Видео

great stuff

The microwave background radiation isn't specially warmer in any hemisphere. Please don't take fake information.

This video started with a huge mistake, law physics are invariants to inertial frames, no inertial frames are out of that

There is more land in the northern hemisphere

At 2:02 min vector 1+1+2+0 = 4 is equivalent to 0+0+2+0=2 so I do not see why the sum is useful; it is ambiguous. Perhaps this will be clarified as i proceed

I don’t understand fully what is being proposed for, but I am always for exploration that could lead to new theories that more closely match reality.

Great thanks 👍

I can't tell if this is schizophrenic or genius.

4:14 How on Earth you represented a photon radiating in all directions from a single source the way you are? Something is really off with your code. I mean, ok. You have a speed 0.5V. From an stationary perspective ligth goes forward with 1C. From moving - 0.5C. But it will still move with 0.5c back, as your picture assume. For stationary observer it will move this 0.5C as well. Why should it form a cone? Doesn't make any sense. You really messed something with your code of this simulation, most likely subtracting speed of the light and object speed for some weird reasons. There is no cone in 0.5C Or you mean something different with it. Explain plz, because I has a really hard time understanding who exactly see this cone.

7:00 Can you please explain to me shortly - what's the point of your model if it's not addresing the main issue SR has. How can you tell if you are moving or another object moving away from you. I just feel suspicions if I see a person instead of addressing the main issue start developing it's own magic justification for preferred reference frame. We already have such a magic, it's called SR, we don't need more. Just address the issue, not reformulate the same math. For now I only see if you just change dt speed in space-time with some inner movement (So the same 4th dimension but a different name) and somehow it solved something. This is why you guys with SR alternatives never see the light of the day in scientific community - instead of just adresing the main issue, and building a brief plan of how you are planning to overcomeit - you create the same model with the same issues but with different variable names. I assume this is your case, because if you had some original idea - you would present it straight ahead.

Have you heard of the philosophers Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari?

Hmm, this doesn't seem to explain collisions appropriately. Equal and OPPOSITE reaction is what happens in reality. I.e. colliding particles will deviate in opposite direction. There needs to be more to it.

None of this seems to explain the emergent behavior of self-replication. Nor the behavior of particle collisions. How would this possibly scale to something like self-replicating cells, or photon collisions that create matter. Also at 9:20 you say "add random direction". There is no such thing as "random". Every random operation a computer does is only pseudo-random. The universe can only exhibit pseudo-random behavior, there is no real "random" involved, ever.

I'm sorry, but you're never going to be taken seriously by the majority of the scientific community if this is how you present your work. Nobody wants to listen to a robot AI voice and broken English for an hour. Work on your production value. I mean this in the nicest way possible, I'd love it if your work was seen by a wide audience but it won't be if delivered like this.

"I hope that at least that choice is available to us..." Who are we then in essence? Machines that follow the algorithm or consciousnesses capable of controlling those machines that follow algorithms? Only consciousness can make a decision, a machine cannot since it follows a predetermined algorithm, even if it contains random instructions. I think that consciousness is the blind spot of your theory, especially in terms of the role that the human being and his consciousness play in the co-creation of the world that he perceives as physical. Your theory describes the physical world perfectly, it is simple, logical and testable, but what about the non-physical? Information is not physical, but we know that it is stored on physical devices, so where is it stored and where are those algorithms executed? In a computer external to our universe? What or who processes it? A conscious intelligence? I think these are the questions that clearly follow from your theory and that you will inevitably have to answer for yourself. The problem, as Stephen Hawking said before he died, is the point of view. We observe the universe from within, under its own laws and restrictions, not from outside. What needs to change is the point of view, but unfortunately we cannot leave and enter the universe as we please.

If you take matter as machine seriously, and space is infinitely divisible, there's nothing wrong with saying atoms of steel have "big" hooks on them which connect them to like atoms of steel and atoms of air, or gasses have less strong velcro-like hooks which are softer. This is why nanotechnology has failed so far. We are not able to "see" the machinery with any accuracy.

Jiggling protons as heat never sat well with me. Now I see, heat is caused by time.

This is the "next step." I'm with you, bro! I'm even constant on twitter.

Found you on X. And i share your view. Every time you understand why, dominoes fall into place. I´m working on my own universal theory and the reason is the "why". Now as soon as you find a sound logic, a reason, a why, you can start creating formulas to capture that. And i did and found a compelling formula, but it needs extension. I was always good at math, but never delved deep into it. You can´t always do what you want to do in life or have the opportunity to do so. AtM i have, so i learn everything i can about math and formulas. But as a universal theory means to delve into physics, quantum physics, astronomy, mathematics and information theory and more, it´s quite an undertaking to do it alone. So videos like yours are very much appreciated. Sadly i´m what society would call a "poor" thinker. :) So i need to focus on what i can get for free. No one would take me seriously anyways, as i don´t have titles or money. But there is a funny thing about relativity, as soon as you really understand it. It ensures causality when dealing with infinity. It enables calculation of any state. It is not necessary to know everything. It simply gives you the tool to understand everything you come across, many times even in an instant. And if your name is ment as an indication, i see it the same way. Energy aka matter is indeed a creation machine for infinity, based on rules, creating even more and new rules. Matter is a system, starting in simplicity and follows simplicity, but creates complexity, but it always has causality. A why. Thanks for your video!

Very interesting.

do video on why Anna Kournikova is so beautiful

So, its Trial and error right? In order to know whether something is right or wrong from our perspective we first need to take risk to try it. Rationality leads to stability it makes the society function, but risk takers are the ones who develop the society. Your comparison with evolution is not quite right in my opinion because evolution itself isn't conscious or sentient. But, are you referring the nature of evolution the trial and error method as irrational?? because mutations doesn't follow any logic or anything they are random and if they work then they stay with the organism.

I was hoping this might go into space-3 but while i don't think the presentation is as polished as it could be, it does appear you have a decent amount of information available.. from personal study?

You sh*t on Einstein and I'm here for that. Entropy will destroy everything.

Some of your ideas are amazing . 100% agree that objects at rest move slowly because they don't move straight, (always vibrating). I would nominate you for a nobel prize if I could.

I would like to speak to you do you have discord?

Hi, I have recently become interested in the various theories that try to explain how the universe works and I have a question about light and the actual speed of a moving objects. ruclips.net/video/inhrngdwGfA/видео.html From my video, it appears that (assuming the speed of light is constant and greater than that of the object) the speed of the object may appear to be greater than what it is from the observer's point of view depending on the speed of the moving object and the distance between the "emission point" and the observer. If this is correct, then how is the real speed of an object in space calculated? Furthermore, in the video, it seems that if the object is faster than the light, the observer sees (without considering distortion or similar) the movement in reverse (this does not happen if the speed of the object is added to that of light). Have you made or know any videos that explain this? Good luck with your theory and thanks for sharing it.

You are basically assuming linearity in time, which I assume that is the reason for which you critique Einstein special relativity. Although, in my opinion, I kinda see the universe as some form of entropic self assembly efficiency machine. Seek medical help.

Críticas respecto de las desigualdades tipo Bell (video síntesis): ruclips.net/video/5iDta1u6Vac/видео.html

I am game. ❄️

(Oops it did look like the previous comment was just deleted) My favorite example is an implementation of the CHSH game using a PRNG. (I'm a programmer too, not a physicist). Fixing the math also fits experimental results slightly better than cos(x)^2 does. Yes - Entanglement is well overblown, it's just a fancy word for 'correlation' which occurs at the last interaction point - IE a splitter. 3 Stacked polarizers - each polarizer changes the photon and results just with a photon/wave that could go through the polarizer, if there was immediately one that filtered all 90 degrees to that you get 0, but if you had another at 45 degrees in-between, then the interaction there changes the photon so it's no longer 0 degrees from the first polarizer, but is any that would go through a 45 degree, and then is able to go through the last 90 degree polarizer. (photons can be within +/- 22.5 degrees from the absolute direction that the filter says - it's also not that you get exactly a vertical out - you just get something that is partially vertical)... Sabine Hossenfelder actually explained non-locality quite well recently (several weeks ago I guess)... since you can predict the result for say the CHSH game, and knowing the setup, then your knowledge is of a state that is not local to you, and non-locality applies.... but it's not that the hidden variables aren't themselves local to the quantum state being tested.

(aka d3x0r) this was my approach... ruclips.net/video/oN_fSVhmR6M/видео.html Turns out the math is just wrong, and don't need a whole lot more than just comparing the ratio of sample type A to sample type B instead of comparing A or B vs the total samples. QM result is just assigning two axes (X and Y) to (up and down) respectively and then the math is a ratio that is the angle between the two, which is just the ratio of up to down without regard to the total. Bell's Inequalities just assigns that to use a local hidden variable you have to use math that doesn't get to the result. My favorite example is an implementation of the CHSH game using a PRNG. (I'm a programmer too, not a physicist).

....just checked, no free synchrotrones at this moment at my local "Rent-A-Synchro".

I think this physicist might help you get access to a synchrotron. youtube.com/@SabineHossenfelder?si=of8NMS9AyfOPondc

А, точно, продвижение.

Комент заради прогресу)

Buy me a bit of time: www.buymeacoffee.com/matterasmachine

*also* also, your section comparing men and women seems to be attributing traits to the genders (on a general level, obviously) and while you claim stats back this up, I'm curious to know if those studies controlled for cultural expectations and norms. "women don't speak up as much as men" is a cultural trait, not a biological one.

also, your argument for why evolution can't have been responsible for our intellectual capabilities is flawed. the Nash Equilibrium requires that a conscious, sentient, thinking creature is engaging in a competitive mental activity (like playing a game). evolution functions through non-sentient, non-conscious, non-thinking, naturalistic processes. it simply isn't a fair comparison.

your evidence section starts strong but quickly steers into a sort of confirmation bias territory. basically, it seems like you're saying "randomly connected thoughts lead to breakthrough ideas" and your evidence for this is a list of randomly connected thoughts. I like the overall argument, I'm just saying that it doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny (as currently written)>

I think you didn't properly understood double slit experiment. The wave nature of particles(electron, photon etc) means that there is non locality. IMO it means nobody for certain knows location of single photon, but we can ascertain probability of it being in one position rather than another. Act of observation collapses that wave and that single photon is communicating back at us, telling where he is at. You explain wave pattern by saying photons are bouncing each other inside slit if I understand correctly. You didn't mention that there were many variations of experiment, where scientist were using atoms and even molecules and they get same pattern, also many variations in slit size and distance between holes. You also fail to explain what does act of observation actually do to change the intereference pattern. How does obsevation stop ping pong behaviour of particles

You parallel line argument is false. you have idea in your mind about parallel lines and your idea of them depends on them never meeting. In order to test this idea in real world you would have to observe two parallel lines that never meet, however you live in a finite world with set boundaries you cant see parallel lines as a whole you can only see one infininitely small portion of these lines and in that infinitely small portion they dont meet but who is to say somewhere deep down the infinity road they meet?

Watched all your videos. Very cool theory overall but i need to dig into it more. I think "fighting" and disproving mainstream science is basically an uphill battle and people are very invested in their beliefs. "Science advances with one death at a time" as the saying goes. Very well explained video about the problems with "mainstream science": ruclips.net/video/i6N6KROFc6Q/видео.html Might come in handy if somebody is attacking your theory by using old paradigms.

Ah yes, the scientific breakthrough we've all been waiting for a conjecture on the complexities of "Making Crime"

For me earths temperatures and tides are too sensitive to other factors to show anything, assuming "heating slowdown" is small enough compared to known effects. For example north and south hemispheres have different land areas, ocean depths, salinity, ice coverage, cloud coverage, earths gravitational field differences and so on. These things have measurable effect on temperature and/or water movement and are well documented. I have not heard form "unknown forces" acting on ocean currents or tides and overall these systems are highly complex to just attribute anything to one effect that probably is fairly small if it even exists. I think you could search for unexplained torque effects on orbiting satellites because satellites have quite big temperature differences between "light" and "dark" side depending on their position relative to the sun and they have precise instruments. Solar radiation forces are well known, but we have had alot of satellites for quite some time now and maybe some "unknown" effects could be found. Alternatively comet tails should get some unknown directional acceleration aswell in addition to solar radiation acceleration what we have observed. Also stars are very big and hot, do they have "inexplainable" movement?

As a person living with sz, this is very interesting!