😂

You mean the one where superstitious nonsense from the internet isn't a thing? Well - it doesn't exist, unfortunatly.

No such thing as timelines. Humans are made from the differences in reality and that make up reality. Time is a measurement of difference. We constantly see changes which are differences but connected by the present, the past and future are non existent and that’s why the current is the only thing.

@@user-if1ly5sn5f Sir, may I ask if you consume some sort of medicament or do you intend to search for help?

​@@user-if1ly5sn5freally?

If your worldview improve you start living like grinding your favorite MMORPG. So you should start appreciate their constant drop of content as free dlcs. 😊 There are way greedier Publishers out there

History is a lie so is cern

The path integral is Feynman, and observers don’t really matter.

A corruption of time and space. We base our analysis on a sample of several viewers including non viewers, for which we have data on the corruption levels and a generic time space been manipulated by forcess till this day unkown. We just dont know yet. We dont have the precision in our understanding. Thank you.

A rip in the s/t continuum

No

Thanks

🎭🤣🧲me to!🤏🏻😎

Not sure where you’re getting your info. “Consciousness is the force mainstream science doesn’t really study.” You’re already wrong by this point, like completely, consciousness is a huge field of study The rest is you being confused about what observer means in respect to the double slit experiment.

Study "the self" or one could argue a invivo experiment where in a conscious being study that what drives it to do this in the first place. Mhmm difficult to formulate, hope you catch my drift there!🤤😬😏. Refering to the observation in quantum mecanics. Collops of form into 1 _2 states and the inforamation flow in observing--even it is machine or a detector and no human present--needs some form of energy to do that. So it is interacted with and determent in state. I am no big expert here, just sharing a moment of thought. Furthermore, real interrested to see next 20 years development of Sapiens & tool!

@@btn237 I was planning to say the same thing. When I was trying to find my path in science, I wanted to study consciousness. Unfortunately, much of the technology we have today was absent altogether and the field was more a matter of conjecture than testable hypotheses. All of that has changed, and progress is being made--albeit in a more halting manner than we might wish. Another twenty years and we should have at least and inkling as to the requirements of perception/self awareness. It's a knotty problem when the object of investigation and the investigator are one and the same.

Barry "Barack Hussain"

At 35:47 he says: whimpsically we call them color( r,bl., gr..). Instead o white here they use colorless proton. Mayvbe i don't catch it what they mean by seemingly random color choice for each diffetent quark in proton. (I go look it up now. Interrsetrd how came about)

White is physics slang for invariant under SU(3) transformations, where the fundamental representation is 3 dimensional (duh) and the names of the basis states in it are called red, green, and blue, and the conjugate states are cyan, magenta, yellow. So the minimal requirements are 3 quarks, or 3 antiquarks, or 1 quark and one antiquark….which make baryons, antibaeyons, and mesons, respectively. It’s kinda cute that the color analogy works…or who knows what would have happened namewise. I mean over in SU(3)-flavor they came up with up, down, strange. …which made sense with SU(2)- flavor being just up, down.. Aka isospin,

@@DrDeuteron crystal clear joy in my brain. thank you

As long some being can give meaning to celebration of and pass that concept on to next civilization? Looking into the past, light travelling for some while, there must be brtween 1 and infinite number of places and space-time each boundto relative near surroundings. Cant celebrate as a whole. Once those invitations are being delivered, afterparty halfway😮😂 . Complicated to think about. Lets do once in a galaçtic year.

On Mars! Do that on Mars! Please!

Two atoms walk down the street. Says one to the other: "Dang, I think I lost an electron." "Are you sure?" "Yes, I'm positive."

😉 tasteful!

....because it's nonsense that doesn't exist.

I agree but than why the satanic ritual years ago?

@@buteos8632 There was no ritual.

Wait….is CERN a pun?

Get a therapy. And I don't even mean that derogatorily

🤦‍♂

The level of risk changed. Read the 1936 Scientific American article that tells how German scientists shot subatomic particles at a larger atomic mass. That experiment started a race to the atomic bomb. What if CERN had been around then? We would know more back then. We may not have been able to avoid the arms race but we would not have had a wasteful cold war. Why? Because we would have known more about the possible nuclear weapon that could be produced. At the close of the presentation They will show the constitutional foundation of CERN. That philanthropy constitution led to nuclear proliferation treats. (A nation state that has no nuclear weapons still has access to all of the data the nuclear nations have) That makes the expense worth it. Every nation knows there is no Manhattan Project going on somewhere that can destabilize the whole world.

Why so negative? Have you ever worked on their projects?

Billions?! -CERN's budget is around approx. 230 million €.- EDIT: I was wrong - actually it's ~ 230 million EU from Germany alone and 1,077 billion EU alltogether. Nevertheless still a surprisingly low sum given the vast amount of scientific studies CERN does.

It took around 10 years to build the LHC and the overall cost of that creation is said to have been around *$4.75 billion* CERN is funded by its more than twenty member states at a rate of about *800 million euro a year* @@Axxe80 U.S. to contribute *$531 million* to CERN I think your estimate is the same cost of a typical weather satellite, which carries a price tag of $290 million. Sadly, we pay the hobbies of the rich, while we disregard the poor.

CERN: “We discovered the fundamental nature of reality”. Only you: “Yeah but what ELSE have you done”.

There is a problem in English. The problem is the word truth. When that world goes to Latin it looks like veritas. That is where the problem is. Then toss in espostomology and science, a Greek word and a Latin word that mean the same thing but are used differently. The connoisseur conocer and saber. The truth in Latin and Greek are not lists of "facts" nore a list of "evidence". Truth is that which is self evident. Epistemology is a self evident truth that anyone can see. And that means anyone. The sun comes up. It is day time. There is no debate. But if we ask what time of day is it there is a debate. We live in different time zones and time passes differently from everyone's point of view. Therefore Physics is not a branch of espostomology. No one at CERN directly sees anything with their naked eyes. And they clearly admitted that and continue to make that admission. Therefore science speaks not about truth but about confidence levels. There can be other theories of existence. But what you have to tell us is not that one theory is wrong and yours is right but which theories have the highest confidence levels. For example since we cannot touch a standard candle we will always have conflict when it comes to the Hubble Tension and thus the expansion of the Cosmos. The ways we measure things we cannot directly touch always leads to degrees of uncertainty. No one has said the debate is over when it comes to the Standard Model and Classical Physics. No debates no doubts would be the Latin definition of truth. So, you might want to refrain from saying you have the whole truth and nothing but the truth.