/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10557715]

Can someone truly refute the electric universe theory?

>The theory [Relativity] is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king ... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists, not scientists...
- Tesla, New York Times, July 11, 1935
Tesla recognised the roots of an affliction which now poisons mainstream cosmology -- the rise of mathematics over experiment. Cosmology today, of course, is a field dominated by mathematicians, not scientists, and few dare to question this situation.

The father of plasma physcics and plasma cosmology, Hannes Alfvén (1908-1995), echoed a similar sentiment. He was also a critic of the mathematical approach to science:
We have to learn again that science without contact with experiments is an enterprise which is likely to go completely astray into imaginary conjecture.
- Hannes Alfvén
Tesla would have concurred:
Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.

http://thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/guest_sd42.htm

[Anonymous No.10557727]

Oh that's easy for him to say back when they were still figuring out how electricity worked. The experiments now cost billions to run so unless you have a decent model backed by MATH no one is going to invest.

[Anonymous No.10557728]

>>10557715
yes, ether doesn't exist, the sun isn't conscious, and radioactivity exists. proof: hiroshima

[Anonymous No.10557731]

PS: clearly this is the same boomer idiot as here:
>>10557688
and you already posted some >>>/x/ tier shit about ayyy lmaos and religion. you're a dumb boomer schizo who watched too much X-Files

[Anonymous No.10557739]

We have done many experiments since then that confirm relativity works. For example, relativity predicted exactly how much we need adjust the clocks on GPS satellites, to make them work correctly.

OP, what experiments confirm electric universe theory? Or would you like to propose an experiment that would distinguish between the electric universe models & the standard ones?

[Anonymous No.10557742]

https://youtu.be/5AUA7XS0TvA

Watch the first 3 and a half minutes

[Anonymous No.10557745]

>>10557715
>Can someone truly refute the electric universe theory?
Its refuted by not presenting any predicted observations that can be tested. Meanwhile, every experiment done on GR has failed to falsify it and has strengthened its foundation. It's interesting that supporters of EU criticize mainstream science for focusing too much on hypotheses and mathematical models and not enough on experiments, while the EU supporters are perpetually stuck on the hypothesis stage.

[Anonymous No.10557746]

>>10557715
>Tesla

[Anonymous No.10557751]

>>10557745
>>10557739
Can you explain to me not what gravity does, but what it is?

[Anonymous No.10557759]

>>10557751
>Can you explain to me not what gravity does, but what it is?
According to GR, gravity is a force that occurs when spacetime is curved.

[Anonymous No.10557769]

>>10557746
t. edison

[Anonymous No.10557810]

>>10557759
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129500-700-breaking-relativity-celestial-signals-defy-einstein/

[Anonymous No.10557822]

>>10557810
Whatever these celestial bodies are and how they "defy" Einstein is behind a paywall. Do you have another article on this? Preferably a peer reviewed article.

[Anonymous No.10557826]

>>10557715
Tesla was an insane Virgin that fell in love with a bird.

[Anonymous No.10557847]

>>10557822
Einstein's wife wrote the relativity papers!!
If "Dr." Albert was clueless when it came to physics, the question remains where did this GENIUS get all his ideas? The answer: His relativity theories came from his fellow student and lover, Serbian Mileva-Maric.

All the Serbs are GIFTED with high intelligence and the greatest and BRIGHTEST Serb of all was Nikola Tesla.

Mileva-Maric Einstein (1875-1948) wife of Albert Einstein.

Mileva-Maric Einstein (1875-1948),
Serbian wife of Albert Einstein.


Serbian Mileva-Maric—wife of Einstein—was the brains behind his theory of relativity.

They lived in this house from 1903 to 1905.

In 1905, Einstein published his paper on relativity. It was all his wife's work as he was clueless when it came to physics.
Einstein's House in Bern, Switzerland.

Einstein's House in Bern, Switzerland.

While attending the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Albert met and fell madly in love with another student, a Serb named Mileva-Maric.

Mileva was unique in being the only woman in the class and she was exceptionally "gifted." Albert called her his "little witch."

In 1905, when Albert's paper on relativity were submitted, they were signed EINSTEIN-MARITY which was his wife's name. She also received ALL the money from his Nobel Prize in 1922.

Mileva was able to take all the previous information on light waves, electromagnetism, atomic theory, and synthesize them into what became known as the special and general theories of relativity. Even Einstein himself didn't understand any of it.

[Anonymous No.10557868]

>>10557847
What does this have to do with the celestial bodies that supposedly defy Einstein?

[Anonymous No.10557876]

>>10557868
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-03/ngpi-tst030116.php

[Anonymous No.10557880]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovYe6XJ9KQ8

[Anonymous No.10557895]

>>10557876
This doesn't mention the supposed celestial bodies, and it also ignores that GPS satellites require corrections based on GR to be accurate. This is the strongest practical experiment supporting GR.

[Anonymous No.10557927]

>>10557715
We still check models with experiment, like how super symmetry and it's variants have been disproved.
We just took a picture of a black hole by using the earth as a virtual mirror. We have detected gravitational waves, neutron showers likely to be caused by dark matter have been found in the arctic.
There's no trend that we're relying on equations rather than experiments

[Anonymous No.10557969]

I'm a conspiracy theorist, but damnit. If you can't demonstrate a phenomenon in a repeatable experiment, I will bend over and eat my own ass. The sun-cell doesn't need to reach full commercialization, Mills and his team have already proven the existence of fractional energy states in hydrinos.

[Anonymous No.10557973]

looked into thunderbolts.info

i saw on their youtube channel this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=321XGHX1zaE
as always, electric universe proponents are pseuds, pic related

[Anonymous No.10557979]

>>10557847
>Einstein's wife

[Anonymous No.10557982]

another Electric Universe expert, denouncing LIGO video, linked by thunderbolts:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev10ywLFq6E
apparently this guy is a _gardener_.
he's a big vixra writer:
http://vixra.org/author/stephen_j_crothers

über-pseud

[Anonymous No.10558095]

>>10557826
birds are very important.

[Anonymous 2.0 No.10558103]

Is it too much to ask for a little evidence that the Andromeda Galaxy hasn’t already impacted us. We are only seeing it millions of years ago. If it is already here and the cosmic evidence says it is on its way, can both be true.?

[Anonymous No.10558155]

>>10558103
no, it can't travel faster than light, which means that it couldn't have beaten its own image here

[Anonymous No.10558183]

This thread should be posted in /x/

[Anonymous No.10558204]

>>10557751
You're invited to do the same for electromagnetism.

[Anonymous No.10558212]

>>10558103
If it had impacted us already, all it's prior images would have reached us and we couldn't see it as it was millions of years ago. The difference between it's observed position and actual position are reduced as it comes closer to us.

[Anonymous 2.0 No.10558824]

Has it been questioned before? If two Galaxy’s can separate faster than light can they not converge faster that light?

[Anonymous No.10558877]

>>10558824
Nothing can locally travel faster than light. Even with the expansion of space, light will locally (considering one sufficiently small region of space at a time) travel faster than anything massive can. If space were contracting between Andromeda and the Milky Way, its light would still reach us faster than the galaxy would. Nothing can outstrip a light beam passing closely alongside it.

[Anonymous No.10559098]

>>10557759
>space time

Space has no properties and time is a measurement. You may as well have said "unicorns and fairies bend".

>>10557751
No. Absolutely nobody here is going to explain gravity. Why? Because an explanation doesn't exist. Look at all the morons. They piss themselves at the thought of thinking about it/

>>10558204
[math]\phi X\psi=Q [/math], but this is about gravity so stop changing the subject.

>>10557739
>electromagnetic retardation is "time" and clocks are affected by "time"
Quack.

>>10557727
Math can tell you how many apples there are, but never what an apple is.

>>10558877
Light doesn't even travel. What properties does space have that cause it to "expand"?

[Anonymous No.10559104]

>>10557715
and then he married a pigeon

[Anonymous No.10559108]

>>10559104

[Anonymous No.10559127]

>>10559098

[Anonymous No.10559258]

>>10557739
>>10557895
I don't understand why the GPS chestnut continues to resurrect without end, in this relativity debate. Will someone please drive a stake through its heart once and for all and kill it stone dead?

The technology behind GPS is related to a basic feedback control algorithm and Laplace transforms (if I remember my engineering theory correctly). Barry Springer explains (Does the GPS System Rely upon Einstein's Relativity?):
http://worldnpa.org/does-the-gps......
If GPS technology were not based on such a feedback control algorithm, their accuracy would still drift, at the very least due to varying atmospheric conditions that cannot be factored in.

Now the fact that this stubborn chestnut continues to reappear time and time again like whack-a-mole should have us question everything else that is touted as evidence for relativity. How many of us realize that the famous relativity-related variations in Mercury's orbit around the sun only account for a small percentage of Mercury's perihelion drift? A closer examination across a number of citations establishes that, of the several variables that contribute to variations in Mercury's orbit, SGR(relativistic perihelion shift) accounts for a comparatively small fraction, 7.5%. The gravitational tug of other planets constitutes a big slice... I wonder, have they factored in the asteroid belt? Other masses and effects? Or did they stop further analysis, in the spirit of confirmation bias, once they obtained the set of figures that conveniently fitted with their desired outcome? I mean, why spoil a perfect result with further facts that might prove inconvenient?

[Anonymous No.10559310]

>>10559108
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A85ipUgy5B4

[Anonymous No.10559414]

>>10559258

>How many of us realize that the famous relativity-related variations in Mercury's orbit around the sun only account for a small percentage of Mercury's perihelion drift?

can you cite a source?

[Anonymous No.10559929]

>>10557715
>Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.
This isn't completely true. Most of the problems with the trajectory of science with regard the constancy (or lack thereof) of the speed of light stems from the inability of phycists to actually talk to one another and keep a thread of logic going that doesn't skip over or leave out important information. Others doubtlessly take advantage of this fact.

[Anonymous No.10559933]

>>10557739
>we need adjust the clocks on GPS satellites
No. Lurk moar faggot.

[Anonymous No.10559962]

>>10559098
>>10559258
oh wow look one of the hardcore electric universe idiots. pray tell,
>how do you explain the recent image of a black hole?
>how do you explain the cosmic microwave background?
>how do you explain the observed hubble constant and its rate of change?
>isn't plasma cosmology debunked by the fact that the predicted radio emissions from the "galactic circuits" aren't actually there?
>do you realize "muh asteroid belt" is debunked as an explanation for mercury's perihelion precession?
>do you realize that velikovsky's writings are filled with mythology mumbo-jumbo that no scientist would ever take seriously?
>do you realize your "space has no properties" is a completely vacuous argument?
>do you believe your alternative theory to GR actually doesn't exist? scientific theories are usually written down with equations that make predictions. where are your equations?
>do you believe the universe is eternal? how do you resolve Olber's paradox?
>do you believe in aether?
>do you believe, like many EUtards do, that the sun is conscious?
>do you believe in panpsychism? if so, how does it work?
>do you realize that the entire EUtard sphere is a newage meme to get normies to shell out money for dumb shit like crystals and meditation crap?
>do you realize that most of the EUtards are closeted Deepak Chopra braindeads?

[Anonymous No.10559975]

>>10557895
>This is the strongest practical experiment supporting GR.
In that case GR is tanked.
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/17814/that-10km-day-error-predicted-if-gps-satellite-clocks-not-corrected-for-relativi

[Anonymous No.10559983]

>>10559975
did you read the first response in your link? it's amazing how retarded newagers have miraculous abilities at not comprehending words right in front of their face

[Anonymous No.10560028]

>>10557715
>Today's scientists have substitued mathematics for experiments, and they wonder off through equation and equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.
That's not how it works.

[Anonymous No.10560036]

>>10557715
EU theory can be refuted by relativity as relativity states axioms and postulates which go against EU. Same thing can be said about Relativity from EU paradigm. Its all about which perspective you take. Different models start from different postulates and thats why you can't really refute something. You can though call it inconsistent if a theory has postulates which contradict each other.

[Anonymous No.10560039]

>>10557728
>Ether doesn't exist
Standard theory literally invents at least 20 particles and dark matter because observational data doesn't fit the model and somehow ether is proved to not exist?

[Anonymous No.10560056]

>>10557745
>stuck on hypothesis
>what is safire project
And funny you should mention prediccions related with observation since most of today's standard model experiments are unreproductible.

[Anonymous No.10560067]

>>10557927
>We have detected gravitational waves, neutron showers likely to be caused by dark matter have been found in the arctic.
Source? also "likely" isn't confirmed

[Anonymous No.10560083]

>>10560028
That is literally how it works, they add particles or matter everytime they come up with inconsistencies in their model. Dark matter and energy appeared when movement from galaxies couldn't be explained. Meanwhile birkeland currents in galaxies explain observations pretty well with stuff that has an empirical observable basis

[Anonymous No.10560109]

>>10559962
Playing devil's advocate here, from what I've gathered that is consistent within EU model and observable proof:
>how do you explain the recent image of a black hole?
An image made by algorithms its theorethical model as a basis its not a photohraph. Thats moving the goal posts.
>how do you explain the cosmic microwave background?
There is a study which matches observable microwaves from the heat in the oceans with the amplitude of CMB.
>how do you explain the observed hubble constant and its rate of change?
How do you explain celestial bodies from apparent same distance from earth, showing different rates of change not consistent with hubbles constant?
>isn't plasma cosmology debunked by the fact that the predicted radio emissions from the "galactic circuits" aren't actually there?
They are confirmed in most planets from the solar system (jupiter and saturn have global electrical phenomenae)
>do you realize your "space has no properties" is a completely vacuous argument?
In EU though, space is ether.

[Anonymous No.10560112]

>>10557715
is not refuted to death already?

[Anonymous No.10560126]

>>10560109
>by algorithms its theorethical model as a basis
nope they knew that was a trap, and actively avoided it
https://youtu.be/BIvezCVcsYs?t=7m

[Anonymous No.10560144]

>>10557715
It would make planets repulse each other, which I think they obviously don't as people would have noticed.

[Anonymous No.10560148]

>>10560126
She literally says in 7:50 they discard wave info which is not likely to be from a black hole, do you understand why the experiment is not even remotely a Picture?

[Anonymous No.10560156]

>>10560148
try watching all the way to the end, autist

[Anonymous No.10560172]

>>10560126
I watched this years ago. Always made me wonder how viable the final image could be for scientific study. I feel as through there's a lot more to it than is clear from this talk.

[Anonymous No.10560188]

>>10560156
>watch till the end
She literally says in 11:30 they use everyday images to take and output image of something similar to the simulation
in order to test their algorithm. You could put a photo of your ass as a source (which im sure you use everyday) add it would still be similar to last weeks photo. That is not unbiased.

[Anonymous No.10560201]

>>10560188
>She literally says
cringe

[Anonymous No.10560346]

>>10559258
The reason why people bring up relativity & GPS units is that there is plenty of documentation from the people who actually designed the system saying they used relativity when making it. Do you have any sort of actual citations to the contrary? That link you gave does not work.

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a158720.pdf

https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/TN/nbstechnicalnote1385.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5253894/

http://earth-info.nga.mil/GandG/publications/tr8350.2/wgs84fin.pdf

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a158720.pdf

[Anonymous No.10560631]

>>10559962
Alright smartass

>algorithmic image of a blackhole that still doesn't explain what it is.
>How do YOU explain "microwave background"
>observed hubble constant and its rate of change?
That's a contradiction though either it's "constant" or it isn't
>radio emissions
there is nothing being "emitted"
>things spin and precess, totally not due to magnetism and inertia
>literally who is not recognized and for some reason I care.
>do you realize your "space has no properties" is a completely vacuous argument?
Really? Then name a property of space.
>scientific theories are usually written down with equations that make predictions. where are your equations?
>do you believe your alternative theory to GR actually doesn't exist?
Ahem, "not science". If you don't even understand how light works or what it is then building your theories foundation on it doesn't seem prudent
>an equation for the ineffable
>do you believe the universe is eternal? how do you resolve Olber's paradox?
"From what"
>do you believe in aether?
A theory of it, yes
>do you believe, like many EUtards do, that the sun is conscious?
The sun is a transformer. That's really all there is to it.
>do you believe in panpsychism?
The universe is not physical so no
>do you realize that the entire EUtard sphere is a newage meme to get normies to shell out money for dumb shit like crystals and meditation crap?
I don't think Steinmetz, Oliver Heaviside, James Maxwell, Poincare, Faraday, Eric Dollard, or any other electrical engineer believed in that stuff. I could say the same about modern day physicists and their "discrete particles" too which branches more on the religious side of things. Also they get billions more than a orgone pyramid scheme will ever get.
>do you realize that most of the EUtards are closeted Deepak Chopra braindeads?
I don't know what that means, but it's probably better than believing in virtual bumping particles and laundering money based on a false premis.

[Anonymous No.10560639]

>>10560631
>trying this hard

[Anonymous No.10560641]

>>10559962
I love when you schizos think you're arguing with one person XD

[Anonymous No.10560659]

>>10560639
>how dare you answer questions on a science board

Does your mattress have a kink in it from how obtuse you are?

[Anonymous No.10560663]

>>10560639

[Anonymous No.10561244]

>>10560631
i love how you have no argument anywhere except that "the sun is a transformer" and "the universe is not physical". meanwhile dodging the question of
>scientific theories are usually written down with equations that make predictions. where are your equations?
the fact that you appeal to scientists who lived 200 years ago is pretty ridiculous. are you going to start arguing that Aristotle was right about how the air is what causes inertia?

anyhow why don't you elaborate on "the universe is not physical". the opposite of physical is what .... imaginary? a simulation? spiritual? magic? i guess your argument is that all of science is complete bullshit. so why are you positing (wrong) physical theories then? you're contradicting yourself. how about you give us more details on your /x/ tier view about your non-physical idea of the universe

[Anonymous No.10561269]

There’s some faggot in here saying gravity is unexplainable, and currently it’s not fully explained, but gravity waves have been detected.

If you know anything about particle physics, a wave means there’s a particle
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/detection-gravitational-waves-breakthrough-whats-next-180958511/

[Anonymous No.10561315]

>>10561244
>meanwhile dodging the question of
>scientific theories are usually written down with equations that make predictions. where are your equations?
>>10560631
>an equation for the ineffable
>count what has no quantity
This is something a physicist will never understand.

>the fact that you appeal to scientists who lived 200 years ago is pretty ridiculous.
That's exactly what GR and QM does. Not an argument

>are you going to start arguing that Aristotle was right about how the air is what causes inertia?
I would never tell you the cause of inertia because it literally cannot be defined.

>anyhow why don't you elaborate on "the universe is not physical". the opposite of physical is what .... imaginary? a simulation? spiritual? magic?
Holographic.
>i guess your argument is that all of "settled science" is complete bullshit
FTFY

>so why are you positing (wrong) physical theories then
I have done no such thing, there is nothing "physical" about a hologram.

>how about you give us more details on your /x/ tier view about your non-physical idea of the universe
>describe and explain that which is not physical
Well it certainly isn't going to be measurable for starters..

>>10561269
>There’s some faggot in here saying gravity is unexplainable, and currently it’s not fully explained, but gravity waves have been detected.
>we don't know what causes it, but we know what it does.
A live action roleplay of the "blind men and an elephant" parable.

>If you know anything about particle physics, a wave means there’s a particle
Waves of what?

[Anonymous No.10561326]

>>10561315
ohhh you're the same idiot who got shut down once somebody asked you what your holographic model implies. i thought the conclusion was that you're just word salading and couldn't into science if your life depended on it.

seriously, you say you know something about science, it contradicts all of known science, the universe isn't physical, it's really a hologram but this fact has no measurable evidence. this is what is defined as "not scientific"

so why do you believe it? how about you argue the logic at how you got there? clearly it has nothing to do with the scientific method.... what is your alternative thought process here?

[Anonymous No.10561335]

>>10561315
Holographic universe is so dumb.
>All information within I sphere can be held on its surface
>...
>And this is of course is true representation of out universe

I guess they just assume the rest of it will come in time.

[Anonymous No.10561340]

>>10557715
you know your theory is refuted when the only person arguing for it is berserkfag

QED

[Anonymous No.10561371]

>>10561326
>ohhh you're the same idiot who got shut down once somebody asked you what your holographic model implies.

Don't know what you mean by "shutdown" but all it means is "point nonspecific self-similarity".

>i thought the conclusion was that you're just word salading and couldn't into science if your life depended on it.
No, which is why I don't use terms such as "space-time", "time", "space", "quantum", "time-dilation", "waves", "particles" and all the other concepts that don't pertain to reality. That is word salad.

>seriously, you say you know something about science,
It forms and organizes knowledge with testable explanations and predictions about the universe. That is what science does
>it contradicts all of known science
Not at all. "Settling science" is what contradicts science. Making theories based on no empirical evidence and forming false premises then testing them.
>the universe isn't physical, it's really a hologram but this fact has no measurable evidence.
So you tell me how to measure what has no quantity. Also it does, it's called a FUCKING "HOLOGRAM". Magnets, cells, you and anything else that grows and is self-similar is also "holographic".
>this is what is defined as "not scientific"
Why don't you explain to me what "science" is supposed to do. It's not supposed to dictate what is or what isn't.

>so why do you believe it?
Because there is literally empirical evidence of it.
> how about you argue the logic at how you got there?
You're right, I agree. There is nothing more logical that making an observation of empirical evidence. Go split a magnet sometime and tell me what happens.
>clearly it has nothing to do with the scientific method.... what is your alternative thought process here?
>Test self-similar things and observe how they form
>verify that it indeed self-similar
>material is formed
>The form is in no way "physical", what is formed is what is physical

How much more proof do you want?

[Anonymous No.10561378]

>Test self-similar things and observe how they form
>verify that it indeed self-similar
>material is formed
>The form is in no way "physical", what is formed is what is physical
this is your logic for concluding the universe is a hologram? really? i find it to be completely unrelated to the claim. can you please explain better?

[Anonymous No.10561394]

>>10561371
You clearly don't even understand what the holographic principle says. The holographic universe does not say anything about an actual hologram. It is still a physical universe, only it works differently than how we interpret it in our minds.

[Anonymous No.10561396]

>>10561394
don't even get into real physics with this guy. he probably watched a lenny susskind video on it while in the mental ward and that's what caused his issues. if he brings up AdS/CFT i can assure you i will school him on it, but i'd rather get him to admit that his entire thought process is schizo word salad

[Anonymous No.10561451]

>>10561335
>self-similarity means "sphere"
No

>>10561378
>this is your logic for concluding the universe is a hologram? really?

Yes you idiot. EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. No assumptions of stupid little discrete pool balls. No unexplained and various forces with no rhyme or reason.
Actual
Empirical
Evidence
Something modern day science apparently forgot about or doesn't need in your opinion.

>i find it to be completely unrelated to the claim. can you please explain better?
Physical pertains to material correct? To energy and matter? You could say that it's a "matter of semantics" but what is the cause of "physicality"? Does "material" just explain itself? It can't. It doesn't just form itself into whatever it wants as if it has a mind of it's own. It's impelled by something else. To be "impelled" doesn't necessarily mean "physically impelled" like a newtons cradle or something like that. One be "impelled" to do something by thought alone. That isn't physical. Why does a salt crystal form in a cube? Why does amethyst form in a trigonal prism? It doesn't "think" like we do, but it possess a reproducing self-similar nature and it is impelled by "qualities" such as heat. Is temperature "physical"?
Now you can say that it all break down to "well it just gets its material from another material", and at the end of the day "it's all just hydrogen/neutrons/protons/whaterons", but now we get down to "what forms those". So now we're down to "fields" and I'm not even gonna bother asking what those are made of because again...It's undefinable. It has no quantity.
You can call that "physical" if you want, but it is not measurable by any standards. Therefore I would not call it anything really, but it certainly isn't "nothing".
The info and explanations are already there, it's only your laziness and need to be spoonfed that's holding you back. Wouldn't you feel so much better about yourself if you found out for yourself than having an avatarfag such as myself explain it to you?

[Anonymous No.10561460]

>>10561394
>You clearly don't even understand what the holographic principle says. The holographic universe does not say anything about an actual hologram.
Okay, this is a hilarious statement in itself but how about you give me your definition of a "hologram" first.

>It is still a physical universe, only it works differently than how we interpret it in our minds.

Another hilarious statement. You really cannot see the irony can you?

[Anonymous No.10561465]

>>10561451
>Now you can say that it all break down to "well it just gets its material from another material", and at the end of the day "it's all just hydrogen/neutrons/protons/whaterons", but now we get down to "what forms those". So now we're down to "fields" and I'm not even gonna bother asking what those are made of because again...It's undefinable. It has no quantity.
>You can call that "physical" if you want, but it is not measurable by any standards. Therefore I would not call it anything really, but it certainly isn't "nothing".
>The info and explanations are already there, it's only your laziness and need to be spoonfed that's holding you back. Wouldn't you feel so much better about yourself if you found out for yourself than having an avatarfag such as myself explain it to you?
more word salad. it seems like your justification for your "alternative" ideas is simply denying known science. not a good way to actually logically argue the validity of your own thought process. do you see the difference between "i believe X because i start at A, which everyone agrees on, and A implies B, and B implies C, and ... and W implies X." instead your thought process looks like "I believe A because I claim B and unrelatedly C, and therefore A because scientists say X and Y and Z and they are all wrong according to A and B and C!!!!!"

your logic is flawed and you have a very deficient method of reasoning. all your physical arguments are nonsense: salt crystals forming and amethyst's crystal structure can be understood in terms of physical chemistry. temperature is one of the easiest physical quantities that can be measured in empirical experiments.

you have no argument aside from word salad, bro. you can't even defend your holographic model you believe so hard in. please explain it in a logical way instead of just reeeeeing about how much you deny known physics (which, honestly, occurs in rare gaps between your nonsense word salads)

[Anonymous No.10561482]

>>10561315
>waves of what
A disturbance in the scale of nanometers that was caused by two black holes colliding, they used lasers and mirrors to measure the exact amount space was shifted. It was shifted very minutely and that indicates the presence of a wave that traveled through the laser, because when it passed through the laser the laser experienced the Doppler effect.

And all particles are waves, and all waves are particles. It’s called wave-particle duality. Actually learn physics before you try and say it’s all wrong you absolute mong.

[Anonymous No.10561485]

>>10561451
If you’re gonna try to tell me that waves and particles aren’t real next, you really need to take some basic physics classes. Literally the second you get into electricity and how it functions, along with light, you do repeated experiments that prove 1) matter exists in particles and 2) light is a wave and a particle. It’s all pretty basic shit if you aren’t actually retarded.

[Anonymous No.10561488]

>>10561340

[Anonymous No.10561499]

>>10561488
berzerkfag resorts to snap posting since he got shutdown again. pathetic. please >>>/x/ now

[Anonymous No.10561514]

>>10561465
>more word salad. it seems like your justification for your "alternative" ideas is simply denying known science.
That's what science does as well, disproves itself whenever possible and refines itself. That is literally how the history of science has worked. The problem is that the "refining" turned into "particularizing" and now you have hundreds of thousands of separate theories, some based on pure thought experiments alone.

>temperature is one of the easiest physical quantities that can be measured in empirical experiments.
I'm talking about reality though. The "quality of temperature". "Hotness" "coldness". Even "hardness" and "softness" is a quality. The measurements only come in for the quantification of it. The translation of it into "math". This is used to help determine change, but "math" can't tell you what "hot" and "cold" are because they are QUALITIES.
>Why is a diamond so hard
"well it's a different form of carbon"
>Why does the form of carbon change the quality of hardness even if I have the same quantity of carbon?
>????

>you have no argument aside from word salad, bro
I'm sorry that you can't comprehend that a measurement isn't a real thing. It's what's measured is what is "real". This is why math and even empirical evidence itself can lead you in the wrong direction.

>you can't even defend your holographic model you believe so hard in
I've provided all the examples you need, you're just ignoring it. I've even defined it as "self-similarity". Where did you come from? An acorn? Ridiculous. Did you not come from another human?

[Anonymous No.10561524]

>>10561499
>thinking you're arguing with one person

[Anonymous No.10561535]

>>10561482
>A disturbance
In the force?
>caused by two black holes colliding, they used lasers and mirrors to measure the exact amount space was shifted.
So what is a black hole?
>they used lasers and mirrors to measure the exact amount space was shifted
I've heard that it might be the "absence of space" so how would you measure an absence?
>It was shifted very minutely and that indicates the presence of a wave that traveled through the laser, because when it passed through the laser the laser experienced the Doppler effect.
So is it "waves of blackholes" then? Is that what the waves are made of?
>And all particles are waves, and all waves are particles. It’s called wave-particle duality.
waves of what? Waves of particles? What are the particles made of? Is it like a medium or something?
>Actually learn physics before you try and say it’s all wrong you absolute mong.
But that's a contradiction. A logical fallacy. It would be like me saying "all bananas are apple and all apples are bananas". The psychosis is real with you dude, get yourself examined.

>>10561485
>If you’re gonna try to tell me that waves and particles aren’t real next,
Waves of what?
>Literally the second you get into electricity and how it functions, along with light, you do repeated experiments that prove 1) matter exists in particles and 2) light is a wave and a particle. It’s all pretty basic shit if you aren’t actually retarded.
But what are the waves of light made of? What is electricity made of? What is a particle made of?

[Anonymous No.10561537]

>>10561514
self-similarity is not equivalent to "the universe is not physical, it's really a hologram". anyhow self-similarity is not a fact of our universe.... have you heard of the "standard model" of particle physics? it says that there are irreducible building blocks, and at smaller scales there are no smaller building blocks. self-similarity is not a feature of our universe. and even if it were, that doesn't imply anything about holograms. try harder

the rest of your arguments are stupid. "hot" corresponds to temperatures that feel hot because the thing being perceived by a naiive human touching it is colder than the thing they touch, and heat transfers to their body and their nerves perceive it as hot. same thing with "cold". the ideas of "hot" and "cold" are relative to human temperatures. OTOH temperature is an objectively measurable thing, so we can know what a human will feel as "hot" or "cold" based on comparing objective measurements. in physics there is even a such thing as "absolute zero", which does not depend on any "relative" comparison between two objects. do you deny the existence of "absolute zero temperature"? even Lord Kelvin believed in that (he actually invented the concept), and he was an electric universe believer (even smart guys can be retarded sometimes)

[Anonymous No.10561543]

>>10561537
typo: i meant
>
the rest of your arguments are stupid. "hot" corresponds to temperatures that feel hot because the thing being perceived by a naiive human touching has a higher temperature than the human touching it

[Anonymous No.10561557]

>>10561537
self-similarity is not equivalent to "the universe is not physical, it's really a hologram"
Why?
>anyhow self-similarity is not a fact of our universe.... have you heard of the "standard model" of particle physics?
Can it explain why a magnet forms another magnet? Can it explain what a field even is?
>it says that there are irreducible building blocks, and at smaller scales there are no smaller building blocks
Sound like a religion to me
>self-similarity is not a feature of our universe. and even if it were, that doesn't imply anything about holograms. try harder.
But, holograms are literally self-similar you acorn grown testube lad. Oh wait, acorns and oak trees are self-similar too.
>the rest of your arguments are stupid. "hot" corresponds to temperatures that feel hot because the thing being perceived by a naiive human touching it is colder than the thing they touch
Oh I see, so when this naive human invents the non physical idea called "math", this somehow makes him "see" better.
>in physics there is even a such thing as "absolute zero", which does not depend on any "relative" comparison between two objects. do you deny the existence of "absolute zero temperature"? even Lord Kelvin believed in that (he actually invented the concept), and he was an electric universe believer (even smart guys can be retarded sometimes)
>we can and will measure nothing.

Psychosis.

[Anonymous No.10561580]

>>10561557
>>self-similarity is not equivalent to "the universe is not physical, it's really a hologram"
>Why?
conceptually, a holographic universe has nothing to do with self-similarity. _you_ need to convince me that the two terms are the same, since obviously they refer to two different concepts
>Can it explain why a magnet forms another magnet? Can it explain what a field even is?
yes. learn some particle physics and then get back to me
>But, holograms are literally self-similar you acorn grown testube lad. Oh wait, acorns and oak trees are self-similar too.
are holograms self-similar? sauce? and also i find that trees look quite different from acorns. do you think they look the same?
>the non physical idea called "math",
oh, so now you deny math?! tell me why math is wrong.
>Psychosis.
you literally deny thermodynamics now too! okay, i thought that was one of the foundational principles of your argument. i thought you were a good electric universe idiot and harkened back to the physicists of old! but no, you deny Kelvin. astounding. absolute zero is an empirically established fact, and if you call it psychosis, that's textbook projection

[Anonymous No.10561581]

>>10561535
What a black hole is doesn’t exactly matter, basically two things with a large mass were colliding. It’s not an absence of space, it is a singularity in which a certain boundar gravity become some extraordinarily strong. They have a center of mass just like anything else.

And it’s not a wave of a black hole you nigger, it was a shift in the relative spacetime of a sizeable portion of the universe, because spacetime bends around things with very large mass.

Particles have three fundamental properties, mass, momentum, and wavelength. Atoms (neutrons, protons) are particles with a relatively high mass relative to the wavelength and momentum, so they do not experience many wavelike properties unless they are put into certain circumstances. Particles like light, electrons, and all the rest of the mesons and shit all have relatively low mass relative to their wavelength and momentum, so they experience many wave like properties. That’s why electrons are considered to be in a cloud, there is a range of possible locations based on certain stable energy levels.

Light is similar, it has almost no mass and it does have wavelength and momentum, so it acts as a particle in terms of collisions, but experiences wave-pattern interference and isn’t exactly easy to pinpoint in an exact location. There’s this thing called uncertainty that occurs with all quantum calculations because it’s too small and moves to fast to predict every property of something at the same time.

Electricity is just moving electrons, I.e a particle and a wave that is also able to move between different stable energy levels.

[Anonymous No.10561597]

>>10561557
Where can I learn more about the Holographic Theory? I think it's real but what are some resources you have used to make you believe in it?

[Anonymous No.10561631]

>>10561580
>conceptually, a holographic universe has nothing to do with self-similarity.
>_you_ need to convince me that the two terms are the same
I'm talking about reality, not concepts. How they work is what matters, but you're right they don't mean the same thing.
>yes. learn some particle physics and then get back to me
Yeah, and none of them explain what a field is. Just what they do.
>are holograms self-similar? sauce?
How else would they work?
>and also i find that trees look quite different from acorns. do you think they look the same?
They are self_similar or "approximately similar to a part of itself". An oak tree has acorns. Their qualities are different which makes them not copies. Just like a spit magnet isn't necessarily split the same way that another magnet is.
>oh, so now you deny math?! tell me why math is wrong.
It tells you how many acorns there are, but not what an acorn is.
>you literally deny thermodynamics now too! okay, i thought that was one of the foundational principles of your argument.
self-similarily does imply that "From nothing comes nothing" as "nothing would be similar to nothing". This statement is ludicrous though.
>i thought you were a good electric universe idiot and harkened back to the physicists of old! but no, you deny Kelvin. astounding. absolute zero is an empirically established fact, and if you call it psychosis, that's textbook projection
Really. You think that absolute zero can be "measured"?
>we measured nothing, experienced it.
>us measuring "nothing" while producing the means to negate it.
Fool.

[Anonymous No.10561650]

>>10557715
Gimme an application for the theory. GR has commercial applications and makes money, electric universe doesn’t. Till that changes, Al’s the status quo.

[Anonymous No.10561653]

>>10559098
Do you even have an actual job? Dip shit Avatar fags are rarely well employed.

[Anonymous No.10561654]

>>10561581
>basically two things with a large mass were colliding
So a black hole is mass?
>It’s not an absence of space, it is a singularity in which a certain boundar gravity become some extraordinarily strong.
So it's gravity? What is gravity?
>They have a center of mass just like anything else.
How much gravity is at the center of gravity?
>it was a shift in the relative spacetime of a sizeable portion of the universe, because spacetime bends around things with very large mass.
what properties of "spacetime" allow it to be "bent"?
>Particles have three fundamental properties, mass, momentum, and wavelength. Atoms (neutrons, protons) are particles with a relatively high mass relative to the wavelength and momentum, so they do not experience many wavelike properties unless they are put into certain circumstances. Particles like light, electrons, and all the rest of the mesons and shit all have relatively low mass relative to their wavelength and momentum, so they experience many wave like properties. That’s why electrons are considered to be in a cloud, there is a range of possible locations based on certain stable energy levels.
Waves of what? "Wave like properties", well what is the wave? Waves of water? It has some subsistence does it not?
>Light is similar, it has almost no mass and it does have wavelength and momentum, so it acts as a particle in terms of collisions, but experiences wave-pattern interference and isn’t exactly easy to pinpoint in an exact location. There’s this thing called uncertainty that occurs with all quantum calculations because it’s too small and moves to fast to predict every property of something at the same time.
I translate that as "we don't know", because that's exactly how it reads off. Sorry I can't work with this.
>Electricity is just moving electrons, I.e a particle and a wave that is also able to move between different stable energy levels.
Is a wave an "energy level"? You also seem to be giving me two definitions.

[Anonymous No.10561661]

>>10561631
>I'm talking about reality, not concepts.
oh, okay, you work on a plane that goes beyond concepts. your thoughts are actual "reality" that goes beyond models and concepts. you must be very special then, right?
>none of them explain what a field is. Just what they do.
t. never learned field theory
you realize that physics does model the field as a vector field, right? your "reeeeeeee that's not what a field really is" crap fails when our mathematical descriptions of it fully describe all the associated phenomena
>How else would they work?
holograms could work however they want. so could spirits and magic. your theory is equivalent to those ideas.
>They are self_similar or "approximately similar to a part of itself". An oak tree has acorns. Their qualities are different which makes them not copies. Just like a spit magnet isn't necessarily split the same way that another magnet is.
ah hah! a mathlet who hasn't posted even one equation resorts to "approximately". you realize this is a mathematical thing right? to what degree of accuracy? i need numbers here. but i'm sure your bullshit is completely devoid of quantitativr reasoning, so just give up
[nonsense bullshit omitted]
>Really. You think that absolute zero can be "measured"?
yeah, duh. even Kelvin said that
>Fool.
the absolute cope of schizo EUtards

[Anonymous No.10561712]

>>10561661
>oh, okay, you work on a plane that goes beyond concepts. your thoughts are actual "reality" that goes beyond models and concepts. you must be very special then, right?
Where do you think "math" came from?
>your "reeeeeeee that's not what a field really is" crap fails when our mathematical descriptions of it fully describe all the associated phenomena
Psychosis. It counts what is there but does not explain what it is. It does not tell you the taste of an apple, or have the equation for love. A shadow for example can be "measured" but it certainly isn't real. It's a privation of something else (light). It is the absence of properties. Math in this case has reified that which has no properties or subsistence in reality.

>holograms could work however they want. so could spirits and magic. your theory is equivalent to those ideas
No you jackass. They work by "self-similarity". They aren't "copies" because that would be fallacy of composition. The parts are not the whole, they are SIMILAR. When you cut a hologram (picture type), both cuts are not the "same" even though they produce a similar image. You can have all sorts of various sized cuts and they would all do the same thing. Same with a magnet. Same with you.
Tell me, do you think that you or this entire planet would "exist" if it were not for the light from the sun? No. We would vanish instantly. We'd sublimate into the pressure mediation of "space". They only thing that was holding that back in the first place was the goddamn sun! That's how a hologram works. It defracts light into an image using itself (light). No sun, no motion, no movement, no memory, no-self similarity.

[Anonymous No.10561723]

>>10561712
>you think that you or this entire planet would "exist" if it were not for the light from the sun? No. We would vanish instantly. We'd sublimate into the pressure mediation of "space". They only thing that was holding that back in the first place was the goddamn sun!
haha i finally got you. schizo confirmed. back to >>>/x/

next time try harder

[Anonymous No.10561822]

>>10559098
>Light doesn't even travel.
What the hell is that even supposed to mean?

[Anonymous No.10561850]

>>10561822
It's one of the main symptoms of a Philosophy Degree and the delusion that's it worth the paper it's printed on. Faggot doesn't even know what a theoretical yield is.

[Anonymous No.10561858]

>>10560659
>answer
kek, shitposting is nothing but wasting time

[Anonymous No.10561899]

>>10561723
>haha I got you for reasons unexplained.
Well okay, you "got me" in you psychosis imagination

>>10561822
Measure what is allegedly traveling by itself and it ceases to exist ("photons"). It's an electromagnetic effect that's induced and medium dependent. That's not "traveling".

>>10561850
Will that tell me what "waves" and "fields" are?

[Anonymous No.10562085]

>>10561712
OKAY dude I give up on you, if you really need and want to understand all of these things I’m trying to tell you, go to a fucking community college and get a real education. You’re obviously either schizo or just plain retarded, and if you really want to understand these things it’s as simple as taking a class.

You claim you want to redefine science because it’s wrong, but how the fuck are you ever gonna do that if you don’t understand the science we already have to begin with. You can’t improve upon things you dont know or understand.

Now go be a nigger somewhere else.

[Anonymous No.10562198]

>>10559098
>Absolutely nobody here is going to explain gravity. Why? Because an explanation doesn't exist.

The motion of bodies of mass produce waves in some medium. Two bodies of mass are attracted to each other in this medium because of the interference of the waves produced by their own motion. The only rational explanation for gravity and inertia imho

[Anonymous No.10562333]

>>10561899
>Measure what is allegedly traveling by itself and it ceases to exist ("photons"). It's an electromagnetic effect that's induced and medium dependent. That's not "traveling".
Alright so for clarification, when a lightbulb is lit, light does not exit the bulb into the surrounding environment. Instead, some kind of fundamental base reality (presumably whatever's casting the hologram that is the universe) reacts to the lightbulb by causing light to rise out of itself into the area around the lightbulb.

[Anonymous No.10562409]

>>10557847
based

[Anonymous No.10562420]

>>10557847
This is what Serbs unironically believe.

[Anonymous No.10562797]

>10561899
hahahaha berzerkfag DONE! anytime we see his gay avatar again we need to remind him he is ETERNALLY BTFO

[Anonymous No.10562850]

>>10557895
The problem is that the actual error relevant to the functioning of GPS is the relative position to other satellites, which is neglegible compared to errors from e.g. not having a perfect circular orbit.

However, we certainly can measure the time difference between the sattelite and earth, which gets a significant difference that GR predicts. It's just that this difference is not relevant to the function of GPS. Of course, for the fact that GR is not relevant, you would have to have knowledge og GR, which is why it has been taken into account when developing GPS.

See also https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/128951

tldr; GPS does not require knowledge of GR, but GPS has been used to provide experimental data consistent with GR

[Anonymous No.10563040]

wasn't following the conversation too closely, but berserk-anon's opponents resorted to all kinds of bad faith arguments against him

[Anonymous No.10563134]

>>10563040
Because hes a schizophrenic avatar fag who argues with himself.

[Anonymous No.10563143]

>>10563134
>"because (ad hominem)!"

you don't belong on this board

[Anonymous No.10563533]

>>10561712
Berserk Anon, you are a hero.

[Anonymous No.10563983]

>>10563040
You literally are beserk-anon samefagging

[Anonymous No.10564032]

>>10561822
It's an induced coaxial circuit effect of magnetism and electricity. Induction has a rate, not a speed.

>>10562085
>OKAY dude I give up on you, if you really need and want to understand all of these things I’m trying to tell you, go to a fucking community college and get a real education.
You're the one who went to school and you're sitting here giving me the runabout pretending to know shit. Makes me want to go to college even less now. What the fuck have you been learning?

>You claim you want to redefine science because it’s wrong
LIKE SCIENCE SHOULD DO. Does it just exclude itself from the process it takes? No, otherwise we'd still believe that we're the center of the universe and that the earth is flat. That was science until better science came AND DISPROVED IT. Science is not: "oh well here's the end, it's all "settled".

>but how the fuck are you ever gonna do that if you don’t understand the science we already have to begin with. You can’t improve upon things you dont know or understand.
That's why "he's" here asking questions. The only problem is that nobody seems to have a logical answer.

>Now go be a nigger somewhere else.
religion is for church.

>>10562198
>The motion of bodies of mass produce waves in some medium
So what is the "medium? At least we figured out what the fucking waves are of, mostly.

>Two bodies of mass are attracted to each other in this medium because of the interference of the waves produced by their own motion. The only rational explanation for gravity and inertia imho
So they mutually impel each other. That's not attraction. I don't even see how that's a separate force dubbed "gravity" and not just a pressure mediation of mass itself. This isn't even new, this is directly from Timaeus 80b.

>>10562333
It perturbs the medium. When you splash your hand in water, are you "emitting" water?

>>10562797
Whatever will "he" do now?

>>10563040
And 3 day ban. That's okay, it tells "him" they know nothing.

>10563983
No

[Anonymous No.10564064]

>>10564032
You have literally been given the best explanations everyone ITT can give you, and every time you get an explanation that logically makes sense you just go
>what’s this?
>what’s this?
>what’s this?
And when it’s further logically explained you continue to just ask more questions similarly. You’re either unwilling or unable to change your opinion, meanwhile telling everyone else they’re too retarded because they’re unwilling to learn.

Not once have you said a single thing that didn’t sound completely retarded, and you say you have all these theories with no scientific backing that I’m supposed to somehow accept despite the fact that you could take a year of your life in a college and actually learn many things with scientific backing through physical experimentation that you will be doing yourself. In fact many of these ideas can probably be done with science experiments you can set up in your own home, but I bet your only free space is taken up by a flat earth model or some shit.

You are literally shutting yourself into the dark and screeching at anyone who shows you that, yes, there are candles out here and we can show you the truth. But instead, you continue screeching autistically about theories that have legitimately 0 backing whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.10564089]

>>10564064
Why are you so mad? He's actually giving explanations for the questions and doubts, but all you do is make assumptions about him and call him retarded. If you want to convince everyone he's wrong, how about break down his talking points and prove it. But no, you clearly aren't intelligent enough for that, but just intelligent enough to know that going with the normal flow is easier than branching off and being creative/innovative. It's fools like yourself that keep the sciences stagnating; stuck in past theories that were only theories. Sure, some of those theories seem correct based on experiment, but at the same time, don't manage to 100% explain the phenomenons. But "good enough" has become the go to for the normal community of lazy and redundant science.

[Anonymous No.10564104]

>>10561597
https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9409089.pdf
Note: this is actual the actual holographic principle, not some crazy /x/ nonsense.

[Anonymous No.10564109]

>>10561654
>what properties of "spacetime" allow it to be "bent"?
Look up Riemannian geometry, then let the metric have indefinite signature.

[Anonymous No.10564116]

>>10564089
the guy's argument literally goes to "the universe isn't physical. i claim the essence of the universe is X, but X is empirically unobservable." this argument has no scientific refutation, because science cannot pertain to unobservable nonphysical things. that's why we keep telling him to go to >>>/x/, but maybe >>>/his/ or >>>/lit/ would be a reasonable alternative, since in those boards you are allowed to talk about things that are unscientific. but here, since we're a science board, it just completely denies the scientific method and the core principles of science. no argument can be made here, scientifically.

anyhow he has made claims that have objective scientific evidence against them, and we've pointed this out to him, but his style of arguing completely ignores when we do that and instead rambles on about his (insert adjective here... i don't want to use the one i want but certainly "crackpot" or "quack" are too nice) nonscientific ideas

[Anonymous No.10564136]

>>10564064
>>10564064
You have literally been given the best explanations everyone ITT can give you, and every time you get an explanation that logically makes sense you just go
>what’s this?
No shit it's a science board.

>And when it’s further logically explained you continue to just ask more questions similarly.
Sounds like fucking science to me, yeah..

>You’re either unwilling or unable to change your opinion, meanwhile telling everyone else they’re too retarded because they’re unwilling to learn.
My opinion on what exactly? Commentary on an illogical explanation? It's wrong to point out the flaws in an argument?

>Not once have you said a single thing that didn’t sound completely retarded
In your opinion and probably because you didn't stick around for the explanation.

>and you say you have all these theories with no scientific backing
I have what theory? Holographic universe theory? Not the mainstream one no. Is it wrong to have an opinion?

>I’m supposed to somehow accept despite the fact that you could take a year of your life in a college
>yeah just join our group-think religion and learn what we're preaching so you can turn around and preach it yourself.
That's not science and I'm not participating in it anytime soon. Furthermore I've proved using actual fucking evidence that holography and self-similarity is how the universe works and what do do I get in return? "Oh you're wrong" "X said this os your wrong", "This theory disproved this using a false premise". As if the people here actually don't believe that magnets and holograms and cells exist in reality. No, it seems most people here would rather continue their "blind men and an elephant" roleplay.


>In fact many of these ideas can probably be done with science experiments you can set up in your own home, but I bet your only free space is taken up by a flat earth model or some shit.
Yeah. I've split many magnets. They all turn into fucking magnets.
>>10564109
Not a property

[Anonymous No.10564147]

>>10564116
>the guy's argument literally goes to "the universe isn't physical
Can you point in this thread where he claims this? Because I've looked into the "electric theory universe" and it doesn't have anything to do with "physical vs not physical". It's more connected to plasma being the fundamental state of matter, and coming up with a different way to explain the phenomenons pf gravity and "light waves/particls". If you would actually take 1 hour out of your life, you might be able to see it isn't that crazy of a theory. Plasma science is still very much in its infancy as far as states of matter go.

If you're having trouble with his claim that "light doesn't travel", then maybe I can bring some light to this dark spot. Think of copper cables conducting electricity. Do the electrons actually "flow"? Or is more closely described as a spring/rope that conducts the signal/energy along the line of charge carrying particles? We know space isn't empty of particles; so an electro-magnetic energy wave should be able to be carried through it, much like the energy wave of electricity is carried through a good conductor. So in a way, it is "traveling" but only through existing matter; it is an energy wave form.

I mean, think of our current accepted theories; does the "bending of space" being the reason matter exists make any more plausible sense? Or is that just as, or even more so, fantastical?

[Anonymous No.10564155]

>>10564116
this is a fair point and my meaning gets lost due to the unempirical nature of what I'm talking about but lit and his would know very little about this. In terms of "objective scientific evidence" though, I think I do a fair job by at least providing examples and actions that occur that lead me to think the way I do, it only becomes a shitshow when I ask people to explain their descriptions or equations and how it pertains to reality.

[Anonymous No.10564163]

>>10564147
he's not even arguing electric universe any more. electric universe has nothing to do with a hologram nonphysical magicworld. electric universe is historically a real thing; his crap isn't. here is where he claims it's nonphysical:
>>10560631
>The universe is not physical so no
and he repeated the claim a few other times through the thread just ctrl+f

here is where he claims it's not measurable:
>>10561315
>describe and explain that which is not physical
>Well it certainly isn't going to be measurable for starters..
>>10561451
>You can call that "physical" if you want, but it is not measurable by any standards.

[Anonymous No.10564184]

>>10564163
>here is where he claims it's nonphysical:
Fair enough. He seems to understand most of the theory, but is a bit misguided on other aspects. I don't think that's reason to shit on the entirety of the electric universe theory though. It's difficult for interested parties to get the full understanding because of all the other bs theories that are popularized in our modern social media world. Becomes this noise filled learning void, where escape from stupidity is near impossible for those not given the proper tools to navigate early in life.

[Anonymous No.10564190]

>>10564163
Hmm if a field is holographic and fields make electricity.....

Spin the wheel and the magnets will create a pressure difference in the copper.
>no field
>field
That's all electricity is.

[Anonymous No.10564194]

>>10564184
sure, i’d be happy to argue the science of electric universe, as i did earlier here,
>>10559962
before he derailed the thread to talk about hologram nonphysical magicworld. but maybe it would be better to do so in a separate thread now

[Anonymous No.10564410]

>>10560144
look at how chaotic pluto's moons revolve around it and try explaining that with gravitation

[Anonymous No.10564504]

>>10564410
okay, try explaining that with anything else, brah

[Anonymous No.10564866]

>>10564136
>it’s a science thread
>calls science classes a cult
Do you see why I think you’re a colossal faggot?

All particles are waves and all waves are particles, particles are finite things that exist in a single place, waves are a thing that exist in multiple places at once, everything exists in a certain place based on probability, and that probability is something that can be calculated with a certain uncertainty based on the uncertainty principle.

A wave is something that has a wavelength, a velocity, and a frequency, these are related by velocity = wavelength times frequency based on the basic definition that velocity is some measure of distance over time. All particles have three intrinsic properties: mass, wavelength, and momentum and as particles attain more mass their velocity and wavelength suffer accordingly, because momentum = mass * velocity. This is why certain particles exist as what we consider tangible matter and others don’t, because they are moving slowly and behave by certain rules that particles of much smaller mass don’t abide by.

This is where radiation comes in, light has almost no mass, so as it’s wavelength becomes smaller and smaller, it is not affected by other forms of matter as much because it’s smaller and therefore has a much lower likely chance of actually colliding with any other particles. This is why gamma rays are able to penetrate through certain materials, they don’t have a density high enough to effectively and reliable block the photon from piercing. This is why alpha particles (an HE nucleus) burns our internal organs while a beta particle (basically an electron) typically affects our skin, an electron is much more likely to run into the large electron clouds outside of an atom than a nucleus is to run into another nucleus.

A nucleus is a cluster of protons and neutrons that are attracted to eachother, because what we know as the strong and weak force

[Anonymous No.10564874]

>>10564866
Are byproducts of the forces that hold quarks together, similarly to the fact that what we understand as the forces that hold molecules together are byproducts of the electromagnetic force occurring between atoms.

You are a fucking nigger, I’m not even in a real university yet, and I bet you’re gonna ask fifteen questions that are fucking retarded and ignore any of the information I posted. You don’t like information, you like to pretend information is incomprehensibly retarded because your literal chimp brain is not able to understand any of this information.

[Anonymous No.10564916]

>>10564866
>>10564874
just stop guys. you are both retarded for bumping this thread, after beezerkfag admitted that his theory is nonscientific. let the thread die

[Anonymous No.10565139]

>>10557969
Can you explain what conspiracies you currently believe in? Personally I believe in:
-aliens are here and abducting people for real as part of some hybrid-project intended for purposes unknown
-first contact was made long ago, aliens interacted with all of our ancestors, helped build some megalithic structures
-humanity is itself a hybrid of extraterrestrial humanoids and earthly apes, an event documented by the culture of Sumeria, and our parent-species called by them as the Annunaki
-the Cambrian Explosion was caused by a higher intelligence bringing developed lifeforms directly to Earth, our planet is a cosmic zoo and has been terraformed for hundreds of millions of years

t. Conspiracy theorist without scientific background that wants to be guided to the right and sane path of this domain by a sciencebro who is also into conspiracies

[Anonymous No.10565178]

>>10560631
Your views sound incredibly based - mind telling me more of them so I can look into them? I'm not versed in science, only recently came to /sci/ because I want tp start educating myself in this domain. I'm also distrustful of authority and into conspiracies, and your views seem like they have some basic element of that. I also deny that the universe could be anything besides eternal. What do I read to become like you?

[Anonymous No.10565193]

>>10557715
Tesla wasn't a scientist and his statements on science have no value. He was an engineer. The worst type of engineer, the theoretical engineer.

[Anonymous No.10565285]

>>10564032
>So they mutually impel each other.

Gravity is not a mutual exchange of kinetic energy between bodies of mass. The larger object is unaffected in trajectory by the smaller object, because the incoming waves of the smaller object are annihilated in total destructive interference by the outgoing waves of the larger one. I would think anyway.

[Anonymous No.10567172]

>>10560039
>Standard theory

[Anonymous No.10567303]

>>10559414
the quora page that he copypasted it from