/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2650940]

Thoughts on Thunderbolts of the Gods?

anyone seen it?

Pretty much a big FUCK YOU to Einstein and Newtonian view of the universe in favour of Teslas Electric Universe.

No black holes, no gravity no fucked up dimensions.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIbUK3c9zak&feature=related

the other parts are there on jewtube

[Anonymous No.2650966]

[Anonymous No.2650979]

[Anonymous No.2650995]

While I'm at it, might as well this awesome BBC documentary "Secret Life of Chaos"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPjv5gIUeU8

[Anonymous No.2651120]

this is the kind of science I like

based on real world rather than pure math

[Anonymous No.2651563]

I'm baffled...

[Anonymous No.2651580]

>>2650995

I've seen it not too long ago, really makes you wonder how much of science is based on wrongful perceptions. Also how much American documentaries suck compared to BBC

[Anonymous No.2651586]

..... What is the slew of retarded comments on youtube, don't these people read?

[Anonymous No.2651599]

>Myth
>Science
Pick one.

[Anonymous No.2651614]

>>2651599

Myth backed by science

[Anonymous No.2651619]

>>2651614
myience?

[Anonymous No.2651620]

That was a billion, billion...billlion , billion times more interesting than I thought it would be.

[Anonymous No.2651646]

>>2651619

more like research

[Anonymous No.2651657]

>have a hypothesis (not a theory)
>sit and whine about how its superior
>never made it through peer review

there are so many holes in this bullshit its unbelievable

so if the earth is electromagnetic why do charged particles only see the affect of the earths tiny magnetic field when compared to non-charged particles. surely if the earth in fact had a massive electric that could hold it together this would be very much detectable.

and why do astronomical objects with incredibly strong gravitational fields not show a more zeeman splitting, even with the incredible magnetic fields of pulsars the fields are not nearly strong enough to hold it together

[Anonymous No.2651671]

>>2650940

Just watched the whole thing and I must say that it really does make more sense that gravity is a byproduct of electro magnetic fields rather than a result of space tiem warp whatever.

[Anonymous No.2651676]

>>2651646
reience?

[Anonymous No.2651686]

>>2651657
>>2651657

well beats me, but it's better than anti matter and space time warping which is just as undetectable and more in the realm of unproven imagination and math gone wild. With even less to support it besides some pretty equations.

[Anonymous No.2651721]

>>2651686
no gravity is a theory it has been quantified in general relativity, relativity was needed because of the strange nature of gravity for 300 years we new newton was wrong because it couldn't predict mercury's orbit

the electric universe is an idea at best which doesn't have quantified predictions and is thus not a theory
if you have an idea which you want to make a theory you're gonna need better evidence that ancient mythology and some pictures of strange nebulae

no what you need is predictions nothing else matters

gravity predicts pulsar binaries to 1 part in a million yes its wrong we know that but just because you don't like dark matte, dark energy and gravity doesn't let you make up a "theory"
for which the best evidence is cave drawings
this is not a theory its not even physics

[Anonymous No.2651816]

>>2651721

pherhaps it's not about prediction but description?

It was stated from the start that the whole idea of an electric universe is a synthesis of many disciplines.

Also it was shown how galaxy formation amongst other things were recreated on a smaller scale in laboratories using methods already discovered. There really isn't anything new here, it's not so much a theory as it is a world view and it appears to be more correct because it DESCRIBES rather than predicts. You can not predict the centre of a sun or its nature.

Also my problem with dark matter and all those concepts is not that I don't like them, it's that they are incomprihensible, not only to me but apparently to people who study these theoretical phenomena.

[Anonymous No.2652169]

>>2651816
dark matter and dark energy are not incomprehensible hence why it is studied the same could be said for quantum phenomena in the early 20th century
many said it wasn't true even Einstein hated it

>it appears to be more correct because it DESCRIBES rather than predicts
thats not more correct
what the electric universe idea is, is a collection of myths, phenomena and formations which kind of reminds people of electrical phenomena
however its has many many gaping holes in it

>>2651657

>so if the earth is electromagnetic why do charged particles only see the affect of the earths tiny magnetic field when compared to non-charged particles. surely if the earth in fact had a massive electric that could hold it together this would be very much detectable.

>and why do astronomical objects with incredibly strong gravitational fields not show a more zeeman splitting, even with the incredible magnetic fields of pulsars the fields are not nearly strong enough to hold it together

so the electric universe cannot even describe all the effects we attribute to gravity

if it cant describe the effect and it can't quantify it or make predictions then its nothing

its just an idea with no evidence
a belief if you will, its not science

[Anonymous No.2652206]

>>2652169
I am batshit insane and this is my favority post on /sci/.

[Anonymous No.2652340]

If thinks of a scientific theory that it is "right" or "wrong", you're not doing science.

Theories are efficient, not efficient, but certainly not right or wrong. If I build a whole theory about tiny little bugs pushing big masses together, if I can explain all that relativity or Newton explains, my theory is just as valid.

[Anonymous No.2652372]

>>2652340

Not really. You need at least some kind of proof for these little bugs. Some way of testing these bugs exist. Otherwise, its a convenient answer, but not a correct answer.

A lot of stupid science is based on convenient answers bro.

"Egyptians had gods with powerful weapons, therefore, they were aliens with laser beams. IT FITS. Game Point Match."

Similar argument that you should refute.

[Anonymous No.2652440]

>>2652372

No.

Well, prove that egyptians had no such god. You can say it is silly, but if you can't prove something wrong, you can't say it is false or that it has never happened. ( that is why I don't like theories like "egyptians had extraterrestrial god who left earth and made sure that no clue was left, that's why we don't find anything", it is self-protecting, and shouldn't be considered serious, but it can't really be considered false either because you can't disprove it.) Anyway I'm not very comfortable with history or sociology because you can hardly use scientific method, you can't really do experiments to test something.

I think we agree on the experiment thing. Do electrons exists ? Prove me that they exists. You'll probably give me a very very long list of experiments showing that indeed there is something that we choose to call electrons. But it is a model, you can't say "ELECTRONS EXIST". You can only say that it is very convenient to imagine electrons, and that it is very accurate. If my bug theory says that there is nothing like electrons, but that it can explain by some other weird ways EVERYTHING that electron model explains, you can't say that electrons model is better that bug model. Everything is based on experiment and results. When a theory explains observations and predicts successfully, it is considered efficient and used again, until we encounter a case where we need another model not a "better" model, just a model which covers this case, and that maybe doesn't explain everything the older one explained.

[Anonymous No.2652463]

>>2652440

You were right up until the very end. If a newly proposed theory covers new observations but doesn't cover old ones it is just as bad.

You're be thinking of light's wave-particle duality, right? Thinking of light as a particle can explain everything light does; thinking of light as a wave can explain everything light does. However, sometimes it is far more convenient to think of it in one form or the other, simply because it makes the maths easier.

[Anonymous No.2652469]

>>2652440
but your model or any of this nonsense stuff can't explain as well as the best models.

it can give a superficial explanation that falls apart as soon as it is tested thoroughly.

[Anonymous No.2652479]

>>2652469
>but your model or any of this nonsense stuff can't explain as well as the best models.

What do you mean "as well" ? Could you precise why a quantum explanation is better than a bug explanation if both theories come up with the exact same prediction with two different ways ?

[Anonymous No.2652508]

>>2652479
if they come up with the exact same predictions in every case AND don't multiply entities beyond necessity then the models are equivalent.

otherwise one will be better, and the scientific method selects the better one.

i fear yours may multiply entities.

[Anonymous No.2652517]

>>2652479
Biology would rule out the bug scenario pretty cleanly.

Also, there are right and wrong theories. For example: Newton's law of universal gravitation is just wrong. It is not better or worse than general relativity, it is just outright wrong. It makes predictions that do not work out in the real world. Now, this obviously does not make it useless. It is still useful, but an incorrect approximation of the correct behavior in all cases.

If there are multiple theories which explain the same phenomena equally well, then the better theory is the one which requires the fewest assumptions. The bug theory proposes the existence of something new. Quantum theory ascribes new behavior to already accepted things. Therefore, quantum theory is "cleaner" than the bug theory as there is nothing that suggests the existence of these bugs. But, if we can perform a test that would only succeed if there are these bugs and it fails, the bug theory is incorrect. Not worse, but actually incorrect.

[Anonymous No.2652576]

Biological enzymes are capable of utilizing resonant nuclear catalysis to transmute elements. Biological systems show evidence of communicating via resonant chemical systems, which may lend a physical explanation to the work of Rupert Sheldrake. DNA does not hold the key to life but is more like a blueprint for a set of components and tools in a factory. We may never be able to read the human genome and tell whether it represents a creature with two legs or six because the information that controls the assembly line is external to the DNA. There is more to life than chemistry.