. Can you even search on your own? You can start with "was Einstein the first to invent e=mc2 scientific american."
Or a lesser known search for "Olinto De Pretto"
Just look at the unit for energy! Joule = kg * m/s * m/s or Energy (J) = Mass (kg) * Velocity (speed of light, c) * Velocity (speed of light, c)
Duh?
**
It's bizarre that people believe in a theory that predicts that two inertial frames are both moving with clocks that slow relative to each other. It doesn't even make 1 fck worth of common sense.
So...
The World as we know it doesn't exist.
That explains a lot!
Roman "Lucretius" (200 BC) created the theory of "atoms."
The author of "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" wrote a subsequent book in which he states that "being" does NOT create "quality," but, instead, "quality" creates "being"!
No, it's not, don't be silly
Science is just the the systematization of experience. Saying it's wrong it's like saying experiences are all "flawed" or "wrong"
It literally makes no sense
His story sounds similar to my grandmother's who also fled both , her family was killed or jailed for political opposition etc. She had to put her firstborn in an orphanage but was able to go back for him before she left the country , escaped.on a train her uncle ran to get to Austria where she met my grandfather, came to the US and eventually became an awarding winning journalist and small newspaper owner ,!
It's a bad interview.
Wolfgang tries to explain that e= mc2 was a known formula even in Einstein's day and that it is not a product of (general) relativity ...and mr Callen starts waffling about the fact that Greek philosophers deduced that there must be something like an atom
Olinto De Pretto came out with e=mc2 in his 1903 paper "hypothesizing the aether...." and derived it via radioactive deacy.
Einstein really did steal it lol
Love this. Fascinating stuff. Keep up the great work!
When a mistake is made it's a celebration in the eyes of the scientists. The point being there's still so much to learn. I like to learn from my mistakes. I'm only human after all.
Wish everyone else understood this. Instead, it gets used as an excuse to attack science.
This is untrue. Usually the last thing scientists want to do is admit they were wrong. Einstein is the perfect example of this. He literally reinvented physics to prop up the Copernican Principle because scientists did not want to admit they were wrong about something that they took to be a proven fact.
From the Big Bang theory to dark matter and energy, modern physics is literally just a constant refusal to accept that they are wrong. Wolfgang actually knows this, and has said as much in other interviews.
The problem with that is The Moonlight Sonata was composed by Beethoven.