Unifying Gravity, Magnetism, Electricity & Dielectricity as ONE THING ONLY

Please watch the video and let me know what you think.

This video is extremely convincing to me; this is how I understand it.

Unifying Gravity, Magnetism, Electricity & Dielectricity as ONE THING ONLY

I think your account has been hacked by a spammer.

@Roy Why do you think that my account has been hach by a spam-mer, because I like this video and I agree with video - I am confused? I want to discuss this video., and this person explain it so well, a lot better then I can. I also agree with this video.

It’s me. I don’t understand this - why you think this when it is me. I’m the one who agrees with @OneGod about Hebrew yadavas. I also agree with this video.

I love that video and shared it more then once (else where), as that’s where I learn about this

I also think earth doesn’t spin and I understand concave earth cell. I don’t know if @OneGod agrees with that, so we might differ there, I also agree with Evolution. Billion of years 'till we got where we’re at now. I still don’t know what gap means though. However I agree to the extreme about video Unifying Gravity, Magnetism, Electricity & Dielectricity as ONE THING ONLY

I agree with Unifying Gravity, Magnetism, Electricity & Dielectricity as ONE THING ONLY before I ever learn from @OneGod about hebrews yadavas. I learned so much from this video and I think this is science and yes I want to discuss this to the extreme.

I’ve seen a few times light radiate from within people flow outward - I learn later this word shechina - which that has help me understand further.

I use to use the word membrane that we go through when leaving earth cell but now I use the word portal because more common word.

it is me this is my account, please show me where you think this please.

I agree with this video.

how do I proove it’s me

I really extremely want to discuss this video so so much

Also I’ll learn new vocabulary too and also see if I can articulate

I also think it helps showing a video that I learned from, as this will help with discussion - instead of only me explain.

@Dan_Eastwood what do you think of this video

Oh from my other computer I got
Try running Windows Network Diagnostics.
when trying to log into forum

This computer I can log in

Later I’ll try my other computer and see if I can log into the forum

I don’t know why I got
Try running Windows Network Diagnostics.

Hopefully I can log into from my other computer

How do I proove that video is what I extremely want to discuss from deep in my heart as this is science and real for me

show me how it is, where… I don’t understand this at all

Where? How? Uh? Or am I not aware of this. Yet it’s me who shared this video and want to extremely discuss this and me see if I can articulate too

Thank you much appreciated from me River Sea

I watched the first two and a half minutes of the video and I couldn’t make head or tail of what on earth the guy is actually talking about. He seems to be just throwing together a bunch of physics-y sounding words and concepts into some kind of word salad, and playing with a springy thing as if it were supposed to illustrate some point or other but what point it’s actually illustrating is about as clear as mud.

After two and a half minutes, I hadn’t heard a single mention of Maxwell’s Equations, or any other equations for that matter. At that point, I gave up.

1 Like

@jammycakes what do you think Gravity is?

So you think Theoria Apophasis was throwing together a bunch of physics-sounding words? So to some scientists, this would appear ridiculous, then, due to tossing physics-sounding words. Why do you think he was doing that, as he was seeking to explain? How could a person explain this video better? What would that read like? I would love to see that.

However, I think I was more intrigued by the visual learning, perhaps. I wouldn’t know how to apply math to what I saw in this video. But I can learn how.

A lot of people, including scientists, can’t explain gravity. Am I understanding this correctly?

This video is very strange to me. I have only a badic knowledge of physics and electromagnetism, but I’m sure he is just making things up.

This also seems very strange. We know the Earth spins from a variety of experiences, and we can even observe the rotation from space

I looked for a video to show you, and I begin to see the trouble. There are a lot of videos out there, and I had trouble finding a basic example for you. This one is OK …

Yes I do. Physics gives us a coherent framework (basically, maths and measurement) within which to understand, discuss and apply the different concepts that it works with, and any arguments that anyone makes about physics need to be made within the context of that framework. I see no evidence whatsoever from the part of the video that I watched that he is even attempting to do this.

He is also trying to address one of the biggest unsolved problems in physics: the unification of gravity with the other fundamental forces of nature (electromagnetism, the weak nuclear force and the strong nuclear force.) I’m sorry, but you’re not going to boldly go where no theoretical physicist has gone before without being able to provide a rock solid mathematical basis for your ideas, and anyone who thinks they can is quite frankly deluding themselves.

This video should explain it:

Quote from 18:49 onwards:

Take a look at some videos by people such as Veritasium, Dr Becky or Sabine Hossenfelder for example. These are professional physicists who are really good at explaining concepts in ways that make sense and are easily understandable. Another good series is Wired’s Five Levels of Difficulty, which take various scientific concepts and explain them to children, teenagers, undergraduates, postgraduate students and then finally subject matter experts.


Unfortunately, the video you posted is just a hairball of nonsense, but if you would love a better exploration of the topics of gravity and magnetism, may I recommend the YouTube channel of PBS Space Time.


Why exactly is this video “extremely convincing” to you?

It’s creator has no expertise in physics:

Hello! My name is Ken, I translate ancient Pali, Greek & I am former Russian translator. I write books & articles on Metaphysics, specifically Neoplatonic, earliest Pythagorean Emanationism, earliest Buddhist & Upanishadic philosophy etc. I extensively review photographic equipment & especially lenses; likewise I’m a part-time product photographer & land speculator.

He merely has a (potentially badly mal-informed) armchair ‘enthusiasm’ for the subject:

I’m a life-long & deeply enthusiastic studier of field theory & specifically magnetism, for which I have written a book on same now in its 3rd edition.


There is a page about him on RationalWiki here:

Two reasons:

  1. Your post resembled many I’ve seen from spammers promoting videos.

  2. I didn’t think you would have failed to see through Ken Wheeler’s bafflegab.

To the sort that understand the purpose of scientific jargon and/or any of the terms Ken so liberally bombards his listeners with, yes.

So would I, frankly.

Well, if it’s any consolation, neither would Ken. And as much as it makes him relatable to fellow lay folk like yourself, it also, alas, makes him considerably incompetent. And this I say by no means to insult others who may not have a grasp of physics or one sufficient to formulate their ideas with mathematical tools, let alone rigor. After all, most of you do not run word salad channels, nor get emotional or condescending with anyone who dares question thereto uploaded content.

As for specifically the posted video’s content, it’s pretty much like anything else from Ken Wheeler. Scientific merits there are none to speak of whatsoever. It’s vacuous technobabble, backed by some vaguely cute visualization tools. I wouldn’t like to vouch for many another physics communication or education channel, because I find myself struggling to enjoy any when taking them seriously, and I appreciate that full lecture series in their place may be deeper than most viewers would care to dive into the topics. Suffice it to say, however, that either option, almost no matter whence you end up consuming, would leave you with a better understanding of the subject than Ken’s garbage.

1 Like

Garbage, for the most part. As on pretty much any other topic. To stumble upon a dependable source like that is more or less a matter of luck.

Considering it mostly occurs to people who have been culturally conditioned to expect it, I’ll say it’s something else. For one, it’s not “after passing away”, since else you and I would not know of any witnesses for it.

I’m not sure what you are asking. What does “error” mean here? It’s easy enough to come up with a situation where our monke brains would intuitively expect an outcome different from the one that occurs. But is the error then on nature’s part or on ours? I would suggest that we can err in our expectations, or even in our fundamental understanding of how things work, but it’s not like there is some grand book of Da Rulez nature is supposed to obey but gets sloppy or naughty every now and again… Or, at any rate, we would struggle to erect a functional, predictive model of nature, if we permitted such whimsy, rather than assuming any error must be in said model we made up.

1 Like

It’s correct, but you’re right at the start. This is covered in year 6 of the UK national maths curriculum, when algebra is introduced for the first time at age 10.

I’d put the maths as the girl being outnumbered at least 20:1 by older men, who shout at her until she cries and gives in. It isn’t any “power of god”, it’s just bullying.

P.S. That algebra tutorial is unhelpful, because it doesn’t explain why you can’t sensibly add 2a+3b.


Yes, I want to know why we can’t sensibly add 2a+3b. Can you help me know why?

I’m extremely new to algebra, and I’m learning


Let a represent a barrel of herrings, and let b represent the number of carriages that can be pulled by a steam train.

Then 2a is two barrels of herrings, and 2a+3a is two barrels of herrings plus three more barrels of herrings, or five barrels of herrings in total. 2a+3a=5a
This makes sense.

Similarly, 2b is two times as many carriages as the steam train can pull, and 2b+3b is three times as many carriages again - enough carriages that you’d need five steam trains to pull them. 2b+3b=5b
This also makes sense.

What about 2a+3b? What do you get when you add two barrels of herrings to three sets of train carriages? You don’t get five of either item, or of both; and you can’t convert a train carriage to so many barrels of herrings, or a barrel of herrings to some fraction of a train carriage.
So this doesn’t make sense. 2a+3b is and will remain 2a+3b; 2a and 3b can’t be combined into a single term.


Gravity I wanted to observe gravity

I only saw one video from his channel. The rest about Ken I learn from this thread

You stated:

Which is why I asked:

A question you never replied to.

We all observe gravity whenever we drop something.

If you want to learn about gravity, you would be better to read the Wikipedia article on gravity than watching a Youtube video by some random crank.

Likewise, if you want to learn about “Mizraim”, the Hebrew word for Egypt, you would be better going to the Wikipedia article on the subject, which would tell you:

Mizraim is the Hebrew cognate of a common Semitic source word for the land now known as Egypt. It is similar to Miṣr in modern Arabic, Misri in the 14th century B.C. Akkadian Amarna tablets,[2] Mṣrm in Ugaritic, [3] Mizraim in Neo-Babylonian texts,[4] and Mu-ṣur in neo-Assyrian Akkadian (as seen on the Rassam cylinder).[5] To this root is appended the dual suffix -āyim, perhaps referring to the “two Egypts”: Upper Egypt and Lower Egypt.[6] This word is similar in pronunciation and spelling to the Hebrew words matsór and meitsár, meaning literally “siege” and “strait, distress” respectively, and may carry those connotations to Hebrew speakers.[7] Some scholars[by whom?] think it likely that Mizraim is a dual form of the word Misr meaning “land” and was translated literally into Ancient Egyptian as Ta-Wy (the Two Lands) by early pharaohs at Thebes, who later founded the Middle Kingdom.

Rather than going to a crank who has no expertise in history or linguistics, who would tell you, without substantiation, that:

The exodus took place from MATHURA aka M.T.R from india 1446 bce and that name entered west Asian vocabulary. It may be transposed on Egypt 1446 bce. No M.T.R in West asia before that. The choice is between the name dropping from the sky in West asia vs being rooted in india.[1]

And you could also look at the Wikipedia article on Mathura, which would tell you:

The earliest period belonged to the Painted Grey Ware culture (1100–500 BCE) …

… well after “1446 bce”.

So I would request that you be more careful in future as to what sources you put your trust in.

1 Like

I’m asking the world to teach me how to have a discussion and how to communicate

What about (PNC theory) is that science? I’m so new to this.

@swamidass Is this science learning, when I watch this video

I ask what is science?

I ask you @swamidass what is science what are your thoughts about this video?

Please @swamidass show me how to have a discussion about video and please explain how I fail at this discussion, due to it turn into blaming me, how come? So now my question is what is science? Is this video science or not?

No. It’s a video. A video from a guy who is more or less entirely clueless about the subject. A video from a guy who is more or less entirely clueless about the subject, which you posted twice already, and gathered our collective opinions on. The fact that you copy&paste it all over the internet an uncharitable reader might interpret as you not really giving much of a crap for what anybody says (since over there they say what we say here also), but rather only for wasting the time of people qualified to spend it in many, many much better ways.

Science is any structured study of nature whereby data collected in the past is modeled and contextualized in such a way as to enable the logical derivation of cheap and accurate predictions of future observations.