Watch Out The Curve

I wanted to start a new category, Apocalypse (a.k.a. Gamma Ray Burst = GRB), in TOEBI blog. After all, the apocalypse is pretty much the outcome from our current scientific path. No matter what, and I mean even without my humble contribution, mainstream physics will finally, say in few years or decades, find the truth about "antimatter". Yeah, that's right, the truth what I have preached about for a couple of years now.

But why blame science or specifically physics about it? It's up to us how we use scientific discoveries, right? Sure, to some point that's true. The problem is that the development in sciences in getting faster and faster. Good example is written down by Tim Urban in Wait But Why, in where artificial intelligence is seen as the player in the end game. Same applies in physics... the next big thing in physics (curve) is the discovery of the true nature of "antimatter" and it's going to be a true black swan.

After we have discovered the true nature of "antimatter" we can't undo it. We have to live with it, from the point of discovery to our GRB event. We don't have almost any chances escaping the event. How come? With the help of antimatter based technology we could design and build a new type of space vehicles which carries us away from the future GRB! Unfortunately getting far enough in order to be at safe from the event takes just too much time. As we can see, GRB is pretty effective mechanism for the great filter.

Surely there must be some way for avoiding the event? You tell me.

Update: Actually I came up with one possibility. We might manage to reach the nearest solar system in time and hide there behind some planet so that the possible GRB won't cause any harm on people on board.

11 thoughts on “Watch Out The Curve

  1. Ok, I'll try to comment seriously:

    After we have discovered the true nature of "antimatter" we can't undo it.

    So, you're so certain that TOEBI's valid for antimatter?

  2. So, you're so certain that TOEBI's valid for antimatter?

    That's right, regardless my difficulties with magnetic fields or three electron interactions.

    Actually, I do have now a collaboration with a person working at CERN who goes through my papers in order to find a way for a new antimatter experiment (most likely with solid hydrogen I would ques).

  3. How exactly are you blaming scientists for not believing in a theory which can't make any reliable prediction?

  4. But you are wrong with the claim that TOEBI can't make any reliable predictions.

    Nope, I'm not. TOEBI can explain sometimes repulsion by 2 electrons. This, and only this. Not all the time. Add anything else to the system and it's a failure.

    No blaming at the moment.

    Please reread your text. You're clearly blaming those irresponsible scientists who should consider how fast science is moving now and how they should listen to what you preach.

    Actually, preaching is the good word. You need faith to believe in TOEBI, since no fact whatsoever confirm it.

  5. TOEBI can explain sometimes repulsion by 2 electrons. This, and only this.

    You surely can calculate the force between two magnetic poles with TL2.

    I'm not blaming scientists, things, in this case scientific discoveries, just happen. That's just how it is.

  6. You surely can calculate the force between two magnetic poles with TL2.

    Nope, you can't. How could a law that's not able to manage 2 electrons in most cases and that's never able to manage n electrons where n>3 could calculate anything relevant?

    I'm not blaming scientists, things, in this case scientific discoveries, just happen. That's just how it is.

    Well, then you might want to rewrite your post. It clearly feels like those idiots ought to listen to the preacher.

  7. How could a law that's not able to manage 2 electrons in most cases and that's never able to manage n electrons where n>3 could calculate anything relevant?

    Because those unpaired electrons in magnets have their spinning vectors fixed.

  8. Because those unpaired electrons in magnets have their spinning vectors fixed.

    In the case of 3 electrons or more, spinning vector change is not the problem. There's not a single case where you can obtain observed electron behavior.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *