I know Bill and Neil are shills who peddle The Narrative, but I've never seen evidence of Freemasonry. Got a source?
On a related note, I think the Veritasium guy and MKBHD on YouTube have been bought off. I’m hoping they are just useful idiots because I want to like them.
Most of the work in theoretical physics for the past 50 years or so (and starting a hundred years before that) has been the effort to show that E&M and gravity are the same thing (Superunification theories or SUT). Throw a stone and hit a physicist who thinks they might be the same thing.
By the "same thing" I mean different manifestations of the same force; a "symmetry breaking" of a singular force into different manifestations based on conditions. The standard model of physics is a mathematical model that is consistent with the idea that electricity, magnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force are all the same force under different conditions. Marrying gravity into that mix is the life's work of many a physicist.
To say that all forces are manifestations of the same force and to say that "gravity doesn't exist" are saying the same thing.
If gravity is a manifestation of E&M then it doesn't exist as a separate force, but is just one way E&M expresses itself.
Now there are different paths to that statement. In the case of the SM one is a symmetry breaking and manifestation of a different force carrying particle (graviton) which can be (in a SUT) transformed into a photon.
In the case of other possible theories of gravity as E&M, gravity is a result of zwitterbegung or some other vibrational energy of the spacetime foam (or virtual particles) that preferences a resultant force in one direction.
Whether it's physically curved or not is debatable, however the equations predict the motion of gravity much better than what was in place before, at least up to the the mass of the Sun.
I always thought Tesla was against Einstein's theories because he didn't understand the math behind it.
I am not privy to Tesla's theory of gravity, though if true he would not be alone. Any SUT, or any marriage of E&M and gravity would by necessity either remove the requirement of the deformation of spacetime by energy (mass), and possibly even the idea of spacetime as a deformable medium, or it would require that it is E&M (+weak + strong) energy that causes the deformation.
Einstein never said "I'm right". Or "This is truth." No scientist ever does that. That is not a part of science, that is a part of media interpretation of science (by design of the lying system that is the media).
Everyone knows that GR and QM are not compatible, therefore either one, or both are wrong or incomplete. Einstein knew it, Feynmann knew it, Gell-mann knew it, Hawking knew it, Heisenberg knew it, Carroll knows it, Thorne knows it... EVERYONE knows it.
There is no ego there (or very little) within the community of researchers. It is only (or at least mostly) in the popular media that the idea of "right" and "wrong" or meaningful ego driven competitions exist.
My understanding is that Tesla didn't refute Einstein because his theory didn't marry E&M with gravity, but because he couldn't comprehend the math behind it.
Which is too bad since the math has been shown to be an accurate model for our solar system, better than what existed before.
Also, Einstein didn't base his theory on the principle that spacetime is deformable/warped/curved/etc. That was only an insight that came to him while he struggled to integrate gravity into special relativity. But I would submit that just because he leveraged Riemann's equations to help him with his own, it doesn't necessarily mean that spacetime is curved or anything (even though he concluded it did), but instead it shows that Riemann's equations, which were developed for measuring distances in a manifold of any dimensions, works for spacetime. It could be that nothing is curved, but the effects that gravity has on light behaves as if it is curved. There could be another reason for it we have yet to understand fully.
As for Tesla, I'm disappointed. He had an opportunity to build upon some great work, but he didn't. It seems to me he was the only one sporting any ego.
Which is too bad since the math has been shown to be an accurate model for our solar system, better than what existed before.
Can you show me the evidence of this? I have seen no such theory.
just because he leveraged Riemann's equations to help him with his own, it doesn't necessarily mean that spacetime is curved or anything (even though he concluded it did), but instead it shows that Riemann's equations, which were developed for measuring distances in a manifold of any dimensions, works for spacetime
Enough with the really good responses. You're making me dig deep here. (Not really, its great!)
I agree that "Curvature" (and Riemann's extension of the concept) is purely a mathematical construct. It doesn't have any real physical meaning. We give meaning to these concepts through the filter of how we define what it means to be physical (to have a "physical distance" or a "movement in time"). Our ideas of physicality may be deeply flawed.
Einstein's GR equation says that the mathematical construct of curvature (and measurements of distance in the 4 dimensional spacetime) IS energy density distribution. They are the same thing. But its really only saying that changes in energy density distribution, between two measurement points, which is something we can measure, can change 3 velocity measurements and time measurements (another thing we can measure) based on your observer point. It also says the 4 velocity (and 4 momentum) measurements will always be the same for all observers.
The point is, you can think of a deformation (and its resulting curvature) of spacetime as an energy density distribution (like a gradient), or a change in the mathematical construct of curvature, and you will arrive at the same answer either way.
The idea of a 4 vector gives meaning to spacetime as a physical entity. But our measurements do coincide with the physical meaning we give (arbitrarily) to curvature, and thus the problem is, this confirmation bias reinforces our marriage to the physical concept overlays we attribute to it.
To effectively divorce these concepts we would have to be motivated to do so (which many are), but we would also have to come up with completely new ideas of what it means to be "real".
All measurements in physics, or any other physical science are ultimately measurements of two things; spatial and temporal distance. When you measure temperature, or power output, or any other measurement, when you break it down to brass tacks, you are really measuring a movement through space and time. That is why the physical universe as we have defined it (and the concept of curvature that we overlay on it) are so powerful. Those concepts help us measure everything that isn't spiritual or psychological (if those two concepts even have different meanings).
Until we can find another thought paradigm than physical reality as having "distance" in time and space, we are ultimately also married to curvature of space and time, because it works out so well in measurement. Even if we use the other side of the equation (energy density distribution), ignoring the curvature part (which allows us to accurately measure distances in space and time) is disingenuous without that paradigm shift in our concept of reality.
The Freemasons are directly linked to the Knights Templars, who have origins in the 12th century. But the group that calls themselves FM may have origins going back much further than that. Possibly millennia. It gets cloudy and confusing in the evidence, but I put the probability very high (based on what I have seen) that the FM (or their real origins) go back before Babylon (possibly even millennia before then, though that evidence is SUPER cloudy, found only in archeology).
It could be that the FM themselves began at some point, and were infiltrated by a different group (originally unrelated). But evidence suggests that whatever the group is that is calling themselves the FM NOW, go back millennia.
I recommend that you keep digging on the FM. There is no end to interesting things to find there. One thing I can say for certain. There is substantial evidence that it began long (LONG) before 1717.
That's a tough one for sure. I am thinking there might be multiple factions, and possibly multiple infiltrations.
The only other option (a unified FM) is that we are experiencing the ultimate mindfuck.
That is an option I keep my eyes open for, but it is really hard to support with evidence.
For example, an empowered and awakened We The People seems good to me on all levels. It resonates, so how can it be a bad thing? Yet there is a fair bit of evidence that many of the contributions to that empowerment and awakening, both in the past and present, are from FM.
Maybe somehow it is a bad thing. Maybe it will keep us from an even larger truth? That line of circular reasoning to find a fear is not fruitful in any way. Instead I keep my eyes open for any possibility, and use discernment and critical thinking to find evidence of the truth, and ways to empower myself and those around me.
1666 (October): that same freemason invents Calculus;
Both Leibniz and Newton "invented" calculus within popular history, but there is evidence that supports that idea as well. I have studied both methods of calculus, and they use completely different approaches and nomenclatures to arrive at the same math. That doesn't mean Newton didn't steal foundational ideas from Leibnitz, but the end result of the two, as used, are quite different.
To me, having used both methods a fair bit, they feel very different, like they were developed, at least in part, by two different people. When two people make their own computer programs to solve the same problem (the exact same i/o functionality), the code will look VERY different. The math of Leibniz and Newton has that same difference of "code."
1687: that freemason then goes on to publish “Principia Mathematica” that becomes the bed-rock of “science” for the next 300+ years.
First of all, Newton's work in mechanics really only was the standard until GR and QM, so more like 200 years, but I won't quibble over 100 years. It would be more appropriate to say it is the bed-rock of engineering (though not all engineering), and I dare say it has been quite useful for that task, so not all bad, even if purposefully incomplete (for which the evidence is insufficient according to that document).
While I didn't read that document entirely, I skimmed it to look for it talking about a physics (and math) connection. They did very little of that, making a lot of suppositions that because Newton was a FM (which I never disputed) the greater body of the work attributed to him was not his, or was purposeful disinformation (which is not true, because it has proven to be very useful information, even if incomplete or purposefully misleading).
I did not see any real evidence that Principia Mathematica or Opticks or any other publication of Newton was not his work. If there was any that I missed in my skimming, please point it out to me. Perhaps most important, if not his, then whose?
The point of attaching lies to a Freemason is that you can use the truths to blend the lies.
School brainwashed them into believing those people invented it when all they did was manipulate it and hide the important bits.
This sounds to me like you (and others) are using the ideas that the FM can't be trusted, and using that lack of trust to extend it to these other people not having actually contributed their contributions. I am asking for evidence that those assertions are true. I am not asking for evidence that the FM are liars. I am not asking for evidence that Newton was a FM. Neither of those points are contested.
I am asking for evidence that Newton did not do the work attributed to Newton.
I guess I am also asking for evidence that the work associated with Newton purposefully hid things.
I have yet to see any evidence that supports those statements.
Here is what I see is the logic:
FM are liars.
Newton was a FM.
Everything Newton did was a lie.
That does NOT logically follow. That is an error in logic. I want evidence that links 1 and 2 with 3. I have seen none so far (not counting Calculus for which I have given an argument to the contrary, and concede it might be partially (but not fully) true).
Not sure if I'd compare Tyson (who is just a museum curator) and Nye (who has no formal scientific training that I'm aware of) with Newton and Einstein.
Newton is the originator of the phrase "If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants". He was very complimentary and transparent about how his work was built on the discoveries of others. That being said, a cogent argument could be made that Newton is literally the most important and possibly smartest scientist the human race has ever produced.
This is a man who literally invented calculus. Let's also remember that Newton was part of the early beginnings of Free Masonry. Very unlikely that the goals of the order were anywhere similar to what they may be now.
Einstein is another subject and in the interest of keeping this comment from entering the "TLDR" category, I'll simply say that I would be very wary of discounting his contributions simply because he was a freemason. Both of these men made gargantuan contributions to our understanding of reality. Conversely, Nye and Tyson are compromised, bought-and-paid-for charlatans used for influencing public opinion.
Bottom line, I don't think putting these four men together and dismissing all of their contributions simply because they were/are Free Masons is good logic or holds up to scrutiny.
So if it is so well understood why is it not used in any technology to date?
Can you build something that proves these theories if you are so knowledgeable about them that you can refute without giving the mathematics? Beyond "they were freemasons" or "they were degenerates" etc? That is ad hominim attacks which doesn't change whether they have came up with this work themselves let along they are wrong...
Invented by tesla and stolen by Rothschild's doesn't disprove the current scientific understanding about how the universe works and how is that invention solely based on ether science or what it is you seem to be claiming to be the truth
Why ""real""?
How do we know 1/3 is hidden when we dont even know how much we dont know about physics currently? to know we're missing some then we would need to know 100% of it.
To what benefit do they bury the history of it? Most of these ""pioneers"" weren't and wouldn't take sole credit if still alive but would claim they worked with other scientists through many debates and conversations. I would listen to a concise and thorough documentary about how, why, where and when these things were actually thought of and why it means the current people that are given part of the credit dont deserve it
Tyson has a PhD and is in charge of a planetarium, so not exactly "just" a museum curator. Bill Nye has at least one degree in engineering, and while not exactly a formal scientist like one doing original research, he's spent his life advocating for science and helping it to be easier understood by the mass public. It's clear that he understands plenty of science in the process.
Tyson is a thrice accused rapist.
Nye is a degenerate pervert.
Einstein = Marry Cousin Twice
Einstein married his counsin twice (and fucked one of his cousin's daughter's too)
I read the argument in the document you posted here. It talks about all the work of others before Einstein that contributed to the final work. Those things are not disputed, and have never been disputed in the physics community (though I didn't know about E=mc^2 by De Pretto, that sounds memory holed to me). Building on the work of others and putting it all together IS what physicists do. No one (including Einstein) thought that SR was that big of a deal, as far as physics goes because, every physics student knows about all the other stuff that led to it. What was great about it was that it brought everything together, and formed a paradigm shift in thought. It created a conclusive argument from many other arguments, instead of a bunch of disparate ones. It wasn't even recognized as that potent until later.
Great works are not all original works, but in taking the work that has gone before and showing that all that work is the same work. In theoretical physics, most of the greatest contributions have been exactly that type of marriage.
I am not defending Einstein, but rather showing that the argument that "he only used other people's work" is not a good argument, in fact its a terrible one. That is what all scientists do and specifically, all theoretical physicists.
These two aren't even experts in the fields they claim to represent, they are fucking actors.
fify
So is the earth really flat then?
Nasa lies, is the bottom line.
You'd be siding with the established science. So yea.
True, but I always wondered why they faked the moon missions and also all the cgi. It’s at least a good reason to investigate their claims
Not.......YET
Hmmm. Say it's a Private video
I know Bill and Neil are shills who peddle The Narrative, but I've never seen evidence of Freemasonry. Got a source?
On a related note, I think the Veritasium guy and MKBHD on YouTube have been bought off. I’m hoping they are just useful idiots because I want to like them.
I don’t see anything unusual in Neil’s photo. He is a space scientist.
What specifically about that photo is evidence of Freemasonry?
Yes, I know NASA is littered with Nazis and such.
Having a sun and moon on your shirt doesn’t make you a Freemason.
Be specific. What are the symbols and what do they reference?
Whelp. That IS an uncanny similarity. Thank you for backing up your statement.
No need to be rude when someone asks for a source.
Many new people coming here, relax.
Handshakes
Didn't Tesla think there was no such thing as gravity and that it was due to electromagnetic force?
Is this the same Aether Michelson and Morley attempted to measure?
Yes, but their experiment was based on a false premise. They absolutely did NOT disprove the existence of the ether.
Good answer and I agree.
Lame. I would suggest going with Trumpternal's answer.
He had several readings from Edgar cayce
Most of the work in theoretical physics for the past 50 years or so (and starting a hundred years before that) has been the effort to show that E&M and gravity are the same thing (Superunification theories or SUT). Throw a stone and hit a physicist who thinks they might be the same thing.
By the "same thing" I mean different manifestations of the same force; a "symmetry breaking" of a singular force into different manifestations based on conditions. The standard model of physics is a mathematical model that is consistent with the idea that electricity, magnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force are all the same force under different conditions. Marrying gravity into that mix is the life's work of many a physicist.
Yes, I am aware of the quest for the grand unification theory to incorporate gravitational force into the standard model.
But my understanding of Tesla's theories was that gravity just didn't exist.
To say that all forces are manifestations of the same force and to say that "gravity doesn't exist" are saying the same thing.
If gravity is a manifestation of E&M then it doesn't exist as a separate force, but is just one way E&M expresses itself.
Now there are different paths to that statement. In the case of the SM one is a symmetry breaking and manifestation of a different force carrying particle (graviton) which can be (in a SUT) transformed into a photon.
In the case of other possible theories of gravity as E&M, gravity is a result of zwitterbegung or some other vibrational energy of the spacetime foam (or virtual particles) that preferences a resultant force in one direction.
But I thought the context of Tesla refuting gravity was in his refuting Einstein's gravitation theory?
Whether it's physically curved or not is debatable, however the equations predict the motion of gravity much better than what was in place before, at least up to the the mass of the Sun.
I always thought Tesla was against Einstein's theories because he didn't understand the math behind it.
Einstein didn't understand his math either which is why his wife "proved" his work.
I am not privy to Tesla's theory of gravity, though if true he would not be alone. Any SUT, or any marriage of E&M and gravity would by necessity either remove the requirement of the deformation of spacetime by energy (mass), and possibly even the idea of spacetime as a deformable medium, or it would require that it is E&M (+weak + strong) energy that causes the deformation.
Einstein never said "I'm right". Or "This is truth." No scientist ever does that. That is not a part of science, that is a part of media interpretation of science (by design of the lying system that is the media).
Everyone knows that GR and QM are not compatible, therefore either one, or both are wrong or incomplete. Einstein knew it, Feynmann knew it, Gell-mann knew it, Hawking knew it, Heisenberg knew it, Carroll knows it, Thorne knows it... EVERYONE knows it.
There is no ego there (or very little) within the community of researchers. It is only (or at least mostly) in the popular media that the idea of "right" and "wrong" or meaningful ego driven competitions exist.
My understanding is that Tesla didn't refute Einstein because his theory didn't marry E&M with gravity, but because he couldn't comprehend the math behind it.
Which is too bad since the math has been shown to be an accurate model for our solar system, better than what existed before.
Also, Einstein didn't base his theory on the principle that spacetime is deformable/warped/curved/etc. That was only an insight that came to him while he struggled to integrate gravity into special relativity. But I would submit that just because he leveraged Riemann's equations to help him with his own, it doesn't necessarily mean that spacetime is curved or anything (even though he concluded it did), but instead it shows that Riemann's equations, which were developed for measuring distances in a manifold of any dimensions, works for spacetime. It could be that nothing is curved, but the effects that gravity has on light behaves as if it is curved. There could be another reason for it we have yet to understand fully.
As for Tesla, I'm disappointed. He had an opportunity to build upon some great work, but he didn't. It seems to me he was the only one sporting any ego.
Can you show me the evidence of this? I have seen no such theory.
Enough with the really good responses. You're making me dig deep here. (Not really, its great!)
I agree that "Curvature" (and Riemann's extension of the concept) is purely a mathematical construct. It doesn't have any real physical meaning. We give meaning to these concepts through the filter of how we define what it means to be physical (to have a "physical distance" or a "movement in time"). Our ideas of physicality may be deeply flawed.
Einstein's GR equation says that the mathematical construct of curvature (and measurements of distance in the 4 dimensional spacetime) IS energy density distribution. They are the same thing. But its really only saying that changes in energy density distribution, between two measurement points, which is something we can measure, can change 3 velocity measurements and time measurements (another thing we can measure) based on your observer point. It also says the 4 velocity (and 4 momentum) measurements will always be the same for all observers.
The point is, you can think of a deformation (and its resulting curvature) of spacetime as an energy density distribution (like a gradient), or a change in the mathematical construct of curvature, and you will arrive at the same answer either way.
The idea of a 4 vector gives meaning to spacetime as a physical entity. But our measurements do coincide with the physical meaning we give (arbitrarily) to curvature, and thus the problem is, this confirmation bias reinforces our marriage to the physical concept overlays we attribute to it.
To effectively divorce these concepts we would have to be motivated to do so (which many are), but we would also have to come up with completely new ideas of what it means to be "real".
All measurements in physics, or any other physical science are ultimately measurements of two things; spatial and temporal distance. When you measure temperature, or power output, or any other measurement, when you break it down to brass tacks, you are really measuring a movement through space and time. That is why the physical universe as we have defined it (and the concept of curvature that we overlay on it) are so powerful. Those concepts help us measure everything that isn't spiritual or psychological (if those two concepts even have different meanings).
Until we can find another thought paradigm than physical reality as having "distance" in time and space, we are ultimately also married to curvature of space and time, because it works out so well in measurement. Even if we use the other side of the equation (energy density distribution), ignoring the curvature part (which allows us to accurately measure distances in space and time) is disingenuous without that paradigm shift in our concept of reality.
Thank you for the link. I homeschool as well and will be using this.
I cant stand Neil Tyson, he has the most punchable face out of all 3 of these asshats
Isaac Newton published Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica in 1687. Freemasonry wasn't founded until 1717.
Do you have any evidence of your claims? Or are you just spitballing?
The Freemasons are directly linked to the Knights Templars, who have origins in the 12th century. But the group that calls themselves FM may have origins going back much further than that. Possibly millennia. It gets cloudy and confusing in the evidence, but I put the probability very high (based on what I have seen) that the FM (or their real origins) go back before Babylon (possibly even millennia before then, though that evidence is SUPER cloudy, found only in archeology).
It could be that the FM themselves began at some point, and were infiltrated by a different group (originally unrelated). But evidence suggests that whatever the group is that is calling themselves the FM NOW, go back millennia.
I recommend that you keep digging on the FM. There is no end to interesting things to find there. One thing I can say for certain. There is substantial evidence that it began long (LONG) before 1717.
That’s really helpful, as I’ve been trying to reconcile the Founding Fathers being mostly masons.
That's a tough one for sure. I am thinking there might be multiple factions, and possibly multiple infiltrations.
The only other option (a unified FM) is that we are experiencing the ultimate mindfuck.
That is an option I keep my eyes open for, but it is really hard to support with evidence.
For example, an empowered and awakened We The People seems good to me on all levels. It resonates, so how can it be a bad thing? Yet there is a fair bit of evidence that many of the contributions to that empowerment and awakening, both in the past and present, are from FM.
Maybe somehow it is a bad thing. Maybe it will keep us from an even larger truth? That line of circular reasoning to find a fear is not fruitful in any way. Instead I keep my eyes open for any possibility, and use discernment and critical thinking to find evidence of the truth, and ways to empower myself and those around me.
Babylon was modern day Cairo. FM developed from the atenists / atonists. 3500 BC.
For more on this search Jootube .Michael Tsarion atonism
Show me evidence that Einstein's work was not his own.
Show me evidence that Newton's work was not his own (I don't mean his work in Calculus).
Both Leibniz and Newton "invented" calculus within popular history, but there is evidence that supports that idea as well. I have studied both methods of calculus, and they use completely different approaches and nomenclatures to arrive at the same math. That doesn't mean Newton didn't steal foundational ideas from Leibnitz, but the end result of the two, as used, are quite different.
To me, having used both methods a fair bit, they feel very different, like they were developed, at least in part, by two different people. When two people make their own computer programs to solve the same problem (the exact same i/o functionality), the code will look VERY different. The math of Leibniz and Newton has that same difference of "code."
First of all, Newton's work in mechanics really only was the standard until GR and QM, so more like 200 years, but I won't quibble over 100 years. It would be more appropriate to say it is the bed-rock of engineering (though not all engineering), and I dare say it has been quite useful for that task, so not all bad, even if purposefully incomplete (for which the evidence is insufficient according to that document).
While I didn't read that document entirely, I skimmed it to look for it talking about a physics (and math) connection. They did very little of that, making a lot of suppositions that because Newton was a FM (which I never disputed) the greater body of the work attributed to him was not his, or was purposeful disinformation (which is not true, because it has proven to be very useful information, even if incomplete or purposefully misleading).
I did not see any real evidence that Principia Mathematica or Opticks or any other publication of Newton was not his work. If there was any that I missed in my skimming, please point it out to me. Perhaps most important, if not his, then whose?
I never said it does. Why aren't you addressing the question i am actually asking.
I asked to be shown the evidence that Isaac Newton was not the original author of the work attributed to him. I am not disputing any other claim here.
Do you not see the flaw in believing any evidence to the contrary if it fits in with a larger belief system? That is confirmation bias.
"Because Newton was a FM, and there is controversy of the origin of calculus, all of his work was fraudulent."
There is no logic there, that is a desire to discredit everything, because of something else unrelated.
This sounds to me like you (and others) are using the ideas that the FM can't be trusted, and using that lack of trust to extend it to these other people not having actually contributed their contributions. I am asking for evidence that those assertions are true. I am not asking for evidence that the FM are liars. I am not asking for evidence that Newton was a FM. Neither of those points are contested.
I am asking for evidence that Newton did not do the work attributed to Newton.
I guess I am also asking for evidence that the work associated with Newton purposefully hid things.
I have yet to see any evidence that supports those statements.
Here is what I see is the logic:
That does NOT logically follow. That is an error in logic. I want evidence that links 1 and 2 with 3. I have seen none so far (not counting Calculus for which I have given an argument to the contrary, and concede it might be partially (but not fully) true).
Not sure if I'd compare Tyson (who is just a museum curator) and Nye (who has no formal scientific training that I'm aware of) with Newton and Einstein.
Newton is the originator of the phrase "If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants". He was very complimentary and transparent about how his work was built on the discoveries of others. That being said, a cogent argument could be made that Newton is literally the most important and possibly smartest scientist the human race has ever produced.
This is a man who literally invented calculus. Let's also remember that Newton was part of the early beginnings of Free Masonry. Very unlikely that the goals of the order were anywhere similar to what they may be now.
Einstein is another subject and in the interest of keeping this comment from entering the "TLDR" category, I'll simply say that I would be very wary of discounting his contributions simply because he was a freemason. Both of these men made gargantuan contributions to our understanding of reality. Conversely, Nye and Tyson are compromised, bought-and-paid-for charlatans used for influencing public opinion.
Bottom line, I don't think putting these four men together and dismissing all of their contributions simply because they were/are Free Masons is good logic or holds up to scrutiny.
So if it is so well understood why is it not used in any technology to date? Can you build something that proves these theories if you are so knowledgeable about them that you can refute without giving the mathematics? Beyond "they were freemasons" or "they were degenerates" etc? That is ad hominim attacks which doesn't change whether they have came up with this work themselves let along they are wrong...
Invented by tesla and stolen by Rothschild's doesn't disprove the current scientific understanding about how the universe works and how is that invention solely based on ether science or what it is you seem to be claiming to be the truth
Why ""real""? How do we know 1/3 is hidden when we dont even know how much we dont know about physics currently? to know we're missing some then we would need to know 100% of it.
To what benefit do they bury the history of it? Most of these ""pioneers"" weren't and wouldn't take sole credit if still alive but would claim they worked with other scientists through many debates and conversations. I would listen to a concise and thorough documentary about how, why, where and when these things were actually thought of and why it means the current people that are given part of the credit dont deserve it
Then prove me wrong. Have you read Principa Mathematica? You make assertions and provide no facts to back them up.
Tell me why I should lump Einstein and Newton in with two charlatans and we'll talk. But ad hominem attacks on anyone get nowhere with me.
Tyson has a PhD and is in charge of a planetarium, so not exactly "just" a museum curator. Bill Nye has at least one degree in engineering, and while not exactly a formal scientist like one doing original research, he's spent his life advocating for science and helping it to be easier understood by the mass public. It's clear that he understands plenty of science in the process.
Tyson is a thrice accused rapist. Nye is a degenerate pervert. Einstein = Marry Cousin Twice Einstein married his counsin twice (and fucked one of his cousin's daughter's too)
Do you have evidence that they plagiarized their ideas? Derivative theorizing isnt plagiarism.
I read the argument in the document you posted here. It talks about all the work of others before Einstein that contributed to the final work. Those things are not disputed, and have never been disputed in the physics community (though I didn't know about E=mc^2 by De Pretto, that sounds memory holed to me). Building on the work of others and putting it all together IS what physicists do. No one (including Einstein) thought that SR was that big of a deal, as far as physics goes because, every physics student knows about all the other stuff that led to it. What was great about it was that it brought everything together, and formed a paradigm shift in thought. It created a conclusive argument from many other arguments, instead of a bunch of disparate ones. It wasn't even recognized as that potent until later.
Great works are not all original works, but in taking the work that has gone before and showing that all that work is the same work. In theoretical physics, most of the greatest contributions have been exactly that type of marriage.
I am not defending Einstein, but rather showing that the argument that "he only used other people's work" is not a good argument, in fact its a terrible one. That is what all scientists do and specifically, all theoretical physicists.
Upvote for "thrice"
TRUST THE SCIENCE
Study electric universe theory.
De Grasse Tyson was pushed hard on JRE. For me that says it all.
House Boy.
that sure explains why the same groups of people seem to love China
💯
Disgusting
https://youtu.be/7ATzLkr9JXk
It’s flat folks. God created this place, and we’re his greatest creation (so far, that is) lol
Didn't nikola tesla steal some of his ideas too?
I wish we could stop with this FREEmason LARP cuckery.