Viu Mobile

@QuantumTumbler Yes, I do It's admissibility physics. Based on 5 axioms. Here is the entire theory, where no classical errors have been adopted. It is rigid, you can't tweak it. If it works it works it works, if it fails it fails. So far it has been accurate. zenodo.org/records/185296…

If a method can move mass through space, it has to show up in measurable energy, momentum, and forces. That’s not “classical vs non-classical” that’s just physics. So either → it produces testable effects we can measure → or it’s not a propulsion method yet If you’ve got something beyond the known approaches, what’s the mechanism and what does it predict? Because anything that actually scales won’t stay hidden it’ll show up in data.

Everyone talks about “faster travel.” Almost no one talks about how you actually push something through space. Right now we’ve got a few fundamentally different approaches. Chemical → high thrust, low efficiency Ion/electric → low thrust, high efficiency Nuclear thermal → strong middle ground Nuclear pulse (Orion-style) → extreme thrust, insane engineering problems Solar sails → no fuel, but very slow acceleration And then the speculative layer. Warp metrics Alcubierre-type spacetime engineering Field propulsion concepts Most people jump straight to the last category. But the real question is simpler. What actually scales? If you had to bet on one propulsion method getting humans meaningfully farther into space in the next 50–100 years… What are you choosing and why?

@CharlesMullins2 What you’re seeing isn’t an electron choosing paths or becoming real when observed. It’s a system shaped by constraints, once interaction happens, only one consistent outcome can remain visible.

🚨 An electron isn’t in one place. It’s not even moving the way we imagine. In the double slit experiment… it behaves like it goes through both paths at once. Until you look. Then it becomes “real.” But here’s the twist: Maybe it was never a particle traveling through space… Maybe it’s a pattern resolving in time. What you see isn’t motion it’s the final stable state. Reality doesn’t unfold. It locks in. Follow if you want to understand what you’re actually looking at.

@ZPEdisclosure Infinities are never found in Nature, just in the incorrect equations used by classical physics.

When physicists encounter infinity in their equations, they subtract it and call the technique "renormalization." What they're subtracting is the zero-point energy. They don't remove it because it's wrong. They remove it because if they leave it in, the energy density of empty space becomes infinite. They found the biggest energy source in existence and erased it with math.

@amazing_physics Gravity is an eigenmode of a 3D geometric reality. Of course this is something current physics is clueless about

So gravity isn't a force, it's a distortion of space and time. For something to distort it must have a structure, so space and time must have a structure. A structure must be made out of something; be it matter, energy or a fundamental force. So my question is what is this 'space time structure' made out of?

@sciencewtg String theory can't predict anything. It's outstanding and elegant math, though it's just fiction in the end.

String Theorists Try To Prove That String Theory is “The Only Game in Town,” Again A group of string theorists have set out to prove that string theory is the inevitable theory of everything. For this, they started with a particular version of quantum field theory, which is the type of theory we use for the standard model of particle physics. Then they proved that simple particle interactions known as scattering correspond to those found in string theory. Unfortunately, for this to work, one needs maximal supersymmetry, which we do not have in the real world. This line of research resembles a paper from last year which I talked about previously, an attempt to prove string theory from first principles. The problem with these proofs is that they all start from the assumption that a unification of the four known interactions is indeed a ‘final’ theory, i.e. is valid up to infinitely large energies – unfortunately for them, there’s zero reason to believe this. I am generally in favour of such studies because I have not given up hope that physicists will finally realize that physics isn’t maths and no proof is better than its assumptions.

@thecurioustales Standard physics: antimatter reactions depend only on current conditions: particle type, energy, fields. Preparation history doesn’t matter. Same setup → same results. Any difference means new physics.

@thecurioustales This is not standard physics, it's UGM. Mass=memory+history zenodo.org/records/191516…

🚨 The equation that describes antimatter contains a mathematical constant so precise that changing it by 0.00000000000000001% would make existence impossible. Most people think antimatter is science fiction. Spaceships and laser weapons. The reality is stranger and more unsettling. Antimatter particles are identical twins of regular matter with one property flipped: opposite electric charge. When they touch, both particles annihilate completely, converting their entire mass into pure energy at the exact rate Einstein predicted. No waste. Perfect conversion. The mathematics governing this process aren’t approximate. They’re exact to degrees that make physicists uncomfortable. Take the fine structure constant. This dimensionless number, roughly 1/137, determines how electromagnetic forces interact with matter and antimatter. It governs how electrons orbit atomic nuclei, how photons scatter off particles, how antimatter annihilates with matter. Change this constant by a fraction of a percent and atoms cannot form stable bonds. Stars cannot ignite. Chemistry becomes impossible. The Harvard physicist making this claim isn’t pointing to the constant itself. Every physicist knows the fine structure constant appears mysteriously calibrated. What’s capturing attention is the deeper mathematical architecture beneath antimatter physics. Quantum field theory describes antimatter as “negative energy solutions” to the Dirac equation. When Paul Dirac first derived this equation in 1928, the mathematics demanded that every particle have an opposite particle. The math insisted these opposites exist before anyone had seen one. The first positron wasn’t detected until 1932, four years after the equation predicted it must be there. The precision goes beyond prediction. The mathematical relationship between matter and antimatter is perfectly symmetric except for one tiny violation: CP symmetry breaking. This violation is so small it barely registers in experiments, yet it explains why the universe contains matter instead of equal amounts of matter and antimatter that would have annihilated everything into pure radiation. The violation occurs at a rate of roughly one part in ten billion. If this number were larger, matter and antimatter would separate too quickly for complex structures to form. If smaller, they would annihilate too completely, leaving only photons. The ratio sits in the narrow band that permits galaxies, stars, planets, chemistry, and biology. Some physicists argue this precision indicates fine tuning by conscious design. Others propose multiverse theories where infinite universes exist with every possible constant value, and we observe the rare universe where the constants allow observers to exist. Both explanations require enormous leaps of faith. The design hypothesis assumes an intelligence capable of calculating the exact mathematical relationships needed for conscious beings to emerge billions of years later. The multiverse hypothesis assumes infinite unseen universes exist to make our unlikely universe statistically inevitable. Neither can be tested. Neither makes additional predictions. Both attempt to explain the same unsettling fact: the universe appears mathematically calibrated for complexity and consciousness to emerge. What makes the antimatter case particularly striking is the relationship between the mathematics and the outcome. The equations aren’t just describing what happens. They’re specifying the exact conditions under which anything can happen at all. The fine structure constant, CP violation, and antimatter physics collectively define the boundary between existence and non existence. So, the Harvard scientist isn’t claiming to prove God exists. The claim is that the mathematical precision required for antimatter physics to permit stable matter suggests intentional calibration rather than cosmic accident. The math is too exact, the consequences too specific, the outcome too precisely balanced for conscious observers to emerge. This perspective treats the universe as an equation written to produce consciousness. Every constant is a parameter adjusted to solve for beings capable of contemplating the equation itself. Whether that equation was written by random chance across infinite trials, by fundamental mathematical necessity, or by conscious intent remains the deepest question in physics. The antimatter in your body annihilates roughly 5000 particles per second as cosmic rays strike your cells. Each annihilation converts matter to energy at the exact rate the equation predicts. Every second, your existence depends on mathematics so precise that its origin remains profoundly mysterious. The universe might be a calculation designed to calculate itself.

@NassimHaramein Nassim, you should read the following. I'm sure you'll like some parts of it. zenodo.org/records/191516…

Space isn't empty. It's the most energy-dense thing in the universe. If you compressed every star and galaxy into 1 cm³ — the vacuum of space is still more energetic. Modern physics found this… and then moved on without explaining it. What if everything we see emerged from what we thought was nothing? Follow us for more.

@mathelirium That's been public since Jan 2026, though the theory was developed last year. Axiom 4 zenodo.org/records/185296…

Spacetime That Remembers A localized shear front moves across a flexible Spacetime fabric, briefly twisting and slipping the weave as it passes. But the fabric does not fully return to where it was.

All I can say is wow. You've seen a lot of these type plots for individual cities. But this is different. It's the whole Southwest US and the anomaly is FARRRRR out of the ballpark. I truly can not recall an anomaly so large in my career. Look closely at the 2026 peak (red) and all the other peaks (black lines) above the mean. The next closest peak heat event looks to be less than 1/2 the size of this one. It makes sense that the departure would be even further outside the normal window than for an individual city because it encompasses a much larger area ALL with extremely deviant heat. If you look closely you will see the peak of the heatwave is ~equal to the typical summer peak temperatures.

Breaking News! Code UFB! Global sea surface temperatures continue breaking daily records, with Mar. 23 having a preliminary SST of 21.141°C, ahead of the previous daily record of 21.118°C set in 2024. This graph shows how fast SSTs are rising compared to pre-2023 temperatures.

@LensScientific The intelligence gap principle. Civilizations finish once they develop AI, because it short circuits intelligence. Life becomes easy, and brittle, over generations they go quiet because intelligence dies.

What’s your take on the Fermi Paradox?

@DeepSpaceShots Really great work. I just wish @zwoastro would allow us to upgrade the camera so we can obtain photos like this one (Asi2600duo + 3" apo), than it can compete with Vespera offering.

M101 The Pinwheel Galaxy Shot with a SeeStar s50 274x30s Processed in Siril, AstroSharp, and Lightroom

@skdh A deeper deterministic layer can explain quantum statistics without making distant outcomes locally writable, so incompleteness does not imply faster-than-light signaling. x.com/viumobile/stat…

@skdh Regardless of FTL, alien communication still depends on stable, decodable structure, not just speed. We should search for repeated grammar, reset markers, and cross-site recovery.

In today's video I explain what faster than light signalling has to do with quantum physics youtube.com/watch?v=B7Pc0L…

@sciencewtg @skdh This does not modify gravity. It tests a simpler question: Do dynamics depend only on configuration, or also on accumulated structure and history? zenodo.org/records/191516…⁠�

@sciencewtg @skdh Observable dynamics are usually modeled from instantaneous mass. Evidence suggests dependence on kinematic history and structure. RAR forms a bounded manifold in kinematic space. zenodo.org/records/190243…⁠�

Why should you stop believing that the speed of light is an impossible to overcome limit? This could be the biggest mistake that our species is making. And it’s all due to physicists’ misunderstanding quantum mechanics. @skdh has a look. youtu.be/B7Pc0LQHu38