/sci/ - Science & Math

Can future scientific trends be predicted by studying patterns in the scientific past?

It is a statement that purports to relate all matter to energy. In fact, no theory has successfully unified the laws governing mass (i.e., gravity) with the laws governing light (i.e., electromagnetism), and numerous attempts to derive E=mc2 from first principles have failed.[3] Political pressure, however, has since made it impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in science to even question the validity of this nonsensical equation. Simply put, E=mc2 is liberal claptrap.

The formula asserts that the mass of an object, at constant energy, magically varies precisely in inverse proportion to the square of a change in the speed of light over time,[4] which violates conservation of mass and disagrees with commonsense.[5]

Physicists have never been able to unify light with matter[6] despite more than a billion-dollars-worth of attempts, and it is likely impossible to ever do so.[7] Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge predicts that there is no unified theory of light and matter because they were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the Book of Genesis.

Mass is a measure of an object's inertia, in other words its resistance to acceleration. In contrast, the intrinsic energy of an object (such as an atom) is a function of electrostatic charge and other non-inertial forces, having nothing to do with gravity. Declaring the object's energy to be a function of inertia rather than electrostatics is an absurd and impossible attempt to unify the forces of nature, contrary to the accepted view (as predicted by Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge) that the forces of nature have not been unified. Liberal scientists assert the formula E=mc2 is not limited to nuclear reactions; it applies to chemical reactions and even to the energy stored in a compressed spring.[8]

>>14631787
>people who disagree with climate change peddlers are bottom of the barrel idiots
that's only because climate alarmists keep moving the goalposts. now if you inject any doubt, remind them of any history, or criticize any faulty plots, you're de facto low iq moron. it's a shutdown tactic, not an argument. it's more a reflection of the climate alarmists than the climate "deniers". i consider myself a climate realist, not a denier. i show the alarmists how pathetically wrong they are (and how they've been consistently wrong in the past)

scientifically speaking, what are the odds climate activists are this wrong for this long?