delet... Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Refutation of the 'discovery'. https://youtu.be/J3Hoax81rkI Please, if you are going to reply, try to watch the whole video before you do so, it's not very long and will in part counter most of your problems with me posting this. Cheers. His 'refutation' is based on a couple of assumptions, that the speed of light is not a universal speed limit, and that gravity operates much faster than this, and also that our understanding of light is wrong because physicists don't model light as travelling through any medium. He is of course completely wrong on both points. First, the only evidence he provides to back his assumption that c is not a universal limit is what he says about unstable orbits, but that is not the case in general relativity, his argument is circular. He talks about what Newtonian Gravity demands, but apparently fails to realise that Newtonian gravity is only an accurate model within experimental and observational limits we have long since passed (e.g. orbit of mercury, time dilation wrt caesium clocks in orbit). He seems to completely fail to understand how general relativity works, I don't even understand it properly but I know that gravitational effects are felt instantaneously and not in a way that is in any way a threat to the speed of light as a universal limit. This is due to the curvature of spacetime (the mass of a body deforms spacetime), so that for the Sun for example the orbit of the Earth is simply the Earth moving in a straight line through a spacetime curved by the mass of the Sun, there is no need for information to travel anywhere because it is already encoded in every point of space (that's what a field is). Gravity waves themselves are only caused when massive bodies accelerate, the force of gravity doesn't pull at things with any speed, it just exists as a field in which all matter exists (this is the same for all fields, QED and QCD as well). Second, according to Quantum Field Theory light exists when observed (or when it interacts with something else to be more precise) as a quantum of energy known as the photon, and when un-observed as a vibration in the universal electromagnetic field. There is no such thing as empty space in quantum theory, all matter and energy in the universe is expressed as vibrations in the various quantum fields (the universe is these quantum fields in QFT), all of these fields have a value of zero in empty space when viewed at large scales (with the exception of the higgs field, which is by default non-zero at every point in space - giving rise to mass in particles that interact with that field), but when you zoom in and examine them at the scales where quantum effects become apparent then you see that all of the fields in empty space are actually not sitting perfectly at their rest levels, but instead random quantum fluctuations are constantly creating and destroying pairs of equal but opposite particles (e.g. an electron and a positron) - these quantum fluctuations average out to zero over time (because they are equal and opposite), but they are enough to be experimentally detectable (e.g. the Casimir effect, and even now with Hawking Radiation there is some experimental evidence). The problem with the electric universe is that it isn't an actual scientific theory, it doesn't have any formal theoretical structure - either in total, or even at the 'toy model' level for specific processes (e.g. stellar formation, solar system formation, etc.), and it doesn't make any experimental predictions (and he has the cheek to call modern physics 'pseudoscience', lol). It has no answer to Olbler's paradox (because EU proponents seem to insist on an infinitely vast and old universe for some unknown reason). It also cannot explain why objects with different electric charge experience the same force of gravity (if gravity operates even partially due to electromagnetic effects then surely the charge of an object must have some effect, but this is clearly not the case experimentally, mass is the only relevant property when it comes to gravitation). At the end he talks about humility, but this is just more ridiculously ironic bulshit. Physicists do not claim to have anything close to perfect knowledge about the universe, they are completely up front about the paradoxes and unanswered questions in their theories (dark energy, dark matter, EPR paradox, Black Hole Firewalls, etc.), and there are plenty of non-crank alternative theories you can look into if you want (e.g. MOND). There is a plethora of material going in to more detail with respect to EU concepts and theories on that YouTube channel, so the fact that you found things vague when encouraging an whole new worldview breezed through in a short video is not unexpected, but they have in great detail in places like thunderbolts.eu provided primers on the thinking and experimental and observational backing behind their theories. I was just hoping to initialise the interest in some people, and that couldn't be done without at least seeing the whole video, but yes, that would be but a start once the questions started rolling in. I myself aren't 100% on anything, but it seems to me that EU theory is far more predictive, and rational the current model. Gravity is not the speed limit of the universe and we are constantly reminded of this in quantum mechanics (which also doesn't seem to understand how general relativity works), which also doesn't gel with einstein. Here's a new scientist article just from the last week illustrating this concept, https://www.newscientist.com/article/2078251-quantum-weirdness-may-hide-an-orderly-reality-after-all/ EU brings up many epoch changing concepts, like that even the precious redshift is likely wrong, so the scale of everything in the universe can be in question. It's not some simplistic hokey crackpot off the cuff series of diatribes, and it doesn't need to agree with or use the frame of reference of a branch of science that is wrong. As to 'humility', I think after having to argue his position for decades with arrogant, unlistening twunts he's owed the ability to gently mock their ongoing bullshittery. And just look at your own tone, and that of all the other posters when I bring this up. I would say it's not that he is ironically unhumble, it's more that everyone else is super sensitive to criticism of their precious 'belief system'. Even fucking youub put the word HOAX into the URL for the video link, and somehow the EU people are supposed to remain in their place as meek observers while the 'real men', get on with their chauvinistic feeding at the trough of big science, holding back the leaps in progress we saw in the enlightenment and through the 19th century and bullying anyone that might question why they are there at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KovalainenFanBoy Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 the fact that anyone thinks that their week long internet article + youtube video education is comparable to lifelong education and research is both hilarious and worrying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caze Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Nice side stepping of my refutation of his 'refutation'. You think what I've said will be proved wrong if I read their website, lol. I've been on there before, so that tactic won't work with me I'm afraid. That info you think is there isn't, there is no experimental evidence. Also, I take it this means you can't argue against anything I've said above? Why is your deferring to these supposed experts any better than the rest of the non-scientific establishment public deferring to actual scientific experts? Where is your skepticism for their ideas? Nobody is being sensitive about criticism from fringe cranks btw, they just ignore it for the most part - have far too much work to be getting on with, they probably find it funny from time to time I suppose. I can understand why this makes this guy mad, but it's tough shit, it's his choice to believe in this nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimpyLoo Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 1) To reiterate for the third time, it is not at all clear that anything is actually being transmitted (re: quantum entanglement, etc). Please explain how you think QM violates Relativity (or whatever your thesis is) 2) re: your "Hoax" theory....I just can't even...your level of apophenia is worrisome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delet... Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 the fact that anyone thinks that their week long internet article + youtube video education is comparable to lifelong education and research is both hilarious and worrying You could use the same argument to argue for why the priesthood is correct you know spanish. And as I said in that other thread, there are countless examples of the mainstream of 'learned men' being completely wrong about their whole worldview, maintaining their incestuous circle jerk for decades, even centuries. In the case of cosmology before Copernicus, using ever more complex mathematics to justify the Ptolemaic system. As I stated in that earlier conversation, it seems to be in human nature that we can engender in ourselves these mass delusions, and it's usually the dogged and skeptical few that break that spell, and usually not till after long rejection of their heretical position, until the experimental and observational evidence built up to refute the old claims is too strong and younger minds not so confused by the orthodoxy glom on to the new thinking. We are actually slowly but surely getting there, I have seen much over the past four decades that convinces me of this trend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 well how many examples are there of learned men not being wrong in comparison? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 217 by my last count eugene, but i could be wrong. what's this debate about really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimpyLoo Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 well how many examples are there of learned men not being wrong in comparison? Yup. And I mean, if you gotta reach back pre-Copernicus to cite how the Scientific Mainstream is this rigid, dogmatic, protectionist institution then I mean lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 ok, well however. we are on the brink of a paradigm shift. how much of it can be explained through the empirical method, or foolhardy theories is hard to say at this juncture in time/space. needles to say, in a haystack, all things are to be found. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimpyLoo Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 ok, well however. we are on the brink of a paradigm shift. how much of it can be explained through the empirical method, or foolhardy theories is hard to say at this juncture in time/space. needles to say, in a haystack, all things are to be found. Which paradigm shift is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triachus Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 ok, well however. we are on the brink of a paradigm shift. how much of it can be explained through the empirical method, or foolhardy theories is hard to say at this juncture in time/space. needles to say, in a haystack, all things are to be found. Which paradigm shift is that? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yFhR1fKWG0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimpyLoo Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 Yeeeuh Boiiii Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.