Veritasium with on his weakest videos, in more than one way

Top Youtube science vlogger, with many good videos on his channel, has sunk in the deep end with this one. Maybe he started, obtained his usual access, then could not stop.

The sun orbits the solar system mostly ‘head first’

from this video.

TBF I could not finish the video, it was so bad. It does not matter if the solar system is tilted to the plane of the galaxy even at it goes ‘top’ first. The annual variation in that goldmine detector is absolutely not to blotches of dark matter here and there at the rim of the galaxy. That is ludicrous. If it was not, then once the sun had passed through the alleged galactic bunch of extra dark matter then their detected pattern would reverse (the winter data would precede summer after the year when it preceded it). Do they say that? No, they do not.

Then Derik does some sort of self-refutation and calls himself ‘absurd’, or something. Like I said, I guess he only figured out halfway though this one was going to be a turkey.

Physicists should just consider Miles Mathis science site might be right, already. About matter. The conjecture is Dark matter are subphotons emerging out of nuclei and thus only with x-spin, and impossible to detect except as heat (think black-body radiation). Why this constitutes 89% of the universe number is due to what matter is. Namely a direct function of mass equivalence of the particle’s energy, especially its spin (I am not sure about its linear momentum). Then, basic collision math means something like 11% begin to tumble as well. This tumble adds a wavelength. Now these more energetic photons are no longer dark but observable as regular matter, keeping that 89 +11 ratio constant..

I can’t be bothered to figure it out exactly. I am not getting paid – they are! When the Earth is on the far side from the galactic core those subphotons are usually absorbed by the gas giants and fewer make it to that underground cave with that detector which he got to visit. … Something like that.


Solar flare spikes just when .. oh my

Solar models face actual tests every 11 years or so. With the new solar cycle the mainstream theory has taken it on the chin. And, yes, is false. But what is true?

Miles Mathis two days ago: “The Day Mainstream Science Died.”  Frustration has built up and he finishes personal, does a photo comparison. That is not the point. Rather, it is (what might at first glance seem to be absurd)

Neptune is aligning to Jupiter, the Sun, and the galactic core even as you read this, and solar flux is hugely spiking, up to 180 today. Just as I have been predicting for years.

At the least, his theory here is geometrically possible: the sun orbits the galaxy ‘head first’ while ‘moving up and down’, making the planets orthogonal. While the galactic core is also orthogonal. This means there will be times where the sun + at least one gas giant + the core will be roughly aligned.

And he did predict this spike. From 2020: 

For Mathis this is more proof sub-photons are constantly emitted by every proton & neutron in every nucleus everywhere as particles spinning only on one axis (that need to be jostled into tumbling on a y-axis to become E/M radiation).

I will say I find all his science essays very interesting, do not find them crazy, and I have read a lot of them. He may not get funding but he knows the fields he is writing about. It is a ‘theory of everything’ (TOE) with no natural starting essay to suggest (his try). For sure they are written by a single person, and that photo could be him.

For any reader more interested in philosophy than math & hard physics, there his essay where he rips The Copenhagen Interpretation‘ of quantum mechanics, an epic rant that knows of that which it speaks. Mathis “I will argue that more than anything else, the manifestoes of the 20th century intellectuals, artists, and scientists were a refusal to compete.


Egos to the left of them, rode the fewer than six hundred

Wow, do I dread parsing what it going on in those science fields I follow. Not incidental fields, either.

Not that any specifically involved will read this. For which I am thankful. Yet my dread in what I am about to type conjures up a precious rewording of that famous Kipling poem about charging into a losing battle.

Egos to the right of them,
Egos to left of them,
Science sites in front of them
Volley’d and thunder’d;
Storm’d at with shot and shell,
Boldly the fool heretics rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell
About the universe they still wondered.

After that, the poem mentions flashing sabers, gunners, and battery-smoke. In parallel today we have sites like LiveScience, and institutions like NOAA, LIGO, the LHC. These latter fight in the Thought War, not Kipling’s war. In such a struggle, they are of such fierceness never before seen on this Earth.

But are they winning? What the f*** is going on? Do all of them really believe QCD? How many virtual particles and forces and contradictions can be created before Physics grad students go mad? Answer probably a lot more, as there are always a way to take a break. They read ‘string theory’ to that end, I suppose. Like watching TV,

For me it’s sites like Universe Today . It’s like the sincere priest who brings scripture to a gun battle – so honest, a bit looney … I could go on, but won’t.

The souls of this battle in the wider war are, what do they call them? Oh, yes, “photons” or “waves”. Shouldn’t they be calling them ‘wotons’?

Let’s pretend I typed all that in my sleep.

“Excuse me, Mr. Tater. There is nautical dawn at the Eastern horizon. Time to get up. Time for battle.”

“Right you are.” He rises to his feet, weariness in his bones. He wants to ask two questions. ‘At what speed, in tenth of microseconds, is the big sphere turning’ and ‘Is the rotational energy really use pi, or 4, like that half-fake lunatic claims oh so well and so subtly?’, yet remains silent. He knows the other man neither knows nor cares.

For his dawn meal he eats his regulation RME brick. Which is a tough chew; he plans his charge up the valley.


This is D.M. Calls his Youtube channel by the funky & clever name Veritasium, while almost never mentioning his own. So I guess I shouldn’t mention it, either. Happens to be a great presenter, seems to be a nice person, very hard worker and promotes Science like no one ever. Justifiably is the most influential person in Science today. Yet not 100% pure, either (don’t get me wrong I am grateful he exists). This latest, produced amidst a symptomatic brouhaha about E/M 4 days ago. It apparently has 3.5 million views – which is possible, due to homework clicks.

‘No, I am not convinced’

This is the same presenter who in an earlier video reported brilliantly but opaquely the clever theory that magnetism was orthogonal to electricity (via the ‘right hand rule’ which he ducked) because of Special Relativity, because of Time Dilation of electrons moving at the speed of light relative to nearby protons. But in this ‘actually’ video he explains electrons barely move. What’s up, D?

Meanwhile famous website Wikipedia has a page whose first words are “A Birkeland current (also known as field-aligned current ) is a set of currents that flow along geomagnetic field lines

But currents flow at right angles to Geomagnetic field lines. What’s up, W.K.?

I got that from Miles Mathis (please avoid his other site, the one with the initial). PDF, At least he gives an explanation for ‘the right hand rule’, true or false. a second PDF. He also gets a lot of hits. But very few mentions. Sometime he does not come across as a real person.

Why am I posting this now? Because of the global warming issue, why else? /sardonic

N-K and Tallbloke are continuing (I am grateful for them, too). They have arrived at the subtle question of Earth’s brightness. Also, they are sticking to ‘adiabatic compression’ (something I think they get wrong. But, hey, maybe I am the one who is wrong).

FWIW Mathis, among his hundreds of uniquely-styled papers chats about brighness. PDF

That’s enough for the day.


I am prioritizing a new site

This site may go on hiatus. I had been planning to cover some Science as it actually is right now. This I feel nearly qualified to do. Even as a bit of heretic. Right now there is both a lot of amazing science and some fields past their sale dates.

The new site is called FPR economics. I have a great deal of material. I used to think of it as something fun. Is it possible the world needs it? I have zero training in economics.

So far, just a single post there.

FPR is about how even an Eloi could run the world, just with computers. There would be the same institutions as there are now, just with slightly different tasks. The people in these places would aid the computers.

Every three months (say) algorithms would set everything from interest rates, to minimum wages, tax rates, tariffs… the whole shebang.

FPR economics is a meta-policy. It is mostly bottom-up; there are a few top-down elements. The major top-down that does not also exist in other meta-policies restrictions on where money is borrowed from.

It is capitalism. It is posited as existing in contradistinction to all prior meta-policies. It is an acronym standing for Fixed Progress Ratio.

FPR is in the center of the political trichotomy. Or, if you like, in the center of the somewhat phony ‘political compass’. It intends prosperity and freedom. The meta-policies that it differs from the most are Communism and Libertarianism.


re: lifting with morality

The PushingRubberDownhill blogger has changed his mind about the need for a man to become spiritual before becoming a lifter (of weights). This spurred lively discussion.

I have never been a lifter. Yet, it sounds abstruse but the cognitive mapping of virtue is important for the future of humankind. e.g. It is not just LIFTING = GOOD. The virtues are real and they are immortal and they come in pairs. That was why I felt compelled to reply:

Thank you for this. If I can add fierceness is not alone – all virtues best come in pairs. By itself one does not last in a healthy way. One cannot just be serene, or just be patient anymore than one can just be a strong & superficially masculine.

JrGanymede had posts about this. And Narrowdesert. Both Christians. Like you say, this truth is rooted in Christianity. Pre-Christian Aristotle did not figure this out. The Virtue sets are in what CS Lewis called Natural Law. They are part of theosis, if you ask me. Fierceness needs chivalry, and always will.

Just to add a bit more. Because the virtue pairs are naturally part of Christianity or logos, that itself makes them a spawning ground for evil. The mind can pair non-virtues and experience their union as virtue pair. Which leftists do all the time. They constantly pair cowardice + recklessness while feeling themselves as courageous + prudent. They constantly pair bullying + lies as strength + didacticism. They become suffused with this preening from the false pairs and thus even as they are demonic feel themselves to be angels.

Bruce Charlton said the last paragraph made a good point. I added:

I didn’t think of it. The LDS blogger calling himself jrGanymede made quite a few of what he called virtue charts. With rectangles, rhomboids & arrows, which might seem silly (I don’t think it is). He put it this way: “It adds the Christian insight that most vices are distortions of virtues.” His first post about it meditates on hypocrisy, with two charts.

This is all true secularly OR from a religion. ‘Ethics’ wiped the floor with morality because the Golden Rule did not tell the whole story. It is time for a comeback.


Top science Youtuber Veritasium says electrons barely move, the ensuing buzz, and what it might mean

Cutting edge or I wouldn’t be posting .. the History of Science as it is happening covered for you, right here on carbontater!

A specific Youtube search for it.

His prior video was posted about a month ago. It has garnered 9 million views. I had just written a draft post about it when 10 days ago he put up the latest . Which has 7.2 million views already, and has generated some heat, as it claims electricity isn’t really traveling in the wires, it only travels if the wire is there … Now experts are explaining: “He is not wrong but he’s wrong”.

Both posts are fundamentally about the nature of E/M radiation.

The prior video is nominally about the history of ‘imaginary numbers’ & the importance of math to physics but is really a defense of the current opinion of what the atomic nucleus/quantum mechanics/photons are. And it exists because physicists are defensive about it, even though for decades they have said this has been settled since Planck. My draft claims that while the video is brilliant it promotes a false dualism. Maybe I will still post it.

V’s latest is nominally about the speed of electricity but is more about its nature.

So far the few I looked at all imply ‘We all agree; there is no uncertainty; physics knows everything. example. Yet I remember how a Veritasium video just a few years ago claimed the orthogonality of electricity to magnetism was from time dilation of near light-speed of electrons (even though bar magnets have magnetic fields, too); but in this one he says the electrons in electric currents are barely moving!

Sigh, how is that they keep making a few heretics seem sensible?

MM in 2011 via proxy sticking to DC current, says a battery simply has a greater density of his ‘charge field’ and it flows so well when a current is switched on because the metal wire has aligned atomic nuclei. Implying the nucleus has structure (which apparently it can’t if there is a ‘strong force’).

Not saying that is true but MM has a beautiful explanation of the key orthogonality. Of what physicists sometimes call ‘the right hand rule‘. His aesthetic it’s because the protons in the wire are not just channeling charge, they are emitting some at their equators and the electrons are massed up charge particles that cannot fit into the poles and thus get stuck.. [He also says something like protons are electrons spun up to c, giving them a z-spin, not just x & y].

This relates to the prior video because any real sine wave that an ‘imaginary’ number can represent in a not-imaginary way actually is the wave that will not brook interference by another, and thus might be the one which emerges in subatomic chaos, I guess torqued, and thus limited to light-speed?? I don’t know! Neither of the imaginary number framings talk like that.


Has the Roman Catholic Pope heard the term ‘The Great Reset?’

I think the following about the Roman Catholic Pope is worth posting.

Blog policy is I embed videos, so voilà! Alternatively: the official text.

Sunday, 14 November 2021; Saint Peter’s Square, Vatican, the Angelus

It zooms away from the window also. Btw, the red drape represents (or used to) a papal claim to be entirely a servant of Jesus.

The Angelus is ‘a Catholic devotion commemorating the Incarnation‘. I imagine past ones had somewhat different content (stuff like: the Holy Ghost, Mother Mary, the marvel that is reproduction). None of that here. I do not know whether past Popes have used the phrase ‘brother and sisters’.

He starts out with something about an apocalypse:

“Brothers and sisters… The Gospel passage of today’s liturgy opens with a phrase of Jesus that leaves us astonished: “The sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from heaven” (Mk 13:24-25). But what now, even the Lord was a doomsdayer? No, this is certainly not His intention.

I think he means: ‘Jesus doesn’t want apocalypse to happen, but it could happen’.

Fairly soon after that he says prosperity for most is not of top importance.

“Brothers and sisters, let us ask ourselves: what are we investing our lives in? On things that pass, such as money, success, appearance, physical well-being?

Past popes used to cite a famous aphorism about rich men’s difficulties in entering Heaven (comparing them to camels or ropes getting into the eyes of needles). Did they ever talk about health like this?

Here is where I speculate (how wildly the reader can decide). To me it sounds like the Pope has heard the term “the Great Reset” or “Build Back Better” and he is urging the flock to have less stuff, which under that rubric will be required to save the planet from that apocalypse he mentioned at the top.

After the sermon was over the Pope stayed at the window to mention secular things: global warming, poverty, and diabetes. He divided the world into two parts for his advice here:

The cry of the poor, united with the cry of the Earth, resounded in recent days at the United Nations Climate Change Summit COP26 in Glasgow. I encourage all those with political and economic responsibilities to act now with courage and vision; at the same time, I invite all people of good will to exercise active citizenship for the care of the common home. To this end, today, World Day of the Poor … Today is also World Diabetes Day, a chronic disease that afflicts many people, including young people and children. I pray for all of them and for those who share their fatigue every day, as well as for the health care workers and volunteers who assist them. registration opens for the Laudato si’ platform, which promotes integral ecology.

His words are consistent from the sermon to here. IMO. A few scant minutes before said prosperity and even health are not as important as being noble. And now he says he wants poor people to care about others in in poverty and with illness but for the powerful people to not implement the policies that will help alleviate those things.

Note that cheap fossil fuels fight poverty and meat in diets fights the onset of diabetes type II.

To me it is clear this man is attempting to alter a religion. I am not saying anything about Catholicism, just that this pope is not Catholic.

The essence of a real Popes used to be humility. This one is half preaching it, but not being it. His last words are not at heart humble. re “I encourage all those with political and economic responsibilities to act now with courage and vision.‘ He means himself and the WEF etc. IMO. He is not preaching for them to be humble (to follow Jesus). No, now that is for everyone else, says this Pope. He wants the flock to be so humble they don’t even fight for health or prosperity (or even for protein).


The crowd was sparse and seemed a tad unenthusiastic… Apparently a few years ago there were 1.2 billion Roman Catholics in the world. … Maybe in 2015 he had not thought like this 🙂 … It would not suprprise me if there is a schism. For sure this Pope has lost the mojo with many.


Neutrinos, ripples, CERN, Mathis, ‘apple pie’ – quickie jamboree

I figured out way to talk about the universe, the culture we live in, and the current state of some of physics – all at once. And fairly briefly, too. The frame will be part of what I have done in the last few days: re-read a bit of Miles Mathis science claims, listen to three podcasts, by happenstance.

The Mathis papers were “The Great Neutrino Muddle” “What are Neutrinos?” and “The Solar Neutrino problem.” Instead of linking to them I will link indirectly via the sarcastically named ‘Godparticle’ site, which can be read independently, to its pertinent page.

tldr: Mathis argues [the neutrino] “isn’t a particle at all. It is a wave like sound, which exists only as a pattern on a background.

A week ago or so I listened to a podcast episode with the great Pierre-Marie Robitaille. From Demystifying Science, who did four with him (sadly the most important one has poor sound quality). It also has YouTube versions. In some ways they come across as unserious but I was highly impressed how they chatted with Robitaille.

Then, not science, I listened to an episode of a podcast called Swedenborg and Life, which is pluralistic-Christian theology. As a curious listener.

A few days ago I figured I would try another podcast from the podcast who had had Robitaille. Their latest was “Particles as Ripples in a Universal Material”. What a contrast! This one was such a pile of bollocks that I had to turn it off. The guest was an author who works at CERN’s LHC . He had titled his new book called “How to Make an Apple Pie from Scratch: In Search of the Recipe for Our Universe” when he explained this, that it was from because of old video which thrilled him I got pissed off. Then he started babbling like Joni Mitchell about how we were all one cosmos – but rippling – which pissed me off even more.

This experience also reminded me of the Mathis neutrino essays, as shall be explained after this list

  • I don’t want to rag on the marvelous Sagan (who he referenced, a scientist and great popularizer) but in the 1980s ‘apple pie’ represented America, and as I read it that was partly why that TV bumper intro thrilled many in the PBS audience. That ‘apple pie’ is gone and, it turns out, the special appleness was not in the realm of physics. Sure, if you want to thought-experiment in a godlike fashion, and cook up a universe, then physics is the recipe .. just not a recipe for 1980s apple pie, not as a title for a book in 2021
  • CERN science has claimed for decades there is no aether. And thus no ripples, right? Oh gravity waves .. from LIGO partner in BS. They cant cobble it all together; to many contradictions, about this the man was being a fool
  • this business about being all one with the cosmos … He seems to be someone how moved in thirty years the width of a proton: from atheism to boutique Buddhism … Well guess what, buddy? That country was made with another religion that involved the self as captain of the soul. Something called theosis is required in a such a recipe. To make it again. Neither one-ness with the universe, nor physics
  • Then he got a bit Orwellian. He actually started telling the interviewer what was great about Science (by implication his particle physics) was that it made the universe simple! While critics all complain that CERN’s standard theory called QCD (throw in QED in the pot, too) is that it is ludicrously far too complex. That’s a big complaint.
  • overall the CERN guest was mystifying what he did for a living not demystifying, despite the name of the pod, who weren’t sophisticated enough to know

That was when I turned off the podcast and decided to blog here about Mathis. Who, in his particle papers actually has what this guy said he did (but does not). Mathis TOE is the right amount of simple. Which actually has ripples, called ‘neutrinos’. As linked above. Specifically. Not vaguely, not boutique. not vanity, no babbling.

Amazing to me scientists like that CERN baby-boomer do not understand any of this. Even as something to think about. (Mathis does, and he is a Gen X atheist). They still think they have that recipe for ‘apple pie’. He seriously used it in the title of the book, just published. Yeah, no. Obviously, no. The ‘Solar neutrino problem’ tells the tale – and so do a lot of other things.


A second pair of white hands on the Italian peninsula

This sculpture was built in Venice in 2017, I don’t know if it is still there.

Giant Hands emerging from Grand Canal by Lorenzo Quinn “to raise awareness about climate change”

Some ways away, technically in Vatican City but pretty much also in Italy, is the famous Sistine Chapel which also has on it a artistic rendition a detail of which is two (white) hands. Commissioned by Pope Julius II in 1508, in it one hand was God’s and the other’s a man’s.

Michelangelo: Hands of God and Adam, Detail from The Creation of Adam, from The Sistine Chapel

To digress, my opinion is that those hands were also symbolism about the globe. The Columbus trip in 1492 had publicized the spherical Earth – I imagine Italian Catholic elites regretted it had been Spain and not anyone in nascent Italy who had commissioned the trip (the navigator was not Spanish). I imagine Pope Julius wanted to express it was specifically where the Vatican was that the super-special touching of fingers between the heavens and the round Earth was the most timelessly expressed.

Back to my point: the contrast could not be starker. The two hands in 1508 were optimistic, from above, and involved more than one being – each of which had faces. Compared to the 2017 hands which are negative, from below, and a single, faceless person. IMO these are the key differences – with the man’s being underwater expressing a profound existential loneliness of the artist & fans.

They would say, no, they are drowning in climate change — yet someone posted that the publicity material did not say it was specifically about any CAGW accelerated sea level rise (just about CAGW in general).

My framing is it is unconscious in them. In between the artist & sponsors. They are in denial they have drowned their own civilization by narcissism or, another way of putting it, by anti-human, materialist, nihilist BS. C.S. Lewis maybe around 1950 predicted this, calling it ‘the Abolition of Man’ (earlier William Butler Yeats also said much the same thing).

I assert this truth arrives in their conscious masked, in this case in inverted form. Much like in some REM dreams. Where the mask is something the dreamer also cares about, in this case the climate, but it still a mask, underlying is their sense of being drowned and being alone/dying alone.

Imagine a fool telling a psychiatrist, “Doc, I keep having the same dream about a train going into a tunnel, I think I should become a train conductor, that’s the meaning.” but here it “I keep having this dream about drowning alone, I think we all should start eating insects.”

I am not Lewis, of course, but imagine he was right, that Science cannot replace God. There would be a lot of people who nevertheless were sure it can and this statue is what would happen, exactly where it is, with vague reasons for the peculiar symbolism.


explaining the logarithmic part

Of GHGs.

I was shocked that few (if any) seem to get this. About what is only one of the most written-about topics (global temperatures).

Clive Best is an expert. And one of the saner ones. Yet in 2019 he wrote this:

The physical reason why increasing CO2 apparently produces a logarithmic forcing is that the central lines rapidly get saturated way up into the stratosphere, the strongest of which can then even cause cooling of the surface.”

‘apparently produces?’

I bet he started to type “Apparently the physical reason why …” then put the ‘apparently’ in the wrong spot. I say this because Best is certain CO2 produces logarithmic forcing. But not certain of why its logarithmic. If you read the quote above making this switch it makes sense. Even though it’s wrong (IMO).

My understanding has 2 parts. First: yes, of course, the IR photons zip around redirected in pseudo-random directions ‘all the way up to the stratosphere’. Why wouldn’t they?

Second: asfaik the cooler air does not then impact the whole thing for degrees of freedom of heat are not shared much in the sky between IR and kinetics.

Rather the logarithmic quality, observed since the 1920’s in graphs (whether via compression or increase in a GHGs) comes from the redirection itself. It is not linear because half the time the re-direction is up! Nor is it some relative value based on stratospheric temperatures.

It is measured to match E, the natural log. The logarithm arises as the relation between 3 dimension and the vectors. It’s mathematical. They could do lab tests with an old style pinball machine, changing the number of posts and using tiny balls and the results would also graph showing E.