/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14490128
no. this is peak pseudoscience. thunderbolts is the classic “we love aether and tesla” entrance to gritting brainlets into panpsychism and occultist memes designed to make you spend money on bullshit crystal and magnet healing. plus it has an undertone of antisemitism to make you reject relativity , and you know where that leads

>eu garbage
into the trash it goes

>>14490152
Nice ad hominem bullshit buddy.

>>14490156
And why do you think it’s “Garbage”?

Here is another video for you: https://youtu.be/WG8YRt4TvIk

>>14490152
>plus it has an undertone of antisemitism to make you reject relativity , and you know where that leads

That was never implied anywhere.

>>14490128
it’s a science. but yes its a form of theoretical science not pseudo science

>>14490173
EU is about testing things in a lab, and not being theoretical like the mainstream is doing, especially with it’s “Dark Matter and energy” nonsense.

>>14490177
theoretical science is the idea of practicable theories. pseudo science is just

>>14490182
non applicable.

That’s why its called theoretical physics.

>>14490182
What is practicable about Dark Matter and Black Holes?

this material is beyond the capacity of /sci/..

/sci/ can't handle ideas that violate laws of phyiscs from the late 18th century.. the angrier /sci/ gets, the more likely it is that this guy is on to something.

>>14490185
thats psuedo science. unless it’s observable

>>14490128
At very large scales and speeds, gravity dominates over other forces though

>>14490201
So you acknowledge that the mainstream is saying bullshit.

>>14490202
It doesn’t, how do you explain light acting inconsistently and the SM having to make up things to “explain” it, like Dark Matter?

>>14490202
https://youtu.be/nLC4MA6_Oq0

>>14490152
>plus it has an undertone of antisemitism
I wasn't interested in it before but now I am.

>>14490202
shilling gravity means you adhere to physics from the late 18th century.. precisely as I predicted in the above post. I knew you'd be here.

Any suggestion that electromagnetism could be a basis for modeling the universe is immediately shilled by adherents to gravity, relativity, and pi.

It never ends. One group of people is learning and studying. The other group, is doing all they can to preserve errors from the past. Ask yourself who is really working for advancements in science

>>14490218
Piss off Pol.

>>14490128
>EU
>Bulk matter is electrically neutral
>The WEP exists
Yeah, its bullshit.

>>14490233
https://youtu.be/Y-0JzSjDAQE

>>14490236
Didn't watch lol

>>14490239
Ah yes, truly a scientific mind. /S

>>14490233
https://youtu.be/J4NffTr_GMk

electric universe is not real science
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9q-v4lBGuw

thunderbolts project is a scam
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmVdPgkudC8

>>14490198
you are so fucking stupid

>>14490239
https://youtu.be/-FdWTH08u30

>>14491640
All the Bullshit “Professer” Dave said has been debunked here: https://thunderbolts.info/forum3/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=282

Here is a brief quote:

“ Aside from the typical unethical debate tactics of using inflammatory terms like "pseudoscience", "delusions", "paranoia", "cult", "lies", etc, and comparisons of EU/PC theory to flat earth beliefs and astrology, there are a number of complete misrepresentations and several ironic statements in Professor Dave's new video that warrant comment. It's worth spending a few moments debunking some of his "debunking". :)

After a series of inflammatory and unethical comparisons, Dave begins his presentation by discussing gravity as it manifests itself on Earth, and implying that EU/PC theory is intrinsically incompatible with GR theory, or any other theory of gravity, which is of course complete nonsense. While it is undeniably true that many scientists, including some within the EU/PC community would like to pursue and discuss a "theory of everything" which ties all of the known forces of nature together, it's not true that EU/PC theory is inherently incompatible with general relativity. Dave essentially tries to argue that any success of GR theory automatically "debunks" EU/PC theory, and automatically validates the LCDM model, which of course is utter nonsense. EU/PC theory is not threatened or undermined by the success of general relativity, or Newtonian models of gravity. Furthermore, the LCDM cosmology model is not automatically validated by the success that general relativity theory. GR is a general theory about "gravity", whereas the LCDM model is a *cosmology* model that includes other things like dark energy, dark matter, galaxy evolution predictions, etc.”

>>14491640
And here: https://thunderbolts.info/forum3/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=330

“see that our favorite fraudulent Youtube "Professor" is at it again, this time in reference to SAFIRE. As usual, his presentation is full of misinformation, disinformation, and outright BS.

Dave Farina of course begins by personally defining the term "electric universe" to suit himself, apparently based on a completely kludged misrepresentation of Wal Thornhill's personal beliefs, and Dave engages in an endless stream of personal insults and smear by association tactics. Typical nonsense.

A few of the scientific blunders that Dave makes are simply hilarious.

Dave begins his presentation by completely misrepresenting history when he falsely claims that Ralph Juergens wrote "the" electric sun model. Juergens wrote *an* electric sun model, one of at least three *different* electric sun models, the first "cathode" version being written by Birkeland, the second "homopolar generator" model being written by Alfven, and the third "anode" model being later written by Juergens.

Dave tries to make the claim that the mainstream is "all good" on neutrinos, and to support that claim he cites a low resolution solar image of neutrinos which *clearly* shows that solar neutrinos are *not* limited to simply a small region of the "core" of the sun. In fact the extremely low resolution image would tend to suggest that some neutrinos come from the solar atmosphere as well as the entire surface as EU/PC models would tend to predict.”

>>14491641
>Has no argument

>>14491641
>space (by definition something that is empty and void of attributes) bends
take your meds and stfu schizo

>>14490218
For a people that have been kicked out from many places, it seems that jews are quite comfy inside your head. They don't even have to pay rent!

>>14491687
That’s just what you expect from Pol, Stormfront, KiwiFarms and Reddit.

>>14491687
Antisemites have plenty of free space to give since they just live inside your head free of rent.

>>14491707
Here we go with the victim complex.

>>14491710
>>14490152
>plus it has an undertone of antisemitism
>first mention ITT

>>14490128
Yeah yeah we get it, look, its bullshit.

>>14490185
The Dark matter theory predicted that astronomers would find places in space where gravitational lensing did not match the visible matter present. Astronomers have found such places, like the Bullet Cluster. The black hole theory predicted that astronomers would find very dense objects, that are themselves invisible, but can be detected by the particular orbits of stars, gases, and so on around them. Astronomers have found numerous objects that fot these criteria.

From what I call tell about the "Electric Universe" "theory" is that it is a giant pile of nonsense, that at best makes predictions that are trivially explained by standard models, and for the most part is such garbage that it can't be used to make any sort of predictions, valid or not.

>>14491656
>butthurt he can't understand it
lmao

>>14490152
holy shit dude you just sold it I was on the fence before but now im all in.

>>14490177
>EU is about testing things in a lab
That is a lie. In the decades the group has existed they funded only one experiment. This one experiment published one uninteresting paper and then immediately transitioned to a secretive free-energy scam. No more papers. 99% of the claims made by EUers has faced no scientific scrutiny, in the lab or otherwise.

>>14492098
>>14491989

Well if you are so sure, talk about this on the Thunderbolts Forums, where I am sure your arguments will be torn apart.

>>14492098
Yeah where did you get that from? Dave’s bullshit video full of fallacies?

>>14492098
“ Dave then rants on and on about how we should see massive amounts of gamma radiation if fusion occurs *above* the photosphere, apparently blissfully unaware of the fact that the electrode surface of Juergen's anode model doesn't necessarily have to be located *above* the surface of the photosphere and even the chromosphere would tend to absorb a lot of any gamma rays emitted near the surface of the photosphere. In fairness to Dave however, this is the assumption that Dr. Scott makes, but I'm not clear where Wal Thornhill would suggest that the anode surface is located with respect to the surface of the photosphere. IMO however, regardless of whether it's an anode or a cathode with respect to space, based on heliosiesmology data and solar images, the electrode surface is located about 4800KM *under* the surface of the photosphere. Dave then makes some derogatory claim about Childs without citing any video clip or any printed reference by Childs to support his statements about Child's beliefs about gamma radiation.

Dave also makes the claim that current flow patterns are *not* observed coming into and out of the sun, when in fact it certainly has been observed. We see Birkeland currents connecting the sun to various planets, and the heat signature of that sustained current flow is found all throughout the corona. It also drives the solar wind. We also see inbound high speed electrons flowing into the poles of the sun as a homopolar generator model would tend to predict.

Dave then repeats Lyin' Brian Koberlein's bogus and irrational claim about expecting a 5800K EU/PC solar photosphere to emit discrete "lines" rather than a full spectrum, when in fact the temperature of the photosphere would necessarily radiate *exactly* the same as the mainstream model because the temperature of the photosphere is *exactly the same temperature* as the standard model! Doh! Dave is simply an ignorant bozo.”

>>14492098
I think the most ironic part of Dave's commentary is his point that we should expect to see about 10^18 amps of current flowing into a galaxy if Juergen's solar model is correct, and it just so happens that is *exactly* what we observe:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... ent-found/

Dave also makes a bunch of false claims involving "black holes" and whether they are or are not compatible with "electric universe" theory. This is of course entirely dependent on whom you might ask, and how *exactly* one defines a "black hole". Even Einstein himself rejected the mainstream model of a "black hole" with an infinitely dense 'point'.

Dave then makes a ridiculous statement about how the big bang model is supported by tons of evidence and he specifically cites the Planck data, of course without bothering to mention the fact that the LCDM model is *self conflicted* with respect to the Hubble constant as estimated based on Planck data vs. estimates based on SN1A data. Dave also completely ignores the fact that the distant universe contains massive and mature galaxies and quasars which absolutely *defy* the big bang model entirely. And of course he neglects to mention the complete absence of first generation (no metal) stars in the distant/early universe.

>>14492098
“ My favorite line however is when Dave erroneously claims that we "know" how stars work, when in fact the mainstream cannot even explain, let alone simulate something as simple as a full sphere solar corona in a lab. The mainstream absolutely *does not* know how stars actually work. The don't even understand the heat source of the corona!

I may eventually post a few more complaints about his video, but suffice to say it was a piece of trash just like the rest of his crappy videos on EU.

I'm not even personally a big fan of Jeurgen's anode solar model but it bugs the hell of me that Dave and his EU/PC hater posee don't even bother to actually understand the models that they pretend to criticize. I also thought it was absolutely hysterical that he put his own foot in his mouth with respect the amount of amps we might expect to see which just so happens to match up exactly with what we actually observe.”

>>14491649
>Dave tries to make the claim that the mainstream is "all good" on neutrinos, and to support that claim he cites a low resolution solar image of neutrinos which *clearly* shows that solar neutrinos are *not* limited to simply a small region of the "core" of the sun. I
This person has never head of a Point Spread Function. Even if the neutrino source was a single point the errors in measuring the path of neutrino would spread it out. You can't just look at an image from an instrument you know nothing about and declare whether an object is resolved in angle. This is exactly the level of science of the EU. Have a look at a picture, and then assert to know exactly what is going on. Note that they guy just totally changed the subject from the neutrino count and simply made up a new claim, asserted without evidence. Looking at the literature it seems the angular resolution of SKK is about 1.5 degrees. Even if there was emission from the Solar atmosphere you could not resolve it. They are totally disinterested in science and reality.


The rest of this debunking is just whining about him being impolite and misrepresenting the claims.

>>14491989
https://youtu.be/Dk2-lH9ewuA

https://youtu.be/-FdWTH08u30

https://youtu.be/J4NffTr_GMk

>>14492130
Talk to him yourself if you like: https://thunderbolts.info/forum3/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=330

>>14492130
Youtube money scammer Dave also tries to rewrite history by suggesting that Juergens original "electric sun" model contained no concept of fusion whatsoever and it had to be "revised" by Dr. Donald Scott and Wal Thornhill. In reality however, solar neutrinos were first discovered and measured in 1968, and Juergens lived until 1979, so he would have been aware of the fact that at least *some* amount of fusion was probably occurring in/on the sun, albeit at much lower predicted rates than the standard model. The "revised" models would have simply added *more* local fusion to Juergen's model.

Secondly, and more importantly Dave erroneously claims that the plasma in the solar atmosphere is not hot enough or dense enough to produce fusion, when in fact "coronal loops" (AKA Birkeland currents) reach *tens of millions* of degrees Kelvin, and their density is determined by current flowing through the loop, and the pinch effect it has on ions, not the average density of the entire corona. Coronal loops are both hot enough and dense enough to produce nuclear fusion.

https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512633

In his typical style of *disinformation*, Dave falsely asserts that EU solar models predict that nuclear fusion isn't responsible for heavy elements. That's utter BS. Dave just makes this stuff up.

>>14491989
https://youtu.be/nLC4MA6_Oq0

https://youtu.be/MvNCWMD6so4

https://youtu.be/lmROfjgViLE

https://youtu.be/TdYrgJrBFr0

>>14492130
I think the thing that bothers me the most about dishonest Dave is the fact that he intentionally misrepresents the history of electric universe theory by *never* discussing Kristian Birkeland, and by defining the term "electric universe" as being directly related to, and defined by Immanuel Velikovsky. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact when Dave claims to "begin at the beginning" he completely skips the first fifty years of "electric universe" theory entirely, and fixates on Velikovsky and Juergens, falsely describing Juergens' solar model as "the" (only) electric sun model and asserting that Velikovsky is the "l Ron Hubbard" of the "electric universe" concept. That's about as dishonest as it gets.

Not only is Dave willfully misrepresenting the history behind the electric universe concept, he's defining the term "electric universe" in very narrow terms, and in terms which Dave personally decides, and then Dave attempts to dismiss *all* electric universe concepts based on this methodology.

The worst part is that Dave attempts to smear *all* EU/PC proponents by claiming that we *all* cite and revere Velikovski, which is of course utter nonsense and Dave knows it, which is exactly why he refuses to debate me in public.

I'm gathering from the chit-chat about email at ISF, and Dave's overall definition of "electric universe" that jonesdave116 at ISF is our beloved fraud of a "professor" Dave Farina. I've never seen anyone use more anonymous handles than jonesdave. I think I've counted four of them already. What a sleazy guy.

>>14491771
>>14491989
>>14492098

Nothing like leaving out a half century of physics and physical research because it doesn't fit with your corrupt narrative. The mainstream astronomers are simply untrustworthy sources of information. They lie like a rug. Birkeland was the first "scientist" to propose an "electric universe", not Velikovski or Juergens.

Apparently Dave used some single sentence snipet from a 2016 video that he evidently linked to in an effort to support his commentary about gamma rays, while simply ignoring the part of the video where Monty explains that SAFIRE measured the temperature of the plasma above the anode to be much hotter than the surface of the anode, just like we see in the solar atmosphere. To this day the mainstream cannot explain the original heat source of a full sphere corona, let alone *simulate* such a process in a real lab experiment. That's been done now with both an anode and a cathode model in real lab experiments which actually work in the lab, unlike all the massive failures of the mainstream to find exotic dark matter.

Jonesdave is still clueless about current carrying plasma filaments. They absolutely are hot enough and dense enough in the solar atmosphere since they reach tens of millions of degrees, they *do* emit gamma rays sometimes, and they act to "pinch" the plasma together into filaments. Alfven describes a "magnetic rope" as a Bennett pinch. If the majority of the fusion in the sun is occurring inside those loops, but the majority of those loops are located well *underneath* the surface of the photosphere, the photosphere would simply absorb them just like it does so in the standard solar model, so Jonesdave is making exactly the same damn mistake that they accuse Monty of making! Sheesh. Talk about pure hypocrites. At worst case the EU/PC model would need a somewhat different density arrangement in the upper solar atmosphere, but I assumed that was already true based on satellite imagery.

>>14492086
>>14492098

The mainstream's association of EU/PC theory with religion and cults is simply hilarious and wildly ironic. Whether the anode or cathode or both models turn out to be incorrect, they actually work in the lab to produce a full sphere hot solar corona and a sustained planetary aurora, unlike all the pseudoscientific nonsense related to MRx. MRx is already more than a century behind in the lab and counting with respect to simulating a corona. A sustained planetary aurora? They can't even begin to simulate such a thing in the lab.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m58-CfVrsN4

Even a simply 10,000 dollar experiment shows how an aurora actually works......electrically!

Worse still is the fact that 95 percent of the LCDM model is based on *metaphysical* crap which blatantly violates known laws of physics, it's not based on actual empirical physics. Unlike the EU/PC model of cosmology and it's various solar models, *nothing* of any a significance about the LCDM model or solar physics actually works in the lab, not one major claim. Hot full sphere sustained corona? Hell no! They can't simulate that with MRx! Dark matter? Sheesh, they can't even agree on what DM is, and its' failed every lab test in truly epic fashion. Dark energy? Where the hell does that come from, and how does it retain a constant density over multiple *exponential* increases in volume? They don't have a clue. Inflation? It's completely made up gibberish by the mainstream version of L Ron Hubbard, the revered Pope Guth of Guthianityl. "All hail the sacred inflation diety"!

>>14492122
>Juergen's anode model doesn't necessarily have to be located *above* the surface of the photosphere
"Our model is completely undefined so it cannot be tested or refuted". This is a good example of the fuzzy nature of the EU. It's not defined anywhere, there is no accepted version, there is nothing for anyone to really test.

>when in fact it certainly has been observed.
"what is a "scitation"? I don't know what you mean? I said it, that should be all the proof you need". The fact they don't write papers just adds another level of ambitutiy.

>Dave then repeats Lyin' Brian Koberlein's bogus and irrational claim about expecting a 5800K EU/PC solar photosphere to emit discrete "lines" rather than a full spectrum, when in fact the temperature of the photosphere would necessarily radiate *exactly* the same as the mainstream model because the temperature of the photosphere is *exactly the same temperature* as the standard model! Doh! Dave is simply an ignorant bozo.
He doesn't understand radiative transfer. A plasma in the Orion nebula has about the same temperature as hot star. Why is the spectrum different if only the temperature matters? Because one is optically thick and radiative transfer matters.

>>14492130
In terms of "cults", every single one of the mainstream claims requires *blind faith* in the existence of their dark gods and inflation deities because they're completely and totally impotent in the lab. LCDM is a metaphysical math cult. They 'pretend' that the math they spew somehow excuses them from having to demonstrate their cause/effect claims in the lab. Nevermind the fact that their whole model is mathematical self conflicted with respect to the Hubble constant! Sheesh. What a pathetic mathematical piece of crap!

In a cathode solar model it's quite easy to explain how and why slower speeds solar wind electron and protons move in the same direction away from the sun, while faster moving "strahl"/electron beam electrons move away from the sun, and high speed (nearly the speed of light) ions bombard the entire solar system. We even measure both the outgoing electron beams and the incoming cosmic ray ions, so we can see that the actual "current" does move in *opposite* directions. The slower speed solar wind is simply a function of kinetic energy as high speed outbound electrons slam into solar atmospheric particles and push (and even pull) them out into space. Birkeland actually *predicted* that feature!

Apparently Jonedave thinks NASA writes crappy press releases and misrepresent the contents of various published papers. How ironic that its obvious how a "Birkeland current" generates sustained currents over *hours*, whereas such a thing has *never* been shown to happen in a lab with 'magnetic reconnection" nonsense. Sustained current generates sustained energy. MRX is an *induction* type process that could *never* produce a sustained current. It would only produce a short duration discharge at best.

>>14492116
It's not an argument, it's a fact. They don't do experiments.

>>14492119
Give me a list of their experiments then. Just the top 10.

>>14492159
“While I personally do question the viability of what SAFIRE is proposing with respect to energy production, it's hard to take Dr. Morgan's comments too serious since he was apparently happily and willingly taking SAFIRE's money for more than six years until the money (and contracts) finally ran out. Disgruntled ex-employees are a dime a dozen.

Whatever SAFIRE's faults might be, they *pale* in comparison to all problems and all the money wasted on dark matter and MRx experiments which *to this very day* remain completely incapable of even generating a full sphere hot corona simulation.”

>>14492162
“ I guess what motivates me to respond to this tripe, and what absolutely blows me away, is the complete lack of professionalism, and the absolute incompetence of so called "professional astronomers" and self proclaimed "scientists". I never see a mainstream astronomer even bother to take the time to correctly understand any of the various solar models associated with EU/PC theory, or any of Birkeland's work or Alfven's actual work, or Peratt's work. In fact they consistently *misrepresent* their work on various websites and they simply ban any discussion of the subject. I can't even remember how many times I've heard a so called "professional" astronomer erroneously claim that there is no math to support EU/PC theory. The entire field of astronomy acts exactly like a cult these days, complete with their supernatural metaphysical entities which defy the laws of physics as we know them, and their online witch hunts resulting in the banning of all dissenters.

A great example of this gross professional incompetence is the utter ridiculousness of suggesting that an anode sun predicts "no neutrinos" (Lying Brian Koberlein), or that an anode sun should emit an overwhelming number of gamma rays (JonesDave/Fraud Farina). They are not only clueless, they willfully misrepresent the various model and the scientific facts. Even if *some* small amount of fusion occurs above the surface of the photosphere, current carrying filaments would be likely to exist all throughout the entire sun, and fusion could happen *everywhere* inside the sun, including the core of an anode model, just as is the case with Birkeland's cathode model or Alfven's homopolar generator model. Neutrino counts and the amount of gamma radiation from the sun in no way rule out *any* EU/PC solar model.”

>>14492154
>Worse still is the fact that 95 percent of the LCDM model is based on *metaphysical* crap which blatantly violates known laws of physics, it's not based on actual empirical physics. Unlike the EU/PC model of cosmolog
Oh look cultist buzzwords about how everything you know is wrong and we're the ones who are right.

Sorry, but I don't listen to anyone who talks like that.

>>14492162
https://youtu.be/vyRN3ooCSto

How about you actually watch their videos to see?

>>14492134
Pass. Dealt with that retard before on reddit. Not going to waste my time again. I literally had the same argument with him and he completely forgot absolutely everything I had said before. He doesn't learn, he rants. In one ear, out the other. I'm quite glad to see their little shithole forum is dying.

>>14492167
Nice strawman, asshole.

>>14492171
Ah so you are a redditer and a troll, thanks for confirming.

>>14492172
Don't care, it's poinltess to argue with cultists. But that is the reason no one will take your cultist theory seriously, besides your lack of experiments I suppose.

>>14492170
Pass. Stop spamming this shit. All you've done is regurgitate comments and post youtube links. Why don't you try thinking for yourself?

>>14492086
I am literally the only person on this entire board that understands it pseud. Take your meds

>>14492170
>>14492162

https://youtu.be/BnIcP4v_T8Y

>>14492180
I AM, unlike you who regurgitates “they are a cult” bullshit and strawman.

And parrots whatever mainstream science like Neil Degrass Tyson and others say.

>>14492181
I'm suuuure you do. Then again, all I need to do is check the email of any physics professor to find crackpots who say the same by the hundreds.

>>14492180
Projecting much?

>>14492180
>>14492176

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/index.html

>>14492176
>besides your lack of experiments I suppose.

See >>14492170

>>14492187
I never said that, check your facts. I gave you multiple specific reasons why he was full of shit, but you weren't interested in that at all. Instead of replying in your own thoughts you just spammed a few more youtube links.

>>14492189
you go ahead and do that after you take your meds and take a little nappy poo

>>14492180
>>14492176

>>14492205
YouTube links with FACTS, you also do realize there are sources in the descriptions of those videos that you can click the links to.

>>14492176
>relativity cultists calling someone else a cultist
cant make this shit up, you literally need to take your meds. Your level of retardation is off the charts

>>14492207

>>14492176
https://youtu.be/Kjjzeib69FQ

https://youtu.be/yEe_Zh9Pn0Q

>>14492214
If you know the point is within the video then you can explain it yourself and link the source. I cannot have a discussion with a youtube link. If you're unwilling to engage then there is no point.

And there's a reason you cite primary sources directly, so that you don't waste people's time looking for a source which may not even be there.

>>14492221

>>14492226
Ah so you are lazy.

Okay here is one of the sources that they link to in their descriptions: https://youtu.be/YzfVR26u3m4

>>14492226
Also see >>14492228
>>14492221
>>14492212

>>14492228

>>14492218
>I don't understand what scientific papers with evidence are
lmao

>>14492246

>>14492250
Many such cases

>>14492256

Isn't dark matter just black holes?
Stopping all electromagnetic radiation going outside so we only see gravitational effect?
I mean scientists all jizz about black holes but then they mention how "99% of universe" can't be detected and adds some unknown forces to it... just like black holes?

>>14490152
>plus it has an undertone of antisemitism
so electric universe isn't just new age woo woo and is actually based? thanks gonna buy 100k

>>14490165
https://youtu.be/T9q-v4lBGuw

>>14492639
You are not the first person to consider that idea, and there have been several studies to see if black holes could account for "dark matter". Large black holes have been ruled out during surveys of gravitational lensing looking for them and other "MACHO" objects, intermediate sized black holes have been mostly ruled out due to a survey of supernova designed to detect their lensing effect, and measurements from Voyager 1 outside of heliosphere show no positron or electron flux you would expect from tiny primordial black holes of certain sizes, from Hawking radiation. Primordial black holes in a certain size range do remain a viable dark matter candidate, and their are efforts to figure out ways to look for them

>>14492907
Why do they believe universal constants remain constant over various locations?

>>14492940
There have been some studies attempting to measure any changes in physical "constants" over large distances using astronomical data, which have came back as, yes, they are constant within our ability to measure and noted assumptions, but obviously it not something we can currently test directly. For that matter, why certain constants are well, constant, at specific values and not other values is an open question in physics.

>>14490152
Is the antisemitism in the room with us right now?

>>14492834
Dave has already been debunked, see >>14492136
>>14492129
>>14492125
>>14492122
>>14492166

>>14492834
Aside from the typical unethical debate tactics of using inflammatory terms like "pseudoscience", "delusions", "paranoia", "cult", "lies", etc, and comparisons of EU/PC theory to flat earth beliefs and astrology, there are a number of complete misrepresentations and several ironic statements in Professor Dave's new video that warrant comment. It's worth spending a few moments debunking some of his "debunking". :)

After a series of inflammatory and unethical comparisons, Dave begins his presentation by discussing gravity as it manifests itself on Earth, and implying that EU/PC theory is intrinsically incompatible with GR theory, or any other theory of gravity, which is of course complete nonsense. While it is undeniably true that many scientists, including some within the EU/PC community would like to pursue and discuss a "theory of everything" which ties all of the known forces of nature together, it's not true that EU/PC theory is inherently incompatible with general relativity. Dave essentially tries to argue that any success of GR theory automatically "debunks" EU/PC theory, and automatically validates the LCDM model, which of course is utter nonsense. EU/PC theory is not threatened or undermined by the success of general relativity, or Newtonian models of gravity. Furthermore, the LCDM cosmology model is not automatically validated by the success that general relativity theory. GR is a general theory about "gravity", whereas the LCDM model is a *cosmology* model that includes other things like dark energy, dark matter, galaxy evolution predictions, etc.

>>14492834
It should be noted that gravity alone *cannot* and does not explain all events in space. The major difference between the LCDM model and the EU/PC model is that while the EU/PC model adds ordinary electromagnetism to the mix in order to explain events in space, whereas the LCDM model tries to fix it's shortcomings with metaphysical "pseudoscience" like "dark energy" and "dark matter', inflation and such to GR to try to explain the universe. So really, despite Dave's allegations, it's not a matter of whether or not gravity *alone* can explain the universe. We know for a fact that gravity alone cannot and does not explain it all, so either we must choose to add electromagnetism or we can choose to add metaphysical mumbo-jumbo to explain the universe. Either way, gravity alone won't suffice. Even the mainstream attempts to explain some events in space based on *magnetism*, albeit without addressing the electric field aspects of plasma, so even the mainstream does recognize that gravity alone cannot and does not explain all high energy events in space and acknowledges that EM fields play a role in the physical processes in space.

The first magic trick that Dave uses is to try to undermine EU theory by suggesting that any success of GR automatically "debunks" EU theory. That's patently false. I could just as rightly suggest that since EU theory *includes* gravity, any success of GR theory automatically "debunks" the LCMD model or any other cosmology model. That's simply a fallacious, misleading, and vacuous argument.

>>14492834
Dave's second cheap parlor trick involves his citations of Thunderbolts videos and his personal fixation on just one of the three primary solar models which have been described and discussed by EU proponents over the past century. Specifically Dave compares the mainstream solar model to Juergen's externally powered anode model. He then falsely asserts that Juergen's solar model precludes gravity from playing any role in solar formation (which is certainly not true) and he irrationally states that an anode solar model precludes the possibility of solar fusion. Strike two. He also asserts, that an externally driven solar model somehow requires GR theory to be false, all of which demonstrates Dave's gross ignorance of the entire topic and his professional incompetence. Juergen's solar model does not require any of those assumptions to be true. Three strikes on Dave with respect to his supposed 'debunk" of EU/PC solar theory.

>>14493038
https://youtu.be/SZ5ZWbVWMBU

>Electric Universe (EU) is an umbrella term that covers various pseudo-scientific cosmological ideas built around the claim that the formation and existence of various features of the Universe can be better explained by electricity and magnetism than by gravity alone. As a rule, EU is usually touted as an aether-based theory with numerous references to tall tales from mythology.[2][3] However, the exact details and claims are ambiguous, lack mathematical formalism, and often vary from one delusional crank to the next.
hahaha imagine falling for this horseshit

>>14490152
I agree its bs but I'm going to laugh at you for using an ad hominem
hahahahahahah

>>14493803
It’s not bs you troll.

>>14493182
Really? “Rational Wiki”?

What they said has also been debunked: “ Before the article even begins, RationalWiki make it clear that they aren’t even remotely interested in offering an objective critique of the Electric Universe. Thornhill’s comment was blunderiffic to be sure, but not because it provides any genuine insight into the EU paradigm’s credibility or lack thereof; rather, it is because the comment lends itself so readily to being taken out of context by dogmatic “rationalist” ideologues such as RationalWiki and Michael Shermer.

What Thornhill was trying to say is that the standard mainstream academic notion of peer review is not presently compatible with the Electrical Universe. This is because the EU community:
*is small and under-resourced;
*is busy enough as it is defending itself from underhanded attacks by pseudosceptics; and
*prefers to adopt a multi-disciplinary approach to investigating and understanding reality, as opposed to the narrow territorial compartmentalist approach which so completely dominates contemporary mainstream science.”

>>14493845
“"Electric Universe" (EU) is an umbrella term that covers various pseudo-scientific cosmologicalideas built around the claim that the formation and existence of various features of the universe can be better explained by electricity and magnetism than by gravity alone.”

RationalWiki promptly erects a Straw-Man version of the Electric Universe in the first part of the first sentence of their article. They do this because: 1) it paves the way for all the other snide irrelevant criticisms which comprise the bulk of the article; and 2) because they are unable fault the actual key premise of EU (as stated in the second part of their opening sentence), and they want to distract you from this inconvenient state of affairs as much as they possibly can.

>>14493853
“As a rule, EU is usually touted as an aether-based theory…”

No it’s not. The EU paradigm does not assume or rely on the existence of any sort of aether - not even the aether-in-relativistic-drag otherwise known as “space-time”.

“…with numerous references to tall tales from Mythology.”

Now this is just downright sneaky. Not only does RationalWiki cite one solitary reference to substantiate its claim that the EU makes “numerous references” to mythology, but they structure the sentence in such a way as to mislead the reader into thinking that the same solitary reference verifies the fallacious claim that the EU is “usually touted as an aether-based theory”!

Furthermore, who are RationalWiki to say that ancient myths are “tall-tales”? By what criteria do they make such a breezy dismissal? What we have here is the article’s second Straw Man, which acts as a subsidiary Straw-Man to the primary Straw-Man that was erected in the very first sentence of the article. In other words, what we have here is a case of Straw Matryoshka Men! Credit where credit is due though: at least RationalWiki strive to be innovators when it comes to fallacious argumentation.

>>14493853
>RationalWiki promptly erects a Straw-Man version of the Electric Universe in the first part of the first sentence of their article.
How is it a strawman? Why are you ignoring the rest of the article?

>>14493858
“However, the exact details and claims are ambiguous…”

“No more ambiguous than this claim, or the claims of modern mainstream physics for that matter.”

“…lack mathematical formalism”

What the EU lacks is mathematical fetishism.

“…and often vary from one delusional crank to the next.”

More of that trademark RationalWiki objectivity, this time in the form of a cheap ad-hominem! Evidently the pseudosceptics at RationalWiki don’t realize that variation of opinion within in a scientific field of study is actually a GOOD thing. If the fine folks at RationalWiki prefer it when everyone sings from the same hymn sheet, then I suggest they go join a church…

>>14493859
I’m not done yet.

>>14493862
“EU advocates can be roughly split into two groups: garden-variety physics cranks who are convinced that they have a legitimate revolutionary scientific theory…”

Hey, they just used that ad-hominem a moment ago! I guess making those Straw Matryoshka Men depleted RationalWiki’s creative juices.

“…and various woo-peddlers who use EU claims to prop up their main ideas (because mainstream physics would blow them apart).”

Yep, they’re all puffed out, because now they’re rehashing the original Straw Man. What woo-peddlers would those be, exactly? Do they actually use EU claims to prop up their main ideas, or do they just use the EU community as a vehicle to promote ideas that have no scientific bearing on, or relation to EU whatsoever? By RationalWiki’s logic, mainstream physics deserves scorn and castigation for the woo-tastic claims of Deepak Chopra, Michio Kaku, and Dean Radin.

>>14493864
“One subset of the latter comprises some of the more loony global warming deniers (such as Vault-Co), who try to use it to "prove" that climate change is being caused by some process outside human control.”

Never heard of them, but then why would I have? After all I’m involved with the EU crowd, not the AGW denier crowd. It would seem that RationalWiki have rejuvenated their creative juices at this point, because they manage to seamlessly merge Straw Man with guilt by (questionable) association. The reality is that EU is no more related to AGW denial than Darwinian Evolution is to Eugenics.

That said, why is RationalWiki averse to the idea of climate change being caused by “some process outside human control”? Doesn’t the geological record provide an abundance of evidence that the global climate can be affected by non-anthropogenic factors?? In the last 20,000 years alone the world has experienced climate change by “some process outside human control” to an extent which far surpasses even the direst predictions of AGW proponents. If RationalWiki’s objection to non-AGW is based on political ideology rather than actual science, then they should have the decency to explicitly admit this.

>>14493871
“Each year the Electric Universe holds their annual EU conference, where a seemingly endless parade of misguided fools take to the stage and discuss mythology, homeopathy, numerology, dipole gravity, and other equally absurd nonsense.”

…and so we circle back to ad-hominem and guilt-by-association. It is true that a number of purveyors of highly questionable ideas have attached themselves to the EU like so many parasites to the body of an unfortunate host, but few if any of those ideas has any substantive scientific connection to, or implication for the EU. I wonder, does RationalWiki count Michael Shermer as part of that “endless parade of misguided fools” who discusses “absurd nonsense”? I mean, Michael Shermer *did* speak at the 2015 EU Conference, so by RationalWiki’s logic the EU is no less affiliated with Michael Shermer than it is with numerology and homeopathy.

“The only common thread is the notion that a conspiracy is afoot to suppress their oddball beliefs.”

Notice that RationalWiki provides no references for this claim. Who exactly is crying conspiracy, and when and where have they done so? They very fact of the existence of the Thunderbolts website and their Youtube channel proves that no such conspiracy exists! At any rate, it doesn’t take a conspiracy theorist to see the mainstream physics community is beset by a number of serious cognitive and political dysfunctions.

most based thread on 4channel.org

>>14493874
“The conferences are open to the public, provided you cough up the $395 price of admission.”

Or you can wait a little while and watch them on Youtube FOR FREE.

“Immanuel Velikovsky was an enthusiastic early adopter of electric universe ideas…”

More guilt-by-association, plus a failure to mention that Velikovsky a) actually did make a number of successful predictions that eluded the mainstream astronomy community and b) was taken seriously by supporters and detractors alike prior to his death.

“…seeing in them a possible mechanism to explain his scenario of planetary billiards…”

I presume that RationalWiki is referring to different “planetary billiards” than those that mainstream astronomy and physics utterly relies on to ‘explain’ planetary and solar system formation?

>>14493879
“…cosmic thunderbolts, and the notion that Earth was previously a satellite of Saturn.”

Since when has either of these notions been disproved? Mainstream astronomy’s version of the Solar System’s history is nothing but guesswork resting on a foundation of questionable assumptions.

“Velikovsky’s influence still looms large and has become an integral part of the current Electric Universe orthodoxy.”

“Electric Universe orthodoxy”?! A few sentences ago, RationalWiki was telling us that the details and claims of EU are “ambiguous” and “often vary from one delusional crank to the next”! So is the EU ambiguous and variable, or does it have an orthodoxy? You can’t have it both ways guys. Nevertheless the EU paradigm does not depend on the claims of Velikovsky; it just happens to be the case that there is some degree of compatibility between Velikovsky’s ideas and EU ideas.

>>14493884
“EU figureheads Wallace Thornhill and David Talbott are staunch supporters of Velikovsky’s mythological-based fairy tales and often pay tribute to the enormous influence he has had on shaping their own far-fetched theories.”

“Figureheads”?? Don’t you have to have an organised hierarchy in order to have a figurehead? Here we see RationalWiki attempting to have it both ways (an ambiguous variable orthodox hierarchy!) while simultaneously piling on more guilt-by-association. It would seem that RationalWiki’s definition of “fairy tale” is something along the lines of “a speculation which is not (currently) endorsed by mainstream scientific institutions”.

“Claims
Einstein's postulates are wrong.”

They are wrong. But I guess it’s hard to see that when you’re so preoccupied looking for non-existent gravitational waves and dark matter…

“The electric force travels faster than the speed of light with near infinite velocity.”

This belief 1) is held by some members of the EU community, and 2) has not been disproven.

>>14493887
“Gravity has two poles like a bar magnet; dipole gravity.”

This is Wallace Thornhill’s pet theory. However if the RationalWiki editors ever actually bothered to find out what the wider EU community has to say about dipole gravity, then they would quickly realize that it is far from being an accepted or integral part of the EU paradigm. At the very least Thornhill’s dipole gravity idea is no less preposterous then having TWO mutually incompatible theories of gravity, one of which involves the magical distortion of a non-thing and the other of which proposes an exchange of never-observed subatomic particles that somehow ‘carry’ a pulling force!

“A plenum of neutrinos forms an all-pervasive aether.”

As previously mentioned the EU paradigm does not require an all-pervasive aether, neutrino-based or otherwise.

“Planets give birth to comets.”

And this is impossible because….?

>>14493893
“Stars do not shine because of internal nuclear fusion caused by gravitational collapse. Rather, they are anodes for galactic discharge currents.”

Correct, with the additional note that the EU does not rule out fusion taking place in the corona as a result of the star’s intense electrical activity. We are more than happy for someone to empirically demonstrate how nuclear fusion can be caused entirely or even primarily by gravitational collapse, but so far human attempts to emulate the sun’s (alleged) internal fusion processes have been utterly reliant on electromagnetic confinement of plasmas. Funny that.

“Impact craters on Venus, Mars and the Moon are not caused by impacts, but by electrical discharges. The same applies to the Valles Marineris (a massive canyon on Mars) and the Grand Canyon on Earth.”

How is this any less plausible than the mainstream’s version of cosmic billiards? How many times have we actually witnessed so-called impact craters being created by impacts on other celestial bodies?

“The Sun is negatively charged, and the solar wind is positively charged -- the two systems forming a giant capacitor (this isJames McCanney's particular erroneous belief.)”

That the Sun (and other stars) acts as an interstellar electrode in some way is widely agreed upon amongst the EU community. Whether stars are positively or negatively charged, or some combination of both, is still a matter of debate.

>>14493901
“EU proponents from the Thunderbolts Project claim to have predicted the natures of Pluto and Comet 67P more accurately than NASA or ESA.”

After all the vilification and slander, we finally get to see Giffyguy’s Mad PR Skillz in action! This sentence should say that the Thunderbolts Project DID predict those things, but Giffyguy wanted to exercise utmost caution in his attempt to put lipstick on a pig. Unfortunately the placement of this sentence is as underwhelming as its wording, and these two drawbacks synergistically manage to make the EU community look like nothing more than a bunch of pathetic, desperate, delusional fools. The moral of the story here is that it does little good to put lipstick on a pig, particularly if the lipstick ends up going on the pig’s anus.

“Most Electric Universe proponents claim some kind of relation to the "plasma cosmology" of the Nobel Prize laureate Hannes Alfvén. Too bad his model was rendered obsolete by the missing observations of the radio emission predicted by his cosmology.”

At long last, we finally encounter something that vaguely resembles a substantive criticism! But why is RationalWiki so eager to move right along with nothing more than a reference? Where’s the discussion of *how* Alfven’s model was rendered obsolete and how exactly this is supposed to impact on the EU paradigm? Once again, RationalWiki is attempting to have it both ways: first they make a vague assertion about how EU proponents claim “some kind of” relation to plasma cosmology, and then they suggest that this “some kind of relation” invalidates the EU owing to the referenced paper (which, I presume, the “sceptics” at RationalWiki are not in any great hurry to critically analyse).

>>14493905
“A common motif is the insistence that all science should be done in a laboratory — an attempt to throw away gravity from the very beginning, because one can't put a solar system or a galaxy in a laboratory.”

This is my favourite line in the article. Science ought to be done in a laboratory?? You mean, in an actual empirical setting?! Now that’s just cray-cray!

RationalWiki raises a fatuous objection to attempting to “put a solar system or a galaxy in a laboratory”, yet they apparently have no problem with mainstream cosmologists ‘testing’ their theories by modelling the universe with computer simulations! Pray tell, how can you “throw away” gravity when no one even knows what gravity is in the first place?? RationalWiki fails to appreciate that “gravity” is as much a theoretical gap-filler as dark matter and dark energy. When Newtown devised his Law of Universal Gravitation, scientists weren’t even aware of the most basic principles of electromagnetism, let alone the existence of electromagnetic phenomena in space such as the solar “wind”, magnetospheres and Birkland currents. For RationalWiki’s information, the EU does not “throw away gravity from the very beginning”. What the EU says is that electromagnetism plays a much greater role in the cosmos than gravity, a contention which is very much consistent with the relative strengths of these forces.

Incidentally, although this line is (pathetically) one of the most germane criticisms of EU that RationalWiki offers, it used to occur much earlier in the article and was only moved down to the end very recently. Perhaps the folks at RationalWiki are torn between the desire to get rid of such an asinine anti-scientific objection, and the desire to have an article composed of something other than irrelevant bile.

>>14493909
“SAFIRE Project
The International Science Foundation, a group which claims to neither support nor oppose the Electric Universe hypothesis, has provided $2,200,000 USD to fund an unprecedented laboratory experiment to test the Electric Universe claims regarding the nature of the sun. The intent is to compare the results of this experiment to the results of NASA's Solar Probe Plus mission, and thereby demonstrate whether the EU solar model has any grounding in reality.”

Giffyguy works his PR magic once again, and this time it’s buried at the very bottom of the article ! This particular section also used to occur much earlier in the article until very recently. I wonder why that is? It’s not exactly a spirited defence of EU (“a group which claims to neither support nor oppose” the EU, “demonstrate whether the EU solar model has any grounding in reality”). Perhaps it’s buried at the bottom of the article because the totally objective and not-at-all-political folks at RationalWiki would rather not draw attention to the fact that a respected scientific organisation takes EU ideas seriously enough to consider them worthy of empirical testing?

In summary, RationalWiki’s article on the Electric Universe amounts to nothing more than a putrid pile of ad-hominem, Straw Man, guilt by association, double-standards, childish name calling, calculated misrepresentation, and worst of all blatant ideological bias. It is a piss-poor effort, even by RationalWiki’s sophomoric standards.

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/eu-guides/misconceptions/

http://www.thunderbolts.info/predictions.htm

http://www.thunderbolts.info/predictions_pending.htm

Scientists are still trying to unify the four forces into one but then pop science fags on here can't accept a different view of the universe. You sure watched too much nigger scienceman to have a rational discussion.

>>14493958
Let’s keep the racism out.

>>14492149
Anyone who uses a term like "mainstream astronomer" is immediately spewing bullshit

>>14494084
Sure buddy, keep grasping at straws.

>>14494095
>tells me I'm grasping at straws
>is an unironic EU tards
Lol
Lmao

>>14494100
>Has no argument, while I have given tons

>>14494084
I bet you also buy the mainstream news coverage of Ukraine as well?

>>14493845
If it isn't pseudo science why are there no peer-reviewed papers?

Pseudo-science.

>>14494413
Read the comment again.

Also: https://youtu.be/8dHtPJ2z9Qc

>>14494505
>What Thornhill was trying to say is that the standard mainstream academic notion of peer review is not presently compatible with the Electrical Universe.
So it isn't science, thanks for confirming it's pseudo-science.

>>14493845
>... the standard mainstream academic notion of peer review is not presently compatible with the Electrical Universe. This is because the EU community:
>*is small and under-resourced;
>*is busy enough as it is defending itself from underhanded attacks by pseudosceptics

Ah, it's clear now. Esteemed EU researchers are apparently unable to publish scientific papers because they're too busy arguing in forums and YT comment sections.

>>14494530
>>14494553

Here is some peer reviews: http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/index.html

>>14494530
>>14494553
>>14494975

Also this>>14493914

>>14494553
>>14494530

The SAFIRE Project is also funded by the University of Toronto.

That peer for you?

>>14494553
Read some of their books like “The Interconnected Cosmos” by Donald E. Scott.

That has scientific papers.

>>14494553
>>14494530
Got any peer reviews for that Dark Matter?

>>14495025
Many?

>>14495041
Yeah sure, there is no proof of Dark Matter, it’s just there to fill in the holes of the SM.

>>14494975
No peer reviews there, don't lie. There's a plethora of dead links, a few pre-prints here and there. And of course, there's the "Progress in Physics" journal which pretty much self-advertises as an outlet for crackpots.

Perhaps I missed something, in which case: please provide links to peer-reviewed EU papers.

>>14495079
Okay: http://www.thunderbolts.info/npa/EU%20Introduction.pdf

>>14495079
https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA20589936&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=10636145&p=AONE&sw=w&userGroupName=anon%7E29973305

>>14495079
http://www.unariunwisdom.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/The-Paradigm-of-the-Electric-Universe-by-Sykes.pdf

>>14495072
Yes? That is indeed what is claimed by the research.
Unless the tard who asked me actually thought there was concrete proof of an open question. At which point I'd lament popsci making people think they understand the current state of physics.

>>14495079
>>14494553
>>14494530

https://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6698.pdf

>>14495098
That is exactly that the Electric Universe is pointing out.

>>14495079
https://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6239.pdf

>>14495079
https://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6042.pdf

>>14495079
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Marek-Zbik-3/publication/359559883_THE_ELECTRIC_UNIVERSE/links/6243686757084c718b745c04/THE-ELECTRIC-UNIVERSE

>>14495105
Yes? That is what every other theory does?

>>14495079
https://www.everythingselectric.com/wp-content/uploads/An-Electric-Universe-View-of-Stellar-and-Galactic-Formation.pdf

>>14495079
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lori-Gardi/publication/330737944_Particles_of_the_Universe_Meets_the_Electric_Universe/links/5c64310792851c48a9d23cf4/Particles-of-the-Universe-Meets-the-Electric-Universe.pdf

>>14495134
Sorry I thought you were a different person who was arguing against me.

>>14495134
See >>14495137
>>14495142

>>14493884
Evidence that Earth was a satellite of Saturn: David Talbott's interpretation of ancient paintings and carvings.

Imagine, if you will, archeologists 5000 years in the future finding some weeb's stash of anime. Most of them think it's some highly stylized artwork...except one guy who comes up with an entire theory on a race of big-eyed, multi-colored hair supermen that can shoot lasers out of their hands, have magic uber swords that can through anything, and move so fast that they break the sound barrier. That's essentially what Dave Talbott did. He took artwork from another culture and applying modern interpretations of them rather than going with the interpretation from that culture.

>>14496005
Holy Strawman Batman!

David analyzed MULTIPLE cultures, not just one, who all say very similar things, and he shows clear evidence and points that you would see if you would actually read the book or watch the videos talking about it.

Here are some links:

https://youtu.be/bkfAM_nmxRA

https://youtu.be/JBVFClsXJII

https://youtu.be/6fjcPguafug

>>14490202
Gravity isn't a force. It's spacetime curvature.

>>14496005
Except that Anime/Manga is fiction, while what David looks at is historical recordings and hieroglyphs.

>>14496061
>It's spacetime curvature.

How can you “curve” space time? Which are both abstract concepts?

>>14496061
https://youtu.be/YkWiBxWieQU

>>14496005
>David Talbott's interpretation of ancient paintings and carvings.

Uh, not just that but also languages, mythology and historical documents.

https://youtu.be/pQ-M_iPMPVk

https://youtu.be/JO8H53MP6Fg

https://youtu.be/HdfBGqWpW5w

me, an electric universe enjoyer

>>14496061
Maybe on a pure ideal conception of Relativity that's possible. But quantum mechanics considers gravity a force

>>14499389
tranny

>>14499537
Troll.

>>14490128
>real science
>youtube link
so, real science for the illiterate?

>>14490152
Post nose

>>14500376
I have posted book screen shots as well.

>>14500370
obviously

I'm glad the EU shills are back my guess no one cares about vaccines anymore so they went back to shilling EU. I like how the only thing that came out of safire project was glowing ball. They talk about how it can be used to generate energy but nothing about how much energy it actually produces for the hydrogen put in. Just videos of blowing ball and buzz words.

>>14500677
Correct on all points

>>14500814
>>14500677

Do you guys even watch their videos.

Did you guys even look the links I sent about their peer reviewed papers?

Or are you just “Professer” Dave bots?

>>14500677
What does vaccines have to do with this?

>>14500677
>>14500814

https://youtu.be/keJAQIWEyzY

>>14490218
Because you’re a dumbass who listens to bait obviously intended to influence people like you. Propaganda disguised as coming from a caricature of the people you don’t like is much more powerful than propaganda telling you directly what to believe, sorta like reverse psychology.

>>14490128
The real science behind is how to initiate a bullshit cult to get people buy crystals, magnets, and others overpriced shit.

>>14490218
trust me it's the only arguable upside.

you will never have a working model for the universe
go grift somewhere else

Mainstream science is stupid and shallow enough to think that craters on the Moon were formed from an asteroid impact.

The crater you see in the picture was created in the laboratory by static discharge.

>On hearing of Parker's work, James St. Pe experimented with the dust collector on an ionic breeze air purifier, finding that static discharge produced both sharply defined craters either "randomly" distributed or in linear chains, depending on conditions.

>>14502994
fake and gay

Pretty pictures and special pleading are not science. Get in the bin.

>>14502626
Thanks for proving you don’t know anything about this.

>>14502972
How is that Dark Matter and Energy working out for you?

>>14503216
>>14503369

https://youtu.be/5ThZZPCMXNU

https://youtu.be/nDhBaP7a37Y

>>14503473
nice cgi
non reproducible

>>14492256
>>14492632
>>14492221
Learn to take a picture dude

Serious question, how?

>>14490152
Medsnao

>>14504076
Not CGI.

https://youtu.be/vyRN3ooCSto

https://youtu.be/dSRLb85UAEA

>>14504366
Sorry if it’s hard to hold an IPad still while taking a picture.

>>14505859
If we could model these phenomena mathematically could we estimate how much energy was required to create said features on Earth, Mars, Moon, etc.? Knowing that would give an idea of how large and powerful the plasma was.

>>14507366
https://youtu.be/6fjcPguafug

https://youtu.be/1xd-H_6VCzo

https://youtu.be/Kff_ytg0-8w

>>14507366
https://youtu.be/WG8YRt4TvIk

>>14507427
>>14507473
That's a heckin' lot of videos buddy.
Still thanks.

>>14507476
You’re welcome.

>>14507476
Here is the newest video: https://youtu.be/-r7vweFUJdM

>>14508857
That looks interesting.

>>14508857
That video is a real downgrade from their earlier videos. I think if they don't have content to put out they should just not make a video, that's basically just a guy doing some mental masturbation and sniffing his own farts. Miss old EU.

>>14490152
>antisemitism
a true antisemit would know that most of the math was done by non jewish people Einstein just had the idea.
Also whats up with this quote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Schwarzschild
> Schwarzschild accomplished this while serving in the German army during World War I. He died the following year from the autoimmune disease pemphigus, which he developed while at the Russian front.[citation needed] Various forms of the disease particularly affect people of Ashkenazi Jewish origin.[citation needed][2][3]

>>14490152
>has an undertone of antisemitism
>literally founded by Velikovsky fanboys

>>14508956
Do you have an actual argument or are you just trolling?

>>14509156
I'm not arguing, I'm making a comment.

>>14509168
>I'm making a comment.

Your comment was just complaining with no clear verification as to why.

>>14509205
Not my problem.

>>14490152
>and you know where that leads
it leads to the promised land, the new golden age