ca7712 No.6667
I STUMBLED UPON A REDPILL
So /polpol/ I've been reading stuff and things; time, physics, light, gravity. And well, that kike Einstein has been trying to trick us all. His math is ok, but his concepts are wrong. E=MC^2 is based upon the constant speed of light. It puts light before time, this has huge spiritual and esoteric meaning. Time is the one true universal constant, light is slowed down by gravity. Gravity does not bend "the fabric of space time."
I repeat.
>Time flows at a constant rate.
>The speed of light varies with gravity.
ca7712 No.6679
Some arguments I've already made with friends.
>wat about atomic clocks, gps, and the proof of varying time?
Well when two clocks exist in different places, with different gravity relative to each other they do show different times. But just because they tick at different rates does not mean they exist in different times. Whe both clocks get "reunited" and show varying times elapsing one does not exist in the future. They just show that how we measure time is effected by gravity, not time itself.
b475e2 No.6686
>>6667>>6679He Anons, did you know that Einsteins first wife was also a physicists and that some people think she did many of Einsteins disoveries, but that he took credit from them?
785e1c No.6692
Anything relativity related or based on it is a fraud.
Daily reminder that Kikestein worked with experimental 'physicist' Emil Rupp to prove his mathemagical equations of relativity. Emil Rupp cooked his books, and this is wildly recognised in even contemporary science community. They simply refuse to connect the dots and question Kikestein's gospel of Jewish Science.
785e1c No.6693
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>6692Modern Astronomy is a joke as well.
STEM was one of the first aspects of our society to be subverted. But most science worshippers refuse to believe that muh peer review is no indication of truth only popularity.
d1a9d7 No.6701
>>6667>>6679I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. e=mc2 merely is a consequence of the theory of relativity, not the theory itself, and I'm scared that this kind of shows your lack of knowledge of the field. I must admit my STEM years are pretty far, but I've read a lot about Einstein and black holes as well as the theory of relativity to be able to hold conversations with doctorate students on the subject.
The problem with your explanation is that the "variation" of the speed of light does not explain the difference of time you very well pointed in your second post, on one hand you say that time flows at a constant rate, but then you affirm that gravity HAS an impact on time and on clocks. Your perception of time simply is what I believe is faulty. Of course there isn't one that is "in the future" related to you when you bring it back to yourself, but that does not mean that it didn't "live" more time than its counterpart out of the high-gravity place it was into, it is literally the relativity of time explained, both are "existing" in the same reality but experience different timespans. You can't really discard experiments simply because you don't like them…
Also, the speed of light does not vary with gravity, it has been measured and tested countless times observing stars with their light going around black holes or the Sun, with their light always flowing at constant speed, and even with some really twisted flashlight experiments that I cannot recall correctly.
You bring absolutely nothing about the subject besides denial of facts, you sound like a creationist. You don't bring things to disprove the theory, you don't bring another theory backed up with experiments nor calculus nor anything at all.
About the credit, I heard many things about that, and Idk, and Idc about it tbh. Following most scientists' vision of science, it is the property of anyone and everyone anyways, so hell, as long as it works.
Although, I do agree that peer review is pretty flawed, maybe for different reasons, but ya.
ca7712 No.6702
File: 1428103497817.jpg (517.23 KB, 718x793, 718:793, tmp_28280-Lucifer___Light_….jpg)
The powers that be have named 2015 the year of light and light based technologies. I was taught that Lucifer meant light bringer, I believe the elite are the synagogue of Satan, calling themselves Jews and sacrificing all peoples to him.
ca7712 No.6706
>>6701Oh I have theories. Teslas work on the ether is a good start. I fully understand your argument about the "perceived" time effects.
Here is quick theory. Time is measured by units of ether a object contacts. By moving faster (say by orbiting a planet) a satalitte will contact more ether and "experience" more effects of time.
d1a9d7 No.6727
>>6706The big problem with that, I remember seeing most theories, is that it had to be completely separated from reality and literally had to "not exist" in order to be the perfect medium which would offer a reference. I understand it might be a plausible theory, but the existence of ether has been tested in all possible known fields, tried to be measured with every measurement tool we had, and nothing was able to prove that such a reference "substance" existed in the void. For all we know atm, the void is pretty voidy…
Things such as neutrinos are indeed hard to perceive and we could almost consider them inert, but they sometimes have an effect whatsoever on real matter. Ether wouldn't, would be omnipresent (to be a good universal reference) and if it unites both these qualities, it means that it is completely impossible to prove. That would be like conjecturing about what was before the Big Bang, or talking about the existence of God, most scientists consider it futile as there is no way to prove one way or the other, it is a false theory Imho. But if you have read about it, I suggest you also read about the experiments conducted to disprove that interesting theory.
c731b5 No.6734
How is this at all politics?
b475e2 No.6741
>>6734>How is this at all politics?1. This is Politically Incorrect.
2. Einstein was a shill for Zionism.
e3f34a No.6744
>>6734Kikestein is the poster boy for Jewish Supremacy, which many "freedom" lovers hliariously agree with.
c731b5 No.6749
>>6741>>6744well yes, but the discussion seems to be mainly about the scientific aspect, not the political
37e147 No.6750
STEMfag here. It's really tiresome dealing with the ignorant and Tesla-fappers. STEM is really the only academic branch that had been vaccinated from postmodernism.
In fact some people in STEM are red pilled enough to go so far as to troll the social 'scientist'.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fashionable_NonsenseOr watch it here..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1pJ8vYxL3QNotice how OP sounds like the feminist with their ideological twist on the speed of light.
Okay I really don't want to spend my Saturday teaching physics, particularly if there's no renumeration. But I'll give you the brief on relativity which was OPs problem.
Consider you are on a spaceship moving close to the speed of light. You look in a mirror. Maybe you move about in front of the mirror. Is there a delay in what you see and what you do? The spacecraft moves past the speed of light, do you see yourself anymore?
It was these sorts of thought experiments that led Einstein to work on general and special relatively. The issue is that without a constant speed of light then the laws of physics would be inconsistent for different internal reference frames.
Okay so what's a internal reference frame? Consider you're riding on a train and you throw a ball directly upwards and catch it, while simultaneously someone standing stationary to the earth watches. To you the motion is vertical, to them it's parabolic. Both are true, both are consistent with physics in their own internal reference frames.
Let me give you a intuitive but flawed arguement. I've seem many times for the speed of light.
>I am moving 50% of the speed of light. I shine a torch directly forwards. That light must be travelling 150% of the speed of light. Take that science!Okay. Theres a fundamental problem with the concept of waves there. In general the speed of waves is dependent on the medium they are moving through, not the speed of the object they originated from. For example the speed of sound is about ~343m/s but this can vary somewhat due to atmospheric pressure and such. We know quite well the effects of making sound when travelling at speeds well below, approximating and above the speed of sound. In none of those cases does the speed of sound become dependent on the speed of the object making it. eg. The Doppler effect would not exist if speed of sound was dependent of speed of object.
Back to light as it is a little different as it has no actual medium when travelling in a vacuum. However it has wave properties which are well known, so when light is produced it behaves just like any other wave as such. It even has its own Doppler effect, known as redshift or blueshift.
Speed of light as an absolute limit for ordinary matter.
Okay take the smallest charged particle that we can easily access. The electron..
Mass ~9.11*10^-31kg
Charge ~1.6*10^-19C
Since the late 19 century scientists have been accelerating these to high speeds, usually to make X-rays.
Once you get to about the MeV energy level. The non-relativistic energy formula K=0.5mv^2
would give you speeds exceeding the speed of light. This is not observed. The speed of light is never reached only approached. Adjusting for relativity for speeds near c.
>as v approaches c>K approaches infinity In terms of practical physics it's the other way around but it's perfectly consistent with our physics holds in all internal reference frames universe.
Scale that energy up many orders of magnitude over at the LHC and the story is the same. The accelerated particles don't exceed c. There was one incident where they may have found a particle that did but that was rejected due to errors in the synchronicity in the clocks used.
Speaking of clocks..
Evidence of time NOT flowing at a constant rate. Okay so if the speed of light cannot change to hold physics together in reference frames that are at significant speeds different to each other than time must flow at different rates.
Evidence of this? Clocks on man made satellites. Sycronise two clocks on Earth. Let's say they're good atomic clocks with little error. Leave one on Earth and connect another to a satellite.
What you find is the orbiting clock will over time be slower than the one on Earth. This is experimentally verified.
I could go on. But no one here is paying me.
37e147 No.6752
>>6744Remember the initial dismissal of 'Jewish Physics' was a fatal mistake of the Nazis. Heisenberg or the other Nazi teams may have successed in making the A-bomb had they had the time and resources at the start.
ca7712 No.6753
>>6750>I'm not getting paid.bs u got ten shekels
ca7712 No.6754
Seriously though STEMfag. I'm not arguing the numbers or the math, just the principle of it all. Time is the constant, light is bent and slowed by gravity.
THE FABRIC OF SPACE TIME DOES NOT EXIST
d1a9d7 No.6756
>>6750Thanks based STEM. What are you working/studying in? I think most people jumping into these kind of conspiracy theories are mostly uninformed people that don't take the time to understand what they're talking about before posting. Thanks a lot for the refreshing of memory, I remember reading most of these examples in my old books.
>>6753>>6754You guys really sound like shills, total retards.
37e147 No.6757
>>6667>I repeat time flows at a constant rate.Yes, in your own reference frame it does. Relativity says just that, but other reference frames will not observe it the way you do.
If you want to challenge relativity, learn what it is saying.
7f7d59 No.6766
>>6693
>Science and Math don't workI guess trying to understand the universe through use of observation was just another plot by the Jews. Scientific method is a lie– the universe is made out of psionic brainwaves and alters to your perception, dude.
ca7712 No.6768
>>6757Are you even arguing my point?
I say light slows in the presence of gravity. Can you prove this wrong? Or just repeat numbers that prove it right, except say its time that speeds up.
d1a9d7 No.6769
>>6768>Are you even arguing my point?You're getting this wrong. Burden of proof is on you.
ca7712 No.6772
Einstein knew that physics and philosophy go hand in hand. By twisting the worlds perception on physics, he also twisted your philosophical thinking, by placing light before time, it is unnatural and a very slippery slope goys.
Test the math in reverse, it works. The speed of light can be a variable too.
E=energy=indefinable potential work in perpetual motion as per a balanced universe
ca7712 No.6776
>>6769>You're getting this wrong. Burden of proof is on youBack to proving a negative. You are getting me wrong I think. But shill on bros, earn deem shiny coins.
d1a9d7 No.6784
>>6772>physics and philosophy go hand in handNo. You can extrapolate, but it forges some sort of scientific thought, of course, but it can also be completely separated.
>twisted your philosophical thinkingHow do you even know this isn't applicable to Tesla, or anyone that twisted yours? This is a stupid statement.
>Test the math in reverse, it worksI thought you weren't trolling/shilling, but it becomes obvious any further discussion with you is useless because of too heavy brainwashing/retardation. You can't just reverse the thing and decide a constant becomes a variable, the speed of light coming from a moving object still acts mostly as waves and therefore always has the same speed, look at the analogy with the speed of sound and the Doppler effect from above. No it cannot, stop being so dense holy shit, it can't in these equations, it can slow down in different environments.
>E=energy=indefinable potential work in perpetual motion as per a balanced universeWhat does that even mean? Anyway don't bother explain it'll probably be some dumb shit as well.
>Back to proving a negativeIf I get up and say the Sun isn't real, and don't even offer a replacement theory, and even if I had one, can't offer any proof, it wouldn't change shit if I had to prove a positive or a negative. I'd be going against the whole current of science and observable universe for the past couple centuries, and would have to make a steel case for people to even consider it. That's called science. Study it before posting stupid shit.
37e147 No.6787
>>6756>What are you working/studyingMostly education/teaching and advising government now days, I did private R&D and college level research. I am too poor to become a postgrad and was too lazy in my undergraduate for a grant.
>>6754You know what I'll through you a bone and say that the fabric of space time isn't really a tangible thing. It's like what Albert and others called the 'ether' a unidentifiable medium for light. Call it a placeholder for what is really going on which is still unknown.
Now assume the model you have is out there with the rest of them competing for attention and validation. The question is does it explain the observable universe any better than the current ones? I imagine that such an idea has been made before and it failed such a test. The problem is discredited ideas are unknown to all but those who were working on them at the time, unless they were formally held as the dominant theory previously.
But let's just put it out there.
Okay time is constant, not just in all reference frames but in totality. Gravity changed the speed of light not space time.
Then how do blackholes work in this universe?
How does the inflation of the universe work?
What of observable relativistic effects, time dilation, length contraction etc?
If an object was struck with an gravitationally accelerated photon, how does energy conservation work?
Why do we observe light at different speeds in our own solar system? Experiment with light passing Jupiter say.
Is this consistent with parallax, gravitational lensing?
Okay so those are the sorts of thing I would work on going forward with this theory. I'm not going to completely dismiss it, but it needs a lot of work. I have nothing on hand or in thought experiment that would entirely break it.
I'm even willing to suggest the constants we have are not always constants all the time. My thought is that the constants may depend on the density of mass in local areas of the universe. Many constants we know and love might have changed with the inflation of the universe.
What I really think you want to do is kick the kike in the keister.
Okay I'll indulge that.
None of the great thinkers got it right 100% of the time.
Newton was a fucking alchemist
Curie carried a vial of radium in her breast pocket as the dumb bitch thought it had magical healing properties. No surprise that she died of radiation sickness. She is also responsible for killing hundreds of French from radium saunas.
Einstein fought against many aspects of quantum mechanics, that had we listened to him we wouldn't all be talking to each other the way we are now.
aac488 No.6790
37e147 No.6792
>>6790>This can't be realOh it is. See my links above
Here
>>6750Based STEM researchers even trolled them with a fake journal article about quantium gravity which they printed solely because they agreed with its conclusion.
7e5cb9 No.6891
>>6667>I repeat.>>Time flows at a constant rate. >>The speed of light varies with gravity.yes anyone that isnt a retard knows this already
why in the fuck would time be changed just because light particles are affected by gravity? this shit has been pushed in pop sci for ages now and is completely and totally false
they do similar kikery with quantum mechanic probability and saying that it is "free will" influenced
7e5cb9 No.6892
>>6701>then you affirm that gravity HAS an impact on time and on clockswrong
he said gravity "HAS" (Capitalized?) an impact on clocks
not time
46d43e No.6898
>>6667Considering that they have proved that time flows differently at high altitudes, no.
Also, how the fuck is this politics?
e79cea No.6912
>>6667Hey OP, you seem like a smart fellow. If you want to fix Einstein's great jewing, redo the math behind general relativity assuming that e=Δtc^2.
This will also show how to create artificial gravity through the use of destructive interference of light rays, imply that there's an additional 15 macro dimensions in string theory, and point out that black holes are giant quanta.
3df4c8 No.6946
>>6898>how the fuck is this politics? No kidding.
OP is clearly not capable of the level of math required to understand relativity and provide an alternate theory, so he should just quit now. Apparently the substantial empirical evidence for both special and general relativity isn't enough, so he offers grossly outdated theories that no one has found supporting evidence for. Look OP, if you think the Jews have managed to subvert the scientific method and peer review then provide evidence for that. At least then it would be tangentially related to politics.
785e1c No.7010
>>6766If you have no clue what I am talking about you shouldn't open your mouth. Jewish Science threw observation out the window with relativity and started to fellate theories that have no basis in foundation.
Don't open your mouth if you are just sucking that dogmatic 'science' cock.
>>6912Black holes are bogus based on fallacious interpretations of Schwarzschild equations that are impossible in our universe
by definition.
>>6975Don't comment if you don't like to investigate the questionable antics of Einstein. Or better yet go to
>>>/pol/ with these cancerous one line replies.
>>6750Physicsfag here. It's all cool and all that you are giving a crashcourse SRT, but that is not exactly what is being argued. The problem is that the theory you are describing is based on false assumptions and thus has no basis in actual observational evidence. Which is not that surprising as Einstein made relativity
, which was real in his mind, and after completing it set out to confirm his theory. And these confirmations were done by a proven fraud Emil Rupp. This is completely against the scientific method, yet it's treated as gospel just like climate change, black holes and the big bang.
Also Einstein did not start out with his thought experiment, he started out because of the Michelson-Morlay experiment and desperately trying to disprove the aether theorem.
Also it's very wrong to call the alleged red shift a Doppler effect in the standard model.
>>6787> It's like what Albert and others called the 'ether' a unidentifiable medium for light.I'm sorry but you are just plain wrong here. The Michelson-Morlay experiment proved that either the Earth is motionless or that aether doesn't exist as a medium for the propagation of light. And given the dogmatic assumption that the Earth must move to fit in the heliocentric model relativists threw the aether out of the window. Einstein set out to disprove the ether with SRT and did such shoddy work that he had to put it back in GRT. Please watch video related
>>6693 for some proofs of the invalidity of GRT.
Also daily reminder that the CMB are actually H2O microwave emissions from Earthly bodies of water, not a remnant of a big bang.
b4bfe4 No.7015
>>6667So. If the speed of light is not constant, please explain red shift / blue shift.
>>7010What point is there to argue with someone who dismisses everything based on its creator.
>black holes are impossiblehttp://hubblesite.org/reference_desk/faq/answer.php.id=64&cat=exotichttps://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/bh_reallyexist.htmI know, I know, I'm a dirty kike shill. Oy gevalt, lemme grab some foreskins, da JOOOOOOOOZZ, etc., etc.
I see now why /pol/acks call you cancer. You really are delusional.
785e1c No.7020
>>7015>What point is there to argue with someone who dismisses everything based on its creator.I did nothing of the sort, and you know it. Those provided links are not evidence of anything.
Please read up on the definition of black holes before spouting the gospel of multiple black holes in a big bang universe. If you follow GR's conclusion of the mathematical blackhole and it's definition. You would find that only one blackhole is possible in an infinite universe, a Big Bang universe is incompatible with a black hole universe. To postulate multiple blackholes in a big bang universe is even more ridiculous. So you are left with two options with the same premise:
1) Relativity is false and the big gravity centres assumed to be black holes are in fact black 'holes' but we have no theory to describe them at all. (Akin to the Dark Matter & Dark Energy place holder fabrications to hold onto a theory)
2) Relativity is false and gravity based cosmology is also false, the universe is instead governed by electromagnetism.
The Electric Universe theory actually is based on observational science instead of a theory foundation which sets out to prove itself. EU also corresponds with the observed fact (thanks to Rosetta) that comets are NOT made from ice, like the prevalent relativity gospel claim, but get their tail due to electromagnetic forces interacting with the comet, which acts as a cathode.
If you don't have intimate knowledge of the physics discussed you shouldn't open your mouth.
b4bfe4 No.7024
>>7020>don't open your mouthMaybe you should shut up with your retarded observational bullshit.
Pure observation let to the conclusion that Earth was the centre of our solar system
also,
>that comets are NOT made from ice, like the prevalent relativity gospel claim, but get their tail due to electromagnetic forces interacting with the comet, which acts as a cathode.is just plain retarded.
b4bfe4 No.7027
>>7024>>7020So I read about EU, and what the fuck?
Nuclear fusion is not real and not powering our Sun?
The neutrinos have not been detected?
What the fuck are you smoking mate?
785e1c No.7030
>>7024>your retarded observational bullshit.It's called the scientific method, you ignorant fuck. You would better shut your mouth to prevent you from looking even more of a fool.
>is just plain retardedReality isn't retarded, you are.
I guess you didn't actually follow the Rosetta mission.
>>7027You just spent 8 minutes on reading up on some conclusions of the EU. And you dismiss it on the basis that it sounds crazy. You are intellectually lazy and have no position to talk science if this is how you go about your ignoramus business.
>>7029Seriously what the fuck does this have to do with feminism? Just because it sounds like that retarded privilege shit to you scientific ignoramuses, doesn't make it so.
b4bfe4 No.7033
>>7030Nice new word you learned there m8. Really.
Thesaurus really helps people like you sound intelligent.
Now go kill yourself.
e79cea No.7034
>>7010>Black holes are bogus based on fallacious interpretations of Schwarzschild equations that are impossible in our universe by definition.Then the definition is flawed because they're there. You can see them with a telescope. It's just that our current model of them is horribly fucked.
b4bfe4 No.7037
>>7010Additionally, the effects of relativity have been observed and proven in experiments.
Satellites need regular adjustment of their clocks to match Earth bound ones.
Mercury has an orbital drift too big to be explained by Newton's laws.
785e1c No.7040
>>7034You can't see black holes at all, that is kind of the point. Perhaps look up photos of supposed black holes that aren't artist impressions and you'll see how you cannot discern any black holes because the only thing you see are stars.
The only observation is that stars orbit a centre with incredible speeds. This centre can be a centre of mass or a electromagnetic pole. And further investigation of the nature of our heavenly bodies indicate that an electrical universe has more predicting power confirmed by other observations.
>>7033The words of someone without an argument. You sure showed me.
>>7037Do you even know which experiments you are talking about? Can you name some?
Gravitational orbit is a joke anyway. If gravitational orbits were true the ISS would whizz around the Earth with 14 times the speed of light due to constant free fall gravitational acceleration (ignoring relativity's speed limit c of course). Maintaining a constant speed in free fall in a vacuum is physically impossible.
The fact that Mercury's orbit is not explained by Newton's laws of motion is not proof of the validity of Relativity.
Seriously stop making yourself look so incredible retarded.
b4bfe4 No.7041
>>7040
>Gravitational orbit is a joke anyway. If gravitational orbits were true the ISS would whizz around the Earth with 14 times the speed of light due to constant free fall gravitational acceleration (ignoring relativity's speed limit c of course). Maintaining a constant speed in free fall in a vacuum is physically impossible.Jesus Christ. Orbital mechanics and Newton's laws 101:
The ISS stays at the same altitude. That means no potential energy is transformed into kinetic energy. That means there's nor acceleration into the same direction than movement. that means the ISS does not pick up speed, only its trajectory is curved around Earth to form a circle.
You are the one who looks ridiculously retarded right now. I feel trolled, but I know /polpol/ is /pol/'s mental institution.
b4bfe4 No.7042
>>7040Also,
>electromagnetic poleGot me there. holy crap.
So back when there was no magnetic metals, there was no attraction among mass?
ca7712 No.7043
Op here.
As an electrician I will verify, the electromagnetic force is 40 times stronger than gravity. It is a main driving force for planetary rotation and orbits.
>be me
>cut live wire with pliers
>pliers fly across room
Telluric currents?
DC motor?
Back to my Einstein argument. I have read up more on how the world defines time. That is the point I will now argue.
It is wrong to base time on radiation of elements. Time should be based upon astronomical observation. Like the Jews biblical calendar. PS, they changed time in 1967, a blood moon tetrad.
e79cea No.7044
>>7040>You can't see black holes at allYou can observe their effects, you pedant.
b4bfe4 No.7045
>>7043"Effective only at a distance of a femtometre, it [the strong nuclear force] is approximately 100 times stronger than electromagnetism, a million times stronger than the weak force interaction and 10^38 times stronger than gravitation at that range."
Guess we need a "Strong universe"-theory now.
b475e2 No.7046
>>7041>You are the one who looks ridiculously retarded right now. I feel trolled, but I know /polpol/ is /pol/'s mental institution.I hope you do realise that physics is something that most people will never understand and saying that this is a nuthouse, because someone here has his own (most likely faulty) theories, is sad and autistic.
b4bfe4 No.7049
I live to argue with other autists on the internet
785e1c No.7050
>>7041>ISS stays at the same altitude because I say so.Once again you show your complete lack of knowledge on Newtonian laws of motions with free falling objects. You are actually implying that gravity has no effect on orbiting bodies in free fall. You don't even know how potential energy works, damn son. Forces are the ones acting upon the bodies not energies, you scientific illiterate. Can you even do vector calculations? Holy shit.
The ISS does not have a constant velocity even in the scientific view you are trying to defend. ISS course being curved is by definition an acceleration caused by the gravitational force.
A body in orbit is in free fall by definition by Newtonian laws. This means that the gravitational force is accelerating the body indefinitely towards the centre of gravity. The orbital velocity tangential to the gravitational force does not impede the acceleration caused by the gravitational force.
You have clearly no fucking clue how Newton's laws of motion work at all.
>>7042I never claimed gravity didn't exist. Pathetic strawman. Just stop repsonding, you don't know what you are talking about and just parrot Black Science Man.
>>7044You didn't claim that. You claimed you can see black holes through a telescope, which is just plain false. You see a phenomena which
could be explained by an unobservable centre of gravity. But that is just circumstantial evidence.
b4bfe4 No.7052
>>7050>muh vectorsJesus Christ.
The ISS' speed in m/s remains the same you giant fucking autist.
Its altitude to Earth's core remains the same, so while it is falling towards it, IT DOES NOT GET CLOSER.
As in, the altitude remains the same, so there is no transformation of potential energy into kinetic energy.
Are you really so autistic that this is such a hard concept to understand?
Of course gravity has an effect on these bodies, or else they would continue their movement in a linear, non-accelerated fashion. Jesus Christ Newton's laws are kindergarten shit and you nigger accuse me of not understanding them because you are so autistic you actually read my post as "You are actually implying that gravity has no effect on orbiting bodies in free fall."
Go kill yourself already before you become Chris-chan 2.0.
e79cea No.7054
>>7052oh man he's going to pedant you with 'speed and velocity are different' (which they technically are)
>>7050Look, whatever definitions you wanna dance around with, big-ass gravity wells exist and their effects can be observed.
785e1c No.7057
>>7052>Jesus Christ Newton's laws are kindergarten shit and you nigger accuse me of not understanding them because you are so autisticWhich makes it all the more laughable that you ridicule vector calculation as that is the basis of Newton's laws of motion on top of not knowing how the speed of free falling objects are.
How hard is it to understand that when the gravitational force acts upon a body, without another force counteracting it, increases it's total speed with a constant acceleration of
g. That is regardless of the curvature of the body it supposedly orbits. And yes this means that bodies in orbit as a result of gravity is a fairy tale. Consequently human satellites, including the ISS, are just bogus.
It was impossible for humans to be in the ISS anyway with the presence of the van Allen belts.>>7054Look, big-ass gravity wells are just a theory to describe the effects. Not the other way around.
And yes speed and velocity are different, but that is semantics, and to go in that shit is childish and stooping to his subkindergarten level b4bfe4 No.7058
>>7057>Without any force counteracting itThe force is used to curve the trajectory around Earth.
As soon as this pull stopped existing, the ISS would carry on with a linear, non-accelerated movement.
> Consequently human satellites, including the ISS, are just bogus. It was impossible for humans to be in the ISS anyway with the presence of the van Allen belts.I'm getting a headache here.
You are a delusional conspiracy theorist. I guess the moon landing wasn't real either, nor are observations of the ISS from Earth or nuclear and theromonuclear bombs, and Nuclear power stations are just coal burning plants burning invisible coal which does not emit CO2.
b4bfe4 No.7061
>>7057Also, planets, moons and other natural satellites.
If man-made satellites are bogus, then so are natural ones.
b475e2 No.7066
>>7061It could also be possible that the earth is hollow and we all life inside of the earth and the stars are really different earth cities we see from a distance…..
785e1c No.7071
>>7058>>Without any force counteracting it>The force is used to curve the trajectory around Earth.>As soon as this pull stopped existing, the ISS would carry on with a linear, non-accelerated movement.You seriously don't know how orbital mechanics are supposed to work, yet you keep defending it. What you said has nothing to do with the lack of a force counteracting gravity. The orbital speed of the body isn't even a fucking force, you nigger. The gravitational velocity the body in direction
r accumulates and thus becomes greater than the curvature of the body it orbits causing it to spiral down. That is how acceleration works, and is Newtonian mechanics 101 which you failed so horribly at.
>I'm getting a headache here.That is your cognitive dissonance.
No amount of ad hominem will change the fact that you are out of your league and should not argue physics, as you are not knowledgeable enough in it to argue the subject at hand.
Van Allen belts aren't a conspiracy either, idiot. The existence of that proves that the moon landing could not have happened because every human would have instantly fried if they went through it. But I guess the fact that van Allen belts were only discovered after the supposed landing, that makes it okay. Because if it they didn't know about it, it didn't exist!
>>7061I already told you that the heavenly bodies are more likely governed by electromagnetic forces instead of gravity. Planets, stars and natural satellites are electrically charged.
>>7066That would mean that they saw different and much fewer and dimmer stars in ancient times. Which they obviously did not.
In the concave earth theory stars are the same as in the heliocentric model, just not as humongously large. And also in the concave earth theory light does not travel in a straight line.
Which is also observed fact and the intensity of the bending changes during the day. b4bfe4 No.7077
>>7071>SPEED IS NOT A FORCESay it ain't so. Can you even read? Can you even understand anything?
>Instantly friedYou don't know how radiation affects the human body.
Guess what. You don't get instantly fried after having a little exposure to cosmic rays.
Not even in the Van Allen belts you moron.
They aren't lethal only because they sound scary, you quadruple nigger. You know what particles are caught in the Van Allen belts? Charged ones, like protons, electrons and Alpha particles. None of which are scary if you sit in a tin can protected against microscopic meteorites. And even some exposure is about as dangerous as sitting in your basement for a while. Electromagnetic waves like Gammma radiation are hardly affected by Earth's magnetic field. They are mostly absorbed by our atmosphere.
>I already told you that the heavenly bodies are more likely governed by electromagnetic forces instead of gravity.Why the fuck then isn't a magnet or a piece of iron falling quicker towards earth than a non-magnetic object?
Why don't Earth and the Sun interact differently than Earth and Moon, considering that the Moon has no magnetic field?
>That is your cognitive dissonance.You are the one with cognitive dissonance because you subscribed without any doubt to some oogabooga niche theory for people thinking everything a Jewish scientist does is wrong.
d1a9d7 No.7078
>>7058Beautiful picture anon. Also, I would like to say, mostly to 785e1c and others like him, if your current level of STEM education stops at studying vectors, I suggest you drop the subject before you actually study a bit longer. I'm not a pure STEM field, dropped it after a while, but still got myself to advanced calculus, quantum physics and advanced organic chemistry before changing fields, and while I do understand what a grade 10-11 of physics can NOT understand in physics, jumping to conclusions from that level is plain dumb, anon.
Most of the things you learn at these grades are temporary definitions, such as Newton's definition of gravity used in most calculations, that was actually disproved when Einstein's space-time theory was obtained. How do you explain, if it really isn't true, how it corrected our small delay in Mercury's orbit around the sun, that was a couple minutes late every year or so? The "theories" haven't been just "invented" by some random dude and then results adapted to fit his theory, this would never stand in a scientific context, people are always trying to disprove your theories to gain the fame you accumulated and kill yours.
Every observation AND reality testing has proved that his theories of space-time relativity, gravity being the most primal unifying force even able to bend light's path (proved around 1922 or 1928 IIRC, in Africa, with a partial solar eclipse, observing the stars behind the sun having their light bent, and proved subsequently at every eclipse after that), in calculations of gravity affecting both time and space (mercury's orbit precise calculations, thereafter applied to every gravitational calculations that needed to be very precise), the black hole theory (stars rotating around a mass not emitting any light, which can easily be calculated to overcome the internal electric and nuclear forces very easily, therefore meaning that there can be no known force effectively fighting the gravitational pull of its own self due to extreme density; or the fact that light behind black holes are bent by a black mass, which can once again be calculated to exceed the fatal ratio, and stars directly behind replicate, with the exact same characteristics), the photons being both particles and waves (the obvious test with the 2 holes with light particles interfering with themselves and making a wavelength pattern), everything has been tested extensively, and I personally repeated most of these tests myself.
Also, any object having a certain speed rotating around an object gains a force and therefore acceleration that will always be perpendicular to the opposite side of where you're turning, hence why, when in car and wanting to get on the highway, and having to rotate say to the left while being above 40km/h, you will feel pulled and dragged to the other side with a certain force. The same principle applies with the ISS, once you gain enough speed so that this force pulling you towards the opposite side of gravity gives you the same 9.8 m/s^2 that pulls you towards the Earth, you stay in orbit. That is how the moon also remains in orbit, are you going to say the moon isn't real as well? Because I checked it and it's real, and the distance is correct (the laser test).
Stop putting Newton or anyone older than 100-200 years on a pedestal, they couldn't possibly have enough material nor funds to prove or disprove all the things and tests we are able to today.
>>7057You are retarded. You are trying to disprove literally all of space.
>>7066Haha nice one anon. Actually thought that when I was young, thought I was super intelligent for being the first to think about it.
>>7071No. YOU have no concept of basic physics laws, because you are some kind of grade 10 or below physics, and very inclined to follow some shitty conspiracy theorists with no basis, and probably not even understanding what they are arguing against.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centripetal_forceThere is no need for acceleration once you get a speed fast enough to counter the acceleration you get towards the center it's the literal definition of "orbit" which you are trying to disprove. For someone that started out saying that we shouldn't start with bogus beliefs and then find conclusions and instead base our theories on tangible observations, you are the one trying to disprove 5000 years of observations for your little mental gymnastics allowing you to pretend kikes cheated all along with physics.
Get this shit back on track with some tangible/politics material, though, I don't like where this is going, you are baiting a handful of people in your shitty unproved theories.
What grade are you? How old are you? What is your actual knowledge IN SCHOOL about physics? Also, what knowledge do you have about electromagnetic forces? Do me a calculation, tell me what kind of electrical charge you need to induce a 1 m/s^2 acceleration at a distance of 1km, and you will realize that eletromagnetic force has this annoying tendency to exponentially DROP as distance goes up, and is therefore only applicable in terms of meters MAX, and even there the amount of energy used is phenomenal, it could never reach astrophysical distances.
b4bfe4 No.7080
>>7078Shit, man, I'm not even in STEM.
I just did my highschool physics, which included relativity.
Newton's laws might not be up to speed today, but they are sufficient for your average day, unless of course you are STEM.
You really don't need to be in STEM to understand physics, at least qualitatively. I don't know the equations you know, but I do understand the concepts of relativity, Quantum mechanics and even string theory (kind of).
d1a9d7 No.7089
>>7080That's what you are getting wrong, because we don't get just "equations" past that, we also do spend a lot of time, believe it or not, in analysing the process of discovery of the equations, their physical real-world implications, what tests effectively prove them, we get history classes about every development in a certain field and every theory that has been developed, why it was considered the best in its time, and why it failed any further experimentations, the ether theory being one of them. I suggest you go to your nearest university library and get some general books about quantum physics or thermonuclear, or astrophysics books, usually there are a lot that aren't built specifically to "train you" to be good at school but focus mostly on explaining the different theories, effects, and scientific experiments to try and popularize the terms to make them easier to understand for people that don't have higher education in these fields, and they are very informative, and right on spot, I remember reading a lot of these when I was in STEM and it highly improved my understanding of what I was studying.
"Laws" and "principles" might be sufficient "equations" for calculations in the everyday life, but when trying to UNDERSTAND and not just apply blindly laws such as Einstein's calculations of astrophysical movements in the space-time continuum, you must understand that the fact that they are "sufficient for your average day" does not make them anyless inaccurate to describe the reality we live in, and therefore you cannot use a theory that has been proved not accurate to get out of it big principles and implications of the way the world around you works, as it is inherently flawed.
The calculations about mass causing gravity was pretty good, and no one even noticed it was wrong until masses started growing bigger and the calculations started showing more and more disparity with observed effects, hence why the first time we noticed Newton's laws were flawed were while observing Mercury, the closest planet to the Sun, which is the nearest observable astronomical mass around us.
So I do agree that you do not need to be in STEM to understand physics, but you need to have the STEM thought process, and have a good overall knowledge of the developments in physics and the intertwined scientific fields to put out some theories and extrapolate from general equations, you need to know them in-depth and know everything they imply, but most of all, if they haven't been disproved or not. Taking Newton's laws and extrapolating them to fit your narrative is like taking the old thomson "raisin bread" atomic model and applying it to the world around us, disregarding the fact that proton cannons on a gold sheet already disproved that theory of the atomic model.
I do think you could be in good faith, but please do try and inform yourself further, it is much more complex than any of us probably are willing to go into or explain, or that you seem to realize.
3df4c8 No.7099
>>7010>fallacious interpretations of Schwarzchild equations You're one of those Electric Universe fags. The Schwarzchild spacetime manifold is extensible, Abrams just made a topological error that you people have latched onto as truth for some reason. The Hilbert manifold (Sh) had already been proven to be extensible. Abram's mistake was thinking the Schwarzchild manifold (Ss) wasn't equivalent to Sh. He posited that Sh and Ss weren't homeomorphic because he thought their singularity structures differed. The problem here is that the singularity structure isn't part of the definition of a spacetime manifold, it's inferred from the manifold. This means that any homeomorphic manifolds will have the same singularity structure, and since Ss and Sh are mathematically equivalent they have the same singularity structure. So Ss can be extended by adding a 2-sphere, just like Sh.
>proven fraud Emil Rupp Whether or not Rupp was a fraud is irrelevant to the scientific method. If his data turned out to be bad then the experiment won't be repeatable and it will be thrown out as junk.
>dogmatic heliocentrism Break out the tinfoil hats.
4514f2 No.7101
>>6701>you sound like a creationisthahaha yeh man what a idiot huh get on our level. Anybody who believes in intelligent design should be kicked out of science. So we can actually get some work done. ok i realise thats happening and if you try to do work on intelligent design you get tarred and feathered and put into the trash, but thats not the point my point is all intelligent designers should be murdered.
>online scientists, extremely fucking reasonable.>>6667http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/einsteins-theory-is-proved--and-it-is-bad-news-if-you-own-a-penthouse-2088195.htmlhttp://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324743704578444913060125542https://www.google.com.au/search?q=einsteins+theory+is+proved&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=pAwgVaKdGtD08QWmy4KACQ b4bfe4 No.7102
>>7089I never claimed it's just equations you learn, and I know you have to learn the entire history to understand some models. I was trying to convey that I am good at qualitatively understanding theories, but I am horrible at the equations, which is the quantitative aspect. I just suck at math, and that's why I'm doing an apprenticeship in car mechatronics after having graduated the Luxembourgish equivalent of highschool with a really nice degree. I'm not part of the elite university is designed for, and a highschool degree is worth fuck all in this country.
d1a9d7 No.7105
>>7102Oh my bad, just checked your post history, I thought you were one of those arguing against satellites and gravity in general lol. Ya Einstein wasn't too good at maths either, but still was good at understanding physics, it just takes a logical mind and actually trying to inform oneself and understand. How is Luxembourg btw? highest GDP per capita last I checked, is the wealth disparity real high or do people working in McDonalds still have a good lifestyle? Also, car mechatronics seems nice, it isn't a university degree?
And yeah, I don't really know what my equivalent is, but it's 2 years in pure STEM after high school, whatever US feels like calling that. Maybe move to the US? I feel like over there, its the other way around and you can't do much with a university degree while HS is enough to live a good life.
785e1c No.7106
>>7077Your explanation on the van Allen belts is faulty, kid. The radiation would literally cook your "tincan" to temperatures that the supposed heat shielding materials cannot withstand. As I said frying the people within. Cork does not withstand those temperatures.
>for people thinking everything a Jewish scientist does is wrong.Strawman away, idiot.
>>7078I'm sorry to disappoint you in your assumption that I stopped at vector calculus, but I completed my Bachelor of Science in Theoretical Physics and have personally worked on a Hirsch-Farnsworth thermonuclear fusion reactor in fucking high school. I am only staying at the approximate physics because b4bfe4 needs to be educated on it, it's sufficiently accurate for argumentative purposes, and it is the most accesible for lurkers.
>The "theories" haven't been just "invented" by some random dude and then results adapted to fit his theory,Guess what, this is
exactly what happened with Relativity. Einstein hated experimental physics and sucked at it. He worked out his theory by doing mathematics alone and did the experiments afterwards trying to confirm it. This is widely recognised in the scientific community (but not talked about a lot), you arguing against that is preposterous. You are even confirming the confirmation bias with your mention of the solar eclipse proofs.
>this would never stand in a scientific context, people are always trying to disprove your theories to gain the fame you accumulated and kill yours.And this is precisely what is happening right now with the rising support of the Electric Universe.
>Also, any object having a certain speed rotating around an object gains a force and therefore acceleration that will always be perpendicular to the opposite side of where you're turning, hence why, when in car and wanting to get on the highway, and having to rotate say to the left while being above 40km/h, you will feel pulled and dragged to the other side with a certain force. Shit nigger, the force you are talking about is the Normal force and you don't even know it. You aren't pulled into the other side, your fucking seat is pushing you towards where you are turning. For someone berating me supposedly not understanding physics, you sure show your ignorance on the physical forces acting upon moving bodies.
>The same principle applies with the ISS,This is a completely false analogy, shame on you. Sitting in a car making a turn is completely different to a satellite. The ISS is only acted upon by the gravitational force. Thus it's constant velocity tangential to the Earth radius changes due to the gravitational acceleration, which results in the
increase of it's total speed and a change in the direction of the velocity. There is no normal force in the vacuum of space.
>You are retarded. You are trying to disprove literally all of space.I am not. Brush up on reading comprehension or stop being intellectually dishonest.
Also Centripetal force is not a real physical force, that's a fictional force, what's next the Coriolis force?
Hahahaha. You should get back to the basics, as you have no clue what you are talking about.
>>7080>Shit, man, I'm not even in STEM.It shows
>>7099>Whether or not Rupp was a fraud is irrelevant to the scientific method. If his data turned out to be bad then the experiment won't be repeatable and it will be thrown out as junk. Which is what has been proven to be the case, as I already said. And yes it's very important to the scientific method. Because even when Einstein set out to confirm his mathematical juggling of Relativity, it was based on false evidence and received as gospel. And when it was revealed to be a fraud, it was swept under the rug. If you think that is not relevant to the rape of the scientific method that is Jewish Science, then you need to reevaluate.
b4bfe4 No.7110
>>7105Life is ok, you can make crazy shekels by being a government agent. Which includes railways and education.
Feminazi bullshit has reached us, though. Luxembourg is sinking with the whole rest, and the rats are staying on board.
We do have a minimum wage, so life on the bottom still kind of works.
And no, car mechatronics is about the equivalent of high school, but you can opt into further education. It's everything but a dead end, unlike science in this shithole.
I don't think I can move into the U.S. anymore. Too much shitposting on /bane/, too many pirated games, too many remarks against Israel.
I'm not really a fan of what the USA have become, either. I prefer my communist shithole.
>>7106Funny. i just looked it up, and guess what? The Van Allen belt starts at about 1000km altitude, and the ISS orbits at roughly 400 km.
Also, how do you explain Van Allen's discovery of those belts if not by the satellites he made the instruments for himself?
785e1c No.7111
>>7110My bad then including the ISS with the van Allen belts, didn't remember how high ISS is supposed to be. But the point about the moonlanding + van Allen belts still stand.
For the ISS the thermosphere is the problem which has equally scorching temperatures.
>Also, how do you explain Van Allen's discovery of those belts if not by the satellites he made the instruments for himself?Considering it would be retarded for astronomy agencies like NASA to fake data which invalidates conventional theories like I propose, the data is likely genuine.
My guess is high altitude aeroplanes and the perhaps the space shuttle missions (if that wasn't faked as well). No way of knowing 100% of course. They already use aeroplanes to fake Hubble photos.
Did you know Hubble doesn't even have rockets to stabilise and stay in orbit, by NASA's admission? b4bfe4 No.7113
>>7111Scorching temperatures are no problem at all if the matter at that temperature has such a low density.
Do you think one atom with a temperature of a million kelvin would do much damage?
>Did you know Hubble doesn't even have rockets to stabilise and stay in orbit, by NASA's admission?Yes, because of orbital decay. Drag from Earth's atmosphere, which is almost non-existant at those altitudes, but you still encounter stray molecules. You also have to sometimes navigate out of orbital junk's way.
How the fuck is a plane even below the ISS supposed to detect Van Allen's belts?
785e1c No.7114
>>7113>Scorching temperatures are no problem at all if the matter at that temperature has such a low density.>Do you think one atom with a temperature of a million kelvin would do much damage?It's not the particles themselves that are the problem. It's the cause of their heat: the sun. That is the cause of the extreme heat. How else do you think those particles get such a high temperature. A big body
UUUU gets in the thermo sphere and it will heat up in the same way. Cooking everybody in it alive, and frying any equipment you have.
The cork (and similar material) heatshields do not provide protection for those extreme temperatures.
To be honest I haven't looked into how they found the van Allen belts exactly, so I don't know how they were/are measured.
>Yes, because of orbital decay. Drag from Earth's atmosphere, which is almost non-existant at those altitudes, but you still encounter stray molecules. You also have to sometimes navigate out of orbital junk's way.Well that is kind of why it's weird that Hubble doesn't have anything to counteract those things. Hubble only supposedly has gyroscopes, but those don't aid with dodging junk or keeping orbital velocity.
3df4c8 No.7116
>>7106>Rupp's fraudulence was swept under the rugExcept for that bit where all of his papers were retracted, and the work he did with Einstein was redone by different people proving my point that bad data eventually washes out. Science is self correcting.
>Degree in theoretical physics and worked on a thermonuclear fusion reactor in high schoolAnd I'm an ex-Navy SEAL with over 300 kills, an IQ of 185, and can shoot lasers out of my eyes. If you had a degree in theoretical physics you would have had a topology class, meaning you would have an explanation for why you support a demonstrably wrong position on the Schwarzchild manifold.
d1a9d7 No.7117
>>7106>As I said frying the people within.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_threat_from_cosmic_rays#ShieldingHow does shielding against radiation works? You are, once again, literally advocating for impossibility of any man-made satellite. How does the probe Van Allen probe even works if everything gets fried inside?
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/rbsp/main/index.htmlOfc, NASA is Jewish and built out of lies, and so it every telecommunication device, as well as science up to today. Genius ;^)
>Guess what, this is exactly what happened with Relativity.And OBVIOUSLY, you overlook literally every example of the experiments made to prove Einstein's theories right, about solar eclipse, black holes, and so on. Everyone was incredibly doubtful of his theories, especially relativity, up until decades later, and even after substantial proofs people still didn't want to admit he was right. He never got his Nobel prize because of that, either. You actually really are in the wrong place to talk about it. I was quite a nerd in my STEM years, and read 3 different Einstein biographies, he liked physics, thought process more than experimentation, I must agree, but still loved it, and even though he had some difficulties in mathematics, he hated going through that process, and would rather spend a lot of time alone rambling in his room or drawing in order to visualize his ideas rather than calculate them, he needed some help to put them on paper actually.
>You are even confirming the confirmation bias with your mention of the solar eclipse proofs.What does that even mean?
>rising support of the Electric UniverseHAHAHAHAHA holy shit dude, you're killing me.
http://www.electricuniverse.info/IntroductionLook at this fucking website.
http://www.electricuniverse.info/Electric_Sun_theoryElectric Sun, are you fucking kidding? And you're hoping that the gravity isn't as important as it seems, and it's actually electricity doing the trick? Bypassing the obvious errors in literally ALL fields of modern science using electricity in the modern era that such a theory should cause if the same force was in play, let's do some simple calculations here.
The electric charge of the Sun is 77 Coulombs, measured and calculated already by a harvard research.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001A%26A...372..913NLet's pretend the Earth has no atmosphere to allow it to carry its -1 nC/m of surface that you want it to have, without it being drawn back by stupid things such as atmosphere, and oxygen and things like that which probably also are inventions of jewish scientists, amirite?
Multiplying by Earth's surface, we arrive at a big 510 Coulombs of electrical charge.
Now you are implying that the Earth is actually orbiting around the Sun because of their electrical charges, right?
Given the actual Coulomb's law, which I'm sure you're going to cry is also Jewish and therefore de facto false, saying that it all works if you use invisible impossible to prove formulas that even you don't know (how convenient), we arrive at a force of 1.4356465726786582e-8 N. Do I need to remind you that 1 N is the force required to accelerate 1 kg at 1m/s^2? Kind of disproves your bullshit. Read below, it does give a partially good review of some of the bullshit given by people like you.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6673481&postcount=947Here is what the average force of the gravitational pull is supposed to be, using Newton for simplicity.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/gravitational-force-between-sun-and-earth-moon-and-earth.235378/
>Shit nigger, the force you are talking about is the Normal force and you don't even know it. You aren't pulled into the other side, your fucking seat is pushing you towards where you are turning. For someone berating me supposedly not understanding physics, you sure show your ignorance on the physical forces acting upon moving bodies.As I said, my STEM years are far away and in another language than english, so remembering the terms is quite difficult. And for someone with a bachelor in theoretical physics that doesn't believe in literally anything you have learned in the years you spent in high school and university, I have difficulty believing you. The car is merely a representation of the centrifugal force, which gives the same principle on the car, while an equivalent centripetal force, being the gravity in this instance, allows the satellites to remain in orbit. I try making it simple because you seem very simple-minded.
>This is a completely false analogy, shame on you. Sitting in a car making a turn is completely different to a satellite. The ISS is only acted upon by the gravitational force. Thus it's constant velocity tangential to the Earth radius changes due to the gravitational acceleration, which results in the increase of it's total speed and a change in the direction of the velocity. There is no normal force in the vacuum of space.I think you're doing it on purpose.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_forceThe analogy is simple indeed, but pretending only 1 force applies to the ISS is plain retarded and disregarding the most simple laws of physics, ACCURATELY REPRESENTED by the analogy of a car turning around a center of rotation.
>There is no normal force in the vacuum of space.Please tell me more.
>Also Centripetal force is not a real physical force, that's a fictional forceIdk what you're trying to say. Gravitation is a real force lol, which acts as the centripetal force in our ISS example, wtf are you even on about?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centripetal_force>>7110Nice, and damn, shit to know leftist propaganda is even reaching you guys, I thought you and switzerland were safe…
>>7111>Did you know Hubble doesn't even have rockets to stabilise and stay in orbit, by NASA's admission?But I thought orbits weren't real, anon? ;^)
>>7114>It's the cause of their heat: the sun.I don't even know what you're on about anymore anon you just seem to want to disprove science all together without giving any material…
Tell me more about this electric universe please I need to laugh in my studying breaks.
b4bfe4 No.7118
>>7114http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacecraft_thermal_controlI thought we very still talking about the ISS.
Hubble is at about 555 km. So drag is less of an issue, and Hubble won't remain operational forever. Apparently it's reentering in between 2030 and 2040.
NASA probably chose that orbit because there is very little orbital junk there.
91b10a No.7125
Time doesn't exist though.
618dc7 No.7138
>>6686Sounds like some SJW shit anon
>muh smart oppressed waif ca7712 No.7179
File: 1428171752866.png (62.81 KB, 510x274, 255:137, tmp_4043-2015-Internationa….png)
>>7117>The electric charge of the Sun is 77 Coulombs, measured and calculated already by a harvard research.Why so much lower than the earths charge anon?
How do the solar winds factor into the equations?
And the auroras?
Where does all that energy go?
d1a9d7 No.7191
>>7179>The solar wind is a flow of protons and electrons, away from the sun, in all directions, both at the same speed. Now, if the first "major property" of the electric sun model were true, we would expect the positively charged sun to repel positively charged protons, and attract negatively charged electrons. That's what the third "major property" says is happening, but we see that reality is somewhat different. The observation of electrons & protons both being "repelled" by the sun immediately negates any consideration of the sun having a net electric charge that can be detected anywhere in the solar wind flow. If the sun had a net charge that was large enough, then it should repel one charge and attract the other, depending on the sign of the sun's excess charge. But we don't see that.Solar winds are both high-energy protons and electrons, as defined above, this is why the net charge is so much lower than the Earth's surface. And do note that I had to remove the atmosphere in order to give to the Earth any kind of charge at all, because otherwise it would simply be null.
http://www.tim-thompson.com/electric-sun.html#hypothesisEducate yourself, please. The very fact that all you can rely your theories on are papers 70+ years old that have been disproved countless times since then should show how flawed your theories are, especially given the huge technological advances in the electric fields. Also, why do our electric equipment work just fine on Earth? As some anon stated above, why aren't we able to levitate using a magnet charged at the opposite charge of the Earth? Literally nothing works in your theory.
ca7712 No.7216
>>7191>And do note that I had to remove the atmosphere in order to give to the Earth any kind of charge at all, because otherwise it would simply be null.I noticed, surprised you'd bring it up twice as it's dubsly damning of your logic.
The moon has no magnetic field and no rotation, besides that inherited by the earth. It is not spinning. The earth spins. It is driven by a current of electricity, inside and outside, above and below. The atmosphere you so conviently removed happens to get feed large amounts of electrons from the earth in the form of lightning every day. This layer of insulating air keeps the two spheres at separate charges, one within the other. Like a capacitor. The magnetic poles point in the direction of movement our planet makes through the universe. Are we heading south? Or north? How fast?
ca7712 No.7224
>>7191>Educate yourself, please. The very fact that all you can rely your theories on are papers 70+ years old that have been disproved countless times since then should show how flawed your theories areWhat papers are you talking about? I've posted no links anon, I use laymen's terms to discuss ideas, this is not a mathematics forums, nor a wiki link contest.
I'm talking about how the right hand rule can be applied to our planet to simply explain the spin, which angular momentum fails to explain properly. We turn like a giant DC motor.
8c2311 No.7249
>esoteric philosophical ramblings trump relativities ability to make predictions
Fucking faggot. Science doesnt care whether or not e=mc^2 is a sexed equation
6f0d8a No.7281
>>6752Well, actually, it's understandable.
Germany during the 1890's was the center of the world STEM-wise. If you wanted to be an engineer, you had to study in germany or be nothing. This was still true before WW2.
The teachers back in those days were the best to ever live, but this led them to be academically arrogant. They believed they understood most of physics (which was, arguably, true).
When you look at the reasons why jews were seen badly, plus the fact that Einstein's theory looked like a redefinition of everything, you can understand why german scientists during the 30's (the best engineers of the world) didn't believe in relativity.
When WW2 ended, those same people, who designed the first rocket of the world, did lay the foundations for every rocket ever made in the USRR (as they had been captured during the Russian counter-invasion)
This is why the USRR won every step of the space race, except when they gave up because of internal problems.
This is why the best missiles in the world today are Russian
This is why the NASA still buys decades old reactors from the old USSR's stock, because they work perfect (when they aren't damaged by time) and are cheap.
ca7712 No.7294
>>7249Lorentz was making the same predictions long before Einstein stuck his nose in.
1 second = 1/60th of an minute
1 hour = 1/60th of a hour
1 hour = 1/24th of a day
In e=mc^2, what is e?
ca7712 No.7295
*1 min = 1/60th of a hour
936db2 No.7299
ca7712 No.7333
>>7299Exactly, E=MC^2 refers to energy.
Specifically, a relationship between matter and energy, via the speed of light, a time distance equation. Yet it fails to define energy at all, energy exists without mass, or time, it is dimensionless and undefinable, chaotic changing forms.
adf281 No.7426
File: 1428203279873.jpg (402.61 KB, 1080x1920, 9:16, tmp_8606-2015-03-20 20.20.….jpg)
Time is not something that exists like distance. Time is the measurement of phenomena against another, cyclical, phenomenon. Gravity changes the cyclical rate of periodic phenomena relative to phenomena in a different part of the field (different in the sense of a varied field density through a normal plane). It's almost like there's some constant magnitude of *something* that gets shifted from one dimension to the next when changing other properties of a given piece of matter (dimension in the dimensional analysis sense)…
f22abd No.7608
Is this funposting?
a847d8 No.7877
>>6686>He Anons, did you know that Einsteins first wife was also a physicists and that some people think she did many of Einsteins disoveries, but that he took credit from them?lol no.
His first wife was his batshit secretary, not the source of his discoveries.
0b44fa No.7884
Old /pol/ is back.
This is fucking great.
I'll go back to lurking now.
16b6c5 No.7901
Proof it's too late for humanity. It happened much faster than I think any of us would have expected.
e7ffc1 No.7906
>>7901Context/source for this, please?
896278 No.7912
If OP wasn't a faggot, he wouldn't post a "groundbreaking theory" like this on an anonymous board. No matter what theory it is and how correct it is, it'll end somewhere between laughed off and stolen.
But OP did post it here - ergo, OP is a faggot.
b95095 No.7966
7afcb5 No.7991
>>6667General relativity is not wrong because Kikenstein plagiarized it from Aryan scientists.
There's no agenda other than depriving the goyim out of their achievement.
eda926 No.8049
>this entire thread
What has become of you, /pol/?
c86710 No.8087
>>6790Philosophyfag here. Don't underestimate the insanity of poststructuralists.
ca7712 No.8088
If we name time our constant, like our ancestors using the sun and stars, the speed of light varies depending on the gravitational field it is in. Light will bend and reflect. Relativity only works when a person redefines time to fit it. A day does not equal a set amount of radiation leaving a theoretically 0K atom of caesium, a day is one rotation of our planet. Time is of the essence. The proof in the pudding is in the eating.
f62e12 No.9123
>>6892Then what's causing the effect?
be3c3f No.9132
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
GRAVITY DOES NOT BEND LIGHT
The only thing that can bend light is a medium, like water, or plasma. The plasma corona is responsible for the bending of light seen around the sun.
Gravity has no effect on either light or time.
refer
be3c3f No.9133
>>6750STEM is one of the most compromised parts of society. Everything you know is wrong. Literally.
be3c3f No.9134
This will take a long time to read, but it is a full treatment of what is wrong with Einstein. It goes in depth on everything.
http://users.isp.com/retic/physics/hoax.htm be3c3f No.9137
>michelson-morleywhile it's covered in the article above, here's a specific treatment of the subject
http://debunkingrelativity.com/ether-wind-and-ether-drag/ dc7e49 No.9154
>>9133Wow man that sucks.
I guess when you think about the engineers who built your computer and house your living in they must be pretty stupid!
9ea9bd No.9156
The speed of light does not vary.
It's called red/blue shift; and has nothing to do with speed.
Scientific Illiterate sage
13b14d No.10477
>>6756Here is the thing about current 'beliefs' in science.
There is 0 unified theory. Or even anything remotely close to it with modern understanding of the universe.
Until that is wholly resolved, questioning the very basis of our theories are valid and wholly legit. There is almost zero reason to 'believe' in any current physics theories as being true. It is simply a place holder of 'most likely until further information can be accessed and processed'. Nobody, NOT ONE SINGLE FUCKING SCIENTIST should defend our theories as 'truth' and 'right', much less off offhandedly discard alternate paths of thought and experimentation. Currently science is locked into an almost theological aspect of belief defensive structures when it comes to our 'proven' paths of thought. Which is utterly at its core wrong.
And considering the only current hypothesis along existing lines of belief in mainstream science circles is string theory. Something which wasn't around even in the eighties. But somehow is now currently the 'in thing' that everyone is suckling at. Despite the number of differing theories, what is it up to now? six or seven competing string theories? And not a single shred of verifiable proofs for any of it. Questionable it and of itself, it outright shows blatant hypocrisy of most mainstream views.
Much of the problem is based upon the very idea of 'math' being an thing in and of itself. Math is the tool. Not the truth. Even the very basis of math : 1+1=2, and iterations of it. Can be easily discarded thru dis-associative thought processes which are dependent upon an preconceived goal.
As such. There is 0 reason that OP is not wholly right. For there is actually 0 verifiable proof that he is wrong or our current view… is right. Pure logic bears this out, just drop the assumption of our tool set being right, instead of mostly right (maybe).
>FYI not religious, strong atheist so fuck off w that line of reasoning as a counter. 95b8eb No.10555
>>6702Tvs and fiber optics all work with light.
2skoopy5me.
Any sources on your interesting submission, though?
8abd59 No.10560
Wow, you just read a fifth grade science textbook?
8ee500 No.10675
>>9156Non-STEM here. I heard in a talk by Rupert Sheldrake that the speed of light was recorded at greatly different values throughout the 20th century and the
final solution to this was to define it at a set value at some time in the 1970s.
Is this true?
f24369 No.11406
Defining time as a quantifiable measurement of physical change is retarded. The fact that the rate of physical change is relative based on factors such as speed does nothing other than tell us that speed has an effect on the rate of physical change. Time has never been satisfactorily defined by any science or philosophy to date. Time may relate to the sequence of events, but there is no reason to assume that the sequence of events is itself time.
000000 No.11486
Holy shit, electric universe theory on my chan? I remember being universally called a retard for bringing this up.
>>11406>Defining time as a quantifiable measurement of physical change is retarded. The fact that the rate of physical change is relative based on factors such as speed does nothing other than tell us that speed has an effect on the rate of physical change. Time has never been satisfactorily defined by any science or philosophy to date. Time may relate to the sequence of events, but there is no reason to assume that the sequence of events is itself time.You know that feeling where you come across something someone has said or written and it's basically verbatim of what you have been thinking? I'm having that feeling right now.
855b18 No.11639
>>6741>Separating critical thought of big ideas from political thought.You are what is wrong with society.
ca7712 No.12374
>>11406>>11486I had thought my thread here died.
I'm deep into some math on aether, and vortexes. Tesla was on to something but there are no records. Energy is abundant, and we ignore it.
>Now, I must tell you of a strange experience which bore fruit in my later life. … We had a cold [snap] drier that ever observed before. People walking in the snow left a luminous trail behind them and a snowball thrown against an obstacle gave a flare of light like a loaf of sugar hit with a knife. [As I stroked] MaÄak's back, [it became] a sheet of light and my hand produced a shower of sparks. … My father … remarked, this is nothing but electricity, the same thing you see on the trees in a storm. My mother seemed alarmed. Stop playing with the cat, she said, he might start a fire. I was thinking abstractly. Is nature a cat? If so, who strokes its back? It can only be God, I concluded. …I cannot exaggerate the effect of this marvelous sight on my childish imagination. Day after day I asked myself what is electricity and found no answer. Eighty years have gone by since and I still ask the same question, unable to answer it.
Nikola Tesla 03330e No.12403
>all these replies
>hardly any equations
Why do dumbfags think modern physics is just physicists sitting around a table and inventing random stories? All physics is:
>write equation for predicting the outcome of an event based on prior measurements
>do experiment involving the event
>see if data fits equation
>if yes submit paper
>if no start over
All physics is is just a bunch of formulas that let you calculate one thing from another. Say the equation for calculating lift from a wing will predict that the airplane can carry this much weight if it flies at this velocity and has this wing shape. You can try this yourself by flying the airplane, and it will be able to carry almost exactly as much weight as the equation says it will (almost because every equation is ultimately approximate, and there's always measurement error).
Whether the "layman's explanation" about air moving faster/slower is correct or not is irrelevant to you, as a user of the equation. All you want is to find out how much cargo and fuel to put in your plane so that it can take off.
Because 99% of people are math-retards and can't follow the simplest equation, when physicists explain things to normalfags they have to do it with these stories as opposed to just writing out the equation. Obviously the stories are just metaphors that exist to keep the normalfag from complaining about too much math. To argue with the normalfag version is retarded, if you have a problem with a theory, go find the flaw in the equations. Better yet, make your own equation that predicts the same thing better.
OP says E=MC^2 is wrong. Can he come up with one example where E does not equal MC^2? Can he propose an experiment that you can do, and the results will be different from what E=MC^2 implies? Even though he complains about Einstein, so far it seems like his problem is not Einstein, but what is written in popular science books and websites (which really doesn't matter whatsoever, since anyone who actually uses physics for anything learns the equations and not the popsci bullshit). So maybe he should take it up with Joe Popsci author and not Einstein?
55ba03 No.12404
>>10675I'm not an expert, and am only just beginning my STEM education, but I have a hard time believing it was an arbitrary decision. If it was, many of our current technologies wouldn't work if there was no universal constant
c66344 No.12406
I'm requesting for 785e1c to come back and keep arguing here. I took intro physics and it always struck me that special relativity concept was trying to hold contradictions together. 785e1c makes an immeasurable amount of sense to me and I like his help to see how deep this rabbit hole goes. In the mean time I'll be reading some of the links and brushing up on my vector calculus.
ca7712 No.12419
>maybe he should take it up with Joe Popsci author and not Einstein
Kek. Einstein was the easier target. But yeah, gene Roddenberry has some personal responsibility here too.
55ba03 No.12436
>>12403This. If you have something that can refute an accepted scientific theory then go submit it and link us your paper. If not then go write a half assed science fiction book.
ca7712 No.12445
>>12436>If you have something that can refute an accepted scientific theory then go submit it and link us your paper. If not then go write a half assed science fiction book.Are you dense. I simply refute our method of measuring time. You know, the one we made up to fit Einstein's math. The modern world thinks that a man can travel through time just by traveling faster through space. People need to rethink what schools teach. Time travel is not possible, spacetime are separate things and more constant than the rate of wavelength.
>invisible airways crackle with life; bright antennae bristle with the energy; emotional feedback on timeless wavelength; bearing a gift beyond price, almost free the priests of the temple of sarynx ca7712 No.12447
Did y'all know geddy lee's parents are holohoax survivors.
* syrinx
55ba03 No.12458
>>12445Once again, go write a paper and refute it. Like
>>7912 says, you're a massive faggot. Your claims have been refuted and proven false time and time again.
ca7712 No.12461
Where were my claims refuted? Which claims exactly?
What is energy anyways?
658041 No.12463
f24369 No.12484
>>12374You should read Spengler's Decline of the West. That passage you quoted actually neatly underlines his point about the connection between a society's late science and its earlier religion. We find energy because we are looking for it, and we are looking for it because we are looking for our former concept of God, but in strictly mechanical language. Our concept of energy may very well die with our civilization, and a future civilization, should they pick up this concept from the history of our own science, will likely reinterpret it in a way so alien to our own thinking, that it will effectively be a completely different concept.
74ee3a No.12518
Einstein was a fraud. He stole his research . even the theory of relativity was published in a science journal years before he talked about it. He worked in a patent office.
The Jews promoted him to promote themselves as the most intelligent.
He was also a commie. And you should look into the truth of the atom bomb.
The Nazis threw out all Jewish science and look what leaps of innovation and technology they made! After the war, 100s of billions of dollars worth of patents were stolen.
Most of our modern tech is based on Nazi science. Like space travel and jets.
Nothing ground breaking in hard science has been accomplished in the last 100 years as we've been led falsely by Jew science and political correctness.
74ee3a No.12520
>>12484This ties into christian science. Most discoveries/advances in the last hundred years have been made by christian science.
Look at the difference between christianity and Islam. Christianity traditionally sponsored scientists. The whole Galileo thing is lied about.
The first geneticists were monks working with plants. And they were great at creating alcohol
In one year, Spain translates more books into Spanish than the entire Arabic world has in the history of the existence of muhammedanism.
The main different in that Christianity/ Jesus promotes the search for truth.
In Muhammed worship, reality is whatever Allah says. It can never be understood. There is no truth but his word/book. If the Koran said the sky was green they would have to believe that despite what their eyes tell them.
4d9119 No.12540
>>6667>Time is the one true universal constantFuck I hope this is bait
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment
>first time on polpol and there's this level of retard c62091 No.12555
>>6750Too bad that book is 90% exaggeration and ad hominems.
1bb570 No.12559
>>6693>trying to subvert science by saying peer review is popularity basedOy vey!
2fb7cc No.12582
>>12559but it literally is.
Its one of the few major criticisms of science particularly in fields like medicine.
89d927 No.12600
Isn't Time simply a tool used to measure Movement?
>be me living on planet earth.
>creates a tool to measure time based on the Movement of the earth, planets, sun.. (24hr days; 365 days a year etc.)
>all this starts with the principle of all things that created the very first Movement and this whole world and existence (God or big-bang theories I don't care).
>pic related is modern science
9bcd42 No.12628
>>6706>Units/ammount of aether a unit passes through. FTFY
As shown by Biefield & Brown's work on the subject, when you flow with the aether (letting it 'carry' you) you don't experience time dilation as you would if you traversed through it with traditional propulsion.
14d40a No.12630
>>7010>Michelson-Morlay experiment proved…You should reexamine what you think you know about the Michaelson-Morley experiment
http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htmIf only returned with a null result because of certain circumstances, repeated with more a more sensitive interferometer under different conditions viz. altitude and got real, useable data.
0e235e No.12696
>>12630You ever tried an accumulator brah?
I built a three layer blanket according to DeMeo's instructions, but wouldn't say I could recognise any effects from it.
ea3c8d No.12698
>>12630
>http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htmOrgonelab? Reich = Frankfurt School. Remember, fascism arises when kids get sexually repressed and the orgone energy doesn't flow freely, so we need to molest kids with dearmoring therapy so they don't grow to be fascists? Any of this ring a bell?
0e235e No.12699
>>12698There is at least some truth to some of Reich's theories.
And the Neo-Freudians still probably have a more functional model of psychology than what the modern cognitive's give.
ea3c8d No.12702
>>12699Clearly. That is why you magic blanket is totally functional and scientific and works.
325cdb No.12736
>>12696I've made some orgonites. They work, I like to meditate with them and Ieave them close to my plants and my water reservoir.
>>12698The source or the story of the info doesn't change the facts/science, it just dresses and presents them, that said that article is better than most IMHO; however there are other resources, such as:
http://www.anti-relativity.com/Just look around the web.
Regarding Reich specifically, there is more to the human psyche then western 'science' will/or can admit without green pilling itself and/or undermining it's profiteering paradigm. (>>>/fringe/, et al., ect.)
Energetic repression can cause dis-ease and unblocking the flow of energy can help or cure it. It need not only be via methods such as that (meditation could suffice) however sexual magics can be extremely powerful.
72ab10 No.12760
Look faggots, either you watch Bill Geade's youtube videos and have your minds blown, or you shit around believing things you think up are actually real.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tI9lijgxjgY e7e269 No.12761
>>6667>Time is the one true universal constant, light is slowed down by gravityYou have it the other way around.
But if you think Einstein is wrong just because he happened to be Jewish, prove his theory wrong
c9aeba No.12764
>>6750I'll pay you with love and kindness.
7ef1ae No.12870
>>6667That doesn't make any sense. If you are a light year away and you set a clock in front of my telescope, the time will be seen from a year ago. Hence, I am looking into the past.
Gravity doesn't even have to be involved for this to happen, just distance. Time can't be constant if it has localized effects.
b666bd No.12884
>>12870Actually, your logic is wrong:
- The times in both regions would be the same;
- You would SEE the LIGHT in the past;
- That does not mean that the clock is in the past.
afebbf No.12971
>>10477>There is 0 unified theory. Or even anything remotely close to it with modern understanding of the universe.This is true, but it's not relevant.
>questioning the very basis of our theories are valid and wholly legit.This is always true, assuming the questions are logically coherent and offer contradictory evidence or even just procedural criticism.
>There is almost zero reason to 'believe' in any current physics theories as being true.Except all the observations made by physicists around the world and the technologies that depend on the principles of these theories, like GPS.
>It is simply a place holder of 'most likely until further information can be accessed and processed'.This is true, but you are glossing over the mountains of evidence supporting the theories.
>Nobody, NOT ONE SINGLE FUCKING SCIENTIST should defend our theories as 'truth' and 'right', much less off offhandedly discard alternate paths of thought and experimentation.Completely agreed.
>Currently science is locked into an almost theological aspect of belief defensive structures when it comes to our 'proven' paths of thought. Which is utterly at its core wrong.Do you have a single fact to back that up?
>And considering the only current hypothesis along existing lines of belief in mainstream science circles is string theory.String "theory" is pseudoscience pushed by shills like Michio Kaku who want to make science sound magical to laypeople.
>Something which wasn't around even in the eighties.Totally irrelevant point. Every idea had to start some time.
>But somehow is now currently the 'in thing' that everyone is suckling at. Despite the number of differing theories, what is it up to now? six or seven competing string theories? And not a single shred of verifiable proofs for any of it. Questionable it and of itself, it outright shows blatant hypocrisy of most mainstream views.Citation on physicists jerking off over philosophical pseudoscience? The physicists I know about run particle accelerators and recently discovered the last particle predicted by the Standard Model.
>Much of the problem is based upon the very idea of 'math' being an thing in and of itself. Math is the tool. Not the truth. Even the very basis of math : 1+1=2, and iterations of it. Can be easily discarded thru dis-associative thought processes which are dependent upon an preconceived goal.Such thought processes are not valid. Math is as robust a theory as there is.
>As such. There is 0 reason that OP is not wholly right. For there is actually 0 verifiable proof that he is wrongExcept for the counterpoint posted by STEMfag above.
>or our current view… is right.Bullshit. Aside from the scientific tests, our rapid advancements in technology in the past few decades are largely due to these theories being accurate models of reality.
>Pure logic bears this out, just drop the assumption of our tool set being right, instead of mostly right (maybe).I'm not assuming our toolset is right. I'm considering the results of the manifold tests to which we have put that tool set.
We're about to get self-driving cars that can navigate based on relativity via GPS.
A couple decades or so, and we'll have computers that can do all kinds of crazy shit because of quantum physics.
The evidence is all around you. :^)
>>FYI not religious, strong atheist so fuck off w that line of reasoning as a counter.I don't buy this.
afebbf No.12973
>>12403>>write equation for predicting the outcome of an event based on prior measurements>>do experiment involving the event>>see if data fits equation>>if yes submit paper>>if no start over>>if no start overThis is the real biggest problem with science. It should be
>if yes submit paper>if no submit paper and start overAside from people trying the same wrong shit without realizing it and stuff to do with funding, this hides 99% of the work from laypeople and makes it easy for them to fall into the trap of thinking people are just making up whatever and going with it. Negative results are just as important as positive ones, and we should have people going through the negative results and organizing them so we know where not to look in the future.
afebbf No.12974
>>12406>it always struck me that special relativity concept was trying to hold contradictions together.Yeah that's because it's special relativity. It only applies to specific conditions. General relativity is the theory that matters as it applies
generally. Einstein hadn't fully worked out general relativity when he published special relativity.
59d95a No.12995
>>6727>it can't be disproven, but we disproved it 7ef1ae No.13012
>>12884And you would measure this how? An inch is the same no matter where I am. Mass is the same no matter where I am. Time is not - hence relativity.
The only way we'd even know that the clocks don't match is by knowing the distances involved. If I know in advance that you're a light year away, then I know setting up a meeting between you and I can follow some sort of protocol.
If you're some massive but otherwise unknown distance away, however, all bets are off. The time component there becomes quite useless.
If you think time is a constant, then show me a time source we can synchronize to that is constant everywhere.
ca7712 No.13050
>If you think time is a constant, then show me a time source we can synchronize to that is constant everywhere.
Pic related.
7ef1ae No.13056
>>13050Nice try, but that only works if I'm at physically at stonehenge or within a tolerable distance of it. I'm talking about a location-independent time source - in other words, a CONSTANT time source. If I'm X number of light years away from stonehenge and you send that picture to me, that won't tell me what time it is where I am because that transmission can only go at the speed of light. It will be delayed.
It's a relative measure given my distance; hence if I'm 1.31235889 light years away and get your signal, then I can synchronize - but that measure is lost if I move relative to those coordinates. The error is not much if the distance is not much, but once you start talking about large distances you have a problem.
That's not a constant source of time. Find me a source of time that does not require also a pair of coordinates.
ca7712 No.13079
>>13056Your twisted words just prove that it is not possible to accurately measure a day when away from the sun. Your inability to measure time does not disprove its constantness. The inability to transmit data long distances does not disprove the constant length of a century. It only proves that it takes time to travel, even if you are light or data.
I emit light, can you see it?
7ef1ae No.13145
>>13079I twisted nothing. I asked for a constant time source. Do you know what constant means? If your source of time varies depending where people are situated, it is *variable*, not constant. You failed to meet the requirements and thought you were being clever, but I explicitly said
>that is constant everywhereKey word: everywhere.
Being at a specific location to measure time, namely stonehenge, is not "everywhere".
>Your inability to measure time does not disprove its constantness.You asserted that time is constant, yet you have provided no evidence that it is. That's your job, not mine. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
>The inability to transmit data long distances does not disprove the constant length of a century.Again, show a constant source of time that will measure a century, and do it without referring to a particular location like the sun striking stonehenge. Demonstrate a constant source of time that is independent of space.
I'm not here to disprove your invisible pink unicorns. Prove them.
ca7712 No.13205
>>13145Now you ask me to show you the source of time. Lmao, show me the source of your ignorance so I can believe it.
By your si units a second is a constant time that is based on a 0 degree kelvin clock. Just use one of those, and common sense, you will see that we here just adjust all our clocks to make them work, cause we can't freeze anything to absolute zero.
How long is a second on earth, if you are in a black hole?
1 second 7ef1ae No.13218
>>13205Again you're back to insisting on co-location in order to establish a coordination of events. It does not work if we're not co-located and are going at different velocities. It doesn't even work if we're going at different velocities and measure at the point we're temporarily co-located.
The proper response to that is to admit time is not a constant, not to ostrich in and say "then don't do that". That (and also not knowing the definition of a physical constant) is what's truly ignorant.
ca7712 No.13220
>Physical constant
>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
>A physical constant is a physical quantity that is generally believed to be both universal in nature and constant in time.
>constant in time.
>constant
>in
>time
implying time is less than constant,
implying you can measure time,
implying we even agree on the definition of time,
implying stars have six points, pic related
245fc4 No.13264
>>12582For those that don't get it
>What is "2nd Opinion?" b5e09a No.13964
>>6756
> I think most people jumping into these kind of conspiracy theories are mostly uninformed people
>>6750
How in the hell did you STEM fags get a monopoly on reality? Also you are huge illiterate STEM fag.
Go read Tractatus Logico Philosophicus you huge faggot.
>It was these sorts of thought experiments
Hurr Durr In my mind its real
You STEM fuckers are less and less observing and make more and more models, predictions and particles.
i.e. my theory doesn't explain X lets invent a goddamn particle.
Mathematicians for example, they aren't scientists, they are artists. Artists with numbers and their theories should be treated as such.
"Numerical paintings".
Don't forget that bluepilled STEM fuck engineers such as yourself enabled allot of suffering on this planet.
Technology is a double edged sword and STEM fuckers happily make tools to sharpen the edge which offers the most money / carreer opertunities.
>inb4 creationist stem illiterate faggot
10y+ experienced industrial engineer.
907078 No.13988
>>13964
>industrial engineer
>half manager half wanna-be engineer
>probably just manages a couple of people holding the title engineer and sometimes counts a differential equation, perhaps once a year
you're not really more STEM than psychology, you know
ca7712 No.14074
File: 1430365296474.jpg (93.3 KB, 1308x800, 327:200, NASA truncated cone Magnet….jpg)
7e0189 No.14078
>>12600
So that's why they're always stealing bikes………
d3e912 No.14098
>>6667
>>TFW time is also affected by gravity.
bc7f07 No.14124
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play. this thread is fucking crazy. OP is not actually that crazy. Theres this thing called the Electric Universe theory.
bc7f07 No.14125
>>14124
oops i ment to post other shit. I've actually stumbled upon this today as well from other jesuit vs zionist threads. I think this book covers it.
https://archive.org/details/TheManufactureAndSaleOfSaintEinstein-ThePropagandaOfSupremacy
bc7f07 No.14126
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>14124
and also this video i found..
Wasnt Einstein against Zionism?
bc7f07 No.14127
>>14126
in this video you'll see Tesla thought Relativity was a joke.
ca7712 No.14148
>>14124
>OP is not actually that crazy.
thanks, I didn't think so either, just a huge faggot is all
>>14126
>Wasnt Einstein against Zionism?
sometimes, maybe, I have found him to be more indifferent to politics than anything else. I have read Zionist letters between him and ?Paul? Epstein (possibly related through jefferey epstein, seymour epstein, MKULTRA pedokike, lolita express… tinfoil)
b20843 No.14426
>>6753
Nice pic.
>mfw solar plasma refractive index.
b20843 No.14427
>>14426
>mfw solar plasma distribution is in layers, like earths atmosphere.
b20843 No.14428
>>14427
mfw solar plasma layers explain Shapiro delay.
b20843 No.14429
>>14427
>>14427
mfw solar plasma layers explain Shapiro delay.
b20843 No.14430
>>14428
>>14429
Oops, double post.
sorry.
ca7712 No.14447
>>14427
>>14428
>>14429
>>14430
apology accepted ;)
Your posts led me to this site, a good read.
http://www.extinctionshift.com/SignificantFindings.htm
https://archive.is/k4PQa
MFW they teach in schools that matter has three states.
>liquid
>solid
>gas
no plasma
ca7712 No.14448
File: 1431187671960.gif (14.89 KB, 442x342, 221:171, SolarBending_ImpactParamet….gif)
460008 No.14492
>>7024
>>7024
>Maybe you should shut up with your retarded observational bullshit.
Proof you're a kike. Critical thinking and the empirical method of thought are used in conjunction with what one has observed to find out the truth about reality. It's for that reason that the modern kike acedemia is full of lies with the kike hoax of heliocentrism being foremost among them.
871afd No.14502
>>7877
Being batshit scary and inventive don't sound like they're mutually exclusive.
871afd No.14504
>>6892
Just imagine the same effect applied on a human; it would change the perception of time relatively to others, just like it affected the clock.
If everything acts and moves as though time is slowed down, then I see no reason to say that it isn't. It's equivalent either way.
The point of the OP implies that while "time" moves at a constant speed, everything that depends on time instead has a multiplier caused by gravity. So instead of s=v*t+a*t^2/2, it would be s=v*m*t+a*m^2*t^2/2, where m is typically almost 1, but may be lower in cases of extreme gravity.
This is one way of viewing things, and it would mean the speed of "time" is constant, but it complicates many formulas. Instead, it would probably be easier to change the definition of t so that it is equal to the integral of m from the starting timeframe to the current timeframe, which would be equivalent to saying that the speed of time depends on whatever m depended on, which is gravity.
But then again, it doesn't really matter as the way everything moves is equivalent regardless of what assumption you make about the flow of time, due to the nature of time; this is an entirely different matter, but you could for example even assume that time flows backwards and everything would still be the same to us.
89d927 No.14556
>>12870
>Time can't be constant if it has localized effects.
u serious nigga? its like saying that watching a movie from the 80s right now would mean that 2 times coexist at the same time which is not possible… time is a measurement tool based on the rotation of the earth since we humans created the concept so its centered on our existence.
89d927 No.14557
>>14556
>2 times coexist at the same time
Do u see the logical fallacy I made by trying to imagine 2 different times at once?
fc2b1e No.14561
>>7057
>Consequently human satellites, including the ISS, are just bogus.
And this is why we don't discuss science on a politics board.
460008 No.14562
>>14561
Why is that, kike? Human sattelites don't exist and are a delusion of kike academia. IIt's impossible for these subhumans to send any structure into the heavens and not have it turned into slag or other equally adverse effects from occurring.
a1d321 No.14586
>>14562
Nigga, I hate the jews as much as the next redpill, but you clearly don't understand even orbital mechanics let alone the more complicated shit.
A thought experiment for you. Take a ball and attach it to a string. Now spin around in a circle. What happens? The ball flies around you in a circular orbit.
But wait! According to your assertions:
>>7057
the string is providing a constant force on the ball in the direction of you, so with no counteracting force the ball should fly towards you correct? So why doesn't it in the real world?
It goes back to the difference between speed and velocity which you so naievely described as pedantic. You see acceleration is a change in velocity which, as you've mentioned repeatedly, is a vector. Vector's carry a magnitude AND a direction. Changing either is a change in the vector, therefore an acceleration. This type of acceleration has been well documented and understood LONG before "die juden" had any involvement in science at all.
If what you described were true and speed and velocity were interchangable at the same numeric values, you could be walking forward at 1 m/s and then magically be moving sideways at 1 m/s without any force, acceleration, or energy change because the numbers are the same right? Directionality would have no meaning, shit would be flying everywhere. Still dont believe me? Spin in a stationary circle without pushing off something or using your muscles for force generation. Directional change IS acceleration therefore force.
Also, I realize this is trolling, this post is for the benefit of any /polpol/ readers who haven't been exposed to enough physics to overcome the confusion of your BS.
da5029 No.14588
>>14586
>but you clearly don't understand even orbital mechanics let alone the more complicated shit.
Not ingesting kike puesdo-science actually shows that I have an inherent understanding of the world around me which is why I reject the nonsense pushed by you kikes.
>Take a ball and attach it to a string. Now spin around in a circle. What happens? The ball flies around you in a circular orbit.
Which proves nothing you moronic kike. You're implying that kikestiens theory of relativity is correct and that the heliocentric model is true. Obviously they're both completely false and only a subhuman continues to defend such unscientific triteness.
9c8fa1 No.14599
>>14588
>heliocentric
>implying Copernicus was a kike.
I think we all know who the real Jew is here, Chaim.
6305fd No.14600
>>6667
Time depends on gravity and speed
460008 No.14623
>>14599
>If you refute a kike hoax then you must be a kike
Only in the delusional head of a kike could such a retarded sentiment be produced. It's also noted on your lack of an argument to refute the accusations leveled against heliocentrism, but instead made a weak attempt to imply you're not a kike and discredit the opposition. Naturally only a subhuman would be swayed by such shit tactics which is why you posted them. Obviously you realize if you tried to support such an idiotic theory you'd be trounced and your inferiority would be apparent even to your subhuman brethren. Ofcourse with your recent shitpost you're not faring any better.
a44bd7 No.14624
>>14623
>Not realizing that jewish science is also against heliocentrism.
71b9f9 No.14631
>>14126
>>6749
>>6744
>>6692
>>6679
Pic for your records.
Also, Einstein was a convenient pacifist… until dos ebil bastids in Germany stood up against his fellow kikes.
Then all-of-a-sudden he was %100 Team A Bomb.
Some more info:
THE GREAT TESLA ON EINSTEIN & RELATIVITY
"Einstein is a beggar dressed in purple clothes and made king using dazzling mathematics that obscure truth"…
"Relativity is a massive deception wrapped in a beautiful mathematical cloak.”
"The theory of relativity is a mass of error and deceptive ideas violently opposed to the teachings of great men of science of the past and even to common sense."
"The theory, wraps all these errors and fallacies and clothes them in magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king. Its exponents are very brilliant men, but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists. Not a single one of the relativity propositions has been proved."
"Relativity is a beggar wrapped in purple whom ignorant people take for a King."
Want to know more?: http://www.tomatobubble.com/einstein.html
There's even a poem by Tesla containing:
Too bad, Sir Isaac, they dimmed your renown
And turned your great science upside down.
Now a long haired crank, Einstein by name,
Puts on your high teaching all the blame.
And it's not just about Tesla's opinions on Einstein. Some really good stuff.
460008 No.14632
>>14624
>>14624
Heliocentric trash is overwhemingly pushed by kike academia. How could any intelligent being make the statement that the heliocentric model isn't the only universal model accepted by the kikes? It's obvious that no thinking creature would spew such retardation which means you're a subhuman. Literally all kike propaganda in regards to the sciences push heliocentrism.
71b9f9 No.14633
>>14631
On the other hand, here's a quote by Einstein pretty much admitting that he knows Antisemitism is justified.
71b9f9 No.14635
>>14634
and one on his preference for socialism.
Hmm. A Jew, who likes socialism. What a rarity.
15ea47 No.14644
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
What do you think of Thad Roberts?
http://www.einsteinsintuition.com
ca7712 No.14658
>>14650
thank you (see pic)
f57f56 No.14670
This thread and OP's weird philosophical pseudoscience pisses me off to no end, but I find it comforting to see the state of free speech on /polpol/
The very fact that he is able to express this and receive valid criticism instead of a ban is what makes chans great.
e09e39 No.14688
>>6667
>time flows at a constant rate
>gravity doesn't bend time
top kek this nigga high yall
ca7712 No.14689
ca7712 No.14709
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
"All the theories collapse, when you can't see the stars in outer space"
838596 No.14730
>>10555
On 20 December 2013, the UN General Assembly 68th Session proclaimed 2015 as the International Year of Light and Light-based Technologies (IYL 2015).
http://www.light2015.org/Home/About.html
ca7712 No.14757
every circle has two things, a center and a circumference, correct?
we know pi, right?
pi is not a real number, pi is infinite irrational, right?
therefore, a circle with a real number radius, will have an infinite irrational circumference.
and vice versa, if the circumference is a real measurable number, than the radius will be irrational.
circles do not fit in 3d space rationally.
therefore circles are not real.
kikels btfo
a9f629 No.14762
Did anyone of you even consider that the Jews are responsible?
1bca6c No.14777
>>14757
That sounds like a parody of you more than anything. Besides, the point to pi is to calculate mathematical circles, it is simply that it has practical application to things that are circular ENOUGH.
ca7712 No.14793
>>14777
I am glad you get my sarcasm.
I like to find ratios. Here's one for everybody.
The ratio between the area of a pentacle and the radius of the circle it forms.
Area = r^2 * 1.123~
I'll post my work another day, it uses trig, pi, and phi. I like phi.
ca7712 No.14955
>>14650
I archived this. Then /pol/ got whacked.
Stem is not all there is
https://archive.is/lyTvN
4d42c1 No.14986
That is a conman operating like Sarkeesian. So beware when listening to his half-truths.
cba7ca No.15025
cba7ca No.15026
didn't mean to link post.
vid leads to more redpill.
cba7ca No.15027
aa5150 No.15028
>>6667
>>14670
It's still pseudoscience that should be laughed at. But you're right, he gets every right to claim it.
460008 No.15042
>>15028
It has just as much validity as the garbage pushed by kike academia.
ce2d29 No.15055
>>15042
>>15042
Anon, communication and navigation satellites only work because relativity works.
be3c3f No.15131
>>12540
>atomic clocks
gravity affects atomic processes yes, not time
do it again with mechanical clocks and call me back
41bce4 No.15493
>>6750
>STEM is really the only academic branch that had been vaccinated from postmodernism.
>vaccinated
>kikecines
hi kike. stopped reading there. And no, STEM is not immune to kikes. Maths yes, because there really nothing to threaten kikes in maths. Science does massively threaten kikes though. In fact its a huge global operation to prevent the spread of science and tech, and destroy it where it already exists, both its theory and its application. Science and Tech enrich the goyim's societies, and kikes hate that. Most of the suppresion in theoretical science is in biology, and large amounts of physics. Chemistry theory is not that suppressed, but its application is suppressed.
btw mods : the adverts on this board freeze my firefox, plz get rid of them, else u are kikes trying to destroy this board.
6d5950 No.15502
>>15493
>btw mods : the adverts on this board freeze my firefox, plz get rid of them, else u are kikes trying to destroy this board.
Since you are using Firefox, you may as well use either Policeman or uBlock to remove ads. Also it's not the board mods that decide advertisements, HW does.
716cca No.15604
>>14124
christ that guy is fucking retarded
>hurr the only difference in between stellar, micro, and super massive black holes is da size and da ajjectives
>hurr white holes are perceived to exist by the majority of the scientific community as such making fun of them says jack about black holes
>i learned the word quasar but not what it means
>our detection of pulsars which confirm the existence of neutron stars totally don't support black holes
>wat is an accretion disk
fucking moron, 3 minutes in and every word out of his mouth has been wrong
c686f7 No.15605
To put my general two chips in, you can redifine the universe and disagree with the current theories and attitudes as a house of cards, but these things are best done from a spiritual or external perspective. When you're disagreeing with scientific treaties and laws solely because you think the undercurrents of it run against your political ideology, that's when you start to become the same sort of bullshit like those feminist/marxist critiques of our known science saying shit like how E=MC^2 is homophobic and patriarchal. That's when you start engaging in unproductive and masturbatory nonsense.
bc7f07 No.15619
this is one of the most interesting threads i've ever seen. i had no idea about the electric universe theory till a few weeks ago cus of this thread. Im really interested i just wish i could understand it more right now. Im just impatient.
bf890f No.15627
>>6701
>>6892
He's saying the clocks have different times because the difference in gravity at the two places.
The clocks did not "experience" different amounts of time
The clocks measured different amounts of time.
Similar to how we can perceive time to move faster or slower; its just our measurement of it that is different; time does not move slower or faster, ever.
Especially at different points in space. Makes no sense.
bf890f No.15628
>>6727
>the existence of ether has been tested in all possible known fields, tried to be measured with every measurement tool we had, and nothing was able to prove that such a reference "substance" existed in the void.
just because we can't measure it doesn't mean it does not exist
>most scientists consider it futile as there is no way to prove one way or the other, it is a false theory
just because its beyond our understanding doesn't mean that it doesn't exist
>>6757
> other reference frames will not observe it the way you do.
you're arguing against yourself. different perceptions, different measurements of time.
time itself still flows at the same constant rate
>>6766
shill.
jewish propaganda IS NOT SCIENCE. even if u call them scientists
>>6898
>they have proved
oh. ok. well then "they" must be right
bf890f No.15629
>>14556
TIME EXISTS OUTSIDE OF OUR PERCEPTION/MEASURING OF IT
EVERYONE HERE THAT SUGGESTS TIME A. ONLY EXISTS AS A TOOL WE INVENTED
B. WOULD NOT EXIST WITHOUT OBSERVATION
is either:
1. A SHILL
2. A RETARD
3. BLINDED By HUMANISM
3c5bba No.15652
i watch a room full of "great minds" wet themselves over the idea Einstein may be wrong about the speed of light, based on some data from Italy. Turned out someone didn't plug in the fiber-optic cable all the way.
Invent a hyperdrive Anon and I'll believe you're right, otherwise you are as bad as a string theorist.
22db98 No.15842
a2c27e No.15919
>>14793
>I am glad you get my sarcasm.
>I like to find ratios. Here's one for everybody.
>The ratio between the area of a pentacle and the radius of the circle it forms.
>Area = r^2 * 1.123~
>I'll post my work another day, it uses trig, pi, and phi. I like phi
9cd559 No.16951
>>6667
Thank you anon
Phi and pi can enhance lives.
Nikola Tesla said it best - Science must improve humanity if it to be taken seriously.
Im an engineer, but wish I would have studied electrical engineering but these days its a lot more computer languages ect..so I am not interested in virtual electric engineering which is more like electronic engineering to me…
9cd559 No.16952
>>6686
>no proof
>some ultra rare ubersmart superwoman did it all
Maybe so, it is all a billion dollar useless marketing scheme of confusion anyway at this point.
Pagan gods are the people. Odin and Thor are Scandinavian men, Mars and Jupiter are Romans, Seth and Ra are Egyptians.
They're worshipping and glorifying their own history and accomplishments.
9cd559 No.16953
9cd559 No.16954
>>15628
Nice replies
Pwnd rekt ect.