I do not know if it is funny or sad: the dark force struck again. As should be obvious from all of my recent posts, I do my utmost to refer very objectively to what’s in Feynman’s Lectures, and what makes sense in them, and what does not. I started this blog more than ten years – before Feynman’s Lectures went online – and one of my brothers (a university professor in Cape Town) also thought my blog is actually an encouragement for readers to buy Feynman’s Lectures. But… Well… No. One is, apparently, not allowed to disagree with Bill Gates’ or MIT’s view of Feynman’s legacy: he was right, and everyone else is wrong. So… A video of mine on that got ‘struck’ and was taken offline. 
Hmmm… The experience reminds of my efforts to try to engage with the Wikipedia authors and editors, which yielded no result whatsoever. I am not mainstream, obviously, and any edits I suggest are ruled out in advance. […] I am simplifying a bit, but that was, basically, my experience when trying to help rework the Wikipedia article on the Zitterbewegung interpretation of quantum physics. Funnily enough, I get all these advertisements begging me to donate to Wikipedia: I would actually do that if the process of trying to add or edit would have been somewhat friendlier.
In any case, it made me post my very last video on YouTube. The pdf-file I used to prepare for it, is on ResearchGate, which I warmly recommend as – probably – the only open science forum where you can publish working papers or presentations without any backlash. I can only hope it will stay that way. With all what is going on (I am appalled by the misinformation on the Ukraine war, for example), nothing is sure, it seems…
Post scriptum (2 May 2024): Because I had put a fair amount of work and preparation in it, I edited out Feynman’s Lectures and published it again. I hope it does not make Mr. Gottlieb angry again. 🙂 If it would, then… Well… Then I hope he finds peace of mind some other day.
19 May 2024: To be frank, things like this do shock me. Fortunately, this weekend is party time in Brussels (it is the ‘Pride’ weekend, and the atmosphere is very festive in the center here, where I live). It encouraged me to do some more videos. Different ones. Fun ones: just taking my Wacom tablet and jotting down stuff and talking about it without any preparation and with some nice Belgian beer on the side. Surprisingly, they got hundreds of views. See, for example, this talk about why I do not believe in a strong force or color charges, or this talk on the one-photon Mach-Zehnder experiment which figures so prominently in the MIT-edX course on QM. Also, I do not know if it is coincidence, but I got a surge in recommendations on my Principles of Physics paper on ResearchGate. I wrote that paper as a kind of manifesto. Not as some kind of “here you go: this is the explanation” thing. So I am happy that paper is going well: keep thinking for yourself. 🙂
Reading Feynman 
Dear Jean Louis,
thank you for letting us know (censorship – nothing else it is), while we all have been seen one or more of such systemic behavior which e.g. should especially not happen on a “Encyclopedia” style high volume “open” website.
Anyway, as you mention Bill Gates in the same sentence its possibly somewhat unfair (or not, if I am wrong on long term intentions) as Bill has made a substantial investment on an early clever request of the RG founder (actually a Dr. med. from Berlin pissed off by the constant rejection of some of his medical research papers), or RG would never scale like it did in the last decade.
If Bill is now friendly or not and rather the evil enemy… we see. Let me take the chance to communicate with you (I miss a bit the discussions with you we had on your mostly EM based articles) to tell you I have mastered with iSpace theory, able to derive most but all constants of nature from simple integer geometric first principles to have a PROOF style very short calculation (40-60 lines netto) in exact, precise most error free symbolic Mathematica language for the UNAVOIDABLE existence of a quantum of time to be numerically and greometric just 1/6961 iSpaceSecond in iSpace-IQ unit system, tne first ever to do away with ANY human artefacts whatsoever.
If you have the time (and you really should be interested if you take physics still serious which I can see you do) please have a deep full peer-review style line by line look onto the following preprint (and ignore the stupid title and even more stupid summary section, the quantum of time is prooven by deriving e, h and electron mass me in both eV and Kg in unit systems iSpace-IQ, then multiplying the human artefact factor for SI time into all equations to the POWER OF SECONDS used in the iSpace equation (using only Volt, Ampere, Second and Meter as base units as usual, which showed up to form the TRUE QUANTA of everything in the universe, small and big):
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361800687_iSpace_-_Quantization_of_Time_in_iSpace-IQ_Unit-System_by_16961_iSpace-Second
This identification of iSpace base quanta like GoldenRatio iSpaceAmpere, 1/6961 iSpaceSecond, GoldenRatio iSpaceMeter and 2Pi31 iSpaceVolt is much bigger than me can handle (by now) and I could need all support I can possible get to make this info (basically in my 5 main presented papers on my RG home) much more far spread also outside of RG in possibly discussion groups you are or have been, and social media like linkedin and Xing groups on physics, maybe.
Any referer to my work will for I will be deeply indepted. Or you think all I did is just integer mathematical bullshit … but I know you too well to think that, once you really have read an deep dived on it (I did already convince a hoard-load of skeptics on RG but 100+ is not enough.
Thanks and kind regards, and please stay well!
Christian
>
Thanks so much, Christian. I am not sure I can commit. My day job is swallowing me up. You know I like your work. Deep down, it all is pure geometry. But pure mathematical relations do not do the trick… Hestenes’ spacetime algebra (STA) is a step forward, but I feel Hamilton’s quaternion math is the only real thing when you think of rotations within rotations in 2D or 3D space (as for 3D, my proton/neutrino model must be right but I did not manage to come up with a clear analytical model: toroidal stuff not OK for me – sets me apart, sadly, from those who inspired me to go my own way: Meulenberg, Vassallo, Consa, Burinskii, etc.). It is hard. I admire you, but it is an uphill battle. This small thing shows it again: Gates or MIT do not truly embrace truth. So… Well… I give up. We first need to take care of our own mental health, don’t we?
Given the context of your experiences with censorship and the challenges of contributing to mainstream scientific discourse, do you think alternative platforms like ResearchGate can foster a more open and collaborative scientific community, or are they also vulnerable to similar pressures over time?
Hi Maria – I do think fora like ResearchGate can contribute significantly and they do have a very different business model than universities or research institutes. I see advertisements for research staff and research equipment, so that shows they are all about value and quality rather than getting A or B journal writers to their site. I am quite happy with the way I progressed from publishing on a very alternative open research site (viXra.org) to the RG forum. I also tried academia.edu but I think that forum is really about ego and pushing publications through a paid membership, so I do not like that. [At the same time, I never paid for academia.edu membership and my publications are going quite well there (top 1%) so you can see that forum is, probably, also not bad in pushing good independent thinking out there.] As for the core of academic physics, I’ve had it: I really considered to take formal courses and contribute seriously by pointing out some obvious logical mistakes in the mainstream approach to quantum physics, but that is a no-no. You end up criticizing serious institutes like MIT or the Nobel Prize Committee or CERN (because of the way they present results no one can verify), and that’s something that quickly catches up with you – if only because it undermines self-confidence and you end up nuts. If I would not have had my website or the great pick-up in reads on ResearchGate, I would have given up long time ago. In short: yes, I think Internet has done away with mental/moral/societal barriers to opening up the mainstream scientific discourse to a much larger audience. And that is good. For me, it has been satisfactory to get responses like: “That’s a great idea. I don’t agree with the way you see things, but there is value in it.” Such responses come from PhD students and post-doc people, so that is my biggest satisfaction: they can now see their own private thoughts on the topic may not be all that outrageous. 🙂