Видео

"We will never have carriages that can fly with wings, nor will we ever have pictures of moving people in boxes. And certainly, we will never be able to speak with someone a mile away, let alone another continent. Might as well try to fly to the moon. Such silly ideas of fanciful minds." - Naysayer mid 1800s

I'm willing to bet that we will figure out how to transfer our brains into android bodies before we get Star-trek gravity. Essentially Data will come before the Enterprise. Our feeble bodies are the real impediment to space travel.

changing the c (speed of light) is my favorite ftl travel method

Underrated channel

Amazing!!!!

While being forced outward in a rotating ship ...what happens if you jump ?

Fascinating!

Okay

I am currently reading "The Golden Bough" by Sir James Frazer. If one desires a better understanding of and a stydy of the history of Magic, Ritual, Religion, and Myth. It is to the subject; what Darwins "The Origen of Species" is to Evolution. A seminal work . Problen is you can't get through 700 + pages in 10 min. You havet o be able to "Read" that seems to be rare today. Still onward and upward, worth the effort.

Science is magic, and magic is science.

Liked

this is swagged tf out. studying for quals atm and didnt learn shit from my proffs so now i wana giv u a kiss on the cheek

@00:11:00 wouldnt you agree that some quantum physics experiments hint to that there are no definit states. Electrons can actually sometimes go back in time but for a very brief time, ie: there is your state, and your state can change, but you can reverse the change or stop it somehow if you were quick and no other consequences of that decision or action occured yet, that is if you were on the quantum level like an electron size. I think that means there is "N states" where N are all the possible actions that can be taken, and the future is drawn slowly through the rising probability of one action against the odds of the other, and that works on the human mind level I believe as well.

Lol I did the same thing 1 day before you. (Well, I've done it multiple times lol)

Sometimes RUclips recommends me these discovery videos with dozens of views, and yours is the first that was interesting and generates interesting discussion . Thanks

Hi Chris, I like your foundational bottom-up approach. In your process of building a framework for reality you start with an analysis of the "objective" observable world as a sort of third person observer. By starting your reality-framework with descriptive laws about the nature of how things are, I believe you are starting one step too far. As conscious beings, we are inherently limited by our individual, personal view of the universe. So a truly foundational reality-framework should start at that: the observations. Then from observations we can build up and form patterns, patterns like "cause and effect" or cyclical patterns of day and night, or other such patterns. All of which can only be based on some type of incoming observations. On these patterns can be reflected, and logical transformations can turn these personal lived experiences into conclusions about the observed reality. These conclusions can only be labeled as "real" in context of the observers' observations and logical transformations of its patterns. Lets call this first order reality. Then there is "truth". Is something true because it is logically coherent with all of the observers' previous observations, patterns, and logic? Or because it is coherent with some "objective reality" outside of the observers' view. Introducing the existence of an objective reality outside of the observers view is a leap of faith in ones logic and deduction, because this is something that is inherently unobserved by the observer, only logical deduction can create the concept of an observer-independent objective reality. Then we have a conundrum, the observer logically deducts an observer-independent objective reality, yet the very thing is something the observer cannot observe. Only the effects of it can be observed. So this will always be a different type of "reality" than the actual observed "first order reality". Now this defining of a second layer of "reality" can be logically justified by the extreme practicality of it. It acts absolutely great in predicting things in the (first order) real world. So even if the existence of an observer-independent objective reality is untrue or an imagination, it still has enormous functionality in predicting patterns from your very own first order observations. From here on, you can build a path directly from your own first order observations all the way to an actual basis of epistemology. Secondly, By defining your basis axiom in terms of "forces" that could cause a change. I think you fall for an intuitive trap that human observers make, which is to think of the world around them in terms of forces with agency. Rain falling down is caused by water vapour in the air, this is caused by water in the ocean vaporizing, water is in the ocean because it got there through rivers, rivers got water because of rainfall. Individual concrete events can be thought of as being caused by a single action, but it can also be thought of as being part of an (infinitely long) chain of actions that lead to it, none of them being inherently causative themselves, just each part existing and perhaps by accident they collectively have some emergent properties which interact in some ways. As you said, the existence of time is also a social construct, and may not even be real. So classifying the fundamental reality in terms of "events" that are "caused" by "forces" may be starting off on the wrong foot. Further exposing our inherent limitation as biological human observers and the ways we think of the world around us in very human-centered pragmatic ways by inventing constructs as time.

I largely agree with you, but I think your term "social construct" misses the mark. I think more generally we discriminate the world into objects in a way that useful. It's not necessarily relevant whether they are communicated or shared with others if they are useful for us. In some circumstances, sharing and communicating using these objects is itself useful, so it covers that. But it doesn't seem essential. You may consider reframing them as "pragmatic constructs", or something of the like. I've had a idea similar to yours of existence being a relation between objects that specifies there is a causal chain (in at least one direction) between those things. It also covers some interesting examples: 1. Harry Potter (the boy) does not exist (to me). 2. Harry Potter (the boy) exists to Albus Dumbledore. 3. Harry Potter (as a character) does exist (to me). 4. Object Q, beyond our cosmic horizon, which has a causal chain to objects that eventually leads back to us, does exist (to us). 5. Object X, in some completely parallel universe with no causal connection to ours, does not exist (to us). (But it could do with respect to other items in its own parallel universe.)

00:01 Building a foundational theory of reality for meaningful conversations. 01:58 The video discusses evolutionary realism and social constructs. 03:44 Reality is a social construct based on collective agreement 05:39 Science relies on foundational assumptions like Newton's first law of motion 07:39 Mathematics is not limited to real numbers 09:37 Reality is driven by cause and effect. 11:44 Reality is constantly changing due to causes and effects. 13:46 Having a solid theory of reality is crucial for making responsible choices and working towards goals.

Love your thoughts. Heard of Vervaeke? ruclips.net/video/ooAsL46yz68/видео.htmlsi=v_YBgjGOBwjMAgVO

And non of it will ever be possible

Instead of using black holes, just use a teleporter, quick and simple.

Fantastic explanation. Keep making videos.

Its a 3d shadow of a 4d object. Its not really a tesseract, its a shadow of a tesseract. Our eyes and brains cannot percive a 4d object

On 12 November 1976 a novel called 'Star Wars: From the Adventures of Luke Skywalker' written by Alan Dean Foster, but credited to a certain George Lucas was published in which this hyperspace travel method was used, hmmmm. 🤔

I like that point about holding the ship between two black holes. Just run a couple rods with a 'hole' on each end in the middle thru the ship and boom, explainable warp drive.

Look foward to the relativity videos. And other physics video… 😊

Love the super clear intuitive explanations, earned a sub!

Only by pride cometh contention: but with the well advised is wisdom. - Proverbs

I wanted to ask a question about gravity. Does the same force that keeps the planets from flying off also cause them to move? Does gravity do both of these things?

"Correlation not Causality" By what mechanism are they correlated? Bell's Inequality appears to rule out hidden variables.

A philosophical idealist might be able to do it her mind.

Just great!

Centrifugal force. However, that needs a counter centrifugal force to negate that force.

If they used a black hole, then traveling through space shouldn’t have been a problem yet it was

Quantum physics at first is hard to understand because scientists are stupid nerds who don’t know how to communicate shit properly .

Yee can't wait

Dudes, you need to stop talking about this wave function collapse bs. There is no such thing. The wave function is like the probability distribution. It remains completely unchanged by a single measurement. Whether I throw a 1 or a 5 doesn't change probability distribution of fair dice at all. It remains 1/6 for all possible outcomes. The same is true for a wave function. The individual measurement does not change what is an abstract average property of the quantum mechanical ensemble.

I feel your struggle... You're genuine and smart, I don't know why aren't there more people watching your channel

Hy, same physics curious here. Thank you

I have a deluge of thoughts that in the end can be summed up as: Good video! Aptly, very philosophical.

Shut up! you can't explain magic bro

Glad to hear you are a philosopher and a physicist. I never had any doubts. 😄

Yes ! where do I start? I need to take some courses. I owned and operated a optical thin films facility, UV VIS IR. I am great at cause and effect however in multi layer dielectric films I had software that I used for design and had the tools to verify and adjust. The details would be maybe TMI For this message. I see these things in nature since I could see and my chemistry and craft was apprenticed. Use it or lose it..should I start from the beginning like elementary/middle/high school breeze through what I know ask what I don't because I used formulas on a TI-35 but did not know what exactly those formulas meant "exactly" That is all for now or I will write a novel.... Help :) and thanks, Be well :)

HURRAY! I needed it so badly!

The frame dragging concept gave me an idea, an inertioergonetic engine... in other words gravplating. It uses objects the size of blood cells but at a high velocity to generate artificial ergospheres and therefore gravity.

I’m a firm supporter of the theory (made by myself 😅) that magic is an innate ability that can be explained by science and can achieve feats similar to what EXTREMELY advanced science can achieve, but since it’s an ability, you can do it without the help of numerous complex engines and machines

First?

Instantaneous nearfield electromagnetic fields are real and have been demonstrated both theoretically using Maxwell equations and experimentally. We present a paper below that shows that information in these fields propagate instantaneously. See links below for more information. This phenomena can also be explained using using the Pilot Wave interpretation quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (HUP). In this interpretation HUP is: Δx Δp = h, where Δx and Δp correspond to average values. So in HUP: Δx Δp = h, where Δp=mΔv, thus HUP becomes: Δx Δv = h/m, where m is an effective mass due to momentum. In the nearfield, where the field is created, Δx=0, therefore Δv=infinity. In the farfield, HUP: Δx Δp = h, where p = h/λ. HUP then becomes: Δx h/λ = h, or Δx=λ. Also in the farfield HUP becomes: λmΔv=h, thus Δv=h/(mλ). Since p=h/λ, then Δv=p/m. Also since p=mc, then Δv=c. So in summary, in the nearfield Δv=infinity, and in the farfield Δv=c, where Δv is the average velocity of the photon according to Pilot Wave theory. But according to the Copenhagen interpretation, the above argument does not make sense, since Δv corresponds to uncertainties in their values. In addition to the Pilot Wave interpretation, only the Ensemble Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics also interprets the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (HUP) in terms of averages. But the Ensemble Interpretation does not support instantaneous propagation of information, whereas Pilot Wave theory does. Therefore, other than Pilot Wave theory, no other interpretation of Quantum Mechanics supports instantaneous propagation of information as demonstrated in our experiment, and interprets the Heisenberg uncertainty principle in terms of averages. *Electromagnetic pulse experiment paper showing information propagates instantaneously: www.techrxiv.org/doi/full/10.36227/techrxiv.170862178.82175798/v1 *RUclips presentation of above arguments: ruclips.net/video/sePdJ7vSQvQ/видео.html <ruclips.net/video/sePdJ7vSQvQ/видео.html> *More extensive paper for the above arguments: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: vixra.org/abs/2309.0145 Dr. William Walker - PhD Physics, ETH Zurich, 1997

Thanks for the explanation on the equation of motion. 😊. It gets confusing when w means something else in cosmology as the equation of state.

Nice!