Question re: Novel expansion and contraction universe hypothesis (crackpot theory)

[silazcarbryck]

Ok then, so I have reason to suspect, based on an alternative and unique theological belief system and from my mytho-historical and scientific research that there was in existence a prior universe, and that it must have previously contracted right down to the state that has been observed as being similar in size to a grapefruit, essentially existing as a super dense, super-heated pure energy point consisting of one single substance for perhaps just a few seconds before dividing out into two separate and distinct substances consisting of coalesced matter and antimatter which exploded outwards being driven apart from one another and propelled at great force to continue expanding right up to its present-day state; our current universe, as presented to us now at its extremely young and tender age of just 13.8 billion years.

How I have come to think of the universe is that rather than the grapefruit analogy to start up with, it was more analogous to the shape of an apple. Essentially; an oval-sectioned toroid, with a very narrow de-cored centre. So now I need to somehow try and get our universe, which I believe will most likely exist for about the same amount of time as the previous universe, (again sorry about this, but you must have to accept, for the purposes of argument, that my theological, mytho-historical and scientific research enabled me to calculate that it ought to have been slightly more than 99 trillion years of age) back down to the ‘apple’ state of super-heated coalesced pure dense energy in order to be reborn again, as before. Now my only explanation is that at some point space must cease expanding and start to contract, in order to eventually force and fuse the separate matter and antimatter together and compress the whole lot back down into this super dense energy point so that the universe can be reborn once more. I can only really deduce very roughly with my limited knowledge and understanding of physics that the contraction phase may well begin at some zenith point during the middle of the universes’ lifespan and I chose the apex peak of a standard bell curve distribution graph, being the most natural choice, to express the maximum possible allowed amount of entropy occurring at this mid-point which thereafter must begin to reduce following down along the graph accordingly as the continued compression phase forces this dispersed energy and all of the still separated matter and antimatter in this now diminishing space, which is made up of a great many filled up black holes to become more concentrated and clump together more often as everything in the emptier areas of space due to this compression will then generally tend to slowly warm up.

My theological, mytho-historical and scientific research thus informs me that at the earliest moments of our universe during the super expansion phase all of the matter created was forced ‘north and out’, with most of it now concentrated around the outer skin of the upper inner torus. Whereas all of the antimatter created was propelled in the opposite direction at equal velocity and went ‘south and out’, so is now also mainly concentrated around the outer skin but of the lower inner torus. The rest of the volume of the torus outside of this already occupied space simply represents the potential empty void area that has yet to be filled with space, and the majority of the interior volume of this up-ended oval-sectioned toroid also just consists of the mainly empty void area that is occupied with neither matter nor antimatter space. Space itself only really exists mostly clinging to the outer surface skin area of this toroid universe, and is generally kept in its place by the extremely strong at close quarters, but relatively weak at long distance, repellent forces of its matter and antimatter constituents exerting pressure against one another.

So as the universe expands during the first half of its existence, the matter and antimatter continue along their separate and opposite curved trajectory pathways pushing into and occupying the new empty void areas with space until the mid-point zenith in the universe’s lifespan is reached when most of the matter is now congregated within the roughly ring-shaped northern most area of the toroid, with most of the anti-matter now being congregated within the roughly ring-shaped southern most area of the toroid. I have postulated that if at this mid-point in the universe’s lifespan, space now begins to contract, and the outer most void area of the toroid that is to be potentially occupied with space would also seem to become reduced proportionately, driving the continued contraction of the toroid when considered as a whole, and if the matter and antimatter were to continue travelling along their set curved courses, now ‘down and out’, and ‘up and out’ respectively; both the matter and antimatter will naturally come back together to be rejoined once again. So because of the ever increasing space constrictions this leads to their eventual forced high pressure reunion when they both meet up around the outer-most ring shaped perimeter area inside the torus, which by this time is very rapidly closing in on becoming that highly compressed super-hot and dense coalesced pure energy point ‘apple’ state, which when reached will mean that the universe can once again be recombined and reconstituted into a single substance. After returning to their former two states, the newly produced, recycled and separated individual substances of matter and antimatter can now expand out most vigorously again, their ejection being forced apart and outwards from one another into the empty void area of the newly expanding toroid, in order to rebirth the universe once more. And so on.

So my question would be this; does anyone have any ideas regarding how it would be possible to initiate such a contraction phase at this mid-point zenith in the first place? What could possibly be the mechanism that would trigger such an action or reaction if that is what it is? Could it be that the earlier area in the wake of the space that the matter and antimatter had already expanded through somehow returns to its original absolute vacuum void state and so naturally recedes, essentially dragging back the occupied matter and antimatter spaces, and so reducing the size and potential volume of the toroid universe as a whole in that way? Perhaps the contraction phase at the zenith is initiated at the mid-point when the repellent force between the matter and antimatter opposite ends of the universe reaches its minimal or zero level and that it is the inertia of the matter and antimatter that continues to drive their continuous movement in the direction as stated above, and that this inertial force is enough to override the now slowly increasing but as yet still weak repellent forces between the matter and antimatter, together with the new contraction phase of the toroid universe now occurring that continues to drive this movement of the matter and antimatter back towards each other along the outer skin area of the toroid as they push further into the void area of as yet unoccupied space?

Is any of this actually something that is physically possible, or do you consider all this as nothing more than mere conjecture or pure sci-fi? I really would love to know what the more academic people here think of all this.

I have to admit I’m certainly no physicist nor cosmologist, but what little I do know would indicate that the regenerative ‘big crunch’ universe theory my hypothesis is loosely based on isn’t such a bad one, but its just that it has largely fallen out of favour recently, due to these sexier-sounding ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’ explanations for the more recent observations of unexplained gravitational effects that have been made, and I’m not sure I fully believe in dark matter or dark energy just like I don’t believe that Jesus should be considered to be any god or eternal spirit either, despite what many people will say. I suspect there’s more likely some other explanation for these observations that just hasn’t been fully realised, discovered or theorised conclusively enough yet. I would speculate that these gravitational effects that have been observed may be attributable to the repellent forces between the matter and antimatter ends of the universe, but I really can’t say that for sure at all.

Is there any physics-based scientific, be it observed evidence or theorised propositions already in existence that would indicate that such a thing as a universal compression and collapse phase starting up and beginning at this halfway zenith point and continuing on during the second half of the universe’s lifespan as I have described above is even possible that anyone here on these forums may know of, or know of someone who might? Or must I be content with writing pure ‘science fiction theology’ (Zachariah Sitchen style) for my opening chapter, when I describe the formation and genesis of the universe in my book? Because apart from this first chapter and perhaps the second and third ones, the rest of the book is to be far more a science, natural history and morality-based fusion of a theological text, which will include some nicely rationalised logical deconstructions explaining the ‘Creation’, ‘Garden of Eden’ and ‘Flood’ myths that are actually backed up with some, albeit limited in availability, but still decent and convincing scientific and historical evidence from my research. I have very nearly nailed the ‘Garden of Eden’ and ‘Flood’ myths. But I still need some assistance here with the more complex science of physics that I do not posses such a good knowledge of to more effectively reinterpret the ‘Creation’ myth rationally, and need to know what the science-minded physicist may think mathematically of the near verbal-only description above that I’ve been able to make of the universe. Is there anything I have mentioned here that is in any way common or similar to what is already known or has already been theorised? More specifically, is there anyone that also believes it may well be that the matter and antimatter split up and spewed outwards in the manner as I have described during this earliest super-expansion phase, both being repelled away from each other in opposing directions at the same initial high velocity, and that we now live in one half of what could essentially be defined as two separate and distinct universes, both still considered to be one of the same whole, yet consisting of these two bipolar opposites in space?

Any help and discussion would be greatly appreciated, but please do not direct anything too maths-heavy towards me in order to save my poor monkey-mind from such terrible number pain!

Thanks – Si

[OceanBreeze]

Your theory is interesting, but you are adding in quite a bit of unfounded statements that have no basis in fact. I can see why Physics Forums told you to find another forum!

However, I am glad you found your way here because, as I said earlier, we do not only allow discussions of this nature, but encourage them, because quite often something of value arises unexpectedly and leads to an interesting discussion.

It so happens that there is a theory somewhat similar to yours, about an oscillating Universe. Please do a search and read up on it and let us know if it fits with what you are thinking about.

Also, your theory does not need to fall apart because there is no support for a negative energy photon.

First, let me explain why such an idea doesn’t make sense:

The energy of a photon is calculated by taking Planck’s constant (always a positive number) and multiplying this by the photon’s frequency. A very simple calculation that should give you no trouble.

In order for the photon’s energy to be negative, it would need to have a negative frequency! Think about that for a moment. How could a negative frequency be possible without going backwards in time? As far as we know, the arrow of time always points relentlessly forwards, just ask my aching back and weakening muscles!

So, as far as we know (and we don’t know everything) a negative-energy photon is not possible in standard Physics.

But there is a way for your theory to survive! Just forget about particles and concentrate on the Universe as a whole.

Stephen Hawking once said: "The total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So, the total energy of the universe is zero.”

There you have your answer, without resorting to negative energy particles and some of the other strange claims you have been making.

The Universe can oscillate because the total energy of matter and gravity is zero; so, it can oscillate forever without finding any equilibrium point either as a singularity or an infinite expansion. I have read about this oscillating universe concept many years ago, and filed it away someplace in a back corner of my mind. Thanks for making me remember it; it makes a lot of sense to me.

Regards,

Ocean

Edited April 5, 2022 by OceanBreeze

[silazcarbryck]

4 hours ago, OceanBreeze said:

In order for the photon’s energy to be negative, it would need to have a negative frequency! Think about that for a moment. How could a negative frequency be possible without going backwards in time? As far as we know, the arrow of time always points relentlessly forwards, just ask my aching back and weakening muscles!

Wow! Now you've really got my brain on fire! Sorry about this, but, I'm going to have to use the same excuse again for where I got my knowledge, because you've just inspired me with an even more crazy-sounding idea to adapt my hypothesis with. And this really is quite the wackiest and probably the most crackpot theory that you will ever read anywhere, anyplace or anytime. Guaranteed!

According to my 'theological, mytho-historical and scientific research', (same excuse again, sorry about that.) Time can flow in both directions, forwards or backwards. Our limited human depth perception of time, just like our limited available senses can only perceive a limited bandwidth of the electromagnetic spectrum, means that we can only remember or record the past, live for the moment and contemplate the future. But to God, or if you prefer to call it Nature, time is simply the same time all the time. Events that for us will happen in the future have already happened; can affect events that have already happened in the past, and have already done so. Quantum physics has already demonstrated with proof that we live in a deterministic universe, where we have no freewill, and Christian scholars from the early modern Enlightenment period had already discussed and practically settled the notion of Predestination, which essentially is the same as Determinism, where God, or Nature if you prefer to call it, has already mapped out all the outcomes and movements of every sub-atomic particle throughout the entire lifetime of the universe. Everything in the physical universe; be it a star, a planet, a moon, a rock, a grain of sand, a speck of dust or a human being must conform to the physical rules of time, which is mostly linear apart from a few odd fluctuations and anomalies due to large gravitational masses as far as I know.

I realise that for the physicist it is very convenient to think of time as the forth dimension, but actually time does not always conform to the normal rules of the physical universe in the same way as matter or antimatter does because it does not actually exist solely in the physical universe. What if there really are negative anti-photons that really do travel backwards in time? What if the whole antimatter half of the universe, that I so like the idea of, is not visible to us because it too, just like these negative photons that you said would have to travel chronologically backwards, is also itself travelling backwards chronologically at the same linear rate that our matter-based universe is travelling forwards? If both halves of the same universe are still occupying the same toroid space, as I have previously described, but at different times, as well as at different bipolar ends, then my hypothesis can still survive yes, albeit now having become even more bat-s**t crazy-sounding, hair-brained and crackpot than it even was before! So for anyone living in the antimatter half of the universe they would simply perceive time in the same way that we do, as it would just seem to head forwards to them, but to us, if we were able to observe it, it would seem to head backwards, and for them our time in our half of the matter-based universe would seem to head backwards, even though for us it would seem to head forwards. Also I think that if they were able to observe our end of the universe they would consider it made up of antimatter, with their own end being made up of matter.

So long as we are happy to agree that a contraction phase will still begin at some point, let’s assume that it is at the zenith mid-point as I think it may be, so that when the crunch occurs and the matter and antimatter recombine into the ‘apple’ state not only are both times reset back to a neutral zero point again but also the poles of the universe may be reversed, with the antimatter now being expelled north and out and starting to go backwards in time again and the matter now being propelled south and out and starting to travel forwards in time again. If we are ok with both the matter and antimatter still existing in the same toroid space, just in different times, which is chronologically academic really, then they can still meet up for the crunch point when the universe has contracted down far enough. So the universe would just continue on with this chronological flip-flopping of matter and antimatter every time it regenerates forever on and as it always has been. Tick-tock!

I think you have already made it clear to me that if there really are negative photons and they happened to travel forwards in time then they probably wouldn’t all get cancelled out by all the positive photons, which was something I didn’t like much anyway because there would still have been negative photons that would pass through space and still find their way to us because they would not all get intercepted by their positive photon counterparts and so should still be observable if both types of photons possessed the same properties. Also you stated that positive and negative photons most likely wouldn’t cancel themselves out anyway even if they were able to intercept each other. So because the antimatter half of the universe is heading backwards in time, even if it still exists in the same space, we wouldn’t see those negative photons or any of the negative radiation nor any evidence of antimatter at all because our half of the universe is travelling in the opposite chronological direction. As for anti-neutrinos be they man-made or naturally occurring, and any of the other antimatter particles that we have created thus far in the lab, I think we can assume that because they are of the matter-based universe that they will still travel forwards in time relative to their surrounding local environment with the same chronological momentum, because that’s where they originated from.

Do you think this is mind-blowing enough? Because it is for me! I’m so glad I found my way to your forums, because you are providing me with such amazing inspiration.

So can all this craziness be proved as absolutely impossible? Or is it yet still possible? If it really can’t be proved as absolutely impossible, no matter how unlikely or crazy it may seem, if it can still be held up as being a slight possibility, no matter how remote, then I’ve got something pretty mind-bending and radical to start up my book with in my opening chapter. And it’s far more likely to hook in an agent and get me a publisher, because the rest of the book I’m writing has a lot more important stuff that I want to discuss, that could be just as radical and eye-opening, and much of which I actually do have some genuine scientific and historical evidence to use to back up my arguments with.

Thanks - Si

Edited April 5, 2022 by silazcarbryck

[silazcarbryck]

4 hours ago, OceanBreeze said:

It so happens that there is a theory somewhat similar to yours, about an oscillating Universe. Please do a search and read up on it and let us know if it fits with what you are thinking about.

I will check this out, thanks. Meanwhile have a read of my above post. Like I say, it's even crazier than before.

[silazcarbryck]

15 hours ago, OceanBreeze said:

But there is a way for your theory to survive! Just forget about particles and concentrate on the Universe as a whole.

I only had a quick read of a pop science article on oscillating universe theory. It stated that it is the dark energy that is driving galaxies apart, and that this is one of the best reasons for the oscillating universe theory to have mainly been shelved, which is 90 years old now and showing signs of its age given these more contemporary observations.

But if as I believe the universe is an expanding toroid, and the matter is moving along the uppermost inner surface of this toroid, upwards and outwards, then of course the galaxies are going to be driven apart because their trajectories are moving over a surface that is expanding upwards and outwards along multiple curved vectors, and not outwards on any linear vectors having originated from a central point of any sphere where their trajectories would be expected to seem more uniform. I still refuse to believe in dark energy or dark matter because I’m stubborn like that.

About what Hawking said. I have to admit that I’m struggling to understand the notion of the universe having zero energy. But if my crazy hypothesis is anything to go by, could it be considered that the positive energy of the matter half of the universe is cancelled out by the negative energy of the antimatter half? Again, because I’m not a qualified physicist I am at a loss to fully understand Hawking’s more complex physics description, don’t forget I’ve only got a monkey brain here to play with! So because I’ve not had any formal training my knowledge is very patchy and sketchy and mathematically light.

Additional: Ok I've re-read the Hawking quote a few more times and I think I can make sense of it now. I just had to remind myself of my Kerbal Space Program days some years ago, in order to remember about orbital mechanics. So I'm fine with that now. Yes, symmetry and balance in the universe is very important to me. It's the reason I don't care much for the 'Big Freeze' current main theory, because it does not possess any symmetrical elegance to it, and its why I prefer my dual universe bipolar matter/antimatter explanation because it does possess a better symmetry and balance to it.

Edited April 5, 2022 by silazcarbryck

[OceanBreeze]

Well Si, I am glad that I was able to provide you with some inspiration for your book, and I wish you success in getting it written and published.

I will just answer one more question that you asked, namely “So can all this craziness be proved as absolutely impossible?” No, we cannot rule anything out with absolute certainty, based on the absence of evidence alone. That is not to say that we cannot prove a negative, as some people claim. Since there are no absolute proofs in science, we can prove a negative by showing it is very likely that some theory is wrong, or something does not exist. It is the same with proving a positive; we again only need to show that something is very likely to be true, without the need to show that it is true with absolute certainty.

I am not saying it is a trivial matter to prove either a positive or a negative; only that both are equally possible. I hope that answers your question, but I’m afraid it may only add to your confusion!

At this point, I am going to drop out of this thread, not as a discourtesy to you or your theory, but because I seldom engage in science fiction discussions. After all, it is my job as a moderator to try and keep things based on known science, at least as much as possible. It is clear that at least the first Chapter of your book will deviate quite far from that goal.

That is quite alright, as you at least sought an answer that lays within the boundaries set by classical science, and whatever fictional version you come up with will most likely be based on some version of proverbial truth.

One favor I need to ask of you is not to use this forum as a word processor to write your entire book. As you have no doubt noticed, we do not engage in heavy advertisements or ask our members for donations to pay for our server space. Consequently, our server space is quite limited and the entire site can be brought down by a member hogging the available bandwidth.

You can easily find a free web-hosting service, if that is want you need for your book. But for normal size posts feel free to stay with us and also let us know how you are doing. Besides, I hope you will participate in other threads here as well. You have demonstrated that you have a sharp intellect and I am sure there are many other subjects here that will interest you and you will hopefully find them to be both interesting and fun, with major emphasis on the fun part!

When you do finish you book, I hope you will give me some small mention on the back dust-cover! (just joking of course)

[silazcarbryck]

2 hours ago, OceanBreeze said:

One favor I need to ask of you is not to use this forum as a word processor to write your entire book. As you have no doubt noticed, we do not engage in heavy advertisements or ask our members for donations to pay for our server space. Consequently, our server space is quite limited and the entire site can be brought down by a member hogging the available bandwidth.

Hi Ocean,

Ok that’s fine. I was going to post one more 1200 word retraction of my previous crazier idea about the antimatter moving backwards in time that I later realised was kind of stupid really, but I wont bother doing that now. But if you can confirm, with just one more reply please before you go that it is possible as you stated that a negatively charged photon, if such a thing could exist really would move backwards in time. Because it really does fire my imagination, especially if it is actually a possibility.

Also, could I make a Paypal donation to help with your server costs anyway? I am a generous person, and don't mind making just a modest £10 contribution as a thank you to the mods and yourself for your time spent conversing with me and reading through my questions. If you want to email me with the relevant persons' Paypal email address I could wire my donation immediately? You probably should ask for donations from your users to help with things like that really, Wikipedia does it all the time, and it's quite normal behaviour for a non-profit organisation. It's very possible I might come back to other areas in these forums for other science discussions and questions which would not be so esoteric, as you have recommended.

Thanks - Si

[silazcarbryck]

4 hours ago, JeffreysTubes8 said:

The most likely solution comes from the supermassive black holes at the centers of the galaxies, the antimatter problem, and discrepancies which call into question the validity of Einstein’s relativity in the two late 20th century tests of time dilation in atomic clocks in planes compared to ground, which were explained away as the result of their elevation negating their velocities. I was able to piece together an alternative viewpoint on what gravity is.

Jeffreys,

I struggled greatly at school with a learning disability that was never diagnosed and treated. I would always get good test results placing me in the top 5% of the year group and the teachers would always accuse me of simply being lazy as my school work was always dropping behind most of the other children. My Attention Deficit Disorder has now been treated, (but not until 2017 at 42 years of age) ironically this occured by accident as it was from the medication that I must take for another disorder. My dopamine levels are now far higher and more balanced, but I must continue to take my medication in order to maintain this carefull body chemistry balance.

Maths was never my strong point, however given that I now find my levels of concentration to be far greater, together with memory retaintion and recall now greatly improved, I have had to retrain myself, and in the absence of any formal tutor, and not wishing to take on any considerable student loans debt, having to direct my own study programme, my re-education is very patchy and sketchy at best. But on the whole it is more comprehensive than most would get from studying and focussing on a single subject only. But this leaves me as more a generalist, and no expert. (Although I am very good in the field of marketting, publicity and public relations, together with literary analysis).

I have a request. I really stuggled to comprehend your post, because it is complex, and I'm sure most would struggle to understand it as well and I am by no means in the minority. I had to start looking up Max Plank on Wikipedia, and realising that his work seems very important, perhaps he is indeed more important a figure of physics than the more famous Mr Albert?

My request is this:

Are you able to recomend an internet source where I can obtain documents to download and print out, for reference, that contain a compedium of the various mathematical symbols, most of which being the Greek ones, and their most common references used in various formula in physics for me to study in order to improve my physics mathematics understanding and skills? This is definitely the area of study that I have greatly ignored the most. Possibly because of lack of confidence where I assume that I am still just terrible at mathamatics, which may no longer be the case now that I can actually apply myself more effectively. Either this or the name of a good and accessable book with similar information presented in an accesable way?

Thanks - Si

Edited April 5, 2022 by silazcarbryck

[silazcarbryck]

14 minutes ago, JeffreysTubes8 said:

Maybe we could help each other.

 

Ocean was complaining about me over using too much text, creating bandwidth problems for the forum website. It would seem that your post last year, quoted above was not displaying your images correctly. Maybe this is also due to bandwidth restrictions? Maybe that was why you had no replies, and there 'was no one else'? 🙂

Are you also an autodidact as well? Did you train yourself in maths and physics or train formally at university and/or achieve a doctorate at such a place?

I was actually planning to write a book to try and promote the idea of 'autodidactism' - to popularise it as a worthy pastime, pursuit, and maybe even a movement? Reading more non-fiction books instead of fiction and not wasting ones time watching the television is a good way to start. It could be benificial for people to attempt to train their minds to think more logically and rationally and employing more rigourous mental self improvement techniques and would be very positive thing for humanity in general I think.

[silazcarbryck]

14 minutes ago, JeffreysTubes8 said:

Planck constant, even over e=mc^2, is the most permanent written in plaque piece of knowledge we have and we can place monotheistic religious ‘facts’ at the other end of that spectrum.

Physisists of today seem to stand on the shoulders of giants. There is such a wealth of knowledge available to mankind in our day. It is most overwhelming. The more we learn, the more we realise how little we do know. I've heard many people say this, and they are the wisest of people I have met.

As for religious 'facts'. Sometimes there are some truths to be derived from ancient mythologies, but it is difficult to extrapolate these truths accurately with literary deconstruction. More difficult still to pursaude religious folk who believe in these religious myths in a literal sense what an analogy really is, when they do not possess the language skills to comprehend. It is a shame, and very sad.

[silazcarbryck]

31 minutes ago, JeffreysTubes8 said:

I don’t believe in adhd but I will say the meds for it do raise serotonin enough to improve grades in an academic setting but that isn’t real intelligence. My IQ piqued about where Magnus Carlsen’s not at 25 but 28. I wouldn’t say that a person’s piques at a certain date I believe that an increase, even a slight one much less mine that was about 70 points, piques due to overall adrenaline thresholds not dopamine.

Dopamine is still the more important neurotransmitter chemical that is usually deficient in ADD/ADHD. The medication of stimulants, such as amphetamines is the usual treatment, because it works instantly, by making the brain produce more dopamine imediately. But I do not think it is such a wise drug to use. My medication is primarily meant for bipolar/schizo-effective disorder, and after being on this for four years regularly my dopamine levels were trained to increase by the antipsichotic which is a dopamine reuptake promoter (Third generation atypical 'Olanzapine' and very high-tech). So for a while I could concentrate less, but my brain chemistry adapted, thus producing more dopamine to make up for the lack and so now it is more stable, and balanced.

Serotonin is the other main chemical and is usually treated for depression. Luckily I don't get bad depression, so do not need anti-depressents (Serotonin reuptake inhibitors), thankfully. My medication really has improved my life, it has also treated my anxiety as well as my ADD, which is a real disorder, although the classification was invented in the 1970s, when the psychiatrists split out aspergers into various seperate spectrum disorders, considered as autism generally.

Adrenaline, noadrenaline are also contributers, but adrenaline is not a nervous system chemical. It just gets produced in large quantities when a sufferer is 'high', or experiencing a manic episode. Fight or flight mode encourages the body to make more adrenaline and it keeps you awake.

As for our IQ's it is a useful tool to judge large groups in quantative analysis, but not useful to judge an individual in qualative analysis. It will vary over a persons life and says nothing of their talants or skills that they may have aquired. They could have a low IQ but still be very talented musicians. It is not the be all and end all of the measure of a human being, IMHO.

Edited April 6, 2022 by silazcarbryck

[silazcarbryck]

16 minutes ago, JeffreysTubes8 said:

In past year and 1/4th I’ve taught myself how westerners tied lassos and hang-rope after being shown a ‘hitch knot’ and observing that it slips when tugged, I taught myself the finer points of vocal pitch when singing, I taught myself how to position my tongue and mouth and learned how to whistle which is something I never could pull off. You know that’s two different areas of the brain working overtime, which falls in the category of factor 2, cognitive tradeoff and retrofitting working memory to other parts of the brain. All of which I would contribute to cortisol’s role increasing inference or inductive reasoning (logic by induction), in other words attention to detail so it doesn’t take a million tries to get something down to an art form. Smacking the ruler across a persons knuckle will make him think twice, this is good in my experience. A sensitive person has finesse, not a like your common herky jerky clutsz who makes too many mistakes the first time.

🙂

[silazcarbryck]

35 minutes ago, JeffreysTubes8 said:

 

Here’s another one:

Unfortunately I’ve lost everything else I’ve been doing lately. Except this which I still secretly have the base coordinates for if you want something that you can really sell as my publicist

Algebra is a difficult thing to sell to the public. If you are to engage in producing and presenting a more 'popular' science channel on Youtube, there would be a better chance of success. But it would have to be rather dilute content to appeal to a wider audience. But not too stupid. Many Youtube users are intelligent and don't like being talked down to as much as you might think. So dumb isn't always best, like it is with the normal television where dumb is king.

There are still some very good quality pop science presenters on the 'tube though who don't dilute their content too much, I like Sabine Hossenfelder, Scott Manley, Anton Petov to name a few well pitched science presenters. They are certainly more detailed with their desciptions of science than the normal television science documentaries which must appeal to the lowest common denominator and so are generaly very dumb. You have to have excellent English language skills.

Usually the more complicated your science presentation is, the less likely you will get to that magic 100,000 subscribers. The biggest problem with Youtube is that you have to keep at it for a long period of time, producing at least one video that is of consistant quality at least every week, for what might be as long as at least one or two years, with still no income before you have built up a decent subscriber base and one can suffer from burnout where you run out of ideas, so it's best to stick to topical subjects, such as discussing anything that is recent news, such a a new paper that has just been published, or journal article. Essentially media eats media, it consumes itself.

Advertising is no way to make money, even Google don't make much income from the adverts, so content creators get even less, but product placement that you talk about in your videos when you have a large subscriber base is a good way to earn an income. Also you can convert maybe one percent of your youtube subscribers (Percent may vary a little up or down) into Patron subscribers who are willing to pay you a monthly subscription of say $1 to £5. Or perhaps a small amount of money for each video you make. 'Whales' will pay the most but there are very few of them. 'Dolphins' will pay less, and they are slightly more common than the 'whales'. 'Freeloaders' will give you nothing, but they are the largest group in your audience, and so are more likely to share your content with their friends in their own social networking sites, such as Facebook/Twitter/Instagram ect. and so help to promote your channel and drive more subscibers to it. 'Freeloaders' who use ad blocking software are less common and you will get nothing from them much, but just behave in the same way as the usual freeloaders. It's best to appeal to all these groups if you want to be successful as a Youtuber.

Well that's Youtube advice from what I know about it in a nutshell anyway. - Si

Edited April 6, 2022 by silazcarbryck

[silazcarbryck]

8 minutes ago, JeffreysTubes8 said:

Now looking at how the hitch knot slipped I ‘inductively reasoned’ that putting the end of the rope through the loop would prevent slippage in the same way that while an l will fit through an o a T will not. Now under pressure, any soon to be hanged Jesse James who had that prior knowledge with his hands tied by that method would quickly ‘reason by deduction’ that the only reason they quadrupled or quintupled that number of hitches above that slip-fix is to prevent anyone with that same prior knowledge from quickly untying that type of knot to free his hands and would count exactly the number of times he’d have to undo it.

It is a little disturbing that you talk a lot about hanging and slip knots, ropes and such, I'm not sure your analogy if that is what it is really translates well into English.

[silazcarbryck]

3 minutes ago, JeffreysTubes8 said:

Oh that wasn’t my YouTube channel, he posed a question that he left for the viewers to solve at the end of his video that I automatically answered. But advanced algebra doesn’t fit what I was saying about Pythagorean geometry earlier like the other youtuber I was correcting. But unfortunately my solutions were in those botched images. 

Oh I see, but you said you wanted help with media marketting advice? That was all I could think about to say.

[silazcarbryck]

2 minutes ago, JeffreysTubes8 said:

What I really want to sell to the public is my own ability to use a higher dimensional solution to the three body problem in physics and my potential ability to apply it to certain engineering designs involving u-carbon in tubular graphene (carbon nanotubes) in a complex nanorobotic apparatus that can control and manipulate negative ion plasma peripherally. 

People really love robots, and anything 'carbon-nano tubes' related. Basically anything with 'nano' or 'graphene' in the description sounds super high-tech to most people and they will probably fall for it. If you can design and fabricate a graphene pencil case to store graphite pencils that have 'graphene' written on them instead, they will be easily lead.

[silazcarbryck]

25 minutes ago, JeffreysTubes8 said:

What I really want to sell to the public is my own ability to use a higher dimensional solution to the three body problem in physics and my potential ability to apply it to certain engineering designs involving u-carbon in tubular graphene (carbon nanotubes) in a complex nanorobotic apparatus that can control and manipulate negative ion plasma peripherally. 

What I really want to manufacture and sell is wax paper packaging made from hemp fibre and vegetable oil. It can replace some of the non-recyclable plastic food packaging and many other types of non-recycleable plastic packaging that also goes to landfill from many other products as well. It's not recycleable itself, but can be put in with food waste for anerobic digestion into biogas and agricultrual fertilizer, or just composted. It's not difficult to make transparent paper, and it uses a quater of the energy to manufacture compared to virgin plastic of similar weight. It will save the world! Well, maybe not all the world, just some of it. I'm not really into high tech solutions, mainly low tech ones.

Edited April 6, 2022 by silazcarbryck