Wholesome! ❤

I am amazed at the history of all our ancestors involved to present this comment to me so that I may laugh. It seems inevitable now that it is done.

Historically, until the 16th century most people thought the centre of the universe was the earth. The obvious complications were explained away with ingenius explanations. The truth or at least the current theory is much simpler but tred on peoples toes. Little wonder that ordinary people look in astonishment at the chaos in physics even today. The explantations are even more ingenious but you get the feeling that even physicists dont understand everything correctly. I still get lost by the correct explanation for a light beam. Is it a particle or is it not. Why does the earth orbit the sun. How does the earth know the sun is there? There are about 90 natural elements and yet so many particles that make them up. The simple explanations of my childhood reflected the beauty and simplicity of science. Today I get the feeling that while practically we can allow for intricate and tiny blips and correct for them, there is something very major still missing with our understanding of even simple things such as light and gravity.

​@@jfryer485Is it a wave? Is it a particle? It's both! Welcome to the wonderful world of quantum mechanics! We know for sure of the wave-particle duality because of the ways light behaves in different situations. The photoelectrict effect is described by photons-light particles-while diffraction is described by light waves. It all makes sense when using the math of quantum mechanics, but it's not feasible to typeset math in youtube comments

@@jfryer485 Is it a wave? Is it a particle? To make sense of this, we must invent a new category that contains both waves and particles as special cases. Consider a graph, or map, of intensity vs. location, or intensity as a function of location. A wave will look wavy, of course, and a particle will look like a spike-shape. We can imagine other shapes as well, like for example TWO spikes. There's more, mostly having to do with how a thing changes from having one shape to having a different shape, but that's a good start.

I need ideas for my next D&D campaign. Please share with me the crackpot idea on metaphysics.

Fantasy writing is fun, but sometimes you get real curious about the real world and there's not a lot of people who know enough to answer questions about it :D

Internal consistency, but not external consistency? That puts philosophy firmly in the field of fiction.

How dare you say elves are not real 🤪

Same is true for sociology. Retired sociology professor--a non-zero number of "crackpot sociologists" among my students.

Shouldn't this be the appropriate response to high energy physicists hypothesising particles or interactions that can only be found using an accelerator the size of our galaxy?

@@pianoraves Well, we are experiencing tragic moments in the world of the so-called "science"...

@@PlanetIscandar Dude this video is for you, you should watch it.

@@pianoraves The whole so-called science is filled with unproven hypotheses, represented as evidence-based facts...

@@PlanetIscandar Evidence for this hypothesis?

The audacity of this man 😭 I’d enter *my* professor’s office hours like “hey, saw the door was open is it ok if I ask a few quick questions on-“

This sounds like textbook bipolar mania.

​@@KasamiraYou don't just walk in.....

It takes one to know one.

Sounds like a manic episode or maybe he was high lol

Objectively funny. Belief integrated

How about mass displaces repulsive space-time. Is that crackpot?

That's a good one. They can even babble about conformal symmetry.

People saying more energy out than in doesn't exist should wave at a nuclear power plant next time they drive by it. Just sayin'.... Okay okay, it's a bit of a cheat but hey... WE didn't put more energy in than we got out. It was already there. So... yeah.... who's to say we have exploited every such principle in existence? And that's kind of a primitive system still. Using steam and strange copper windings in a dynamo and diodes and.... and... whaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!! Hell, we don't even know a bazillionth of what's out there to know yet, so... That's a thing which makes me annoyed. It's the same with the Bedini chargers. They work. You can build them. Or buy them. Meh.

famously endorsed by legendary comic book artist Neal Adams!

Never say never 😆

I won't hold you to that promise. but I respect the intention. I have a crackpot who is about 30 years old, I am quite his senior. It's pretty funny. The dude is also into those "Psi" gadgets. The value of such loony tune friends is they can give you a few tips on nice blog articles to write about real physics. Or ... wait... is what I think of as "real physics" all just a collective mass delusion...?

Crazy you said that. I was just about to say you should become a crackpot physicist when you retire

As an aspiring engineer, the Dunning Kruger effect is absolutely mortifying

But isn't the existence of your future just a theory?

Me, just a dropout, due to the side effects of a head injury. In turn, I was classified as being the dumbest person in the class. But I always want to know what makes things tick, so when in my late 40's, I began to analyze "Motion". It turned out to be easy breezy to self discover the Special Relativity(SR) phenomena, and then just as easy to derive SR the equations independently as well. And then........you become classified as being a crackpot. Very annoying indeed.

@@helifynoe9930 do you believe in "undetectable all pervasive stuff with magical properties"? -(insert you favorite flavor of dark-?? here)

@@sonpopco-op9682 I don't believe. I have always thought that "BELIEVERS", who stuck to their beliefs, were insane. A belief is only practiced if one is located at a distance from the truth, and thus one is located within the zone of less than truth. Sticking to beliefs means one chooses to stick to accepting less than truth only.

@@helifynoe9930 Cannot agree more, which is why I am appalled whenever anyone says anything about "the science is settled"

Have you felt the urge to start a cult? We tend to do that as well

i think respect for the field is important. crackpots don’t respect physics and the people in it. they say things like einstein was a fraud or he tried to mislead people. one day someone might come up with an advance on einstein’s relativity but i am certain that the people who do will have the utmost respect for einstein just as he had for the newtonian physics he superseded

To be honest i feel like part of the problem is that the word "amateur" has taken on a negative connotation. Instead of "this isn't a day job", it means "this person isn't good enough" to many people. They view being an "amateur" as shameful. Maybe we need to put slightly more focus on the genuine contributions of amateurs to various science to help dispel the negative connotation?

@@Erowens98 It really is a shame that the word basically flip-turned in meaning. It's French for "lover". The word used to mean "this person is working on this because they _love_ it", but now it means "they couldn't muster up enough passion to be good at this if they tried". It's screwed up, man.

Also I think a difference between a crackpot and either amateur or professional is that they'll all have an idea that totally doesn't fit mainstream theories, but the latter two only admit it in secret to their besties while the former makes it their life goal to convince everyone they are right with no evidence. Its fine to have too many mimosas and admit something you know can't be proved but think is real, because you aren't going to go scream it at the physics chair on Monday 😂

@@Erowens98 The word amateur etymologically comes from "amor", love, an amateur is a person who is not an expert but has "love" toward a certain discipline, and that is why the amateur reads, is interested, and is trying to understand as much as a layman that has such interest, such "love" can do... Amateur is not an insult, but real amateur knows that he/she is an amateur, knowing how much one doesn't know is the start... Amateur, a good amateur knows that his/her interest is not professional, has no education and cognitive tools to be expert, or professional, and knows his/her place, such a person never tries to be smarter than the real thing, the professional, the expert.

😂😂😂

😂😂😂

me lol 😂

This aged well

Hahaha I watched this when it first came out. Since Terrence Howard happened I haven't been able to stop thinking about how it describes him perfectly 😂

Yep! She absolutely hit the nail on the head with this breakdown, sums him up perfectly

I am here after his second showing on JRE a few days ago with Eric Weinstein. It was almost painful to watch.

Make sure you don't ever question mainstream science again... they are the only chefs allowed in the kitchen! 🤣

@@AlienScientist not the point of the video

​@@AlienScientist More like "only surgeons and medical personnel allowed to perform surgery". You don't have to be associated with academia to be a physicist, but you do have to apply proper scientific methodology and be able to competently handle the necessary math. Crackpots are usually convinced they fulfil those criteria. The problem is that they rarely ever do, and also that they reject valid criticism by categorically denouncing whatever they deem to be "mainstream". Take the electric universe crackpots for example. They claim gravity does not exist and that coulomb attraction is what pulls stuff towards apparent centres of gravity. Yet they have no valid response to the observation that this would require net charge; which is incongruent with how matter behaves in magnetic fields. If I had enough net charge to simulate 200lbs of mass, then I should be able to generate current by moving my body through even a weak magnetic field. This is obviously not the case, and EM universe "theory" is obviously fundamentally cracked. Also, the electric universe crackpots usually assume that the theoretical framework Maxwell, Faraday, Tesla etc is true, while they reject Einstein's theories. But they are all classical theories built from the same axioms and observations. It is incongruous to reject Einstein but not Maxwell! This sort of stuff is why these crackpot theories are usually just a huge waste of time and effort.

​@@AlienScientistcrackpot spotted

you want to question the methods of the chefs in the kitchen? become a chef and get your ass in the kitchen no need to have this whole angst against scientists.@@AlienScientist

As a machinist, I always enjoyed grease penciling a drawing, sending it back to an engineer, tell him to break out his crayons & slide rule. It aint gonna work.🤣

@@roberttyrrell2250 it is interesting, senior engineers have noticed that younger engineers will design things that cannot be built or are impractical. Shop classes have largely been removed from the school curriculums that most of us had taken. I've also seen this in engineers from foreign countries where working with your hands would be considered below their social status. They just don't have the Hands-On skills to develop the intuitive sense of what will and will not work.

​@@roberttyrrell2250 Oh man, being a guy that designs his own stuff for fun, yeah. The older my schematics, the more impossible they are to machine, lol. I love simple, elegant solutions. If I can walk over to the hardware store to buy 5 bucks of things and that solves a problem, then that to me is genius. If I have to break out the damn lathe, then it's a necessary evil and not "ingenius".

I guess this was how Theranos happened

@@Incandescentiron yes, it's the lack of real-world experience, intuition and proper education that is the root problem. Students are led to believe that if they want something than that will somehow become a reality, despite the ideas breaking some fundamental laws of physics. It's the quality of the education that is the real problem.

i believe in proton bialy supremacy

1.) doesn't listen to the man 2.) doesn't refute the man 3.) literally doesn't know if he IS a crank, because he didn't listen 4.) kicks the respectful, non-overbearing guy out like a bum Sounds like a thoughtful, intelligent scholar worthy of respect to me. /s

@@jadedandbitter Did you watch the video here? It's like the chef in the example 1) didn't taste the playdoh 2) didn't tell the crackpot that it was playdoh 3) literally doesn't know if the playdoh is actually delicious, because he didn't taste it

This just makes me really sad... so many people who are passionate to learn and want to understand being made fun of and ridiculed by others

​@@lepsy4If someone made something out of playdoh passionately and wanted me to eat it I'd find that incredibly charming and I'd want to help them understand cooking better. I don't know why everyone here is so mean spirited...

It reminds me of cargo cult science as described in Richard Feynman's commencement speech of that name.

Hey! I might have a math background buddy, but I'm not your conscience. I thought these things were just called units, then some physicists showed up and suddenly my plans were realized 😳 I'm a quasi-experimentalist, not a fairy godmother! What, am I supposed to eject Earth from the Solar System so I can study the afterlife 🤣

Here's the math: consciousness = h×f Planck constant is kg×m^2/s and frequency is 1/s, so the units of consciousness are Joules. Where do I get my Nobel prize?

@B S that's certainly very noble of you, btw, you wouldn't happen to have a rejection machine would you? The afterlife is honestly a drag.

Real physicists never seem to bother with units at all. In relativity E, p & m seem to be interchangeable, Planck's constant and the velocity of light are always ignored or set equal to one as are the permittivity and permeability of free space. If you try and actually calculate anything you can easily be out by a trivial factor of 9 x 10^16, which doesn't seem to bother theoreticians!

I am sad to report that there are so many crackpots in France that we DO have a unit of measure that could probably fit the bill. It's called a "Bovis"... Charlatans use it very seriously to measure the "energy level" of places with a pendulum or whatnot, and the term is also familiar to a rather large number of non-believers who routinely use it to make fun of all these self declared witches, mediums, sorcerers, ghost hunters, fake doctors, etc. There is no real arithmetic nor methodology, the only guiding principle seems to be: the higher the number of Bovis the better.

You never had a flat earther writing to you asking to redo the math of what distance can be seen at sea and if it's congruent with earth curvature supposed obstruction of any distant object, because those are next level crackpots, they are right.

@@thewizardsofthezoo5376 Improper height of observer, not using refraction, not taking into account mirages, misuse of cameras to name but a few issues most flat earthers will use to come to a mistaken max distance of observation.

@@JeronimoStilton14 BS you haven't got enough variance for the above to be consistently proven, it has a impact but not so significant that you can trump a good Nikon P900 into retrieving stuff that should allegedly be "behind" the horizon. You just googled a quick debunk and you fail, because of what you don't know you don't know. First reducing a point to it's author's credibility is unscientific, also it shows your lack of intellectual honesty. Second JTTolan did film Hawaii from New York on his plane, there is no refraction that makes you see through a solid body. The only thing ,you half brain need to figure out before all, is that your vision is spherical, and not because you eye is a ball, but also for that, but above all because it's a central symmetry equidistant in every direction of which you are the centre. Calling somebody "flat earther" with a smirk makes you the mentally warped that thinks he can actually see billions of light years away, whatever that is, or that the moon and the sun would be positioned in at the exact distance that offset their difference in size? I have a nice bridge to sell on London if you are interested, (see 2 can play that game) Good thing that nowadays to get a degree all you need to do is to parrot anything you are told and figure out how to use matlab and numpy, god forbid you start thinking and figure out how much impossible consensual axioms you take for granted. Science is not consensual it's adversarial, you belief in space, NASA and the rest of the bullshit reinventing the ether, rebranding dark matter, in case it escaped your sagacity is a religion, not science. You believe in stuff you mostly never seen, only calculated, but anything can be calculated, yer the flawless logic of a calculation can be falsified by its context. But it's worst than that, pose left is right and right is left and you hit a wall, that's the only certainty you can take to the bank. Not space bullshit! You are a functioning left-brain moron like most of your colleagues, because the good ones you have already weeded them out. Third get used to your "intelligence" being insulted, because your answer insulted mine.

Just telling you that your car's extended warranty expired on 1/3 and the grace period ends on 2/6... you ungrateful #*%^$

ok but what happened to Earth is it still here???

yeah like all the people who believe in the big bang

This is one of the problems in science and science communicators, they publicly discuss hypothesis like the multiverse when they're not backed with evidence. It gives the public the impression science just makes things up or are guessing! I totally agree with your comment, we should also get rid of the word "theory" as that also gives the wrong impression!

Too many people misuse the term theory. Most use it in a colloquial sense when they want to claim a theory as a scientific theory. To them, it's a question that needs to be answered or a hypothesis that needs to be validated. That's Not what a scientific theory is. A scientific theory is Only one in which the hypothesis has already been repeatedly tested and validated via the scientific method always with the same conclusion.

Thats a good way to put it, ill admit I like to daydream - but I try not to hold the disillusion that I could be right I think what is troublesome is STEM is getting deeper and deeper intwined and so a lot of confusion arises. like knowing chemistry, some basic physics, and binary will help with making PCB components and CPU's - but what matters most is an understanding of electricity and its associated math You dont need to know all the foundations for advanced programing anymore even if it can help - but spending more time to learn more advanced math, logic, and translate other sciences into those languages might be better for your time specialization is becoming almost hyper-focused I think is how id word it, so while reaching modern theory requires a wide and very clear understanding of many things, most of the work and its utilization only requires a fraction of it. kinda like search engines, they started off not so great - eventually we all just trusted google, than over the years its gotten a lot worse because it was tinkered with to make more money. now we are having AI do the same thing - we are repeating the cycle making it more complex but really we just reinvented the wheel. Its easy to understand concepts, and to use the tools those concepts create - so its creates this false confidence that the complexity to solve those concepts are not so complex

​@@jeffknott1975 let's not get rid of the word "theory" The word is completely right in science. A scientific theory is an explanation that can reliably make predictions but that doesn't mean that's actually how reality works. A scientific theory is purely theoretical

This video was the first thing I thought of when I saw Eric Weinstein with Terrence on the latest JRE.

@@monkeysuncle2816 It seems a lot of people went back and watched this video. Because I got this video recommend soon after I watched that JRE today.

no shit good point lol you sir called it

So this video was made before Terrence came out as a crackpot?

@@mozkitolife5437 Yup...

It's actually the cooling issues and hard gamma rays/neutrons (side reactions) that are the problem for space craft, i.e. power generation. Non-inertial propulsion is a non-starter, since this isn't the core of the many issues. So many people don't get this.

​@@nehorlavazapalkaWhat do you mean by non starter? Just a hilbilly researcher asking out of curiosity. 😂 From what I've seen, no energy is in a literal sense "generated". But I guess this may just be an argument about semantics and depends on one's definition of "generated". Haha 😂 It's all interesting for sure.

The title for this video should really be : Physicist / crackpot psychologist explains the psychology of crackpot physicists with stunning lack of self awareness. 🤦‍♂

@@alexashworth3119 electricity is manifested in existence. nothing is being "generated"

im 100% believer in a medium. the speed of light is nothing more than just the rate of induction of the medium. (btw this video is self -serving)

Oh, sovcits and FOTLs are super interesting, and I'm kind of thankful that they caught my attention and (indirectly) taught me a lot. I read some of their arguments and _knew_ that they were wrong, but I didn't really understand _why._ I wanted to rebut them for entertainment, but I couldn't do it properly unless I could confidently state what is true, not just assert that what they say is false. So, I started reading the statutes, reading the decisions, reading the (updated) legal dictionary at the library, and built a real picture of law. This has helped me a lot in other ways, too, because it's strengthened my research skills, abstract thinking, and humility for any subject I want to learn more about. (And his is how I really understand why "it depends" is almost *always* the right answer.) P.S. My favorite Supreme Court case is _Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors_ (1982)

@Nupetiet you know, several of my law school classmates had just had their children move out and they wanted to pursue law as a lifelong passion and were ready for a second career. It's never too late.

You have to give some of those folks credit though. Much like any group, not everything they believe is false. I think that ideology originally came about because of tyranny. Unconstitutional law and oppressive unchecked power. Of course Hitler hated communism and Stalin didn't think much of fascism.....even though he was like a king lol 😂 Both were nut jobs. In you're opinion as a professional, what do you think is the most unconstitutional thing ever done in the US?

@@alexashworth3119 No, they don't deserve any credit. It would be one thing to hold radical political positions, or even to assert that existing law should be abolished or replaced. After all, the Constitution was written by radicals who rejected the legitimacy of previously-existing law. The trouble with FOTLs and sovcits is that they believe things that are not true, and will repeat false statements until they're blue in the face. Usually, their entire involvement is based on money (usually not wanting to pay debts or taxes) or resentment at having to do something else they don't want to (like getting a driver's license). They don't believe things because of logic or evidence, or on the advice of people who've studied law-they believe whatever would need to be true for them to get their way, or whatever they're told by a guru who promises to erase their credit card debt with the Three Letter Scheme (only $49.99!). They're like Flat Earthers, QAnons, and germ theory deniers. They don't care what's true, only what agrees with the position they've already decided *must* be true. That's why it doesn't matter if you completely debunk one of their arguments with independent data. They don't care, they do not process the evidence, they just leave and make the same argument somewhere else. They are not just seeing the subject from a different perspective; they are suffering from a mental defect of reason.

@alexashworth3119 I'm not sure I understand your question. If something is constitutional or not is binary. It is not a sliding scale. So "more constitutional" or "most unconstitutional" don't make any sense to me. Plus, whether something is constitutional is not the be-all and end-all question. The thing that sprang to mind was *Dred Scott v. Sanford,* wherein a slave was brought by his owners from Missouri to Illinois and back again. He sued for his freedom, arguing that because he had been in a State where slavery was illegal, his status as a slave terminated by action of law, and he must be free. In the lower courts, they reasoned that Missouri law applied because he was property in Missouri when he began his trip. The Supreme Court ruled that because Scott was a slave he did not have standing to file the lawsuit, and therefore, his case was barred on technical grounds. This decision completely enraged the "free" States and is widely regarded as a major contributing cause of the American Civil War. After the war, the decision (which was good law and "constitutional" for about 7 years by that point) was rendered obsolete by the 13th amendment to the Constitution, which abolished slavery, and the 14th amendment to the Constitution, which made every person born in the United States a citizen. So, was it constitutional? Well, yes: by definition, the Supreme Court decides what is Constitutional and what isn't. But it was *wrong,* and fortunately, because no part of government has absolute power, and because the Constitution is a living document subject to change and revision through amendments, the Supreme Court's decision was overturned, as was proper. Our system is far from perfect, but it's still in place because it takes a good stab at being fair and at being balanced. I encourage you to audit a Constitutional Law class if you'd like to gain a deeper understanding of how it works and operates. For example, Harvard offers a number of free online courses that might be a good place to get started.

My friend you are right if you were talking about certain BA economics undergrad programs that don’t require math… but I don’t know of any graduate Econ programs that aren’t making phd candidates glorified math / statistician for research professors.

Also I can’t really think of any high level econ fields that aren’t deeply founded on math (maybe to a fault) whether it’s international macro, game theory, competitive analysis, financial economics, etc.

Bro, same. I was a physics major for one month. Ended up graduating with very respectable grades in Psychology. Lol

It's necessary to understand your limitations and ignorance in order to learn. Any physicists or youtuber who claims to know it all isn't somebody I can learn from.

@@BM-rm7vr yeah it was more of a testimony on how to not be a crackpot. My initial problem was a weak math and physics background so even though I was plugging numbers into the formulas I found on Google, I had no clue why the numbers I was getting were so extreme compared to what I expected, especially since I didn't really understand the hyperbolic properties of spacetime and objects traveling near the speed of light. I've come very far since then thanks to traditional education

Congrats! Math has so many powerful tools. I really hope they will serve you right

As someone who has little problem with math, I shudder to think how horrible it would be to discover I had to deal with a community to learn physics.

@@psychohist the hardest part is getting people who didn't struggle with math and physics to deal with me lol. Building rapport with professors and my piers has been hard but once they see I'm willing to put in the work everyone relaxes and we can just nerd out and marvel at the problems together. Communities are good and physicists are smart, good smart things are a rare combination in this world.

​@@psychohistmathematics is a social activity.

I'd assume this is related to how immediate the feedback loop tends to be in software. I don't have experience in high level software engineering, but when you're used to wrong ideas very quickly becoming apparent as wrong it's easy to fall into the trap of thinking that you must be onto something because it hasn't blown up in your face yet. But I've found that a lot fields have this type of bias that makes it easier to assume you know more than you actually do in a different field because it's not failing in the way that you're used to wrong things failing.

There's plenty of crackpottery in software, too. I'm old enough to have seen CORBA and EJBs get touted as the next wonderful thing and embraced left and right, even though it was obvious from the start that these technologies would just lead to fragile systems and crazy network overhead. The obvious problems were ignored, and here we are. Now nobody uses them any more except in legacy systems where nobody cares enough to remove them. The current Agile hype will have people in the future rolling their eyes as well, I'm sure.

As a seasoned Senior Software Engineer, I've directly encountered the ramifications of misaligned technology assignments. For instance, I've witnessed proficient embedded C developers being designated as C# web application 'ninjas' without the requisite Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) background. This recurring pattern, while affording me consulting opportunities, underscores the inherent counterproductivity of such choices.

Who needs black holes in physics when you have them on Quora, bigger and deeper. Even intelligence can't escape.

>software engineering as a field FAMOUSLY frequently forces you to realize that your first intuitions on things are almost always grossly wrong So why have software engineers been trying to fix/create a new economy in the past decade or so in the form cryptocurrency/NFTs ? I don't think software engineers are any better than anybody else at realizing and refraining from crackpot behavior.

Is the cancer problem one of resources and attention, or is the problem just so difficult because all cancers are different, and a universal option is not possible? Is cancer research working on the universal "cure all" for cancer, or are there pockets of cancers that can be solved if given the resources (funding, people, etc) to tackle them? Why are some diseases "gone" from our populations with vaccines but others just seem to linger on? I'm not a biologists so I'm confused by this topic. If it's so important and affects so many people, even billionaire CEOs of Health Care / Pharmaceutical and Tech (Apple) companies, with the lack of progress beyond chemo, surely as someone in the field can see how frustrating at a public level this topic can be; especially for people who have lost loved ones. I'm genuinely curious what is your, as someone inside the research world, perspective on this? Thank you. Be well.

Fallout NV, a classic.

This reference is fantastic

It's a solar power facility actually!

Yes, but she should have said the chief tasted it and it was not food.

⁠​⁠@@mrcleanisin I think she meant it in a way that since play doh is so obviously not food, there would be no reason for her to taste it since there is nothing to taste, it isn't food.

Not so sure about that.... a C-130 Hercules picked up a bunch of soldiers in a UN peace keeping force many years ago, the loadmaster passed out EAR plugs in their cellophane wrappers, as lordy, the hero is loud, it funnels the noise inside by some quirk of design... By the time the long suffering loadmaster had completed his recovery round of the troops, he was approached by one of the troops asking if they had seconds. Play Doh may be an improvement in the culinary arts over foam ear plugs.

Technically, you CAN eat Play-Doh. It is literally colored dough with lots of preservatives. You can also eat crayons which are just colored wax. WHY? Because kids will inevitably eat your product and you don't want to get sued.

Well, actually… play dough is made of organic compounds (mainly starches). Despite the fact we don’t see play dough as “food”, it can be eaten and it will be digested by your digestive system. Just like a tortilla. Just sayin’…

I have never heard of crackpot historians but of course they exist! Please make the video on the ins/outs of crackpot historians I would love to learn about them.

@@acollierastroAtun-Shei is waging a campaign against Civil War crackpots! OP, he might be quite interested in talking to or interviewing you!

youtube.com/@AtunSheiFilms

Reminds me of the WW2 crackpots who always find a way to argue that Germany was innocent. To be fair, there are complexities that are not accounted for in the dumbed-down history taught through the TV, but it's clear people have ulterior motives due to the particular blind spots they systematically cultivate.

No not yet....why did you stop? No pay off, & you call yourself a crack pot. Your just pointing out facts man chill 😉 🤣🤣🤣

As a Systems Engineer, I've always wanted to know the theory of why things are the way they are...... I'm one of two things: a bad engineer, or an ill-educated scientist! But I love what I do, even if everyone around me gets annoyed at my "but why?" questions!!!

As an engineer, practical implementation comes somewhat naturally to me. I have always had the utmost respect for those who can delve into pure theory and I admire those who can bridge theory and practical implementation even more. It's something I really wanted to be able to do, but it's extremely difficult to do.

My first degree was in engineering. Later, I pursued a PhD. in physics. I can tell you that engineers and physicists have completely different mindsets. They are not close at all. It's a bit humorous to hear an engineer talk about physics.

@@jamesmarie1083 that may well be, but it's much better for people to have interests and learn about things they don't yet understand than to be ignorant forever, don't you think?

@@jamesmarie1083 I saw a brochure about airplanes written by an engineer, using "physics" to explain things - and there was a big error in almost every sentence. Like measuring pressure in kilograms (!), which is for mass, not pressure.

"Our model is fine. It's reality that's wrong"

She probably thinks it's a hard science because "wow, look at all the math!"

Even physicists have a hard time seeing thru the free market worship shit. We're all workers

Economists don't search for the truth, they just advertise what's convenient for the interests of the people who hire them. I was taught that in an undergrad Economy course.

Well it turns out, unlike fundamental particles that are governed by inherent physical properties, math isn’t so good at predicting irrational human behavior😂😂😂

😂

😅

Advice, stay clear of research on the existence of the so-called B_3 component of the EM field. Myron Evans got tarred/feathered in the 90's out of academia. He was a professor at UNC Charlotte. This stuff was grouped into free energy research.

Now is the best time. God luck. :)

The world can always use one more perpetual motion machine

This is awesome.

As a mathematician, I love hearing this stuff! I applaud you for your study!

@@acollierastro Thank you. Really enjoy your presentations.

A bit unfortunate you also showed Unzicker,who is a real physicist

@@tryphonsoleflorus8308 Even physicists can be crackpots. Look at Freeman Dyson.

Explain what "paranoid schizophrenia" is without merely repeating some unproven theory made by some scrawny psychiatrist, from an affluent family, that's regarding the presumed life of a person who has suffered violent trauma.

I get questions about IT problems, very basic support at parties. But I think soon I'll be getting lots more AI questions I'm sure...

@@autohmae Did you ever get asked if the overarching assumptions of all the maths you do are accurate? Because of all things, if I was a physicist, I would worry about indeed wasting my life in useless mental masturbation?

@@autohmae i think people just assume physicists are all geniuses, when in fact we are just tired masochists

​@jahjah it's because of the representations of physicists in popular culture. Sheldon Cooper, fictional Einstein, Hawking. Are all portrayed as quirky geniuses in every subject

@@autohmae Look them straight in the eye, adopt your most serious expression.. and say.. Ask the AI.

I used stories and metaphors to teach about addiction to addicts. It's just easier no matter how simple the subject is.

@@Feralsquirrel for sure stories are useful and important! But it seems like it's easy to lose sight of the fact that the stories aren't the whole truth

@@williamgeorge2045 I think it's more that a lot of people never have it in sight in the first place. They want things to be quick to learn and obviously intuitive. At least for them. Because they are Smart™, so nothing requires real effort.

@@Feralsquirrel agree

I think a big problem is how genuinely hard to understand these advanced theories are. Like I watch science education channels on quantum mechanics and relativity and even with the stories I have a hard time understanding what is going on. And then when some of them start to include the math (which I assume is probably the simplest parts of the maths) then I am totally lost. So science communicators have a genuinely hard job. But I am grateful they are still doing it.

Yes, the quote is by the brilliant fashion designer Jacobim Mugatu, who created the iconic fashion line of "Derelicte!" However, that wasn't a film, it was a *DOCUMENTARY!* 😁

Yeah, I felt a little called out too. At least we grew out of it though.

I've thought of "theories" too, but by the time I was 20 I knew I was just having fun with something I was fascinated by but didn't fully understand.

@@NelsonGuedes I told my ninth grade teacher that I thought a neutron was a proton and electron combined. He told me I was wrong. I took physics in high school and college until I found out that being a technician at a nuclear power plant paid more than being a student. I dropped out with an associate degree and learned more physics at work than I had in school.

​@@davidhomer78 I mean, you have an Associates degree so at least some training, contrary to aspiring crackpots Also is The neutron actually proton+electron? You got me curious 😅

@@eVill420 In some radioactive decays a neutron is changed to a proton and a beta particle (electron) is emitted. There is also a gamma ray emitted to account for the extra energy. That seems to me like the neutron made an electron and a proton but the newer theories are that there aren't actually any particles just waveforms with different energies. As a technician I read a lot and came up with my own ideas but I don't know enough to prove anything.

Thanks I’ll check it out

Feynman also mentions that he reads all crackpot mail in his public lecture. "On the character of the physical law". There is a video recording. The relevant section was on KZfaq as a video titled "scientific method explained by Feynman", or something like that. He says: "so if you think you have a novel idea, it's very likely an old idea known to be wrong, so don't write about it to me. Though I read all such mail anyway, just to be sure!". Or something like that. It's quite amusing.

@@yaroslavsobolev9514 he is such a king for this

Great comment! I appreciate your positive attitude toward handling crackpots. > My experience is they typically have crackpot ideas (not in science) in other non-scientific fields like economics, politics, and history. This is so true! At the start of 2020 so many physicists on twitter started acting like they were experts in epidemiology because they understood how to read exponential graphs.

@@acollierastro Yeah! Thanks for the compliment.

@@acollierastro As a data scientist working in politics, my crackpot theory on why some physicists tend to become crackpots in fields like politics and history is that the precision in at least some fields of physics breaks people's ability to handle uncertainty and measurement error. I've seen plenty of physicists claim that they can either perfectly forecast elections or that election results are fraudulent (primarily before 2020 when that role was taken over by actual crackpots) because they'd come up with a neat simple model right out of a stats 101 class and then when reality wouldn't align with that model they'd run a t-test and claim that the actual result had a 1 in a quadrillion chance of occurring. Would be fascinating to see which branches of physics crackpot physicists are actually working on, because I imagine some fields (astrophysics?) are much more used to handling imprecise/incomplete data with measurement error than others.

I think some of this behavior comes from some cognitive error that humans have. My person experience indicates that we as humans oversimplify and smooth the space of anything. It is a minimization technique so we don’t overthink the topic and will survive. I have fallen victim to it in my younger years before I had started working as an engineer and then started to study other disciplines. If one starts to study a discipline in Ernest a though will cross there mind “I could study this topic for a lifetime an not get through 5% of what is here and they is a lot I will not know nor never know.” The world is a complex place and we are trying to understand it.

​@@acollierastroanother great example is how so many 'smart' people suddenly became military and geopolitical experts when the Ukraine war started. 99% of those people wouldn't have been able to point out Ukraine on a map before.

The "frame rate of the universe", if it can even be described as such, would be Planck seconds; the speed of light only determines the duration of those "frames", not their rate (and here we stumble upon the frontier wall between gaming metaphors and complex reality) I see a constant here where people whom are scientifically illiterate try to reduce complex reality to easily digestible metaphors. I mean, we're in 2023 explaining people how viruses and vaccines work, NONE OF THIS should come as a surprise to anybody...

intransigent: unwilling or refusing to change one's views or to agree about something.

I'll bet that if you'd pointed out that, actually, it was his brain that has a "frame rate" (in the form of the thalamocortical cognition cycle), his head would have exploded.

@@dreamdiction I believe you are referring to the derivation of the speed of light from Maxwell's Equations, based upon the permittivity and permeability of free space: c=1/√μ0ϵ0

That doesnt even sound like a crackpot theory, i thought that's what was generally accepted to be true in popular science terms

Yeah, but I suspect that's not malice, just the simple and inevitable reality of not knowing what you don't know. The real "good/bad" decider is whether the person decides to change or expand their mind after being delivered a _fair minded_ and _comprehensible_ critique, versus arrogantly resisting it. That's the true mark of an ill-informed creative vs. a "true crackpot" imo.

@@shimrrashai-rc8fq Yeah, well put, but you'd still be surprised at the amount of people that insist on their ideas and pester the hard working people with constant questions and it could be argued that the same lack of self-awareness of one's knowledge can be applied to both cases.

@@sojok693 Not sure how it applies to the other case - if they change their mind then that indicates at least developing awareness which is good, I'd think. Need to explain that more. Also if you don't have the awareness how can you get it? How then can anyone learn anything?

@@shimrrashai-rc8fq I was just hinting at the fact that although the situations are a bit different (primarily because it's easier to show that a strategy in a videogame works or not than to prove a scientific concept to a layman), the reason for why they occur is the same: the tendency for some people to overrate their knowledge, to devalue the knowledge of the expert and to not try their hands at something (math and actual experimental science for testing theories and TASing- simulating a videogame using certain software in this particular case). Even though rare cases do occur that a complete outsider can crack some hard problem, I think that most of the time people should assume ignorance and educate themselves before trying their hands in something.

@@sojok693 I partially agree - particularly with these 3 points: "overrate their knowledge, to devalue the knowledge of the expert and to not try their hands at something". But I do _not_ agree with "people should assume ignorance and educate themselves _before_ trying their hands in something." Perhaps I'm a bit biased because I'm naturally an "act first think later" kind of temperament (born *un*conscientious in Big Five terms; perhaps also some ADHD stuff), but I think "trying one's hands in something" is a key _part_ of learning and there are things that are much easier to get by trying them and seeing _why they aren't working_ and/or what _does_ actually work. The problem is when you too soon assume you have a conclusion and then shift to defending it instead of continuing to ask further or indeed "try more" further. The role of the expert knowledge in particular is that the proper habit to form is that while you're doing something, if you find you are _contradicting_ what is generally considered as well-evidenced facts (e.g. "Einstein was wrong!") it should be a prompt to think deeper about it and look up more about it (even just your own argument; chances are, it's been found before - e.g. the "push the rigid pole" one) and ask (those who aren't arrogant pricks, at least) people about what might be wrong. I've done that a lot and while it's a _little_ disappointing when you invariably find out they are right, it's much more rewarding because now you know *WHY* they are so, instead of having just soaked up something in a dogmatic, submit-to-authority kind of way that really flies in the face of how the philosophical ethos of science is typically presented and also can help you to be a much more effective expositor.

You don’t have to be a crackpot, I think it’s great that you want to learn

I think it is safe to be an engineer first and later study physics. If you do not believe me, ask PAM Dirac. I know crackpots with Phds in Physics. I could link to their papers but do not want to hurt feelings (it is about Bell theorem and Einstein was wrong).

@@acollierastro Don't discourage them from being a crackpot. Eric, you can be whatever you want to be! :P

@@justopastorlambare2933 Believe it or not, in grad school I had a fight with a distinguished professor who spent his entire life studying the Bell's inequalities because he said "gravity is a quantum field, the Higgs Boson *is* the graviton" like it was settled science (it's not, and it doesn't even really make sense btw). The guy's an absolute genius and I respect him a lot but man, he does say some whacky shit when he's out of his area of expertise lol I wonder if it's the same guy.

​@@justopastorlambare2933 She touches on this in a video about Avi Loeb actually

There's some f'in honesty for you. That's rare: Thank you.

this is literally me! it makes me happy to think that I am not alone lol!

Sounds very familiar! But also, my parents were teachers, and i early learned to utterly avoid the PhD path. Instead I became an electrical engineer ...thus guaranteeing that I could self-fund my own "eccentric" work! Decades later I slowly realized that the engineering community contains WAY more crackpots than does the physics community. Lots of students did the same as I. We don't want a Nobel, instead we want to found Microsoft. We don't want to become the next Einstein, we want to be the next Nikola Tesla!

This thread is awesome. Learning is so fulfilling and learning about yourself and what motivates you can be as fascinating and rewarding as any theoretical physics. There's a concept in Greek philosophical discourse called parrhesia, meaning to speak truth in the face of dire consequence. It was taught that the practice of parrhesia was very honorable. Y'all are practicing parrhesia, and I appreciate you.👍🏾

The math is always a bit much until you get used to it. And then there's always new math 😵‍💫

I would say “incompetent engineers” in that case.

If you knew how often we said "yeah it should hold" you'd never drive a car again lol

But for real, if you look into some of the IATF, OSHA, EPA, etc regulations and requirements, after awhile it starts feeling like a huge conspiracy to hold American manufacturing back and allowing the Chinese to pass us up. You can argue the usefulness of these organizations all you want and I'll agree with you, but that doesn't stop the crippling amount of paperwork weighing down an entire department. I don't even design things anymore. Like 5% of my day is double checking numbers and the rest is administrative.

Some of them sold tickets for trips to the Titanic.....

I guess we've found one.

They're also almost all old men, and they dismiss the "music establishment" and things like "notation" and "practice" as gatekeeping.

I've had to turn away some very lucrative teaching and playing gigs for this very reason, which anyone who knows the reality of the music industry will tell you is an INCREDIBLY difficult thing to do at times; there have literally been instances where I went hungry for weeks at a time rather than take gigs trying to tutor a self-proclaimed musical savant who couldn't be bothered to learn how, y'know, music works. Often just as bad are the retired corporate types who maybe played a little in their teenage years, always dreamed about making it big but life got in the way and they got caught up with work and kids and blah blah blah. Now they're retired, have extra money and too much time on their hands, so they bought themselves a home studio they don't know how to record anything with and spent thousands on instruments they have only the most rudimentary knowledge of how to play. And now it's your fault they still suck after multiple lessons, because they threw all the money at it and got the guitar their hero played so they should be great at it by now. It legitimately disturbs me how many people think that, despite never having shown itself in the entirety of the previous 60 years of their existence, some latent genius and natural ability is just lying dormant within them. No, sir, you're not a misunderstood savant. You're just an asshole with an unearned sense of entitlement to acclaim and adulation, despite putting in none of the work to do anything worthy of praise.

I have had dozens of great ideas for a catchy,nice hook and yet literate composed type of music. I'm suppose to...well, I use to. I was a drummer for 20 years. But that was another millennia ago. Now-a days I'm trying to end my cynical era and carefully learn.

Literally the same people now flocking to AI

I think the biggest concentration of crackpots is among amateur guitarists (although they don't even practice or have any music videos to share). If you open any YT video of a well-known professional guitar player there are hordes of *much better* guitar players commenting, sharing their opinion about their own brilliance in their technique and musicality whilst the professional they comment about "is not even holding a pick correctly" or "does not even play music, just showing off and nobody will remember them in 2 years". I might be wrong, but I think a lot of them are middle-age low-level ex-engineers too. Hopefully, there are fewer of crackpots in academic music. I don't think there are many engineers classically trained in music, but almost every single one of them owns an electric guitar.

I had a teacher kinda like that, taught our last year biology, for our system it's the year that determines if you can attend university without further hoops. She told us in the first lesson that to understand biology we didn't need to understand physics nor chemistry, that was the year we covered neurons btw. She kinda killed all academic respect I had for her then and there and I would show it. Mind she was fair as a teacher, she gave me good oral grades for the technical level of my contributions, despite it often leaving my classmates in the dust, which she made sure to point out to me. I have always liked biology and my mother is a botanist and her then partner a biochemist, so the field was part of daily conversation. Ended up going into math, then passed over to comp science, due to complicated feelings towards my mother in my 20s. Did still minor in biology though, which was fun because it necessitated running between departments doing everything by slips of paper, because the digital system didn't account for that combination of fields. Unfortunately only got to take two courses, because they were worth so many credits that my allowed allotment for credits from my minor was almost completely exhausted by them. Did get to use a light microscope a lot and sketch the various tissues, also where I learned cutting mycelia with a razor is annoying, it's like cutting woven wool, it frays so much.

My cousin Roy Kerr is known for his cosmology but is a mathematician.

What happened to him

@@aBitTedious he earned a bachelor's degree in computer science and music in four years.

@@Incandescentiron Poor kid. He gets to be a wage slave.

“stories about Ramanujan”, seduction to the magical. - Maybe driven by some corrupting evolutionary advantage, our legends of heroes, Cinderella gifts or whims of anthropomorphic gods stimulate our innate escape mechanism of invoking ‘familiar experience’, imagined ‘to tell how or why things are as they are’. Perhaps as echoes seen in primitive mythologies, they hint at images shared by collective human psyche.

Yep. That and the crackpot syllogism: "Einstein had papers rejected. I had papers rejected. Therefore, I am the next Einstein!"

​@@beeble2003 for sure. And then there's all that bullshit misinformation out there about how Einstein couldn't do math or whatever. I've heard that one from a BUNCH of comment section keyboard "geniuses"

People laughed at Galileo… but they forget that people also laughed at Bozo the clown.

​@@nathanjohnson9715 it comes from misinterpretation about grades 6 is the worst in Germany but the best in Sweiss and he was a in a Sweiss school system. Really astonishing to see people not questioning while seeing 3 for french and history classes and 6 in math and sciences and always thinking a was the worst in math like Einstein was better at speaking french than doing physics. Hilarous !

It's possible that, by progressively demagnetizing them, some magnets might be able to power a wheel (if it's mounted on near-frictionless bearings!) This is especially true of neodymium magnets, which are easily weakened by proximity to similar magnets. Imagine what would have happened to that poor guy if he'd got his device to keep moving for an hour or two! On the other hand, what a toy that would make. Little cars, where magnets are the fuel. Bigger than Dipping Birds and Crookes Radiometers.

​@@wbeatyplease no, that would just make the price of rare earth magnets to shoot up through the roof. It would be as stupid as the current use of helium in balloons and people making funny voices.

@@carlosdgutierrez6570 When they burn out, you have to buy the HASBRO PULSE MAGNETIZER to re-fuel! Or is that Mattel? With some R&D funding, maybe we can come up with a magnet alloy which the magnetization is easily harmed, easily restored. Kilotons of neo magnets are already used widely in electric toothbrushes and makeup-removers, and in toy airplanes (low-weight high-wattage motors for non-gasoline RC planes and cars.) But all this neodymium comes from China. They seem to be in the process of raising prices. It may already be too late for you to buy a few thousand pounds of raw neodymium metal, once the Chinese prices go through the roof!

From a certain point of view, all motion is "almost" perpetual.

@@Fopenplop If you're in bad enough shape then all motion will feel like it takes forever.

So true about the brick wall. I feel like everyone meets their first crackpot and tries to help...

Right like I want to know the story of the first asshole who either didn't listen or didn't get told that the establishment or other people names shit after people who discovered it. You don't name it after yourself. Lmao and it just snowballed

@NiNjA have you considered that they name it after themselves because they discovered it for themselves, usually it even something already discovered but under a different name (also belonging to someone) so what makes it incorrect to say they did make a discovery? Our ability to canonized history? If that is true then documentation is a befouled industry, and we are all doomed. How dare us stand upon the shoulders of others so apathetically. Sometimes one must resist the urge to spurn the authority of another, certainly due to semantics.

@@johnsmoak8237 Sarcasm?

@@arctic_haze that would have been the easy answer, but incorrect

You don't know as much as you think you know about how the history of humanity happened. Nobody does because we can not go back in time and verify with our own eyes. I'm not a Christian, either.

​@@towardsthelight220you do realize there are a ton of things we can verify without the use of our eyes, right? Like, idk, the circumference of the earth.

@@towardsthelight220 no, you may not be Christian, but you are ignorant of how science works. And calling someone ignorant isn’t an insult, just a description of someone who doesn’t know facts or how something works. Too many people fit into that category.

​@@towardsthelight220 You know you are in crackpot territory, right? :)

@@towardsthelight220 No one has ever seen a hydrogen atom, and yet somehow, we know they exist.

This is a really interesting comment! I have noticed the relationship between crackpots and religion. I had a whole section I cut from this about the three christs of Ypsilanti and comparing that to an event where crackpots were introduced to each other. Fun fact: Crackpots can recognize crackpots. At crackpot conferences they all think they are the lone sane, genius in the room. Also, I notice a lot of anti-semitism in the crackpot community ( a lot of talk of reptilian overlords and the like) which I did not feel capable of getting into during this fun little video. I love Dan Olson and have seen those two videos so many times haha.

Dan's work is a treasure. It may be coincidence, but the burst of the crypto bubble followed conspicuously closely to his video on NFTs and crypto.

​@@hellraserfleshlight correlation isn't causation, but if someone with enough insight realizes ongoing tendencies in some area, this individual can then significantly contribute to those tendencies.... Without actual scientific research on its influence(s) one can only speculate. Anyway, thanks for your useful remark.

@@Littleprinceleon do you think someone watching this video doesn’t know correlation isn’t causation? Thanks for pointing that out, eagle eye.

I love the implication that dealing with the social issues of ~200 years ago would somehow be less stressful. Wasn't there a so-called Age of Revolution in Europe around that time?

The issue with physics is that it is both too complicated and too alien for any human brain to have a chance at understanding it conceptually without some story abstraction that introduces issues. It's fine to have that in addition to the math, but it's useless without the math. That's why I'm an engineer, I let physicists muck about with the source code bullsh*t and then claim that work and... promptly hand it to programmers that make it into a CAD program and then I get to play videogames, really, *really* , *_REALLY_* , complicated videogames. Then do a lil bit of math sometimes. But conceptually it's pointy end up, flamey end down, basic ways things move that apply to my body tripping down a hill or sticking my arm out a window in a moving car as much as they apply to a rock falling through the air.

I left 3rd year as well, but because I simply couldn’t find it interesting enough to remain disciplined.

Weird how it's cool for physicists to indulge their passion of psychology without getting called crackpot shrinks.

That's why you leave the math to computers and mathematicians (also known as number masochists).

Doesn’t math stop working at a certain point? Say, like black holes?

My baby gets balls filled with helium.

Random question from a science enthusiast.. If albert einstein's time dilation proves that at different speeds, time passes differently (which was proved with the experiment that put a plane with a synchronized atomic clock that went around the earth and got de-synched with an identical atomic clock on the ground) and every galaxy moves at different speed, wouldn't time be vastly different in each galaxy? counting at 13 billion years.... And even from the center of the galaxy to the outer arms, as closer to the supermassive black hole time also slows down. Aliens might be there one day, but time hasn't caught up with us

​@@kodguerrero just like relative speed can change time's "speed", so can energy due to gravity and although einsteins general theory of relativity has lead to great predictions, in these scales things seem to be a little off, so you have for example dark matter acounting for differences in speed across the varying distances from the center of the universe. My response may be a bit inaccurate, so pls do check each part of it. Also, i am not sure about the actual difference it makes from the center outwards, it may be something noticeable may not, may be worth researching so look it up, i will too. I will have completed a course in GTR in 5 months and astrophysics in 7 so if you remember this i will be able to answer most of your questions probably ;p

@@teok7735 Thanks for the reply. I do construction work but in my free time, I'm writing a science fiction novel that focuses a LOT on how every atom has it's own clock.

@@kodguerrero Time dilation is symmetric, and not really an issue until you do a round-trip between observers moving at different speeds. The largest factor related to time is just the absolutely huge "astronomical" distances between things. While relativistic time dilation is greater than zero, it's negligible. Most stuff is just not actually moving fast enough to really make much of a difference. The center of the Milky Way galaxy is 25,800 light years away, the planet Uranus about 0.00031 light years away, the Andromeda galaxy is 2,537,000 light years away. The Virgo cluster of about 100 galaxies is only 50,000,000 light years away... and it's relative velocity to Earth is only about 960 km/s which is only 0.0032% of the speed of light. "Right Now" for us on Earth, is the "Right Now" in the Andromeda galaxy which could be considered to be happening about 2.5 million years ago (if Andromeda was using Earth time). An alien in the Andromeda galaxy, looking at the Earth "Right Now", would see the Earth as it was for us 2.5 million years ago. Every location in space is located in the past of every other location in space. Your feet are 6 nanoseconds in the past from your head, and your head is 6 nanoseconds in the past of your feet. Synchronizing clocks is impossible for reasons I'm not going to go into right now because I'm falling asleep... but the "zero" time for measuring time offsets from is completely and utterly arbitrary, and there are periods of time during which you can not say whether or not events A, B, and C happened in that order, or if C happened first, then B and then A.

@@juliavixen176 This is a great answer.

I love hearing about crackpots on other fields!

@@acollierastro Crackpotism is the dark side of the force. :P

Oh boy... Putting CDs in the fridge, 48 bit audio, gold plated cables, all the nonsense with vinyl, etc. As an electrical engineer and music enthusiast working with audio I feel like that field is pretty much all quackery.

He is one of the rare ones as most don't actually do anything constructive. I have encountered a quite a few and for most it does not seem to be about proving themselves right but rather proving other people wrong. Most never seem to do anything else but to come up with a theory and then start spouting it anyone who will listen (and a lot of people who won't). I admire people like him as he is trying to prove his theory and even though he never will, he is doing something constructive, not hurting anyone and it seems like a fun hobby

Was he trying to get there based on momentum of the disks? Or did he learn about frame dragging somewhere and tried to get frame drag to pull the test mass up?

@@chalkchalkson5639 It was quite some time ago, so I don't remember the details presented. The Abstract of the talk is still available, but in german. The "principle" is based on an "artificial Center of gravity offset" (originally "Künstlicher Schwerpunktversatz"). It's hard to translate, since I believe some vocabulary is just made up (you get words like "Schwerpunktversatzstrecke"). I guess, it's based on the torque due to angular momentum changes (causing, e.g., precession) (but I don't really know). Anyways, there is a book about it, called "Schubdraller - Raumfahrtantrieb durch Rotations-AMG" which would be in english something like "Spin-Booster - Space propulsion by rotary AMG", where I don't know what "AMG" is supposed to be, as I don't own the book (and don't intend to buy it anytime soon). Oh yeah, and I think the guy who gave the talk was also the author of the book. Anyways, have fun with this random information ;).

It gets scary when they get political. I used to debate 9/11 truthers.

@@j.f.fisher5318 The genuine "9/11Truthers" are _not_ "crackpots' but highly qualified structural engineers with a thorough understanding of the maths and physics. Those you've debated who "get political" and talk of "conspiracies" belong to the "lunatic fringe" of the movement.

As long as you’re not harming or intimidating anyone, good on ya. Whatever happens behind closed garage doors is between you and god.

Yeah. Some friends srsly weigh you down. Like faaaq man, lighten up.

This made me chuckle cause I use this joke all the time. "Maybe the real Gravity was the friends we made along the way". LOL!

Like all the little particles made friends with Higgs along their journey ❤

Allowing yourself to be socially engineered is the holy grail of dumb. Good for you.

But those two statements make perfect sense. You will be the new highly renowned physicist by proving the old one wrong. Try again.

@@Arcessitor You're wrong. Einstein didn't "prove Newton wrong", he simply realized that the assumptions Newton made could be replaced by different ones which led to a more complete description of reality (and which very closely approximates Newton's description at our familiar energy/velocity scales). Similarly, whoever supersedes Einstein, presumably by developing an experimentally verifiable theory of quantum gravity, will not prove Einstein 'wrong', but will replace Einstein's assumptions with more accurate ones, and general relativity will become a special case of this new theory.

Watch this then tell me Einstein is correct. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/bOCHrJmQstXLZ2Q.html If you still believe that consider a much better explanation offered by Dewey Larson.

@@Arcessitor Newton wasn't proven wrong, there was just holes in Newtonian Mechanics, some of which had been known about for centuries and some that were recent and that meant that physicists were on the hunt for a better model that could also explain those holes. Relativity was that model however in order for it to be true it had to make the same prediction as Newtonian Mechanics in the areas where Newtonian Mechanics worked, which it did. Thus Einstein didn't prove Newton wrong, the scientific community had known for a long time that Newtonian Mechanics were incomplete thus in a sense they knew it was “wrong”. This is similar to how even since Einstein's own life time we have known that the predictions of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity do not match up on the small scale, but that doesn't mean that General Relativity is wrong, just that it is incomplete. Whatever theory that replaces General Relativity will also need to agree with all the things General Relativity is right about, that means that the majority of the important insights of General Relativity will be carried over. Just like how F=ma was carried over from Newtonian mechanics.

​@@johnlukach5694It is ridiculous to suggest a random person on KZfaq should even compare the two theories in the first place let alone form an opinion on them. To do so in any meaningful way would require an impractically large amount of effort to be in a position to make a fair evaluation.

"they also make me really sad. It's kind of tragic to see someone so delusional and desperate to make an impact, and to know they never will." I feel sad for someone with the ability to help someone pursue their dreams or simply point them in the right direction but that doesn't have the will to do so. I wonder what's behind that mindset, the same one that pervades this video. Clearly its found its audience. An entire community of people who have written off fostering curiosity and the pursuit of proper science. People who in an age of intellectual laziness find a rare spark of curiosity, and instead of building it up, instead try to snuff it out. Sad indeed.

@@Nefville Did you watch the video. FEAR is behind that mindset.

@@user-gn1cl9ix7p I did watch the video. Safety is certainly a legitimate concern but why then is she going online to publicly antagonize these people through the same channels where I presume they became aware of her? How is that going to help? And I don't even want to harp on that all that much, it certainly was not the substance of this video. It did not appear to me to be the point and while it may add some context I still don't think it excuses it.

garages, workshops, and patent offices. I'm not sure that is not still possible, but anybody thinking of trying it has to remember that that patent clerk actually read and understood the literature up to that point. While Einstein was a bit dismissive of math in 1905, it wasn't like he didn't know or use any, and by the time he did General Relativity, he had become much more reliant on it. I do think that physics has moved too far in the math-only direction and that gedankenexperiments seem to be becoming a lost art, but that doesn't mean everything is wrong. It just means, if anything, that it's shortchanging one avenue of future innovation.

I have little trust in experts, and I like to speculate about cosmology, but my saving grace is that I know I am totally incompetent, lol. Hubris is the enemy of science.

@@KevinSterns do you not think that maybe your distrust of experts might be because of that hubris?

Certainly the cost of bashing particles into each other has become a bit of an obstacle for the hobbyist, but perhaps on the "shut up and calculate" front the costs could come down and a hobbyist might one day be able to show an experimental result of consequence.

Statistically*

At first I thought Angela said "Plato". Why would you take Plato to a kitchen, he never wrote a cookbook.

keep going man, i believe in you

Good luck you definitely sound capable and talented enough to do it, some folks have trouble in that format in front of others definitely not cool on their part to care so much about that

How beautiful to be so smart - you're not a failure at all...I'd love to "fail" the way you did ! You're way past most people ! I'm so glad you're going to try again. Best wishes 🧚🌞🧚🌞🧚

Why an undergrad degree in physics, of all things? Invest the finite years of your life into something meaningful.

@@DM_Curtis Yes, a degree in Electrical Engineering, so you can self-fund your physics research, once you retire.

I got lucky at school. The mathematics teacher and physics teacher coordinated. So we were learning calculus things exactly at the point that we were going to need it for the physics lessons. I understand that this is not how things normally go. US schools seem to delay calculus which impedes other subjects for which calculus is the natural language.

I was a Mathematics/Computer-science major and I cheaped out one semester and took the Physics for business majors level course because I wanted an easy A. The professor was eventually a fellow student in one of my courses and she remembered me for being the only student in her class that laughed at her math jokes all the time.

Physics without math is like carpentry without a tape measure.

I feel like the complaint about "not focusing on the concepts" is BECAUSE people are taking the non-calc physics course. The language of basic calculus is necessary to explain how physics mathematically derives from fundamental forces. Otherwise you're just memorizing mysterious equations without a firm understanding of the underlying concepts. Honestly, I get it. It's frustrating being taught how to use a math shortcut for solving particular problems but not _why_ it works that way. If that's as far as they got in physics, no wonder the "dropout" types feel like there's some critical conceptual component missing.

Even starting at mechanics, without knowing what a differential equation is (and at least some broad strokes of existence, uniqueness, analytical/numerical solution methods) you can never understand the point of mechanics.

That is absolutely fascinating! How do you become a recovering crackpot? I thought, once the pot is cracked, there is no gluing it back together again. How did you get out of the fourth dimension?

@@laurentdrozin812 Well, I'm really probably not the most objective observer to analyze. But I'd credit several things. First, was discovering that my own personal quack idea was actually already a part of basic GR that just doesn't get talked about in popular science presentations much. That made me realize that I really had no idea what I was talking about and needed to learn a lot more about basic physics. And going down the road of reading actual text books instead of popsci presentations gave me a more realistic perspective on what physics actually is. Second, my crackpot period predated most social media. By the time social media became more of a thing I had already had the revelation above. And the combination of that realization along with seeing what other crackpots said and how they thought gave me an outside perspective on just how crazy they all sound. And that led to some introspection on how crazy I sounded. Now I don't worry about trying to theorize about anything much myself. Just try to read and learn as much as I can.

@@johnreford Whew, you really dodged the bullet there, imagine you actually broadcasted your revolutionary theories all over the internet! Congrats on recovering and good luck with your studies.

@@johnreford Thank you for your insight.

​@@johnrefordI have a crackpot theory about why people on the internet always confuse _you're_ with *your.* It involves aliens.