The last 150 years of grant, title and publication greed led to mathematics curating a culture of manipulation of perception rather than interpretation. We now celebrate theoretical physicists bcz they were able to suit a formula for an idea, not without infinite variable. There is nothing that a name like Hawking can validate without several proofless formulations bcz more abstract mathematics allows for it by design. Economists are respected as experts bcz they help navigate the subversion of a broken system by creating complex models to adapt.
And their insistence of mathematics being the language of nature annoys. Ayh dated a professor of mathematics who was certain of every formulation and yet turns on a dime when a new proof opens the door for new methodologies. They are farts in a breeze, while engineers actually have demands upon them to prove.
1 year ago1 point(+0/-0/+1Score on mirror)2 children
Ayh could not agree more -- especially since for well over two decades now (jesus) ayh have dabbled with other scientists on disregarding the particle duality model due to its endless discrepancies and perpetual compensations every few years by adding yet another particle to either Standard Model or QED -- and even then those particles come with such variability in energy and space occupied that they lack uniformity. For example, recently tachyons are now observably FTL (or not depending on who is speaking). Particle physics is chaotic -- yet the field has talking heads and tenured professors who speak about theorems as fact, and it perpetuates the chaos.
We have worked on a model that instead embraces one of the largest gaps in physics which is harnessing the nothing between waves and particles as being the actual field in reverberation and "particles" in observations are concentrated resistances, gravity is the folding between there spherical energetic moments, and so on.. to organize a micro to macro environment in a more tangible engineering called RFT or Resistance Field Theory.
https://i.postimg.cc/NfMvk40s/rft-c-42.jpg
We have actually been brutal to each other in regards to how fundamental the mathematics must be to describe this model so as to ensure that we earnestly attain the goal of the simplicity of the universe, otherwise it could not exist in such uniformity.
Ayh passionately believe that the Standard Model, Quantum Mechanics are misguided and the answer is in the negative space of their models.
Feynman was not as much a fraud as much as having worked from mislaid fundamentals. He then made some effort to diverge from particle theory but circled back bcz the industry is embedded in staying within the lines. What ayh don't like about Feynman is his work was positional abstracts in negative space which like Schrödinger allowed for any thing goes as long as point A path correlates to point B. The lack of interference by their own admission of not knowing 85%+ of the make up the universe is contrary.
Einstein was just an outright hack. He built models off more than a few mathematicians and even then they are grossly inference and despite the legacy implied, all his work had to be modified, changed, or has been disproven. He is a great example of how their child like fixations and protectionism has poisoned science. Children learn E=mc² yet that formula does not work without massive additives, compounded by the fact we do not have a reliable speed of light, so no one even uses Einstein's formulas. He worked on the macro but could not understand the micro, and we label him a genius. Lazy.
Look up clif high and the ontological universe/physics
Good start for you to reject mainstream models but you appear to still be working with Jewish physics - I.e. constantly reducing your view to explain things - which might be a dead end
If you try doing research and experiments from the ontological view maybe you'll make breakthroughs?
Yeah, how inferior of me to try to seek an understanding of something instead of just resigning to faith. Religion's fraudulence is revealed by dissuading critical thought of the nature of things and instead insisting we seek paitence in our designer, who happens to be communicating with the few who want your allegiance and donations.
And their insistence of mathematics being the language of nature annoys. Ayh dated a professor of mathematics who was certain of every formulation and yet turns on a dime when a new proof opens the door for new methodologies. They are farts in a breeze, while engineers actually have demands upon them to prove.
We have worked on a model that instead embraces one of the largest gaps in physics which is harnessing the nothing between waves and particles as being the actual field in reverberation and "particles" in observations are concentrated resistances, gravity is the folding between there spherical energetic moments, and so on.. to organize a micro to macro environment in a more tangible engineering called RFT or Resistance Field Theory.
https://i.postimg.cc/NfMvk40s/rft-c-42.jpg
We have actually been brutal to each other in regards to how fundamental the mathematics must be to describe this model so as to ensure that we earnestly attain the goal of the simplicity of the universe, otherwise it could not exist in such uniformity.
Ayh passionately believe that the Standard Model, Quantum Mechanics are misguided and the answer is in the negative space of their models.
Einstein was just an outright hack. He built models off more than a few mathematicians and even then they are grossly inference and despite the legacy implied, all his work had to be modified, changed, or has been disproven. He is a great example of how their child like fixations and protectionism has poisoned science. Children learn E=mc² yet that formula does not work without massive additives, compounded by the fact we do not have a reliable speed of light, so no one even uses Einstein's formulas. He worked on the macro but could not understand the micro, and we label him a genius. Lazy.
Good start for you to reject mainstream models but you appear to still be working with Jewish physics - I.e. constantly reducing your view to explain things - which might be a dead end
If you try doing research and experiments from the ontological view maybe you'll make breakthroughs?