/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10247714
Electric universe must be false if no aether exists. The Michaelson Morley experiment disproves the aether by showing that the speed of light is the same regardless of how you move through the aether. Therefore the aether model is inconsistent causing the logical foundation electric universe to collapse as well. Do you know of a way around this gap?

National security is why. Real physics is classified. Unclassified physics is a smokescreen. That’s why no apparent progress has been made for the last several decades... it’s deliberately wrong.

>>10247729
Not at all. What I do know is that the side you supposedly discredited keeps predicting events correctly. All while established theory fail to do so continuously.

>>10247729
>The Michaelson Morley experiment disproves the aether by showing that the speed of light is the same regardless of how you move through the aether.
False. The earth isn't moving.

>>10247729
what is dark fluid

>Electric universe describes gravity as a dipole force.
Dipole forces have a distance dependence of 1/r^3 whereas monopole forces have 1/r^2.
A 1/r^3 dependence of gravity will fail utterly at describing the solar system. this includes prediction that orbits would not be eliptical, which had been observed well before even Newton.

>>10247751
This is the experiment I am talking about for reference, the earth's movement is not a factor.

>>10247783
I think the point is that gravity is a minor force in the universe in comparison to electromagnetic effects. This proceeds to the point where the need for black holes is discarded.
They still make accurate predictions for a decade (decades) now?

>>10247744
Nostradamus predicted 9/11, but should I now accept him as a scientist? No, I'd rather be rigorous than right 100 times out of a 100. In science when you answer a question you create more new problems than you solve. So being rigorous is advantageous in that the methodology one follows to solve problems remains consistent. Just because your hypothesis is correct doesn't mean you've conducted proper science, your discussion of ideas should be rigorous. One can arrive to the proper conclusion via the wrong reasoning like when an atheist chooses to be moral.

>>10247780
No idea, what is it?

>>10247804
>Nostradamus predicted 9/11, but should I now accept him as a scientist?
He didn't make verifiable statements before the event, just vague, non-time Dependant ones. Electric universe people do, and they are correct a staggering amount of time. Mainstream astrophysics is mostly incorrect in the very same scenarios.

>>10247786
>the earth's movement is not a factor
It has to be if it is assumed the earth is moving through the "aether".

>>10247751
......Yes it is.

>>10247818
That is a socially acceptable schizophrenic belief. Are you someone that believes the Foucault pendulum proves the earth is rotating?

>>10247714
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DEvb6yEQ_0
Their theories actually explain a surprising amount of detail about the universe, including geological features of planets.

>>10247790
Describing gravity as a dipole effect leads to utterly nonscensical results break with observation completely. For instance a shperically symmetric collection of electric dipoles will yield no net force on anything.

The model is bad

It is beyond not even wrong

It is at the level where it sets out to describe gravity, and does not even arrive at the results that were already observed.

And it proponents are so incompetent, that they have not even done the calculations to show anything.

>>10247808
I don't know. That's why I asked.

>>10247832
Why the correct prediction that they keep on churning out. Seems like you've attached yourself to a single element of their theory a bit too much, where the whole bundle is what makes it work so accurately in describing reality in a verifiable manner.

>>10247828
........We can observe the earth rotating from space. Earth isn’t tidally locked.

>>10247911
Who is "we"? Have you been to space to observe this?

>>10247813
>Electric universe people do, and they are correct a staggering amount of time. Mainstream astrophysics is mostly incorrect in the very same scenarios.
Such as?

>>10247842
>Ignore all the wrong predictions
>Demand explanation of "correct" ones
A retard spouting gibberish will sometimes be correct by random chance.

>>10247937
Have you observed anything you claim EUtards predicted?

>>10247937
Astronauts, you fucking retard? Please meet the burden of proof for your claim of a giant conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands of officials and scientists.

>>10247977
I wasn't the one who claimed that. To be honest, the EUfags are still crackpots, but more logical crackpots than relativity cucks who are literally schizophrenic.

>>10247991

>>10247979
>Astronauts, you fucking retard?
How could I forget?
>Please meet the burden of proof for your claim of a giant conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands of officials and scientists.
I guess the words of astronauts constitutes proof nowadays. You're free to believe them, but I'm a scientist so it's not that easy for me.

>>10248000
Can I stay in /sci for dark matter, aliens and simulation theory?

>>10248009
No, most of those belong in /x/.

>>10248009
People who take the latter two seriously aren’t studying the former.

>>10248007
>I'm a scientist

>>10248019
What about string theory and quantum mechanics?
>>10248020
I thought most scientists at least believed in aliens?

>>10248031
>What about string theory and quantum mechanics?
If you can't tell what's science and what isn't you should just leave. Which we already know since you deny relativity.

>>10248025
Can you explain what is scientific about believing astronauts?

>>10248037
>If you can't tell what's science and what isn't you should just leave.
Can you just give me a quick list of what is science and if I don't see anything I'm interested in I will leave.

>>10248039
Can you explain what is scientific about not believing them?

>>10248045
Can you just fuck off back to your schizo containment board already?

>>10248047
>Can you explain what is scientific about not believing them?
It's anecdotal.

>>10248047
>Can you just fuck off back to your schizo containment board already?
If I take back what I said about relativity and instead accept it as my truth, can I stay?

>>10248050
>videos are anecdotal

>>10248057
No. Fuck off

>>10248050
Still waiting for you to meet the burden of proof for your massive conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands of people. Occam’s Razor is not kind to such propositions.

>>10248069
I think the implication is that its a case of orthodoxy, epistemological and axiomatic differences and not so much directly a conspiracy, though they usually also believe at least some level of conspiracy among NASA and CERN people for this or that reason regarding energy, geo-strategy etc.

>>10248059
>videos are anecdotal
So we've moved from astronauts to videos. As far as I know, videos cannot be faked, so you've got me there. Mind sharing one of these videos?

>>10248069
>massive conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands of people
Can you explain how you got to hundreds of thousands of people being involved?

>>10248073
It’s an absolutely massive conspiratorial claim to propose that the earth isn’t spinning.

>>10247714
Bcus

>>10248074
We haven't gone anywhere. Astronauts' observations aren't anecdotal, they're part of a scientific mission and are corroborated by evidence.

You can speculate about conspiracies and faked videos all you want, until you provide evidence for your conspiracies they're just bullshit.

Now fuck off already.

>>10248080
Not really. Relativity was created for the sole purpose of covering up the fact we're not moving.

>>10248103
>It's not really a massive conspiracy, but it's a massive conspiracy

>>10248097
You can believe it all you want, I just have higher standards of evidence.

>>10248108
Just because you're unable to comprehend it doesn't mean others aren't.

>>10248116
No one cares.

>>10248118
Your stupidity is very comprehensible.

>>10248124
>No one cares.
And that's the crux of the issue. You have no standards, and will lap up everything you're told to.

>>10248133
But I haven't lapped up anything you've said, so clearly you're wrong (yet again).

Don't bother replying, I'm out. Enjoy your mental illness.

>>10248124
>Your stupidity is very comprehensible.
Damn u smart

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBMi5UpabXE
>For more than a decade, scientists have puzzled over the spectacular display of Comet McNaught, C/2006 P1. Utilizing a new image processing technique, scientists studying the comet's extraordinary dust tail have concluded it is "electrically charged." In this episode we discuss why this finding is completely consistent with the electric comet theory.
>https://phys.org/news/2018-11-insights-comet-tails-solar.html

>>10248031
Most scientists acknowledge that there are extremely likely to be aliens just from the sheer number of solar systems. Not that they visit earth to play in fields and dildo humans.

>>10248256
>Most scientists acknowledge that there are extremely likely to be aliens just from the sheer number of solar systems.
Which is all made up.

>>10247815
any movement which induces aether wind will suffice, just move the apparatus yourself if you don't want to spend the energy to move the earth.