/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11230323
There is no evidence. All the "evidence" is just cargo cult idiots going "this picture looks like this other picture!". Come back when you have quantitative modeling and falsifiable predictions, aka never.

>>11230343
if only there was a video posted in the OP, oh shit, there is!

>>11230347
You know there’s something wrong already when the citation is a YouTube video and not a peer-reviewed paper from Nature or something like that/

>>11230351
Like I said the research is being ignored.
son, you can't just vaporize tungsten with 182 watts of power but they did with a functional experiment

>>11230347
I'm not going to watch shitty youtube videos. Write it out in a pdf and I'll read it.

>>11230362
try visiting the website provided in the OP

>>11230356
>son, you can't just vaporize tungsten with 182 watts of power but they did with a functional experiment

Cite the study published in a scientific journal in which this was documented and ideally independently replicated by other researchers unrelated to the first ones

>>11230370
there is only one functional experiment in existence, when more are built the same by the same methodology will their work be tested, yet there haven't been any interested parties.
I'll ask for the last time, why are they being ignored?

>>11230379
When I painted flames on my car my car went faster, I told General Motors to paint flames on their cars to verify that it makes them go faster. Why am I being ignored?

>>11230394
your attempt at trolling was meh at best, thanks for filling the thread though

>>11230323
Yeah, very curious why the scientific community would be ignoring an insular cult with no independent analysis and zero academic publications spearheaded by a guy who has repeatedly asserted how much he doesn't trust mathematics and how he doesn't consider it a part of physics, with $395 admission cost annual 'Electric Universe conferences' where cult members can get even further up their own ass and progressively more divorced from anything resembling peer reviewed science.

>>11230323
>I'm curious
No you're not. Which incidentally answers your "question." Every non-autist with working eyes and ears can immediately tell how dishonest and agenda driven your cult is. It's kind of sad when people like you pretend to be innocent seekers of truth like this because it's just so painfully obvious you're nothing of the sort.

>>11230323
They keep calling it "aether" instead of "Dark matter" "Quantum glue" is why.

>>11230343
>Come back when you have quantitative modeling and falsifiable predictions, aka never.

Never stopped the same retards from believing "dark matter" is real. Or "space"/"spacetime".

>>11230427
theoretical mathematics was his issue.
You believe in a gravitational model of the universe and you're wrong, it's as simple as that.

>>11230455
Gravitation models have experimental evidence. They aren't "theoretical math"

>>11230452
>They keep calling it "aether" instead of "Dark matter" "Quantum glue" is why.
Due to their adoption of only a gravitational model of the universe which is an incomplete view of all the forces in play.
Notice how the word "cultists" gets repeated?
That's the science equivalent of calling someone a conspiracy theorist

>>11230458
explain how a galaxy doesn't fly apart using the gravitational model and without any exotics like dark energy or dark matter.
go on, i dare you

>>11230366
share a direct link to a pdf and then we'll talk.

ok, thanks for posting, bye

>>11230463
the stars in the galaxy exert a force on each other called gravity.

explain how an apple falls to the ground without gravity
go on, I dare you

>>11230468
gravity follows an inverse square law meaning SagA* doesn't have enough mass to hold everything together, neither does the combined mass of all the stars in every spiral arm.
You failed

>>11230469
>gravity follows an inverse square law meaning SagA* doesn't have enough mass to hold everything together, neither does the combined mass of all the stars in every spiral arm.
Can you show this mathematically?

Electrical forces are inverse square laws as well, anon.

>>11230472
>Electrical forces are inverse square laws as well, anon.
Birkeland current says otherwise
dismissed

>>11230473
>Birkeland current
Not a force. Btw, I can answer the OP now. Nobody takes you niggers seriously because you dont even know basic fucking electromaganetic phenomena. Culomb's force is absolutely proportional to the inverse square of distance. Fucking retard.

>>11230469
Hahahahaha
Imagine coming to a science board as a flat earther

Like how silly in the head do you have to be to write out a post like this, and defend a cult purely made to con and brainwash the idiotic?

Anyone with a brain want to answer?

>>11230490
Who would take the time out of their day to argue with a retard, about how retarded they are

this troll is boring, anyone else?

The suns corona is hotter than the surface because double banded plasma traps ultraviolet light within it, this is strictly an electromagnetic phenomenon that the "standard" gravitational model completely fails to explain and it's not the only place it fails

>>11230323
Because they HAVE tried to model it using only electromagnetism and it doesn't work
We NEED another force (that we call gravity) to explain the phenomena.

>>11230323
Blatant pseudoscience.

Explain to me the motivation to deny all evidence in order to posit that the universe is electromagnetic and there is no such thing as gravity.

This is what I never understand about this stuff. WHY does there being more forces than electromagnetism cause people to get so angry?

>>11230510
Gravitational waves my dear

>>11230323
Velikovskian bullshit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Velikovsky#Ideas

>>11230539
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmropNlSRdE

This is what electric universe people actually believe

Nothing but puppets on this board, not surprised though since most of the intelligent people have left.
adios absolute retards

>>11230559

>>11230551
don't let the door hit you on the way out

>>11230463
Well, there have been a handful of galaxies that do rotate exactly how gravitational models predict, while most of them have stars in the outer parts moving much faster than they should. There are also galaxies that seem to have an extra heavy helping of dark matter, creating a gravitational lensing effect much larger than the visible matter within them would suggest. This bolsters the dark matter hypothesis; it is easy to imagine a physical substance not being evenly distributed. Other models, be it modified gravity theories, or electric universe claims have a much harder time covering similar looking galaxies behaving so differently.

>>11230366
No.

>>11230485
>Not a force.
Neither is Gravity you dip. It's an acceleration.

>>11230535
So gravity is an actual thing that waves? Waves of what?

>>11230663
>There are also galaxies that seem to have an extra heavy helping of dark matter, creating a gravitational lensing effect much larger than the visible matter within them would suggest.

Please test "Dark Matter" in an experiment before making stuff up. Thanks.

>>11230458
>Gravitation models have experimental evidence. They aren't "theoretical math".

How much gravity is there at the center of gravity? The center of mass that is, what allegedly causes gravity.

>>11230468
>explain how an apple falls to the ground without gravity
>go on, I dare you

>two weeks later the apple evaporates
>two years later it's not even an apple anymore, it is now a tree.

How about you explain your own bullshit? Explain what caused the apple, explain what causes things to rise and overcome this alleged force that's supposed to be "holding us down".

>>11230801
You are really, really dumb, berzerkerfag.

>>11230806

>You are really, really dumb
>and here's why

Oh right I forgot, you guys don't like to answer "why" questions.

>>11230801
>How much gravity is there at the center of gravity?
None. Newton derived this back in the 1600s. Look up "shell theorem"

>>11230819
>At the center of gravity there is no gravity

>The cause of gravity originates from no gravity

And morons say this exists, they even go so far as to call it a "force" that impels things.

>>11230827
Gravity doesn't "originate" from the center of mass, sweetheart.

>>11230839
>Gravity doesn't "originate" from the center of mass, sweetheart.
What does it originate from?

>>11230452
>Never stopped the same retards from believing "dark matter" is real.
Except the dark matter hypothesis makes quantifiable and falsifiable predictions.

>>11230904
wherever there is mass

>>11230323
>www.safireproject.com
buddy, I am just done with my anti-gravity playlist on yt.

The one thing is, if it's actually a thing next month I won't have to bother with shitty coded sites looking like scam and some hacks in their amateur-vids.

>>11230911
Oh? So the earth must be hollow then.

>>11230905

>Except the dark matter hypothesis makes quantifiable and falsifiable predictions.

And so does a broken clock, twice a day.

>>11230995
>Oh? So the earth must be hollow then.
no

>>11231001
If gravity is wherever mass is and there is no gravity at the center of a large mass then there must also be NO MASS. Or does that just explain itself too along with gravity? Illogical.

>>11231028
>If gravity is wherever mass is and there is no gravity at the center of a large mass then there must also be NO MASS
that doesn't make any sense. the gravitational field of each piece of mass that constitutes the earth sums to zero at the center of mass of the earth. this is the definition of center of mass.

>>11231033
>the gravitational field of each piece of mass that constitutes the earth sums to zero at the center of mass of the earth
>sums to zero at the center of mass of the earth
>zero at the center of mass of the earth
>zero

therefore ZERO mass. Mass causes gravity right? So if the gravity is ZERO then the mass is also ZERO. What am I not getting here?

>>11231051
>therefore ZERO mass
"no"
>What am I not getting here?
Draw a freebody diagram and integrate of newton's law of universal gravitation for a continuous body over the volume of the earth and find out why. you do know basic vector calculus, right? or else you wouldn't be arguing that physics is wrong, seeing as understanding the math is required to understand the physical concepts.

Jesus Christ this thread is embarrassing

>>11230801
Universe is discrete, you retard.

>>11231069
>"no"
Well like, by your own logic your wrong. Unless you weren't this poster >>11230911. I don't know what else to tell you. No gravity, no mass. What would pull the mass there? If there is no gravity and it cancels itself out, then gravity apparently causes repulsion too. Oh wait that doesn't even sound right either. There's another logical flaw in the explanation of gravity.
>mass causes gravity
>gravity causes mass to attract
>Except for when it doesn't and repulses itself, essentially canceling itself from being defined.

>Draw a freebody diagram and integrate of newton's law of universal gravitation for a continuous body over the volume of the earth and find out why. you do know basic vector calculus, right? or else you wouldn't be arguing that physics is wrong, seeing as understanding the math is required to understand the physical concepts.

Do you think that all of that liberates you from answering me? You may as well be a catholic trying to explain the holy trinity to me. Everything you just stated relies on the universal constant of G, which we just debunked as being "universal". Unless of course gravity is in fact not "0" at the center of earth.

Oh my god, we're actually having a serious debate about Electric Universe.