/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12015363
>Sauron or Saruman, choose now goy!

gravity

>>12015363
False choice. Quantum nonsense is nonsense, and gravity is the weakest force in the universe. And gravity isn't even a proper force, it's just an effect. The effect which we know as gravity is produced by the electric force, which is the /only/ force in the universe. Gravity, magnetism and the nuclear so-called "forces" are all simply manifestations of the way matter responds to the electric force. Let that sink in.

Secondly, if we pretend for a moment that gravity is a force (which it isn't), then, as already stated, it's the absolutely weakest "force" in the universe. In fact, gravity is 1000 billion billion billion BILLION times weaker than the electric force.

Fun fact: If gravity was the dominant force in the universe and what holds galaxies together, and not the electric force, then gravity would need to be operating at 20 billion times the so called "speed of light" -- that's 20 billion times 299 792 458 meters per second -- otherwise galaxies would fall apart.

When you ignore the role of the electric force, then the only way to get "around" the aforementioned problem is to resort to inventing exotic nonsense like "quantum physics" and "dark energy" and "dark matter" and so forth - which are of course nothing but nonsensical band-aids on a broken model of the universe.

You should listen to this excellent presentation on gravity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkWiBxWieQU

>>12015363

>>12015363
Quantum Theory of Gravity

>>12015363
>quantum
Oh, hi there Mr Redditor. Just finished watching the latest Kurzgesagt video? ;)

Sorry OP, but quantum magic isn't real. """""Quantum""""" effects aren't poorly understood near magic effects of some mythical theoretical particle. It's simply electrons being so small they can move through any material at the path of least resistance, because nothing can exert 100% perfect electrical control over them. It's current leakage. It's nothing but current leakage. It's current leakage in short channel devices, and it happens at literally every feature size, it is not exclusive to small FinFET devices like upcoming 5nm EUV FinFETs. Even planar devices have extremely high degrees of leakage through their channels, directly under the gates, electrons still leak out. Yet despite this the transistors still function.

Quantum mechanics has done exactly nothing for any tech we have. Tech is made by engineers and most of the basis of our electrical tech was invented over 100 years ago. QM has contributed nothing to tech. Only engineers and classical physics contribute to tech development. QM proponents try to claim quantum computers, but since QM is nonsense, quantum computers are also nonsense. Quantum computers do not exist and never will. The """""quantum""""" computers they claim have been demonstrated are not quantum, and they have yet to actually prove they are in fact operating using any special physics or that they are in fact hugely faster in practice and reality.

>>12015363
ggg-gravity

>>12015400
>Quantum nonsense is nonsense
baka How does an electric universe make sense of the fluctuations observed in qm?

How does an EUM make sense of creation & cosmology? Is it a newer, developing theory of everything?

>>12015363
I think light is matter. Change my mind.

>>12015427
Spot on. The quantum computing meme is a scam and a total meme. Why people still buy into the quantum bullshit is beyond me. It's just a math trick that attempts to explain some things we currently don't understand. That's it. Media and (((scientists))) -- not to be confused with actual scientists -- push this bullshit to fabricate a branch of science that seem "cool" and "out there" but when you look at the maths you see it for what it is; a giant mess of workarounds which in actuality explain nothing, and only makes accurate enough predictions (for some uses).

>inb4 SSDs wouldn't work without quantum physics
No, SSDs don't work because of superstitious quantum bullshit. We live in a physical universe. The QM mathematics, which is simply a language, can describe how things work, but we don't currently understand the physical manifestation of that math. All quantum mechanics does is describe relationships between physical objects we don't understand, and the relationships are approximations, not reality. Just because it looks like an electron can change the past, or just because it looks like fullerene can be in two places at the same time, just because it looks like particles sometimes pop onto the other side of an insurmountable energy barrier doesn't mean that's actually the reality of the situation.

Don't fall for the quantum meme.

>>12015363
Gravity without a doubt
this shit is too beautiful to forgo

>>12015400
So how does this so called theory explain neutrino production in stars if only the electric force is at work?

>>12015442
They don't believe in creationism, nor that the universe has a wall or an eventual end. To them the universe is all there is, all there ever has been, and all there ever will be.

As for apparent fluctuations and expansion etc, this is explained perfectly by the filamentary nature of the universe. The filaments btw are rotating, interlocking, twisting Birkeland currents. A good start: https://www.plasma-universe.com/birkeland-current/

Relating to the above, here's a rabbit hole for you to go into:

Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oPE3l5E8uk
Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLfoy5V7CRE
Part 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJyvLaNJZE4
Part 4: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsEgiTXjIWg

>>12015393
Does the MWI explain gravity better because of there's no wave-function collapse? It uses hidden variables, right?

>>12015490
What are you referring to? The Electric Universe? That's not a theory (it's a collection of sciences within the fields of, and research conducted within, electricity and plasma - and a movement of sorts), but it sounds like that's what you're asking about.

>explain neutrino production in stars if only the electric force is at work?
The answer is nuclear fusion. You might be confused and believe they say nuclear fusion doesn't occur in stars. This is false. They say fusion occurs on the sun for example - but that it doesn't power it, rather that the sun is powered externally. And that the fusion is occuring within the plasma double layers in the outer areas of the sun's "surface", not within its core. Read this post for moar info: >>/sci/thread/S11963148#p11963311

Also relevant is this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxAtAptwjsE

>>12015517
Interesting. But it's kinda fringe, right? It sounds infinitely crazy but I don't quite understand why

>>12015551
Well you've been brought up being told that lies are truth, that 2+2=whateveryouaretold, as in Orwell's 1984. So of course creationism and the universe having a wall and an end seems sane and normal to you, and contrary ideas crazy.

The Big Bang idea was originally invented by the theologist Robert Grosseteste, first head of the university of Oxford. He had a vision that his Hebrew god Yahweh created a tiny spot of light that exploded rapidly taking the matter – which was simultaneously created by the god – with it to form a spherical universe.

Big Bang Cosmology in the modern sense was conjured up by the Christian Catholic priest Abbe Georges Lemaître.

The pioneering Nobel Prize winning plasma physicist and electrical engineer Hannes Alfvén said about Lemaître:

> "I was there when Abbe Georges Lemaître first proposed this theory. Lemaître was, at the time, both a member of the Catholic hierarchy and a scientist. He said in private that this theory was a way to reconcile science with St. Thomas Aquinas' theological dictum of creatio-ex-nihilo (creation out of nothing)."

> "There is no rational reason to doubt that the universe has existed indefinitely, for an infinite time. It is only mysticism saying the universe was created - whether four thousand or twenty billion years ago.

> "Since religion intrinsically rejects empirical methods, there should never be any attempt to reconcile scientific theories with religion. We must not confuse religion and science. An infinitely old universe, always evolving, isn't compatible with the Book of Genesis."

Lemaître is famous for his description of the beginning of the universe as "A Day without Yesterday" in reference to the Creation account in Genesis.

The Jew George Gamow, another famous Big Bang proponent, had no compunction in describing the graphs of conditions in the Big Bang as "Divine Creation Curves" and sent a copy of his book "The Creation of the Universe" to the then Pope.

> [continued below...]

>>12015566

> [continued]

In January 1933, the Christian priest Abbe Georges Lemaître travelled with the Jew Albert Einstein to California for a series of seminars. After the priest Lemaître detailed his Big Bang theory, the Jew Einstein stood up, applauded, and said:
> "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of Creation to which I have ever listened."

Due to this, the Big Bang idea is theology. It's a Creation story. It's theology and mysticism, not science.

Lemaître allowed his theological convictions to predetermine the outcome of a scientific inquiry. This violates the scientific method.

Furthermore, the ex-nihilo created universe in the Big Bang model is a universe that's entirely filled by a continuous indivisible distribution of mass with a monotonically decreasing macroscopic density and pressure or a finite averaged macroscopic density and zero pressure in terms of the energy-momentum tensor for a perfect fluid. Therefore it violates the Principle of Equivalence and Special Relativity as required by Einstein himself for his gravitational field model. So not only is it Creationism, it's also schizo.

>>12015552
What about time? So EMU separates space & time, and energy and they're are all infinite, but we're living in the now. Soon it'll be tomorrow. How can an infinite timeline expand? Must've not been infinite

>>12015648
was meant for>>12015566

>>12015476
Typical. It seems it entirely depends which strands of each theory are fundamental to our reality. I can't make sense of it either

>>12015763
>>12015648
bump this is of vital importance

>>12015363
Quantum theory
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zWy6_Mog70

>>12015473
How do you explain the band gap?

>>12015400
Your pills
Take them

>>12015363
Straight up I'm starting to think what ever we choose to believe will just manifest reality

>>12015363
stringchad gang
Fuck reality, fuck experiment, string theory is the way