/sci/ - Science & Math

tesla was such a retard

>>10964217
Really? That's what you're going with?

Rupert Sheldrake's infamous Ted talk:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg

>>10964215
How do you know if your formula is representative of reality unless you put it to the test?

Am I missing something here or was Tesla a brainlet?

The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics may not be a perfect substitute or TOE, but it definitely eloquently identifies all of the bullshit in "modern physics" during the introduction. Here look at the general consideration section.

>>10964215
Read Jacques Vallee.
Passport to Magonia is a good start.

The only thing I would complain about so far from the GUTCP is that despite making the claim to only assume fundamental laws of motion, it attempts to integrate general relativity and special relativity as is, meaning spacetime curvature is the accepted defacto mechanism for the phenomenon of gravitation.

>>10964304
That was his entire point. Most of modern physics at the higher levels not only ISN'T being experimentally tested, it literally CAN'T be.

>>10964215
>I am NOT looking for /x/ tier conspiracy well-poisoning bullshit by obvious federal plants like Bob Lazar or flat Earth horseshit.
>>>/x/

>>10964326
Which is complete nonsense. Even if spacetime were a real thing (which it almost certainly isn't) why would it being curved cause shit to move? It literally makes no sense. You have to start with at least three different ex nihilo assumptions to even begin to give general relativity any credit.

>>10964334
>why would it being curved cause shit to move?
Because of conservation of energy, you retarded quack.

>>10964334
I feel the validation washing over me. You have no idea how much shit I get on this board for having that "opinion"

I thought I was the only person in the world who read the Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics and got butthurt because it's not classical enough.

>>10964343
This makes no sense. Conservation of energy doesn't even play into it.

>>10964349
You mean real enough? That's the problem. Tesla was fucking right. These morons don't grasp the basic truth that you can use math to prove anything, even shit that isn't remotely true. That's why it's completely useless as a test for theory.

>>10964334
Relativity clearly works, as we have done real world things with it. But it's obviously incomplete, it doesn't provide the full picture and breaks down eventually, just as Newtonian physics does. This is where Quantum physics comes in.

>>10964357
>Relativity clearly works
NO, gravity clearly works. Einstein's cheerleaders just claim anything that has anything to do with gravity is proof of general relativity, which it isn't.

>>10964366
I'm going to tag out for a while, give them hell paladin. I need a rest. I have been fucking crusading for twelve hours.

>>10964366
Why don't you write a paper, then?

Time for some real heretic shit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUwytm8K0jI

>>10964384
Because I have other shit to do. I don't know if you noticed, but your kind are ruining this fucking planet.

>>10964390
>You're wrong and no, I won't prove it!
Okay buddy, you do you.

>>10964215
Ioannidis has a lot of papers you'd probably like.

>>10964399
as if your conceited arse would tolerate anything that goes against your preconceived world view.

>>10964423
You don't know anything about me or what I believe. You're making things up.

>>10964390
I can't wait to read that article, since basically nothing is said to explain what Arp is actually proposing in that video. I mean I want to believe but this video is like, amazingly shit production quality. I guess that's par for the course for those who oppose normal fags.

>>10964350
Oh my mistake, I guess should just throw out this physics textbook.

>>10964215
More children are suffering from malnutrition now than at any other point in human history.

>>10964350
Of course it does. In the absence of forces, an object moves along a "straight path" in spacetime due to conservation of energy. When spacetime is flat this means the object will move in a straight line on a flat plane at constant velocity. When spacetime is curved, this means the object will move straight along the curve and accelerate since time itself is curved. The future for that object is curved towards mass/energy.

>>10964215
Neoliberals are truly vile, disgusting people. They use their primitive pseudo-religious believe in "the market" to rationalize they're own bloated gluttony and the suffering of millions.

This despite the fact that even the foundation for economics (supply and demand theory) proves that their consumerism literally hurts people

>>10964514
>In the absence of forces, an object moves along a "straight path"
WHY? We know it does. But claiming that because something is a certain explains the theory of how it behaves that way is circular.

>>10964520
Not the mention the environment they are destroying at break-neck speed.

>>10964521
*is a certain way explains

>>10964523
*to mention

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK

>>10964215
>>10964217

Tesla was a true scientist, unwilling to make strong assumptions and willing to do "crazy" experiment to see how they turn out. His approach was the correct approach.

>>10964304
That's the point he is making in the quote. I guess you misread.

>>10964520
True.

>>10964523
It again goes back to their pseudo-religion
They actually believe that the all-powerful "market" will drive innovation that will make the environment unnecessary.

It's basically like a psychotic god-complex, where everything "mankind" does is totally infallible. They don't see themselves as a small part of a complex system of life that's been going for 500 millions years - they see themselves as above it. It's really fucked up.

>>10964533
There have been like three different stories the past few weeks about how many different sorts of artificial plants engineers have been either making or planning. They literally want to fucking replace plants with machines. The world is becoming like Phyrexia, except dumb. Downy Phyrexia.

>>10964551
Their arrogance is gonna get everyone killed for sure. They are insane.

>>10964217
Insane /= retarded

>>10964349
Was it unified enough?

>>10964366
Nope. Mercury's elliptical path around the Sun shifts slightly with each orbit such that its closest point to the Sun (or "perihelion") shifts forward with each pass. Newton's theory had predicted an advance only half as large as the one actually observed. Einstein's predictions exactly matched the observation. Yu need relativity to fully account for what we observe at Mercury, he closest planet to the sun where the curvature of spaces is most pronounced.

Historical side-note. After Neptune was discovered by identifying and trying to account for perturbations in the orbit of Uranus, many astronomers seized on the known oddities of Mercury's orbit as evidence that a planet (dubbed Vulcan) must have been tucked between the Sun and Mercury. Attempts were made repeatedly to find the planet by scanning near the sun during eclipses. During the eclipse of 1878, it was "spotted" by an astronomer, "confirmed" by another at an independent location, and widely accepted as a major new discovery. Later attempts to re-sight Vulcan were unsuccessful, and further review discovered discrepancies and inaccuracies in the original sightings. But the search continued sporadically until Einstein's relativity accounted for Mercuries odd orbit -- making Vulcan not only unnecessary, but indicating that the inner planet could not exist, because there were no longer any of the effects it would have to have had on Mercury.

Additional shorter side note: Edison, bete noir of our Teslaposting brothers, was also an observer of the 1878 eclipse. Trying to establish a reputation as not just an inventor and tinkerer, but as a serious contributor ro science, he built a device, the Tasimeter, which he hoped would be useful in measuring the heat of the corona,and possibly distant stars. The device succeeded in showing the corona to be very hot, but could not really be meaningfully calibrated to measure that heat and was never really used afterwards.

>>10964512
There are more children now than in any other point in human history.

>>10964612
Oh boy here we go.

>>10964525
>>10964523
We'll give you a do-over, if you want.

>>10964584
As far as I can tell, it is the Unified field theory that Einstein had wanted. Some of the older patents are expiring so some of the hydrino related theory can actually be experimentally verified in lab, legally. It's extremely similar to an aether theory in that it is heavily implied that the identity of dark matter is hydrinos.

Bruno burned.

>>10964521
That objects travel along geodesics follows from the axioms of general relativity. You didn't ask me to explain why general relativity is true, you asked me how spacetime curvature causes things to move, so this is not circular. General relativity describes how the universe works. Asking why general relativity is true is equivalent to asking why the universe is the way it is, which does not seem to be a valid question unless you know of some design/process behind the universe.

>>10964215
this guy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg

>>10964673
>>>/x/

>>10964672
>That objects travel along geodesics follows from the axioms of general relativity
No, you stupid cunt, it doesn't. We knew light was bent by gravity before Einstein was fucking born. This is the shit I fucking LOATHE about Einsteinists. You always claim shit that general relativity POSTdates as proof that it's true.

>>10964679
Behold:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens#History

>Henry Cavendish in 1784 (in an unpublished manuscript) and Johann Georg von Soldner in 1801 (published in 1804) had pointed out that Newtonian gravity predicts that starlight will bend around a massive object

Modern physics is a false god.

>>10964215
John Michael Greer's catabolic collapse theory is pretty good as is most all of his writings

https://www.ecoshock.org/transcripts/greer_on_collapse.pdf

>tesla in the OP
>thread is filled with schizophrenia and obvious samefagging
what a fucking shock

>>10964683
Woah Nelly .
Anon you're my hero. Uwu

>>10964688
>Tesla bad
Hello, Chaim.

>>10964646
OK but is it Grand enough?

Nice double 46s, by the way.

>>10964215
You know Eric Dollard's work?

>>10964646
Look into Moshe Carmelli's equations; they work by adding another dimension, and don't require fudge factors. Dark energy and dark matter are fudge factors.
They aren't real.

>>10964718
>free energy
Oh boy here we go again. This is Lazar tier shit.

>>10964679
It does, it follows directly from the equivalence principle.

>We knew light was bent by gravity before Einstein was fucking born.
First, this doesn't respond to anything I said. That X follows from Y does not imply that X was only known after Y. Second, light being bent by gravity is not the same as everything traveling along a geodesic. Third, Newtonian physics predicted the wrong amount of gravitational lensing.

Take a chill pill you fucking schizo.

>>10964746
So general relativity proves gravitational lensing even though it was predicted centuries before it existed.

Honestly, we need eugenics.

GUYS ! I HAVE A TOTALLY WORKING MODEL FOR THE WAY THE UNIVERSE WORKS
TO GET THE RIGHT PREDICTIONS YOU JUST HAVE TO PLUG IN ARBITRARY SUPPLEMENTARY MASSES EVERYWHERE WHICH CANNOT BE DETECTED BY ANY MEANS
TADAAA !!!!

how the fuck can light beams bend according to Newton's law of gravitation ?
if they're weightless, they shouldn't get deviated

>>10964756
You're going to unironically get razzed for that obvious observation.

>>10964748
So you're fucking illiterate? Let me repeat:

1. Nothing I said indicated priority of discovery

2. Predicting gravitational lensing is not the same as predicting that things move along geodesics

3. Only Einstein predicted the correct amount of gravitational lensing.

>>10964787
You're such a dumb self-righteous piece of shit. Einstein has been proven wrong many, many times. This dumb motherfucker thought that a lack of bees would wipe out humanity.

>>10964423
>the crank when cornered resorts to personal attacks as he is unable to substantiate any arguments
like clockwork

>>10964323
This. Read Vallee.

>>10964801
>You're such a dumb self-righteous piece of shit.
The pot calling the kettle black.

>Einstein has been proven wrong many, many times.
And why would I care? The only one who brought up Einstein is you. Him being proven wrong just means science is working. Why are you so obsessed with Einstein instead of describing theories accurately anyway? Is it because idiots focus on personalities rather than ideas they are too dumb to understand?

>>10964814
He's not wrong. Modern physicists have been contradicted by people all over the place who've published papers, suggested other theories and generally poked holes in modern physics in general and the result is always the same. It's all swept under the rug, and the mainstream just keeps on keeping on.

And now we have a repeatability crisis and civilization is ending and the environment is imploding.

>>10964818
Back to >>>/x/ samefag

>>10964762
Pretty sure its as simple as
pc=mgh + diffraction essentially
Not backing up the asshole "market worshipper" here but its true gravitational lensing is an old theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lensing_formalism
>Henry Cavendish in 1784 (in an unpublished manuscript) and Johann Georg von Soldner in 1801 (published in 1804) had pointed out that Newtonian gravity predicts that starlight will bend around a massive object[12] as had already been supposed by Isaac Newton in 1704 in his Queries No.1 in his book Opticks.

>>10964827
>And why would I care?
Of course you wouldn't.

>The only one who brought up Einstein is you
You dumber than Einstein? You're literally invoking him.

>personalities
How about just being wrong a whole bunch of times?

>>10964828
here we go, start posting links bro

>>10964762
Forgot other link for quote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens

>>10964841
I've posted several in this thread.

>>10964845
so the same 5 retarded youtube videos some schizo posts in every thread is now a published paper? amazing

>>10964836
Nice gibberish, schizo.

>>10964848
You didn't say you wanted links to papers.

>>10964853
>Replying to your sentences is gibberish
Hos mad.

>>10964863
A youtube video shot with an Iphone camera in some cranks garage is hardly an ideal format to make an argument. I guess this is what happens when you have brain damage.

>>10964878
The arguments presented make good, obvious points. You don't even need to present a paper to say "You know, I think this view that 96% of the universe for all intents and purposes doesn't exist and can't be measured is probably...wrong."

But of course the I Fucking Love Science, and Pinker shills (Steven Pinker rapes children) and neolibs and assorted assclowns will lose their shit if you might suggest the emperor, in fact ISN'T wearing clothes. That's why this thread is called "heretical".

>>10964900
KEK
Steven Pinker rapes Jordan peterstein
(or is it the other way around?)

>>10964724
You could have just said "No, I'm not familiar with Eric Dollard's work".

>>10964907
Anyone shilling "free energy" is a fraud or a retard or both.

>>10964756
If the Bing Bang model of cosmic inflation is correct, the cosmic microwave background radiation is the super redshifted light from however long after the initial expansion.
If it's wrong, it directly implies that the cosmic microwave background radiation is the spectral emission from some ahem* rarefied air possibly (some kind of ahem*) luminiferous aether- *cough*
This is satire guys it's just a joke come on. No bully ~

>>10964900
Not understanding an iota of what you're attempting to criticize and making a fool of yourself, is not "heretical" it's just dumb.

>>10964919
What am I missing? How big does my brain have to be to believe that a man who's consistently wrong solved physics or that most of the universe isn't there or to say stupid shit like "if you understand [my field of study] you don't understand it"?

You're operating on fucking witchcraft. Not science.

What’s this shitty thread about?
Go publish a paper if you think general relativity is wrong or whatever. If you remove the need for dark matter, it’d be pretty awesome so get to work using your hidden knowledge.

>>10964331
>That was his entire point. Most of modern physics at the higher levels not only ISN'T being experimentally tested, it literally CAN'T be.

Why don’t you provide an example contemporary to Tesla, and do you have a new model of gravity that completely removes dark matter?

>>10964334
>Space and time don’t real

Holy shit

>>10964331
>make the observation fit the formula
Why do people take this seriously?

>>10964215
>I am NOT looking for /x/ tier conspiracy well-poisoning bullshit by obvious federal plants like Bob Lazar or flat Earth horseshit.
shouldn't have opened with that tesla pic then

>>10964334
It's about the affirmative power of falsity. Even if all these theories are inaccurate, there is an affirmative power in their function. They allow us to achieve things. But people forget they're structured thought and get carried away as though it's all incontrovertible.

>>10964933
Anyone schizo enough to Intuit the biggest kept secret in the cosmos is going to also be doubtful to authority, and for good reason. Maybe all I want is to get fully kitted and go visit some neighboring star systems. I want to watch Polaris dancing up close with my own eyes.

>>10964933
>If you remove the need for dark matter, it’d be pretty awesome so get to work using your hidden knowledge.
>my theory cannot work without this undetectable yet very real thing

>>10964900
>probably wrong
prove it's wrong though, prove it's predictions don't work, make better predictions, without introducing more problems than you solve. It's not fucking hard, but appealing to common sense just means you're incapable of analytical thought.

>>10964974
Not the same anon, but it probably is wrong. Most notably, I'm pretty sure quantum relativity will remove black holes in a similar manner that classical quantum theory removed the ultraviolet catastrophe.

>>10964971
It's not undetectable though, the cosmic microwave background radiation is the spectral emissions from the aether and it is synonymous with dark matter and dark energy because those are just different low energy states of hydrogen. It's rarified air, space is a fluid.

>>10964971
Lemme know when you publish your paper detailing your new model of gravity that removes the need for dark matter. Schizo-posting alone is fruitless and unimpressive.

>>10964985
>i'm pretty sure
I said prove it, not make shit up because it "sounds nicer" or "makes sense to me"

>>10964985
>Black holds don’t real

https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.10731

Oh look relativity proven yet again...

>>10964215
What the fuck are you even trying to argue?

>>10964992
>I believe in magical space dust
>no, you are the schizo
heh

>>10965011
The other anon was right in his assertion that cranks resort to insults when they have no argument.

Lemme know when you publish your paper detailing your new model of gravity that removes the need for dark matter. Schizo-posting alone is fruitless and unimpressive.

Guys don't blame me for being the only cool guy that got initiated into the mystery schools. The aether was thought to be real and said to be a key component in many materials, recorded as such for thousands of years. Now if that shit isn't suspicious to you knowing that this Einstein guy just rolled up 70 years ago, I can't say I relate. In order for the mind to specialize it is so necessary to diverge from what is normal. If you placed a very large bet on yourself to discover the secrets of the cosmos, and you had to do it or die, would you be able to do it yes or no?

>>10964933
>he thinks that anyone going against the grain gets published
careers and lifetime job positions are at stake.

>>10965025
It was recorded as fast that objects of the same size fall faster proportional to their weight for thousands of years.

>>10965030
>it's not that my paper is nonsense and my work useless it's a vast conspiracy!
if your work actually provides meaningful predictions you'll get published. If it's more pseudo scientific garbage it gets ignored.

>>10965033
Are gravity and aether incompatible for a reason I don't know? Do they have a dichotomous relationship of one or the other? I wouldn't think so.

>>10964995
We have no technology to prove this yet.

>>10965000
These effects would still occur, only the mass of the BAKA would be different and it woudl not form a singularity.

>>10965030
>Muh conspiracy

Yes, there’s a big conspiracy involving thousands of researchers to keep “da troof” from being published even though science is and always has been about improving our understanding of the world by subjecting current models to scrutiny, and we’d all benefit from said improvement of understanding, but no, there’s a big conspiracy to keep “da troof” hidden away.

Or maybe the papers are just bad

>>10965052
switch BAKA to supermassive black hole, becuase that acronym is filtered into baka for some reason.

>>10965042
my point is appealing to age is fucking retarded as Galileo was somehow the first guy to write down that if you drop two rocks they hit the ground at the same time. and for the entirety of human history every single "learned" man said the heavy one hits falls faster.

>>10965056
That's hilarious. I love that.

>>10965052
By the way there's a teapot in space between the earth and the sun

>>10965065
We haven't seen a singularity.

>>10964912
Again, you could have just assumed we all knew you were ignorant. There is no benefit to you in proving it.

>>10964331
That's just bullshit. Take the gyromagnetic moment of the electron for example. Last time I checked, qed correctly predicted it to 20 significant digits.

>>10964514
Energy isn't conserved in GRT.

>>10965060
I don't believe in history to be frank. I don't feel confident that I can believe any of it. I certainly can't verify any of it. So I usually don't work from the assumption that any of it is true.

>>10965092
yeah i also agree that this post is fucking stupid >>10965025 can't trust history

>>10965098
I'm talking about government approved history

>>10965109
yeah me too

>schizophrenic general

>>10964950
>NPCs think Tesla is "conspiracy theory"
You literally couldn't be using the fucking computer you are right now to shitpost about Tesla if it hadn't been for Tesla.

>>10964955
But nothing has been achieved. You're conceited demons. Einstein's views haven't lead to anti-gravity or even a better understanding of the universe. They are the direct precursors of the new dark age we've entered.

tesla and einstein had more in common than people think, both considered that atomic power was a pipedream and both considered the ether theory as plausible.

so at least we know both were wrong about one proven fact that we can agree on (atomic power). people can make mistakes , tesla (and einstein) made mistake about his views on atomic power:


>I have disintegrated atoms in my experiments with a high potential vacuum tube I brought out in 1896 which I consider one of my best inventions. I have operated it with pressures ranging from 4,000,000 to 18,000,000 volts. More recently I have designed an apparatus for 50,000,000 volts which should produce many results of great scientific importance. But as to atomic energy, my experimental observations have shown that the process of disintegration is NOT accompanied by a liberation of such energy as might be expected from the present theories.

obviously he made a mistake here, that range of voltage alone can not produce nuclear reaction.


about cosmic rays:

>This ray, which I call the primary solar ray, gives rise to a secondary radiation by impact against the air and the cosmic dust scattered through space. It is now commonly called the cosmic ray, and comes, of course, equally from all directions in space. If radium could be screened effectively against this ray it would cease to be radioactive.

he made another mistake there, radioactivity is not a by-product of cosmic rays.

and in that same article is where we have this:

>The scientists from Franklin to Morse were clear thinkers and did not produce erroneous theories. The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.

>Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.

beautiful phrases but they shouldn't be considered a "proof".

>>10965334
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HD3k1hgbUXQ

>>10964215
Psychiatry is baseless pseudoscience. "Science lovers" will always defend it as vital for the mentally ill, but even a cursory review of the evidence shows that to be completely false. Antidepressants have pretty much been proven to be placebos (google Irving Kirsch), but people don't want to admit it because it's so embarrassing. Chemical imbalances are as real as humor imbalances and Electroconvulsive therapy is literally worse than blood letting (I mean that in all seriousness and I think most scientists in 100 years will agree).

>>10964215
all the lies stem from the unjustified probabilistic interpretation of the measurement problem.

there can be no evidence for probabilistic characteristics of reality as in either deterministic or probabilistic universes the classical interpretation of the uncertainty principle is the limit of measurement. I.e it is always a lie to attribute an experimental result to probabilism before measurement error unless you wield a measuring device outside of our reality.

the ether exists and it has mechanical properties

>>10964520

>>10964291
Why the fuck didn't this get any attention, holy fuck this board is truly inhabited by fucking retards.

Thanks anon.

>>10964512
Is this bait? There are more people now, retard. Especially with chirstcucks going into shitty areas with medicine and food and booming the population only to leave.

>>10964215
fucking that quote...
>I'm going to give everyone electricity by shooting fucking lightning multidirectionally everywhere.

>>10966048
Cause I didn't post a picture. I'm going to be honest, I do the same thing.

>>10966057
Actually, he gave it to you the way you're using it now. Say "Thank you, Nicola Tesla."

>>10966048
Because TED talks are by the retarded and for the even more retarded

>>10965254
he's literally a paragon of schizos in current internet culture

>>10966263
Nobody gives a shit.

>>10964660
Underrated

>>10964985
>>10964995
>>10965000
>>10965052
>>10965056
>>10965062
>>10965065
The math is very simple. In plain english, it could be explained like this:
As a particle falls into the extremely heavy object, it experiences time dilation. As its frequency decreasees, and its wavelength increases, so increases the uncertainty of its position. As the particle approaches the swarzchild radius, its position becomes completely random, it could be equally likely to be anywhere in the universe.

Imagine a very heavy object that you intend to turn into a black hole by adding mass into it. First it is easy, the particle beam hits the center, more or less exactly. But as the object becomes heavier, hitting its center becomes much harder - the particles seem to randomly hit places slightly outside the bulls eye.

As the object keeps getting heavier, the spread increases. Eventually it becomes hard to hit the object at all - the pervectly aimed particles turn out to materialize somewhere else than in the object. As this effects are completely random, there is no way to compensate for them. As the density of the object approaches a black hole, you could basically aim randomly and hope the particle hits the object.

This proposes a hard limit on how dense clumps of matter can form. Very dense objects are possible, but not black holes. Any time any volume of matter approaches its swarzchild radius, the quantum effects disperse its particles across the universe. I believe this effect will eventually be understood to be the origin of the matter of the universe, instead of the big bang. "Tiny" big crashes in an eternal cycle, instead of one big explosion which started everything.

>>10966822
I would just spitball a guess that wavelength is directly related to its mass but they aren't the same property. Sure, the wave an oscillator produces in the aether will cause inaccuracy in a measurement, that much is to be understood I should think. But that doesn't mean particles are able to transport instantaneously across arbitrarily large distances. The most fundamental parts of matter are particles with a Bohr trajectory resembling a toroidal coil, harmonic oscillators that produce a wave through collision with the aether. The speed of light is only a limit the same way that the speed of sound is a limit. The particles have a period of oscillation that corresponds to pressure or gravitational field intensity of this fluid medium.

>>10966057
>>I'm going to give everyone electricity by shooting fucking lightning multidirectionally everywhere.

you've described in simple words his transmission system, "point to point discharges through gases" its the basic principle of his experiments and also the wardenclyffe tower, this is also why he was fascinated by lighning, theres two parts to the system: Extremely high voltages at Low frequency (a tunned system, you'll get the best efficiencies if you tune a inductance-capacitance network), its a lie that big corporations didn't allow him to construct the system in fact J.P. morgan finance the tower but Tesla encounter technical problems until the project got canceled (another big industialist, Westinhouse, was one of the first to finance him). NONE OF THIS IS "FREE EARTH ENERGY" OR "FREE ETHER ENERGY" YOU NEED REGULAR ELECTRICITY FOR THIS DEVICES!

>" gases are known to be still nearly perfect insulators for ordinary electromotive forces, they behave toward electromotive impulses of several millions of volts like excellent conductors"

>"for if the voltage be sufficiently high and if the terminals of the coils be maintained at the proper altitudes (rarefied atmosphere) the action described will take place, and a current will be transmitted through the elevated air strata, which will encounter little and possibly even less resistance than if conveyed through a copper wire of a practicable size."
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/62/90/92/45a5932052a940/US645576.pdf

"The papers reproduced in this report supply information about the Wardenclyffe tower, and show that the design process wasn't as automatic as legend leads us to believe":
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/rare-notes-tesla-wardenclyffe

>>10964304
That was his point. So yes, you are definitely a fucking brainlet if you could so completely misunderstand the quote in the picture.

Here's one that'll trigger the fuck out of incels.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMOjVYgYaG8

>>10964900
It can’t be measured directly, but it sure as hell is measurable indirectly.

>>10967326
You mean through math? That's a fudge factor, not proof. You can use shit like that to "prove" the Earth is flat. Geocentrism is literally built on that shit.

>>10967326
Can’t be yet*

>>10967328
Through observation.

>>10967326
>>10967328
This is the power of epicycles. If math is your only "proof", then you have no proof because math can prove anything, including shit that's not real.

>>10967337
That's totally wrong. What has been observed is that the theory doesn't match the observed universe. That's where dark energy and dark matter come in to fill the gaps. It's literally physics of the gaps.

>>10964215
>dogma
The average science nerd isn't some dogmatic creep that wants you to cow-tow to their religion and worship it the same way they do; they're fans of science and "want to believe" as much as any /x/-type "true buhleever" does.

>>10967371
>The average science nerd isn't some dogmatic creep
Lies.

>>10965085
This. Pseuds please fuck off, this is a science board.

>>10967342
>What has been observed is that the theory doesn't match the observed universe

It matches the observed universe assuming we add yet another weakly interacting particle and yet another scalar field. This is much more reasonable than throwing all the well tested theory away and embracing crackpot nonsense. Deal with it, brainlet.

>>10965085
>20 significant digits
Have we ever made any prediction with more precision? I think we could do a lot by replacing the value we can predict best by 1 and reframing our systems from that.

>>10967420
Yes, changing reality to make it so almost 100% of the universe now isn't there is much more logical than "um I think we may have made an error at some point". No, you're always right. Just not right enough so just add more shit. I'm sure this will work.

>>10966822
>As a particle
Stopped there.

>>10967296
This fad is so bs. Have people never taken a walk? Are you going to slay an animal or find some grass seed, a nut tree and maybe some wild radish. Animals yummy tho. A special treat, I'm sure.

>>10967435
You are free to propose a better explanation. Nobody has managed to do it so far, despite great efforts.

And again, dark matter and dark energy are just more of the same. We already know of neutrinos and higgs bosons (maybe even inflatons), which share lots of properties with dark matter / energy. So it is a pretty straightforward explanation, not some convoluted construct as you are trying to pretend.

>>10967458
>that image
Modern physics doesn't fit the data. That doesn't stop anyone.

>And again, dark matter and dark energy are just more of the same
You are a legit fucking imbecile. Vanishing nearly the totality of the universe is not "more of the same". I mean it is, just not in the way you mean it. It's more of the same substituting math for reality bullshit we've come to expect.

>higgs bosons
Literal gibberish. I was certain years ago that the Higgs would be found and absolutely nothing would come of it. And what the fuck do you know?

>So it is a pretty straightforward explanation, not some convoluted construct as you are trying to pretend.
Nobody said it was complicated. It's just wrong. If anything it's overly simplistic (hurr you ken fit erryfing oan a postcard durr)

>>10967472
>Nobody said it was complicated. It's just wrong.

Evidence. So far you have not proposed any better model.

>Modern physics doesn't fit the data.

Lambda CDM fits the data quite well. It does not fit perfectly, but then our knowledge of details of the relevant physics is still incomplete, which is not the same as wrong.

>>10967472
>You are a legit fucking imbecile. Vanishing nearly the totality of the universe is not "more of the same".

Nature has no oligation to make most of the universe visible at all. It turns out most is transparent to EM radiation. Boo fucking hoo.

>>10967479
>So far you have not proposed any better model.
What makes you believe I have to? Just because you say blood is green doesn't mean I have to tell you the correct color or you're right.

>Lambda CDM fits the data quite well
God didn't spark the universe. Sorry. Go back to seminary.

>>10967481
And nobody has any obligation to believe your nonsense that counters direct observation. Boo fucking hoo.

>>10967492
>Just because you say blood is green doesn't mean I have to tell you the correct color or you're right.

Analogy fail. You have yet to prove Dark Matter and Dark Energy wrong. So far all you managed to do was spew bullshit about how you personally do not like that most matter in the universe is invisible. That is not the same as disproof or even evidence.

>God didn't spark the universe. Sorry. Go back to seminary.

So you are a Big Bang denialist as well. Why am I not surprised. What is next, Relativity is wrong, too? You certified pseud.

>And nobody has any obligation to believe your nonsense that counters direct observation. Boo fucking hoo.

Except it is in agreement with observation. Again, ever heard of lambda CDM? There are some tensions, but it agrees quite well.

>>10967502
>Analogy fail.
Perfectly apt actually. Just because you're wrong and someone doesn't offer an alternative doesn't mean you get to proclaim you're still right.

>>10967458
It's not that gravity works differently, it's that light isn't as consistent as we want to believe. Given the two, it makes more sense for light to work in strange ways at different "depths" of void (field), so to speak. If the universe is all a lot closer together than we think, or further apart, or whatever we have to assume about light to make things work (or more closely approximate the mass of the universe), then we could as easily from a new model of light that is liable to produce testable hypotheses.

>>10967552
Except that none of that works. What you are describing is some sort of tired light model, and those are obviously wrong. Again, people have researched this in detail. There is some small merit in certain MOND theories, however even these are very much fringe. The rest of supposed alternatives to Dark Matter are just pseudoscience.

>>10964215
First, one of my most important messages is that we need to shake the religion of growth. We simply can’t continue growing indefinitely. Either we use our brains to plot a trajectory into steady-state and hope it’s smooth, or we let nature decide how to deal with us.

Sensible

>>10967440
Why?

>>10967572
>tired light model
No, it doesn't have to be tiered. It could readily be scaling with empty space. The "emptier" space is within a region, the <n> effect on light we would expect it to have. We've only done precise measurements of a very finite field of space.

>DUDE REPLYING TO MYSELF LMAO!
Stop going off your meds.

>>10964215
>everything is always getting better
...said no scientist, ever.
>neolib
>>>/pol/catalog

>>10964215
Take your lithium pills.

>>10964520
Welp even the /sci/ guys fell for commie bullshit. Can’t wait to starve to death when you retards get what you want

>>10964215
>>10965334
>>10967005

RADIANT ENERGY:

>"Many useful applications of this method of utilizing the radiations emanating from THE SUN or other source and many ways of carrying out the same will at once suggest themselves from the above description. By way of illustration a modified arrangement is shown in fig 2 in which the source S of RADIANT ENERGY is a special form of Roentgen tube (Xray tube ) devised by me having but one terminal k"

>"The rays or radiations which are to be utilized for the operation of the apparatus above described in general terms may be derived from a natural source, as THE SUN , or may be artificially produced by such means, for example, as an arc-lamp, a Roentgen tube (X-ray tube), and the like , and they may be employed for a great variety of useful purposes."

https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/5c/16/3c/d334ee4f32dd50/US685957.pdf

>>10968199
Ain't gonna let it happen mi Anon.

>>10967978
Look on the mirror much?

>basically all of medicine, pharmacology and physiology is wrong
>biochemistry isn't real
>IAEA are a bunch of liars and industry shills
>darwinian evolution was adopted in order to justify imperialism and social stratification
>psychology is a form of capitalist programming

>>10968292
I agree with nothing you put here. Game on bitch you will lose to Science

>>10965259
Aeroplanes, computers, electricity, automobiles, all a consequence of functional theories. Whether you see these as positive or negative is something else.

>>10965018
>My accepted model of gravity is 95% inaccurate
>Produce something better or you're schizophiomatically living in denial about how great my ability to think on square washer of the perception through which undeniable noise ratio inversion calculations predict the future of gloriously underwhelming alien ocelots.
You're the schizo

>>10964215
I want to create a "sci" iceberg, comparable to the conspiracy iceberg, except I want to include things that do have an element of truth in them, or have been stuff that were published in studies in scientific journals.

>>10968474
the term "funtional thories" can be misleading in the context of technology because a funtional discovery is what makes way for a theory. if a theory is wrong that doesn't mean our technology will be gone.

this is part of the reason engineering is a different field than theoretical physics

the invention of the lightbulb brought the question: why it can't create blue light? while trying to fing the answer Max Planck opened the doors to the new realm of quantum mechanics, but the lightbulb was first and then the theory if this theory is wrong the lightbulb will always be there with all its engineering characteristics like not being able to produce blue light.

>>10965055
>strawmanning my opponent's argument with a convenient buzzword, proves his argument wrong!
Sorry, it doesn't work that way

>>10965824
>
there can be no evidence for probabilistic characteristics of reality as in either deterministic or probabilistic universes the classical interpretation of the uncertainty principle is the limit of measurement. I.e it is always a lie to attribute an experimental result to probabilism before measurement error unless you wield a measuring device outside of our reality.
This should be sprayed in gold on the walls of literally every physics class room

>>10968484
>>My accepted model of gravity is 95% inaccurate

Except it is not. Lambda CDM is pretty accurate. Again, you just have a weird psychological problem with neutrino-like particles. But that is your problem, not Nature's.

>>10969282
Get back to us when you learn abou Uncertainty Principle, pseud.

>>10969284
Hi, I'm back. What now?

>>10969284
can't spell copenhagen without cope.

>>10965085
so you counter the statement that certain things within science are not being experimentally measured with the statement that the calculated gyro metric moment of the electron is in agreement with the measured one?

>>10964311
>>10964316
so now valuable is this really
why is it being discarded if it's so succesful?

>>10969282
>t. has never been inside a physics classroom

>>10969392
Most of the calculations amount to little more than numerology without a consistent line of reasoning, and the promised hydrino has never been found. Also if you read the source about disproof of the uncertainty principle, the actual paper doesn't disprove it and makes no such claim to. All Mills did was plug in two cited values for energy range and time range for a system into the uncertainty equation (without actually considering the proper calculation of the true standard deviations of each value), saw that he got a value less than the allowed value (even though he didn't use the equation properly), and claimed disproof.

>>10969399
>adds probabilistic characteristics to reality without evidence because he can't cope without free will

>>10969416
>All Mills did was plug in two cited values for energy range and time range for a system into the uncertainty equation (without actually considering the proper calculation of the true standard deviations of each value), saw that he got a value less than the allowed value (even though he didn't use the equation properly), and claimed disproof.
so he made a bad paper, but were his results reproducible?

his std deviation could still end up being okay and then it would be a problem to have such a low value

>>10969417
>non sequitur

>>10969427
My guess is Mills made the claim based on this excerpt from Isinger et al. (https://science.sciencemag.org/content/358/6365/893))
>It may be argued that the high temporal resolution achieved in attosecond experiments prevents any spectral accuracy and thus may affect the interpretation of experimental results. This is especially true when different processes can be induced simultaneously and lead to photoelectrons with kinetic energies within the bandwidth of the excitation pulse. In fact, the natural trade-off between temporal and spectral resolution may be circumvented, as beautifully shown in the visible spectrum using high-resolution frequency combs based on phase-stable femtosecond pulse trains (14).
Where (14) is https://science.sciencemag.org/content/306/5704/2063?ijkey=f664995cdd4878c54411664eba1f8cb6391d0db9&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
From that paper:
>This trade-off between the time and frequency domains [of these laser pulse train devices] might seem fundamental, but in fact it results from pulse-to-pulse phase fluctuations in laser operation. The recent introduction of phase-stabilized, wide-bandwidth frequency combs based on mode-locked femtosecond lasers has provided a direct connection between these two domains (3, 4).
Which is entirely consistent with the HUP.

>>10969282
>>10969417
are you saying that if a rock falls from a high place then it's better to not assume it is probable that it should fall but to assume that what you're going to witness is probably a measuring error of your own eyes?
Because I want to agree with you, but there's some subtlety required with it.

Also Free Will is unphysical but God gave it to us, it's the proof that God exists.

>>10964946
You understand the principle of predictive power right?
>galaxy trajectories are not as expected
>thereore either there is undetected masses, other influences, or the theory is wrong
>first let's see if it can be undetected masses: assuming that this the cases, how big would those masses be? how would they be distributed? is there a way to evidentiate them experimentally?
>if there isn't, let's move on to whether there are other undeteced influences
Basically all that has been done. I grant you that the failure of the "is there a way to detect thoses masses in experiments" should have led to a more widespread interest in alternative theories. But that doesn't mean the initial suggestion of the existence of dark matter was unscientific. And there are people being published and discussed right now, and not being published, who are trying to device altenative explanations without dark matter. See Verlinde on emergent gravity.

There is certainly narrow-mindedness in the physics community, but it's not full-on ostracism.

>>10969431
Cont.
So honestly Mills might not have even found any values for uncertainties, but just interpreted that excerpt at face value.

>>10969431
so his claim boils down to 'at first it seemed like the temporal and spectral resolutions we saw were because of the uncertainty principle, but it's not, it's because of our shitty laser, but we fixed it now'
Honestly thepaper using that source sets the play though, by pretending to 'circumvent' the two resolutions even though it doesn't do that at all

>>10969282
Literally the best evidence conceivable for randomness is exactly what we see in particle physics: nonzero minimum unpredictability despite extremely finely controlled conditions.
And before you invoke measurement-disturbance to explain away the uncertainty, you should know that that doesn't work. Read this: https://arxiv.org/abs/1208.0034

>>10969433
no.
I'm saying if you are blindfolded and have to determine the position of a billiard ball on a billiard table by hitting another ball into it there is nothing inherently probabilistic about that situation.
You have the dilemma of hitting it hard and being more sure of where the collision occurred but being less certain of where it is after the collision vs hitting it softly and being unsure of where the collision occurred but being more certain its position is close to where it initially was.

>>10969442
Yeah, exactly. The word "circumvented" maybe wasn't the best to use, but it's clean in context they don't mean circumventing the HUP.

>>10969392
I don't know how an open source, free to download pdf textbook based on dozens of published, peer reviewed articles by Mills, could be discarded. I think mostly people don't read it because they aren't supposed to read it. It's a deterministic aether theory that describes the electron orbital as a two dimensional, rotating spherical membrane of charge with discrete angular momentum. His work and research is mainly in working with intermediate states of hydrogen below the ground state.

According to aetherometry, energy is an intermediate state between radiation and matter, where the kinetic and potential energy are equal to zero in an equilibrium state. You can plot on a number line defined by potential energy, that energy is mass-less and plotted at zero. Radiation is plotted at negative one. Matter is plotted at positive one. Mills works primarily with hydrinos, intermediate states of hydrogen above zero on this number line, and below one.

>>10969433
as to why god did not give us free will, that is the lie of satan
https://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/22485905/#22486721

>>10967458
>that image
Actually a modification of Newton's law with a decreasing in 1/r instead of 1/r^2 fits the data pretty well at the scales where Newton's law doesn't. But it doesn't work at all sclaes (neither do Newton's law).

>>10969455
yeah just read through it
the paper has nothing to do with the uncertainty principle and just talks about some lasers ionising electrons..

>>10969450
>https://arxiv.org/abs/1208.0034
>using a probabilistic definition of measurement and being surprised when you get variance

the Heisenberg uncertainty principle does claim to describe weak measurements.
The irony of posting this farce is that you are admitting there has been zero evidence for probabilistic interpretations of the measurement problem for 100 years

>>10969468
*doesn't claim

>>10969453
so in your metaphor
what exactly constitutes the 'probalistic characteristics', and the 'measurement error'?

>>10969468
>the Heisenberg uncertainty principle doesn't claim to describe weak measurements.
Yes it does, it's a fundamental relation between position and momentum (or time and energy, or the other uncertainty relations) so it applies to all systems for which such a pair of measurements can be made.
Weak measurement violates the measurement-disturbance relation without violating the HUP.

>>10964215
Please scroll on past my post for derailing with this topic... But Bob Lazar is a fool blinded by his own predjudice. And in saying so, let me tell you I do believe he worked on such craft, and I do believe he experimented on an Unobtainium power source. But his notions about them being Alien in nature? I highly doubt so. He talks on and on of misinformation fed to him so that the federal Agents could backtrace classified leaks as well that he was so smart as to disiminate truth from fiction but he doesn't realise he has fell for an even more elaborate ruse... As a disclaimer yes this is '/x/-tier scizo posting' but heretical history nonetheless.

Isn't it possible that these crafts were built by our ancestors? In a time long since forgotten? There is the infamous Alterwelt Alternate History thread on godlikeproductions that I came across and the more and more I read it the harder it is for me to crack and decide if it is worth forgetting. I seemingly find a flaw in Alterwelts posts but realise that his claims are, and I do emphasise this, Extremely Consistent. Of course I take it in with a grain of salt but it seriously made me question the current dogmas and how little we truely know of our past.

>>10969483
human history already starts with villages and cities around 10000 bc
we have no idea what happened there

>>10969473
there are no probabilistic characteristics that's my point.
a copenhagen would say to you the billiard ball only exists as a probability function until it is observed which is madness motivated by the economic, political and ultimately spiritual implications of there be a fundamental wavefunction with mechanical properties as described in de broglie bohm. there is a mechanical limit to measurement

>>10969476
weak measurement is a statistical hack. It's complete rubbish. It's like rounding your answer to an unjustified number of decimal places and claiming the answer that uses the correct no of decimal places is wrong

One foot nailed down, your powers of exploration are so limited, and you love this limitation because you feel it has been achieved by your ingenuity. So completely ironic, you cling to the very ideas that present to you an obstacle that can not be overcome. If it wasn't for antisocial geniuses with high functioning autism, you lot would still be chasing deer. If you subscribe to the approved narrative, you lack imagination.

>>10969492
>weak measurement is a statistical hack. It's complete rubbish. It's like rounding your answer to an unjustified number of decimal places and claiming the answer that uses the correct no of decimal places is wrong
This is pure cope. Weak measurement is perfectly well-founded, you're just upset you can't explain away the HUP with measurement disturbance anymore.

>>10969434
*And not being shunned

>>10969487
But who's to say that we haven't already hit a high technological point even ealier than 10000bc and we wiped ourselves out only to start again fresh, we almost blew up the enitre Earth 40 years ago. Also may I restate here that when I say I believe in Bobs experiences, I mean that HE believes truely in what he saw. Perhaps the dudes at Groom Lake were playing 4D chess by yricking their own scientests to fuck with Russian spies. Second guessing everything is the bature of being Heretical

>>10969505
you're the one that's coping after 100 years of believing inherent probabilism without evidence you get a statistical hack paper in 2012.
I could have 1 million identical length pencils and use statistics to tell me that actually the length of the pencils has a distribution

>>10969505
>I can't measure position and momentum simultaneously, therefore particles can transport across arbitrarily large distances instantaneously with no proposed mechanism.
ok

>>10969515
>literally just wave mechanics
Wow, so spooky and weird

>>10969512
>I'm too lazy to understand it so it's a hack
ok

>>10969518
lmao

>>10969518
Yeah I fuckin' bet dude. Good luck with that line of reasoning.

What if we already are at such a point where mathmatics falls apart. What can we use to measure gibberish?

>>10969519
the differences found in weak measurement and the hup is due to its to weak measurements statistical method.
Same way if I model the deflection of a beam with a known deflection with a statistical model the answer will not be the same

>>10969529
There is no difference between the weak measurements and the HUP. The difference is that it beats out Heisenberg's Microscope. If measurement-disturbance were as fundamental as the HUP itself, it should not be beaten out by such a statistical calculation. That's the whole point.

>>10964836
>How about just being wrong a whole bunch of times?
still doesn’t prove anything. even if a person is wrong some arbitrary number of times, that still wouldn’t change the time they were right. He’s right, you need to separate the idea from the person and judge it independently of its own merit. So far you have not refuted anything, only made one flawed and logically inconsistent argument. When he explained why your argument did not invalidate GR (it doesn’t) you just started shutting down and throwing insults. You’re not going to convince anyone if you can’t at least explain your ideas clearly. You do not even seem particularly familiar with that which you are trying to disprove.

He is just a newfag. He will settle in after he realizes these discussions go nowhere and find himself some reading material if he is really serious.

>>10969511
>he doesn't know about the Finnish-Korean hyperwar

>>10969528
The material will always be more valuable than the spiritual, because the material is 'real'.
But even material beings, one day, come to long for spirituality.
Perhaps that's the future of our civilization
all the good and quiet places will be ruined utterly and permanently, until all is some materialist garbage and spirituality is all but gone
and then, to some suddenly, people will stop caring about material wealth and live their days to strengthen the spirit

>>10969450
>Literally the best evidence conceivable for randomness is exactly what we see in particle physics: nonzero minimum unpredictability despite extremely finely controlled conditions.
Do you even know the difference between randomness and unpredictability?

>>10970248
Randomness can only manifest itself as unpredictability. Name a better hypothetical experimental case against determinism than
>nonzero minimum unpredictability despite extremely finely controlled conditions

>>10970284
>Randomness can only manifest itself as unpredictability.
Except determinism too can manifest itself as unpredictability.

Also, really?
>nonzero minimum unpredictability despite extremely finely controlled conditions
THIS is what you call proof? What does "extremely finely" even mean scientifically?

>>10970305
>Except determinism too can manifest itself as unpredictability.
Unless this determinism is experimentally testable (as is the case for the apparent randomness of statistical mechanics), it's unfalsifiable.
>THIS is what you call proof? What does "extremely finely" even mean scientifically?
There couldn't be better proof. "Extremely finely" means to the highest precision available.

>>10970328
Unfalsifiable sounds like a legitimate contradiction of validity but it's not so. For example, I claim that a circle is round. This statement may be unfalsifiable, but this alone can not make it untrue.

>>10970555
...that is falsifiable, if I find zero curvature over an interval along the circle.

>>10970581
Cont.
I'm well aware that not every true statement will be falsifiable, but if we're talking about scientific theories, I will hold them to that standard.

Here's something most people won't expect. "Keep hydrated" is literally a meme made up to sell sports drinks and the arrival of sports drinks and hydration propaganda literally invented an entirely new illness: hyponatremia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lzs5wpLkeA

Capitalism literally created a brand new disease to sell junk drinks.

>>10970756
Yeah, sports drinks are terrible. But try drinking a bunch of water and eating salty food with it, or just put salt in the water if you don't mind the taste. I've been doing that, and it's cleared up a good deal of the headaches and tiredness I felt before. Going to the bathroom more is hardly an inconvenience compared to the gain.

>>10970764
It's the same thing with drinking too much water. There have literally been several people who have died from drinking too much water. This NEVER happened before sports drinks started pushing "muh hydration". Hydration is a sales pitch to sell sports drinks and later bottled water. It's not real. You only need enough water to sustain your body and that sure as fuck isn't 8 glasses of water a day.

>>10969545
wrong.
>Measures of error and disturbance are here defined as figures of merit characteristic of measuring devices. As such they are state independent, each giving worst-case estimates across all states, in contrast to previous work that is concerned with the relationship between error and disturbance in an individual state.
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.160405
100 years of zero evidence for a single probabilistic characteristic of reality.
Coping hagens will go down in history the same way heliocentrics did.

>>10970776
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.1565.pdf

>>10964291
120 IQ video

>>10964291
I realized awhile ago that if his hypothesis is correct, then the way he talks about morphic fields is, itself, a morphic resonance factor. So the resistance he gets when he talks about the idea is a result of him repeating the same habit in relation to the topic. I started experimenting to see if I could talk about it in ways that would change how it's talked about (since we can't rely on him to change tack since he's acting as the root for our conceptual awareness of the idea) and I think I may be able to create new morphic abilities whenever I bring it up.

>>10970838
I don't hold to his morphic field hypothesis. I'm just glad he mentions things that most people are afraid to verbalize.

>>10970798
true
>>10970846
also true

>>10970776
>>10970793
Interesting, thanks for the read. I'll check that out

>>10964215
>tesla quote
this is very true and is how you get to made up shit like "dark matter"

>>10964215
Knowledge is cumulative and as long as prevalent theories are subject to revision, it is reasonable to expect things to get better and better over the years.
The problem here that is often ignored is not whether we're advancing knowledge but at which pace we are doing it.

>>10970756
drinking too much water strips the body of valuable minerals

>>10970879
there is a religion of science forming that is unprecedented. Scientism where you pay for studies to be published that benefit you, look at nutritional science.
Ultimately I agree with you though

>>10970890
Worse than that is how they deal with controversial topics, like genetic differences between races and sex. If you find some controversial result, you either don't publish it (so you don't lose your job or funding) or you must put a LOT of disclaimers saying that you're not racist/sexist/etc and that your research doesn't imply libtards are wrong (even if the results obviously imply that).

>>10970914
case in point https://www.sciencealert.com/father-of-dna-james-watson-stripped-of-accolades-in-ugly-racism-row

I think it's just the fact that you can't change the distributions of actual scientists born. You can train technicians but they function off ideology.

>>10967005
https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/technical-articles/teslas-towers-pikes-peak-wardenclyffe-and-wireless-power-transmission/

>>10970890

>>10970946
>Jonathan W. Tooker