Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 11:11:15 UTC No. 16300220

Yes, yet they want funding to identify dark matter which by definition is not detectable.

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 11:19:26 UTC No. 16300226

>>16300220
Depending on what it actually is, it is detectable, just very difficult to detect.

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 11:22:03 UTC No. 16300227

>>16300226
>what it actually is
Do they even know what it actually is? All I see are nonsense speculation because dark matter doesn't exist

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 11:31:13 UTC No. 16300231

>>16300164
Yeah variable made up to reconcile theory with observation is a psychological operation. Any more takes for us?

B00T at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 11:31:41 UTC No. 16300233

It's a common misconception that insects carry disease, they're actually a very productive and very useful waste moderating and eating species with bodies that reduce and are immune to disease. They even have utility for humans that are around them. Somewhere there are normal sized insects(not small or tiny), like our animal sizes. We have tiny insects.

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 11:58:30 UTC No. 16300255

>>16300164
As a concept that can't be verified or falsified dark matter is interchangeable with God.

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 12:12:43 UTC No. 16300269

>>16300226
No version of dark matter is detectable. Measurements of phenomena are inconsistent with the known models of physics. That implies the model is wrong. Either the model must be modified to include a new form of matter, or the model should be discarded for a new one. I actually advocate for the former. But this doesn't imply dark matter is detected. Rather it's just a way to quantify anomalous data

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 12:36:50 UTC No. 16300292

>>16300164
It's almost like all of physics is fake but I don't know for sure, I'm not an expert

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 12:38:58 UTC No. 16300296

>>16300164
>literally can't observe it in any way possible
But you can. It just doesn't interact electromagnetically.

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 12:46:50 UTC No. 16300303

>>16300226
If you've failed to detect it after a set period of time any logical and non biased observer would conclude it is undetectable. Likely due to the fact that it doesn't exist. Dark Matter had decades and decades to prove the theory and have failed and burned money by the ton. Every year, week, and day that passes with still no proof of DM is more proof against DM. Everyday I wake up and see no DM breakthrough on /sci/ is another day I'm proven right. Men in fancy lab coats with fancy paper on their wall in frames with fancy fiat money paychecks....and they are all retarded faggot ass grifters. Frauds, balls and chains around the neck of scientific progress. The worst type of people, people with the talent to do good but only preform evil for profit. Countless such cases.

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 12:48:15 UTC No. 16300305

>>16300303
I dunno man, the TT power spectrum and BAO's are pretty strong evidence for me.

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 12:55:27 UTC No. 16300312

>>16300305
Your just the type of well read retard that loves DM. You get some esoteric "data" and now you're 112% on the Darm Matter cult band wagon. None of your "proof" is really proof. I read research papers and am fairly smart. It's obvious to me how astronomers dance around the truth and put forth a rose colored vision of what THEY WISH WERE TRUE and go out of their way to ignore or extremely downplay any logical issues with their theories. Like DM's huge flaw, it might all be explained away with the more likely result that we are just wrong about gravity.

Dark Matter and gravity are both intertwined and we know nearly nothing about gravity. So what we know about DM is basically nothing. All we know for sure is there is an error in the math and you claim the error is due to mystery magic matter that defies logic and common sense. I claim it's a human error and our feeble monkey brains trying to understand the universe that is too big to understand. Which is more likely? It's more likely the monkeys in suits and lab coats got it wrong....like they always get it wrong.

There is no Dark Matter, only retards in lab coats with their hands out for money.

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 13:00:52 UTC No. 16300315

>>16300312
Yes

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 13:02:19 UTC No. 16300316

>>16300312
>Your
>am fairly smart
lol
>we know nearly nothing about gravity
We know quite a lot about gravity, it's just that GR isn't a UV complete theory, which means we don't understand GR at high energies, but it's totally fine to understand gravity in the low energy regime.
>It's more likely the monkeys in suits and lab coats got it wrong
Okay, so can you give me something that explains the TT power spectrum as well as Lambda-CDM?
>There is no Dark Matter, only retards in lab coats with their hands out for money.
You seem real mad.

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 13:12:07 UTC No. 16300324

>>16300269
The current best hypotheses for dark matter candidates are a class of particle or particles that interact through gravitational as well as the weak and/or strong nuclear forces. We already know of several particles that do this (neutrinos, quarks), but have yet to identify one with sufficient mass or abundance to account for the amount of mass that would be necessary to explain observations of large scale gravitational interactions like galactic rotation curves or galaxy cluster collisions.

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 13:13:48 UTC No. 16300326

>>16300324
It's called gravitational lensing

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 18:14:54 UTC No. 16300627

>>16300227
It would only be nonsemse speculation if the candidates for dark matter weren't detectable right now, but they're actively testing for candidates, so it's just hypotheses that they're looking to prove or disprove, depending on the results of the tests. The main one that the community is interested in right now is called the axion.

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 18:19:50 UTC No. 16300636

>>16300164
dark matter and dark energy are one of the funniest things soience has come up with and is the final proof anyone needs that the mainstream is nothing but a religion. They may as well just blame god since it is literally the same concept lol

imagine being so dumb you believe in dark matter and energy. Absolutely retarded. You guys aren't that stupid are you?

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 18:25:19 UTC No. 16300646

>the world is made up of MATTER
>what about anything not made of MATTER?
>We'll call it...... DARK MATTER
>Marvel Studio logo splashes on the screen
literal cartoon level shit
might as well say there's WATER and call lava EVIL WATER

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 21:53:22 UTC No. 16300958

>>16300164
>literally can't observe it in any way possible
You can though, how else do you think we know its there?

Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 07:25:58 UTC No. 16301510

>>16300164
Half-Life is my favorite game

Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 08:39:39 UTC No. 16301543

>>16301510
>Opens /sci/
>Sees a post that happens to include an image portraying Gordon Freeman
>Deploys opinion on Half Life

Chad

Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 15:34:06 UTC No. 16301913

>>16300164
It's either dark matter or MOND, gravity falls into the same canttouchability so we are in a trap here, suggestions?

Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 17:13:59 UTC No. 16302034

Dark Matter is a reminder that scientists only care about empiricism when it supports how they want the universe to be.

Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 17:23:23 UTC No. 16302044

>>16300164
>>16300303
>>16300312

Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 17:24:18 UTC No. 16302047

>>16300226
This is 21st century alchemy

Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 17:51:41 UTC No. 16302087

>>16301543
>>16301510
the black mesa remake is top tier too

Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 18:03:28 UTC No. 16302104

>>16300227
>Do they even know what it actually is?
Dark matter/dark energy is just a placeholder term for "the reason the math doesn't work". The whole point of it is that no one has a solid idea what it is

Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 18:04:18 UTC No. 16302109

>>16302034
Dark matter models have been validated empirically, by making new predictions of astronomical and cosmological tests. The most spectacular is the fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background, which cannot be explained with any amount of normal matter. But it was predicted by cold dark matter. Modified gravity models can only explain the data with ad hoc fitting.

Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 20:27:12 UTC No. 16302364

>>16300627
my masters professor had worked on axions during his PhD, that was 80s maybe early 90s. It's not conclusive.
>>16302104
Maybe maths is incomplete, and the introduction of a new kind of matter is unnecessary.

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 15:07:26 UTC No. 16303356

>>16300164
It was cope to save the dumb big bang/evolution religion.

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 15:24:57 UTC No. 16303378

>>16300164
>>16300220
>>16300226
Isn't dark matter literally just an unknown variable they throw in to make their equations add up?

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 15:48:54 UTC No. 16303391

>observe the power spectrum of the CMB. could be explained by dark matter
>observe anomalous galaxy cluster velocities. could be explained by dark matter
>observe anomalous gravitational lensing. could be explained by dark matter
>make models of galaxy formation. don't work without dark matter
>it's the same amount of dark matter to solve all these problems at once

gee I wonder why CDM is the dominant model

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 04:35:29 UTC No. 16304194

>>16302364
Axions were mathematically notable in the 80s and 90s, yes, but that was for a different reason. They're still mathematically notable.

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 06:18:20 UTC No. 16304276

>>16303391
anything can be explained by dark matter
>why does the earth orbit the sun?
>because earth travels around the sun in a tube made dark matter and its pushed by a big choo choo train made of dark matter

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 06:55:45 UTC No. 16304329

>stemfags finally hit metaphysics
>ITS NOT REEEEEAAAAALLLL NOOOOOOO MY INSTRUUMEEEEEENTS
lmfao

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 07:32:30 UTC No. 16304386

>>16301510
I prefer it to HL2. Something about things going very wrong at a black budget government research facility is so appealing.

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 07:44:12 UTC No. 16304394

>>16300324

Another theory I heard is dark matters are invisible mini black holes spread throughout the universe

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 12:31:28 UTC No. 16304547

>>16304276
>t. literal retard

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 13:15:45 UTC No. 16304582

>>16300164
>but you can't see it
>can't hear it
>can't touch it
>can't smell it
>literally can't observe it in any way possible
That's exactly the same what science says about souls, yet they claim one exist and the other doesn't

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 16:01:20 UTC No. 16304713

Dark matter works in mysterious ways, chud

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 17:25:25 UTC No. 16304783

>>16304582
>>literally can't observe it in any way possible
Read the rest of the thread before replying, anon.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 05:19:22 UTC No. 16305514

>>16304713
It magically appears anywhere that the evidence of the fallibility of St. Einstein, the jew god of the scientism religion, also appears.
However if St. Einstein's theories are not disprovable, then they are not scientific theories.

🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 16:50:47 UTC No. 16305984

>>16300164
A lot of scientists don't want dark matter to be real and have been trying and trying, for decades, to come up with a model of gravity that explains everything we see without dark matter. They have failed thus far.
No one considers dark matter to be 100% conclusively real beyond a shadow of a doubt, it is widely understood to be hypothetical, but's it's still the best explanation we have

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 16:54:40 UTC No. 16305989

>>16300164
A lot of scientists don't want dark matter to be real, they have the same issues with it as you, they feel it's unfalsifiable, and they have been trying and trying, for decades, to come up with a model of gravity that explains everything we see without dark matter. They have failed thus far.
No one considers dark matter to be 100% conclusively real beyond a shadow of a doubt, it is widely understood to be hypothetical, but it's still the best explanation we currently have

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 01:36:36 UTC No. 16306451

What's the Zorich of algebra

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 23:31:35 UTC No. 16307786

>>16305989
>they have been trying and trying, for decades, to come up with a model of gravity that explains everything we see without dark matter. They have failed thus far
Must be pretty humiliating for scientists not be able to come up with any explanation that doesn't make them look like liars and idiots. I can't even imagine LMAO

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Aug 2024 11:25:28 UTC No. 16308341

>>16301510
same

Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 03:42:03 UTC No. 16309343

thunderbolts project is right once again!

>>16301510
its in my top 10

Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 03:43:35 UTC No. 16309348

>>16305989
>but it's still the best explanation we currently have
horseshit
electric universe solved this shit decades ago

Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 03:47:45 UTC No. 16309354

>>16300227
>Do they even know what it actually is?
no.
physicists will freely admit this. it's not a secret. we don't have a complete understanding of reality yet. we have models that describe large portions of reality to a high degree of precision but have large enough gaps that we know there's more to learn. "dark matter" isn't a specific thing, it's a label for one of those gaps. we have a pretty good description of that gap, and some candidate explanations, but it's still an open question.

Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 03:48:12 UTC No. 16309355

The universe is a simulation and the math changes according to scale. Simple as.

Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 03:58:15 UTC No. 16309368

>>16300164
No, is not.
The universe is already heavily colonized, so much that near all dark matter are advanced civilizations hiding themselves far away from galactic cores to avoid extermination.
Western civilization is being dismantled, and humans are being replaced by inferior beasts to prevent further technological development.

Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 04:07:06 UTC No. 16309378

>>16300164
>>16302044
if "the math doesn't add up" then what's actually causing all this shit?

Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 04:23:13 UTC No. 16309387

>>16309378
Like I said, the universe is a simulation and shit doesn't add up because the computers are saving on processing power. Like in a video game, shadows will render at a lower resolution the further they are from the observer to the point where they don't render at all. The universe is finite and shit only happens when observed. The laws of physics are arbitrary.

It only looks complicated to us because it's the only reality we know. The real universe would be considerably more complex but we would have no idea. Platos cave and all of that.

This is as good of an explanation as dark matter or string theory. Both of which require a bunch of unproven made up bullshit to work.

Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 04:28:53 UTC No. 16309393

>>16309387
>Like I said, the universe is a simulation
I need an explanation that's more believable than DM, AT BEST this crack pipe shit is a sidegrade.

Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 05:09:23 UTC No. 16309430

>>16309348
There is no specific scientific theory called "electric universe".
The closest thing, plasma cosmology, does a much worse job of explaining observations of astrophysical phenomena than Lambda-CDM (dark matter).
There have been very few papers supporting plasma cosmology since the mid 90s. This is because it is considered worse science, not because Big Dark Matter™ is paying everyone to ignore it

Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 05:15:33 UTC No. 16309434

>>16309430
I figured its because its career suicide

Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 05:26:00 UTC No. 16309438

>>16309434
If it's career suicide, that's because it's worse science. It's a theory that doesn't match or predict or model what we see in the universe, while another better theory (dark matter) does.

Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 05:30:28 UTC No. 16309441

>>16309438
okay, I was willing to engage honestly but you're not, so this is pointless

Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 05:37:29 UTC No. 16309449

"Dark matter" is real but it's really just regular matter in parallel universes which spatially overlap with ours.
For as-yet unknown reasons, the force of gravity can pass between universes or between dimensions or whatever you want to call it, while other forces such as electromagnetism cannot

Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 05:42:16 UTC No. 16309454

dark matter was jewed into existence in order to explain how galaxies are held together when gravity alone cant explain it
well electromagnetism holds them together just fine
the james webb is vindicating the electric universe people pretty hard right now and here and there scientists are starting to say things to go in that direction
its just a matter of time until it hits mainstream acceptance (though I worry our civilization will collapse before then)

Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 05:55:23 UTC No. 16309469

>>16300164
you can interact with it through gravity

Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 06:01:18 UTC No. 16309474

>>16300164
Not going to bother fighting you as you are merely a dumbfuck who doesn't understand science.
Fighting dumbfucks is like trying to teach a pig to sing.

Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 06:02:11 UTC No. 16309477

>>16309474
somebody's a dumbfuck

Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 17:43:12 UTC No. 16309949

>>16309454
>the james webb is vindicating the electric universe people pretty hard right now and here and there scientists are starting to say things to go in that direction
Fucking lel. That never happened. Do you know why? The electric universe people aren't capable of even making testable predictions for JWST. They don't even agree among each other what redshift is. So how are they going to predict how many high redshift galaxies JWST should see? They cannot.


>well electromagnetism holds them together just fine
Not really. You have to assume that all bodies within the galaxy have the same specific charge, by some massive coincidence.
All they have done in this area is show that if you assume the whatever currents you want you can get something that sort of looks like a rotation curve. That's just replacing dark matter with dark currents. They didn't even bother to test if these currents could actually exist in real galaxies. Which they could test using magnetic field measurements of galaxies. Which they never bothered to do. The EUers as always are completely disinterested in real observations.

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 07:12:52 UTC No. 16310657

>>16309949
>The electric universe people aren't capable of even making testable predictions for JWST.
just straight-up lying I see
scumbag

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 07:14:27 UTC No. 16310661

>>16310657
Couldn't help but notice the lack of testable predictions in your post.

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 07:17:12 UTC No. 16310662

>>16310661
you're bad at seeing them at all; bias and all that

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 07:20:08 UTC No. 16310666

>>16309387
Ah, but have you considered the dark g-string interpretation of the universe?

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 07:57:31 UTC No. 16310694

>>16310657
Ok, link us to these very real predictions.

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 09:04:59 UTC No. 16310722

>>16300164
>but you can't see it
>can't hear it
>can't touch it
>can't smell it
>literally can't observe it in any way possible
This also applies to vaginas in your case, will you claim they don't exist?

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 09:15:42 UTC No. 16310729

>>16310694
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_4rO7iqxFE

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 09:26:30 UTC No. 16310732

>>16310729
Please summarize these predictions.

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 09:41:10 UTC No. 16310737

>>16310732
just watch the video, you asshat
you might learn something

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 09:47:44 UTC No. 16310740

>>16310737
I see nothing that is an objective prediction for JWST. If I have missed something then list them. The three videos together are an hour, I'm not wasting my time watching all that.

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 09:59:21 UTC No. 16310745

>>16310740
okay little denial boy, run along now

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 10:03:14 UTC No. 16310748

>>16310745
Come on, list them. What are you afraid of?

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 10:06:32 UTC No. 16310750

>>16310748
I refuse to bow down to your intellectual dishonesty and laziness

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 10:30:39 UTC No. 16310768

>>16310729
So this is the only prediction in the entire video:
>So, my first prediction is that the James Webb Telescope will support Halton Arp’s research, which shows plainly that high-redshift quasars are born in pairs and emitted in oppositely directed jets, along the spin axis of a low redshift active galaxy. They are not at the edge of the visible universe.

No wonder you were to cowardly to put this out there in text. There is nothing objective about this. No numerical prediction, no criteria for failure or falsification. It's also not an electric universe prediction, they're just pointing at Arp's ideas (not-EU) and saying more of that.

And also JWST has blown a hole in this idea. Under Arp's high redshift quasars should evolve into lower redshift galaxies. It should be close to a low-redshift parent galaxy which ejected it. Arp would not expect a group of galaxies at the same redshift as the quasar, since that intrinsic redshift is purely a function of the quasar.
Standard cosmology on the other hand says that redshift is proportional to distance, and quasars are hosted in massive galaxies. So we expect a group of galaxies at the same redshift as the quasar, this the quasar's galactic neighborhood. Quasars are at cosmological distances and we should find other galaxies clustered around them at the same redshift.
And in multiple fields JWST has seen this. Pic related is the field around a redshift 6 quasar, where JWST found 10 galaxies at the same redshift. In another quasar field it found more than 24. High redshift quasars are strongly correlated with high redshift galaxies, as predicted my the standard model. Not predicted at all by Arp or the EU.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.09894
https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.08254

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 11:18:54 UTC No. 16310806

>>16310722
I can see them on google.com

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 17:55:41 UTC No. 16311136

>>16310750
asking you to explain things in your own words is intellectual dishonesty
way to blow yourself out dude

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 18:07:01 UTC No. 16311148

>>16310750
Wow you got blown the fuck out >>16310768

Anonymous at Tue, 6 Aug 2024 00:37:29 UTC No. 16311606

Matter is a spook

Anonymous at Tue, 6 Aug 2024 01:52:17 UTC No. 16311665

>>16310768
>>16311136
>>16311148
samefag

Anonymous at Tue, 6 Aug 2024 01:56:35 UTC No. 16311670

>>16311665
idiot

Anonymous at Tue, 6 Aug 2024 02:08:50 UTC No. 16311680

>>16311670
hurr durr edited

Anonymous at Tue, 6 Aug 2024 05:41:05 UTC No. 16311832

>>16311665

Anonymous at Tue, 6 Aug 2024 07:22:29 UTC No. 16311913

>>16310737
>>16310729
>>16310657
Well, what do you have to say? You bitched and whined that I had to look at your video. But as soon as I post a response to the content you vanish without a word.
None of this can be called a scientific prediction for JWST. There is nothing specific to JWST, or even quantitative.
There are absolutely zero predictions for high redshift galaxies on any topic, as I said the electric universe lacks a real cosmological model needed to make such calculations.
This is why these videos are so bloated, because they're trying to obscure the lack of substance. Most of it is just preaching to the converted, going over EU dogma without actually saying anything new.
You would think that with such a revolution of JWST and the decades of development, that the electric universe crowd had ample time to pull their collective thumb out their ass and actually used it as an opportunity. But no.

Anonymous at Tue, 6 Aug 2024 10:49:37 UTC No. 16312048

>>16300164
Dark matter does not exist indeed. You can read about MOND if you're interested in an alternative hypothesis.

Anonymous at Tue, 6 Aug 2024 10:50:56 UTC No. 16312051

>>16311913
>that I had to look at your video
no refunds!

Anonymous at Tue, 6 Aug 2024 12:32:46 UTC No. 16312117

>>16310729
This was a bad example; he really does only make one prediction in this video and its right at the end, most of the video is like a history lesson or refresher.

>So, my first prediction is that the James Webb telescope will support Halton Arp's research, which shows plainly that high-redshift quasars are born in pairs and emitted in oppositely directed jets, along the spin axis of a low redshift active galaxy.
He then goes on to say some related but not truly relevant stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jx-RPQY-eo&t=0s

>I predict that the James Webb space telescope with its vast improvements in sensitivity and resolution, will reveal the existence of the connecting network fo helically twisted filamentary pairs and braids even more clearly. We will discover helically twisted filament pairs and braids everywhere we look. I make the same prediction for the square kilometer array and the extremely large telescope

---

>I predicted in 2008 that dim red stars will appear as giants.

---

>The telescope should confirm that all brown dwarfs are gas giant sized bodies enclosed in a huge red anode glow.
...
>Brown dwarfs are simply small red giants.
...
>Like their giant brothers, brown dwarfs can be expected to show the same behaviors, and like red giants, have an unexpectedly strong stellar wind for such a cool star.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvA3IRWBBus&t=0s

There doesnt seem to be any predictions made in this one, at least that I noticed.

Anonymous at Tue, 6 Aug 2024 12:42:43 UTC No. 16312128

>>16311913
That was a lot of words to say basically nothing.
I dont think theyve ever said that there aren't/won't be any high redshift galaxies.

Anonymous at Tue, 6 Aug 2024 12:43:45 UTC No. 16312131

>>16300164
>literally can't observe it in any way possible
But its effect literally can be observed.

Anonymous at Tue, 6 Aug 2024 12:44:53 UTC No. 16312132

>>16303378
Maybe dont trust memes made by 4chan retards and do your own research.

Anonymous at Tue, 6 Aug 2024 12:46:00 UTC No. 16312133

>>16312131
Somethings effects can.

>>16312132
I thought we weren't supposed to do our own research and were supposed to trust the experts.

Anonymous at Tue, 6 Aug 2024 14:18:30 UTC No. 16312217

>>16312128
>I dont think theyve ever said that there aren't/won't be any high redshift galaxies.
Not what I said. These galaxies all around the quasars are specifically at the same redshift. Arp claims quasar redshift has nothing to do with distance and is just an internal property of the quasar (intrinsic redshift). There should be high redshift galaxies but they should be at random redshifts.

>That was a lot of words to say basically nothing.
Then you didn't understand. If you'd like me to remove the big words please say so.

Anonymous at Tue, 6 Aug 2024 14:23:58 UTC No. 16312223

>>16312217
I think he claims that redshift period has nothing to do with distance, not just quasar redshift. Regardless, a few examples of quasar attached to or very near a galaxy having the same redshift doesnt make a rule.

Anonymous at Tue, 6 Aug 2024 14:27:00 UTC No. 16312231

>>16312117
The first stuff about Arp isn't even an EU idea. They're just pointing at old claims (with many problems the ignore) and saying more of the same. They haven't managed to make any new prediction of Arp's ideas specific to JWST.

>I predict that the James Webb space telescope with its vast improvements in sensitivity and resolution, will reveal the existence of the connecting network fo helically twisted filamentary pairs and braids even more clearly
Higher resolution telescope should get higher resolution images of something they already claim to see. Wow. This is the level of "prediction" from the electric universe.

>The telescope should confirm that all brown dwarfs are gas giant sized bodies enclosed in a huge red anode glow.
Hasn't happened. He has not defined how this should be determined. Not defined what "red" even means, or what size or brightness it should be. It is basically untestable without this info. This is the only real "EU" prediction and it's completely vague.

And then he goes full schizo and starts talking about his moronoic claim that gravity is the electric force. Many of the EUers themselves know this idea is stupid and a non-starter, but here you see Wal's total unwillingness to think about the ideas he promotes.

There you have it. An hour of hot air titled "JWST predictions" and it could be summarized on one sentence. Note they have made precisely zero predictions about high redshift galaxies. So the next time there are sexy JWST results about early galaxies or black holes, dont claim the EU predicted this. The truth is they didn't even try. They never claim to be surprised because they are frauds.

Anonymous at Tue, 6 Aug 2024 14:30:20 UTC No. 16312235

>>16312231
>Higher resolution telescope should get higher resolution images of something they already claim to see. Wow. This is the level of "prediction" from the electric universe.
bad faith
you shouldnt do shit like this

>Hasn't happened.
I get the feeling you aren't a trustworthy source about this, kek.

This is pointless.

Anonymous at Tue, 6 Aug 2024 14:35:23 UTC No. 16312242

>>16312235
>bad faith
>you shouldnt do shit like this
Not a rebuttal. Their exact words "even more clearly".

>I get the feeling you aren't a trustworthy source about this, kek.
Prove me wrong. If it had been discovered you can bet the EU sites would be shouting it from the rooftops. So why don't you go as see for yourself.

Forced typos at Tue, 6 Aug 2024 14:42:20 UTC No. 16312251

Geological dating bad

Anonymous at Tue, 6 Aug 2024 14:51:53 UTC No. 16312262

>>16312242
is phys.org not a trustworthy site?

Anonymous at Tue, 6 Aug 2024 14:56:50 UTC No. 16312272

>>16311913
You looked at his dumb dogshit video and gave him a view. That was the ultimate goal. Like sheeeeit dude, can you imagine if this guy >>16312128 was ACTUALLY a proponent for "electric avenue" or whatever and not just a no-stakes view grifter? That'd be fucking EMBARRASSING

Anonymous at Tue, 6 Aug 2024 14:57:00 UTC No. 16312273

>>16312262
They literally just copy and paste press releases from other sources. So not particularly. Whether the article they post makes sense depends on who actually wrote it. And note that press releases themselves can be misleading, if in doubt look at the paper.

Anonymous at Tue, 6 Aug 2024 14:57:07 UTC No. 16312274

>>16300227
Most Christian scientists theorize that Dark Matter is God and the remaining 5% measurable matter is Satan.

Anonymous at Wed, 7 Aug 2024 14:26:46 UTC No. 16313459

>>16312274
>Christian Science
LOL