22
Comments (46)
sorted by:
10
ozrifles 10 points ago +11 / -1

Yeah.

Einstein is to physics, as what Fauci is to medicine.

If you keep that thought in mind whilst studying the development of the standard model, and the move away from pragmatic science, then it takes on a whole different look.

4
Slyver 4 points ago +5 / -1

Einstein played very little part in the development of the Standard Model. Also, I have looked at the evidence of "Einstein as a fraud" and have found it to be ludicrous, at least as presented to me. It suggests that because he used work from previous physicists and put it all together into one coherent theory that that makes him "a fraud."

Yet that is exactly what all physics is. I'm not saying he's right, but I have seen no evidence of anything other than just good physics from Einstein, even if he got it all wrong.

Here's what people seem to completely misunderstand. Physics has nothing to do with Truth, but it doesn't pretend to. Physics is a set of useful mathematical models. It is absolutely nothing more; and every good physicist knows it. That doesn't mean there is no fuckery there, there is a ton. That doesn't mean there is no dogma there, there is a ton. But that has more to do with how it's sold to the public than how it is seen by physicists.

Don't get me wrong, its easy to drink your own kool-aid and more than a few physicists do, but in general, most physicists understand what physics is; a set of mathematical models. Einsteins mathematical models were extremely useful, and the axioms (which are his true genius and original work, even if wrong) are also useful, even if they may have ultimately led us astray. That leading astray is more the work of other entities than Einstein.

I am not thinking Einstein was some great person. I have no doubt he was as corrupt as any other in his position, but to downplay his contributions to physics has no evidential support, and all arguments I have seen seem to have no clue what physics is (useful mathematical models), and what it is not (truth).

3
Narg 3 points ago +3 / -0

Great comment, Slyver. Sensible and enjoyable to read.

2
ARandomOgre 2 points ago +4 / -2

I actually agree completely.

Anyone who knows much about Einstein, the man, will readily agree he was kind of a dick.

But yes, scientists build on each other's work. That's literally the entire point of science. Someone proposes an idea, it gets torn to shreds, and if it's still standing, it's considered a strong enough idea to use as a foundation for new ones.

And you are correct that physics is an attempt to DESCRIBE reality, not DEFINE reality. Defining reality is sort of the idealistic goal that lends us the motivation to describe it using math.

And as anathema as it is to say around here, this extends to ALL science, not just the "harmless" ones. This includes, say, the appropriate medical response to a virus that we haven't encountered before. This includes, say, mathematical models predicting climate change.

Science is an attempt to describe and predict. When people assume it's an attempt to define reality, they hold it to a standard that every scientist will inevitably fail. That doesn't mean science is failing. It just means the people who are making the judgments are expecting certainty the scientific process never was designed to prove. It's a definitional straw-man argument.

3
Narg 3 points ago +3 / -0

Einstein is to physics, as what Fauci is to medicine.

Way too harsh. Einstein was neither a fraud nor a psychopath trying to impose a tyranny designed to crush humanity and kill millions (billions, actually) in the process.

Einstein's 1921 Nobel Prize was for his "discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect" -- which more or less kicked off quantum theory. Relativity theory is primarily his -- and both work extremely well; GPS systems rely on relativity and most of the modern world -- the newish, high-tech parts anyway -- would not even exist without our understanding of quantum mechanics.

That doesn't mean either theory is fully correct or that they both won't be overthrown someday (perhaps soon) the same way Newtonian physics was superseded BY the standard model. But note that for everyday use, including the building of bridges and so on, Newton's equations still work fine. It's only at the extremes (of mass, relative velocity, etc) that relativistic and quantum effects become relevant. Likewise, whatever comes after the standard model will have to make the same predictions in nearly all circumstances as quantum and relativity theories (I'm considering them both as standard model components).

In any case, other theories ARE out there, such as the Electric Universe theory. There are others.

I'm more interested in quantum fundamentals, the interpretation of what the theory and experimental results of quantum physics in particular tells about the actual structure of the universe. There are dozens of such interpretations, the best-known being the idea that unless something is being observed it exists only as a cloud of probabilities -- including your living room and distant galaxies -- and the mulitple universe theory (there are different kinds of multiverse theories, but here I'm talking about the theory that at every point where things could go more than one way, entire new universes spit off to accommodate each and every possible choice).

BOTH of those ideas seem completely insane. Yet, serious and well-known physicists believe that's how things actually are. Here's an interesting one: Here's an interesting one: The Idea of the World: A Multi-Disciplinary Argument for the Mental Nature of Reality .

1
Trumpternal 1 point ago +2 / -1

I don't really think that OP was comparing their psychological states. Fauci may or may not be a psychopath, and Einstein definitely wasn't the monster that Fauci is, but what I think OP means is that. Einstein and Fauci both gave us flawed models, and people believe their models so religiously that if you speak out against said models you're AnTi-ScIeNcE. When information contradicts those models it is shunned, and the person who shared the data is smeared, ostracized, and ruined professionally.

3
Narg 3 points ago +3 / -0

Every detailed, complex model of how the universe works is flawed; that doesn't mean they're useless. Newtons laws were very useful for hundreds of years and STILL ARE.

people believe their models so religiously that if you speak out against said models you're AnTi-ScIeNcE

That's not Einstein's fault -- he was a scientist and changed his views repeatedly based on new evidence or more compelling theory. But PEOPLE in general behave the way you describe; when they have paradigm solidly in mind they REALLY don't want to change it.

The problem with the comparison between Einstein and Fauci is that Fauci knowingly gave malicious advice to millions (billions, really) of people that caused widespread sickness and death.

Einstein did science that has dramatically improved our understanding of the universe and helped to provide tools never before even imagined (of course, how tools are used is another story, but that's true for all tools).

2
Trumpternal 2 points ago +2 / -0

Well yea, I can't find any flaw in that reasoning. Fauci is a piece of human garbage that should be swinging from a noose. Einstein is and always will be a one of the greatest scientific minds of this era, and yea I agree it wasn't his fault. I believe he later tried to change his mind on the Ether, but it was too late his theories already hit the mainstream.

2
Trumpternal 2 points ago +3 / -1

I agree with comparing Einstein to Fauci in the respect that they both gave us a flawed model, which was then repeated, and beat into's people brains, and now everyone who believes that model has a mind virus.

2
ozrifles 2 points ago +2 / -0

Thank you for all the well thought out responses to my off-hand comment.

Just to clarify my comment ....

Not suggesting that Einstein and Fauci are exactly equivalent .. its more to keep the assertion in mind (however accurate, or ridiculous or inaccurate it may be), when reading through the development of Modern Physics.

Its a guard statement that will help you see where Physics departed one trajectory and landed in another.

That path of the development of Modern Physics in turn leads to the Standard Model, Quantum Theory, String Theory, and all sorts of fun ideas.

If there is one thing they definitively have in common - it is that just like our latest Lord, Master and popular Hero Yelensky of Kyiv, both Einstein and Fauci have been shoved down our throats as brand names, who's unquestioning acceptance will excuse the humble reader from the burden of critical thinking.

Einstein himself may well have been an innocent pawn in this, or not. Who knows ?

He has certainly been used, over and over again, as a role model for everything good that we should aspire to. The bumbling, awkward genius with the bad hair, who loves riding bicycles, and who has magically made the world a better place. A real life Homer Simpson character, and one of God's chosen few to boot.

I'm more concerned about the development of the pragmatic, and "hard science" approach from how we developed through the enlightenment to the mid-20th C ... and how we come out the other side of WW2 with a firehose of bullshit accepted as the modern educational best practice.

Now we have Sociology, Psychotherapy, Common Core Maths, Political Science, Gender Studies, Queer Theory, String Theory, Black Holes and the Standard Model of Physics.

We should probably question this.

4
Slyver 4 points ago +4 / -0

What do you mean by "Standard Model" conspiracies? The Standard Model is a mathematical model. It accurately predicts certain outputs from certain inputs. It fails in other inputs -> outputs. It is an incomplete model of the Universe, but everyone knows that, and no one claims it is complete. It is fraught with problems. That doesn't make it not a useful mathematical model.

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
7
Logic20xx [S] 7 points ago +7 / -0

Yeah, but people here are cooler. They’re kinda crackpots over there.

3
ozrifles 3 points ago +3 / -0

Best comment so far

4
Donutterrian 4 points ago +4 / -0

Trigger warning: Relativity is a myth. There is no speed limit.

4
Slyver 4 points ago +4 / -0

Relativity doesn't really give a "speed limit," but a perception limit. You can go as fast as you want. There are several ways to go as fast as you want within Relativity. You can simply keep accelerating and get to any destination in the Universe in almost no time at all. It's just the rest of the Universe will have aged far past you in that travel, but for you, it will have seemed as nothing.

Alternatively you can go as fast as you want through the bending of space (warp), or the breaking of space (wormhole). There are all sorts of ways to "break the speed limit" suggesting its not a "limit" at all, but Relativity (both versions) doesn't say that it's a speed limit. People that think that hear it from what the media has to say about it, who always misinterpret it.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
2
Slyver 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yes, special relativity, electron theory, superposition are all wrong

I personally have done experiments that support all of these things.

Making quantum computing impossible and space is a lie. Its so easy to prove the earth is flat. Blackholes and Astrophysics is pseudo science.

Can you provide any evidence to support your claims?

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
Slyver 1 point ago +1 / -0

OK.

I have spent no small part of my life doing actual experiments to show the validity (and failings) of the mathematical models called "physics." They are incredibly well verified. I have spent decades in that endeavor in various fields. I do not think physics is truth, but it is incredibly accurate as presented within the domains it is intended. The specific models that you say "are all wrong" are actually incredibly good at predicting the outcome of events, i.e. the theory fits the facts.

If you think I haven't spent any time looking for facts that don't fit those theories, then you don't understand what physics research is. Physics research is nothing but trying to find flaws in the theories. I have spent far more time than you in that endeavor, I guarantee it.

I have even spent a fair bit of time (years) looking at evidence in the more fringe areas, the ones you espouse. Some I agree with (cold fusion has massive evidential support e.g.). For others, I present counter arguments to their "evidences" all the time and I invariably hear crickets in response. At best I get the response, "Your education is a fraud." That is not a direct address of the argument, but an ad hominem attack. And that's the best I get in response to my reasoned arguments.

To suggest I must be wrong because I don't share your beliefs is the ultimate hubris. I am willing to engage in earnest debate, but you are not. There is nothing wrong with your decision, but please recognize what is going on. You are unwilling to engage in direct debate, I am willing.

Which one of us cares more about pursuing a deeper understanding of the Truth?

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
1
Slyver 1 point ago +1 / -0

could it be that your assumptions were wrong?

The only assumption I have that I think is likely true, is that all of my other assumptions are wrong. The only question is how wrong.

Or your study was compartmentalized as part of a larger body of science that could have pointed your experiments on the wrong direction at the start?

My study is far broader than you imagine I think. Nevertheless, I stated I was willing to engage in earnest debate, and I am. The Truth is all that matters. I have no beliefs (as most people define the term).

I will point out that the widely held electron theory can't explain how a standard capacitor works.

First I want to say, I have no idea what you mean by "electron theory." I've never heard the term before, nor can I imagine what it means, since it seems a non-sensible term to me. Electrons are, according to physics, like all other particles, measurements of perturbations of a field. They don't have any independent existence per se, but when we measure perturbations of the electric field (waves) we get discrete measurements with a minimum possible value. That minimum value is what we call the electric charge of an electron, but that's a phrase for convenience, not what the math itself (QED) says. In addition the wave that was measured loses its coherence, and as far as future measurements on the field is concerned, it is as if that particular wave is completely gone (i.e. we measured the value of the wave, then it disappeared). That is why we say that "the electron existed in only one place." We won't measure that same wave anywhere else (the wave form collapses).

This gives the idea of some particle, but that's not what physics says it is. It's really only a field measurement. The "particleness" of matter is illusory according to physics.

Second, I watched the video you linked, and I watched Lewin's presentation. Lewin is suggesting that their is a charge build up on the dielectric. This is exactly the same as what happens when you rub glass with wool. It builds up a charge on the surface of the dielectric by transferring electrons (minimum discrete value of electric charge).

In the first video (a very well presented video, even though I think his ultimate conclusion was wrong because of his misunderstanding), where he provides his evidence against "electron theory" (I'm still trying to wrap my head around what he means by that phrase), he suggests that Lewin is saying you can't store energy in the dielectric. But Lewin is saying that charge is being stored on the dielectric. The "spraying of electrons" could be thought of as depositing charge (you can call that charge "electrons" for convenience) on the dielectric. Thus it is storing charge (not energy, but charge). Energy is released when that charge goes back into the wires when they are connected because there is a potential difference between the glass (or plastic, or water) that is storing the charge, and the wire, which is at ground.

The energy released is 1/2 the charge stored up times the potential difference between the glass and the wires (ground). You can think of "charge" as being the strength of the field (like "mass" is to gravity), and "potential" as being the difference of that field strength (in this case the difference in the field strength between the dielectric, which is storing "extra" charge, and the wire/ground, which is not).

The video that claimed he was disproving this event actually proved it with his last experiment. He stated that because water is such a great insulator that it can't be a dielectric (or something like that). But a dielectric IS an insulator. That's what the jar is (an insulator aka a dielectric) and that's what the water is (an insulator aka a dielectric). They are two words for the same thing. In addition it looked to me that he put the wire on the plastic itself (not just immersed in water, but in contact with the jar) which would put the jar as the only dielectric. I don't think that would actually make a difference in the overall effect except by amount of stored charge, so not a big deal.

In other words, the "proof' was a misconception of what a dielectric is. Perhaps also what an "electron" is according to physics. This is very common in my experience. The word "particle" is such an unfortunate word, left over from Plato's "Atomic" theory of matter where he imagined an indivisible substance. He imagined a "real" physical universe, but physics does not imagine such a universe.

Current physics has, at least for those actually working on it, almost completely discarded the idea of anything physical existing at all. It's all fields, and perturbations of those fields. I.e. it's all waves in physics. No particles allowed.

If you have flat earth stuff you want to show me I would be happy to go through it. So far, every experiment I have seen has not been what people think it is, or rather, it has a perfectly consistent explanation within current global physics. And I've done a fair bit of looking, because my mind is open to anything. But I also have a lot of knowledge, so it takes really good evidence to convince me that there is anything there.

Even saying that though, that doesn't mean that just because current physics can explain something that means it's right. But it does mean that alternate explanations that rely on it being wrong lose credibility when they themselves can't come up with a better explanation of experimental observation, and, so far, always fall far short in one area or another.

1
SwampRangers 1 point ago +1 / -0

YES there is no speed limit. But this is still true under relativity. Einstein was not guilty of the charges in this thread. More separately.

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
3
treepainter 3 points ago +3 / -0

What has become really amazing about science or (theoretical) physics is that current theories are always supported by previous or new theories. Fairy Dust.

3
Tewdryg 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yes. Everything is a wave.

2
Slyver 2 points ago +2 / -0

How is that contrary to the Standard Model?

3
Tewdryg 3 points ago +3 / -0

There's particles physics, which has endless problems, then the better model of wave theory. It works for me every time I say -- "goodbye".... even at a distance.

2
Slyver 2 points ago +2 / -0

There isn't really any such thing as a "particle" in particle physics. A particle is pretty much defined to be "what is measured at the moment a wave collapses." In other words, particle physics is a wave theory, through and through.

Or perhaps a better way of saying it is, all that exists are "fields" (in the standard model/particle physics), where waves are perturbations of a field, or rather, how the field changes over time, and "particles" are measurements of that field. No actual particles really exist in any of physics.

3
Tewdryg 3 points ago +3 / -0

Good explanation there, and I do appreciate it. However, you completely missed my facetious remark. I can see that I going to need to 'wave' goodbye now.

3
amarQ144 3 points ago +3 / -0

big-a-bang is a myth...gravity sucks

2
SwampRangers 2 points ago +2 / -0

2NaCl + CaCO3 -> Na2CO3 + CaCl2

The power of this simple formula was realized by Ernest Gaston Joseph Solvay (1838-1922, industrialist, Belgian senator 1892-1900). Brine salt, plus limestone calcium carbonate, yields washing soda plus road salt. Since brine and limestone are cheap, but washing soda can be sold as detergent, borax, water softener, or food coloring, he knew he was onto something as big as Cecil Rhodes. As Solvay process production grew in Brussels 1872-1874, Royal Fellow (1891) Ludwig Mond MMN Levinsohn bought in and formed his own branch of Solvay & Cie (now Solvay SA, billions of euros). The new Brunner Mond & Co improved the process to lucrative levels and by 1900 became the world leader in soda ash (now Tata Chemicals Europe).

With Mond's help, Solvay had the luxury to create a lockstep control mechanism over the physical and chemical sciences via the near-annual Solvay Conferences (currently in viral hiatus). In Oct 1911 his first conference, "Radiation and the Quanta", assembled Marie Curie, Albert Einstein, Frederick Lindemann, Hendrik Lorentz, Max Planck, Henri Poincare, Ernest Rutherford, Emil Warburg, and others to begin the cold war between classical physics and quantum theory. Also in 1911, young Niels Bohr was brought to England, and quickly latched onto Rutherford as having a superior atomic model to Thomson and Kelvin. Bohr, the "Great Dane", succeeded in infiltrating every great physics advance for the next 50 years.

Now the Bohr orbitals are brilliant, but they're all old quantum theory. Once Bohr controlled the periodic table instead of Mendeleev, it became a very ugly squared-up priestcraft rather than the intended mnemonic aid it was designed to be. He continued networking toward locking a critical mass of all science into a monolith around which a meaning-draining new quantum theory could be imposed. In 1922, spotting the brilliance of young Werner Heisenberg (a Goethe enthusiast), Bohr invited him to join him climbing a mountain, upon which Bohr confided that atoms were not things and his new theories were beset with difficulties. Heisenberg understood the angst, and was inspired to complete work on what we call the matrix interpretation of quantum theory. The night he got the math to work, Heisenberg climbed another mountain to watch the sunrise and meditate on what he called a gift from heaven. But Heisenberg's work was seized by Bohr and Max Born and given the name "matrix" that both Heisenberg and I reject. Similarly, Schrodinger's wave explanation of the same events was seized by Lorentz, still the Solvay chair, who pressured Schrodinger to reconcile it with Heisenberg. Born had published the probability theory saying it was all that could be known about the atom, which Schrodinger rejected by reducing it to the absurdity of the half-dead half-living superimposed cat, a paradox that stands today. Paul Dirac wrote his own brilliant response to Heisenberg, which too was snapped up by Born in the quest for a unified statement of nonreality theory.

By the famous fifth Solvay physics conference of Oct 1927 Einstein's foundation had made him the champion of Newtonian-Einsteinian physics, with the support of his friends in Berlin, Planck and Schrodinger; while Bohr (then in Copenhagen, with Heisenberg and Dirac), emerged as the face of new quantum physics and Bohr atomism with a new presentation on probability and "complementarity" that shook everyone. It appears that all the present and future Nobel laureates but Einstein were willing to give Bohr tacit acceptance, but they secretly hoped that Einstein was right and the bizarre madness of "new" quantum theory without the quantum would abate. With the help of Heisenberg Uncertainty, Bohr was prepared to say that two contradictory things (wave-particle duality, or a cloud of electron states) can both be true at the same time, rather than Einstein's view that the thing measured is itself different from either incomplete model (which would entail that Uncertainty speaks an attempt to measure something that isn't actually there, i.e. isn't an attribute of the thing itself). Einstein dramatically announced that the theory was counterintuitive, distasteful, and temporary, and the two engaged in challenges and rebuttals. Einstein continued to challenge the 1927 revolution until his death in 1955 at his refuge of Princeton; he was often answered but never out of ammunition.

In 1935 the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox demonstrated a fundamental problem with quantum theory, namely that it predicts that reality is nonlocal and apparent faster-than-light entanglement occurs; work on refining this model continued by David Bohm. Not until the Alain Aspect experiment of 1982, based on John Bell's CERN math, was a test established, and the interpretation of the test still hasn't answered Einstein's objections; the experiment allowed interpretive loopholes. This leads to the occasional "Einstein's revenge" article showing that yet again another of his minor predictions was right, leading to the question of whether he will be proven right about the EPR paradox too. Science author J.P. McEvoy comments, "The famous 'dead and alive cat' and the EPR paradox ... both remain unresolved." M-theory with Yang-Mills folding has assisted in better modeling the wave-particle duality but has not yet been brought to bear to answer the meaning of nonlocality as Bohr's work implied. The fact is that the competing models of reality are either "homo mensura" (only what we observe has meaning) or "res ipsa loquitur" (everything has meaning without our observation). Einsteinian distaste for solipsism over realism exists today; Schrodinger's cat has nine lives, not 4.5.

All the same, looking back, conspiracy theory would suggest that the preferred model is to fund both sides of a war, indebting both to yourself. Hadn't Einstein been watched closely by his friend, physicist Emil Warburg, who was not only the father of a Nobelist but also the fifth cousin once removed of Fed founder Paul Warburg (common ancestors Jacob and Rahel Warburg)? Wasn't Einstein's haven of Princeton previously presided over by the unknown scholastic Woodrow Wilson, a Carnegie Foundation trustee with Wall Street support? Carnegie and Warburg were very interconnected over this time. So Einstein was sheltered from Hitler but also constantly pressured by the cabal's eye. And certainly "publish or perish" dependency of scientists upon research funding has continued. So is it possible that the modern Solvay bloc, and the remaining contrasting tension from modern Einstein followup such as condensate and gravity waves, are both controlled by elites? That seems unlikely to be disputed. If any power or cogency were to arise from building on the outsider work of Tesla or Dirac, wouldn't the powers who control scientific inquiry and who particularly shut out intelligent design be already onto it? The cabal's motive is to watch for anything of value in the wild and to "civilize" and "rehabilitate" it under a central-control "Borg" banner. If we assume that many unsolved problems are privately solved and that a constant review of research is engaged by a world cabal so that any fresh discoveries can be rerouted, not unlikely to presume at all, the only solution would be a parallel society in which research can be conducted secretly until the work can be released in such way as to prevent Solvay-Mond central-control (such as it exerted over the anhydrous sodium carbonate process). Capitalists do have secret research, but it's generally directed toward bottom line even when there is sufficient profit to give back to humanity; and "public" research is directed by government, which tends toward its own secrecy and cabal infiltration for very similar self-preservative purposes.

So we can start with the clear trending in control over scientific speech expressed in the Solvay Conference (similar controls come from other nameable education clusters like the Carnegie Foundation). Funding and management of these modern-science chutes has been investigated in detail and can be built on the narrative herein. Exposure is good but solutions are better. It's clear that everyone should have the research freedom that Royal Fellow Mond enjoyed and then withheld from others, namely, the ability to profit reasonably from one's discoveries, which also entails the duty to uplift less privileged society, in one's reasonable judgment. The internet helps, and perhaps the elites had no power to keep it from getting out of hand. An amusing question becomes which suppressed result will first break out and take on an uncontrolled life of its own. But more consoling is the fact that the universe takes care of itself and suppression cannot continue indefinitely (a corollary of the laws of thermodynamics). Since sooner or later the discovery that will break the conspiracy will certainly arise from somewhere, we must work every day toward making it more of a reality. Perhaps the humility of Ernest Rutherford, when alpha scattering shockingly proved atoms were orbitals rather than puddings, will return to inquiry, and free-energy phenomena will be available to all, as history indicates they once were. Truth will out.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
2
The_Watcher 2 points ago +2 / -0

Possibly. What do you call a conspiracy theory?

Five mysteries the Standard Model can’t explain

If the official explanation does not explain everything that often seems to be called a conspiracy theory by some and when the explainers double down that is called a cover-up by others.

3
Logic20xx [S] 3 points ago +3 / -0

Something like ‘It’s a Rothschild funded lie to hide the truth about reality’, for example.

1
Trumpternal 1 point ago +2 / -1

Yes the standard model in physics is inherently flawed because of the rejection of the Ether. The michelson Morely experiment was based on a false premise.

3
ozrifles 3 points ago +3 / -0

Even the double slit experiment has modern explanations that twist Occam's Razor to a whole new level.

I wouldn't be surprised if the next iteration of the standard model introduces the concept of 'Particle Gender' to explain why experimental evidence is at odds with theories.

2
Trumpternal 2 points ago +2 / -0

Bahahaha.

1
SwampRangers 1 point ago +1 / -0

We already have that complete with gay flags, it's called QCD. Literally 17 genders.

1
SwampRangers 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yes.

J'accuse Niels Bohr. He assembled a team of physicists to steal Einstein's annus mirabilis in the name of Nihilism. Within a couple decades Richard Feynman had seen the path by defining reality as nonreality and thus we have "probability clouds" and "multiverses", which are unobservable and do not exist as such. Feynman had the right math and Einstein knew it, but he had the wrong description. For instance, "quantum theory" is really about the denial of quanta or granulation because everything becomes probability rather than reality. Schrodinger's cat could see through this facade, every other day, which is why Schrodinger was Einstein's best bud in that movie IQ.

Everything Bohr came up with Einstein objected to. Dirac and Fermi, who were much better men, likewise, could never answer Einstein. IIRC Einstein still has one or two objections standing that nobody has answered. He predicted Bose-Einstein condensate, which ought to be mainstream science due to its T2 and transhuman potential, but nobody understands it and it's an unsolved problem. Instead everybody's plugging the literally incomputable Feynman clouds into their computers and running models instead of thinking and equating. This means that they can burn CD's (lots of money in that) but they can't bother to build flying cars like Steve Saint did (too much power to the consumer). Quantum physics has been a disaster, separating people into a vast laity and a smeared priesthood that can write sci-fi as peer review and not be held to proving anything.

All that's from memory. If I pulled out my sources I'd give you the public players. If the anons spotted the Morgan, Carnegie, Ford, Schiff funding then we'd have even more. But most certainly the birth of quantum physics and the standard model was a controlled burn of scientific knowledge with the useful stuff left in the hands of an ivory tower elite. Then they can lie and say c stands for constant when they know it was first used in German where the word is Konstant: c stands for celerity, from Latin celeritas, speed. That's just one of many textbook rewrites I could name, an aperitif (there's a universe to consume before the apres-ski).

After they couldn't shut Einstein up they fed him politics in hopes he'd invalidate himself, but he was too smart for that to do much good. They shuttled him into The Bomb but somehow humanity survived that and still survives. You might look into Mileva, she was smart enough that she could help him ground everything in secondary witness, but somehow she got left behind. She probably wrote some of it but they deliberately let all the credit go to bumbling Al, the backward guy who constantly lost keys and paychecks as Paul Harvey said. Where's Mileva?

When you bring in Tesla, which I haven't looked as much into, and ask who is carrying on his legacy (some African-American who shows up on one-item rich lists), you'll see there's been still leeway to house the mad scientists of the meantime and get the real research continued. But the masses must be fed Picard and Solo and occasional tech articles that say everything wrong. At least Hawking was honest about time travel, but he always had his interpreters to blind the rest (and how does one contract ALS?). See, the other realm also follows natural law, but is occupied by forces that cloak their presence and there is a natural affinity for closed minds to accept closed universes. The alpha point, the black hole, and the omega point at infinity show that the universe does like singularities after all, and our tech singularity will be increasing sheeple to 99.9% and ignorant elite to .1%, to the nearest mill, such that those other forces increase in liberty. The problem with this is that light, which is truth, shines even when the enemy is 100.0% victorious, and the reason is that you can't win every quantum due to the pigeonhole principle. We're not a cloud. One word of truth.

1
SwampRangers 1 point ago +1 / -0

I've just solved the naked singularity problem. Nature is no censor, it's an EEO consort and just requires all to specify their megapixel count before snapping nudes.

1
Molog 1 point ago +1 / -0

Anyone check out miles Mathis?

1
SwampRangers 1 point ago +1 / -0

Conspiracy: The suppression of the L in EL=mc^2 was the result of pressure on Einstein that successfully hid the ZPE manipulation engines. If people knew about L they could access free energy like I do.

1
pranabana 1 point ago +1 / -0

Do you have more reading about this?

Also have you looked into Dewey Larson's reciprocal system theory?

1
SwampRangers 1 point ago +1 / -0

No, I'm just getting the theory started for others to follow up. My bigger theory is a separate comment. But McEvoy's book is Introducing Quantum Theory and will help the general picture.