Métanoïa

@adnm_live Palentir? Ou PalAntir? fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palantir_…

Vendredi à 20h00 sur adnm.live Technocratie, et les secrets de certains nombres - live du 13/03/2026 Cette fois, en plus de l'actualité, on va parler d'une entité assez particulière, qui pourrait s'avérer très dangereuse pour les démocraties. Il s'agit de Palentir, une entreprise privée qui ne devrait simplement pas exister ! On parle souvent du "Grand Réveil", mais qu'en est-il du "Grand Sommeil" qui le précède ? Venez nombreux et partagez 🙏 Soutenez-nous sur Y-Files : y-files.fr/soutien/ Évitez la censure en regardant le live depuis notre site : adnm.live Liens alternatifs : YouTube : youtube.com/channel/UCsZx... Twitter : x.com/adnm_live Crowdbunker : @aDNM" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">crowdbunker.com/@aDNM Odysee - @deqodeurs:8/adnmlive:f" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">odysee.com/@deqodeurs:8/a… VK - vk.com/adnm_live Telegram - t.me/adnm_live Newsletter : adnm.live/newsletter/

@FrantzArnaldy @adnm_live Le livre d'Enoch n'a jamais, à ma connaissance, été "interdit". Il a d'ailleurs toujours fait partie de la Bible en Ethiopie... Les Chrétiens des premiers siècles se sont prononcés, par habitude, pour certains livres plutôt que d'autres. Le Canon est né de ce plébiscite...

@adnm_live * pardon : récit d enoch sur l enfer....

Vu les commentaires sous le post cité ci-dessous, le live de vendredi risque d'être "piquant" pour certains. N'oublions pas que ceux qui nous ont frotté "l'apocalypse" au visage depuis des siecles, l'utilisaient pour faire peur, et pour demander la soumission des peuples à leurs institutions. Il y a un enseignement très précieux aux actes et paroles du Christ face aux pharisiens, zélotes, et tous ceux qui utilisaient le nom de l'Éternel pour leurs agendas personnelles...

@GiovanniSagredo @Its_BS @PhysInHistory Perhaps my simulation model is wrong! All I know is that the results I'm getting are consistent with what physics predicts. But my model really is so simple. It's just a neural network where each node is defined by 7 angles and 3 scalars. And each link is 4 angles + 1 scalar...

@metanoia7217 @Its_BS @PhysInHistory Then either you used the Minkowski metric and didn't know that's what you're doing, or your simulation is just wrong.

Photons Are Massless: Photons, the fundamental particles of light, have no mass but still carry energy and momentum, as shown in Einstein’s equation E = hf.

@GiovanniSagredo @Its_BS @PhysInHistory I basically built a simulation model around relativity (SR and GR). For instance, in my simulation model, time dilation automatically causes length (distances) contraction: those are the two sides of the very same coin. Time Dilation = smaller angle difference = smaller dist.

@GiovanniSagredo @Its_BS @PhysInHistory The spacetime interval formula uses c*t to ensure dimensional consistency. Physicists are used to convert time into units of distance. I just did the opposite: I converted distances into units of time. And I measure time as an angle value. For a simulation, this helps a lot!

@GiovanniSagredo @Its_BS @PhysInHistory Fortunately, it does 😊 Along with SR, GR, QM... It checks all the currently known physics (not necessarily the interpretations we've made from our observations). It's basically an enhanced version of Wolfram's hypergraphs... Anyway, thanks for reminding me how dumb I am 😄

@metanoia7217 @Its_BS @PhysInHistory Your mistake will be if your model doesn’t preserve the form of Maxwell’s Equations

@GiovanniSagredo @Its_BS @PhysInHistory To be perfectly honest, the simulation model I am working on doesn't rely on Minkowski's space/metric. But as a "dumbass" A.I. & network engineer, I must be wrong. Obviously! Hopefully, some smart/enlightened physicists like you will help me see all my mistakes, eventually...

@metanoia7217 @Its_BS @PhysInHistory Except in relativity this doesn't really work because of the negative sign in the Minkowski metric. We use a hyperbolic angle representation that uses sinh and cosh instead of sin and cos Again this is already part of sophomore relativity textbooks like Taylor and Wheeler

@GiovanniSagredo @Its_BS @PhysInHistory Correct! Alpha isn't an actual geometrical angle. Yet it helps a lot... Many things starts to make sense when you simply use angles as physical units along with spherical coordinates instead of cartesian. I think we made a big mistake by denying the physicality of angles/cycles

@metanoia7217 @Its_BS @PhysInHistory I might see where you're going, but that alpha isn't an actual geometrical angle just because it's inside of a sine function.

@GiovanniSagredo @Its_BS @PhysInHistory Although I never objected to that, I think you should "associate" speed to an angle... Let's name that angle "alpha". Sin (alpha) = speed (v/c) Cos (alpha) = 1/gamma (A.K.A. the Lorentz factor). Do you start to get where I'm going?

@metanoia7217 @Its_BS @PhysInHistory No, my objection was "you can not measure speed with angles", which you can't. Using "c=1" units doesn't make anything an angle, in any of the many versions of that practice. You will find the word "angle" nowhere in the article on natural units.

@GiovanniSagredo @Its_BS @PhysInHistory Why not? What are the advantages of assigning a dimension to angles? Mostly, the additional dimensionality carries a lot more information. Consider frequency 𝑓 and angular velocity 𝜔. In the SI system both have the same dimension, namely 1/time. Don't you see the issue?

@metanoia7217 @Its_BS @PhysInHistory We SHOULDN'T keep rad/cycles along with meters and seconds, which is why we DON'T... except for one dude who wrote a paper you dug up out of the bowels of NIST before it changed it's name.

@GiovanniSagredo @Its_BS @PhysInHistory Indeed! But your objection was: "if you define distance and time as angles, what is the unit of speed". I gave you the answer: speed is nothing but a dimensionless fraction of c! AKA speed's "natural unit". If you knew this, why did you object my argument?

@metanoia7217 @Its_BS @PhysInHistory I learned about natural units as a sophomore 30 or so years ago, and they have nothing to do with "expressing time as an angle", goofball.

@GiovanniSagredo @Its_BS @PhysInHistory OK! But why should we keep rad/cycles along with meters and seconds if we can express m and s as CYCLES??? Again, the current definition of 1 second, using the CAESIUM standard, dates back from 1967. That is 5 years after the publishing date of the aforementioned article...

@metanoia7217 @Its_BS @PhysInHistory (Also, it is very clear from the title of said paper that he is not saying that speeds or distances can be measured using only angles... simply that one might consider angle to be a fundamental unit ALONGSiDE m & s)

@GiovanniSagredo @Its_BS @PhysInHistory "Physicists ALREADY express *SPEED* as a fraction of c. They are called natural units." Thank you! Sounds like you've learned something today after all... Do you and I agree about the fact using radians and cycles as actual (primary?) physical units makes sense after all?

@metanoia7217 @Its_BS @PhysInHistory Sorry — typed too quickly. Physicists ALREADY express *SPEED* as a fraction of c. They are called natural units. A paper published by NIST/NBS probably wasn't written by a dumbass. Just a pedant who latched onto a notational idea that was of little interest to anyone else

@GiovanniSagredo @Its_BS @PhysInHistory I never claimed we should express "time as a fraction of c". How exactly could "time" be a fraction of a speed? My point was that ANGLES shouldn't be considered "dimensionless". Did you read this paper? Do you think it was written by a "dumbass"? nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/jres/…

@metanoia7217 @Its_BS @PhysInHistory Physicists ALREADY express time as a fraction of c, dumbass. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_u…

@GiovanniSagredo @Its_BS @PhysInHistory I certainly am as "retarded" as the author of this paper, published in the "JOURNAL OF RESEARCH of the National Bureau of Standards-B. Mathematics and Mathematical Physics" We both share the same concerns and the same conclusions... nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/jres/…

@metanoia7217 @Its_BS @PhysInHistory @Its_BS is an absolute fucking retard who couldn't get a D- on the exams I give to 19 year olds for all the money in the world. I haven't figured out just how retarded your flavor of contrarianism is just yet 🤣

@GiovanniSagredo @Its_BS @PhysInHistory I never said you can! You measure distance and time as angles. Therefore speed becomes "dimensionless"! Where is the issue with that? Speed can (and should) be expressed as a fraction of "c". Now, wouldn't it be convenient to calculate the Lorentz factor?

@metanoia7217 @Its_BS @PhysInHistory No it doesn't. You can not measure speed with angles, goofball.

@GiovanniSagredo @Its_BS @PhysInHistory As per my engineering degree, I am more familiar with E&M, thermodynamics, optics, etc. Yet I feel comfortable with the (basics) of QM and relativity... So long you don't ask me to teach these ;)

@metanoia7217 @Its_BS @PhysInHistory Good job. But still a "no" on...?

@GiovanniSagredo @Its_BS @PhysInHistory math.stackexchange.com/questions/8039…

@metanoia7217 @Its_BS @PhysInHistory (I'll take that as a "no" 🤣🤣🤣🤣)

@GiovanniSagredo @Its_BS @PhysInHistory Good question! If we switch to "angles as a measure", speed becomes a "dimensionless" portion of "c" -- the speed of light. We could perfectly normalize "c" to the value "1" and express any speed as a fraction of "c", now can't we? You'd be surprised how this simplifies physics

@metanoia7217 @Its_BS @PhysInHistory What is "speed"?

@GiovanniSagredo @Its_BS @PhysInHistory @GiovanniSagredo My turn to recommend you to LEARN a little bit more! Because in your constant urge to insult everyone, you clearly overlook @Its_BS and my points. FYI, mathematicians and physicists over the world share the very same concern as I do... math.stackexchange.com/questions/8039…

@metanoia7217 @Its_BS @PhysInHistory "why meter is not dimensionless?" Because space is LITERALLY A DIMENSION, goofball "I have good reasons to believe we are WRONG!" Do you pass the test below?