Gravity = Magnetic Attraction

>>8670476
In the last few years there's been achievements made in holographic field theories and things like wormholes on the quantum level. Connectedness due to higher dimensions, hyperspheres, manifolds, isn't necessarily due to gravity. It's potential in almost a frictional sense, like the chargeunit of the proton having the possibility for wormholes on its radius because of the high density of vacuum fluctuation shows that the Casimir effect, which isn't gravity or magnetism according to the mainstream theories we have, is simply the pressure of space's natural force vectors, in a way that gravity and magnetism aren't pressures but attractors. The gravitational realm is attracted to the magnetic realm in a way that can only be described as a dependency on the micro/macro relationship between the two. No magnetic atoms, no gravitational objects. The interdependencies within wormhole-connected space almost comes with its topographical inverse and, having relationships with both gravity and magnetism, will probably be the place that unification theories will come to, like topography and entanglement or something.

File: torus.gif (383KB, 360x360px) Image search: [Google]

383KB, 360x360px

>>8670476
Can I take that as a "yes"?

>>8670476

magnetism = electromagnetic waves = gravity


so i tend to agree with you OPie

>>8670476
Particles of different charge are equally attracted to objects of a constant mass and varying elecromagmetic field.

>>8670476
Where's the gravitational repulsion then?

>>8671282
>electromagnetic waves = gravity
Wew lad

Gravity doesn't exist. It's a fictional, contradictory concept.

>>8671313
>contradictory concept.

Please explain!

>>8670476
This fits in with my unification theory, still working on formalising it, gravity is caused by a rare interaction between photons, and all particles are flavours of photons,

>>8671385
but how would this emergent gravity from photons work with black holes?

>>8670476
Gravity is only the consequence of the twisting of space-time. Magnetism is different even if there are a lot of similarity. But Magnetism and gravity are different kinds of things that are carried by different particells and that interact with different types of field. According to relativity Magnetism is a real force, but gravity is only a conseguence and not a real force.

>>8671313
I understand what you are saying (Einstein docet) but you know that that is a stretch of his theory and not really the true. Gravity exist but it is not a force. Gravity is a consequence of the twisting of the space-time due to massive body. It's a geometric concept.

>>8671316
I suggest you to read and try to understand the general relativity theory of Albert Einstein.

File: tmp_2167-serveimage-1832935575.jpg (24KB, 437x250px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 437x250px

>>8671385
> gravity is caused by a rare interaction between photons, and all particles are flavours of photons,

im done with reading about the forces of nature.
gravity is just gravity, science is a meme invented by schizophrenic jews.

File: 684373main_earth_scale-orig_full.jpg (2MB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1200px

>>8670476
i think i have a viable counter argument
would sun spots and filament eruptions happen if the 2 forces were the same? its more like the magnetic forces overcome the gravity of it

>>8670476
Such a retarded question..have you ever read a physical book?

>>8671524
I'm assuming you meant physics book.
also you didn't answer the question, nor have you contributed constructively in any way.

>>8671704
Really in this thread 5 comments are mine!

>>8671735
> 8671447
> 8671435
> 8671456
> 8671462
> 8671524

>>8671288
Electromagnetic gravitational theory supposes a form of monopolar magnetic field, which do indeed exist.

>>8671453
Not possible, sorry.

>>8670476
>Proof me Wrong
>Proof

>>8670476
Well, there is no "gravity" and there is no "magnetic attraction", but you're right in saying that these two phenomenon are very much related, as is electricity and dielectricity.

>>8672059
>fallacy fallacy
Pointing out a mistake in OP's spelling is not in anyway proof against his argument.

>>8671456
The one Einstein stole from several other people who actually discovered it?

The one Tesla called "a beggar wrapped in purple robes", after calling Einstein a fool?

Your worship of Einstein as a genius has no evidence to support it.

>>8671453

Gravity is an acceleration.

>>8672059

checkmate OP

>>8671479
Look up Eric Dollard for that.

Sun's hollow, doesn't burn anything, doesn't emit anything; it's a converter from counterspace. The only fusion reactions are from those very same eruptions.

>>8672086
>>8671453


So you would agree gravity is a fictitious force, akin to centripetal force?

>>8671385
One problem. Photons do not exist.

The man who invented the term "photon" had a degree in parapsychology and worked very hard on developing a telekinetic hat.

In other words, he was a nutter.

>>8672092
Not a force, an acceleration.

Look up Ken Wheeler's book on magnetism, or his hundreds of Youtubes as Theoria Apophasis.

>>8672102
>Look up Ken Wheeler's book on magnetism, or his hundreds of Youtubes as Theoria Apophasis.

You're saying the same thing I'm saying anyway. Centripetal force isn't a force, it's also an acceleration (a rotating one). I've been saying for years that gravity is similar to this, we measure the acceleration rate of gravity on earth, but it is not a classical force since nothing is acting on the object, it is rather moving on/through spacetime to it's lowest resting point

>>8672127
>it is not a classical force since nothing is acting on the object, it is rather moving on/through spacetime to it's lowest resting point
do you have any evidence of this?

>>8672089
Then how come you can go blind from staring at the sun through telescope if it doesn't emit anything?

>>8670476
Electromagnitism is a [math] U(1) [/math] gauge group. That's not enough to describe gravity.

>>8672094
And Tesla spoke to birds.
Elaborate pls

>>8672198
>I was talking to my gun, Lana, not with it.
>Pretty important distinction.

>>8672185
It will blind you in space, too, if you looked at it with your naked eye. But you would see nothing. The yellow ball you see is the light going through the earth's envelope, the sun is not a yellow ball of light hanging out in space.

It will burn your eyes out the same way lightning would strike you.

>>8672127
Aye, but Ken says it far better than I can, and he actually understands what he's saying. I have to look up the meanings of some of the words he uses, and he strings together sentences that are, well, rather unwieldy.

He talks a lot about the centripetal and centrifugal fields set up by big magnets, and uses big magnets to display those fields on like old CRT tubes, old TVs, etc.

>>8672188
So, let's say I'm a 100kg man, and I jump up 2 feet and get slammed down to the earth. Gravity, right?

This huge force that causes planets to circle the sun?

But lets butterflies fly?

Hmmm......

>>8672239
Wait. So you way when I look at the sun it's some kind of discharge shocking my eye? Then why do lenses amplify it? Why does covering my eyes with a sheet of paper works when it should do almost nothing to increase the resistance between my eye and the sun?

Shouldn't astronauts be able to see that the sun isn't a yellow ball too?

>>8672198
I talk to my guinea pig, so I wouldn't judge Tesla based on something I do. I doubt either of us would tell you they speak back. But perhaps they do.

Tesla, and Maxwell, and all of the real scientists who provided for all of our real electric lives, spoke of "churning up the ether", and spoke of light not as packets or quanta of anything, but as pulse perturbations through a medium.

Say a man is standing tits deep in a small still pond, and he starts flapping his arms and hitting the water. What happens? Well, he's perturbed the medium, and his actions cause waves to go to the shore.

Waves of what, though? Because waves are not things; waves are what things do. In this case, waves of water. Once the waving action ceases, the water is still there. It just isn't waving anymore.

Let's say you step into the pond while this man flaps his arms and hits the water. Are the ripples hitting you? Yes, they are.

But is the man emitting anything? No, of course not. He's just causing a perterbance in the medium that's propagating while it can until it loses its energy and goes back to a resting state.

If light is not a particle, if photons do not exist, and they do not, what is light when it is not "waving"?

If light ceases to be a perterbance in the medium, in what sense does it still exist?

So with retrograde logic, we can see that light, indeed, does not exist and that the phenomenon that we call light is merely a coaxial longitudinal perterbance of the aether.

>>8672252
Not without a face plate, no.

You don't see light. You only see the manifestation of the perterbance in the medium.

>>8672257
*retroductive

>>8672188
That's only true if gravity belongs to a different order gauge group. But if gravity is based off of electromagnetism then there is nothing to say it would be.

>>8672262
>>8672257
Then why has everyone failed to detect ether and our movement relative to it?

>>8672266
We haven't. It's everywhere. We're moving through it all the time. We're using it to generate electricity.

>>8672268
What's the speed of us relative to the ether then?

>>8672271
I don't know if this can be calculated. You'd be looking at so many things. How fast the world was spinning. How fast the world was circling the sun. How fast the solar system was moving in the galaxy. How fast the galaxy was moving through the universe.

It's all that movement that creates all of these things.

Counterspace, which is where the aether is, overlaps our heavens and our earth at all points. So when you're walking down the street, look at all of the movement you're doing locally, plus all of the above movements that are also displacing you from where you were to where you are now.

It's truly mind boggling.

>>8672286
You would be able to measure your speed to the aether from some point regardless through experiment. In fact experiments always return our speed as 0 regardless of where and with what speed they are performed.

>>8672291
Because they don't take into consideration all of the celestial movement. They redefine the frame of reference. How can you redefine the frame of reference when that frame is for all intents and purposes infinite?

>>8672299
But they don't need to. If you at some point x moving at speed y detect no movement and then at point z with speed g detect also no movement then you must be trying to measure something that doesn't exist. There is no aether.

There are actually people in this thread who are saying light aether exists?


Am I on /sci/ or /b/?

>>8672084
Einstein probably is the most genial human being of the last 2 century..he discovered the particells nature of the light (given effective birth with plank at the subatomic physic) and then he understood that energy and matery are basically the same thing, such as space and time (invented the space-time concept)..and then he changed completely the ancient concept of absolute space and absolute time..moreover he wrote the low of gravity and relativity that is probably the beautiful theory every discovered..this is just a summary of what he effective has done, you should learn to wash your mouth when you talk about Albert Einstein.

>>8672086
> gravity is an acceleration
Probably the concept of gravity in 1300.


Acceleration is the first conseguences of a force..but is an effect of the force not the force itself..gravity is not a 'normal' force..gravity almost do not exist effectively, it is the conseguences of.the interaction of the space-time and the matter.

>>8672472

Judging by your English (not saying it's bad, I understand you, but I can tell it is your second language) I can tell you are also the author of this post

>>8672461


Einstein himself considered the effect of gravity as acceleration through space-time, not as a natural force.

>>8672489
No, I m not the OP, but you are right English is not my mother language. I'm agree with you about the concept of gravity but Einstein really considered gravity not just like a normal acceleration caused by some force..gravity is caused by the twisting to the space-time so it is not an acceleration. It is similar to an acceleration but even now it is an obscure concept..gravity is an acceleration is too much reductive.
Ps sorry for my imperfect English.

>>8672244
Look and stare deeply at the equations

F = (m1*m2*G)/r^2
and
F=ma
tell me what you make of it

>>8672504

>gravity is caused by the twisting to the space-time

yes, I agree with you there

>so it is not an acceleration

wat. How do you figure? The "force" of gravity is objects moving ALONG this twisting of spacetime. That movement is acceleration.


Use Einstein's space-elevator as an example. The elevator accelerating through space causes the exact effect of gravity to the point that you couldn't tell whether you were in space or on Earth experiencing Earth gravity. Given this, we can account that our feeling of the "force" of gravity is simply just the feeling of acceleration through spacetime.


Also, your English is no issue, I understand you just fine :)

>>8672472

Gravity......is an acceleration. Not a force.

Why do you think you know more than people did in 1300? AD or BC?

>>8671385
How does your theory explain Fermi-Dirac statistics of fermions?
(More than one fermion-particle can't occupy the same quantum state simultaneously)
(With current knowledge photon is a boson, not fermion)

>>8672323
No, you would be trying to measure something that you cannot measure.

>>8672355
You know more than Tesla? You sure?

>>8672461

Tesla in The New York Sun (July 10, 1935):
He found time while surveying his own past to express his sharp disagreement with the theories of Prof. Albert Einstein. He announced that the theory of relativity is "a mass of error and deceptive ideas and opposed to common sense," and that "not a single one of the relativity propositions has been proved."

"Einstein is a beggar dressed in purple clothes and made king using dazzling mathematics that obscure truth"...

--Nikola Tesla

Einstein was a fool and a fraud and a thief and a plagiarist. This is known.

>>8672533

People with actual knowledge say that photons do not exist.

People with actual reasoning abilities know that Mother Nature is not a crack whore with a magic bag of special particles that all bump together to make up the universe.

>>8672539
If photons don't exist, what mediates electromagnetic force?

>>8672537

>You know more than Tesla? You sure?


I was almost gonna type out a reply to why this is such a poor logical fallacy and why you're retarded, but then I read

>Einstein was a fool and a fraud and a thief and a plagiarist. This is known.

And now I just realize everyone knows you're a tard, probably even you, so why bother.


1/10 troll post, got me to reply

>>8672537
>You know more than Tesla? You sure?

Newton believed in Alchemy. You know more than Newton? You sure? (Or do you actually think we can create gold from lead?)

>>8672546
But we can theoretically create gold from lead. We already know the possibility but just don't know how.

Just remove 3 protons from each lead atom/ion core.

>>8672543
Resistance, capacitance, permeability and permitivitty.

>>8672544
That's Tesla's opinion of the man. Maybe you think a guy who flunked out of school, couldn't pass an entrance exam, worked as a 3rd class patent clerk and climbed all the way up to a 2nd class patent clerk, who couldn't tie his own shoes, is a genius.

And it's just a coincidence that he had access to real scientist's work, that he then claimed for his own. Every single time.

And could only explain things in "dreams", like "horses running on sunbeams".

Einstein discovered nothing, invented nothing, and did not advance science one scintilla.

>>8672546
We have made gold out of lead. It's just expensive.

Hey, protip for you /sci/fags. When you think you're smarter than Nikola Tesla, go home, sober up, and get a good night's sleep. Or 5150 yourself.

>>8672539
>Mother Nature is not a crack whore with a magic bag of special particles that all bump together to make up the universe.
kekt

>>8672563
So if I move my hand (changes surrounding electromagnetic field) the information is instantly delivered to the whole universe?

>>8672524
I understand your concept of gravity and it's right..but in my opinion it is only a part of a bigger true..gravity can interact with light, with time, with space, with matter, with dark matter and it is one of the so called fondamental forces in quantum mechanic. If you see the universe from a mechanical point of view you are right, gravity is an acceleration..but universe and physic are not just mechanical..you can even consider gravity as a measure of the curvature of a surface (space-time) and that is a geometric point of view..I'm taking about gravity from a general, realistic point of view.

I'm glad to discuss about gravity in this way, it's so stimolantig :)

>>8672585

>I'm glad to discuss about gravity in this way, it's so stimolantig

I agree. Much more useful than say...this post

>>8672571

or

>>8672574

>>8672585
>Gravity is acceleration

Universe is expanding. Why would all objects be accelerating towards opposite direction? Gravity is curved spacetime, just listen to Einstein.

File: rosetta_probe_to_land_on_space_dragon_comet.png (2MB, 1746x1372px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1746x1372px

>>8670476
Electric universe theory dictates that comets are actually balls of charged plasma, rather than solid masses of matter.

...and yet...

>>8672602
Try to expand your horizon..gravity is an acceleration but not only an acceleration.

>>8672602

We don't know why the universe is expanding. We believe dark energy is the reason behind it.

>>8672622
Then I suspect we'll believe anything.

>>8672616
Can't be. Acceleration means force acting on mass. Photons hitting Earth from the Sun on one face would eject Earth from orbit. There must be potential well that keeps Earth in place, also known as curvature of spacetime.

>>8672622
Read Moshe Carmeli's works; he doesn't need the fudge factors of dark energy and dark matter to make his equations work. He just takes them up one dimension to account for the acceleration of the universe expanding.

>>8672635
>Photons hitting Earth from the Sun on one face would eject Earth from orbit.

kek

oh wait you think you're serious....

>>8672634
I agree with this wholeheartedly. Just as every single generation of human beings ever, we are just as sure that the prior generations are wrong as we are that we are the chosen ones who get everything right.

And so it goes.

>>8672644
Explain then why Earth stays in orbit.

>>8672089
Eric Dollard is a fucking moron who promotes pseudoscience. The Sun is not hollow, the standard solar model matches helioseismology results to sub-percent precision. Secondly fusion is occurring in the Sun, solar neutrinos prove that, the number of which matches predictions.

>>8672539
Explain the photoelectric effect then.

>>8672089
You are using argument called 'counterspace' which is not accepted (=proven) scientific theorem. Prove it.

Also explain why stars (like Sun) would remain hollow when gravity obviously pulls them together?

>>8672648

the Earth moves along in a "straight line" along the spacetime warped by the energy of the Sun. It is not in a centripetal force of movement, it is moving along in a line, which happens to be curved space.


A beetle walks in a straight line along a curved leaf. The beetle understands it's moving in a straight line, the most efficient path it can take. However, since the leaf itself is curved, the beetle is ALSO moving in a curved path, along the leaf.


Do you understand this 11th grade physics now?

>>8672648
Explain how the force that keeps the earth in orbit allows a butterfly to fly.

Explain why there are no examples on earth of spherical objects orbiting a much larger object.

>>8672652
>Our models give us the answers we're looking for, therefore they explain reality.

You dope. You absolute dope.

There is no fusion happening in the sun; it's not "burning" anything; and it's certainly not emitting anything called a "photon".

>>8672680
Because you touch yourself at night.

We've kind of reached that point in this idiot thread.

>>8672660
Phase shift in the pulse perterbation. Can replicate easily.

>>8672663
I didn't say the stars were hollow; I said the sun was hollow. It's black inside. You can actually see the nothing inside the sun under the right conditions; i.e. sun spots.

Counterspace is quite real, whether you believe in it or not.

In fact, many things are quite real, whether you were born or not.

>>8672677
Space has no properties, and time doesn't exist, so no, there is no "warped spacetime" to account for the effects of electricity, dielectricity, magnetism and gravity on heavenly bodies. Or here on earth.

>>8672691

This is perhaps the most anti-scientific post in the entire thread. Almost every single word you just said is and has been proven incorrect.


I cannot tell if troll or not but I am seriously included to believe you're doing this on purpose

>>8670476
bend the path of a neutron with a magnet, fgt

>>8672682
>Our models give us the answers we're looking for, therefore they explain reality.
Strawman. My point was that they are better than some model which has never even been mathematically defined much less scientifically tested against observation. Asserting the Sun is hollow and then making no effort to objectify test that claims is bullshit.

>There is no fusion happening in the sun
Then explain solar neutrinos.

>it's certainly not emitting anything called a "photon".
Then explain how spacecraft are solar powered.

>>8672689
>Phase shift in the pulse perterbation.
No. Rice pudding electro-convulsion. Random words are not an explanation.

>>8672689
>You can actually see the nothing inside the sun under the right conditions; i.e. sun spots.
Wrong. Sun spots are still bright. They look darker compared the the bright photosphere but they are still bright.

>Counterspace is quite real, whether you believe in it or not.
Nice religion you got there.

>>8672677
So you are saying gravity is a force on each point of a gravitational field, not an acceleration?

>>8672680
>Explain how the force that keeps the Earth in orbit allows a butterfly to fly
butterfly mass = 10 grams
Earth mass = 5,972 * 10^24 kg
Earth radius = 6371 km
Distance between Earth and butterfly = 6371 km + 1 meter
Gravitational force between butterfly and Earth F = G m1m2 r^-2 = 0,098 N
So butterfly can stay in air either by producing force of 0,098 N or by orbiting Earth
Force between Sun and Earth = 3,5 * 10^22 N
So Earth can stay "in air" either by producing that force or orbiting the Sun

>Explain why there are no examples on Earth of spherical objects orbiting a much larger object
Easy. Just find me a 1 kg object and another object with...
>6000 km radius and 6*10^24 kg mass
>1 km radius and 1,5 * 10^15 kg mass
>10 meter radius and 1,5 * 10^11 kg mass
on Earth and I'll show you

>>8672689
Counterspace is not accepted terminology/theory by any of the largest scientific communities. It doesn't matter to me whether it's real or not.

Source: google search gives only crackpot sites with no prestigious academies within them.

>>8672711

>So you are saying gravity is a force on each point of a gravitational field, not an acceleration?

No, I am saying the effect of gravity that is experienced on an object is in fact it's acceleration along the plane of the curved spacetime. The "force" of gravity is as real as the "force" you feel pulling you to the back on those centrifuge rides you see at the carnival, I.E. fictitious. We can measure the force, we can feel the force, but it is not actually a force at all, just a form of accelerated motion.

>>8672711
>Distance between Earth and butterfly = 6371 km + 1 meter

How about 1 meter.

>>8672748
You calculate gravity force from center-point of mass.
Or center-line of mass.
Or center-plane of mass
Or integrate over the volume of both masses

>>8672754
No, you do that.

I just wanted to what absurd lengths you'd go to in order to demonstrate that what keeps the planet in orbit allows a butterfly to fly.

>>8672748

Because gravity doesn't take place on the surface, the surface is what brings the object to a rest.

>>8672775
Nice. I hope you find your trolling productive for your life and family. At least I learn when I debate and make calculations.

>>8672775

So you're being an idiot for the sake of being an idiot then?

Hmm wow impressive. I'm sure you're a very productive member of society

>>8672701
magnetic field =\= magnetic attraction

>>8672823
yes it does

proof me wrong

protip: you cant

>>8672257

Ah, an ether proponent. You know one day you will be proven right. Best I can tell, the biggest challenge with the ether is that is exists in more than 3 dimensions which makes proving it's existence with things like finding its velocity a huge challenge.

>>8672461
The idea that light comes in tiny packets or particles had been around for centuries before Einstein and isn't even accurate. As for the rest of his "contributions" to qm I would say they are minor compared with the majority of discoveries in the field.

Olinto de Petro discovered the matter energy eqiuvalent. Einstein was the first one to link it in with the speed of light.

Minkowski invented timespace diagrams. Anyone with the lack of knowledge to misinterpret them could have done so.

Absolute space/time are underlying structures of relativity. They are needed in order for the whole theory to function, thus invalidating the theory as it currently stands.

Most of the leg work for special relativity was done by Lorentz, Einstein was the to put the foot forward on a theory that is pretty shaky and that even he admits is probably bunk.

It appears he did come up with GR, but it was Hilbert who came up with the Field Equations, so either SR should be given to Lorentz or GR to Hilbert, but to give both to Einstein strikes me as a little unfair.

Overall though, SR and GR are fairly interesting theories and great for science fiction, unfortunately that's about all they are good for, because they have fookall to do with reality.

Bottomline, Einstein was a failed refrigerator mechanic who stole his best work.

bump for more anti-science dissenters lol

>>8673073
>Absolute space/time are underlying structures of relativity
WRONG

There is no fixed reference frame, for either space or time. There are no absolutes; that's the whole point of relativity.

But what should I expect from someone whose entire "knowledge" of relativity is from Wikipedia articles?

>>8671704
>Light = gluon attraction
>proof me wrong!

>>8672257

How do you explain the Michaelsen-Morley Experiment?

I am sure this is a bait thread but in case it isn't:

If you are so sure that our current theory of gravity / light is completely wrong, why don't you mathematise your hypothesis and publish it to be peer reviewed?
I am in no way saying that you are wrong (I am not a physicist), but if your hypothesis has merit, the scientific community will want to take a look.

>>8673615
>But what should I expect from someone whose entire "knowledge" of relativity is from Wikipedia articles?
Bit of an assumption there, dontcha think? This issue is much more philosophical than it is scientific or astro-physics, in the sense that, when dealing with time in this way you need to think about things from all angles and assess whether or not what you see is logical. I believe I have done this and I have come to the conclusion that it is not entirely consistent and that absolute time is of course a ground necessity for relativity. And I'm not the only one. If you can't discover the need for absolute time in the theory of relativity then you haven't thought about it very deeply. Conspiracy of light does a whole piece on this.

>>8672613
Aha, this is the worst... Prior to the Rosetta landing the common consensus was that comets were dirty snowballs. Just think for a minute about how stupid that is... I knew this was wrong aged eight.

Anyway in all fairness to the electric universe crowd they also predicted this to be untrue, the difference is that they have an actual theory to explain how the coma of the comet is formed, where you and I had jack.

The rosseta probe could be thought to represent the conventional scientific community although, for real there is little scientific about the expedition, it is mostly technology. The science comes in when testing their hypothesis (the dirty snowball) and here the scientists (not the engineers) failed miserably. The comet is not made of ice. How inconvieniant. So how then do you explain the coma? No comment. Fascinating... What's your theory retard?

>>8672613
Oh I forgot to say that this post truly expemplifies how vapid and stupid the scientific community has become. Post an image that btfo your theory and use as proof that the other guys theory is wrong, even when it stands to corroborate his work. Fucking unbelievable. Shameful even.

So lets summarize what we've learned so far in this thread:


Light aether exists
General Relativity means you have a need for absolute time
Photons would knock the Earth out of the Suns orbit if they were real
The Sun is hollow
I feel like this is one big joke and I'm the only one who doesn't get it...

>/sci/ - Illiterate Retards RPing as Scientists

>>8673950
If you're aiming this at me, I have already admitted that I do not understand it all myself, nor do I have the math to "prove" it.

Nor do I believe "peer review" is anything more than a circlejerk among like minded individuals who have absolutely no interest in upsetting the status quo.

I'm just pointing out to the people who think we're at the pinnacle of human intelligence that we do not know what light is; we do not know what magnetism is; we do not know, well, anything for sure.

So trusting in a system that has always been wrong, that is incapable of explaining why ice is slippery, for the great questions of life is nothing more than an absurdity of vanity and vexation of spirit.

>>8672707
So when you don't understand words, those words don't mean anything.

Got it.

Maybe buy a dictionary and a thesaurus?

>>8673938
Since it was based on the "speed of light", it had no chance of success.

>>8673973
>common consensus was that comets were dirty snowballs.

They are composed of rock, dust, ice and frozen gases such as carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, methane, and ammonia. Sometimes called dirty snowballs, recent studies have shown that the ice of a comet is covered by a crust. Comets also contain a variety of organic compounds as well as the gases already mentioned.

That's still the consensus.

Now explain why they still exist in a universe billions of years old when we can watch them disintegrate.

Bonus points for not invoking fictitious "Oort clouds".

>>8674427

Don't worry, he totally disproved oort clouds at 8 years old and at 10 he begun to debunk the "theory" (geuss) of relativity

File: Capture.png (99KB, 554x827px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 554x827px

>>8670476
>Proof me Wrong
It is actually capacitance according to my dead mentor.

>>8674427
Frozen material is a given, given that comets are relatively small and space bound. But I don't see a lot of mention of frozen water in your list of mentions. Remember that is key. Don't try to hedge and say that when you say 'dirty snowball' you mean 'snow' of all elements other than water, because last time I checked no such term existed in science or anywhere else. I can also rebutt your spurious claim easily by alluding to the theory of the comet origins of the Earth's oceans.

>Now explain why they still exist in a universe billions of years old when we can watch them disintegrate.
Exactly my point. The dirty snowball theory has, by your own admission been debunked. So your theory stands no ground whatsoever, whereas the scientists over at the Electric Universe model predicted this finding years in advance and have offered a solid hypothesis to explain the exact mystery your still scratching your head over. In fact, I would say that they have proved their model with the dta from the Rosseta probe.

So, to recap; they made an observation, put together a hypothesis and were successful and you lot are still freezing them out (no pun intended). This is no longer simply ineptitude, but apparently a bias against interesting and important data. Modern science has lost its way and become disingenuous.

>>8674479
>They are composed of rock, dust, ice and frozen gases such as carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, methane, and ammonia.

It's right there.

And no, the dirty snowball DISPROVES the billions of years old universe hypothesis.

>>8674479
>Modern science has lost its way and become disingenuous.

As we have just seen you absolutely change facts to fit your theory, I have to agree with you.

You are completely unwilling to let go of the hypothesis that the universe is billions of years old.

Tell me, if you walked into an empty room and saw a steaming hot cup of coffee on the table, and an ice cream cone that had not even begun to melt, how long would you say the room had been empty?

13 billion years?

>>8674484
>>8674479

Was it not a while back that they discovered that there actually is no ice on them and that their tail is composed of charged particles?

>>8674398
>General Relativity means you have a need for absolute time
This is the only one I can vouch for on the list, as I was responsible for making it. The proof for this involves the two planes that fly around the Earth in different directions with atomic clocks on board and when they return to their point of departure have different times. Asides from the experiment itself being bunk (being poorly thought out and debunked by Sangac experimentation), there is another problem; namely that the speeds of the two clocks need to be referenced from the ground clock, which in this case stands for the Absolute Time. Note however that we cannot argue in favour of relativity in this instance in any case, because the experiment doesn't prove relativity in the first instance, it proves something much more basic and elementary and that no one in their right mind would test for.

However, if we assume that relativity is a real concept and take a voyage on a spacecraft at near the speed of light time will slow down. But even then we can ask how long time slowed down for, and for every observer who isn't on board the spacecraft, this is the essential question. It is even the essential question for those on board the space craft once their trip is over. All clocks come back to either agree or disagree with the Absolute Time, whose baseline you may try to argue is arbitrary, but has never shown to be and neither can it be argued to be legitimately.

>>8674503
The tail consists of gas and dust that can extend hundreds of millions of kilometers away from the coma. Most comets actually have 2 tails: a plasma tail made of ionized gas, and a dust tail made of small solid particles. Comet tails point away from the Sun.

I'm copy pasta'ing this from universetoday.

This is from NASA

A comet's nucleus is like a dirty snowball made of ice. As the comet gets closer to the Sun, some of the ice starts to melt and boil off, along with particles of dust. These particles and gases make a cloud around the nucleus, called a coma.

>>8674511
That should show you that there is NO absolute time, as the atomic clocks on the top of skyscrapers run FASTER than clocks on the ground.

In other words, gravitational time dilation is a real thing, and measurable.

>>8674511

What is your explanation then for the difference in time for the two clocks?

>>8674525
*crickets*

>>8674512
http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news110.html
>"Scientists have long thought of comets as cold, billowing clouds of ice, dust and gases formed on the edges of the solar system. But comets may not be so simple or similar. They may prove to be diverse bodies with complex histories. Comet Wild 2 certainly is made up of components with a more complex history than thought."

..yep. Above is stated based on information gathered off of Stardust, a probe that actually was gathering samples from a comet.

Its threads like these that make me wish /sci/ had user ID's attached to posts so we can identify and rightfully ignore these crackpot morons

>>8674484
>>8674487
My apologies. I missed the reference to ice. Interesting point about the comets disproving the billions of years old universe model. There's been a number of other observations that would seem to fit that, but you can hardly argue that that fits any other consensus scientific model of the universe, unless we are going to overhaul almost every scientific field ever. If that is the case the conscensus of the dirty snowball btfo every other conscensus model. I can live with that.

>>8674514
Yeah, I'm aware of these subtle differences, however I question what relevance they have on such small time scales. It could be a system similar to what goes on with uncertainty principle where the discrepancies are collapsed back due to particle communication between the two areas (the ground and the top of the skyscraper), a collapse which is not registered on the indelible mechanism of the clock. Either way, large discrepancies are going to conflict with consensus views of people on Earth for example. I don't really know what other kinds of arguments you can present; civilisations operating close to black hole singularites. Still a specialised case. Do you see where I'm coming from here?

>>8674525
Well, it is not my explanation, I sure as heck didn't come up with it, so forgive me if I am not understanding it well enough. the basic concept is that one plane flies around with the rotation of the earth and the other flies against it. The theory being one is assisted by the rotation of the Earth and the other hindered by it. Another way to look at it might be in reverse however, as in the Sagnac experiment, which simply shows that less time is shown on one of the clocks because the airport moved closer to it as it was flying and the other moved slower because the airport was moving away from it, meaning that both clocks need to be read of the ground clock and that this ground clock becomes a reference for absolute time. I wouldn't agree with this statement however, since the experiment fails to show the relativity properties what it purports to show and the data is not presented in useful manner.

>>8674549
Wow, along with all of the above they found some glycerin.

Whee.

In case you haven't noticed, and you apparently have not, absolutely everything in the universe is unique. Everything. Not just snowflakes and fingerprints.

>>8674565
>unless we are going to overhaul almost every scientific field ever

This needs to be done, yes. We're stagnating in modelitis; taking what we program into computers as having any relation to reality whatsoever.

Hence the entire "the universe is a simulation" meme.

Scrap it all and start over. Stop pretending like the ancients knew nothing, and we know everything. That one belief, if shattered, would provide for massive progress.

>>8674565
The gravitational effect on the clock at the top of the skyscraper vis-a-vis the clock at the bottom is miniscule.

Put the higher clock a billion light years out away from the gravitational center of the universe and I think you'll find that the universe can be both 6000 years old and 14 billion years old, at the "same time".

>>8674596


How is it exactly you believe atomic clocks measure time? The entire point is that the clocks measure time irrespective of where they stand and honestly the measurement is irrespective of direction of motion, but it is the motion itself that causes time dilation.
Ok, what if the experiment had 3 clocks and 2 aircraft instead of 1. 1 flew around the world west-to-east and one east-to-west at exactly the same speeds.


Assuming both the clocks on the plane remained the same and differed from the one on the ground, would you THEN concede you are incorrect and Einstein is right?

>>8674427
have you considered that a small comet can become larger as it orbits its parent star, like how a hailstone grows?
the entire universe is permeated with bullshit; there's gas out there, bits of dust, tiny rocks, etc. A comet would encounter those.

>>8674610
>Einstein is right

Never think Einstein is right, about anything. Save you a lot of time. If his work intrigues you, research the people who did it, and from whom Einstein stole it.

>>8674630
What do you think is in space?

A cosmic ice maker?

I honestly don't know how people can look at a ball of disintegrating ice going around an enormous ball of fire and think that situation has been going on very long.

>>8674649

What the fuck ever dude. Don't change the subject and instead answer the question, does that prove GR right then?

>>8674652

Even more strange, they look at the ball of ice, readily admit that it passes through dust, rocks, plasma, etc (things that would create friction, and a large amount of it as such a large speed relative to it's size) and then have the audacity to say the ice ball would GROW instead of shrink under the conditions!


Is it "bring your kid to 4chan" day today or something?

>>8674606
Interesting.

>>8674609
Mindblowing. There is the case made however that a small discrepancy between sealevel and the top of a tall mountain could over millions of years could lead to an appreciably large and presumably noticeable descrepancy. However, no such difference has ever been shown to be the case, which leaves us to wonder if it is even applicable to talk in that way. For all intents and purposes they occupy the same space time, even though they should be out of synch after so many millions of years.

>>8674610
I was under the impression that two planes were used and that 3 clocks were used in total, but I could be wrong about the number of clocks. If the experiment takes into account the fact that the airport moves closer to one clock and further away from another and factors in this time difference so that only the distance travelled is taken into account and the two clocks then show a difference within the bounds set by relativity theory I would have to conclude that Einstein is right. I have never heard the experiment presented in this way before, however it does not mean that it was not conducted in this manner; I would need to look at their maths, obviously. In anycase, it would appear that the experiment does not measure special relativity, but rather general relativity as the clocks return to their point of origin, further disrupting the notion of relativity in favour of the ground clock and "Absolute time", as I'm continuing to refer to it as.

>>8674630
>>8674652
Also how do we know that comets aren't replenished over time from other sources? You mentioned the "fictious oort cloud". This again is news to me. Also why couldn't space be a giant ice maker? The ice has to come from somewhere. One theory, counter-intuitively suggests the sun as the origin for the ice as it is cabable of creating elementary particles and bonding them, flinging them out into space etc.

>>8674601
Yes, but we categorise them based on similar characteristics -> and most elements share some with other similar elements.
Don't go philoso-tard on here.. your pseudointellectual comment was not amusing nor was it deep/thoughtful.

>>8674652
>What do you think is in space?
>A cosmic ice maker?

Yeah it's called a star. Stars generate plenty of that stuff.
Did you forget that ice is just oxygen and hydrogen? Or do you think atoms are fake too?

>>8674415

Alright, I see your point but I must disagree.

1)Peer review is the cornerstone of advancing science and mostly not a circlejerk (except for maybe a part of the social sciences).

2) I do not agree with you on the assumption that scientists (or anyone here) believe we are at the pinnacle of knowledge or human intelligence. That is why we ask for proof and in the absence of that fall back to the established theories.

3) Please elaborate on how current science cannot explain how ice is slippery (or is this some metaphor?). Because that seems completely wrong to me.

In general, I get the feeling that your objections to the current system are emotional rather than logical, although I admit it is hard to read tone in written form sometimes.

However, since this is the science board, I will give you the advice that you really must come up with something better to upset the status quo. Simply saying that the status quo is wrong is not enough, especially if you cannot prove it in the slightest.

>>8674418
>Since it was based on the "speed of light", it had no chance of success.

Even in your idea, the propagation of the waves has a speed. The exact idea of the experiment is to measure a change if you measure light perpendicularly - which in your interpretation would change from transversal waves to longitudinal waves. This was not observed in any kind of way (in modern experiments).

Is your new idea of science also doing away with classical logic? Because I cannot follow you using classical logic, i.e. your B does not follow your A to me

nice thread

>>8672533
Loosely photons are bent dipoles (half a quadrapole) with an axis of rotation 45 degrees to both, electrons have a axis of rotation along just one axis of the dipole, the rotation maintains a degree of symmetry, when particles interact rotations are induced to maintain symmetry between all interacting particles, in essence when two dipoles have the potential to couple a similar pole it translates into teleportation of the symmetry centre of a dipole,

It will seem mad, as everybody replied on here has noticed, but I can genuinely see in my mind how two bent dipoles with rotation along one pole(electrons) interact by maintaining symmetry, the 4 vectors come together and tunnel across space diagonally to maintain symmetry, coming away as if they had just repelled, I'll make a simulation and mess about with it, sounds crazy yeah

>>8677505
Neutrinos are where the axis of rotation is along the opposite axis as opposed to an electron, protons are harder, quarks are where there is an axis of rotation between the two poles, only certain configurations of these can exist because of the weird parabolic paths they take, distribution into different orbitals around protons form from the interaction between an electron and the interacting quarks, neutrinos should form their own matter with dark matter (combination of quarks unobservable to us) but cannot couple with matter,

Anhilation is caused by an electron with spin one way of an axis, with an anti electron, opposite spins on the axis, when they come together, the symmetry of the system displaces the centre's and balances the rotations between the dipole resulting in two dipoles with equal rotations along each pole (photons) in opposite directions, interestingly the rotation of the photons is inversely proportional to the lack of rotation in the electrons

>>8678838
Slight changes to rotation away from the ideal intrinsic symmetry, cause a particle to move in space, an unstable oscillator with a constant displacement, the rotations induced by particle interactions result in a change in velocity

>>8678845
It fits in with conventional quantum theory, I just have to try and formalise my maths behind it so people won't laugh at me, and that's hard to do when I need to learn calculus

>>8678851
And finally back to OP's question, gravity is rare coupling to maintain symmetry when rotations are low enough to cause it to interact, converting out of sync individual dipole rotations to partial velocity rotations resulting in a a force that brings particles together

>>8672537
>He announced that the theory of relativity is "a mass of error and deceptive ideas and opposed to common sense," and that "not a single one of the relativity propositions has been proved."¨
>"Einstein is a beggar dressed in purple clothes and made king using dazzling mathematics that obscure truth"...
You just disproved your own point.

>>8678925
Quantum mechanics do obscure the truth, looking at probabilities instead of trying to understand the underlying mechanism

>>8678925
It's like looking at, studying the incidence of contrails and making observations on why they don't intersect, why there's density greater in certain areas without trying to understand why they are formed or where they come from, and the reasons why those patterns exist

>>8678979
>>8678981
That's how theories always start, first describe what happens, then how it happens.

>>8679068
But the idea that waves actually exist as opposed to it being probability is a very common idea

>>8672081
Unless he was secretly asking us to 'proof' him wrong, as in proof read his post, and correct it. In which case, only >>8672059 got the right answer... mysterious how life works isn't it.

Why is it so hard for humans to admit they don't know something ? Why do we waste time ignorantly pretending like we know shit instead of using our tine on actually finding solutions and answers.

Answers and discoveries are found when you understand you don't have them yet.

Also apply this to our origin theory and basic every fucking theory ever. In fact working solely on the basis on previously established theories is the most arrogant choice a supposed man a science can make. The most important question in our arsenal is "why?" We should question everything at all times if we are to truly discover and create and push beyond our boundaries.

"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars / But in ourselves, that we are underlings"

>>8671479
what an ugly ass drawn arrow