d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Science, Technology & Nature > The Electric Sun -july 3rd 2013
Prev156789Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 13,829
Joined: Apr 15 2006
Gold: 367.00
Jul 10 2013 08:45am
Quote (doomchaser @ Jul 4 2013 01:45pm)
maybe everyone else is lol sure i am crazy stoned ....But seems soo logical to me why would you not take it as a possiblity? think we know soo much we know it all even though the fusion theory alone cant solve a lot of things we see>?


Bro. Wtf do you smoke?
Member
Posts: 17,045
Joined: Jan 29 2007
Gold: 6,032.83
Jul 10 2013 09:07am
Quote (bigbrd222 @ Jul 10 2013 07:45am)
Bro. Wtf do you smoke?


I am high on charged particles, not a vacuum as we once thought space was...but it is full of charged particles..Gravity is not the strongest force in nature..
Member
Posts: 6,759
Joined: Jul 8 2007
Gold: 0.00
Jul 10 2013 12:56pm
Quote (doomchaser @ Jul 10 2013 09:07am)
I am high on charged particles, not a vacuum as we once thought space was...but it is full of charged particles..Gravity is not the strongest force in nature..


You realize saying stuff like this is part of the reason why no one takes you seriously, right?
Member
Posts: 28,331
Joined: Jun 9 2007
Gold: 11,700.00
Jul 10 2013 06:00pm
Quote (doomchaser @ 10 Jul 2013 14:36)
substance you ask for? you mean like dark energy to make a equation work? we can make the equation work without making names up for stuff we don't know is out there...Substance of the unkown does not make it science..


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/substance

sub·stance
[suhb-stuhns] Show IPA
noun
1. that of which a thing consists; physical matter or material: form and substance.
2. a species of matter of definite chemical composition: a chalky substance.
3. controlled substance.
4. the subject matter of thought, discourse, study, etc.
5. the actual matter of a thing, as opposed to the appearance or shadow; reality.


please read those definitions and consider which one fits best with my post

/hint it's not #3
Member
Posts: 17,045
Joined: Jan 29 2007
Gold: 6,032.83
Jul 10 2013 08:15pm
Quote (brmv @ Jul 10 2013 05:00pm)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/substance

sub·stance
[suhb-stuhns] Show IPA
noun
1. that of which a thing consists; physical matter or material: form and substance.
2. a species of matter of definite chemical composition: a chalky substance.
3. controlled substance.
4. the subject matter of thought, discourse, study, etc.
5. the actual matter of a thing, as opposed to the appearance or shadow; reality.


please read those definitions and consider which one fits best with my post

/hint it's not #3

you did not catch the meaning of what i said did you?
5. the actual matter of a thing...?? Something you may consider what is the actual matter of dark energy? you Don't know but accept it to make a equation work..
...Space is not just a empty Vacuum like we once thought but full of charged particles...Magnetic fields are created when a electric current flows...
lol tell me what the meaning of subtance is lmao..
Member
Posts: 28,331
Joined: Jun 9 2007
Gold: 11,700.00
Jul 10 2013 10:05pm
Quote (doomchaser @ 11 Jul 2013 02:15)
you did not catch the meaning of what i said did you? no worries, unfortunately i did
5. the actual matter of a thing...?? Something you may consider what is the actual matter of dark energy? you Don't know but accept it to make a equation work..
...Space is not just a empty Vacuum like we once thought but full of charged particles...Magnetic fields are created when a electric current flows...
lol tell me what the meaning of subtance is lmao..


in this context it was clearly "4. the subject matter of thought, discourse, study, etc."
and thank you very much but no need to explain to me that there is no perfect vacuum
Member
Posts: 17,045
Joined: Jan 29 2007
Gold: 6,032.83
Jul 11 2013 09:56am
Quote (brmv @ Jul 10 2013 09:05pm)
in this context it was clearly"4. the subject matter of thought, discourse, study, etc."
and thank you very much but no need to explain to me that there is no perfect vacuum


subtance of a electric universe? We know electrical currents exist when there is magnetic fields...there is your subtance...now do your homework and prove to yourself something else..Or just take in all they teach you as fact..
Member
Posts: 10,812
Joined: Oct 15 2009
Gold: Locked
Warn: 20%
Jul 11 2013 01:25pm
For those of you who don't know: When doomchaser says "electric universe" he is talking about a crackpot "model" of the universe where gravity is not important and the driving force of the universe's evolution is the electromagnetic force. Of course, I'm being generous by giving it the title "model", since it makes no predictions, and contradicts just about every observation ever made....

They typically complain that cosmologists don't consider the electromagnetic force when calculating the force between 2 astronomical bodies. Of course if they had done these calculations themselves they would see what the rest of us already know: it is almost 0. They content that the laws of electromagnetism are incorrect, but never provide an alternative method for calculating the force, or even experiments where the standard methods of calculating give incorrect answers. In other-words, they are talking out of their asses.

In real science, when you want to show that a idea or method is incorrect, you simply just show that it makes predictions which do not match experiment, that is all you need to do, however the "Electric Universe" crackpots (like doomchaser) whine about how Tesla got a raw deal, and how science is a conspiracy, instead of actually doing the hard work.

This post was edited by Azrad on Jul 11 2013 01:27pm
Member
Posts: 17,045
Joined: Jan 29 2007
Gold: 6,032.83
Jul 11 2013 04:06pm
Quote (Azrad @ Jul 11 2013 12:25pm)
For those of you who don't know: When doomchaser says "electric universe" he is talking about a crackpot "model" of the universe where gravity is not important and the driving force of the universe's evolution is the electromagnetic force. Of course, I'm being generous by giving it the title "model", since it makes no predictions, and contradicts just about every observation ever made....

They typically complain that cosmologists don't consider the electromagnetic force when calculating the force between 2 astronomical bodies. Of course if they had done these calculations themselves they would see what the rest of us already know: it is almost 0. They content that the laws of electromagnetism are incorrect, but never provide an alternative method for calculating the force, or even experiments where the standard methods of calculating give incorrect answers. In other-words, they are talking out of their asses.

In real science, when you want to show that a idea or method is incorrect, you simply just show that it makes predictions which do not match experiment, that is all you need to do, however the "Electric Universe" crackpots (like doomchaser) whine about how Tesla got a raw deal, and how science is a conspiracy, instead of actually doing the hard work.


Like the string theory model ...takes a few generations for people even look at as a {model} for now believe there is no knew understanding of things and keep that light off. I think these two models can co exist when the old one not so well..Time for a new light be turned on

This post was edited by doomchaser on Jul 11 2013 04:07pm
Member
Posts: 54,736
Joined: Jun 5 2006
Gold: 1,463.83
Jul 12 2013 12:51am
Quote (Azrad @ Jul 11 2013 11:25am)
For those of you who don't know: When doomchaser says "electric universe" he is talking about a crackpot "model" of the universe where gravity is not important and the driving force of the universe's evolution is the electromagnetic force. Of course, I'm being generous by giving it the title "model", since it makes no predictions, and contradicts just about every observation ever made....

They typically complain that cosmologists don't consider the electromagnetic force when calculating the force between 2 astronomical bodies. Of course if they had done these calculations themselves they would see what the rest of us already know: it is almost 0. They content that the laws of electromagnetism are incorrect, but never provide an alternative method for calculating the force, or even experiments where the standard methods of calculating give incorrect answers. In other-words, they are talking out of their asses.

In real science, when you want to show that a idea or method is incorrect, you simply just show that it makes predictions which do not match experiment, that is all you need to do, however the "Electric Universe" crackpots (like doomchaser) whine about how Tesla got a raw deal, and how science is a conspiracy, instead of actually doing the hard work.


wow doomcheeser got #rekt hard here...
Go Back To Science, Technology & Nature Topic List
Prev156789Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll