/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11957852
>eu garbage
into the trash it goes

>>11957852
Thunderbolts is not a scientific organization and YouTube videos are not scientific papers

>>11957852
Classic magnetism. The centripetal dielectric lines of force, which provide energy into matter, enter via the ‘magnetic’ poles. Including that the dielectric plane of inertia which itself is radial dielectric lines of force are pulled towards the magnetic center of matter. When the centripetal lines of forces capacitance exceeds its maximum stability it discharges as a magnetic field from the dielectric inertial plane. This new magnetic field is curvilinear and expands centripedially as a torus. When the centripetal lines of force, which fuel stars, black holes, quasars diminish or abruptly stop then the matter they were going into has no fuel. Therefore that matter system has diminished capacity. When the dielectric lines of force return then the system may resume at a similar observable state as before. Stars disappearing is due to a lack of dielectric energy entering the system. The mass of the system or the amount of particles as fuel is irrelevant and inconsequential with massive objects other than their combined magnetic geometry.

>>11957852
Brilliantly articulated presentation. A real gem of information in a world of standardized, insitutionalied disinformation. Politics, economics and academic science, unfortunately, have a lot in common.

>>11958377
Schizo nonsense is not real information

>>11958251
>exceeds its maximum stability

How plasmoids behave on non-spiralled galaxies? I mean, the massive plasmoids that today are called "Black Holes".

It's funny how mainstream physicists measure the mass of celestial objects by calculating their orbits and then use the orbits to verify their masses. This is like a dog chasing its tail. When it finally gets it it becomes confused, and no matter how hard it tries it can't work out who wins here and what to do with the tail now that it has it in its grasp. Then defeated it let's go and starts to chase it again.

>>11958483
No such thing as mainstream physicists.
Just real physicists vs. EU schizo retards.

>>11958467
That's a good question. Probably the structure/shape of a galaxy relates to the amount of current flowing in along the filaments. Less current = loose or disorderly structure, whereas more current = the nice spiral shape of the Milky Way.

>>11957852
Besides Einstein neither understanding or defining mass and energy, E=mc2 wasn't even his discovery. It was Heaviside and Poincare that flushed it out. And it was Heaviside who set the algebra up for electrical engineers like Steinmetz and Alexanderson to be able to build what we have today. So Heaviside was applying it to electricity, not mass. Poincare pointed out that the equation worked in a 'fluid', which we would call ether now, and not gravity/spacetime. So, not only did Einstein plagiarize the math, he also misapplied it 100%

>>11957852
>A new scientific paper describes an unprecedented and “mind boggling” ... it's completely unexpected
Always the same reactions as long as they keep ignoring the role of electricity and electrically charged plasma in space :)

>>11957852
The proponents of black hole theory claim black holes spin but effectively have time frozen at the event horizon. That's a blunt contradiction. On that alone, their physics fails entirely.

>>11958488
schizo, the post

It's absolutely hilarious how black hole believers call non-believers schizo when they themselves are fully schizo - since all alleged black hole models pertain to a universe that's spatially infinite, is eternal, contains only one mass, is not expanding, and is asymptotically flat or asymptotically not flat. But their big bang cosmology pertains to a universe that's spatially finite (one case) or spatially infinite (two different cases), is of finite age, contains radiation and many masses including multiple black holes (some of which are supposedly primordial), is expanding, and is not asymptotically anything.

Thus black holes and the big bang contradict one another - they're mutually exclusive. This is undeniable and clear as day. And despite numerous claims for black holes in their millions, none has ever been discovered.

And it's surprisingly easy to prove that neither General Relativity nor Newton's theory predict black holes to exist.

It's also not difficult to prove General Relativity violates the usual conservation of energy and momentum. There are fundamental contradictions contained in black hole theory, big bang cosmology, as well as in General Relativity. Their attempts at numerical methods to prove their theory are therefore meaningless.

Oh and for those who'd like to use the defense that in an expanding universe energy isn't conserved and thus the "energy conservation law" is false and therefore all criticism of Einstein's field equations are incorrect, friendly reminder to you that Einstein required his field equations to satisfy the usual conservation of energy and momentum.

To do so he introduced his pseudotensor which has been demonstrated to be entirely meaningless – see: https://z.zz.ht/98S5i.pdf and related: https://z.zz.ht/ZMeXe.pdf

The big bang theory is based upon Einstein’s field equations. Since the field equations violate the usual conservation laws, the theory of a big bang is fundamentally flawed.

>>11958832
Therefore, invoking the big bang creationism to attempt to circumvent the violation of the usual conservation laws is a circular argument and therefore completely invalid.

Furthermore, Einstein's field equations are nonlinear and so the principle of Superposition doesn't hold in General Relativity - but it does hold in Newton's theory.

Thus (see pic related) if X and Y are two different solutions to Einstein's field equations, then the linear combination of aX + bY, where a and b are scalars, isn't a solution. Physically this means that one can't simply pile up masses and radiation in any given spacetime to obtain multiple masses and radiation. Additionally, there are no solutions to Einstein's field equations for two or more masses and there is no existence theorem by which it can even be asserted that the field equations contain latent solutions for two or more masses. Thus it's not possible to insert a black hole universe into a big bang universe or into another black hole universe, or to insert a big bang universe into a black hole universe or another big bang universe. Nevertheless, Einstein's followers routinely and incorrectly claim the existence of multiple black holes from objects such as stars by means of irresistible gravitational collapse. That's truly maximum schizo.

>>11958750
*Ahem...*

>>11958832
>>11958835
fucking KOOK fucktard people like you should be shot in the streets on sight

My money's on bad instrumentation.

>>11958874

>>11958874
I like how he rants about muh infinite universe and goes off tangent and completely fails to explain WHY bholes need an infinite, eternal universe.

>>11958407
It's a parody of a certain subset of EUfags

>>11958832
>>11958835
>wall-of-text schizo
errytime

>>11957852
>Giant black hole accretes thing quickly instead of slowly
>Scientists baffled

>>11958779
EU schizo projects, as always.

>>11957852
The scientific community being duped into largely abandoning plasma physics more than 100 years ago is one of the main things which caused the stagnation of humanity's advancement in the understanding of the cosmos and our place in it.