/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12002869
Yes, look in to Safire Sun.

Legit scientists, creating any element they wish.

>>12002872

No, it's all bullshit.

Rule of thumb, if all the "work" in a "field" is communicated by nonames in Youtube videos, it's almost certainly total horseshit. This is snake oil that relies on video and audio to build a sense of personal trust from laymen. For example, this is the case for pretty much every conspiracy theory espoused by /pol/.

>>12002888
You're wasting your time. Anyone who would fall for such nonsense lacks the common sense to differentiate between bullshit pseudo-science and actual science.

>>12002869
It's complete nonsense.

>>12002970
Sigh. I was afraid . People here would say that. I was really enjoying there content.

>>12002869
>eu garbage
into the trash it goes

>>12002878
How is it bait? Watch their youtube.

>>12002869
Their predictions on electrically charged comets and how they behave in the real world are spot on. It also gives a more credible explanation of why the suns corona is far hotter than the sun itself. The electric currents at work throughout the solar system are self evident, just look at the auroras which are present on every planet. Conventional science likes to poo poo the model but that is just the way it goes. It doesn't need to invent 'dark matter' or 'dark energy' to explain the observable universe.

It's the equivalent of claiming disease is caused by dark humors and evil essences instead of poor nutrition and poor hygiene.

If you really want to blow your mind look into Walter Russel. He discovered Plutonium 20 years before it was officially discovered.

>>12003145

>>12003145
I gaurantee you your model wouldn't get shit on so hard if it had any merit, scientists actually like disproving current theories.

>>12002872
https://youtu.be/vmVdPgkudC8

If you find yourself supporting an idea based off of slickly produced youtube videos, featuring a rag-tag cast of "rebels" taking on "big science" with their radical new approach, spurning peer-review, and always ignoring outside criticism or making vague threats of lawsuits to those who call them out, congratulations, you've fallen into a cult.

The EU/Thunderbolts is a cult. It is Scientology for electrical engineers. SAFIRE is just a weird machine that they won't explain or publish about,and an actual plasma physicist that worked with them for a while flatly declared them ignoramuses engaging in rampant bullshitting.

Don't try to convince me I'm wrong by intoning the weird semi-scientific word salad about Birkeland currents or Z-pinches, instead, address the critique found in these videos-

https://youtu.be/T9q-v4lBGuw

https://youtu.be/3VOazE6M8Cc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmVdPgkudC8

It's not too late to simply discard these valueless ideas.

>>12003182
How ironic.

>>12003192
The cultist thinks we are the blind ones.....

Why would you put your trust in a next of vipers like Thunderbolts? These people are shifty as fuck and trace their ideas back to outright mysticism.

any of the more minor aspects of your ideas relating to planets or comets are irrelevant because we have every indication that the sun being powered externally by a galactic current is 100% falsified by every bit of data we have ever taken in about it. It's ABSURD! We have been observing the sun with increasingly powerful instruments for years-and it gives every indication of being powered by fusion.

>>12003191
>It's not too late
used car salesman trick

>>12003209
The thing about the electric universe model is that there are no minor aspects. The parts are a reflection of the whole so the electrical reaction between two bodies is the same no matter what size they are, be it a comet a moon or a gas giant. You can observe the electrical discharge when meteors approach earth or another heavenly body, the discharge is often enough to completely explode them before they hit the earth as in Russia recently (the recent experiment where they sent a probe to a comet is a good example of an electrical discharge being predicted and observed).

The problem I have with the fusion model is how do you explain the heat differential between the sun surface and the corona, where is the fusion reaction taking place? What is driving the oscillation that produces sun spot cycles and controls the weather throughout the solar system as discovered by Professor Valentina Zharkova.

I don't put my trust in a nest of vipers but their observations and predictions of the real world have been proven correct before the fact without the creation of new types of hypothetical energy and matter to prop up a theory.

>>12003253
>where is the fusion reaction taking place
in the center
duh

>>12002869
electricity is a subset of duality

>>12003078
Youtube is good and all, but what about peer reviewed science papers? Who cares what you say at the camera when you don't have anything to back that up with.

>>12003253
Dude, what the fuck,no.

The sun is objectively not powered externally. Show me one piece of evidence it is.

>>12003078
>Watch their youtube

huge red flag right there

>>12002869
Why are you retards so obsessed with this nonsense?

>>12003540
there is money to be made off idiots

>>12002869
Yes it's legit. Electric universe explains observable reality better than the current models. Most scientists act with such vitriol and attack any opposition to their theories because they're too emotionally invested in their models. They've been working on these wrong models for the last 100 years and are in too deep to consider other ideas.

>>12003586
cool, show me the math.

>>12003586
>t. half my wage goes into tin foil hats

>>12003191
Mainstream science is also a cult, peer review is a joke that has been shown not to work , and everything you attack the electric universe is done by the opposite side to a greater extreme. Trying to debunk thunderbolts with a some random druggies youtube channel is pathetic, this guy is a bitch

>>12003598
Who needs math? When your equations dont work just make up dark energy, dark matter, and add a cosmological constant

>>12003624
ah so you have no idea what you are talking about. ok.

>>12003598
I make $600 a month, $300 of that goes into tin foil hats.

>>12003586

>>12003629
You dont understand the history of dark matter? The math didnt support the gravity dominated models in the early 20th century so scientists cheated and changed observable reality to fit their equations. Total fraud

>>12003657
Dark matter is a complex subject that is currently under active investigation. To call it a fraud when you clearly have a below undergraduate level of education speaks to your lack of wisdom. If you were intellectually honest, you would serk out responses by academics to EU nonsense to vet your beliefs, but u are simply feeding an existing bias.

>>12003657
Is that what they told you after you paid 50$ a month to thunderbolt's paetron?

>>12003666
Why are people so against the idea that electricity and magnetism play a huge role in astrophysics, the fixation on only using gravity as a way to explain everything large in the universe is so close minded.
Dark matter isn't complex, it's just changing reality to fit wrong equations.

>>12003677
No i came to the conclusion myself in a cosmology class, plus seeing articles of the contradictons of some galaxies observed having dark matter and some not. It makes me think that some other mechanism is at play which led me to electric universe

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ni7S8yyYrAw
take the soundingpill bros

>>12003624
He doesnt want the real equations, he wants your equations which are presumably better and more accurate than the real ones.
unless you are also just making shit up to suit your pet hypothesis?

>>12003687
>Why are people so against the idea that electricity and magnetism play a huge role in astrophysics
The lack of evidence is a big reason. We would already have seen giant currents between galaxies if they existed. We would already have seen lightning causing craters if it existed. There's also the fact that none of this is necessary to explain anything. EU is neither scientifically coherent, empirically justified, nor necessary.

>>12003612
Mainstream science isn't a cult at all, this is just baseless nonsense spouted by insecure brainlets who will never be scientists or engineers, and feel intellectually threatened by the fact they have to defer to people smarter then they are. I see people like you on the internet time and turn again.

>>12003657
Total fraud bro, yeah, except the fact that the work of Newton and Einstein have been demonstrably proven to work. Honestly, just kill yourself. You're too fucking dumb and better off dead.

>>12003687
Show the math. Show the evidence.
Or fuck off and die cunt.

>shitheads on this board still replying to this shit
Just fucking stop. Report the schizo for advertising his youtube channel and move on.

>>12003191
>scientology for electrical engineers
kek

>>12004023
The people responding so nastiliy to anything going against their beliefs in this thread is cultish, the whole i love science crowd.

>>12004028
The work of maxwell is demonstrably proven as well, i didnt say gravity isnt real, learn to read, just that certain space phenomena is better explained through electrodynamics such as pulsars, black holes, and collisons between bodies. Is electrodynamics not good enough science for you?

>>12003889
Well there is plenty of evidence but you havent looked into it, why dont you look into it with an open mind. When people disagree with you, you can look at both explanations and weigh the pros and cons.

>>12003191
>It is Scientology for electrical engineers
Shut the fuck up, even a freshman EE student should be able to realize that it's bunk

>>12003184
>>12003191
>>12003209


I have not much knowledge abut EU. But i can help you debunk the standard model.

The relativistic mirror malfunction:

A observer A creates at an given point in time B, an mirror horizon. Expanding outward with the speed of light. Nothing can escape that mirror horizon because nothing can travel faster as the speed of light.
If observer A starts to move after the point in time B the mirror horizon has to contract in the direction of the movement vector of the movement of the observer A.

There for all energy stored at the mirror-horizon facing the direction of the movement vector of observer A, has to be reflected inward towards observer A.
Because nothing can travel faster as the speed of light.

>>12003191
professor dave is a gay idiot and those videos are nothing but personal attacks. he fails to address any of the scientific points they are claiming. I watched all 3 and support EU even more now. Fuck dave.

>>12004602
>>/sci/image/U7wo_D2yHiNQcCxZrV7ELg
REAL SCHIZO HOURS

>>12004557
MATH AND REPRODUCIBLE EXPERIMENTS.
NOW.
STOP SAYING GAY FUCKING PSEDUO SHIT LIKE "LOOK INTO IT!!!"
POST THE FUCKING MATH.
POST THE FUCKING EXPERIMENT.
OR FUCK OFF AND DIE YOU FUCKING CUNT.
NOT 1 FUCKING SELF CONSISTENT EQUATION OR EXPERIMEN HAS EVER BEEN PROVIDED BY YOU FUCKING SCUMBAG CUNTS.
FUCKING DIE.

>>12004525
My beliefs rest of math and experiments, which are demonstrable.
Your beliefs rest on "it's against mainstream science, the mainstream scientists are cultist and covering it up!!! I'm right!!!".
POST THE FUCKING MATH.
POST THE FUCKING EXPERIMENT.
OR GO DIE.
CUNT.

>>12004525
You haven't provide any science or math that actually poses any challenge to "mainstream" science. You're just saying shit. Where is the math? Where are your experiments?

>>12004607
he shows safire is a front from the EU retards to push their retard EE Scientology. making them basically lose all credit. its hard to attack safire because they dont release any papers and only vague shit. same thing for most of EU. they dont have any papers so they dance around. when you do real science and have theories its hard to dance around since you have papers.

>>12004618
>>12004620
Calm down, dude. I hate the EU shit as much as the next guy, but you seem to be unnecessarily aggravated. Screaming at that retard won't help.

>>12003145
>Their predictions on electrically charged comets and how they behave in the real world are spot on.

>It also gives a more credible explanation of why the suns corona is far hotter than the sun itself.
and by credible im assuming you mean that you like it better, riveting

>>12004601
Lol many of the people working on safire are electrical engineers. EE are good people, but they seem esp vulnerable to this bs for some reason.

Stop bumping these off topic trash threads morons.

>>12004620
>My beliefs rest of math and experiments, which are demonstrable.
hes literally right here you desperate ass
we dont have experiments for cosmology
the experiments that we have for particle physics rule out most of the theories we have
the standard model is still not on solid foundations
we cant test any black hole physics outside of saying "there it is"

>>12004607
He points out that all observational evidence we have supports the sun being powered by fusion and that a giant external current would interact with the solar wind in ways we could easily see.

>>12004675
>the experiments that we have for particle physics rule out most of the theories we have
How so? Where are the legions of particle physicists loudly pursuing Nobel prizes by debunking the SM? Can you please point me to explicit peer reviewed evidence of this?

>>12004607
>professor dave is a gay idiot and those videos are nothing but personal attacks.
thats because EU is just a psychological sink
it baits people in with its story rather than its science

>he fails to address any of the scientific points they are claiming.
what scientific points?

>>12004602
what the fuck is the dribble supposed to be

>>12004675
POST THE MATH.
POST THE SCIENCE.
STOP FUCKING BLABBING.

>>12004689
>most of the theories we have
>explicitly SM
you might want to relearn how to read

>>12004690
You dont understand the points they make so you just argue based off of emotion. Are electrodynamics too much for you?

>>12004726
>what points do they make
>you dont understand their points so you argue off emotion
atleast emotional arguments are an actual argument instead of just avoiding the question

>>12004732
You just keep asking what arguments, you dony even know what youre arguing against. Are you against electrodynamics in astrophysics? What does the electric universe theory have thats bullshit to you?

>>12004700
Your post is pretty vague, is it that suprising i didnt get what you were saying? Explain yourself more clearly, please.

>>12004602
>All energy stored at the mirror-horizon?
What energy? Nothing can reflect off the flying mirror since it is moving at the speed of light and it is infinitisemally contracted in the direction of it's movement with respect to observer at rest. Once the observer starts to move it simply sees all the light that could have been reflected from the mirror before it started moving at the speed of light as described by relativistic aberration ie. searchlight effect.

There is no contradiction or inconsistency.

>>12004741
The central claim of the electric universe is that stars are externally powered. This is obviously false and is contradicted by all observational solar data.

>>12004747
No it's that magnetic anomalies accompany earthquakes so earthquakes can be predicted with 100% accuracy

>>12004741
>You just keep asking what arguments, you dony even know what youre arguing against.
i want you to give me a specific example of something in eu you find to be convincing

>Are you against electrodynamics in astrophysics?
yes, electricity is a cancellative force especially on large distances.

>What does the electric universe theory have thats bullshit to you?
basically all of it, really
getting rid of the concept of fusion in stars is the main point of eu as i see it

>>12004742
practically all extensions of SM dont work, but people keep adding more things to get around the experiments not giving them anything they expect
Besides, literally all physicists know that SM itself is incomplete
why the fuck are you asking for examples of experiments against SM
just fucking take the X-17 experiments, doesnt matter if its a new particle, its not following SM

>>12004747
Well there are observable filaments connecting stars. http://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2018/03/Chaotic_web_of_filaments_in_a_Milky_Way_stellar_nursery
Gas forms along electrical currents in the nursery and coalesces into stars.

The sun's corona is much hotter than its surface. The only things we can actully observe are these two, why is the cornona hotter than the surface if the surface is closer to the core? The hottest and brightest part of the sun is the outside.
A white dwarf exploding as a supernova makes no conventional sense, only if the star is powered externally.
https://www.universetoday.com/147226/theres-a-flash-of-ultraviolet-just-as-a-white-dwarf-is-exploding-as-a-supernova/amp/

>>12004752
I finde electrical discharge causing craters on planets to be convincing, comet tails being electrical and not water burnoff, and pulsars being two large stars that work like a relaxation oscillator creating a strobe light effect.

>>12004773
The image you posted is perfectly in line with conventional astrophysics.
Where are the filaments or other obvervable effects of our sun being externally powered?

>>12003271
duality is a subset of contradictions

>>12003191
>Scientology for engineers
>like believing electricity is a discrete particle

>Don't try to convince me I'm wrong by intoning the weird semi-scientific word salad about Birkeland currents or Z-pinches, instead, address the critique found in these videos

Show me empirical evidence of "Space" and "Time", a "photon particle" or an "electron". Show them as testable in an a experiment and prove they can be used to explain how the universe works.

>>12004602
>Nothing can escape that mirror horizon because nothing can travel faster as the speed of light.
>nothing can travel faster as the speed of light.
>Because nothing can travel faster as the speed of light.
You're not wrong. "Nothing" is not measured in speed though.

>>12004752
Electricity is not a force. It's a mediation of force vectors

>>12003687
Because they fail to understand that gravity is a description of an acceleration and insist on calling the effect know as "gravity" it something in and of itself or "a force".

>>12004773
>Well there are observable filaments connecting stars.
>Gas forms along electrical currents in the nursery and coalesces into stars.
why is gravity insufficient to explain that?
besides most gas is neutral hydrogen, its not affected by electromagnetism

>The hottest and brightest part of the sun is the outside.
>the brightest part of the sun is the outside
yeah, no shit
and the corona is not hotter than the core

>>12004808
>I finde electrical discharge causing craters on planets to be convincing
why? we've never observed that

>comet tails being electrical and not water burnoff
if they were electrical then there would be a second tail pointing towards the sun with the opposite charge

>A white dwarf exploding as a supernova makes no conventional sense, only if the star is powered externally.
what? it makes perfect sense, once a white dwarf overcomes electron degeneracy pressure is explodes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrasekhar_limit

>>12004827
>Show me empirical evidence of "Space" and "Time", a "photon particle" or an "electron"
gravitational waves
gps
the Photoelectric effect
electron microscopes

>>12004827
>It's a mediation of force vectors
thats not a thing

>Because they fail to understand that gravity is a description of an acceleration and insist on calling the effect know as "gravity" it something in and of itself or "a force".
no its because electromagnetism is a cancellative force

>>12004696
ok
>>12004745

Oh you know that, its doesn't matter how you call it and btw. the effect is so strong thats its +1 degree per year. Considering the earth as observer.

>>12004745
>>12004856
Also shit lord dont tell me its insignificant. Just because the number is just a little fraction. ! degree per year form one mirror horizon isn't insignificant.

>>12004858
and thats what? 500% times faster as climate chance better start to worry about it.

>>12004856
>moving at the speed of light away
>stuff moving towards it hits the mirror and bounces back
so that stuff moving towards it and reaching is moving how fast?
faster than the mirror?
so faster than light?

also
>I have not much knowledge abut EU. But i can help you debunk the standard model.
relativity isnt the standard model you fucking moron

>>12004838
>gravitational waves
>gravity is gravity
descriptions again.

>gps
This is a meme and Einstein's velocity composition law was never experimentally verified and has nothing to do with how GPS operates.

>the Photoelectric effect
>another description

>electron microscopes
>If we sputter coat everything in gold the electric fields we call magical bumping particles give us a mirage of what's actually there

You've proven gold is a very conductive material.

>thats not a thing
No shit, it's what something else does.

>no its because electromagnetism is a cancellative force
Differentiate it from gravity

>>12004856
>Oh you know that, its doesn't matter how you call it and btw. the effect is so strong thats its +1 degree per year. Considering the earth as observer.
What?

Are you claiming this "relativistic debunking" is in any way related to global warming?

>>12004879
cherry picking isnt an augment.
>>12004907
i am calming that i did the math.

>>12004904
Explain the photoelectric effect without photons.

>>12004827
STFU ken

>>12004904
>descriptions again.
fuck do you mean
gravitational waves are different from electromagnetic waves
how is that insufficient

>>the Photoelectric effect
>>another description
thats not what a description is

>Differentiate it from gravity
all things have a gravitational attraction towards the earth regardless of their electrical charge

>>12004921
what the fuck there counts as cherry picking
or do you not know the definition of cherry picking?

>>12003691
>non baryonic matter should be perfectly distributed around the universe because I say so
>yet massive invisible galaxy spanning electric currents powering stars which there is absolutely no evidence for is just fine trust me ;)
Is this bait or are you just hopeless?

It would be SO EASY to see if the sun was externally powered. The amount of current you would need to replicate the surface temperature of the sun from it being coupled electromagnetically to an external source is staggering-billions of terawatts. The solar wind would have to interact with it in incredibly obvious ways. We would see some sign of this external power in the sun's atmospheric behavior.

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

This does not look like an externally powered object-its surface is chaotic in a very even way, exactly as if it was powered internally by fusion. Its electromagnetic effects are second-order, not primary.

>>12004929
>explain a description of something never proven to exist

Okay. Some quack tried to explain an effect and failed to do so because he didn't understand the foundation of what it was he was talking about.


>>12005025
>gravitational waves are different from electromagnetic waves
>how is that insufficient
>I differentiated it simply because I described the effect in a different manner

Cool story bro. Now how about some actual evidence/explination to the acceleration known as gravity.
>mass attracts mass
doesn't cut it because a magnet is a fucking mass
>gravity attracts mass
>mass has gravity
is circular reasoning and also doesn't cut it.

>that's not what a description is
It's exactly what a description is. It's like "eddy current", it just describes what something else does but fails to explain WHY it does what it does.

>all things have a gravitational attraction towards the earth regardless of their electrical charge
>mass has gravity
and you still fail to explain why. You just redescribe the effect over and over and think that's sufficient
Let me take a shot
>all things are attracted to a magnet regardless of their electrical charge
But I bet you believe it's just "Ferromagnetic" materials that do this right?

>>12003657
>The math didnt support the gravity dominated models
>the math didnt support the models
you mean the experiments, moron

>>12005110
>Cool story bro. Now how about some actual evidence/explination to the acceleration known as gravity.
The Cavendish experiment?

>>12005122
He's trying to pull a "why" chain.

Physics is a useful but incomplete description of reality. Ultimate answers are not available to anyone.

>>12005110
>explain a description of something never proven to exist
The photoelectric effect is very real and it done by every undergraduate physicist. Try again.

>Some quack tried to explain an effect and failed to do so because he didn't understand the foundation of what it was he was talking about.

If you claim physics doesn't need photons, then it should be easy to explain the observations of the photoelectric effect. Why is there a threshold frequency?

>>12005220
>The photoelectric effect is very real
It's also a description. The effect is real yes, but the explanation of what causes it is absurd. It's literally a description of magic bumping particles. But it doesn't explain why red spectrum light doesn't have the same effect. It doesn't explain the threshold frequency necessary for a charge to be created.
Like gravity, the effect is definitely observable. However, the effects of a shadow are also observable. Where is the "shadow force"? Why don't shadows get recognized as a fundamental force? It seems that only special, particularized, observable effects get described with more complexity over others. It's almost as if the more you describe what you see the more you delude yourself into believing it actually exist as something that does something.
>an acceleration exists
But I ask how an acceleration is something?

>photoelectrik effekt!
>Yes you can describe an effect dualistically using an assumption that particles exist.
And?
>but no it had nothing to do with an already know fact that blue spectrum light causes EM emissions and therefore electrostatic buildup and eventual release between a cathode and anode depending on the dielectric permittivity of the material.
You know light? The electromagnetic phenomena?

>>12005122
>lead exhibits less magnetic attraction than iron
neat!

>>12005139
>useful but incomplete
Which makes it usefully incomplete.

>>12005536
>It's also a description. The effect is real yes, but the explanation of what causes it is absurd.
Once again you are deflecting. I asked for your explanation of the effect. You said physics doesn't need photons, so defend your bullshit claims.

>But it doesn't explain why red spectrum light doesn't have the same effect. It doesn't explain the threshold frequency necessary for a charge to be created.
Bullshit. You don't even understand the basic physics you're trying to argue against. In the photon model red light doesn't have the same effect because there is a minimum energy needed to liberate an electron. Increasing the intensity of the light doesn't change the energy per photon. Hence there is a threshold frequency. Shining more light causes more electrons to be emitted, with the same energy.

Now explain that with classical physics and no photons. The more deflect, the more you show that you don't have a fucking clue.

>>12005536
usefully incomplete is still useful.

>>12005107
inductive heat.
>>12005025
just stop avoid the augment i even draw a picture so you can better imagine the relativistic mirror malfunction.

>>12003606
Dude you are either really badly paid or your making your hats wrong. One roll should make a hat that will last a year depending on the level of 5g exposure.

>>12005721
inductive heat? From what? How? Why?

Stellar fusion matches every bit of evidence we have for the stars we see and explains red giants and supernovas.

This is just sad, guys. You bought into a narrative that relies on ignorance.

>>12005721
>i even draw a picture so you can better imagine the relativistic mirror malfunction.
yeah, the picture helps with calculating the relative speeds
the thing you say bounces off the mirror moves faster than it since it catches up
again, nothing about that is called cherry picking, thats a different term entirely

>>12005536
>>lead exhibits less magnetic attraction than iron
>neat!
attraction isn't one sided
if one thing is attracted with force A, then the thing its attracted to is also attracted with force A
they attract each other with equal force, other wise you could just tie the two of them together and theyd chase each other forever

>>12006061
No what you are suggesting would violate the law of relativity. Nothing is faster as the speed of light.
No just imagine the mirror horizon passes a sun but the earth moves into the opposite direction, then this energy has to get reflected inward. Do you understand? Nothing needs to catch up.

>>12005636
>If you claim physics doesn't need photons, then it should be easy to explain the observations of the photoelectric effect.
No. The only thing I said that was even close to this was:
>>12004827
>Show me empirical evidence of "Space" and "Time", a "photon particle" or an "electron".
and also that the photoelectric effect was just a description. Physics needs "photons" because without assuming their existence they cannot describe the photoelectric effect in terms they understand. They use what was never proven to exist as part of a description to an observation. Why would I bother debating these baseless claims?
I am asking for proof of the claim that there is a "photon" in the first place. I don't care how or if "physics" need "photons" just as I don't care how Christians need Jesus Christ.
>In the photon model red light doesn't have the same effect because there is a minimum energy needed to liberate an electron.
Which is yet another description. Akin to saying "Big plastic triangle doesn't fit in small square cutout". It also once again assumes the non proved existence of an electron particle.

>Shining more light causes more electrons to be emitted, with the same energy.
It only happens when you increase the frequency of the wavelength, or the material in question. Which led to yet another assumption that somehow light could have more quanta than...itself. What's interesting is that you can use the same amount of power of light source and simply change the coherency (quality) of it and achieve the same effects. So where does the "quanta" come from? Quantity of what? The only thing that has changed is the wavelength (and the type of material that it's exposed to).
>>12006067
>attraction isn't one side
Well the experiment doesn't differentiate magnetic attraction from gravity is all I'm saying.

>>12006485
What's your take on the dirac sea?

>>12006485
>Well the experiment doesn't differentiate magnetic attraction from gravity is all I'm saying.
you could do the experiment yourself with non conducting materials
but objects fall down regardless of their charge is all I'm saying

>>12006376
Why is that light ray being reflected in multiple directions, it should only be reflected roughly back the way it came.

>>12004745
Did you not understand this post? >>12006376

>>12004602
What does this disprove exactly?

>>12007139
Does space around earth get every year significant warmer?

>>12007078
No the red line is the first light-ray at a given point in time B. At the emergence of the mirror horizon.
The inward reflected energy, can be from multiple sources inside the mirror horizon.

>>12007113
Yes. But its irrelevant. The fraction it contracts would heat the earth by 1 degree per year. Also you can have multiple horizon everyone acting like a magnifying glass

>>12007279
Why don't we see a mirror out in space?

>>12007606
Because relativity is wrong.

>>12007646
but the mirror is what is supposed to disprove relativity
if its not there then its not a disproof of relativity

>>12007663
No the mirror is a logical consequence of the assumption that nothing can travel faster as the speed of light.

>>12004602
As far as I can tell you are claiming that photons bound other photons. This is simply false. Photons pass through each other and only rarely interact.

>>12007669
the mirror is moving at the speed of light, its possible existence already contradicts relativity
its not a consequence of relativity at all

>>12007695
no i dont.
>>12007707
no just only 99,9999....% dont be that cherry picking.

>>12007761
>no just only 99,9999....% dont be that cherry picking.
99.99... is 100
and thats still not what cherry picking means

>eu thread
>some autist rambling mathlessly about mirror horizons

Jesus the schitzos are out in force

>>12007761
>no I dont.
Then what is the mirror made of?

>>12008043
If two photons get emitted at the same point in time in opposite directions, with which speed they depart from each other?
>>12007780
did i set a recurrent sign? Oh wait i don't, you are still cherry picking and you want to avoid the augment. Also you are a faggot.

>>12008332
>If two photons get emitted at the same point in time in opposite directions, with which speed they depart from each other?
From what reference frame?

Also you didn't answer my question, what is the mirror made of?

>>12008405
>>12004602
Observer A#
The mirror is made of the idiocy of Einstein fanatics.

>>12008419
So you can't say what the mirror is made of. Good to know.

>>12008419
From observer A's reference frame both photons are moving at the speed of light.

And again you failed to answer my question, what is the mirror made of? Photons pass through each other, they do not act like mirrors.

>>12008447
No wrong you retard its the same question as if you ask me what is heat made of. What is the meter made of, what is gravity made of. A force isnt made of.

>>12008450
An effect or force isn't made out of stuff, its caused by the stuff. Why should i even consider to answer that serious?

>>12008450
And do you believe, that the photon can go faster as this? Because if not mirror-horizon

>>12008451
>its the same question as if you ask me what is heat made of.
Heat is made of photons (infrared radiation).

>A force isnt made of.
Light is not a force.

>>12008462
>An effect or force isn't made out of stuff, its caused by the stuff.
OK, what causes the effect you think would occur?

>>12008451
You say that energy is stored at the mirror, so where is that energy stored if not in a physical object?

>>12008466
>And do you believe, that the photon can go faster as this?
No.

>Because if not mirror-horizon
How? What are photons bouncing off of?

>>12008450
>>12008466
You know the sphere caused by the assumption of relativists that nothing can travel faster as the speed of light there for all stuff has to be in this sphere. And because you cant violate the laws of thermodynamic, your energy has to go somewhere if the horizon contracts.v like inward, like an reflection maybe.

>>12008477
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're talking about the edge of the Observable Universe, when we can't see beyond it because light hasn't had time to get further than that?

>>12008495
No. At a given point in time B...
>>12004602

This can be now yesterday, everyday. A very very inaccurate estimation showed me that,m this effect should heat the earth at 1 degree per year. But i believe it much more cause as bigger the mirror gets as more energy gets reflected inward, i calculated with 1 light year.

>>12008477
>You know the sphere caused by the assumption of relativists that nothing can travel faster as the speed of light there for all stuff has to be in this sphere.
What stuff? Only the stuff we can interact with.

>And because you cant violate the laws of thermodynamic, your energy has to go somewhere if the horizon contracts.
There is no conservation of energy in this context since the sphere keeps getting bigger. It's not a physical barrier. Why would there be a reflection?

>>12008572
so what are you saying? the mirror horizon doesn't exist? relativity doesn't exist? thermodynamic doesn't exist, and the energy can just vanish?

Do you think you are smarter as Einstein?
Do you think that things can travel faster as the speed of light?
If you denies my mirror-horizon you denies Einstein.

>>12008583
Einstein doesn't talk about a mirror horizon.

>>12008621
But "nothing can travel faster as the speed of light" does.

>>12008625
no it doesnt, it says that if there were something moving at the speed of light away from us, then we could never see it
also, you have yet to explain what i was cherry picking, because cherry picking is the wrong term

>>12008663
oh ok its just about seeing stuff. so its basically just optics. Sorry i think i misunderstood Einstein. Is the big bang also just optical?
>you have yet to explain what i was cherry picking, because cherry picking is the wrong term

I translated the phrase, not just the word in my language. Because even i can be wrong. No sorry that's exactly what you did.

"Did it really travel at the speed of light or just 99,99998723?"

I dont know that, but this is a concern of size relation. The augment of the mirror horizon is an augment of geometrical relations. So if this horizon is in fact a bit slower, it will heat observer A a bit more who cares?

>>12008583
>the mirror horizon doesn't exist?
You haven't defined what a "mirror horizon" is. It seems like you are talking about a lightcone, but lightcones don't reflect anything.

>relativity doesn't exist?
Please explain how relativity shows photons reflecting other photons.

>thermodynamic doesn't exist, and the energy can just vanish?
Where did I say the energy vanishes?

>Do you think you are smarter as Einstein?
No.

>Do you think that things can travel faster as the speed of light?
No.

>If you denies my mirror-horizon you denies Einstein.
How, you still have utterly failed to explain anything.

>>12003185
he a gay

>>12008820
You haven't defined what a "mirror horizon" is. The mirror horizon is the barrier rooted in an point in time, in an location A at the observer, Which describe the maximal distance an object can travel.

>Where did I say the energy vanishes?
so what does it do if the horizon contracts?

>>12009012
>The mirror horizon is the barrier rooted in an point in time, in an location A at the observer, Which describe the maximal distance an object can travel.
That's not a barrier. It's not made of anything that reflects anything.

>so what does it do if the horizon contracts?
The horizon doesn't interact with energy, so nothing.

You have repeatedly failed to explain how the lightcone actually does anything with energy, because you have no clue what you're talking about.

>>12009419

Ok you are so smart. What happens with the energy who gets forced to move faster as the speed of light? Does it get reflected backwards or did it vanish or sth. else?

Whats your guess? Because something has to happen if i move observer A. with lets say with 30km/s. What happens with this energy? You denies it gets reflected but you have no solution to what happens to it so it doesn't violate the speed limit of light.

>>12009442
>What happens with the energy who gets forced to move faster as the speed of light?
??? What energy is that?

>Because something has to happen if i move observer A.
How would the observer moving cause anything to go faster than light?

>>12003021
never change

>>12003018
Real plasma physics is just as interesting with the added benefit of not being complete horseshit.

>>12003612
>peer review is a joke that has been shown not to work
Peer review works fine when your work has actual merit. I've had papers get rejected before and be forced to go back and do some supplemental work to address concerns, even had to start from scratch once... but I've never had complaints from a reviewer that were unreasonable or without basis, and my work has always been accepted if I've been able to address the concerns brought up during peer review.

>>12009660
This is very izzy just add 30km to the distance one photon travel in an second.

>>12009732
Speed isn't additive, welcome to special relativity.

>>12009785
I added distance.
Anyway i think you saying nothing can escape the mirror horizon.>>12004602

Welcome to your relative "special" ideas.

>>12009793
No one has any idea what your schizo mirror horizon shit is

>>12009795
proof!

>>12009732
that doesnt work, the speed of light is always the speed of light, regardless of the observer
you simply do not understand physics

>I added distance.
>distance one photon travel in an second.
you did not

>>12009851
You only proofed my relativistic mirror malfunction.
>>12004602
I dont know whats your point.

>>12009902
>You only proofed my relativistic mirror malfunction.
>>>12004602
>I dont know whats your point.
ESL

>>12009793
>I added distance
You added distance a photon travels in a second, which is speed. In reality, the speed of the photon is independent from the speed of the observer. This is a fundamental tenet of relativity yet your supposedly relativistic thought experiment violates it. I don't see how your fallacious reasoning can be explained more clearly than that.

>>12009732
You yet again failed to answer my questions. What energy is being moved faster than light? How world the observer moving cause this? Keep in mind that if your answers require the speed of light to change or adding speed linearly, then you are violating special relativity and your thought experiment fails.

>>12002869
This entire project and the battle surrounding it takes place at the summit of Mount Stupid. Between idiots who think they're smart because they figure that the standard model is bunk but are still too stupid to think for themselves and instead rely on a fully formed alternative model, and other idiots who think they're smart confusingly because they agree with the model they are told to believe is true by the establishment and are offended by the presence of anyone who refuses to conform. The truth is always somewhere in the middle, and nobody knows it yet.

>>12003145
>predictions on electrically charged comets and how they behave in the real world

Predicting already observed data. Great test of the theory. Can't see the flaw here at all.

Can't be bothered to watch the YouTube videos, but the statement above says enough. What frustrates me with pseudo-scientific bullshit like this is that it relies on 'mainstream' or 'consensus' science up until what we knew about 1900 (i.e. up to high school level physics) but then starts to complain about the mainstream being wrong since then. You can't pick and choose what you from the scientific 'establishment'.

We fucking knew precisely the distance over which the strong, weak and electromagnetic forces act. In fact the standard model predicts them to ~10 sig fig accuracy.

You may as well say that the most fundamental level, all matters is just vibrating circular strings.

The real problem is whether they're a legitimate movement, or rather a controlled opposition in order to discreetly reveal secrets while retaining control of the narrative and faith of the goyim.

>>12010274
>The real problem is whether they're a legitimate movement, or rather a controlled opposition in order to discreetly reveal secrets while retaining control of the narrative and faith of the goyim.

GR,SR or QM, which one are you referring to?

>>12010179
>This is a fundamental tenet of relativity yet your supposedly relativistic thought experiment violates it.
>thought experiments violate thought experiments
>caring


>>12006555
It's aether theory described with particles instead of a medium. If I continuously increase the hardness of a vacuum I am displacing what is already there and moving it to where it isn't.

>>12006637
>you could do the experiment yourself with non conducting materials
but objects fall down regardless of their charge is all I'm saying
>Which is yet another description of an object falling

So where does the apple fall when it evaporates after 2 weeks of decomposing?

>>12010195
No one disputes that physics is incomplete. But just because you don't know how something works doesn't mean any nonsensical explanation dreamed up by an eccentric mystic about lightning bolts carving out craters and the sun being an externally powered lightbulb can be cast as being a valid "side" along with conventional physics. It has zero explanatory power. It's BULLSHIT.

Your smug "both siddes are wrong, the truth must be in the middle"equivocation between this festering pile of cultic hogwash and mainstream physics makes you the biggest cunt in this thread.

>>12010317
Save those big words for your dissertation lest you run out of fancy ways to say "professor shekelstein is so right and his cock tastes so yummy"

How much money does EU make?
Do you think I can make living if I start my own physics? Is magnet universe taken yet?

>>12010500
too late https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-hidden-magnetic-universe-begins-to-come-into-view-20200702/

looks like the universe is mostly made out of dynamos huh

>>12010185
no one it gets reflected inward.
>>12010179
retard your are one of the most miserable dishonest discussants ever.
Actually i went willingly in your retard trap and not in the other 10 you try to create and which all are completely meaningless to the horizon problem. But i am astauned how you hang up on this.

What if i would agree that a barrier cant be non physical? (cause you willingly misinterpreted my words wrong) Would you then also ride this point to the end of days?
Or if i would agree that A force-field and or Space has to consist out of matter?

Itr is btw. no coincidence that i failed exactly at the point the mirror horizon denies anyway.

In a way i have fun to test the fairness of my opponents.

>>12002869
Its as legit as modern cosmology, mostly unverifiable atm

>>12010298
>X would result if relativity were true
>Why would X occur?
>Because relativity is wrong
Are you incapable of understanding basic logic?

>>12010676
>it gets reflected inward
How? What energy reaches the edge of the lightcone? What reflects it? You can't answer these simple questions because it's a bunch of nonsense.

The rest of your post is incoherent babble that fails yet again to explain anything. Your thought experiment doesn't illustrate anything about relativity, it only illustrates your lack of knowledge.

>>12010901
I never spoke of a light cone. The energy gets reflected by the thermodynamic laws. You cant destroy energy there for it evades in the only direction possible inward into the center of the mirror horizon. It reaches the edge because you have to add both movements to get a correct speed.

>>12010967
Why does this "mirror" move with us?

>>12011026
What are you saying. Did you never think about this little stupid. If the mirror doesn't move with us the earth is free to accelerate beyond the speed of light. that's why. You cant have this happen in your relativistic universe.

>>12010967
>I never spoke of a light cone.
So what is the difference between a "mirror horizon" and a lightcone?

>The energy gets reflected by the thermodynamic laws.
How?

>You cant destroy energy there for it evades in the only direction possible inward into the center of the mirror horizon.
How does the energy even reach the "mirror horizon" to "escape?" Remember that in your thought experiment nothing goes faster than light.

>It reaches the edge because you have to add both movements to get a correct speed.
What movements are you adding?

>>12011090
Its diffrent because my observer is the earth and rotates around the sun and isnt statioary. I also dont want to read your bullshit.

>How?

Because the energy needs to go somewhere.

>>12011118
>Its diffrent because my observer is the earth and rotates around the sun and isnt statioary.
How does this change anything?

>Because the energy needs to go somewhere.
It's already going somewhere, I'm asking you why you think it reaches the "mirror horizon" and how it reflects.

What movements are you adding? I guarantee you the addition violates relativity if it makes any serve at all.

>>12011172
I guess every hope is lost. You know i never made one fail in geometry, with out even learning that stuff. Maybe you cant imagine what i told you. I know some people cry around the cant even imagine a simple perspective.

>>12011219
You can't even explain the basics of your thought experiment, it's bullshit.

>>12011229
I did in my very first post. But you tried to distract. Thats why i made a picture. so you cant cry around that much.

>>12011237
Your very first post doesn't explain how anything reaches the edge of the lightcone or how anything reflects off it. You have repeatedly refused to explain this.

>>12011261
why it shoudn't reach the edge of the light cone?
The mirror contracts!!!!

>>12011276
How is the "mirror" any different from the lightcone?

>>12011276
How does the "mirror" contract? The Earth is in free fall so it can be treated as an inertial reference frame. It can be treated as if it's stationary and everything else is moving. The light it emanates forms a perfect circle.

>>12011302
But if the earth is in free fall and it accelerate since 6 billion years i understand why its so hard to launch rockets to the mood. Because it has already the speed of light. Ty for this insight.
>>12011297
It isnt stationary.

>>12011302
also why is in your world something witch is moving not moving. Why is something in motion stationary i dont understand.

>>12010298
>>you could do the experiment yourself with non conducting materials
>but objects fall down regardless of their charge is all I'm saying
>>Which is yet another description of an object falling

>>gravity is electromagnetism
>why do things with different charges both fall down then?
>>thats just a description of things falling
? youre dumb


>So where does the apple fall when it evaporates after 2 weeks of decomposing?
you're the dumbest dumb retard ive ever seen

>>12011310
>But if the earth is in free fall and it accelerate since 6 billion years i understand why its so hard to launch rockets to the mood. Because it has already the speed of light. Ty for this insight.
???

>It isnt stationary.
Neither is the lightcone.

>also why is in your world something witch is moving not moving.
Movement is relative to the observer.

And you failed to explain how the "mirror" contacts. You also yet again failed to explain how energy reaches it.

>>12011513
>Neither is the lightcone.
The observer!!!
>Movement is relative to the observer.
Then why even bother?
>And you failed to explain how the "mirror" contacts.
no you just didnt listen.

(Pd (Plasmoidal Gaseous) + Cu (Solid)) * Nd (Liquid) = Au (Solid)
>SCREENCAP THIS

>>12010895
>X would result if relativity were true
So where is the empirical evidence of a photon particle?

>Are you incapable of understanding basic logic?
Sort of, but only when talking logically about things that don't exist (and rightfully so).

>>12011356
>>gravity is electromagnetism
who are you quoting? Or are you finally answering my question about differentiating the two?


>why do things with different charges both fall down then?
>>thats just a description of things falling

It is you fucking retard. You're describing objects falling. Towards what? By what? All you've done is describe this process using the word "gravity" you fucking stooge.

>youre dumb
No U! If I wanted a retard to make post after post describing objects falling towards another object I would have gone to the corner of my local mall and asked the guy standing on a corner with a cardboard sign to do so.

>hurr durr object fall toward object
>hurr durr object regardless of "charge" fall toward object
>hurr durr me still not explaining what cause fall
>hurr durr this is a revelation, not being able to explain why object fall toward object
>me not know explanation, but me give descriptive word to phenomena
>me think word "gravity" have more meaning than "object falls toward object"
>me call "gravity" a force, think it causes something
>despite me have no proof of the mode of cause unlike with magnet which is just coherent arrangement of material, me still think "object falling toward object" is something.

>you're the dumbest dumb retard ive ever seen
At least I'm not as dumb as some people who believe that a description and an explanation are a distinction without a difference.

>>12011647
>who are you quoting? Or are you finally answering my question about differentiating the two?
>im not saying gravity and electromagnetism are the same
>but you need to differentiate the two of them

>It is you fucking retard. You're describing objects falling. Towards what? By what? All you've done is describe this process using the word "gravity" you fucking stooge.
im not going to explain GR to you, just read gravitation you fucking moron
its on libgen

>At least I'm not as dumb as some people who believe that a description and an explanation are a distinction without a difference.
pic
you just used 4 different words in totally incoherent ways in a single sentence, honestly impressive

You don't avatarfag anymore?

>>12010195
>The truth is always somewhere in the middle
The problem with your assertion is that it implies the two incomplete explanations are both equally valid.

If I find a woman's dead body in her home and her husband is missing and the two explanations offered are "her husband murdered her and fled the scene" and "the husband and wife were abducted by aliens and her body was returned here after their experiments were performed while they transported the husband back to Zeta Reticuli for further study" it's entirely plausible that the former is not a completely accurate description of what happened, but that doesn't mean the truth lies "somewhere in the middle" between those two explanations.

And that's basically what we're dealing with where all this electric universe crap is concerned. You have an accepted set of models which work for 99% of shit, but have a few things that can't be explained with them, and then you have a completely batshit insane explanation which makes all sorts of wild, unconfirmed, untestable claims and then screams that the only reason it's not taken seriously is because of a giant conspiracy by 'Big Physics' to cover up 'the truth'. Those aren't REMOTELY on equal footing.

>>12003191
Butthurt cosmologist detected
>How exactly do you explain Redshift
>HARDMODE: No Muh Hubble is Van Allen cripple

>>12011790
>Did you know that mass is actually just a myth perpetrated by the great physicist conspiracy?
>See my youtube page for proof. Make sure to like, subscribe, and donate to my patreon.

>>12002869
Both EU and mainstream cosmology astrophysicists like to shit on each other with neither providing a falsable experiment for what they claim. I think they will eventually collapse due to lack of funding.

>>12011821
Mass is not a myth, however, Thermodynamics is, at best, a lottery

>>12011659
>objects fall down regardless of their charge
Is a description of an object falling. It's explanation is comparable as a sort of "first sin" for mass. Mass inherently has it...and nobody can explain why. You have:

>mass causes gravity
>gravity causes mass
which is circular.

>a model using two things that also have never been empirical being "warped" that causes the phenomena known as gravity
Wait, lets double check that real quick
>two things (space/time)
that allegedly exist and cause something according to this theory
>being "warped" that causes the phenomena known as gravity
So even according to GR, gravity doesn't actually exist as a force. It's a description of something else doing something.

And lets not forget:
>the never verified, made up particle "graviton"

So what you're "differentiating" in the first place has never been shown to actually exist.

>im not going to explain GR to you, just read gravitation you fucking moron
>I need to explain GR in order explain gravity

Kind of like how you need "photons" to describe the photoelectric effect despite the fact that there's no such thing as a fucking photon particle. Well GR doesn't explain the cause of gravity either, it also describes it. Even the fucking Wikipedia article specifically calls it a description you stupid fuck. What's even more retarded is that like the photoelectric effect, it also needs the inclusion of more shit (space/time) that doesn't exist in order to describe it.

>you just used 4 different words in totally incoherent ways in a single sentence,
You are an absolute professional at making descriptions and pointing out what you see. But see how nobody knows what the fuck you're talking about when you don't provide an explanation to what it is you're describing?
What words and how were they used incoherently? See, that is what the "explanation" would provide.

>>12011661
There's always some baby ready to report me to the only janny on this popsci containment board

>>12011989
>Mass inherently has it...and nobody can explain why
>eu schizo doesnt understand mass

>>gravity causes mass
no it doesnt

>So even according to GR, gravity doesn't actually exist as a force. It's a description of something else doing something.
correct, according to GR gravity isnt a force, its just newtons laws in curved spacetime
things follow the path of least resistance, in a gravitation well, the path of least resistance is towards the bottom of the well

>And lets not forget:
>>the never verified, made up particle "graviton"
QM is separate from GR, retard, thats a failure of particle physics, it has nothing to do with GR

>So what you're "differentiating" in the first place has never been shown to actually exist.
>these two different descriptions of something disagree
>therefore that thing described doesnt exist

>Kind of like how you need "photons" to describe the photoelectric effect despite the fact that there's no such thing as a fucking photon particle.
>eu schizo doesnt understand wavefunctions

>Well GR doesn't explain the cause of gravity either, it also describes it.
GR isnt meant to explain the cause of gravity
QM isnt meant to explain the cause of quantum mechanics
science is ABOUT descriptions and predictions, not about "whats the cause of science"
asking about "what causes science" is by definition not science, its just fucking metaphysics

>You are an absolute professional at making descriptions and pointing out what you see. But see how nobody knows what the fuck you're talking about when you don't provide an explanation to what it is you're describing?
>What words and how were they used incoherently? See, that is what the "explanation" would provide.
>retard uses words different from everyone else
>calls others retards when they say he's using the wrong words

>>12011523
>The observer!!!
What?

>Then why even bother?
Bother what?

>no you just didnt listen.
Show me where you explained it.

>>12011647
>So where is the empirical evidence of a photon particle?
The photoelectric effect is one of many examples.

>Sort of, but only when talking logically about things that don't exist (and rightfully so).
So that's a yes.

>>12012099
>eu schizo doesnt understand mass
I'm talking about gravity. Which allegedly anything that has mass also has. You think I'm reciting my theories? No this is other popularized theories poppycock.

>no it doesnt
So what does? Oh right nobody knows. I'm just providing examples of arguments that fail in trying to explain gravity.

>things follow the path of least resistance,
Is the path of least resistance something? Is that gravity?

>in a gravitation well
>bottom of the well
"well" of what?

>QM is separate from GR, retard
No shit, yet you talk up GR and it's theory of gravity like it's the only one that matters or something. I provide other descriptions to show you that a description doesn't mean jack shit when it comes to knowing what "it is" that you're talking about.

>these two different descriptions of something disagree
>therefore that thing described doesnt exist

>A description of something means it actually exists
Like a unicorn.

>eu schizo doesnt understand wavefunctions
"wave" of what?

>GR isnt meant to explain the cause of gravity
Then why did you bother bringing it up in the first place?

>science is ABOUT descriptions and predictions
"No"

>asking about "what causes science" is by definition not science
Good thing I'm not asking that.

>retard uses words different from everyone else
>calls others retards when they say he's using the wrong words

So you actually believe that a description and an explanation are the same thing? Read pic and do some catchup cause I'll be gone for a bit.

>>12012133
I dont think, that gets on my nerves. Playing stupid if you need it. Forget half the conversation if you like it, being to lazy to read ova the thread. fuck off

>>12012233
>gravity has mass
>no it doesnt
>So what does? Oh right nobody knows. I'm just providing examples of arguments that fail in trying to explain gravity.
what the fuck is physically wrong with you

>208 posts later
>electric universe incels have still provided ZERO math or experiments.

>>12012251
You're a proven liar. Your thought experiment, to the extent you can even coherently describe it, is bullshit. You lose.

>>12010418
If a Jew told you oxygen was important to life you'd probably start huffing carbon monoxide.

>>12012346
yes i would
>>12012332
saying sth. doesnt make it true.

>>12012307
Math and experiments are just the tools the physics elite use to propagate their lies. Baseless anecdotes are the only real truth.

Boy it sure is highly inconvenient how the sun looks exactly like it's powered by fusion,right down to the way it shits out fuckloads of neutrinos, and how the massive external current that can couple to mass in space never quite manages to couple to a comet or asteroid and make it suddenly light up like a christmas tree or fuck with the solar wind in any detectable way....it's almost like objective reality absolutely is not in line with this theory....naaah it must be the jews messing with every detection method we have all at the same time.

>>12012375
Making a thought experiment and refusing to explain how it does what you say it does definitely doesn't make it true. It makes you at best an incompetent fool.

>>12012421
avoiding any explanations i give you and later mention that i didn't, doesn't make it true either.
And telling me a lair after you do so is in the best case pathetic.

>>12012580
You're not giving explanations, you're just rambling in broken, misspelled posts.

>>12012580
>avoiding any explanations i give you
Which ones?

>inb4 you don't show which ones because bla bla bla

>>12012904
any

>>12003018
the people on this board are stupider than pig shit, whatever the concensus is here the opposite will always be true

>>12003191
the cultist calling some other group a cult... classic

>>12013199
In what way are mainstream scientists cultists?

>>12013150
Show me one. (I already know you can't)

>>12013260
are you a bot?

>>12013267
different anon,
you've never explained it
at this point like 5 different anons have all pointed out that the thought experiment fails on all accounts

if the mirror is moving away at the speed of light, the nothing can ever hit it from behind
do you understand that?

>>12013281
*then nothing can ever hit it from behind

>>12013267
No, and of course as, I predicted, you failed to present a single example of any explanation I "avoided." The fact is you utterly failed to explain the basic premise of your thought experiment. How does energy reach the "mirror horizon" if nothing can travel faster than light? How? If you don't answer this you admit that your thought experiment is nonsensical.

>>12013281
>>12013298
An explanation ok.

From an observer A, at an moment in time B an mirror horizon emerges. Nothing can escape that horizon because nothing can travel faster as the speed of light. If observer A moves after the given point in time B, the mirror horizon contracts along the movement vector of observer A. There for all Energy stored at the mirror horizon hast to be reflected inward towards observer A. BECAUSE nothing can travel faster as the speed of light.

Also additionally. Every time the mirror horizon passes an other object an additional mirror horizon emerges determinate at the point of the new object, acting like a focus lens, increasing the amount of energy reflected towards observers A.

Pic related.

>>12013208
the fact that you don't already know is exactly why you are a cultist

>>12013325
>If observer A moves after the given point in time B, the mirror horizon contracts along the movement vector of observer A.
Incorrect, movement of the observer has no affect on the speed of light. This is fundamental to relativity. Are you claiming I avoided this explanation? Because we've already been over this. So not only is your explanation faulty, you lied about me avoiding it.

>There for all Energy stored at the mirror horizon hast to be reflected inward towards observer A.
What energy is stored? The only thing there is by definition the photons that were initially released and they don't change direction.

>Every time the mirror horizon passes an other object an additional mirror horizon emerges determinate at the point of the new object, acting like a focus lens, increasing the amount of energy reflected towards observers A.
There is no energy reflected in the first place.

>>12013341
>movement has no effect on speed

ok bro

>What energy is stored?

If the mirror horizon passes an star for example, all photons released in the direction of the horizon get stored in the horizon cause they cant escape the horizon.

>There is no energy reflected in the first place.

i ask already what the energy does if its not reflected. vanish?

>>12013325
Why don't you just draw a picture of the observer, "mirror horizon," and energy moving through space at different times. Show how the energy can be seen by the observer catching up to the photons it emitted without the energy going faster than light. Do that and I'll concede relativity is wrong and you're correct.

>>12013350
>i ask already what the energy does if its not reflected. vanish?
it keeps chasing the mirror but never hits it
yknow, cuz the mirror is moving at the speed of light

>>12013350
>>movement has no effect on the speed of light
Correct.

>If the mirror horizon passes an star for example, all photons released in the direction of the horizon get stored in the horizon cause they cant escape the horizon.
You mean photons released in the same direction as the photons passing through the star? Those photons will never get reflected, they will simply occupy the same space as the first photons. Again we've been over this, photons don't reflect each other.

>i ask already what the energy does if its not reflected. vanish?
It continues with the rest of the "mirror horizon." Only photons which are exactly identical in position and momentum with the original photons can be "stored" and they will behave exactly as those original photons, not be "reflected." Once again your nonsense is disproven.

>>12002888
The History of Science itself is a History of Bullshit and Backpedaling.

>>12013354
ok but if the photon moves in one direction already at the speed of light but the earth moves into the opposite direction?

>You mean photons released in the same direction as the photons passing through the star? Those photons will never get reflected, they will simply occupy the same space as the first photons. Again we've been over this, photons don't reflect each other.

sounds as if the mirror horizon can store energy. why did you denies it before?

>It continues with the rest of the "mirror horizon." Only photons which are exactly identical in position and momentum with the original photons can be "stored" and they will behave exactly as those original photons, not be "reflected."

and how will it behave if the earth chance its direction and moves in the opposite direction?

>>12013373
The History of Capitalizing random Words is one of Schizophrenia and Delusion

>>12013375
>>12013362

sorry forgot to link you this

>>12013375
>ok but if the photon moves in one direction already at the speed of light but the earth moves into the opposite direction?
The Earth's movement has no effect on photons' movement. If your thought experiment doesn't take that into account it has nothing to do with relativity.

>sounds as if the mirror horizon can store energy. why did you denies it before?
I didn't, I asked what energy is stored. You answered and proved such energy can't be reflected since it must always follow the original photons. You destroyed your own argument.

>and how will it behave if the earth chance its direction and moves in the opposite direction?
The same. Get it through your thick skull.

>>12013375
>and how will it behave if the earth chance its direction and moves in the opposite direction?
that wouldnt have any effect whatsoever
we arent talking about the earth, were talking about light and mirrors away from the earth

>>12013351
That's how it would optical look, if you visualize the relativistic mirror malfunction.
A bright flash of light one nano second after the observer emerges, burning all and everything.

pic related

>The Earth's movement has no effect on photons' movement. If your thought experiment doesn't take that into account it has nothing to do with relativity.

does this count only for the earth and photons or for all objects?

>>12013403

why then bother?

>>12013400
>>12013420
sorry forgot the link again

>>12013420
>does this count only for the earth and photons or for all objects?
if objects dont touch or interact then they dont impact each others motion
an observer could see different things depending on how stuff is moving relative to them
but turning around doesnt stop something from happening

>>12013531
So you are saying, that every Object is free to move as FAST as it wants even one billion trillion trillion times faster as the speed of light. Cause the movement of one doesn't impact the movement of the other.

>>12013420
>That's how it would optical look, if you visualize the relativistic mirror malfunction.
That's not what I asked for.

>does this count only for the earth and photons or for all objects?
The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of the light source or observer.

>>12013548
Wow you're amazingly stupid.

>>12013556
indicating that space is a stationary real grid.
proof.

>>12013420
You already admitted nothing can get reflected by the "mirror horizon." Why are you still posting?

>>12013569
proof where i admitted this. also link it.

>>12013564
Nice gibberish. Hint: nothing can get reflected by the mirror horizon because nothing can go faster than light.

>>12003191
Thanks man, this explains a lot of the questions I had about it. So it is pretty much bullshit..

>>12013571
Right here >>12013375

The only energy that can be "stored in the mirror horizon" are photons with the exact same position and momentum, they're not even inside the horizon and never can be. You lose.

>>12013578
The horizon contracts with 30km/s that's a lot of photons, particles heavy rays, background radiation.

>>12013586
>The horizon contracts with 30km/s that's a lot of photons,
It doesn't since the movement of the observer has no effect on the movement of photons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity
>In physics, the special theory of relativity, or special relativity for short, is a scientific theory regarding the relationship between space and time. In Albert Einstein's original treatment, it is based on two postulates:

>the laws of physics are invariant (i.e., identical) in all inertial frames of reference (i.e., non-accelerating frames of reference); and
>the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of the light source or observer.

But let's ignore that your thought experiment about relativity doesn't even know what relativity is. You already admitted that the only energy at the horizon are photons with the same position and momentum. So if the horizon "contracts," what happens to those photons? The same thing as the horizon. They don't get reflected back towards anything, they just follow the original photons. You lose, get over it.

>>12013598
I never was so deep in relativity. If 2 protons collide it does matter and they collide with the speed of light. But in the case you cant have this limit doesn't work and don't influence each other.

Its a basically, it is like you need it theory, ok ty.


No i didnt know whats relativity, but know i know it exactly.

>Arguing with berzerkerfag/Ken Wheeler
You're all fucking stupid

>>12013617
>I never was so deep in relativity
??? You don't know the basics of what you're trying to argue against?

>If 2 protons collide it does matter and they collide with the speed of light
Protons or photons? Protons can't move at the speed of light and photons can't collide.

>But in the case you cant have this limit doesn't work and don't influence each other.
>Its a basically, it is like you need it theory, ok ty.
>No i didnt know whats relativity, but know i know it exactly.
No one can understand this gibberish.

>>12014563
yeah its always like you need it i spoke of collision not of the speed. but its anyway irrelevant cause there is the mirror malfunction.

>>12013548
no, thats not what i said

>>12014832
>yeah its always like you need
Is more like you don't understand what you're taking about.

>i spoke of collision not of the speed
>If 2 protons collide it does matter and they collide with the speed of light.
>with the speed of light

>but its anyway irrelevant cause there is the mirror malfunction.
You already admitted there isn't.

>>12014563
>>12014842
I maybe know nothing about you super amorph relativity but seems i know more as all your einsteinfanatics. Where is the super hot plasma disc who should increase if the matter close the distance to the gravitation core?

>>12014889
>but seems i know more as all your einsteinfanatics.
youve been consistently wrong this entire thread and refused to admit and faults
you havent drawn a proper labelled diagram, you havent even studied relativity
you dont know shit, also, fix your fucking english

>>12014931
show me where the accelerate matter close to the event horizon emits more radiation on this real pic.

>>12015007
i have no idea what you just fucking said
not speaking english outside of /int/ is a bannable offense

>>12002872
ever since finding out about the electric universe model i've been very interested in their concepts and takes on modern physics.

>>12014889
No one can understand your babble, but it appears you have given up on this "mirror horizon" nonsense. Good.

>>12015186
>>12015038
I can make you the same pics for the moon, clods, geology and impact craters

>>12014889
the closer it is to the event horizon the more its bent away from us, we wouldnt expect a clean delineation
also, are you really arguing about 3d space with a 2d image, theyre clearly not the same thing

>>12014889
Jesus it's like listening to a toddler try to explain fluid dynamics.

>>12015229

Oh ok thats new, then you just get it willingly wrong 30 fucking years all the time every yeah every day. Now it chanced so it fits your narrative, i see.

Does it bent the light exactly in this way away that it matches the picture and not like this?

Did you gave your artists wrong instructions like fucking 30 years?

>>12015217
I don't even know what these pictures are trying to show. Make a coherent argument or fuck off.