/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11474079
Cue the EU retards

>>11474079
He tried so many different constants, that even one gram of sand is now a constant. It's valued one gram of sand.

>>11474079
Hard to say there are numerous interpretations and most the people on this board are too dumb to understand any of them. Like this mid wit >>11474083

Personally I think the equipment wasn't sensitive enough as the Silvertooth experiment published in nature later concluded. However I have seen a counter to that conclusion even, done by Doug Marett (whom I have spoken to personally) attributing the results to an x factor. I didn't get into all the technicalities enough of his experiment and paper to make a decision for myself because I already know the aether is a conclusive fact not up for debate that you can prove in other ways so the results of this experiment on the aether question are moot as far as I am concerned.

I have heard Michael Tellinger put forth this premise, it proving Earth was stationary and though I do enjoy his work he is not as diligent with some of his assertions as he should be at times, which is fine because he never claimed to be a scientist and what not. He spearheads a lot of "alt research" academia won't touch and is right about the most important parts big picture wise but for highly technical things like this I would always fact check him. I personally didn't fact check this as it not very important to me, however I do know the Vedic system supports this. From one interpretation anyway, again same deal here I haven't tried to personally verify this interpretation for myself to form an opinion but you are welcome to review it for yourself if you like.

Here is a link. You can skip the reading if you want and go straight to the video as it contains everything in the article and more with graphics etc.
http://esotericawakening.com/the-sacred-cosmology

>>11474355
the Vedic system supports a geocentric solar system btw, not a stationary Earth, afaik anyway, just to clarify

>>11474079
Well, aether was never proved nonexistent but the fact that it was not needed. CNB is now thought as the aether of the beginning of last century by an increasing number of scientists. So who knows, we may need to revise it.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278177063_The_Cosmic_Neutrino_Background_as_Aether

>>11474369
To elaborate on this, the later experiments of these kind yielded that there was no "aether wind" which could mean there was no aether or that aether had no lag in itself meaning it was always stationary. Recent papers have theorized neutrinos may exist as a superfluid, therefore exhibiting properties consistent with the later.
https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0407164

>>11474079
Also here is Doug's work in a Forbe's article
https://www.forbes.com/sites/briankoberlein/2018/04/06/the-tale-of-a-1986-experiment-that-proved-einstein-wrong/#158b0df23ed3

sorry about the multiple posts but as I said people are dumb and I honestly believe they lack the capability to even be able to google his name to find it, as I the stupidity on this board never ceases to amaze me. Nothing personal to you OP,

>>11474392
I had also come to the conclusions that it displays the properties of a super fluid. Of course this is obvious, to us anyhow because we in the modern world we know what a super fluid is and the aether would obviously have to be one, but in the past this wasn't the case. Calling a super fluid makes it easier to explain in modern scientific jargon for zoomtards. A conscious super fluid

>>11474079
Its definnetly not constant

>>11474527
It is, 299792458m/s

>>11474355
Stop spamming your shitty blog, schizo.

>>11474551
seethe more wannabe hack

>>11474408
>A conscious super fluid
Conscious as in what?

>>11474591
?
http://esotericawakening.com/what-is-reality-the-holofractal-universe

>>11474355
>>11474554
You can't call otherwise a wannabe hack when you yourself are the moron hack retard

>>11474627
>REEEEEEEEEE
You are a pleb with a sub par IQ. You are nobody and nothing and would never even hear this topic discussed with the morons you spend your time around because they are as stupid as you. You are a laughing stock to real scientists such as myself. Your butt hurt and jealousy makes me lol. Ty it will make me lol all day thinking about it

>>11474633
shut up incel

>>11474639
Yah I am right over the target and we both know it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4QfHdcMeEc

I know you sit on this website all day with your sadness and loneliness and anger at how you can never amount to anything in a world where people's knowledge and intellect dwarfs yours and you are incapable of original ideas or proper understanding of information you consume.

I also know this is your typical contribution to a thread, nothing, because you possess no knowledge of any value you instead try and spread your misery and loneliness with strangers because no one irl is interested in knowing or being around you.

I don't normally like to kick losers like you when you are down because your life is suffering enough but I know you sit on here all day running your mouth providing nothing, so you made it too easy.

Once again thanks for lolz. I am empath and reading you was entertaining and you know as well as I do I got you pegged : )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4QfHdcMeEc

>>11474639
btw I am grown man and have banged more women than I can count who you would cut your left nut off to sleep with not some social outcast, angry little fuck wit like you incel. I imagine you project quite often in an attempt to mask your feelings of inadequacy

>>11474079
Neither. Did you even try to read any article in it before posting here?

It simply shows there is no stationary aether.

>>11474651
Sure you did, schizo. Any more delusions of grandeur you'd like to share?

>>11474829
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4QfHdcMeEc

>>11474639
shut up glownigger.

>>11474551

>>11474355
What is an x factor?

>>11474079
why is this thread so bad? i’d the EUtard tactic now to post pseud shit and then try to make it seem legit by having a bunch of nonsense replies in order to deflect from their objective absolute wrongness?

>>11476207
Tertiary variable not originally defined or expected. In this case the temperature

Do they not teach x factors in 101 science courses anymore? What the fuck academia is a joke

>>11476207
actually periphery would be a better term as you could have many variables I suppose in the experiment but generally in experiments you are looking for a one to one relationship, cause-> effect so tertiary is valid 99% of the time but not every time I suppose.

>>11476241
I dropped out of high school in the 11th grade.

>>11474079
it disproved the assertion that there existed an ether

>>11476262
ahh ok no worries

>>11476262
Want the example they used when I was in Uni? P good one due to its well known idiom

>>11474079
you're not ready for this information yet.

maybe i'll tell you later, if all goes well.

>>11476271
ok

>>11476276
If I ask I am ready

>>11476417
wrong.

there are more eyes on this thread than your own. and THEY are not ready, thus YOU are not ready, savvy?

>>11476452
So you want to keep this knowledge secret? Just spit it out, if brainlets can't understand it they will be filtered out. And it's already in the wrong hands(satanic elites) you may as well just say it out in the open.

>>11476563
>And it's already in the wrong hands(satanic elites) you may as well just say it out in the open.

>>11476415
Ok I am sure you have heard of the saying "It's raining cats and dogs". Well why would someone say that, what sense does it make?

This saying comes from Victorian England and the reason is came about was because every time it rained hard there would be cats and dogs falling from the sky. So was it raining cats and dogs?

Here we have two variables, variable A = rain, variable B=animals falling from the sky. Is A the cause of B? Yes but indirectly.

During the Victorian era buildings were built pretty close together and during the fall and during the early spring when the weather was cool animals would get on top of the roofs to huddle next to the chimneys for warmth, so when it rained hard they would slip off the rooftops and fall off the buildings.

So did A cause B? Yes but directly the x factor or x variable was the chimneys being used for warmth. So whenever you hear someone talk about an x-factor in science it means there is a previously unknown variable that was effecting the results not what was suspected before the experiment was conducted.

>>11474079
We won't know until the experiment is repeated off-world on the moon and elsewhere. This is something that physicists could do, but won't because - as they admit themselves - it would jeopardise their careers. They would also be killed for attempting it.