/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9819799]

What? how did Einstein formulate his theory of relativity? How did he just "realize" that gravity travels at a finite speed? What the hell did he inference it from? It looks as if he just magically created something which is now constantly being proven as correct.

[Anonymous No.9819824]

>>9819799
>which is now constantly being proven as correct

Wrong. Atomic clock experiments can be interpreted as ether drag instead of time dilation. The luminiferous ether remains.Pilot wave theory is capable of replacing quantum mechanics while supporting the luminiferous ether.

[Anonymous No.9819829]

It was well known at the time that Maxwell's equations where accurate, and that they predicted electromagnetic waves that traveled at a constant velocity, which is a function of the vacuum material properties, and happens to be c (take the curl of the curl equations for E and B and substitute in the divergence equations for E and B to decouple them).

The fucked with people, because 1) they didn't know what was waving, and 2) they didn't know what c was relative to. The Luminiferous Aether theory was proposed that said all of space was permeated by a material, and it was relative to this that waves propagated. But this has a lot of problems, probably best illustrated by the Michelson Morley experiment, which takes advantage of Earth's velocity changing w.r.t the distance stars throughout the year. One would expect variation as Earth drifted in different directions in that material, but this was not observed.

Instead of supposing an aether with increasingly weird properties (like Earth dragged it along), Einstein supposed some gedanken (german for thought experiments) that supposed time was different for people moving at different velocities relative to each other. There are 3 classical and easy to understand gedanken that outline special relativity, and it can be derived in an afternoon.

Beyond that, even he struggled, but he took a geometric approach to his ideas, and had some math buddies try really hard to teach him geometry, and the general relativity was born after that. Research into reformulating physics was enabled after that. He remarked something along the lines of building his theory the way he thought God would have done it.

[Anonymous No.9819832]

>>9819824
>Ether
That has nothing to do with pilot wave theory.

[Anonymous No.9819836]

>>9819824
>Atomic clock experiments can be interpreted as ether drag instead of time dilation. The luminiferous ether remains.Pilot wave theory is capable of replacing quantum mechanics while supporting the luminiferous ether.
If only there was some kind of supporting evidence for ether instead of "oh yeah, ether could explain that".

[Anonymous No.9819837]

Einstein’s level of genius is comprehensible to most of the human race. Don’t expect it to make sense to you.

[Anonymous No.9819857]

>>9819832
The basic sub-atomic building blocks that make up the aether are also in atoms. Here is a visual representation (Pilot Wave Theory) scaled up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIyTZDHuarQ

Nikola Tesla was right about frequency, energy and vibration.

[Anonymous No.9819892]

>>9819857
>The basic sub-atomic building blocks that make up the aether are also in atoms.
If only you had evidence of what that was.

[Anonymous No.9819907]

>>9819799
You can derive Einstein's Special Relativity from Galileo's Principle of Relativity. Because speed is always relative, not objective, something without a medium must have the same speed from all frames of reference. If light had a medium then it wouldn't be it, just like sound has a medium, but light doesn't have a medium, therefore special relativity. ie: the second postulate of special relativity(The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of their relative motion or of the motion of the light source.) simply comes from the first(The laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion relative to one another). It is interesting to notice that all electromagnetic interactions are dependent on c, including the interactions that propagate sound. Therefore the speed of sound is also a function of c on a medium and would be affected if light had a medium itself, something logically impossible as explained above.

[Anonymous No.9819915]

>>9819799
I don’t think he pondered about gravity at all, or at least not at at first.

From my understanding he ponders about the nature of light and with the luminiferous ether debunked he started considering how light moved relative to other people. From this he developed simple rules to explain and best fit his theory. He saw he was doing something right and overhauled and expanded on his theory. Gravity and it’s new understanding was a consequence not a goal.

Nothing amazing. Yes it revolutionized physics but given the era and thinking, we would’ve most likely still had General Relativy by now. Though, the great thing about Einstein was that he thought of his theory and understood it enough to expand and develop it. Many people can claim and have claimed that they came up with the same theory and that may be true, but it takes certain people to fully flesh out heir ideas and expand on them.

[Anonymous No.9819921]

>>9819892
>you had evidence of what that was.

neutrinos.

[Anonymous No.9819925]

>>9819907
Light does have a medium. What do you think waves and "fields" are made of? empty space? lol. I don't care what the relativists claim.

[Anonymous No.9819930]

>>9819915
>revolutionized physics

Still can't describe how a simple kitchen magnet works, yeah, very revolutionary.

[Anonymous No.9819941]

>>9819915
nope. the mysterious apparent equivalence between inertial mass and gravitational mass was also well know during Einstein's time. Rather than take it for granted, he took it as a cue that the apparent equivalence between gravity and acceleration is fundamental.

[Anonymous No.9819954]

>>9819857
>pilot wave theory
>still waiting on that relativistic version bro

[Anonymous No.9820022]

>>9819799
Surely not by Shitposting and wasting his time on 4chan

[Anonymous No.9820054]

>>9819930
There was no reason for his theories to explain what we already knew.

[Anonymous No.9820216]

>>9819829
gedanken is German for thought, but for thought experiments

[Anonymous No.9820247]

>>9819925
This sounds kinda dumb but also like it might be true.

[Anonymous No.9820464]

>>9819925
Goddamn you are stupid

[Anonymous No.9820472]

>>9819930

you really think magnets of all things are unexplained? are you high?

[Anonymous No.9820624]

>>9820472
Feynman couldn't explain something as simple as magnets. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8

Under the ether model, magnetic "fields" are etheric perturbations in the medium. One can easily see the vortex structure present just by examining it in 3D. If space is supposed to be empty, why is it behaving like a fluid? lol. Fluid dynamics is apparent here, not time travel, black holes and multi-dimensions.

[Anonymous No.9820636]

>>9820464
You are nothing but a sheep following scientific disinformation invented to prevent common public access to atomic energy. Einstein was a tool for the war machine.

[Anonymous No.9820657]

>>9819829
>Einstein supposed some gedanken (german for thought experiments)
Dumbass.

[Anonymous No.9820665]

>>9819921
There are no neutrinos in atoms, and they behave nothing like ether.
>>9819857
>Here is a visual representation (Pilot Wave Theory) scaled up
That proves nothing, it's just a fluid experiment that looks sort of like pilot waves and particles when recorded at the right frame rate.
>>9819930
>>9820624
You're an idiot, just because the deepest secrets of quantum physics are unexplained doesn't mean that we can't explain magnetism. Specifically, it's part of the classical limit of the quantum U(1) gauge theory QED.

[Anonymous No.9820789]

>>9819824
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.9820870]

>>9819829
To add to this, maxwell's modified equations also tell us changing magnetic fields induces an electric field and vice versa. But we also know magnetic fields do no work. So the question was what really causes work to be done when the field changes. The obvious answer is that the thing causing the flux change that is doing work on the system. However, this was a weird quirk because you could construct a system in which there were no apparent forces at all.
At the time, people just accepted these as two different situations to apply gauss law but it bothered einstein that the interpretation of the physics was different for what should be the same phenomenon. This is what got him started thinking about frames and relativity.

[Anonymous No.9821010]

>>9820665
> just because the deepest secrets of quantum physics are unexplained doesn't mean

For your sake, I hope you are wrong since achieving faster-than-light (FTL) under Relativity is extremely unlikely.

1.) Faster than light (FTL) travel under Relativity is going to require unobtanium in order to warp spacetime. Atoms are not powered externally, no zeropoint energy source.

2.) Whereas the luminiferous ether, electrohydrodynamics applies. Rockets can be replaced with electro-kinetics. Atomic energy is accessible under proper electrical stimulation of atoms. Atoms are externally powered. (See SAFIRE Project, Correa PAGD, McCandlish fluxliner amplifier)

[Anonymous No.9821019]

>>9819799
What is that cat doing.

[Anonymous No.9821033]

>>9821019
Felines, being unaccustomed to our cloth-draping ways, do not understand the principles of woven fabric, and thus upon hooking themselves into it, find themselves snared upon a dastardly human's trap, causing great ire.

[Anonymous No.9821160]

>>9821010
>Whereas the luminiferous ether, electrohydrodynamics applies.
So it'll be impossible due to drag.
Either way impossible. Luminiferous ether, not even useful for FTL.

[Anonymous No.9821233]

>>9821160
>So it'll be impossible due to drag.

Gravity can be canceled out with high electric charge(CLASSIFIED). Mass can be treated in the same manner. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXwOkzaqzog

Before someone claims this is /x/ material, I would like to inform them that Nikola Tesla worked on electrogravitics for over 20 years. In 1938 he established a dynamic theory of gravity that challenges relativity. Unfortunately, it was never released to the public. Only 3 short years after (1941), the first major UFO (electric flying craft) were sighted near Germany and named "Foo Fighter".

[Anonymous No.9821306]

>>9821233
I guess what I find most egregious is claim that Tesla wrote a paper that's classified, yet you claim is supports your ether electric universe.

Well, Einstein wrote a paper that proved Tesla wrong, but it's classified so you will just have to believe me.

[Anonymous No.9821320]

>>9821306
Anyone can make a homemade flat capacitor, charge it and measure weight change. Go ahead and try it. Go public and watch how quickly you get shut down. lol.

[Anonymous No.9821327]

>>9821320
Not him but that wouldn't prove him wrong. Its assumed electrons have weight and that's not what the argument is about. Well, you did just ignore like 4 or 5 other points brought up by other people so it's safe to say you're pretty God damn stupid.

[Anonymous No.9821333]

>>9821327
Also to touch on this, even with the most precise scales in the world you would not be able to measure the weight of electrons in a capacitor. You're even dumber than I thought.

[Anonymous No.9821336]

>>9821320
It'll weigh more, what's your point?

[Anonymous No.9821354]

>>9821336
A flat multi-layered super capacitor at full saturation will lose weight if the configuration matches that of the Fluxliner craft. It can be scaled up or down.

[Anonymous No.9821357]

>>9821354
Where is your evidence for this?

[Anonymous No.9821362]

>>9821333


Electron charge is dependent on aetheric interaction with the nucleus. There is a dynamic relationship, not individual particles. lol. brainlet.

[Anonymous No.9821369]

>>9819829
pretty good post

[Anonymous No.9821390]

>>9821357
>Where is your evidence

I provided enough historical context and detail for anyone that wants to perform independent research into this subject. Relativity offers you fantasy. The models presented here offers real and practical applications for propulsion and energy.

Reference:

Pilot Wave Theory
Luminiferous Ether
Electric Sun (Birkeland) Model
SAFIRE Project
Electric Universe
Tesla's Dynamic Theory of Gravity 1938
Documented evidence of "Foo Fighter" electric flying craft 1941
McCandlish FluxLiner
Correa Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharges (PAGD)
Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR)

On the Anomalous Weight Losses of High Voltage
Symmetrical Capacitors https://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.06915.pdf

[Anonymous No.9821394]

I've noticed something of a trend with people proposing things that challenge accepted physics on this board.
They're very sure of their claims and tell you to do experiments to prove it for yourself, but they have no interest in doing the experiments themselves, even though they would astound the scientific community if true.

The only reason I can assume for this is that if you don't get the result they want they will just say you did it wrong, and if you do get the result they want then they were right. So they don't lose either way, the only way they can lose is failing to perform the experiment themselves, so they avoid it.

[Anonymous No.9821409]

>>9821390
Looking through that paper I wasn't particularly surprised when I saw how they were measuring the weight of the capacitors.

[Anonymous No.9821435]

>>9821394
>They're very sure of their claims and tell you to do experiments to prove it for yourself, but ..

The patent office has people that specialize in blocking these technologies. If you go public with a working prototype, expect a visit and NSL (National Security Letter) if you are lucky. Our government agencies are run by different industries and they want to keep things the same. You are under the impression that we live in a free society with uncensored scientific exchange.

[Anonymous No.9821436]

>>9821394
Exactly - when confronted with this they put excuses such as the risk of getting shut down (>>9821320). They're basement dwellers with way too much free time

[Anonymous No.9821454]

>>9821435
>You are under the impression that we live in a free society with uncensored scientific exchange.
You say it as if there was no conceivable way of bypassing those govt. agencies altogether. If some pajeet terrorists can do it, and if narcs can sell shit over the deep web, why couldn't the "bright scientific minds" do it just as well to publish their results and perhaps even footage of the experiments?

>imagine larping this hard

[Anonymous No.9821455]

>>9821233
Citation needed

[Anonymous No.9821485]

>>9821436
>they put excuses such as the risk of getting shut down


DR EUGENE MALLOVE TESTIMONY
(Beaten to death before a major announcement)

"Predominantly, if the patent goes through a certain gentleman at the patent office today, whose name is Harvey. He will reject all such patents. They will not get through. American citizens are being denied their Constitutional rights in this particular case. There is no question about it. We have a complete audit trail.."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_A4XJhV1y4

[Anonymous No.9821512]

>>9821435
>>9821485
Why are you even bringing the patent office into this?
You don't need to go to the patent office to do an experiment.

[Anonymous No.9821539]

>>9821512
As a warning to other researchers. They should be aware of the system so it can be avoided.

[Anonymous No.9821556]

>>9821455

“The application of this principle will give the world a flying machine unlike anything that has ever been suggested before. It will have no planes, no screw propellers or devices of any kind hitherto used. It will be small and compact, excessively swift, and, above all, perfectly safe in the greatest storm. It can be built of any size and can carry any weight that may be desired” - Tesla Promises Big Things - New York Sun - September 12, 1911

“To a Westinghouse manager, Tesla wrote ‘You should not be at all surprised, if some day you see me fly from New York to Colorado Springs in a contrivance which will resemble a gas stove and weigh as much. … and could, if necessary enter and depart through a window.'” (7-7-1912)
pg. 198 Tesla: Man Out of Time by Margaret Cheney

"Experiments conducted by Mr. Nikola Tesla with electromotlve forces of 2.000.000 volts have convinced him that if 100.000.000 volts could be produced it might be possible to break down the atomlc structure of any element and thus liberate a certain amount of energy. "But," he told the wrlter of this artlcle, “even lf the feat could be accomplished and suficient energy set free, there still remains the enormously dificult problem of devising a means of utillzing the energy ln a practical way." - Scientific American - April 5, 1913


“I am now planning aerial machines devoid of sustaining planes, ailerons, propellers, and other external attachments, which will be capable of immense speeds” – Excerpt from “My Inventions” by Nikola Tesla, Chap. VI, last page 1916

Tesla Tells How We May Fly 8 Miles High At 1000 Miles An Hour - Reconstruction - July 1, 1919

"The primary substance, thrown into infinitesimal whirls of prodigious velocity, becomes gross matter; the force subsiding, the motion ceases and matter disappears, reverting to the primary substance". - New York American - July 6, 1930

[Anonymous No.9821558]

>>9821455
>>9821556

(Continued)

"The attractive features of the Cosmic rays is their constancy. They shower down on us throughout the whole 24 hours, and if a plant is developed to use their power it will not require devices for storing energy as would be necessary with devices using wind, tide or sunlight."- Brooklyn Eagle - July 10, 1932, John J. A. O'Neill
"All of my investigations seem to point to the conclusion that they are small particles, each carrying so small a charge that we are justified in calling them neutrons. They move with great velocity, exceeding that of light.- Brooklyn Eagle - July 10, 1932, John J. A. O'Neill
"More than 25 years ago I began my efforts to harness the cosmic rays and I can now state that I have succeeded in operating a motive device by means of them." - Brooklyn Eagle - July 10, 1932, John J. A. O'Neill

"There is no more energy in matter than that received from the environment" - New York - October 13, 1932 and Prepared Statement of Tesla (For interview with press on 81st birthday observance)

“I have worked out a dynamic theory of gravity in all details and hope to give this to the world very soon. It explains the causes of this force and the motions of heavenly bodies under its influence so satisfactorily that it will put an end to idle speculations and false conceptions, as that of curved space. According to the relativists, space has a tendency to curvature owing to an inherent property or presence of celestial bodies. - 1938

[Anonymous No.9821566]

“To deny ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical quality whatever. The fundamental facts of quantum mechanics do not harmonize with this view.” Albert Einstein 1920

[Anonymous No.9821569]

Tesla left a surprising number of spelling mistakes in his writings, didn't he?

[Anonymous No.9821576]

>>9821569
>spelling mistakes

Tesla provides a clue to accessing free energy in his cosmic ray statement (1932) and all you could point out were spelling mistakes? lol. autists.

His description is remarkably familiar to multiple UFO cases involving material with neutron emissions and highly energetic reactions. (Bob White object, Falcon Lake incident, Mark McCandlish Fluxliner amplifier)

[Anonymous No.9821585]

How sad is that people waste their energy in conspiracy crap instead of learning all the wonderful things out there.

[Anonymous No.9821599]

>>9821585
> waste their energy in conspiracy crap instead of learning all the wonderful things out there.

Yes, let's ignore and forget about important past scientific discoveries. Repeating history is much more fun!

Wouldn't it be fun to wait around till someone rediscovers calculus from scratch?

[Anonymous No.9821604]

>>9821576
>Tesla provides a clue to accessing free energy in his cosmic ray statement (1932)
But in the same year he contradicted it with this statement
>"There is no more energy in matter than that received from the environment"
which is just a statement affirming e=mc^2

What gives? Also he died 5 years after working out his "dynamic theory of gravity in all details" and yet didn't reveal it to the world. Even if his paper got censored he failed to communicate the contents to anyone who could have transmitted it further.
What gives? Even if you claim people he told were silenced why was he able to live for 5 more years?

Nothing of this makes any sense. Especially not adding ether in when he doesn't mention or feel the need for it at all.

You're just appropriating his speculations to rework your ether theory around. We don't need it. Ether isn't necessary. Calling something else "ether" just to have something called ether does not make it ether.

[Anonymous No.9821645]

>>9821604
>Also he died 5 years after working out his "dynamic theory of gravity in all details" and yet didn't reveal it to the world.

3 years after his dynamic theory of gravity statement, electric flying craft were observed and photographed near Germany. (see "Foo Fighter"). Coincidence?

>You're just appropriating his speculations to rework your ether theory around.

It is called reverse-engineering and all of the credit goes to Tesla. Tesla has a huge patent portfolio. Why do you believe his public statements were mere speculation?

[Anonymous No.9821652]

>>9819829
I like you.

[Anonymous No.9821657]

>>9821645
>electric flying craft were observed and photographed near Germany.
Why Germany?

[Anonymous No.9821664]

>>9821645
>It is called reverse-engineering
No, that's breaking something into its constituent parts to find out how it works. You're just tacking things on.

>Why do you believe his public statements were mere speculation?
Because he didn't publish them. Being an idea man is one thing, actually producing your idea is another. Tesla had ideas that worked, he also had ones that just didn't. Assuming that all his ideas were good just because some were is not intelligent.

[Watcher No.9821680]

This is a good post.

[Anonymous No.9821696]

>>9819799
he took a centuries old idea that never really caught on and wrote a paper about it

[Anonymous No.9821757]

>>9821019

Clawing two girls at the same time

[Anonymous No.9821778]

>>9821664
>speculation

Funny, these statements don't appear like speculation:

"More than 25 years ago I began my efforts to harness the cosmic rays and I can now state that I have succeeded in operating a motive device by means of them." - Brooklyn Eagle - July 10, 1932, John J. A. O'Neill

“I have worked out a dynamic theory of gravity in all details and hope to give this to the world very soon. It explains the causes of this force and the motions of heavenly bodies under its influence so satisfactorily that it will put an end to idle speculations and false conceptions, as that of curved space. According to the relativists, space has a tendency to curvature owing to an inherent property or presence of celestial bodies. - 1938
How you interpret his statements as speculation is beyond me. You are aware that science is always evolving? There will always be continuous challenges.

[Anonymous No.9821782]

>>9821778
>How you interpret his statements as speculation is beyond me.
Through a complete lack of demonstration of his claims.
If not speculation, insanity.

[Anonymous No.9821809]

>>9821782

[Anonymous No.9821825]

>>9821809
That's nice.

>You are a fag
t. Anonymous

[Anonymous No.9821891]

Tbh I appreciate this brand of crankery. May it distract glowing secret agency opperatives while the real work fucks the (((industries))) from behind.

[Anonymous No.9821897]

>>9821891
Your new world order shit is just as likely as the Spanish Inquisition.

[Anonymous No.9821902]

>>9821809
>metaphysics and not science
wasn't that the point?

[Anonymous No.9821939]

>>9819799
>How did he just "realize"
He didn't "realized".
The problem is that we tends to isolate things. We isolate the process of creation of theory as a single thing. That's from where all idiotic ideas about talent and geniusness are come. Because we isolated a thing, we ignore all objective causes and need to invent our own, idealistic causes.
To understand "why", you need to understand context first. And then it became pretty obvious why.

[Anonymous No.9821940]

>>9821809

[Anonymous No.9821992]

>>9819829
>Einstein supposed some gedanken (german for thought experiments)
t. sub-80 iq brainlet

[Anonymous No.9821997]

>>9821556
>September 12, 1911
>7-7-1912
>April 5, 1913
>1916
>July 1, 1919
And yet Tesla never delivered anything even remotely resembling the things he promised in his ramblings.
Is he, dare I say it, just another slavic hack?

[Anonymous No.9822032]

>>9821997
Worse, he dismissed radio waves as a means for communication and his own attempts at communication through electric fields only succeeded in picking up some other faggots communication with radio waves, which he thought were communications from Mars or Venus.

[Anonymous No.9822264]

>>9821390
This is some grade-A concentrated quackery, right here.

[Anonymous No.9822345]

>>9821327
Electrons dont go in the capacitor when it is being charged.

[Anonymous No.9822410]

>>9822032


Tesla invented radio. Marconi was a thief.

Marconi died in 1937. Tesla died in 1943 and six months after his death the US Supreme Court ruled that all of Marconi's radio patents were invalid and awarded the patents for radio to Tesla. So, for the past 64 years, we still believe that Marconi invented radio. Few actually know of Tesla's radio inventions. https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/tesla-invented-radio-not-marconi

[Anonymous No.9822430]

>>9819824
The magic force of my dick explains it as well, so do my secret psychic powers.

[Anonymous No.9822432]

>>9819915
>Nothing amazing
Top 5 greatest insights into the functioning of nature is "nothing amazing" neck yourself.

[Anonymous No.9822468]

>>9819824
>Atomic clock experiments can be interpreted as ether drag instead of time dilation.
Hahahahahaha

>The luminiferous ether remains.
Hahahahahahahahaha

>Pilot wave theory is capable of replacing quantum mechanics while supporting the luminiferous ether.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha


Oh wait.... You are serious....


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>9822430
>The magic force of my dick explains it as well, so do my secret psychic powers.
Even this is a better theory than luminous ether pilot wave.

[Anonymous No.9822494]

>>9822432
>Top 5 greatest ass pulls from math equations is "nothing amazing" neck yourself.
fixed

[Anonymous No.9822497]

>>9821010
>I hope you are wrong since achieving faster-than-light (FTL) under Relativity is extremely unlikely.
Nature doesn't care about what you want.

>Relativity is going to require unobtanium in order to warp spacetime
Hahahahahahahahaha. "Relativity requires [difficult enough word that doesn't belong here, but sound cool enough to make me look like an smart person] in order to wrap spacetime [although I don't know anything about it]"

>Atoms are not powered externally, no zeropoint energy source.
Because I don't know what zero-pint energy is, but it sound cool, so I'm going to say it here....

>Atomic energy is accessible under proper electrical stimulation of atoms. Atoms are externally powered.
That's what happens when somebody don't teach properly what strong and weak nuclear forces are....

[Anonymous No.9822836]

>>9821485

Dr. Thomas Henry Moray followed Tesla's radiant energy model as well. He was shot in his own laboratory.

In test after test Moray demonstrated his radiant energy device to electrical engineering professors, congressmen, dignitaries, and a host of other visitors to his laboratory. Once he even took the device several miles out in the country, away from all power lines, to prove that he was not simply tuning in to energy being clandestinely radiated from some other part of his laboratory. Several times he allowed independent investigators to completely disassemble his device and reassemble it, then reactivate it themselves. In all tests, he was successful in demonstrating that the device could produce energy output without any appreciable energy input. According to exhaustive documentation, no one was ever able to prove that the device was fraudulent or that Moray had not accomplished exactly what he claimed. On the other hand, the records are full of signed statements from physicists, electrical engineers, and scientists who came to the Moray laboratory as doubting Thomases and left with the complete conviction that Moray had indeed succeeded in tapping a universal source of energy that could produce free electrical power. http://www.cheniere.org/books/excalibur/moray.htm

[Anonymous No.9822897]

>>9822836

Dr. Alexander V. Chernetski. Inventor of another radiant energy device (called the Plasmatron). Killed in a car accident. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT-94c1Q6Ms

Bad luck follow this area of research.

[Anonymous No.9822899]

>>9819829
>probably best illustrated by the Michelson Morley experiment, which takes advantage of Earth's velocity changing w.r.t the distance stars throughout the year. One would expect variation as Earth drifted in different directions in that material, but this was not observed.

THE EARTH IS NOT MOVING YOU FUCKING IDIOTS. IT'S ABSOLUTELY FUCKING INSANE TO BELIEVE THAT.

DON'T GIVE ME THIS UTTER NONSENSE ABOUT IT BEING A CONSTANT SPEED SO WE DON'T FEEL IT, IT IS NOT FUCKING CONSTANT IN YOUR SHITTY MODEL.

NOT ONLY DOES THE EARTH SPIN ON ITS AXIS (AT DIFFERENT SPEEDS DEPENDING WHERE YOU ARE), IT HAS AN ELLIPTICAL ORBIT AROUND THE SUN AT DIFFERING SPEEDS, THE SUN IS ALSO ORBITING THE GALAXY AT A DIFFERENT SPEED/DIRECTION, AND THE GALAXY IS MOVING AT A DIFFERENT SPEED/DIRECTION.

AIRY'S FAILURE - PROOF THE EARTH IS NOT MOVING. GET YOUR SHIT TOGETHER SCIENCE, I'VE HAD ENOUGH OF THIS DISNEY BULLSHIT IT MAKES ME SICK.

[Anonymous No.9822903]

>>9822899
hahahaha shitpost detected

[Anonymous No.9822910]

>>9822903
I WISH I WAS JOKING BUT IT'S FUCKING TRUE. THE EARTH IS NOT MOVING, IT'S FUCKING OBVIOUS.

[Anonymous No.9822914]

>>9820624
>Misinterpreting Feynman this fucking hard
Jesus christ. Look, all Feynman was trying to say was that there was a flaw in the question and that due to the lack of understanding of physics on the part of the interviewer he can't give a complete answer. We already know how to explain electromagnetism, it can be derived from qft and goes under the name QED, the most accurate theory in all of human history. He doesn't even say he can't explain it, he just says that there is no way to properly explain electromagnetism in terms of things the interviewer is familiar with, due to the interviewer's lack of understanding of more fundamental physics.

[Anonymous No.9822917]

>>9819829
>Einstein supposed some gedanken (german for thought experiments)

[Anonymous No.9822945]

if time is a dimension, why didn't Einstein just go back in time and live forever?

because he's a fucking jew fraud and anyone who believes time is a dimension is bluepilled beyond belief

[Anonymous No.9822976]

>>9822410
Patents are not inventions.

[Anonymous No.9823023]

>>9822914

This is why scientists are required to take humanities.

While we have no problem with the idea of analogy in literature, our Platonic stories of "reality" restrict the stories we can make about science.

You need stories to make stories but the stories you have and don't have limit the stories you can make.
To the story of the very small, the large story of particle and wave and object permanence are just stories we reuse to make stories, and they unfortuanely bring with them to the stories we want to make certain intents and narrators that do not belong in telling the new story of the very small.
The whole idea of force being a mass times an acceleration has no bearing on a story of the small that makes mass and makes space.

Feynman got this. In his writings he refers to the reuse of theses stories as analogies by saying they are "particle like" or "wave like".

Half of learning is forgetting so you can reuse the stories you have in order to make the new stories you need.

[Anonymous No.9823245]

>>9819954
G. LaFreniere. The pilot waves can compress and elongate, causing relativity via the Doppler effect.

[Anonymous No.9823308]

>>9821558
Tesla was also in love with a pigeon, walked around the block three times before entering a building and could see into any moment of the past and future (according to himself)

[Anonymous No.9823412]

>>9823308
>Tesla was also in love with a pigeon

LOL. The shit that relativists say because they are butthurt by Tesla and reality. Feeding pigeons were a cultural thing.

[Anonymous No.9823434]

>>9823412

Tesla had many pigeons he fed and cared for, but one, he was particularly fond of. He described it as being a beautiful female bird, pure white with light gray tips on its wings. One night the bird flew into Tesla's room at Hotel St. Regis, and he perceived that she was attempting to tell him she was dying. Tesla said a light came from her eyes more intense than he had ever produced by the most powerful lamps in his laboratory. The bird then died and Tesla said that at that same moment, something went out of his life and he knew his life's work was finished.
"Yes, I loved that pigeon, I loved her as a man loves a woman, and she loved me.”

- Nikola Tesla

[Anonymous No.9824410]

>>9823434
This was late in his life. Obviously he became senile at some point. It says nothing about his achievements when he was younger.

[Anonymous No.9824420]

>>9824410
>Obviously he became senile at some point.
Not so sure about that.

>It says nothing about his achievements when he was younger.
But his younger achievements says something about the pigeon affair.

[Anonymous No.9824641]

>>9819824
Is this made up gibberish, or actual science? i.e how far are you in horse-shoe mathematics?

[Anonymous No.9824966]

>>9824641
>Is this made up gibberish, or actual science?

Depends on perspective...do you believe space is completely empty at the subatomic level? ..just empty space between electrons and nucleii? If you ascribe to this viewpoint then it is gibbberish.

If you think space is full of subatomic energetic particles then this is science! You are free to ponder over what waves and "fields" consist of. Under this realization, electrons are likely the product from interactions between atomic nucleii and the background subatomic medium (a.k.a luminiferous ether). Pic relevant. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIyTZDHuarQ

>how far are you in horse-shoe mathematics?

I pick tomatoes at a farm for a living. Basic addition and subtraction. lol.

[Anonymous No.9825008]

Of course the Tesla conspiracy retards show up in what had the potential to be a genuinely insightful thread.

[Anonymous No.9825126]

His work on relativity is a plagiarism on Lorenz and Poincare. Try googling.

[Anonymous No.9825205]

>>9824410
>Obviously he became senile at some point.
This is around the time of most of the claims the fucker used in this thread. Before most of them.

[Anonymous No.9825215]

>>9819836
>what is dark matter

[Anonymous No.9826664]

>>9824641
>Is this made up gibberish, or actual science?
Total gibberish, let me explain below.

>>9825008
>Of course the Tesla conspiracy retards show up in what had the potential to be a genuinely insightful thread.
Indeed.

>>9825126
>His work on relativity is a plagiarism on Lorenz and Poincare.
The equations are the same, the mindset is completely different.

>>9824966
>.do you believe space is completely empty at the subatomic level? ..just empty space between electrons and nucleii?
Yes, dumbass, because that is what the Rutherford experiment is telling you. Even Bohr model and Sommerfeld models, using some platenary-like model of the atoms explained most of their properties.
Therefore you, the retarded Tesla-lover, are the one talking gibberish.

>If you think space is full of subatomic energetic particles then this is science! You are free to ponder over what waves and "fields" consist of.
Which proves that you neither know nor understand what a field is.

> electrons are likely the product from interactions between atomic nucleii and the background subatomic medium
No, they are not. That's why you can create a pair of electro and positron from a gamma ray.

>Pic relevant.
No, it is not.

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIyTZDHuarQ
Did you watch it? Let me quote a piece:
"Pilot wave dynamics can produce many of the same results as quantum mechanics. Does this mean that this is really what quantum particles are doing? NO."

>Basic addition and subtraction. lol.
Which further proves that you are talking bullshit.

>>9825215
>>what is dark matter
Dark Matter is not ether.

[Anonymous No.9826677]

>>9826664

Please enlighten us, what are EM "fields" and waves made of at the subatomic level?

[Anonymous No.9827884]

>>9819824
Wow talk to me about censorship:
"In 1932, John von Neumann published a book, part of which claimed to prove that all hidden variable theories were impossible.[8] This result was found to be flawed by Grete Hermann three years later, though this went unnoticed by the physics community for over fifty years"

[Anonymous No.9827903]

>>9819907
>but light doesn't have a medium
Can you explain this? How did you "logically explain" this?

Also, "something without a medium must have the same speed from all frames of reference"?

Also "because speed is always relative, not objective", would mean that speed is always based on observer + observed system. Hence speed is indeterminable given your assertions about light. Because the medium would not affect <the existence> of speed. When you say "must have the same speed from all frames of reference" speed is always determined by the frame of reference so it will be different based on the frame of reference and an equal speed from all reference frames should be impossible.

[Anonymous No.9827910]

>>9822910
Explain Foucault's pendulum then.

[Anonymous No.9827955]

>>9827903
>When you say "must have the same speed from all frames of reference" speed is always determined by the frame of reference so it will be different based on the frame of reference and an equal speed from all reference frames should be impossible.
Welcome to the speed of light.

[Anonymous No.9827964]

>>9826677
Go read a QFT book, all will become clear.

[Anonymous No.9827978]

Too long, need to be broken into 3 pieces.
>>9826677
>Please enlighten us, what are EM "fields" and waves made of at the subatomic level?
Why doing it if other people have already explained better than me?

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/whatisqft.html
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/122570/what-is-more-fundamental-fields-or-particles

>>9827903
>>>9819907
>>but light doesn't have a medium
>Can you explain this? How did you "logically explain" this?
The problem to explain the previous comment is the mixing of the logical steps of the reasoning into a mess.

Let's start from the beginning: we have electric and magnetic forces. Faraday proved that a varying magnetic field creates an electric field; Maxwell added the converse, that a varying electric field creates a magnetic field. An electromagnetic wave is just the logical step of that: an varying electric field generates a varying magnetic field that sustains the former electric field that sustains the magnetic field that sustains the.....

Now, why do we know that light does not need a medium to travel? Michelson-Morley (but I know that you don't believe in that, because your ether is more important than the actual experiments). More importantly, you have to remember that physicists don't do an experiment once and forget about it, they repeat them over and over again. There are people still doing upgraded versions of the experiment (e.g. https://arxiv.org/abs/1002.1284, where they reach an accuracy of 10^{-15}% on the anisotropy of the speed of light).

>Also, "something without a medium must have the same speed from all frames of reference"?
It is not exactly that, but it is related to it. Because EM waves are created by the self-sustained electric and magnetic feedback, and not the response of a medium to the fields themselves.

[Anonymous No.9827980]

>>9827978
(2/3)
The problem is the following one, when you apply Maxwell equations, you get that you can get waves, whose wave equation imply that they move with an speed proportional to the square root of the product of the electric permittivity and magnetic permeability, intrinsic properties of the medium they are moving on. If you naively apply the Galilean transformations, what you get is a wave travelling at a different speed, but this is not in agreement with Maxwell equations, where the speed of light (on a particular medium) appear from intrinsic properties of the medium, and therefore it is something independent of the frame of reference. We can conclude then that there is a contradiction here, you cannot have both, Maxwell equations and Galilean transformations.

To sustain this argument, you can study the Galilean limit of Lorentz transformations applied to the EM fields, and you will find that they have two important problems: 1. they are not associative and 2. If you have both magnetic and electric fields, a change of frame can make one of the field negligible with respect to the other, therefore the whole self-sustain mechanism falls apart (further proving the incompatibility of both).

>Also "because speed is always relative, not objective", would mean that speed is always based on observer + observed system.
NO, speed ALREADY is relative in Newtonian mechanics and Galilean transformations: if I see a car moving at speed V and you are moving in the same direction as the car with speed v, you see the car moving with speed V-v. See? Speed depends on the observer already with Galileo. The same happens with Lorentz transformations, the problem is that the relationship between the speed I measure and the one you measure is more complex, but a prescription exists.

>Because the medium would not affect <the existence> of speed.
The medium affects the speed of light, but the speed of light in vacuum is the important quantity here.

[Anonymous No.9827982]

>>9827978
>>9827980
(3/3)
>When you say "must have the same speed from all frames of reference" speed is always determined by the frame of reference so it will be different based on the frame of reference and an equal speed from all reference frames should be impossible.
That is why, at the end, you have to abandon Galilean transformations (where the speed always changes when you change your frame of reference) in favour of Lorentz transformations (where exists a particular speed which is the same in all frames), because that is the only way to get the correct Maxwell equations. But you still have a prescription to see how speed transforms from one frame to another.

>>9827964
>>>9826677
>Go read a QFT book, all will become clear.
He already said "I pick tomatoes at a farm for a living. Basic addition and subtraction. lol." (>>9824966), he will not understand it.

[Anonymous No.9828010]

>>9826677
By definition field is a contiguous medium, it has structure, but doesn't have subdivision.

[Anonymous No.9828015]

>>9819799
speed of light is constant, thats where the crazy stuff you can derive starts.