You're all wrong! According to Wikipedia: _Electric Universe is the thirteenth studio album by Earth, Wind & Fire, released in November 1983 on Columbia Records._
Wow ... is it therefore a steam powered universe .. ? like a Victorian universe ? Do I need a top hat ? .... please say yes .. this sounds like the best universe so far ... sign me up In 1899 Charles Duell, US patent office, said "everything that can be invented has been invented." So ... that’s it then
@@LeeGee I met a Professor of evolutionary biology who legitimately supported the flat earth theory and used his degree in biology in an argument from authority in order to claim himself superior in all ways to anyone who did not subscribe to his misguided ideological presuppositions. That wasnt even the best part, he also argued with me that oxidative phosphorylation is a false process created by big pharma to pump hormones into our children to cause them to hit puberty more quickly. He claims puberty in humans around used to occur in their early to mid 20's. I will never forget that pretentious little man or his thrift store knockoff Nietzsche moustache. When he made the comment about Ox Phos being a lie i cited mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation thermodynamic efficiencies study involving ATP production with the brain liver and heart and i was told to progress further than a masters degree in biomedical engineering. I never said i was taking bio med or that i had a degree. Ive never met someone who was concurrently infuriating and hilariously delusional. One of my most treasured memories right there. You couldnt script a funnier dialogue.
As someone who is studying mechanical engineering, I propose the universe is in fact a giant mechanical orrery that simulates all mechanics of the universe through higher-dimensional gears
As somebody who works in construction, I propose the universe is all built. The she of the observable universe is obviously just because of shipping delays for equipment. Like in Hitchhiker's a guide to the Galaxy
As somebody who sucks at school and has zero understanding of anything that takes more than 2 braincells to comprehend, I propose the stars are the actual gears
As a gardener, i propose that the universe is a tree that grows hence the expansion and that stars are just bugs and the planets it's fruits. But my hammer keeps telling me the universe is a nail. He says that about everything though.
This isn’t flat earth, it’s the electric universe It’s still a pseudoscience hoax, but it’s a different idea Many Electric Universes followers don’t believe in a flat earth Edit: I see that your referring to the beginning of the video I get that :3
He should employ the strategy of explaining how curiosity is good, how they can make something useful of it, and how the earth could be flat from a very specially warped perspective... Maybe one where we counted in base Pi, and our cars had 3.141 unPi wheels.
Going after flat earthers and EU proponents is still like shooting fish in a barrel, though. The latter barrel might be a little murkier on the top or have fewer fish, but at a certain point it becomes like beating a dead horse or kicking someone when they're down or when Jared Leto's getting wailed on in Fight Club. It would be sort of funny if the EU people managed to find out something, though not revolutionary or debunking of Einstein, but still useful or heretofore unknown (or maybe forgotten recently) with all the money and time they're dumping into studying electricity and plasma devoid of any other ideas. With people like Puthoff getting involved with some of the EU folks, though, that increasingly looks unlikely, and their crack pottery quality seems to be solidifying. Those who have been promoting this stuff really should be the ones making these sorts of videos debunking their own views to save their reputation... like the crack pottery barn rule.
I would have loved to see one of those local trustees idly trying to pick up a coin with a magnet while one of those people are ranting, then stick the coin to their forehead.
@@EmeraldArchive nah man we've also landed men on the moon, split the atom, and created powerful computers that have advanced our quality of life. That's like saying "some uneducated serfs in the time of Newton thought the Earth was flat, therefore Newton's genius is to be ignored and in fact the serfs represented the worth of human society at that time"
When Prof Dave said that some physics knowledge was needed to debunk this ridiculousness, I thought it would be graduate level theory. Thankfully it was just highschool level physics.
Think you might be overestimating modern high schools... Like I can't effectively debunk electric universe talking points because it only plays offense, and gish-gallops, and engages in what aboutisms constantly. I would need the actual physics and history of science in front of me to effectively argue against it, and even then they'll call me brainwashed by the Newtonian institution. Takes a lot to talk down stupid is all Im saying XD
@@notthis9586 i mean, here in europe, at least under a british education system this is all secondary school physics: 12 year olds know this stuff as basic syllabus.
@@aidanmatthewgalea7761 in the US public school doesn’t have physics till late high school, last 2 years (3) if your ahead, and even then you don’t have to take it. I never took physics instead opting for higher level chemistry and biology. So for many people like me who weren’t interested in physics at the time we get our physics from UA-cam
@@sean5364 Wow this is strange. I heard that university courses in US are highly difficult. How do people cope with that if they didn't have physics until high school? I'm assuming that people from the US find college a lot more challenging than high school because the gap would be so huge.
He mentioned flat earth within the first 10 or so seconds, and the algorithm reads the auto generated subtitles (and also description) to get an idea of these topics.
@@revenevan11 I got briefly shot down by an automod this way the other day, for talking about how idiotic (as well as ugly) "Darwin Award" jokes are with regard to the pandemic. "You're agreeing with us too explicitly!"
@@moarsaur It's not "idiotic" to call out people who so fiercely oppose basic public health guidelines that they inadvertently cause their own deaths. Didactic is a better word because it's hopefully a teachable moment for all the other covidiots who still have a chance to save themselves from the same fate by just getting the damn vaccine already (before it's too late). They're the only ones getting the hypothetical "Darwin Award", in that case. If someone's grandmother who is vaccinated happens to get covid and dies of it, that is, by definition, not a Darwin Award. You have to cause your own death, willfully, in order to qualify. That's stipulated in the entire premise of Darwin Awards.
@@StochasticUniverse It's idiotic because it reflects nearly as misinformed and simplistic a view of the pandemic as that espoused by the people you're wishing dead.
@@BenGrem917 All due respect, Cani: The Theory of GR fails from the beginning, mathematically speaking, because it changes "zero" into infinity. Any mathematician not afraid to tell the truth, will resond...
@@atum7355 you talk like a midget with a butterfly brain. The energy out of safire as sun model gives approx the same energy as Jupiter, 145K at the surface. Last I checked the temperature of the sun was 6000K. So no I am not a midget, I am an Engineer with basically the same education in physics and math as Bachelor of Physics. Thrust me when I say no sane Ph.D in Physics, Math or Engineering believe in the 3:rd most stupid conspiracy theory, after flat earth and young earth creationists. Go back to school.
"Earth, Wind, & Fire's “Electric Universe” album in 1983 broke a string of 11 straight gold or platinum LPs and led to a four-year hiatus. During the break, group members Maurice White and Philip Bailey worked on separate projects and, mainly, sought to revitalize their creative energies." I believe there may be a copyright issue here.
It was a whole thing back then apparently. Brazilian singer and composer Tim Maia released in 1975 an album titled "imunização racional" (rational imunization), following a cult that claimed bitter, angry, sorrowful people were all badly magnetized and needed to discharge so they could recover their health. Not surprised to hear Earth, Wind and Fire had a similar career patch less than 10 years later, since it is still close and these things hunt for artists like the scientology bunch
Because there are anomalies that General Relativity alone can't account for and think it's bullshit how many 'dark' fudge factors are added to make the equations work, even though that's literally the scientific process to refine your model to match observations more accurately and figure out why your model doesn't work without these modifications. They are also pissed tax dollars are being spent on research that is not yielding enough results, even though eliminating possible explanations is literally how science advances in order to get closer to the actual explanation. Their shortcomings feed their already inherent distrust of the establishment because it doesn't line up with how they think the world should be. The sad thing is they completely miss out on the fact physicists are the first to acknowledge the limits of our current theories and that a lot of work is left to be done, as well as taking the assumptions that they do as assumptions and not facts they base their work off of and will quickly readjust them should any evidence come up to suggest them to do so.
@@ThatCrazyKid0007 _"They are also pissed tax dollars are being spent on research that is not yielding enough results"_ Like how we just managed to punch an asteroid and take a sample or how we managed to get a probe closer to the sun than ever before even during pandemic lockdown? Yea, those things sucked didn't they? I mean we landed on the moon around 50 years ago right? And we still haven't figured out the entire origin of the universe in that time? How lame is that? I mean cancer research started around the 1770's and there's no way that cancer is more complicated than the start of the universe right bro? We totally need a new approach because there's no way that humans shouldn't have this figured out in like 6 months right bro?
10:24 "All charges cancel out". They certainly don't in plasma. Plasma can form counter rotating stacked double layers where one layer is negative, the other positive.
That's why a plasma "acts" like a "magnet", with a dipole. And "magnetic" type forces decrease really fast with distance. I keep being vague because if you understood your own comment, you wouldn't have posted it.
@@AlcyonEldara "That's why a plasma "acts" like a "magnet", with a dipole." No, it doesn't. Wheree did you get that from?! "I keep being vague because" Because you know yourseld that you write nonsense. "if you understood your own comment, you wouldn't have posted it." Pot. Kettle. Black.
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 hilarious coming from a moron who doesn't even understand the notion of Debye length. At distances way larger than this length, a plasma is electrically neutral and has a magnetic field. The end.
I assume you're joking but there are indeed people who are ancient aliens types who think they're part of some landing area for spaceships, and that they're beacons or guidelines for the incoming ships
Except EU does and here's the best part: EVERY LECTURE IS AVAILABLE FOR FREE AND ONLINE OPEN-SOURCE FOR EVEN TRIPLE -VAXXED DRONES LIKE YOU ÀND THE CREATOR to cling to your dogma.
I can't believe decades after Galileo, capernicus, and other amazing break throughs we have there are still people who believe the earth is flat. I have 2 pieces of proof that anyone can test. First climb a mountain, many are reachable without technical gear and from the summit you can see the curvature of our beautiful earth. I know this because I've seen it several times. Second get a cat. After a few months of owning a cat you would realize that if the earth was truly flat cats would have knocked everything off the edge by now
@@ProfessorDaveExplains my apologies, I was watching a sci man dan video and near the end was writing that comment, the auto play UA-cam generator played your video and thus my comment was added to both simultaneously. I can understand your frustration, the whole idea of flat earth is as irritating as a ill fitting sock in your shoe but you are too busy to fix it. However I did subscribe to your channel as well because I love learning from my betters. I've noticed that once I understand a subject I assume others must know it too because its now simple for me to understand. You do a great job of avoiding that, and understand that it may be a little difficult for some people to wrap their mind around a foreign concept. Thank you for the awesome vids
you have to be 100km above earth's surface to see the curvature (which does exist) You can however watch a boat go over a horizon (I think you would use a Nikon P900000)!
I think we are living in a chocolade universe. Because for some reason I am - and most people I know - definitely attracted to chocodlade... Granted there seems to be a link to gravity, because I become heavier and heavier when I eat it. Mhhh. I going to do some more research, I guess...
@Q - AGEIDO Some weird things are happening. For instance, the attraction apparently is not depending on the distance at all. I also am attracted to choclade even without knowing where it is. Currently, I am trying to prove that the Sun is actually a large chunk of hot choclade.
I'm not so sure . The more chocolade that I attract the more females I seem to repulse . There seems to be an equal & opposite relationship between the two phenomena . As you say more ingestion of chocolade is required for research purposes
What's really funny is, that's exactly how they feel about us. The true allure of 'flat-earth' is; "I have special knowledge you don't". Imo, it's just a tool insecure people use to feel better about themselves.
Tinfoil hatters like them do a massive disservice to Tesla. He was a legit scientist who briefly entertained the idea of wireless power at a time when that was legitimately within the realm of theoretical physics. It no longer is. He wasn't a "prophet", he was brilliant, but a man of his time.
@@NetHacker100 IIRC Tesla had proposed a system of wireless power transmission on a city-size scale. It doesn't work (in any practical sense) due to the inverse square rule.
Came here from PBS Spacetime! Glad you've made this video, these people drive me crazy in the comments section on any Spacetime video that even tangentially involves dark matter or electromagnetism or gravity, so I'm very excited to hear your take on the psychology of them and this belief.
Likewise stopped by after the ZTF J1901+1458 video. Now, if I'm understanding the info on magnetic fields correctly, the galactic magnetic field may be a factor in *where* gas concentrations form, but once enough gas is there, gravity takes over the production of the new star and its proto-planetary disc. Which unfortunately, might be enough "evidence" for EU'ers. Sigh.
Coming from PBS Spacetime and never having heard of this theory before I had seconds to prepare me to what it was and I just started imagining what kind of bs they would be pushing through. Turns out what I imagined was (at least to me) much more interesting than this, so I will share, because maybe someone will find interesting. So my bs theory of electric universe, was that much like magnetism is "rotational" electricity, maybe gravitation is also derived from them; it is like the sum of the higher order interactions (like rotation of magnetism, and rotation of rotation of rotation) and so on, and those forces combined, which have a much smaller magnitude, give something that behaves like gravity. It is similar to the idea of feynman diagrams (with the infinite sums thing), so maybe this will have some allure. Also you can argue that even though sums of interactions of single charges cancel out, once you take into account interactions of dipoles, quadripoles and octopoles, they stop cancelling out perfectly, and there would always be a statistical residual. I am pretty sure you can even come up with some maths to justify this bs, so there you have it, my bs theory.
@@justinkennedy3004 If you actually look at the link he only has one paper, books are not peer-reviewed. It is not cited by anyone from a NASA center, there is one citation from someone who lists their affiliation as "Geo Cosmo Science and Research Center", which is based in a NASA research park. This a private company unaffiliated with NASA which leases space. It is totally wrong to claim he has paper*s* cited by NASA, both are aspects are false.
Man, that part about reading textbooks was so relatable. I’m outlining my chemistry textbook and there’s so much about quantum mechanics that I had no clue about. Just looking at the equations and how they’re derived gives me the same feeling that I get when looking through a telescope at night. It’s difficult to see at first, but your brain really does begin to make those connections between math and science. And when it does, it’s awesome!
i mean math is just a tool we use to quantify logic. like we normally think of logic as just "if then, then that", but math lets us put that type of logical thinking into actual quantities and shit. its basically teh same thing.
I remember just the feeling you describe in my Waves and Optics course sophomore year of college. It’s like the veil of reality has been lifted and you’re allowed to see behind the curtain.
I just find it amazing that the eggheads can visualize hypothetical ideas purely with math. Like how Einstein visualized how time slows down around you at the speed of light, and made an equation that explains it. I don't get how math can describe specific things like that, but the fact that it can is astounding. I wish I wasn't completely hopeless at understanding mathematics so I could experience your epiphany.
i almost fit that definition(with the exception of science-illiterate) perfectly, and i'm definitely not a flat earther, or antivaxer, or feminist, or libertarian, or drumpf supporter, or anti-gmo, or creationist.....i feel ike i should really take offense.....but somehow i dont feel offended....
23:06 Why did he use the Fallout guy showing the middle finger and slap "EU" to on it it represent someone who believes in the Electric Universe? It seems so out of place.
Thanks to Matt at Spacetime for sending me to this channel! The only downside is that I now know that this ridiculous, vaguely sciencey, conspiracy theory exists. But, its always good to be reminded to keep a healthy scepticism when faced with extraordinary claims.
Those people frequent many other astrophysics or science channels, including Dr. Becky and Anton Petrov. I like seeing those channels giving them a little pushback, and Dave does it in a fittingly sarcastic manner
@@earlysda I genuinely can't imagine a rational human could watch this video in it's entirety and come to that conclusion. The only explanation is that you didn't actually watch the video.
That was a close call, thank the self proclaimed science gods the excess fluoride and the all pervading omnipresent nonstop propaganda successfully cured you from independent thinking and prevented you from developing discernment or into an autonomous free individual instead of a sheep!
So a couple of weeks ago, PBS Spacetime posted a video about magnetism on galactic scale. This week, Professor Matt gave this video a shout-out in response to all the EU nuts claiming that he was validating their fraudulent cosmology.
@@BrighamMike Are EU nuts religious? I know they are just a step up from flat earthers in scientific literacy but I didn't think they were necessarily religious?
@@ddegn religious in the sense that they blindly hold onto un testible theories like an extreme devote person might. (Not looking to insult the religious just comparing their devotion to a belief. )
@@ddegn and sorry saying god of the gaps isshorthand further looking for the smallest place to say mytheory fits there. Or using that small gap to attempt to invalidate anything
@@pastramilover1012 your comment made me curious so I looked it up. "Electric Universe" is a psychedelic trance project from Germany formed in 1991 (Wikipedia). Sorry mate, the names taken!
I knew nothing about this before the conspiracy nut in my life, mentioned it in an arguement we had over whether gravity is real. I got the impression then that he was just mashing science words together. So good to know he was doing just that.
I feel bad for tesla, his character has been so butchered in history that he will end up being remembered completely differently and his actual work gets forgotten
I do as well, anyone going around quoting Tesla while at the same time trying to allege that gravity does not exist, is NO fan of Tesla at all nor understand that he believed in gravity as was working on his _Dynamic theory of gravitation_ unpublished work he kept periodically talking about.
@ThisAintKyle I think you are confusing EU theory with the related but different theory of Plasma Cosmology. And yes I already did a little bit of research into this as I am skeptical person and check sources. This video was in regards to EU theory NOT plasma cosmology. And more specifically it was in regards to videos from The Thunderbolts Project. From their own webpage it states this right on its home page "Was there a big bang? Not likely. Einstein’s Relativity? Doesn’t hold up. Is the Sun a thermonuclear fusion reactor which will eventually run out of fuel and burn out? Nope. Are there black holes? No such thing." Looking into it further on what all it claims, states this "Magnetism, gravity and the nuclear force are various effects produced by charged, orbitally structured protons and electrons in response to an applied electric force. All matter in the universe is connected by the electric force." This is all confirmed with another website electricuniverse. In other words no it does not deny gravity per se, it is saying what we know and call gravity really is not gravity at all. Instead it is allegedly electromagnetic force. So it is indirectly denying gravity .. or at least as we know it. And yes I do regret it because it is complete and utter BS. This implies that everything in the universe MUST be a conducter (whether good or bad conductor) and we know that simply is NOT true. As an engineer with physics, you should know that IF this crap were true that we should easily be able to detect that electric current flow ... yet we can not. You should also know that IF this crap were true we would see different results of gravitational pull with good conductors vs bad conductors ... yet once again that is not the case. Let alone it should not impact non-conductors at all. For example does gravity pull more with conductive copper and less with bad conductor of pure water? Nope. It simply does not hold up even on the very basic level of its suggestion. Now there might be something to some of those other theories such as plasma cosmology, but I kind of doubt it. Tbh physics is not strong suit of mine, so no point in dwelving into such complex things such as plasma until I know physics better ... which just doubt will do as there are tons more interesting things to me. Unlike electric which I do know quite a bit more ... enough to know this is pure BS. I do however partially agree with its main premise that electricity plays more a part than we are aware of, piezoelectrics is all around us and I think more important than we currently realize ... but significant role uhm NO. And it definitely does not replace other forces such as gravity like this theory suggests. If it were so significant role we would be seeing it and detecting it, but we simply do not.
@@AngryHateMusic AHHAHHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA 48 minutes of conformation bias, misinterpretation of basic grade 8 cosmology and erroneous conclusions. I had to facepalm a couple of times through that video. This has been done before, and explained way better with much less need to play games of dictionary and obfuscation to push a narritive. I think tesla would dropkick these guys off of his electricity distribution tower.
Does electromagnetism affect planetary and solar system formation? Yes it does, compare that to gravity and it's nearly negligible. I am open to the theory that there is a single unifying force holding the universe together... Could there be a single force that accounts for both gravity and electromagnetism? Yes. But that unifying force has not yet been described and gravity MUST be a part of that equation. You can call it whatever you want. If you dig down deep enough, gravity and electromagnetism might be lesser effects of the same force. Right now we don't know. My guess is that there is a unifying force, we're just waiting for some supergenius to have an "aha" moment.
@@sandornagy1565 The evidence is all the research on gravity and EM we have to date. In order to believe in EU you need to forget what we know about EM and then insert magic woo.
@@cursedcat6467 It is a question uneducated idiots ask, My daddy thought everything organic was good. You could serve him frog poison or botulism, and he would be happy. I love him but he isn't smart.
@@dedskin1 Electrical Universe is just a load of scientific sounding words put together in random order. It has as many scientific papers as flat earth, it has as much science behind it as flat earth, it has as much predictive capabilities as flat earth. It is just con men trying to sound scientific.
Pavle Pavlovic It's a good thing NASA's work is just a small part in all the astrophysics, astronomy, heliophysics and cosmology research. At least your comment shows that you don't know what you're talking about...
@@dedskin1 pls tell me something about plasma. Anything. I'm sure u just know nothing about the physics behind ist. And while u are thinking about reading the wikipedia also answere the following: how do u come to the idea of lightning bolds creating hexagonal patterns when hitting something not conducting like the moon?
This seems to be a great debunking, however I love nit-picking: You explained the need to comply with Newtonian gravity on our usual scale, which is obviously given. However, you kinda implied that doing so would require things to act intuitively the same in any scale. General relativity does not do this, and is our best model: a good theory (electric universe has no theory at all, but this argument argues it couldn't possibly ever have) can have significant limits and vastly differing areas, as long as they are derived logically and are not at odds with each other. In general relativity, we see why on earth and on most planetary systems newtonian gravity is so precise: compared to speed of light, the relative velocity of objects we measure is marginal, thus time dilation is neglectable. Secondly right after you lay many good layman examples what theory arguing that electromagnetism is very significant force for everyday objects, on par with gravity, would absolutely need to explain. However it would be fair to acknowledge that hypothetical plausible theory (there is none, and there won't be one. But this line of arguing tries to show us why so it has to be assumed so it can be falsified) would probably be fine explaining only few of these, and the rest carry out naturally. For example: the main interaction is magnetic field: my layman understanding goes as far that I'm quite confident insulation of shoes won't matter. Humans probably don't carry enough current through us, ever, to change how we would interact with hypothetical earth-sized magnet. So we'd explode in MRI, see magnetic objects falling faster and could generate electricity by just moving around. But we wouldn't get lighter by wearing rubber shoes. Similarly if some secret second electronic current was connecting us to earth, the magnetic fields it (we, all the time) would generate would not be the same as super strong poles of a planet. The second one is quite minor point and as the idea is so ridiculous and any earth magnetism theory of gravity would need to re-explain both forces pretty much entirely from scrap. So acknowledging that one or two of the million obvious cases it would struggle with are likely mutually exclusive won't exactly help. However the first point: what if general relativity on scales it disagrees with Newtonian gravity is actually some secret web of electromagnetism is in my opinion more poisonous pseudotheory as it's harder to debunk, and can easily jab back on examples on earth by pointing at general relativity and saying "you don't consider that the falling magnets experience time differently from you either, now do you?". So focusing on it and especially why it can't possibly comply with constant speed of light would in my opinion be a more fruitful starting point. (unless time is now somehow electromagnetic dimension of universe, and all speeds and distances somehow secretly tie into electromagnetism regardless of current, polarity and magnetic fields). Either way, it's quite funny how often bad science is just some quack either trying to write bibble into science or write a new bibble-like mythology from some mixture of astrology and documentaryfilm level understanding of science. Or as it often is, both.
I think I understand what your nitpick is. You're saying, if we play devil's advocate, one can make a stronger argument for electric universe by adding in some term in their equations so that the effects are only noticeable at large scales. I want to nitpick your nitpick. Instead of saying "a good theory can have significant limits", I think the correct way to describe it would be more like "there are limits to empirical tests that can be done when the theory predicts a very small difference". I don't know about you, but some people have the wrong assumption that there's a boundary of some sort where physics transition from newtonian to relativistic. There are actually people who say "relativity doesn't apply when going sufficiently slow". No, relativity does apply, it's just that it predicts almost the same behaviour as newtonian physics. Insofar as there is a difference, relativity is still the more accurate over newtonian, even at slow speeds. It's just that in everyday life we don't care about differences so insignificant. But it is there.
Both the Bunker and the Debunker err to presume too much. So, let's get Socrates' input. For, Socrates is one of the foremost authorities on wisdom... Through his genius, Socrates illustrated the fact that wisdom is the ability to know and admit the limits of one's knowledge. Wisdom is knowing that one does NOT know. Wisdom is the opposite of presumption. So... Wisdom is a requirement in order to engage TRUE science. And through the process of elimination, the scientist must admit that which he does NOT know in order to be left standing securely on that which he DOES know. With that in mind... Newton and Einstein described WHAT gravity DOES, which proves correct (with math). But they then theorized WHY gravity does these things. And they theorized HOW gravity does these things. Which led them to theorize WHAT gravity IS. But theories require presumption. And Newton's theories on the latter three topics are acknowledged to be incorrect by modern scientists. And Einstein's theories on these topics have yet to be proved. So, all science really knows is WHAT GRAVITY DOES. And this brings us to human nature, which is the monkey wrench in the gears of science (and philosophy and religion, for that matter).Why? PRESUMPTION; wisdom’s opposite. Men like to think they know things that they do NOT know, as Socrates illustrated so well. And a good psychiatrist knows that this is because men seek a sense of security in this manner. Now, someone with a very high IQ and a PhD (or several PhD's) is going to believe that he can study and experiment and think his way to the answers that he seeks. However, I will ask such a person right now to use math to give me the EXACT circumference of a circle that has a diameter of 10 inches, down to the final decimal. A simple request. But he knows that he cannot honor it. And yet, even Albert Einstein thought that math would allow him to know the Mind of God. So, what high IQ PhD would believe that a simple man with no more than a high school education can know more than he concerning the biggest questions? The simple man who, not by thinking, but by SILENCING his ego mind and LISTENING to the Mind of GOD. For, as it turns, That Mind is ALL that there truly is! And try as it may, science will never be able to dissect or know That Mind. But it CAN listen and learn. "The Book of GOD" at A Course in Truth. Once you have the simple answers to the BIGGEST questions, all others are moot.
Man, thank you for this. My dad fell into this particular nonsense about a decade back. He claims it is because of his frustrations with scientists and "Dark Matter" but that's a whole 'nother issue and I won't bore you with his misunderstandings with it. Regardless, it's been...depressing to have someone you care about fall for a fringe theory like this when you otherwise consider them, you know, a rational person. Although he has flirted with conspiracy theories at various times in his life, it was always more as a casual fan, not a true believer, and I don't know any other fringe beliefs he has that are demonstrably false based on a preponderance of available evidence, other than him believing dark matter doesn't exist, which is tied up with this one. Sadly, I probably won't be able to get him to watch this since you don't coddle their feelings enough, so I imagine the first time in the video he hears it be described derogatorily he will just shut down and get defensive. Esp[ecially the comparison with flat eartherism, we actually got in an almost shouting match when I used that analogy before as to why I was so annoyed with his belief when, yes, it doesn't hurt me to have someone else believing something wrong...But still, he can understand why I would be frustrated if it were flat eartherism which is clearly insane, but this is TOTALLY different in his eyes.
6:24 from this section, I know that these are compelling questions that you can use to ask on how phenomena can be explained with the current explanation of gravity vs the electric universe model.
Same here but my dad isn't quite as clever as yours. My dad fell into the conspiracy hole decades ago as a truck driver listening to Alex Jones. He believes in some crazy stuff haha. Apparently the queen of England (rip bitch) is the actual ruler of the illuminati/masons/communists/new world order/NASA, and she obtained the ability to control all of these people because she was actually a demon who sat on magical (and I do mean magical in the sense that it gave her magic powers) meteorite which the devil gave her. That's what he really truly believes. It's very frustrating having to speak with him because he is simply detached from reality at this point.
I will never understand the mentality that drives people to believe that because something is complex and they can't understand it, that thing must be wrong. I'm a pretty well-educated and intelligent person, but I'm thoroughly aware that there are plenty of things I don't know and don't understand. I don't think those things are fake / wrong.
I think the reason is because humans think they know everything but we don't really know as much as we think we know. Science is constantly changing after all.
I had a friend who believed in this theory so I questioned him on it. The more questions I asked, i realised it wasn't about the science, he wanted to be an outsider going against the mainstream. He also believed in chemtrails, 9/11, cancer isn't real, etc. He's open to any theory as long as it goes against the "mainstream". Its completely a personality issue.
@@madingo02 This sounds exactly like some people I've known, the same specific beliefs they subscribed to, the same motivations for following those conspiracy theories. One of them was also very prone to falling for scams, like Bitcoin copycats, then when it would inevitably fall through, they'd blame the scammer and then fall for the next one. It's really tough to watch it and fail to help them see the cycle. They would get mad when told it was a scam. I think the mentality of wanting to have a special knowledge and go against the mainstream is part of what made them so gullible for scams--they sought special knowledge, about the nature of the world or about how to get rich quick. It's hard to help people like that.
@@sonpopco-op9682 I love how this video twists and straw mans someone in an attempt to claim said person is twisting and straw-manning a nonsensical belief system. Seems like the creator of this video didn't actually watch professor dave, but made assumptions based of a generalized and false caricature. Much like how all pseudoscience peddlers roll. You guys seem to be just a tiny notch above flat earthers for dishonesty and projection.
Off topic but I'm disappointed in that you didn't go over the "Crisis in Cosmology" paper that came out last year when you covered the early universe in earlier videos.
Suggest it to him directly in posts or write an email to him! Try your best to get heard, and ignore this Kenny Nickell who again like many other comes from pure bad faith/motivation thinking fully bad of Dave (and on the other hand fully believing the gospel of Michio Kaku, even though Michio was likely referring to a different cosmological theory like the old heliocentric from Copernicus or something else on that 10^120 thing). The difference is not that the whole entire model is wrong, and while the time/distance discrepancy between the two methods in the crisis in cosmology is large and noticeable, it's not off by a factor of 10^120. If it however eventually shows it to be, would mean the universe would be 10^120 as much old, (as it is no way 10^-111th of a second young)
@David Van Doren Ben Davidson is the equivalent of Nathan Oakley: the only things he does is saying how "mainstream" cosmology is wrong and that his "plasma" cosmology is somehow better without giving any conctrete evidence for that: he will dig for cosmological data that he can present as evidence for his hoax without ever elaborating or citing any science papers that would show such a connection, because he knows he can't. He does that so he can sound appealing to laypeople who don't have the required knowledge (which is most people actually, and that's the danger about this type of hoax), so that they hopefully buy his book (only 45 bucks!) conference tickets, or a premium membership on his beautifully professional website. Did you?
The problem with debunking videos like this is... well, actually there are multiple problems, including that it actually serves to give attention to the very things they're trying to debunk, i.e. feeding the trolls... but the _main_ problem is this: In order to communicate effectively with the kinds of people who buy into these kinds of pseudo-science, who invariably don't have sufficient education to understand the full nuance of the real science involved, you have to dumb down the science _a lot._ For people _with_ the education to understand the nuance, we can recognize where you've dumbed it down and why, and realize the way you're trying to make your points, but for people _without_ that education, it's your word against "someone else's." So, say I'm a highly credentialed scientist who has a UA-cam channel in which I say something like, "Gravity alone is not completely sufficient to define how galaxies form and move, why star-forming regions are where they are, and how they interact in clusters." This is completely true, of course... and to someone with a full education in astrophysics, it will contain a lot of subtext along the lines of "A galaxy's magnetic field can help guide and move gas to form overdense and underdense regions, which can trigger star formation in consistent regions that greatly influence the galaxy's future shape, even though of course gravity has far greater effects on the motions of those stars once they're created, and the macroscopic orbits of the gas as a bulk. Furthermore, certain interactions between elements of galactic clusters demonstrate important effects, such as relativistic jets and plumes that seem to slam into invisible walls and flatten out, that can't be explained by gravity alone, and are also neatly explained by electromagnetic interactions with a hot but very sparse plasma and/or the magnetic fields of the entire cluster." But to the uneducated pseudo-science adherent, all they heard was "This person with better credentials than you said that gravity can't explain a lot of stuff, and the really powerful thing that decides where stars are made and how galaxies look is electromagnetism!" And now, my more nuanced take has 'defeated' your _deliberately_ more simplified take that was _intended_ to defeat the pseudoscience, and winds up supporting the pseudoscience (for those people) _because_ it's more nuanced, i.e. they lack the education to fully understand said nuance. So, just as an example from this video, you say things like "Gravity is the attraction between all matter." Well... I mean, yeah. The Newtonian interpretation of gravity does say that, but we know (and I'm sure you know) that that is just a useful approximation of an emergent property that holds and is very helpful for, certain limited regimes of scale and movement. So now imagine that that person hears on another channel with a much bigger name or institution name attached, say, Fermilab or Sean Carrol or someone like that, that in fact, that isn't what gravity is at all; it isn't a force. Objects actually don't fall because of a force at all, but because _time_ simply flows toward massive objects, so an object isn't really being "attracted" to the celestial body, so much as its future simply _does_ intersect that body in a predictable way due to the flow of spacetime (but mostly time). Because they didn't have the education or insight to be able to fully grasp the nuance of that much more complex and mind-blowing definition of gravity with relation to tennis balls and planets, the correct but confusing and nuanced part just kind of glitches out in their mind and doesn't really get recorded as memory in any sensible way. And yet, they _do_ remember hearing someone really believable saying that the way _you_ described gravity, isn't it at all; they remember the _impression_ that your take on gravity, and theirs previous, is wrong "somehow". Now, the next time they hear someone _else_ repeat that your version is wrong, but also offer a replacement that sounds plausible to them, and just understandable enough to be impressive... and then toss in some psychology and a need to have a special insight others don't have and... boom. Your debunking video, plus Fermilab's deeper analysis video, plus some troll's semi-plausible pseudoscience video, equals a new pseudoscience adherent, like magic! So I... get what you're trying to do, and I admire it. But ultimately it can only fail. To _really_ "debunk" this kind of nonsense, you need to engage those people where they really are, interest them enough in science to get them to open their minds and _want_ to learn how the world really works (NOT that they are wrong, just "would you like to know more?"), and help them gain enough education, from the ground up, to finally acquire genuine understanding. This, of course, is exhausting, nearly impossible, and is the job of _society_ from parents to schools to media in a ground-up effort... and since our society in America is kind of trying really hard to do the exact opposite, it's... kind of a losing battle. Of course... the subtext of all of this is that _your_ purpose is, at least on some level, to generate popular content, get views and subscribers, and earn money. Which, of course, is exactly the same purpose that _most_ of the flat earthers and electric universers have as well, which kind of makes you one half of the economic microcosm that perpetuates these piles of nonsense in the first place. Plus, I mean... some people are just really bound and determined to dumb. Dumb can't be argued with, or reasoned with. It can only be educated... and even then, only if it wants to. Determined dumb is just dumb, and there's sadly not much we can do about it. P.S. Your cartoon guy (version of you?) you use at various points in this, with the brown hair, brown eyes, and green shirt? Pretty cute! Did you draw him? -Too bad he's not barefoot.- >_
It's a cynical take and I have a horrible feeling you're right, but I still prefer people like Dave to do what they do, for anyone on the side of reason to speak up in any way they can. I sure as hell don't have the emotional fortitude to try to engage with anyone and explain things, present things on a silver platter perfectly customized for what their situation might be, in order to spark curiosity and not spook them and cause them to scurry away to the "enemy camp"... My issue with these videos is actually the hostility and how he kinda unintentionally spits at the field of psychology and mentally ill people here, throwing around stuff like "simple psychology", "delusion", "personality disorder" and even "unemployable" which doesn't really have anything to do with how intelligent or willing to learn someone is. There's several reasons why someone might be unable to work. This won't make someone who is disadvantaged and looking to something (pseudocience) to make them feel better about themselves (as Dave correctly identified as one reason) any more likely to engage in good faith, as they're not engaged with in good faith either... But... it really is next to impossible to find the right formula to snap someone out of it and I fully admit to have descended to apathy, just trying to make it from one day to the next. I keep educating myself but have very little faith overall.
'Debunking ' is a big research area across the social sciences, we're figuring a few things out. And all too often, the way we (society) attempt to debunk is not very productive
3:15 just a bit precision nit-pick note for the formula and "r = distance between the centers of the objects" - this applies to spherically symmetric objects. Generally other objects that are not spherically symmetric (cubes, blocks, rods, discs, satellites etc) this formula doesn't work exactly for the whole object (but for example for satellites orbiting earth it doesn't matter that much) and needs to be 3D-integrated for the given shape
First, I am not any kind of whacky, ideology-pushing person. The following are simply my curious questions. First question: how do we find the mass of something like Mars or the Moon? Second question: when I have the mass of a large body like Mars or the Moon, then I calculate its surface gravity, then how do I measure/observe its gravity without going there and dropping something on the surface? I'm not asking these questions to build doubt. I'm simply curious about how things work. I should review an astronomy textbook, watch your astromony lecture series, or study the topic more. Thanks.
I think mainly by looking at its orbit, and density calculations, stuff like that. I'm not sure about observations of acceleration due to gravity, I just know that when we went to the moon and dropped stuff, it all checked out.
You can measure the mass of the planets simply by looking at the orbits of the various planets. Now, since there's the famous N-bodies problem, we don't have a law that lets us calculate the orbits of all the planets at the same time, so what happens is that you observe, make a graph and then make an approximate fit. Once you can verify that this fit is accurate fornthe most part, you take what's called the residues (the parts your initial fit cannot describe well) and make a correction so to make another, more accurate, fit, and so on. This method is basically on the lines of trial-and-error, but works so well you can calculate the masses of exoplanets as well. As for the surface gravity, Newton's gravitational theory is one of the best understood theories of physics, and since we know for a fact the Gm1m2/r² works, and calculating the radius of a planet is easy, you can find the sirface gravity of any planet you please, and since you know the formula is right, you can assume you are right
When I was a kid, I remember being told in school that "once upon a time", people believed that the earth was flat, and I couldn't imagine anyone actually believing that... Fast forward to today... ? ... and I just don't know WHAT to think.
The effects are similar enough to magnetism that we need to study their similarities and call it what it is, an electro static phenomenon. Hence the electric universe theory.
@@rasronin ???, gravity does not induce currents like magnetism does, gravity has only one charge, unlike electro magnetism. electric universe is nonsense
@@doubleFay gravity doesn’t exist just like time. They are phenomena we experience but magnetism exists and is responsible for the attractive and repulsive forces we observe in nature. Now you’re gonna tell me time exists and is some universal constant. Electo-magnetism is far from understood but we can exploit what we know for useful work. Black holes and dark matter are made up.
@@doubleFay gravity is not a thing and does not have a charge. You believers remind me of Christians. Believing in imaginary things. Gravity is an electro static phenomenon caused by electromagnetic waves. Show me a gravity wave please.
@@rasronin Sure lets entertain the idea that "Gravity is an electro static phenomenon". So the fact that things are accelerated towards the earth is purely electrostatic. This is demonstrably false. Electrostatic attraction is dependent on the charge (+ -) as well as the ammount of charge. So just by reversing the charge the force should reverse its direction. Also things with twice the charge should expirience twice the force. NONE OF THIS HAPPENS IN REALITY.
I honestly don't understand the people in the comments stating that you're making "sweeping claims" about gravity and our understanding of it. Yes, we don't understand everything about gravity, but that applies to literally everything the in the universe. That doesn't mean what we shouldn't treat the understanding we have at our disposal as being fact. If we have the best possible explanation for something and there's no equally valid alternative, why wouldn't we apply it? Jesus, it's just like the flat Earthers all over again. Do schools not teach the scientific method anymore or something? Anyway, great job on the video. Reading your replies to some of the more recent comments was pretty funny
science will never be "complete". but dismissing science bc it's incomplete is kinda dumb i mean the whole point of science is to challange everything that we think we know about the world around us. i think we keep getting closer and closer to the absolute truth but we might never actually get there, it will always be just a tiny bit out of reach. that's the beauty of it, i think. idk tho i was never a smart kid
_"the whole point of science is to challange everything"_ While somewhat true, the key problem with EU is they want you to ignore some of the things we do know. So many of these anti-establishment scams try and tell you that leveraging past knowledge is a weakness. They actually think you need to reprove everything from the bottom up. If we really did that we'd never get anywhere.
Theres a difference between incomplete and flat out wrong. Flat Earth science is not simply incomplete because they cant explain seasons its wrong because a differemt model can, the same logic applies to the Electric Universe, its model explaing nothing and makes practically no predictions except that black holes dont exist which we now know is not true.
MotesYT So your argument is that less than perfect knowledge of the sun means we should summarily dump everything we go and accept conjecture as gospel truth but that’s just gotta be right?
@@MotesTV The power of the sun in EU is around the same as the power of Jupiter. Jupiter on the non sunlit side is around -145C. A bit hotter than the surrounding but not by much. Go outside during daytime. Is it bright? Then the EU model is debunked. In EU model it would be pitch dark. The sun surface is in fact 5600 degrees and the sun is hot and bright. Thus EU "model" is debunked.
@@MotesTV It was a napkin math debunk. But EU model has no math themselves. If you have extraordinary claim, you should provide extraordinary proofs. If you remove fusion from the sun, it is no longer hot. You should provide the math for it. Not just say "you are not even trying really". It is you who should *prove* that the EU model works.
Odd how this critique of the electric universe theory is presented as a series of ad hominem attacks and cartoons. I would recommend actually watching some of the videos with an open mind--you know like a scientist might do. While I agree that some of their theories remain speculative if not highly questionable, many are far more predictive than the rote orthodoxies of mainstream cosmology, that are apparently beyond question. It's not science if it can't be questioned--it is just dogma.
@@LaurenBurger Wrong. Was EU discussed and argued against? In this video, at any one point in time was there an argument made for our current understanding and then directly opposing EU with a conclusion? If so.... no ad hominem....
Professor Dave Explains - Very poor, befuddled, and sophomoric response to JBV, Professor Dave. I have been studying EU for years and as a layperson, I know that any other layperson can fall for rhetoric either side. Why should I “take your word for it” from one 26 minute video and disregard my own experience, first as a high school and college student in several science courses and now as an adult with 3 advanced degrees, and then dismiss all of my studies surrounding the EU theory? However, just because I’m not a professional scientist doesn’t mean I am easily lied to. At the end of all things, the EU theory legitimately threatens the Big Bang theory and has bands of scientists that are experts in their fields in an interdisciplinary effort (astrophysicists and anthropologists included) to explain phenomenon in such a way that challenges the scientific elite. What skin do you have in the game that motivates you to debunk literally thousands of years of combined experience from scientists that support this theory? Furthermore, Newtonian physics does not stand in opposition to the EU theory.
That, and the allure of being one of the special few who have this particular insight. That seems to be a critical element of most conspiracy theories, religions and pseudo-scientific conjectures.
Einstein was a Piscean; I'm a Piscean ~ Hey ... that's all I need to know to confirm my own scientific intelligence! Genius by association! ... what ... (got a bridge in Brooklyn for sale, too)
@@smashexentertainment676 - I had no idea this fat schmuck even existed until you mentioned him. He even has his own take on the 5G TECHNOLOGY, and oh boy, the top comments. Its hard to tell whether or not they're genuine or just trolls screwing with these delusional narcissists. Here are some examples: "I'm ashamed to say in a previous life I was a disinformation agent before I woke up and turned on my masters and leaked the crap they were about.their beyond countries beyond boundaries of all kinds but have united agenda unlike the gen. Population. I don't think they can be stopped but we must try" "don't be concerned about being called a ' conspiracy theorist' , we know the term was invented by the C.I.A to ridicule thinking people. and make us self censor. I am proud to be a Conspiracy Theorist. I made a T-Shirt. When the conspiracies stop the theories will stop." "This extreme trolling is solid proof that 5g is a military weapon ... the trolls seem to swarm on me when I comment on these topics: 5g, vaccines, israel, and believe it or not, FLAT EARTH and NASA fakery! I wonder if they are all part of a nefarious plot somehow ....." "You are obviously over the target..5G is a weapon (simple)...full spectrum dominance, in military use for years and about to go urban for crowd control, tracking and wet works!! ;)" "Labelling something/somebody a 'conspiracy' = silencing and oppressing scrutiny" " This was not a "person" sweet pea. This was Ai. This was the proverbial beast of revelation. Prove me wrong." I'll have to keep an eye on this "Theoria Apostasis" channel.
I'm so glad some of these channels are giving it attention. It's much more convincing than flat earth since its believers do have a basic understanding of science, and is difficult to debunk sometimes because they talk about topics a layperson wouldnt understand. I went through a 8 minute thunderbolts video on my channel and it took me over an hour to disprove because of how complex it is. It does my head in trying to learn enough about the topics to understand how they are wrong
@ThisAintKyle You guys keep bringing up plasma cosmology, but that has nothing to do with the claims prof Dave is debunking here. Plasma cosmology was an attempt to explain why we live in a galaxy with almost no anti-matter whatsoever. It didn't try to replace gravity. This video was addressing the pseudoscientific reasoning some idiots use to claim that gravity doesn't exist and all gravitational observations can be explained by electromagnetism. So go ahead; calculate the position of mars in the night sky one year from now using Maxwell's equations and the Lorentz force or anything you can derive from that. Make a prediction and test it. If you've done that and you can show your work, we'll have a conversation. Until then we have one model that works and it's based on relativity.
@@atthecore4560 Hannes Alfven proposed the original plasma cosmology to explain the matter/anti-matter disparity. Apparently it has gained a new meaning on the blogosphere, where it's claimed that electromagnetic fields are at least as important as gravity in giving galaxies their shape. Is that about accurate? Have to admit, I'm not familiar with that idea, though I have trouble seeing how that could work. For electromagnetism to have a large scale effect you need huge currents over vast distances. Do you know of a working mathematical model for this? And is there any explanation what conducts these massive currents and why they don't seem to affect our solar system?
21:06 this is a fantastic, succinct way to help give normal folks a BS detector with regard to so many pseudoscientific hoaxes without requiring them to go out of their way to acquire knowledge of the relevant fields.
@@tsvetanstoychev655 I don't think it's entirely settled. It is seemingly flat to the limits of our ability to measure, but nobody knows the scale of the entire universe so even curvature too small for us to currently measure could be meaningful.
In my opinion. you're arguing with your idea of the thunderbolt project. Donald scot explained the electric star model precisely and Wal Thornhill accepted that gravity is there and that the electromagnetic force is much greater. I'm thinking that you haven't watched all the lectures before forming your opinion.
There is no "electric star model". There's some bullshit paraded as science. It does not correlate with reality. At all. You also misinterpreted what I said about who believes what, likely because you were too triggered by my dismantling of your ridiculous worldview.
All great scientific discovery comes from those brave enough to not only question the "entrenched dogma" of the day, but also work to expand and prove their theories. I'm not saying that either side is right or wrong. And yes, our understanding of physics HAS lead to a lot of additional understanding in other fields. But in the same way that the heliocentric system was fought and called idiotic by the mainstream during the time of Copernicus, so too may portions of the Electric universe be true. Never dismiss ANY theory unless you yourself can create or replicate an experiment that either proves or disproves it.
@@azerdraco3146 Unfortunately, in SAFIRE's case, all we have is SAFIRE's word for any of it, and not enough information for anyone to test it out, and even if it did, it STILL can't explain the discrepencies between EU and the real universe that gravity is so good at explaining. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with the plasma theories surrounding EU. EU itself, however, is a crock and simply doesn't work.
@@azerdraco3146 Unfortunately you show fundamental ignorance about the scientific method. The responsibility lays on the proposer of the theory to provide evidence supporting their ideas, it is not up to others to provide evidence to disprove wild and ridiculous theories that fly in the face of preceding evidence.
the gentle way you talk in this video is such whiplash from your later ones where you've had time to become more jaded and just "done" with people being ridiculous lol
It's genuinely funny once you see the Dave trajectory. Flat Earth, James Tour, and Electric Universe all start out, honestly, as really gentle good faith rebuttals. But then, they're met with anger, arrogant dismissal, or threats by the people pushing the stuff. Each time, Dave realizes that the people he's dealing with aren't interested in having a discussion about reality, they're either hucksters trying to con their way through stuff, narcissists who are convinced they're right for no reason whatsoever, or people so wrapped up in their story about big bad SCIENCE not listening to the little guys that they're not interested in learning anything. So he treats them like the clowns they are. Then people go 'hey why are you so mean,' like he didn't fucking try something different at first and realized that these people need to be treated like the trash they spew because they worm their way into people's minds through even handed treatment.
i like to think that the rules that define our universe (and others?) are like puzzle pieces of a really really big universal puzzle. we have already found a few pieces that fit together (with science) and are now wondering how the puzzle will look like when it's complete. and than we have those people who try to complete the universal puzzle by adding cornflakes as puzzle pieces...
EU scripts in the last week: 1. How can you debunk EU when we don't even know what gravity is? 2. Why is the sun hotter the further away from the center.. or some shit (comments mostly deleted) 3. Some shit with "absolutes" (one of their priests probably quoted Star Wars recently) You can tell it's a script because multiple people say it around the same time. It's like they watched a new EU video and said "Oh, I'm gonna own Dave so hard with this argument"
I think there's definitely some source they're all using like a FB group post. I can't recall how many times I've seen "they don't say gravity doesn't exist". It's such an obvious mistake and they keep repeating it.
@@enhaxed7839 Actually it's not. There's no such thing. Einstein was a fraud and his theory of the cause of gravity doesn't even stand up to mere common sense.
@@forbesmag1271 Actually you are an arrogant moron who thinks they know better than one of the most widely and successfully confirmed theories of all time. People like you make me think we need a way to allow some natural selection based on actual common sense (not your insane version) to weed out useless fools like you before you can breed. I'm not usually a fan of eugenics but anti-science pillocks like you are getting people killed.
@Fk Ff First, no error corrections are need to make GPS function. Yes, I agree that they make them, but it's wrong when people state the GPS system wouldn't work without it. Second, there are alternative potential explanations, including the very real "medium" (ether) that fraud Einstein wished away simply because his math wouldn't work otherwise. The following is from Rethinking Relativity by Tom Bethell: The simplest way to understand all this "without going crazy," Van Flandern says, is to discard Einsteinian relativity and to assume that "there is a light-carrying medium." When a clock moves through this medium "it takes longer for each electron in the atomic clock to complete its orbit." Therefore it makes fewer "ticks" in a given time than a stationary clock. Moving clocks slow down, in short, because they are "ploughing through this medium and working more slowly." It's not time that slows down. It's the clocks. (…) At high altitude, where the GPS clocks orbit the Earth, it is known that the clocks run roughly 46,000 nanoseconds (one-billionth of a second) a day faster than at ground level, because the gravitational field is thinner 20,000 kilometers above the Earth. The orbiting clocks also pass through that field at a rate of three kilometers per second--their orbital speed. For that reason, they tick 7,000 nanoseconds a day slower than stationary clocks. To offset these two effects, the GPS engineers reset the clock rates, slowing them down before launch by 39,000 nanoseconds a day. They then proceed to tick in orbit at the same rate as ground clocks, and the system "works." Ground observers can indeed pin-point their position to a high degree of precision. In (Einstein) theory, however, it was expected that because the orbiting clocks all move rapidly and with varying speeds relative to any ground observer (who may be anywhere on the Earth's surface), and since in Einstein's theory the relevant speed is always speed relative to the observer, it was expected that continuously varying relativistic corrections would have to be made to clock rates. This in turn would have introduced an unworkable complexity into the GPS. But these corrections were not made. Yet "the system manages to work, even though they use no relativistic corrections after launch," Van Flandern said. "They have basically blown off Einstein."
You know that's really freaky is the way the electric universe theory describes the sun. Like it is liquid and they show wave motions on the sun caught on video. I get one thing though is that iomagnetic levitation of objects is real but that doesn't mean magnetic forces keep us down.
@@robertmiddleton6112 You don't "discover" a conclusion, you come to/draw a conclusion based on the available observations you discover. Take chemistry for example, we found that different compounds interacted in strange and mysterious ways, so we came up with conclusions that fit the observed information. Once we observed more and found what specifically caused it, the conclusion that matched the discoveries was applied while others were thrown out. Same with electric universe, it WAS a possible conclusion before we discovered things that contradicted it more than the current consensus. It's why we call them scientific THEORIES, because they are the best conclusion we have that fits the most of the discoveries we have made.
@@thunderspark1536 @thunderspark1536 The statement drawing a conclusion is the wrong path to discovery. Do you have the conclusion? If you do, please share it with the rest of us. You can draw a theory or hypothesis based upon evidence. But you can only discover a conclusion.
@@robertmiddleton6112 Okay, here's a really simple conclusion for you: stars form due to gravity. We start with simple observations: stars, like our sun, have formed over time. The hypothesis is that due to gravity, the heat in the middle of these massive objects allows for fusion, allowing the star to glow and generate heat/light. Then we run tests and form a theory based off the information gained. The theory is that large bodies of pass collect together (hydrogen and helium) forming a protostar, which with enough mass undergoes fusion in the core, releasing different signals we detect and record. Without gravity, this could not occur, simple. Again, the conclusion was not "discovered" here. it was drawn based on the available information. We can't actually go into the core of a star and see the fusion occurring, so this conclusion was not directly "discovered". What we did was make assumptions based on information, and the assumption have (thus far) aligned with the data we have.
@@thunderspark1536 Buddy, you don't need to type a 3 paragraph long description on the formation of stars to argue semantics. I'm not a flat earther or electric believer and understand physics quite well. I could just as easily argue that without discovery, there would be no conclusion. Discoveries have been made for us to form the conventional conclusion of modern physics. My original statement was to say that no discoveries were made for anyone to draw the conclusion of an electric universe. They just skipped to the end and drew their own conclusion.
As a geologist- I have a challenge for EU people: Your model says that mountains are formed by electrical currents. So, explain why ophiolite sequences are exposed on land. How is mantle rock like peridotite exposed on land? Or blueschist? Or eclogite? If its not millions of years of erosion or massive thrust faults from plate collision- then how does it happen? Explain that. How can electrical currents bring up deep mantle rock? And don't say that basalt and gabbro from the ocean is actually "welded sand". That's nonsensical. I won't hold my breath, though. Structural geology disproves your whole theory.
@@omniaquaeriteacdubitate3898 Did you read my post? EU proponents claim that mountains are formed by electricity. Explain to me how deep mantle rock is exposed at the surface of the Earth. How do electrical currents bring up rock from that far down? If you can't offer a valid explanation, admit that your model makes zero sense.
@@josephmccarthy4307 EU proponents don't claim electricity forms mountains, but rather electricity can play a role in some formations. Mainstream geologists ignore the role of electricity, despite it being a much stronger force than gravity. Seems unscientific to me to do that.
Thank you Professor Dave. I just recently stumbled upon an electric universe video that has million views. After a few minutes in the video, I felt what they are saying is wrong so I looked you up since I know you debunked flat earth. I learned a lot today.
If you were watching the why files he explains that the theory doesnt have a strong basis for reality but "never let the truth get in the way of a good story".
Dave, does it ever get tiring or corrosive sorting through all the stupid comments from trolls, FEers, conspiracy theorists, etc.? Or is it the kind of thing you draw strength from?
PhD's in physics support the electric universe theory. This dude studied chemistry and just general physics. So I'll totally believe him and his little memer cultists in this comment section.
I have a personality disorder. This video hit home. It's not stupidity, it's a feeling of being on the fringe of society, and that hole can only be filled by believing in the fringes of science. We don't actually believe any of these things, we just long for people to argue with.
@@osmosisjones4912 when two forces act on an object, but in opposite direction, the vectors are summed, and the net force results in acceleration of matter. Thats why monorails push the train off the tracks, but the EMF is only stronger than gravity when the train is super close to the rail, thus when the two forces are equal, the train can levitate in equilibrium. Also, i get a migrain trying to read your comments
Easy way to know if it’s real science or pseudoscience: Is what is being produced being written in journals aimed at other scientists for feedback, or is it produced by a personality on social media and aimed at laymen.
@@tahneBCRC You thought you had that one but I’d disagree. He is currently providing information to layman and not other scientists. Scientists do that as well, because you can read their journals for yourself and there are scientists who have UA-cam channels. Unlike the nitwits that believe this pseudoscience, Professor Dave is an actual professor with a bachelor’s degree in chemistry, so he has a credible background. The information provided in his videos are the same information you’d find in a peer review journal. Are there anyone that has a credible background supporting this “science” that is not a nitwit with a UA-cam channel?
A better test is: Can it explain something specific, like planetary orbits or formation, 1) better than the existing theory and 2) remain as or more consistent with all our other relevant observations than the current model? Models that are real science, or at least things genuinely trying to become real science, will make quantitative predictions that match observations and will proudly feature the math & equations they’re using to do that. They’ll also acknowledge the model’s limits and evidence against it, if it exists- this is something most of the con men and conspiracy types won’t do. A major driver of these conspiracy theories is a growing, widespread distrust of institutions and authorities. But real science is the method, not institutions. That’s why I think the better rhetorical strategy for debunking this BS is showing people how the conspiracy ‘science’ doesn’t make sense without any need to appeal to some authority like scientific journals or credentials. People who’re likely to sign on to one of these conspiracy theories do so because they already distrust institutional authority; that’s why the people promoting them always have some antiestablishment narrative.
In January of 1927, Geologist J Harlen Bretz presented his hypothesis that many of the geological features of Eastern Washington state were best explained by a single cataclysmic local flooding event. This went sharply counter to the mainstream scientific consensus at the time, which held that all large scale geologic features were formed gradually. Turns out he was right, and the mainstream scientific consensus was wrong. And continued to be wrong for decades. Yeah, the electromagnetic universe nutters are nutters, but don't let it blind you to the fact that there damn well is a mainstream scientific community, that is often straight up wrong.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
You're all wrong! According to Wikipedia:
_Electric Universe is the thirteenth studio album by Earth, Wind & Fire, released in November 1983 on Columbia Records._
*Damn right!*
You jive turkey. Muahahaha
@@truu-dl8rp Electric Ladyland is there. Lol
Wikipedia lies. Electric Universe at first is a great psytrance band!
I love me some EWF
I'm glad you debunked the Electric Universe! Now can you help me spread the REAL truth with my Coal-Powered Universe theory?
Dark matter is actually just fossil fuels we can't see
That EU stuff is obvious bunk. But CPU is where the serious science is done.
👍
Wow ... is it therefore a steam powered universe .. ?
like a Victorian universe ?
Do I need a top hat ? .... please say yes .. this sounds like the best universe so far ... sign me up
In 1899 Charles Duell, US patent office, said
"everything that can be invented has been invented."
So ... that’s it then
@@nasapayrollsystem8701 You're in! Top hats and bowlers are equally acceptable, but top hats add that extra panache.
0:25 Are you two friends?
Flat Earth: Yes.
Electric Universe: No.
Hahaha
Not a clever way to address a scientific theory.
@@LeeGee scientific theory
more like
pseudoscientific bullsh*t
😂😂
@@LeeGee I met a Professor of evolutionary biology who legitimately supported the flat earth theory and used his degree in biology in an argument from authority in order to claim himself superior in all ways to anyone who did not subscribe to his misguided ideological presuppositions. That wasnt even the best part, he also argued with me that oxidative phosphorylation is a false process created by big pharma to pump hormones into our children to cause them to hit puberty more quickly. He claims puberty in humans around used to occur in their early to mid 20's. I will never forget that pretentious little man or his thrift store knockoff Nietzsche moustache. When he made the comment about Ox Phos being a lie i cited mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation thermodynamic efficiencies study involving ATP production with the brain liver and heart and i was told to progress further than a masters degree in biomedical engineering. I never said i was taking bio med or that i had a degree. Ive never met someone who was concurrently infuriating and hilariously delusional. One of my most treasured memories right there. You couldnt script a funnier dialogue.
As someone who is studying mechanical engineering, I propose the universe is in fact a giant mechanical orrery that simulates all mechanics of the universe through higher-dimensional gears
As somebody who works in construction, I propose the universe is all built. The she of the observable universe is obviously just because of shipping delays for equipment. Like in Hitchhiker's a guide to the Galaxy
@@tiedeman39 the she of the observable universe?
As somebody who sucks at school and has zero understanding of anything that takes more than 2 braincells to comprehend, I propose the stars are the actual gears
Praise the Omnisiah
As a gardener, i propose that the universe is a tree that grows hence the expansion and that stars are just bugs and the planets it's fruits. But my hammer keeps telling me the universe is a nail. He says that about everything though.
i love how he progressively becomes more hostile to the flat earthers in every episode ahahaga
This isn’t flat earth, it’s the electric universe
It’s still a pseudoscience hoax, but it’s a different idea
Many Electric Universes followers don’t believe in a flat earth
Edit: I see that your referring to the beginning of the video
I get that :3
Good. We should all be hostile to FE'ers and proponents of electric universe. These beliefs are so utterly beyond ridiculous
He should employ the strategy of explaining how curiosity is good, how they can make something useful of it, and how the earth could be flat from a very specially warped perspective... Maybe one where we counted in base Pi, and our cars had 3.141 unPi wheels.
Going after flat earthers and EU proponents is still like shooting fish in a barrel, though. The latter barrel might be a little murkier on the top or have fewer fish, but at a certain point it becomes like beating a dead horse or kicking someone when they're down or when Jared Leto's getting wailed on in Fight Club. It would be sort of funny if the EU people managed to find out something, though not revolutionary or debunking of Einstein, but still useful or heretofore unknown (or maybe forgotten recently) with all the money and time they're dumping into studying electricity and plasma devoid of any other ideas. With people like Puthoff getting involved with some of the EU folks, though, that increasingly looks unlikely, and their crack pottery quality seems to be solidifying. Those who have been promoting this stuff really should be the ones making these sorts of videos debunking their own views to save their reputation... like the crack pottery barn rule.
@@The92Waffles Says the guy who believes he's stuck to a spinning peice of rock
7:37 "Why don't magnets stick to us?"
Um, clearly someone hasn't taken their Covid vaccine.
*I'm joking, of course.
I would have loved to see one of those local trustees idly trying to pick up a coin with a magnet while one of those people are ranting, then stick the coin to their forehead.
@@Ravaxr dude I've got my two doses plus the booster and I still can't pick coins from the fountain.
I want a refund!
The fact that you have to say you're joking really shows that we live in a society
@@EmeraldArchive nah man we've also landed men on the moon, split the atom, and created powerful computers that have advanced our quality of life. That's like saying "some uneducated serfs in the time of Newton thought the Earth was flat, therefore Newton's genius is to be ignored and in fact the serfs represented the worth of human society at that time"
@@neutrino78x what the fuck are you on about?
"Mainstream" scientists have so little regard for Tesla that they named a unit after him
Tesla did some great things. He also claimed he created a cosmic death ray and loved a pigeon as if it was a woman.
Nothing wrong with Tesla. He made a few mistakes just like other scientists at those times. It's a pity his mistakes are often being emphasized.
@@NinjaMonkeyPrime we all make mistakes
@@NinjaMonkeyPrime Einstein thought the universe was static, and eternal
@@j.b.8379 which is far less reasonable than falling in love with a pidgeon.
When Prof Dave said that some physics knowledge was needed to debunk this ridiculousness, I thought it would be graduate level theory. Thankfully it was just highschool level physics.
unfortunately a lot of the people who fall for this are not high-school levels of skeptic or intelligent
Think you might be overestimating modern high schools... Like I can't effectively debunk electric universe talking points because it only plays offense, and gish-gallops, and engages in what aboutisms constantly. I would need the actual physics and history of science in front of me to effectively argue against it, and even then they'll call me brainwashed by the Newtonian institution. Takes a lot to talk down stupid is all Im saying XD
@@notthis9586 i mean, here in europe, at least under a british education system this is all secondary school physics: 12 year olds know this stuff as basic syllabus.
@@aidanmatthewgalea7761 in the US public school doesn’t have physics till late high school, last 2 years (3) if your ahead, and even then you don’t have to take it. I never took physics instead opting for higher level chemistry and biology. So for many people like me who weren’t interested in physics at the time we get our physics from UA-cam
@@sean5364 Wow this is strange. I heard that university courses in US are highly difficult. How do people cope with that if they didn't have physics until high school? I'm assuming that people from the US find college a lot more challenging than high school because the gap would be so huge.
video title: "Debunking the electric universe"
UA-cam Algorithm: *hmmm, seems like flat earth to me!* "
I was wondering about that too. I think it might have happened automatically because the phrase "flat earth" is in the video description.
He mentioned flat earth within the first 10 or so seconds, and the algorithm reads the auto generated subtitles (and also description) to get an idea of these topics.
@@revenevan11 I got briefly shot down by an automod this way the other day, for talking about how idiotic (as well as ugly) "Darwin Award" jokes are with regard to the pandemic. "You're agreeing with us too explicitly!"
@@moarsaur It's not "idiotic" to call out people who so fiercely oppose basic public health guidelines that they inadvertently cause their own deaths. Didactic is a better word because it's hopefully a teachable moment for all the other covidiots who still have a chance to save themselves from the same fate by just getting the damn vaccine already (before it's too late).
They're the only ones getting the hypothetical "Darwin Award", in that case. If someone's grandmother who is vaccinated happens to get covid and dies of it, that is, by definition, not a Darwin Award. You have to cause your own death, willfully, in order to qualify. That's stipulated in the entire premise of Darwin Awards.
@@StochasticUniverse It's idiotic because it reflects nearly as misinformed and simplistic a view of the pandemic as that espoused by the people you're wishing dead.
Not only is this legend battling the flat earthers but debunking other fallacious claims too. Thank you, Dave.
Oh you are a fan of science too huh
If only he'd debunk some of the "Initial State GER" claims.
*Jotaro Dies in Part 6*
Omg this guy is everywhere
@Asyam Abyan rip
*Pulls off flesh-colored tape peeling from upper lip*
Aha! You had a mustache all along!
Title: “debunking the electric universe”
Me: the what?
Watt*
@@BenGrem917 All due respect, Cani:
The Theory of GR fails from the beginning, mathematically speaking, because it changes "zero" into infinity. Any mathematician not afraid to tell the truth, will resond...
@@treid100182 Yes I will respond to you: go back to school, you have no clue on science, math or GR.
@@atum7355 There are exactly zero proof of electrical universe.
@@atum7355 you talk like a midget with a butterfly brain. The energy out of safire as sun model gives approx the same energy as Jupiter, 145K at the surface. Last I checked the temperature of the sun was 6000K. So no I am not a midget, I am an Engineer with basically the same education in physics and math as Bachelor of Physics. Thrust me when I say no sane Ph.D in Physics, Math or Engineering believe in the 3:rd most stupid conspiracy theory, after flat earth and young earth creationists. Go back to school.
Personally i prefer when the universe was acoustic, before they sold out and went mainstream.
EU unplugged.
I prefer the _electronic_ universe, where god is just some dork playing the world's most ridiculous eurorack setup.
This is called Harmony of the Spheres
You should really check out the Cosmic Microwave Background's solo albums.
Just like Bob Dylan 😢 so sad.
"Earth, Wind, & Fire's “Electric Universe” album in 1983 broke a string of 11 straight gold or platinum LPs and led to a four-year hiatus. During the break, group members Maurice White and Philip Bailey worked on separate projects and, mainly, sought to revitalize their creative energies."
I believe there may be a copyright issue here.
It was a whole thing back then apparently.
Brazilian singer and composer Tim Maia released in 1975 an album titled "imunização racional" (rational imunization), following a cult that claimed bitter, angry, sorrowful people were all badly magnetized and needed to discharge so they could recover their health.
Not surprised to hear Earth, Wind and Fire had a similar career patch less than 10 years later, since it is still close and these things hunt for artists like the scientology bunch
Electric Universe DESTROYED by earth, wind, and fire
What is it with all the fringe beliefs hating on gravity? What did gravity ever do to them?
They were dropped on the head because of gravity
That's easy. Because gravity is what "the mainstream" believes and anything that "the mainstream" believes" must be evil. I wish I was making this up.
It has nothing to do with Einstein being jewish at all... nope... that's not it...
Because there are anomalies that General Relativity alone can't account for and think it's bullshit how many 'dark' fudge factors are added to make the equations work, even though that's literally the scientific process to refine your model to match observations more accurately and figure out why your model doesn't work without these modifications. They are also pissed tax dollars are being spent on research that is not yielding enough results, even though eliminating possible explanations is literally how science advances in order to get closer to the actual explanation. Their shortcomings feed their already inherent distrust of the establishment because it doesn't line up with how they think the world should be. The sad thing is they completely miss out on the fact physicists are the first to acknowledge the limits of our current theories and that a lot of work is left to be done, as well as taking the assumptions that they do as assumptions and not facts they base their work off of and will quickly readjust them should any evidence come up to suggest them to do so.
@@ThatCrazyKid0007 _"They are also pissed tax dollars are being spent on research that is not yielding enough results"_ Like how we just managed to punch an asteroid and take a sample or how we managed to get a probe closer to the sun than ever before even during pandemic lockdown? Yea, those things sucked didn't they?
I mean we landed on the moon around 50 years ago right? And we still haven't figured out the entire origin of the universe in that time? How lame is that? I mean cancer research started around the 1770's and there's no way that cancer is more complicated than the start of the universe right bro? We totally need a new approach because there's no way that humans shouldn't have this figured out in like 6 months right bro?
That plasma image looks suspiciously like an orange cut in half:- Therefore Gravity is fruit based
LOL....that made me laugh....thanks
You're just fruit biased.
Proponents of the Orange Earth Theory would rather you say that gravity is _citrus-based!_
Get your facts right... Neil Degrass Tyson reckons the earth is supposed to be PEAR shaped ! ha ha vegan science !
Or fruit is gravity-based, that's why apples fall from trees. 🍎🌳
Professor Dave in an alternate electric universe: Debunking the gravitational universe
Lol, this made me laugh 😃😃😃
no
10:24 "All charges cancel out". They certainly don't in plasma. Plasma can form counter rotating stacked double layers where one layer is negative, the other positive.
@Ian w16 the Debye length is the distance over which significant "charge separation" can occur.
So what? The _total_ charge of these two layers taken together is still zero. _That_ was his point.
That's why a plasma "acts" like a "magnet", with a dipole. And "magnetic" type forces decrease really fast with distance. I keep being vague because if you understood your own comment, you wouldn't have posted it.
@@AlcyonEldara "That's why a plasma "acts" like a "magnet", with a dipole."
No, it doesn't. Wheree did you get that from?!
"I keep being vague because"
Because you know yourseld that you write nonsense.
"if you understood your own comment, you wouldn't have posted it."
Pot. Kettle. Black.
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 hilarious coming from a moron who doesn't even understand the notion of Debye length.
At distances way larger than this length, a plasma is electrically neutral and has a magnetic field. The end.
“now that we’ve grounded ourselves a bit.” 😂
I was about to comment the same thing lmao.
These guys need to be more down to earth like Mr Dave here. :D
@@schkrimbly I think the people who think there's an reference point in an electrical circuit are the most grounded.
@@yourbiggestfan395
Wait... which people are those?
Lol that got me too
24:40 Pyramids are spaceships? ahahaha don't be ridiculous. We all know that pyramids are the *landing pads* of spaceships.
And there's another Stargate fan.... :-)
All hail anubis
I thought they were the energy suplies for spaceships
I assume you're joking but there are indeed people who are ancient aliens types who think they're part of some landing area for spaceships, and that they're beacons or guidelines for the incoming ships
@@Ratchet4647 im joking but qho knows
"Does not offer a working model." The bane of conspiracy theorists everywhere.
Except EU does and here's the best part: EVERY LECTURE IS AVAILABLE FOR FREE AND ONLINE OPEN-SOURCE FOR EVEN TRIPLE -VAXXED DRONES LIKE YOU ÀND THE CREATOR to cling to your dogma.
@@marcinorszulak5601 Nonsense.
@@marcinorszulak5601 Why Stupid People Think They Are Smart
ua-cam.com/video/I9XTox7zlSw/v-deo.html
@@marcinorszulak5601Jokes on you I am quindecuple vaxxed
I can't believe decades after Galileo, capernicus, and other amazing break throughs we have there are still people who believe the earth is flat. I have 2 pieces of proof that anyone can test. First climb a mountain, many are reachable without technical gear and from the summit you can see the curvature of our beautiful earth. I know this because I've seen it several times. Second get a cat. After a few months of owning a cat you would realize that if the earth was truly flat cats would have knocked everything off the edge by now
This is not about flat earth.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains my apologies, I was watching a sci man dan video and near the end was writing that comment, the auto play UA-cam generator played your video and thus my comment was added to both simultaneously. I can understand your frustration, the whole idea of flat earth is as irritating as a ill fitting sock in your shoe but you are too busy to fix it. However I did subscribe to your channel as well because I love learning from my betters. I've noticed that once I understand a subject I assume others must know it too because its now simple for me to understand. You do a great job of avoiding that, and understand that it may be a little difficult for some people to wrap their mind around a foreign concept. Thank you for the awesome vids
you have to be 100km above earth's surface to see the curvature (which does exist) You can however watch a boat go over a horizon (I think you would use a Nikon P900000)!
EU plasma theorists don't believe the world is flat… In fact, it goes against their entire research … so … what the F are you getting at?
@@treid100182 he commented an explanation for his comment.
I think we are living in a chocolade universe. Because for some reason I am - and most people I know - definitely attracted to chocodlade... Granted there seems to be a link to gravity, because I become heavier and heavier when I eat it. Mhhh. I going to do some more research, I guess...
@Q - AGEIDO Some weird things are happening. For instance, the attraction apparently is not depending on the distance at all. I also am attracted to choclade even without knowing where it is.
Currently, I am trying to prove that the Sun is actually a large chunk of hot choclade.
@Q - AGEIDO Brilliant idea! Wanna join in the research? :D
I'm not so sure . The more chocolade that I attract the more females I seem to repulse . There seems to be an equal & opposite relationship between the two phenomena . As you say more ingestion of chocolade is required for research purposes
@@voraciousfred no, is speled chocolade. yum.
The universe is clearly based on whisky, so I guess you and I are at war now.
The only positive thing about flat earthers is that they make me feel smart.
Lmao🤣🤣🤣
Lol definitely a positive.... Though it helps make my outlook on humanity more grim as well.
2nd positive thing is they make laugh :) i know its not OK to make fun of mentally ill people but anyway :D
Smart? They make me feel like a god.
What's really funny is, that's exactly how they feel about us. The true allure of 'flat-earth' is; "I have special knowledge you don't". Imo, it's just a tool insecure people use to feel better about themselves.
Tinfoil hatters like them do a massive disservice to Tesla. He was a legit scientist who briefly entertained the idea of wireless power at a time when that was legitimately within the realm of theoretical physics. It no longer is. He wasn't a "prophet", he was brilliant, but a man of his time.
Exactly.
Why is wireless power not within the realm of theoretical physics anymore apparently? I seem to have missed the memo
@@NetHacker100
IIRC Tesla had proposed a system of wireless power transmission on a city-size scale. It doesn't work (in any practical sense) due to the inverse square rule.
Came here from PBS Spacetime! Glad you've made this video, these people drive me crazy in the comments section on any Spacetime video that even tangentially involves dark matter or electromagnetism or gravity, so I'm very excited to hear your take on the psychology of them and this belief.
Likewise stopped by after the ZTF J1901+1458 video.
Now, if I'm understanding the info on magnetic fields correctly, the galactic magnetic field may be a factor in *where* gas concentrations form, but once enough gas is there, gravity takes over the production of the new star and its proto-planetary disc. Which unfortunately, might be enough "evidence" for EU'ers. Sigh.
Thirded.
@@SuperTonyony Fouthed. Came here as never heard about this "Electric Universe" thing. Is this something more American?
Coming from PBS Spacetime and never having heard of this theory before I had seconds to prepare me to what it was and I just started imagining what kind of bs they would be pushing through. Turns out what I imagined was (at least to me) much more interesting than this, so I will share, because maybe someone will find interesting.
So my bs theory of electric universe, was that much like magnetism is "rotational" electricity, maybe gravitation is also derived from them; it is like the sum of the higher order interactions (like rotation of magnetism, and rotation of rotation of rotation) and so on, and those forces combined, which have a much smaller magnitude, give something that behaves like gravity. It is similar to the idea of feynman diagrams (with the infinite sums thing), so maybe this will have some allure.
Also you can argue that even though sums of interactions of single charges cancel out, once you take into account interactions of dipoles, quadripoles and octopoles, they stop cancelling out perfectly, and there would always be a statistical residual.
I am pretty sure you can even come up with some maths to justify this bs, so there you have it, my bs theory.
@simpsons Bart Apples fall to ground. Conspiracy nuts debunked centuries before they were even born.
I suggest a debate with some electric universe proponents, like say, Ben Davidson???
Stop doing what a con artist on FaceBook tells you. Ask Ben to give you one EU formula that can be used to do anything in reality.
@Ian w16 Yeah, I would be scared to...
Justin Kennedy Did he actually give references?
@@flookd5516 He gave links to alll his published and peer reviewed works. :)
@@justinkennedy3004 If you actually look at the link he only has one paper, books are not peer-reviewed. It is not cited by anyone from a NASA center, there is one citation from someone who lists their affiliation as "Geo Cosmo Science and Research Center", which is based in a NASA research park. This a private company unaffiliated with NASA which leases space. It is totally wrong to claim he has paper*s* cited by NASA, both are aspects are false.
Man, that part about reading textbooks was so relatable. I’m outlining my chemistry textbook and there’s so much about quantum mechanics that I had no clue about. Just looking at the equations and how they’re derived gives me the same feeling that I get when looking through a telescope at night. It’s difficult to see at first, but your brain really does begin to make those connections between math and science. And when it does, it’s awesome!
i mean math is just a tool we use to quantify logic.
like we normally think of logic as just "if then, then that", but math lets us put that type of logical thinking into actual quantities and shit.
its basically teh same thing.
YES! Math is the pure logic tool to describe the truth, not the truth itself
QM and GR are a one big fiction.
I remember just the feeling you describe in my Waves and Optics course sophomore year of college. It’s like the veil of reality has been lifted and you’re allowed to see behind the curtain.
I just find it amazing that the eggheads can visualize hypothetical ideas purely with math. Like how Einstein visualized how time slows down around you at the speed of light, and made an equation that explains it. I don't get how math can describe specific things like that, but the fact that it can is astounding. I wish I wasn't completely hopeless at understanding mathematics so I could experience your epiphany.
8:20 "Now that we've grounded ourselves a bit"
Oh, Dave, you so cheeky
"Science-illiterate unemployable simpletons with personality disorders" is the greatest thing I will hear all day.
i almost fit that definition(with the exception of science-illiterate) perfectly, and i'm definitely not a flat earther, or antivaxer, or feminist, or libertarian, or drumpf supporter, or anti-gmo, or creationist.....i feel ike i should really take offense.....but somehow i dont feel offended....
I was going say the same thing, it's just hilarious.
@@sabin97 I somehow feel that "libertarian" does not fit with the rest of the things you listed.
@@UrbFoxFact When did he mock anyone's type of employment?!!! Unemployable simply means "cannot be employed."
@@BenGrem917 This is UA-cam... everything is a conspiracy. It doesn't take much for YT's algorithms to start suggesting videos made by lunatics.
23:06 Why did he use the Fallout guy showing the middle finger and slap "EU" to on it it represent someone who believes in the Electric Universe? It seems so out of place.
i have to use images that are licensed for fair use, i just take what i can get for free, i don't really know or care who the little dude is.
@@BenGrem917 you must be 10 year old
@@sirwhitemeat9785 Jesse Lee Peterson: "ar yu an adult vidya gaymer? BEYTAH!"
@@davorbrijacak lol yeah didn't someone call him a computer gamer?
Thanks to Matt at Spacetime for sending me to this channel! The only downside is that I now know that this ridiculous, vaguely sciencey, conspiracy theory exists. But, its always good to be reminded to keep a healthy scepticism when faced with extraordinary claims.
Those people frequent many other astrophysics or science channels, including Dr. Becky and Anton Petrov. I like seeing those channels giving them a little pushback, and Dave does it in a fittingly sarcastic manner
If you enjoyed this video, you should absolutely check out all of professor Dave's other debunks. They're excellent.
Ditto. I knew all about the Electric Universe nonsense but I would never have found this channel without its mention on SpaceTime.
@@earlysda I genuinely can't imagine a rational human could watch this video in it's entirety and come to that conclusion. The only explanation is that you didn't actually watch the video.
@@alexthomas5633 Not that they are completely irrational?
Im glad my first introduction to this was your video, because this is something a younger me might’ve fallen for
That was a close call, thank the self proclaimed science gods the excess fluoride and the all pervading omnipresent nonstop propaganda successfully cured you from independent thinking and prevented you from developing discernment or into an autonomous free individual instead of a sheep!
Isn't this all to get rid of gravity, which is necessary for flat earth to work, and that's why there is such an overlap between EU and Flerfism?
It's why flerfs have espoused EU, but it's not why EU exists.
It connects
This is too stupid to even reply to.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains that commenter shares brain cells with a mcchicken fragment
@@osmosisjones4912 "replulsive forces like elections"?
Flat Out, is that you?
So a couple of weeks ago, PBS Spacetime posted a video about magnetism on galactic scale. This week, Professor Matt gave this video a shout-out in response to all the EU nuts claiming that he was validating their fraudulent cosmology.
Always the religious looking for their god in the gaps.
@@BrighamMike Are EU nuts religious? I know they are just a step up from flat earthers in scientific literacy but I didn't think they were necessarily religious?
@@ddegn religious in the sense that they blindly hold onto un testible theories like an extreme devote person might. (Not looking to insult the religious just comparing their devotion to a belief. )
@@ddegn and sorry saying god of the gaps isshorthand further looking for the smallest place to say mytheory fits there. Or using that small gap to attempt to invalidate anything
@@earlysda Yeah, right. Where do you get that nonsense from?
The pictures of planets being blown up by lightning would make for good metal album covers
@@pastramilover1012 your comment made me curious so I looked it up. "Electric Universe" is a psychedelic trance project from Germany formed in 1991 (Wikipedia). Sorry mate, the names taken!
@@ericpode6095 Galactic Lightning would work as well if the other one's taken. You could call the album "Canyon Of Destruction". Lol
people do understand how horrifying that concept is
totally
I knew nothing about this before the conspiracy nut in my life, mentioned it in an arguement we had over whether gravity is real. I got the impression then that he was just mashing science words together. So good to know he was doing just that.
I feel bad for tesla, his character has been so butchered in history that he will end up being remembered completely differently and his actual work gets forgotten
Not entirely, we will always measure magnetic fields in units of Telsa :)
I do as well, anyone going around quoting Tesla while at the same time trying to allege that gravity does not exist, is NO fan of Tesla at all nor understand that he believed in gravity as was working on his _Dynamic theory of gravitation_ unpublished work he kept periodically talking about.
@ThisAintKyle I think you are confusing EU theory with the related but different theory of Plasma Cosmology. And yes I already did a little bit of research into this as I am skeptical person and check sources. This video was in regards to EU theory NOT plasma cosmology. And more specifically it was in regards to videos from The Thunderbolts Project. From their own webpage it states this right on its home page "Was there a big bang? Not likely. Einstein’s Relativity? Doesn’t hold up. Is the Sun a thermonuclear fusion reactor which will eventually run out of fuel and burn out? Nope. Are there black holes? No such thing." Looking into it further on what all it claims, states this "Magnetism, gravity and the nuclear force are various effects produced by charged, orbitally structured protons and electrons in response to an applied electric force. All matter in the universe is connected by the electric force." This is all confirmed with another website electricuniverse.
In other words no it does not deny gravity per se, it is saying what we know and call gravity really is not gravity at all. Instead it is allegedly electromagnetic force. So it is indirectly denying gravity .. or at least as we know it. And yes I do regret it because it is complete and utter BS. This implies that everything in the universe MUST be a conducter (whether good or bad conductor) and we know that simply is NOT true. As an engineer with physics, you should know that IF this crap were true that we should easily be able to detect that electric current flow ... yet we can not. You should also know that IF this crap were true we would see different results of gravitational pull with good conductors vs bad conductors ... yet once again that is not the case. Let alone it should not impact non-conductors at all. For example does gravity pull more with conductive copper and less with bad conductor of pure water? Nope. It simply does not hold up even on the very basic level of its suggestion. Now there might be something to some of those other theories such as plasma cosmology, but I kind of doubt it. Tbh physics is not strong suit of mine, so no point in dwelving into such complex things such as plasma until I know physics better ... which just doubt will do as there are tons more interesting things to me. Unlike electric which I do know quite a bit more ... enough to know this is pure BS. I do however partially agree with its main premise that electricity plays more a part than we are aware of, piezoelectrics is all around us and I think more important than we currently realize ... but significant role uhm NO. And it definitely does not replace other forces such as gravity like this theory suggests. If it were so significant role we would be seeing it and detecting it, but we simply do not.
@@kevinfisher1345 well said, Sir. Cheers
@@AngryHateMusic AHHAHHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA 48 minutes of conformation bias, misinterpretation of basic grade 8 cosmology and erroneous conclusions. I had to facepalm a couple of times through that video. This has been done before, and explained way better with much less need to play games of dictionary and obfuscation to push a narritive. I think tesla would dropkick these guys off of his electricity distribution tower.
Does electromagnetism affect planetary and solar system formation? Yes it does, compare that to gravity and it's nearly negligible.
I am open to the theory that there is a single unifying force holding the universe together... Could there be a single force that accounts for both gravity and electromagnetism? Yes. But that unifying force has not yet been described and gravity MUST be a part of that equation.
You can call it whatever you want. If you dig down deep enough, gravity and electromagnetism might be lesser effects of the same force.
Right now we don't know. My guess is that there is a unifying force, we're just waiting for some supergenius to have an "aha" moment.
So even though all evidence points in one direction, you still want to look in a different direction because it sounds cool?
Ian w16
Ian w16
NinjaMonkeyPrime
@@sandornagy1565 The evidence is all the research on gravity and EM we have to date. In order to believe in EU you need to forget what we know about EM and then insert magic woo.
Oh my God subbed. If all your other videos are this fantastic, where do I send you all my money?
Check out the debunking playlist I'm sure you'll enjoy several more! Patreon is always there should you wish to support.
You can buy his book, "Is this wifi organic?"
@@freddan6fly
seconded. that book is great!
@@freddan6flyThis implies the existence of genetically modified wifi
@@cursedcat6467 It is a question uneducated idiots ask, My daddy thought everything organic was good. You could serve him frog poison or botulism, and he would be happy. I love him but he isn't smart.
Tbh, the entire video could just be summarized as “they ain’t got no math” lol
That’s the tip of the iceberg, bud.
I remember the first time I heard the electric universe. I was shocked!
Sorry I just could not resist.
Well played.
@@dedskin1 I'll start listening once you learn how to make a proper sentence, then I'll do some basic research to disprove you
@@dedskin1 Electrical Universe is just a load of scientific sounding words put together in random order. It has as many scientific papers as flat earth, it has as much science behind it as flat earth, it has as much predictive capabilities as flat earth. It is just con men trying to sound scientific.
Pavle Pavlovic It's a good thing NASA's work is just a small part in all the astrophysics, astronomy, heliophysics and cosmology research.
At least your comment shows that you don't know what you're talking about...
@@dedskin1 pls tell me something about plasma. Anything. I'm sure u just know nothing about the physics behind ist.
And while u are thinking about reading the wikipedia also answere the following: how do u come to the idea of lightning bolds creating hexagonal patterns when hitting something not conducting like the moon?
This seems to be a great debunking, however I love nit-picking:
You explained the need to comply with Newtonian gravity on our usual scale, which is obviously given. However, you kinda implied that doing so would require things to act intuitively the same in any scale. General relativity does not do this, and is our best model: a good theory (electric universe has no theory at all, but this argument argues it couldn't possibly ever have) can have significant limits and vastly differing areas, as long as they are derived logically and are not at odds with each other. In general relativity, we see why on earth and on most planetary systems newtonian gravity is so precise: compared to speed of light, the relative velocity of objects we measure is marginal, thus time dilation is neglectable.
Secondly right after you lay many good layman examples what theory arguing that electromagnetism is very significant force for everyday objects, on par with gravity, would absolutely need to explain. However it would be fair to acknowledge that hypothetical plausible theory (there is none, and there won't be one. But this line of arguing tries to show us why so it has to be assumed so it can be falsified) would probably be fine explaining only few of these, and the rest carry out naturally. For example: the main interaction is magnetic field: my layman understanding goes as far that I'm quite confident insulation of shoes won't matter. Humans probably don't carry enough current through us, ever, to change how we would interact with hypothetical earth-sized magnet. So we'd explode in MRI, see magnetic objects falling faster and could generate electricity by just moving around. But we wouldn't get lighter by wearing rubber shoes. Similarly if some secret second electronic current was connecting us to earth, the magnetic fields it (we, all the time) would generate would not be the same as super strong poles of a planet.
The second one is quite minor point and as the idea is so ridiculous and any earth magnetism theory of gravity would need to re-explain both forces pretty much entirely from scrap. So acknowledging that one or two of the million obvious cases it would struggle with are likely mutually exclusive won't exactly help.
However the first point: what if general relativity on scales it disagrees with Newtonian gravity is actually some secret web of electromagnetism is in my opinion more poisonous pseudotheory as it's harder to debunk, and can easily jab back on examples on earth by pointing at general relativity and saying "you don't consider that the falling magnets experience time differently from you either, now do you?". So focusing on it and especially why it can't possibly comply with constant speed of light would in my opinion be a more fruitful starting point. (unless time is now somehow electromagnetic dimension of universe, and all speeds and distances somehow secretly tie into electromagnetism regardless of current, polarity and magnetic fields).
Either way, it's quite funny how often bad science is just some quack either trying to write bibble into science or write a new bibble-like mythology from some mixture of astrology and documentaryfilm level understanding of science. Or as it often is, both.
do you understand when you make long thoughtful arguments people cannot reply to it
I think I understand what your nitpick is. You're saying, if we play devil's advocate, one can make a stronger argument for electric universe by adding in some term in their equations so that the effects are only noticeable at large scales.
I want to nitpick your nitpick. Instead of saying "a good theory can have significant limits", I think the correct way to describe it would be more like "there are limits to empirical tests that can be done when the theory predicts a very small difference".
I don't know about you, but some people have the wrong assumption that there's a boundary of some sort where physics transition from newtonian to relativistic. There are actually people who say "relativity doesn't apply when going sufficiently slow". No, relativity does apply, it's just that it predicts almost the same behaviour as newtonian physics. Insofar as there is a difference, relativity is still the more accurate over newtonian, even at slow speeds. It's just that in everyday life we don't care about differences so insignificant. But it is there.
Both the Bunker and the Debunker err to presume too much. So, let's get Socrates' input. For, Socrates is one of the foremost authorities on wisdom...
Through his genius, Socrates illustrated the fact that wisdom is the ability to know and admit the limits of one's knowledge. Wisdom is knowing that one does NOT know. Wisdom is the opposite of presumption. So...
Wisdom is a requirement in order to engage TRUE science. And through the process of elimination, the scientist must admit that which he does NOT know in order to be left standing securely on that which he DOES know.
With that in mind...
Newton and Einstein described WHAT gravity DOES, which proves correct (with math).
But they then theorized WHY gravity does these things. And they theorized HOW gravity does these things. Which led them to theorize WHAT gravity IS. But theories require presumption. And Newton's theories on the latter three topics are acknowledged to be incorrect by modern scientists. And Einstein's theories on these topics have yet to be proved.
So, all science really knows is WHAT GRAVITY DOES.
And this brings us to human nature, which is the monkey wrench in the gears of science (and philosophy and religion, for that matter).Why? PRESUMPTION; wisdom’s opposite.
Men like to think they know things that they do NOT know, as Socrates illustrated so well. And a good psychiatrist knows that this is because men seek a sense of security in this manner.
Now, someone with a very high IQ and a PhD (or several PhD's) is going to believe that he can study and experiment and think his way to the answers that he seeks. However, I will ask such a person right now to use math to give me the EXACT circumference of a circle that has a diameter of 10 inches, down to the final decimal.
A simple request. But he knows that he cannot honor it.
And yet, even Albert Einstein thought that math would allow him to know the Mind of God.
So, what high IQ PhD would believe that a simple man with no more than a high school education can know more than he concerning the biggest questions? The simple man who, not by thinking, but by SILENCING his ego mind and LISTENING to the Mind of GOD.
For, as it turns, That Mind is ALL that there truly is! And try as it may, science will never be able to dissect or know That Mind. But it CAN listen and learn.
"The Book of GOD" at A Course in Truth.
Once you have the simple answers to the BIGGEST questions, all others are moot.
@@tomrhodes1629 1984 much?
@@tomrhodes1629 Sure , this mind of God give me the exact circumference of a 10 inch diameter circle to the last digit?
I though not.
I saw The Electric Universe at the Fillmore East with Wavy Gravy and The Moving Sidewalks.
Cool 😜
Man, thank you for this. My dad fell into this particular nonsense about a decade back. He claims it is because of his frustrations with scientists and "Dark Matter" but that's a whole 'nother issue and I won't bore you with his misunderstandings with it. Regardless, it's been...depressing to have someone you care about fall for a fringe theory like this when you otherwise consider them, you know, a rational person. Although he has flirted with conspiracy theories at various times in his life, it was always more as a casual fan, not a true believer, and I don't know any other fringe beliefs he has that are demonstrably false based on a preponderance of available evidence, other than him believing dark matter doesn't exist, which is tied up with this one.
Sadly, I probably won't be able to get him to watch this since you don't coddle their feelings enough, so I imagine the first time in the video he hears it be described derogatorily he will just shut down and get defensive. Esp[ecially the comparison with flat eartherism, we actually got in an almost shouting match when I used that analogy before as to why I was so annoyed with his belief when, yes, it doesn't hurt me to have someone else believing something wrong...But still, he can understand why I would be frustrated if it were flat eartherism which is clearly insane, but this is TOTALLY different in his eyes.
6:24 from this section, I know that these are compelling questions that you can use to ask on how phenomena can be explained with the current explanation of gravity vs the electric universe model.
Same here but my dad isn't quite as clever as yours. My dad fell into the conspiracy hole decades ago as a truck driver listening to Alex Jones. He believes in some crazy stuff haha.
Apparently the queen of England (rip bitch) is the actual ruler of the illuminati/masons/communists/new world order/NASA, and she obtained the ability to control all of these people because she was actually a demon who sat on magical (and I do mean magical in the sense that it gave her magic powers) meteorite which the devil gave her. That's what he really truly believes. It's very frustrating having to speak with him because he is simply detached from reality at this point.
I will never understand the mentality that drives people to believe that because something is complex and they can't understand it, that thing must be wrong. I'm a pretty well-educated and intelligent person, but I'm thoroughly aware that there are plenty of things I don't know and don't understand. I don't think those things are fake / wrong.
I think the reason is because humans think they know everything but we don't really know as much as we think we know. Science is constantly changing after all.
I had a friend who believed in this theory so I questioned him on it. The more questions I asked, i realised it wasn't about the science, he wanted to be an outsider going against the mainstream. He also believed in chemtrails, 9/11, cancer isn't real, etc. He's open to any theory as long as it goes against the "mainstream". Its completely a personality issue.
@@madingo02 This sounds exactly like some people I've known, the same specific beliefs they subscribed to, the same motivations for following those conspiracy theories. One of them was also very prone to falling for scams, like Bitcoin copycats, then when it would inevitably fall through, they'd blame the scammer and then fall for the next one. It's really tough to watch it and fail to help them see the cycle. They would get mad when told it was a scam. I think the mentality of wanting to have a special knowledge and go against the mainstream is part of what made them so gullible for scams--they sought special knowledge, about the nature of the world or about how to get rich quick. It's hard to help people like that.
“Now that we’ve Grounded ourselves” I see what you did there
@@sonpopco-op9682 I love how this video twists and straw mans someone in an attempt to claim said person is twisting and straw-manning a nonsensical belief system. Seems like the creator of this video didn't actually watch professor dave, but made assumptions based of a generalized and false caricature. Much like how all pseudoscience peddlers roll. You guys seem to be just a tiny notch above flat earthers for dishonesty and projection.
Off topic but I'm disappointed in that you didn't go over the "Crisis in Cosmology" paper that came out last year when you covered the early universe in earlier videos.
Suggest it to him directly in posts or write an email to him! Try your best to get heard, and ignore this Kenny Nickell who again like many other comes from pure bad faith/motivation thinking fully bad of Dave (and on the other hand fully believing the gospel of Michio Kaku, even though Michio was likely referring to a different cosmological theory like the old heliocentric from Copernicus or something else on that 10^120 thing). The difference is not that the whole entire model is wrong, and while the time/distance discrepancy between the two methods in the crisis in cosmology is large and noticeable, it's not off by a factor of 10^120.
If it however eventually shows it to be, would mean the universe would be 10^120 as much old, (as it is no way 10^-111th of a second young)
3.3K dislikers cannot provide a single functional model for the electric universe, but still think themselves smarter than Einstein
"Now we've grounded ourselves..." 😂 Brilliant.
I'm shocked he said that.
@David Van Doren Ben Davidson is the equivalent of Nathan Oakley: the only things he does is saying how "mainstream" cosmology is wrong and that his "plasma" cosmology is somehow better without giving any conctrete evidence for that: he will dig for cosmological data that he can present as evidence for his hoax without ever elaborating or citing any science papers that would show such a connection, because he knows he can't. He does that so he can sound appealing to laypeople who don't have the required knowledge (which is most people actually, and that's the danger about this type of hoax), so that they hopefully buy his book (only 45 bucks!) conference tickets, or a premium membership on his beautifully professional website. Did you?
@@mrsHeather985 ....did you just ruin a wonderful pun for me? •_•
@David Van Doren Debate a guy who is clueless about basic grade 4 science? HAHAHAHAHA
Descriptions of a force does not explain it
The problem with debunking videos like this is... well, actually there are multiple problems, including that it actually serves to give attention to the very things they're trying to debunk, i.e. feeding the trolls... but the _main_ problem is this:
In order to communicate effectively with the kinds of people who buy into these kinds of pseudo-science, who invariably don't have sufficient education to understand the full nuance of the real science involved, you have to dumb down the science _a lot._ For people _with_ the education to understand the nuance, we can recognize where you've dumbed it down and why, and realize the way you're trying to make your points, but for people _without_ that education, it's your word against "someone else's."
So, say I'm a highly credentialed scientist who has a UA-cam channel in which I say something like, "Gravity alone is not completely sufficient to define how galaxies form and move, why star-forming regions are where they are, and how they interact in clusters."
This is completely true, of course... and to someone with a full education in astrophysics, it will contain a lot of subtext along the lines of "A galaxy's magnetic field can help guide and move gas to form overdense and underdense regions, which can trigger star formation in consistent regions that greatly influence the galaxy's future shape, even though of course gravity has far greater effects on the motions of those stars once they're created, and the macroscopic orbits of the gas as a bulk. Furthermore, certain interactions between elements of galactic clusters demonstrate important effects, such as relativistic jets and plumes that seem to slam into invisible walls and flatten out, that can't be explained by gravity alone, and are also neatly explained by electromagnetic interactions with a hot but very sparse plasma and/or the magnetic fields of the entire cluster."
But to the uneducated pseudo-science adherent, all they heard was "This person with better credentials than you said that gravity can't explain a lot of stuff, and the really powerful thing that decides where stars are made and how galaxies look is electromagnetism!"
And now, my more nuanced take has 'defeated' your _deliberately_ more simplified take that was _intended_ to defeat the pseudoscience, and winds up supporting the pseudoscience (for those people) _because_ it's more nuanced, i.e. they lack the education to fully understand said nuance.
So, just as an example from this video, you say things like "Gravity is the attraction between all matter." Well... I mean, yeah. The Newtonian interpretation of gravity does say that, but we know (and I'm sure you know) that that is just a useful approximation of an emergent property that holds and is very helpful for, certain limited regimes of scale and movement.
So now imagine that that person hears on another channel with a much bigger name or institution name attached, say, Fermilab or Sean Carrol or someone like that, that in fact, that isn't what gravity is at all; it isn't a force. Objects actually don't fall because of a force at all, but because _time_ simply flows toward massive objects, so an object isn't really being "attracted" to the celestial body, so much as its future simply _does_ intersect that body in a predictable way due to the flow of spacetime (but mostly time).
Because they didn't have the education or insight to be able to fully grasp the nuance of that much more complex and mind-blowing definition of gravity with relation to tennis balls and planets, the correct but confusing and nuanced part just kind of glitches out in their mind and doesn't really get recorded as memory in any sensible way. And yet, they _do_ remember hearing someone really believable saying that the way _you_ described gravity, isn't it at all; they remember the _impression_ that your take on gravity, and theirs previous, is wrong "somehow".
Now, the next time they hear someone _else_ repeat that your version is wrong, but also offer a replacement that sounds plausible to them, and just understandable enough to be impressive... and then toss in some psychology and a need to have a special insight others don't have and... boom. Your debunking video, plus Fermilab's deeper analysis video, plus some troll's semi-plausible pseudoscience video, equals a new pseudoscience adherent, like magic!
So I... get what you're trying to do, and I admire it. But ultimately it can only fail. To _really_ "debunk" this kind of nonsense, you need to engage those people where they really are, interest them enough in science to get them to open their minds and _want_ to learn how the world really works (NOT that they are wrong, just "would you like to know more?"), and help them gain enough education, from the ground up, to finally acquire genuine understanding. This, of course, is exhausting, nearly impossible, and is the job of _society_ from parents to schools to media in a ground-up effort... and since our society in America is kind of trying really hard to do the exact opposite, it's... kind of a losing battle.
Of course... the subtext of all of this is that _your_ purpose is, at least on some level, to generate popular content, get views and subscribers, and earn money. Which, of course, is exactly the same purpose that _most_ of the flat earthers and electric universers have as well, which kind of makes you one half of the economic microcosm that perpetuates these piles of nonsense in the first place.
Plus, I mean... some people are just really bound and determined to dumb. Dumb can't be argued with, or reasoned with. It can only be educated... and even then, only if it wants to. Determined dumb is just dumb, and there's sadly not much we can do about it.
P.S. Your cartoon guy (version of you?) you use at various points in this, with the brown hair, brown eyes, and green shirt? Pretty cute! Did you draw him? -Too bad he's not barefoot.- >_
Stopped half in the wall of text but good shit i gave you like
It's a cynical take and I have a horrible feeling you're right, but I still prefer people like Dave to do what they do, for anyone on the side of reason to speak up in any way they can. I sure as hell don't have the emotional fortitude to try to engage with anyone and explain things, present things on a silver platter perfectly customized for what their situation might be, in order to spark curiosity and not spook them and cause them to scurry away to the "enemy camp"...
My issue with these videos is actually the hostility and how he kinda unintentionally spits at the field of psychology and mentally ill people here, throwing around stuff like "simple psychology", "delusion", "personality disorder" and even "unemployable" which doesn't really have anything to do with how intelligent or willing to learn someone is. There's several reasons why someone might be unable to work. This won't make someone who is disadvantaged and looking to something (pseudocience) to make them feel better about themselves (as Dave correctly identified as one reason) any more likely to engage in good faith, as they're not engaged with in good faith either... But... it really is next to impossible to find the right formula to snap someone out of it and I fully admit to have descended to apathy, just trying to make it from one day to the next. I keep educating myself but have very little faith overall.
@@human-beingggggg Exactly. I find him so offensive I'll go elsewhere to learn.
@@human-beingggggg Yeah. I don't like his tone. It makes the people that you actually want to get through to, defensive. And what's the point in that.
'Debunking ' is a big research area across the social sciences, we're figuring a few things out. And all too often, the way we (society) attempt to debunk is not very productive
3:15 just a bit precision nit-pick note for the formula and "r = distance between the centers of the objects" - this applies to spherically symmetric objects. Generally other objects that are not spherically symmetric (cubes, blocks, rods, discs, satellites etc) this formula doesn't work exactly for the whole object (but for example for satellites orbiting earth it doesn't matter that much) and needs to be 3D-integrated for the given shape
@@harrisonoswald5159 that's interesting if true, but I was talking about the formula. F=G*m_1*m_2/r^2 will not give you a correct result for ships
@@OudeicratAnnachrista yup, that was pretty much a nitpick but well-spotted anyway
First, I am not any kind of whacky, ideology-pushing person. The following are simply my curious questions.
First question: how do we find the mass of something like Mars or the Moon? Second question: when I have the mass of a large body like Mars or the Moon, then I calculate its surface gravity, then how do I measure/observe its gravity without going there and dropping something on the surface?
I'm not asking these questions to build doubt. I'm simply curious about how things work. I should review an astronomy textbook, watch your astromony lecture series, or study the topic more. Thanks.
I think mainly by looking at its orbit, and density calculations, stuff like that. I'm not sure about observations of acceleration due to gravity, I just know that when we went to the moon and dropped stuff, it all checked out.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains I appreciate you and all of your work, Dave. Have a great afternoon.
You can measure the mass of the planets simply by looking at the orbits of the various planets.
Now, since there's the famous N-bodies problem, we don't have a law that lets us calculate the orbits of all the planets at the same time, so what happens is that you observe, make a graph and then make an approximate fit. Once you can verify that this fit is accurate fornthe most part, you take what's called the residues (the parts your initial fit cannot describe well) and make a correction so to make another, more accurate, fit, and so on. This method is basically on the lines of trial-and-error, but works so well you can calculate the masses of exoplanets as well.
As for the surface gravity, Newton's gravitational theory is one of the best understood theories of physics, and since we know for a fact the Gm1m2/r² works, and calculating the radius of a planet is easy, you can find the sirface gravity of any planet you please, and since you know the formula is right, you can assume you are right
@@lorenzobarazzuol5307 Thank you Lorenzo.
@@Paraselene_Tao no problem, glad to have answered your question
You helped me, helping a friend who fall for the electric Universe. Thanks a lot!!!
Yep, helped
@@1972martind28 Just because you're not smart enough to get it, it doesn't make it any less true.
Last time I was this early nobody was dumb enough to believe the earth was flat
same
Nice 👍.
Don't fall for the lie, the Death star is flat!
Wait...
When I was a kid, I remember being told in school that "once upon a time", people believed that the earth was flat, and I couldn't imagine anyone actually believing that...
Fast forward to today... ? ... and I just don't know WHAT to think.
We understand the effects of gravity very well. How it works, not so much. Just saying
The effects are similar enough to magnetism that we need to study their similarities and call it what it is, an electro static phenomenon. Hence the electric universe theory.
@@rasronin ???, gravity does not induce currents like magnetism does, gravity has only one charge, unlike electro magnetism. electric universe is nonsense
@@doubleFay gravity doesn’t exist just like time. They are phenomena we experience but magnetism exists and is responsible for the attractive and repulsive forces we observe in nature. Now you’re gonna tell me time exists and is some universal constant. Electo-magnetism is far from understood but we can exploit what we know for useful work. Black holes and dark matter are made up.
@@doubleFay gravity is not a thing and does not have a charge. You believers remind me of Christians. Believing in imaginary things. Gravity is an electro static phenomenon caused by electromagnetic waves. Show me a gravity wave please.
@@rasronin Sure lets entertain the idea that "Gravity is an electro static phenomenon". So the fact that things are accelerated towards the earth is purely electrostatic. This is demonstrably false. Electrostatic attraction is dependent on the charge (+ -) as well as the ammount of charge. So just by reversing the charge the force should reverse its direction. Also things with twice the charge should expirience twice the force. NONE OF THIS HAPPENS IN REALITY.
I honestly don't understand the people in the comments stating that you're making "sweeping claims" about gravity and our understanding of it. Yes, we don't understand everything about gravity, but that applies to literally everything the in the universe. That doesn't mean what we shouldn't treat the understanding we have at our disposal as being fact. If we have the best possible explanation for something and there's no equally valid alternative, why wouldn't we apply it? Jesus, it's just like the flat Earthers all over again. Do schools not teach the scientific method anymore or something?
Anyway, great job on the video. Reading your replies to some of the more recent comments was pretty funny
science will never be "complete". but dismissing science bc it's incomplete is kinda dumb i mean the whole point of science is to challange everything that we think we know about the world around us. i think we keep getting closer and closer to the absolute truth but we might never actually get there, it will always be just a tiny bit out of reach. that's the beauty of it, i think.
idk tho i was never a smart kid
_"the whole point of science is to challange everything"_ While somewhat true, the key problem with EU is they want you to ignore some of the things we do know. So many of these anti-establishment scams try and tell you that leveraging past knowledge is a weakness. They actually think you need to reprove everything from the bottom up. If we really did that we'd never get anywhere.
@@dasmith2737 Proven wrong? Never. You seem to misunderstand what is said about our current knowledge.
Theres a difference between incomplete and flat out wrong. Flat Earth science is not simply incomplete because they cant explain seasons its wrong because a differemt model can, the same logic applies to the Electric Universe, its model explaing nothing and makes practically no predictions except that black holes dont exist which we now know is not true.
@@Jake94cool1 okay? that has nothing to do with what i said.
I have a feeling that this is going to turn into another back and forth like it did with the globebusters. Can't wait.
MotesYT Predicts how?
MotesYT So your argument is that less than perfect knowledge of the sun means we should summarily dump everything we go and accept conjecture as gospel truth but that’s just gotta be right?
@@MotesTV it's spelled "quiet". Go to school. (After the lockdown though)
@@MotesTV The power of the sun in EU is around the same as the power of Jupiter. Jupiter on the non sunlit side is around -145C. A bit hotter than the surrounding but not by much. Go outside during daytime. Is it bright? Then the EU model is debunked. In EU model it would be pitch dark. The sun surface is in fact 5600 degrees and the sun is hot and bright. Thus EU "model" is debunked.
@@MotesTV It was a napkin math debunk. But EU model has no math themselves. If you have extraordinary claim, you should provide extraordinary proofs. If you remove fusion from the sun, it is no longer hot. You should provide the math for it. Not just say "you are not even trying really". It is you who should *prove* that the EU model works.
Why does not it surprise me that this "professor" debunks the electric concept of the universe the same way the flat earthers debunk the globe earth?
So... you didn't watch this, eh sport?
Name 1 flat earther who has debunked the globe earth.
Care to give one example?
Wait.... what?
@@petroleumalley lots of flat earthers claim to debunk the globe earth
I love how they just say 'electricity', or 'electrical magnetism' as a excuse like it's a pokemon move or something
Same with the flaterfers. They use the "perspective" and "refraction" Pokemon.
@@brettvv7475 Without understanding either in ay capacity.
I mean thunderbolt is a pokemon move so
the fact that this has so many dislikes is depressing
@Bacon Cheeseberg oh no 😭 i wasn’t writing formally as if the UA-cam comment section is a college paper :,(((
@Bacon Cheeseberg if i get to the age of having kids, i’ll be LESS concerned about how people talk in a UA-cam comment section. get over yourself.
Odd how this critique of the electric universe theory is presented as a series of ad hominem attacks and cartoons.
I would recommend actually watching some of the videos with an open mind--you know like a scientist might do. While I agree that some of their theories remain speculative if not highly questionable, many are far more predictive than the rote orthodoxies of mainstream cosmology, that are apparently beyond question. It's not science if it can't be questioned--it is just dogma.
Name one ad hominem.
You have no idea what ad hominem means. Or how physics works. Or what dogma is.
Ok.... 🤔.... uhhhh. Yet can you debunk what Dave has said in this video??? Please do so.
@@LaurenBurger Wrong. Was EU discussed and argued against? In this video, at any one point in time was there an argument made for our current understanding and then directly opposing EU with a conclusion? If so.... no ad hominem....
Professor Dave Explains - Very poor, befuddled, and sophomoric response to JBV, Professor Dave. I have been studying EU for years and as a layperson, I know that any other layperson can fall for rhetoric either side. Why should I “take your word for it” from one 26 minute video and disregard my own experience, first as a high school and college student in several science courses and now as an adult with 3 advanced degrees, and then dismiss all of my studies surrounding the EU theory? However, just because I’m not a professional scientist doesn’t mean I am easily lied to. At the end of all things, the EU theory legitimately threatens the Big Bang theory and has bands of scientists that are experts in their fields in an interdisciplinary effort (astrophysicists and anthropologists included) to explain phenomenon in such a way that challenges the scientific elite. What skin do you have in the game that motivates you to debunk literally thousands of years of combined experience from scientists that support this theory? Furthermore, Newtonian physics does not stand in opposition to the EU theory.
Interesting D&D campaign... wait Electric Universe is a thing?
Lunar lightning!
@Nathan O'Keefe that’s what happens when you don’t invest any points in intelligence or charisma
@@colbycox8783 In Fallout RPG game, I always put more point in intelligence and charisma to get more interesting dialog and to access technology.
@@cyberjfh me too those are the best play throughs
This reminds me of the old Spelljammer AD&D setting, and the Sons of Ether (mad scientists essentially) faction in Mage The Ascension.
Reason is boring. An electric universe sounds fun and the graphics look cool.
That's it.
That, and the allure of being one of the special few who have this particular insight. That seems to be a critical element of most conspiracy theories, religions and pseudo-scientific conjectures.
graphics which they get from institutions such as NASA which they denounce as Satan incarnate in the same breath
Theory of Relativity 2: Electric Boogaloo
*W H E E Z E*
Dark matter is real? Do a video on that. I have not seen where that had been discovered yet.
i did that! check out my astronomy playlist.
@@TrusePkay Let me know when they have a working model that explains the same thing as our current theories.
For the vary simplest proof: Neutrinos, for example, are dark matter. They're proven to exist by a number of research labs. So dark matter is real.
Einstein was a Piscean; I'm a Piscean ~ Hey ... that's all I need to know to confirm my own scientific intelligence! Genius by association!
... what ... (got a bridge in Brooklyn for sale, too)
lol Piscis the deceiver. know nothing of smarts or wisdoms.
I'm a Scorpio. And it's written in the stars that Scorpios don't believe in astrology.
@@TheTheSssupermario deceiver is quite dark! Never been a 'wormtongue'; but have painfully learned how to spot one a bazillion miles away!
@@petroleumalley I'm just joking ... used the astrology thing as a (hopefully) light way to bring a 'yeah know some just like that' smile
I'm a cancer. I dont think I need say more.
prof dave's logic and straightforwardness is so refreshing that it's almost calming to listen to him speak. thank you dave :)
Birkeland Currents ? Made Up ?
The imaginary ones they are claiming exist, yes.
Professor Dave Explains Imaginary Ones ?
Dude. Kudos for making a video about this "electric universe". It's a subject that's often ignored when it comes to pseudo-science debunking.
Yeah, that bold fat arrogant schmuck Theoria Apostasis even wrote a book about that shit and deletes the comments he doesn't like.
@@smashexentertainment676 - I had no idea this fat schmuck even existed until you mentioned him. He even has his own take on the 5G TECHNOLOGY, and oh boy, the top comments. Its hard to tell whether or not they're genuine or just trolls screwing with these delusional narcissists.
Here are some examples:
"I'm ashamed to say in a previous life I was a disinformation agent before I woke up and turned on my masters and leaked the crap they were about.their beyond countries beyond boundaries of all kinds but have united agenda unlike the gen. Population. I don't think they can be stopped but we must try"
"don't be concerned about being called a ' conspiracy theorist' , we know the term was invented by the C.I.A to ridicule thinking people. and make us self censor. I am proud to be a Conspiracy Theorist. I made a T-Shirt. When the conspiracies stop the theories will stop."
"This extreme trolling is solid proof that 5g is a military weapon ... the trolls seem to swarm on me when I comment on these topics: 5g, vaccines, israel, and believe it or not, FLAT EARTH and NASA fakery! I wonder if they are all part of a nefarious plot somehow ....."
"You are obviously over the target..5G is a weapon (simple)...full spectrum dominance, in military use for years and about to go urban for crowd control, tracking and wet works!! ;)"
"Labelling something/somebody a 'conspiracy' = silencing and oppressing scrutiny"
" This was not a "person" sweet pea. This was Ai. This was the proverbial beast of revelation. Prove me wrong."
I'll have to keep an eye on this "Theoria Apostasis" channel.
I'm so glad some of these channels are giving it attention. It's much more convincing than flat earth since its believers do have a basic understanding of science, and is difficult to debunk sometimes because they talk about topics a layperson wouldnt understand. I went through a 8 minute thunderbolts video on my channel and it took me over an hour to disprove because of how complex it is. It does my head in trying to learn enough about the topics to understand how they are wrong
@@smashexentertainment676 *bald*
The amount of people who believe in the electric universe model is dumbfounding, and they're so sure about it without evidence.
ThisAintKyle
This isn’t the only video I’ve seen, bud.
@ThisAintKyle You guys keep bringing up plasma cosmology, but that has nothing to do with the claims prof Dave is debunking here. Plasma cosmology was an attempt to explain why we live in a galaxy with almost no anti-matter whatsoever. It didn't try to replace gravity. This video was addressing the pseudoscientific reasoning some idiots use to claim that gravity doesn't exist and all gravitational observations can be explained by electromagnetism.
So go ahead; calculate the position of mars in the night sky one year from now using Maxwell's equations and the Lorentz force or anything you can derive from that. Make a prediction and test it. If you've done that and you can show your work, we'll have a conversation. Until then we have one model that works and it's based on relativity.
@@atthecore4560 Hannes Alfven proposed the original plasma cosmology to explain the matter/anti-matter disparity.
Apparently it has gained a new meaning on the blogosphere, where it's claimed that electromagnetic fields are at least as important as gravity in giving galaxies their shape. Is that about accurate?
Have to admit, I'm not familiar with that idea, though I have trouble seeing how that could work. For electromagnetism to have a large scale effect you need huge currents over vast distances. Do you know of a working mathematical model for this? And is there any explanation what conducts these massive currents and why they don't seem to affect our solar system?
21:06 this is a fantastic, succinct way to help give normal folks a BS detector with regard to so many pseudoscientific hoaxes without requiring them to go out of their way to acquire knowledge of the relevant fields.
Looks like 'Professor' Dave has spent too much time with the Flat Effers, his I.Q. no longer exceeds his shoe size lol
Which point did you think was incorrect?
@@mynewschannel3100 That doesn't answer my question. Which point do YOU think he got wrong?
Funny how none of you can explain why I'm wrong, huh?
@@ProfessorDaveExplains 'huh?'
Just the sort of answer I would expect from a petulant child...
Swap "astrophysics" with "biology" and "gravity" with "evolution" and this sounds exactly like Creationism.
"...Okay, now that we've grounded ourselves..."
.
.
Did anyone else see a pun in there?
I did, glad to know someone else did
ua-cam.com/video/DgNTKrjpiiI/v-deo.html
No reason to be so "negative" about it. :-)
@@my3dviews Hahaha, always having a "positive" worldview, huh? Pretty "shocking" isn't it?
@@SamuelTrademarked Ohm my God, Watt are you talking about? :-)
2:26 'Black holes aren't real' I wonder how they're going to explain the picture we have of one.
The scientists are debating whether the universe is flat or curved.
meanwhile, many people still believe the earth is flat🤦🤦
They aren't really debating that anymore. It is considered flat (the universe, of course), to my knowledge.
@@tsvetanstoychev655 I don't think it's entirely settled. It is seemingly flat to the limits of our ability to measure, but nobody knows the scale of the entire universe so even curvature too small for us to currently measure could be meaningful.
@@tsvetanstoychev655 Nothing is settled. For all we know, we could be in a Klein bottle analogue of a 3D manifold embedded in 5D space.
Have your head checked first before making an ass out of yourself.
@@beneu95 have you fucking head checked yourself, you fucking flat brained flat earther
In my opinion. you're arguing with your idea of the thunderbolt project. Donald scot explained the electric star model precisely and Wal Thornhill accepted that gravity is there and that the electromagnetic force is much greater. I'm thinking that you haven't watched all the lectures before forming your opinion.
There is no "electric star model". There's some bullshit paraded as science. It does not correlate with reality. At all. You also misinterpreted what I said about who believes what, likely because you were too triggered by my dismantling of your ridiculous worldview.
All great scientific discovery comes from those brave enough to not only question the "entrenched dogma" of the day, but also work to expand and prove their theories.
I'm not saying that either side is right or wrong. And yes, our understanding of physics HAS lead to a lot of additional understanding in other fields.
But in the same way that the heliocentric system was fought and called idiotic by the mainstream during the time of Copernicus, so too may portions of the Electric universe be true.
Never dismiss ANY theory unless you yourself can create or replicate an experiment that either proves or disproves it.
@@azerdraco3146 Unfortunately, in SAFIRE's case, all we have is SAFIRE's word for any of it, and not enough information for anyone to test it out, and even if it did, it STILL can't explain the discrepencies between EU and the real universe that gravity is so good at explaining.
There is nothing whatsoever wrong with the plasma theories surrounding EU. EU itself, however, is a crock and simply doesn't work.
@@azerdraco3146 Unfortunately you show fundamental ignorance about the scientific method. The responsibility lays on the proposer of the theory to provide evidence supporting their ideas, it is not up to others to provide evidence to disprove wild and ridiculous theories that fly in the face of preceding evidence.
"watch ancient aliens non ironically" XD
the gentle way you talk in this video is such whiplash from your later ones where you've had time to become more jaded and just "done" with people being ridiculous lol
It's genuinely funny once you see the Dave trajectory. Flat Earth, James Tour, and Electric Universe all start out, honestly, as really gentle good faith rebuttals. But then, they're met with anger, arrogant dismissal, or threats by the people pushing the stuff. Each time, Dave realizes that the people he's dealing with aren't interested in having a discussion about reality, they're either hucksters trying to con their way through stuff, narcissists who are convinced they're right for no reason whatsoever, or people so wrapped up in their story about big bad SCIENCE not listening to the little guys that they're not interested in learning anything.
So he treats them like the clowns they are. Then people go 'hey why are you so mean,' like he didn't fucking try something different at first and realized that these people need to be treated like the trash they spew because they worm their way into people's minds through even handed treatment.
I just now realized ppl are abreviating Electric Universe and are not talking about the European Union
Well both are stupid to be honest so easy to confuse
i like to think that the rules that define our universe (and others?) are like puzzle pieces of a really really big universal puzzle.
we have already found a few pieces that fit together (with science) and are now wondering how the puzzle will look like when it's complete.
and than we have those people who try to complete the universal puzzle by adding cornflakes as puzzle pieces...
That'd be the dark matter and dark energy then.
Or they just try to smash the pieces together
There is one good thing about the electric universe: it gave me a setting for a space adventure that could be fun to map out.
Oh good now debunk my propane powered universe. A nice clean burning universe
EU scripts in the last week:
1. How can you debunk EU when we don't even know what gravity is?
2. Why is the sun hotter the further away from the center.. or some shit (comments mostly deleted)
3. Some shit with "absolutes" (one of their priests probably quoted Star Wars recently)
You can tell it's a script because multiple people say it around the same time. It's like they watched a new EU video and said "Oh, I'm gonna own Dave so hard with this argument"
I think there's definitely some source they're all using like a FB group post. I can't recall how many times I've seen "they don't say gravity doesn't exist". It's such an obvious mistake and they keep repeating it.
"From my point of view, Einstein is evil!!"
Sorting the comments by newest first and reading every person that Prof. Dave responds to has made me lose multiple braincells in the past minute.
He's still doing it. Idk how he had a patience to do this and not suffer from this
I'll sell you a jar of space time for a million dollars.
No thanks, I have plenty at my house, I mean that stuff is just everywhere.
@@enhaxed7839 Actually it's not. There's no such thing. Einstein was a fraud and his theory of the cause of gravity doesn't even stand up to mere common sense.
@@forbesmag1271 Actually you are an arrogant moron who thinks they know better than one of the most widely and successfully confirmed theories of all time.
People like you make me think we need a way to allow some natural selection based on actual common sense (not your insane version) to weed out useless fools like you before you can breed. I'm not usually a fan of eugenics but anti-science pillocks like you are getting people killed.
@Fk Ff First, no error corrections are need to make GPS function. Yes, I agree that they make them, but it's wrong when people state the GPS system wouldn't work without it. Second, there are alternative potential explanations, including the very real "medium" (ether) that fraud Einstein wished away simply because his math wouldn't work otherwise. The following is from Rethinking Relativity by Tom Bethell: The simplest way to understand all this "without going crazy," Van Flandern says, is to discard Einsteinian relativity and to assume that "there is a light-carrying medium." When a clock moves through this medium "it takes longer for each electron in the atomic clock to complete its orbit." Therefore it makes fewer "ticks" in a given time than a stationary clock. Moving clocks slow down, in short, because they are "ploughing through this medium and working more slowly." It's not time that slows down. It's the clocks.
(…)
At high altitude, where the GPS clocks orbit the Earth, it is known that the clocks run roughly 46,000 nanoseconds (one-billionth of a second) a day faster than at ground level, because the gravitational field is thinner 20,000 kilometers above the Earth. The orbiting clocks also pass through that field at a rate of three kilometers per second--their orbital speed. For that reason, they tick 7,000 nanoseconds a day slower than stationary clocks.
To offset these two effects, the GPS engineers reset the clock rates, slowing them down before launch by 39,000 nanoseconds a day. They then proceed to tick in orbit at the same rate as ground clocks, and the system "works." Ground observers can indeed pin-point their position to a high degree of precision. In (Einstein) theory, however, it was expected that because the orbiting clocks all move rapidly and with varying speeds relative to any ground observer (who may be anywhere on the Earth's surface), and since in Einstein's theory the relevant speed is always speed relative to the observer, it was expected that continuously varying relativistic corrections would have to be made to clock rates. This in turn would have introduced an unworkable complexity into the GPS. But these corrections were not made. Yet "the system manages to work, even though they use no relativistic corrections after launch," Van Flandern said. "They have basically blown off Einstein."
You know that's really freaky is the way the electric universe theory describes the sun. Like it is liquid and they show wave motions on the sun caught on video.
I get one thing though is that iomagnetic levitation of objects is real but that doesn't mean magnetic forces keep us down.
"You can't explain X, therefore my claim of Y is right" is such religious apologist bullcrap.
I could say the same thing about drawing a conclusion rather than discovering it.
@@robertmiddleton6112 You don't "discover" a conclusion, you come to/draw a conclusion based on the available observations you discover.
Take chemistry for example, we found that different compounds interacted in strange and mysterious ways, so we came up with conclusions that fit the observed information. Once we observed more and found what specifically caused it, the conclusion that matched the discoveries was applied while others were thrown out.
Same with electric universe, it WAS a possible conclusion before we discovered things that contradicted it more than the current consensus.
It's why we call them scientific THEORIES, because they are the best conclusion we have that fits the most of the discoveries we have made.
@@thunderspark1536 @thunderspark1536 The statement drawing a conclusion is the wrong path to discovery.
Do you have the conclusion?
If you do, please share it with the rest of us.
You can draw a theory or hypothesis based upon evidence.
But you can only discover a conclusion.
@@robertmiddleton6112 Okay, here's a really simple conclusion for you: stars form due to gravity.
We start with simple observations: stars, like our sun, have formed over time. The hypothesis is that due to gravity, the heat in the middle of these massive objects allows for fusion, allowing the star to glow and generate heat/light. Then we run tests and form a theory based off the information gained.
The theory is that large bodies of pass collect together (hydrogen and helium) forming a protostar, which with enough mass undergoes fusion in the core, releasing different signals we detect and record. Without gravity, this could not occur, simple.
Again, the conclusion was not "discovered" here. it was drawn based on the available information. We can't actually go into the core of a star and see the fusion occurring, so this conclusion was not directly "discovered". What we did was make assumptions based on information, and the assumption have (thus far) aligned with the data we have.
@@thunderspark1536 Buddy, you don't need to type a 3 paragraph long description on the formation of stars to argue semantics. I'm not a flat earther or electric believer and understand physics quite well.
I could just as easily argue that without discovery, there would be no conclusion.
Discoveries have been made for us to form the conventional conclusion of modern physics.
My original statement was to say that no discoveries were made for anyone to draw the conclusion of an electric universe. They just skipped to the end and drew their own conclusion.
As a geologist- I have a challenge for EU people:
Your model says that mountains are formed by electrical currents. So, explain why ophiolite sequences are exposed on land. How is mantle rock like peridotite exposed on land? Or blueschist? Or eclogite? If its not millions of years of erosion or massive thrust faults from plate collision- then how does it happen? Explain that. How can electrical currents bring up deep mantle rock?
And don't say that basalt and gabbro from the ocean is actually "welded sand". That's nonsensical.
I won't hold my breath, though. Structural geology disproves your whole theory.
Sci-babble.
How exactly do your queries disprove EU?
@@omniaquaeriteacdubitate3898 Did you read my post? EU proponents claim that mountains are formed by electricity.
Explain to me how deep mantle rock is exposed at the surface of the Earth. How do electrical currents bring up rock from that far down? If you can't offer a valid explanation, admit that your model makes zero sense.
@@josephmccarthy4307 EU proponents don't claim electricity forms mountains, but rather electricity can play a role in some formations. Mainstream geologists ignore the role of electricity, despite it being a much stronger force than gravity. Seems unscientific to me to do that.
Did you really think Eu followers know anything about geology? They don't even know what "static electricity" means!
@Richard Porter Ok. So explain how it happens using your model, then.
How do you still manage to go to every comment, two years after you made this video. Mad respect man
It's all in one big feed. I love dunking on morons.
It’s like grinding idiots for XP.
Because mommy and daddy didn't love him enough
@@recursiveslacker7730hahahaha
Thank you Professor Dave. I just recently stumbled upon an electric universe video that has million views. After a few minutes in the video, I felt what they are saying is wrong so I looked you up since I know you debunked flat earth. I learned a lot today.
If you were watching the why files he explains that the theory doesnt have a strong basis for reality but "never let the truth get in the way of a good story".
I actually understand what "per second per second" means now thanks dave
Dave, does it ever get tiring or corrosive sorting through all the stupid comments from trolls, FEers, conspiracy theorists, etc.? Or is it the kind of thing you draw strength from?
I think it's both.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains I've heard that suckling on a prolapse gives ultimest strenght!!!
@@ProfessorDaveExplains Dunno, I spend tons of my spare time hunting through comments sections for such things... Maybe I should start making content.
I can't believe how many people are commenting denouncing this video despite having no formal education in physics lol
It's painful at first to have their silly bubble burst.
PhD's in physics support the electric universe theory. This dude studied chemistry and just general physics. So I'll totally believe him and his little memer cultists in this comment section.
I have a personality disorder. This video hit home. It's not stupidity, it's a feeling of being on the fringe of society, and that hole can only be filled by believing in the fringes of science. We don't actually believe any of these things, we just long for people to argue with.
So what’s the personality disorder? Being an asshole?
I love your channel! In every video you explain and word everything perfectly for me so that I only need to watch it once. Thank you
@@osmosisjones4912 when two forces act on an object, but in opposite direction, the vectors are summed, and the net force results in acceleration of matter. Thats why monorails push the train off the tracks, but the EMF is only stronger than gravity when the train is super close to the rail, thus when the two forces are equal, the train can levitate in equilibrium. Also, i get a migrain trying to read your comments
@@osmosisjones4912 How English language.
Yooo a donation buddy
Easy way to know if it’s real science or pseudoscience:
Is what is being produced being written in journals aimed at other scientists for feedback, or is it produced by a personality on social media and aimed at laymen.
It's funny that your definition applies to this video tho
@@tahneBCRC You thought you had that one but I’d disagree.
He is currently providing information to layman and not other scientists. Scientists do that as well, because you can read their journals for yourself and there are scientists who have UA-cam channels.
Unlike the nitwits that believe this pseudoscience, Professor Dave is an actual professor with a bachelor’s degree in chemistry, so he has a credible background. The information provided in his videos are the same information you’d find in a peer review journal.
Are there anyone that has a credible background supporting this “science” that is not a nitwit with a UA-cam channel?
A better test is: Can it explain something specific, like planetary orbits or formation, 1) better than the existing theory and 2) remain as or more consistent with all our other relevant observations than the current model?
Models that are real science, or at least things genuinely trying to become real science, will make quantitative predictions that match observations and will proudly feature the math & equations they’re using to do that. They’ll also acknowledge the model’s limits and evidence against it, if it exists- this is something most of the con men and conspiracy types won’t do.
A major driver of these conspiracy theories is a growing, widespread distrust of institutions and authorities. But real science is the method, not institutions. That’s why I think the better rhetorical strategy for debunking this BS is showing people how the conspiracy ‘science’ doesn’t make sense without any need to appeal to some authority like scientific journals or credentials. People who’re likely to sign on to one of these conspiracy theories do so because they already distrust institutional authority; that’s why the people promoting them always have some antiestablishment narrative.
When someone uses terms like "mainstream science", it's a big red flag that they're a crackpot conspiracy theorist.
In January of 1927, Geologist J Harlen Bretz presented his hypothesis that many of the geological features of Eastern Washington state were best explained by a single cataclysmic local flooding event. This went sharply counter to the mainstream scientific consensus at the time, which held that all large scale geologic features were formed gradually.
Turns out he was right, and the mainstream scientific consensus was wrong. And continued to be wrong for decades.
Yeah, the electromagnetic universe nutters are nutters, but don't let it blind you to the fact that there damn well is a mainstream scientific community, that is often straight up wrong.
@@LeoStaley and it's just as often self correcting, as you yourself point out if that was the case
@@LeoStaley And there is your answer: A *geologist* comes with a new theory, not a failed *lawyer* , as in electric universe.
It took nearly 60 years for the mainstream science to catch up.
Hold on. My crackpot detector is going off.