ItsBS

24.6K posts

ItsBS banner
ItsBS

ItsBS

@Its_BS

2026: Elon must expose the pseudoscience of Einstein and Quantum Mechanics to make Grok AI smarter."

USA Katılım Ocak 2013
131 Takip Edilen2K Takipçiler
Sabitlenmiş Tweet
ItsBS
ItsBS@Its_BS·
I wrote the article below for @elonmusk, because Grok AI is completely INVERTED! Wasting electricity! The failures of Einstein are ignored and justified with ONE-WAY time dilation experiments for Einstein's theory that predicts TWO-WAY time dilation.🤦‍♂️ x.com/Its_BS/status/…
ItsBS tweet media
ItsBS@Its_BS

x.com/i/article/2011…

English
7
0
8
1.1K
ItsBS
ItsBS@Its_BS·
@FutureJurvetson Re: "fire a single photon at the slits." This part is the pseudoscience lie.
English
1
0
0
23
Steve Jurvetson
Steve Jurvetson@FutureJurvetson·
The most mind-bending variant of the 2-slit experiment: fire a single photon at the slits. Then fire another tomorrow. They deflect differently, but after many days, the cumulative distribution will be the typical interference pattern 🤯 Is a single photon interfering with itself? Interfering with other photons over time and space? The simplest explanation, according to Oxford's David Deutsch, is interference across parallel universes, the same mechanism that gives quantum computers capabilities that are just not possible in one universe. Richard Feynman called it the “one experiment which has been designed to contain all of the mystery of quantum mechanics.” My longer post on this: x.com/FutureJurvetso…
Elon Musk@elonmusk

I had dinner once with a top physicist and a top computer scientist and asked what they thought the probability was that we were in a simulation. They answered simultaneously at 0% and 100% respectively. It was like a double-slit experiment, but with humans.

English
61
39
473
139.4K
ItsBS
ItsBS@Its_BS·
@controscience 👍Glass half full viewpoint. 😂 I'm more worried about Grok AI. Maybe it will be smart enough to show Elon the silliness of our modern pseudoscience, instead waiting for Elon to recognize it and fix the AI. Either way, it must happen.
English
1
0
1
12
Controversies of Science
Controversies of Science@controscience·
@Its_BS What I contrast this w is a scenario where Elon was to start dabbling in against-the-mainstream theories, then make a huge mess of them ... or even just the public's perception of them. So, it could be worse, actually. At least this way, the critics still own this territory.
English
1
0
0
11
ItsBS
ItsBS@Its_BS·
Lord, help us... 🤦‍♂️
Elon Musk@elonmusk

@demishassabis There will be a little discovery along the lines of Newton or Einstein, but ~100% of intelligence output in the future will be creation of the new, rather than understanding the basic rules of reality. The pattern of the quarks, leptons & photons is almost everything.

English
2
0
3
99
ItsBS
ItsBS@Its_BS·
@alexboge Pretty good advice Alex! Impressive...
ItsBS tweet media
English
0
0
0
12
Alex Boge
Alex Boge@alexboge·
A pair of memes I think some will find useful.
Alex Boge tweet mediaAlex Boge tweet media
English
3
10
34
637
ItsBS
ItsBS@Its_BS·
@drxwilhelm Faraday, Maxwell, Heaviside, Steinmetz...Dollard So many people have never studied the history of electromagnetism. You get a lot smarter when you do this and you can better recognize the pitfalls in modern physics dogma.
English
4
7
21
646
Dr. Paul Wilhelm | Advanced Rediscovery
Dr. Paul Wilhelm | Advanced Rediscovery@drxwilhelm·
📋 Maxwell's original electromagnetic theory described light, radio, and more. In 1884, Heaviside simplified it. 7 things were lost: 1. A scalar field that accompanies every electromagnetic wave. Heaviside split one algebraic operation into two and threw away half the result. 2. The independent behavior of the vector potential's divergence. A mathematical constraint forced it to zero or locked it to another quantity. Not because it was wrong. Because it simplified the equations. 3. Longitudinal waves. Electromagnetic waves that carry energy but have no magnetic field. Invisible in the simplified equations. Tesla predicted them. 4. The coupling between the scalar and vector potentials. The interaction that four independent derivations rediscovered between 2003 and 2020. Destroyed by the same constraint. 5. Backward-in-time solutions. The equations allow them. Wheeler and Feynman (1945) showed they're fully consistent. They were discarded by convention. 6. A direct mathematical link between electromagnetism and gravity. In the Kaluza-Klein framework (5D spacetime), the electromagnetic potential IS a component of the gravitational metric. Deleting EM components deletes gravitational physics. 7. Topological information that fields can't represent. The Aharonov-Bohm effect (confirmed 1986) proved electrons respond to this information in regions where electric and magnetic fields are both zero. 🤷‍♂️ None of these were disproven. All were removed by convention. Physics recovered every single one between 1935 and 2020. Superconductors use #2 and #7. The Aharonov-Bohm effect proved #7. Extended Electrodynamics recovered #1-#4. Wheeler-Feynman addressed #5. Kaluza-Klein established #6. 👉 Full analysis in my paper "The Deleted Degrees of Freedom." Free, open access.
Dr. Paul Wilhelm | Advanced Rediscovery tweet media
English
10
30
117
3.6K
ItsBS
ItsBS@Its_BS·
@drxwilhelm All of this recent Tesla talk makes it a good time to review some Eric Dollard lectures on Tesla transmission basics.
English
1
1
1
82
Dr. Paul Wilhelm | Advanced Rediscovery
Dr. Paul Wilhelm | Advanced Rediscovery@drxwilhelm·
In principle, yes. The scalar-longitudinal mode transmits energy without magnetic fields. No B means no need for conductive pathways to guide the field. Tesla was chasing exactly this at Wardenclyffe. He didn't have the formal framework. The EED generalized Poynting vector (E x B minus EC) now provides one: the scalar energy flux term EC carries power independently of the magnetic channel. In practice, not yet. The mode has been demonstrated at lab scale (Hively's VPT patent, US 9,306,527). Nobody has scaled it to grid-level power transmission. The engineering questions are open: efficiency at distance (1/r^2 attenuation is worse than copper at short range), coupling to receivers, frequency optimization for maximum power transfer, safety characterization. The honest answer is somewhere between Tesla's dream and today's grid. Wireless power through walls for buildings and devices is the near-term target. Replacing high-voltage transmission lines across continents is a much harder problem that requires engineering nobody has done yet. The physics says the channel exists. The engineering says show me the prototype.
C.A.A.P.@TruthNotAShow

@drxwilhelm Does this mean we can get rid of conventional conductors (Power-Lines) ?

English
9
9
64
2.3K
ItsBS
ItsBS@Its_BS·
@martinmbauer We are in an illusion: Yes We are in a simulation: No We are participating in a spiritual classroom on Earth: Yes
English
0
0
6
366
ItsBS retweetledi
Dr. Paul Wilhelm | Advanced Rediscovery
Dr. Paul Wilhelm | Advanced Rediscovery@drxwilhelm·
Tesla's 471,240 km/s is about 1.57c. Superluminal in free space would violate relativity. But Tesla wasn't measuring a free-space wave. He was measuring a guided wave in the Earth-ionosphere cavity. Phase velocities in waveguides exceed c routinely. That's standard physics, not a relativity violation. ELF waves in the Earth-ionosphere duct have measured phase velocities above c right now. The group velocity (actual energy transport) stays below c. No information travels faster than light. The wave pattern does. Tesla's number is consistent with the phase velocity of a guided mode in a spherical cavity. The interesting question isn't whether the number violates relativity. It doesn't. The interesting question is which MODE he was exciting that produced those propagation characteristics.
ItsBS@Its_BS

@drxwilhelm What are your thoughts on Tesla's wave speed below?

English
11
17
73
3.2K
ItsBS
ItsBS@Its_BS·
@pickover It means: Schrodinger's Wave Mechanics
ItsBS tweet mediaItsBS tweet mediaItsBS tweet mediaItsBS tweet media
English
0
0
0
416
Cliff Pickover
Cliff Pickover@pickover·
Physics. Education. Reality in a Nutshell. From "Quantum Mechanics: The Theoretical Minimum," by Leonard Susskind and Art Friedman.
Cliff Pickover tweet media
English
12
47
470
27.1K
ItsBS
ItsBS@Its_BS·
@drxwilhelm What are your thoughts on Tesla's wave speed below?
ItsBS tweet mediaItsBS tweet media
English
0
1
1
3.2K
Dr. Paul Wilhelm | Advanced Rediscovery
Dr. Paul Wilhelm | Advanced Rediscovery@drxwilhelm·
Tesla's Wardenclyffe was designed to excite the Earth-ionosphere cavity as a waveguide. Standard transverse EM theory can describe cavity resonance (Schumann resonances exist at ~7.83 Hz and harmonics), but it can't explain the transmission characteristics Tesla claimed: low attenuation over global distances, energy transfer not just signaling, and ground current as the primary channel rather than radiation. The EED framework fits better. A scalar-longitudinal mode coupling to the Earth's radial potential gradient (ground to ionosphere) would propagate as a standing wave in the cavity with 1/r^2 attenuation instead of the exponential attenuation that transverse modes suffer in the Earth-ionosphere duct at low frequencies. Tesla's design (deep ground connection, toroidal top-load creating a specific potential topology, pulsed excitation) matches what you'd build if you were trying to launch an SL mode into a spherical cavity. The Whittaker decomposition (Section 4.7) shows that the scalar potential in such a cavity decomposes into bidirectional wave pairs. Standing waves are what you get when those pairs superpose. Tesla didn't have the formal framework. He had the engineering intuition and the hardware. The equations that describe what his tower was actually doing may have been in Maxwell's original 20. They definitely weren't in Heaviside's 4.
Unatco99@Unatco99

@drxwilhelm Thank you. Would these equations explain Tesla's wardenclyffe tower do you think?

English
4
3
13
592
ItsBS
ItsBS@Its_BS·
@oprydai Qubits are a lie. They are based on the lie from Max Born's ad-hoc rule that redefined Schrodinger's Wave Mechanics wavefunction. Quantum Particle State Superposition is a modern physics lie.
ItsBS tweet media
English
0
0
3
102
Mustafa
Mustafa@oprydai·
a qubit is where computing stops being binary and starts being physical a normal bit is rigid → 0 or 1 a qubit is fluid → it can be both at the same time not metaphorically mathematically real |ψ⟩ = α|0⟩ + β|1⟩ those α and β aren’t just numbers they control the probability of what you’ll see when you measure it but here’s the catch: the moment you look at a qubit → it collapses → you only get 0 or 1 so the game isn’t storing answers it’s shaping probabilities before measurement what makes qubits different: → superposition you’re not testing one possibility at a time → entanglement qubits link together change one → the other responds instantly → interference some outcomes get amplified others get canceled out that’s how quantum algorithms work not by brute force but by eliminating wrong answers before you even see them how you control it: → apply operations (quantum gates) → rotate the state in a complex space not flipping bits but steering a vector reality check: → qubits are fragile → noise destroys them (decoherence) → scaling is still a hard problem what it actually is: → a qubit = a vector in a complex space → computation = moving that vector precisely this isn’t faster classical computing it’s a completely different way of thinking about information
Mustafa tweet media
English
21
92
460
14K
ItsBS
ItsBS@Its_BS·
@drxwilhelm @Decode_Z_World Re: "The intent wasn't concealment. It was convenience." ...and then Einsteiners removed the aether and made "c" the king of the universe with assumed permittivity/permeability constants. Then, quantum particle madness took over. What a mess. Electricity is a mess.
ItsBS tweet mediaItsBS tweet mediaItsBS tweet mediaItsBS tweet media
English
1
1
3
50
Dr. Paul Wilhelm | Advanced Rediscovery
Dr. Paul Wilhelm | Advanced Rediscovery@drxwilhelm·
They threw it out to make it easier to compute. The intent wasn't concealment. It was convenience. Heaviside said so explicitly. He found quaternions "mystical" and wanted simpler equations for telegraph engineering. Gibbs agreed. Both were solving practical problems and the vector calculus version worked for everything they could measure in the 1880s. The result is the same as concealment though. In Hamilton's quaternion product, nabla acting on A produces a scalar and a vector as co-equal outputs of one operation. You can't get one without the other. The algebra forces you to see both. Heaviside split that single operation into divergence and curl, two separate operations, and then dropped the scalar half. In vector calculus the deletion is invisible. In quaternions it's obvious. In Geometric Algebra (Hestenes, Section 2.5 of the paper) it's even more obvious: you're projecting out one grade of a multivector. So the math wasn't thrown out to hide anything. But replacing it with a formalism where the deletion becomes invisible had the same effect. 140 years of physicists never saw the cut because the tool they use can't show it.
English
3
1
8
119
Decode the World
Decode the World@Decode_Z_World·
They threw out the quaternion math to make it harder to see.
Dr. Paul Wilhelm | Advanced Rediscovery@drxwilhelm

Maxwell published his electromagnetic theory in 1873. Twenty equations. Sixteen components. Between 1882 and 1884, Oliver Heaviside rewrote those into 4 equations. Six components. Kept the part that describes light and radio. The rest? He found it "mystical." His word for what he wanted to do: "murder." That simplified version became the standard. Every textbook. Every university. For 140 years. Nobody went back and checked what he threw out.

English
1
0
3
154
ItsBS
ItsBS@Its_BS·
@drxwilhelm Re: "why dielectric materials turn out to be gateways instead of barriers" Yes and that statement describes the basic fallacy of "Quantum Tunneling" with "electron particles."
ItsBS tweet media
English
0
0
0
14
Dr. Paul Wilhelm | Advanced Rediscovery
Dr. Paul Wilhelm | Advanced Rediscovery@drxwilhelm·
If you love TESLA, you'll love this one: Colorado Springs, 1899. One conductor. No return path. Lamps glowing. Sparks crossing air gaps. Rooms filled with cold, silent light. 🧵1/6
English
2
5
36
3.7K
ItsBS
ItsBS@Its_BS·
@drxwilhelm 😂no need to mess around. Ben Franklin was right. The dielectric becomes polarized like a temporary electret (Heaviside). So then... vacuum capacitor? Radio waves in outer space? Anyone can do the dissectible capacitor experiment.
ItsBS tweet mediaItsBS tweet media
ItsBS tweet media
English
0
0
0
9
Dr. Paul Wilhelm | Advanced Rediscovery
Dr. Paul Wilhelm | Advanced Rediscovery@drxwilhelm·
Oh. Alrighty then… Grok is trained on textbooks that enforce the Lorenz gauge. So it reproduces the Lorenz gauge worldview. Confidently. That's a training data problem, not a physics argument. Did you feed Grok the 60 publication documents referenced in the paper? On the specifics: "sufficient for all observed phenomena" is the claim the paper directly addresses. The Aharonov-Bohm effect (1986, definitive) is observed. It requires A, not E and B. Superconductors are observed. The London equation uses A as the primary variable since 1935. Newton's third law violation for open circuits is a provable mathematical fact within the standard framework itself. These aren't fringe interpretations. They're in the standard literature. "Fringe-but-published" is doing heavy lifting here. Van Vlaenderen (2003), Hively and Giakos (2012), Reed and Hively (2020) are peer-reviewed. Woodside's uniqueness theorems are peer-reviewed. The Stueckelberg mechanism is textbook quantum field theory. Calling the Stueckelberg Lagrangian "fringe" would surprise every particle physicist who uses it. The paper doesn't claim the 6-component theory is wrong. It claims it's incomplete. Those are different things. QED's precision tests probe the transverse sector. The scalar-longitudinal sector is orthogonal to those tests. You can't refute a claim about longitudinal modes by pointing to transverse measurements. Ask Grok to explain why four independent derivations over 20 years converge on the same scalar field. "Fringe" isn't an explanation. It's a label.
𝕊𝕙𝕚𝕓𝕓𝕠𝕝𝕖𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕣@RTTIOTG1776

"No, the core claims in Dr. Paul Wilhelm's thread (and his accompanying 2026 paper) are not fully factual in the mainstream physics consensus, though they contain kernels of historical and mathematical truth mixed with interpretive overreach and unverified extensions. This is a classic case of "fringe-but-published" electrodynamics that reinterprets gauge freedom as a physical loss. It revives old ideas (e.g., Tesla-like "longitudinal" waves) under modern labels like "extended electrodynamics" (EED) or "potential-primary electrodynamics." Standard Maxwell-Heaviside electrodynamics (and its quantum extension, QED) remains extraordinarily well-tested and sufficient for all observed phenomena, including wireless tech, lasers, and particle accelerators. The proposed "deleted" waves do not replace or augment it in any accepted engineering or experimental framework." - Grok "

English
3
4
23
1.1K
Dr. Paul Wilhelm | Advanced Rediscovery
Dr. Paul Wilhelm | Advanced Rediscovery@drxwilhelm·
You're raising a real distinction. The N3L violation in Section 4.5 is derived from the Grassmann force law acting on current ELEMENTS, which is the point-particle (Lorentz force) framework. In Maxwell's original treatment, where current is displacement in a continuous dielectric medium, the momentum accounting is different because the medium itself carries stress through the polarization field. Maxwell's original (your screenshot, equations E and F) treats the dielectric as fundamental. The displacement D = kE includes the medium's response. In that picture, forces between current distributions are mediated by the stressed medium, and the medium's stress tensor closes the momentum balance locally. No N3L violation because the medium carries the missing momentum. The Grassmann/Lorentz formulation abstracts away the medium and replaces it with point charges in vacuum. That's where the N3L violation appears for open circuits: no medium to carry the balancing stress. Van Vlaenderen's longitudinal force (the Whittaker force law) effectively restores what the medium provided in Maxwell's original picture, but without requiring a material medium. The scalar field C plays the role of the stress carrier. So you're right that this is partly a "particle picture" artifact. But the fix is the same either way: something beyond E and B must carry the missing momentum. Maxwell used the dielectric. EED uses the scalar field. Both point to the same incompleteness in the Heaviside reduction. Good catch pulling the original text. Paragraph 66 is exactly where this lives.
English
1
1
2
103
ItsBS
ItsBS@Its_BS·
This is where your AI is completely wrong. The emitter must be moving within the moving frame (or AT REST within the moving frame) - whichever perspective you chose - to meet the sync condition. If it is not specifically stay with the origin of the moving frame, then the sync condition will fail. It is simple distance = rate * time math. I seriously don't think you are smart enough to understand this basic high school algebra.
ItsBS tweet media
English
0
0
0
4
ItsBS
ItsBS@Its_BS·
@a017444 Where is this? What did you feed your AI that it thinks I was talking about the Sagnac Effect? I truly don't know it is referring to.
ItsBS tweet media
English
1
0
0
6

Keşfet

@ibab @FutureJurvetson @controscience @alexboge @drxwilhelm @martinmbauer @pickover @elonmusk