5 ms·

This is no surprise if you follow the wave of evidence for the electrical universe model. It puts electricity and magnetism as the main shaping force of the uni

This is no surprise if you follow the wave of evidence for the electrical universe model. It puts electricity and magnetism as the main shaping force of the universe while considering gravity a negligible influence. Look on youtube. Lots of good material.

tiborsaas 7y ago
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Electric_Universe https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Electric_Universe
- ColanR 7y ago
  The attitude of the content there isn't much better than the poster below who got flagged.
  - m4r35n357 7y ago
    It is called a scientific attitude. Do you have a problem with science?
    - tomhoward 7y ago
      People who are sincerely devoted to promoting knowledge and the betterment of the world are generally not arrogant and/or mean.
- DiabloD3 7y ago
  Rational Wiki is a bit of a weird joke site where quasi-intellectuals go to troll and shitpost. Dang can correct me, but I think HN's rules, at some level, prohibit linking to such sites as a way to criticize someone.
m4r35n357 7y ago
Grow up, or learn some science, or both.
- clSTophEjUdRanu 7y ago
  Unnecessary
  - m4r35n357 7y ago
    I disagree. This sort of new-age wankery is a direct route to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy
- dang 7y ago
  Attacking another user like this will get you banned on HN. If you know more than someone, the thing to do is to share some of what you know, respectfully and generously, so we all can learn. If you don't want to or don't have time, that's fine: not posting is always an option, and you're probably not the only user who knows more. Acting like an asshole is not ok. It poisons the commons.
  - m4r35n357 7y ago
    Using the word "attack" as if I've mortally wounded someone is pretty disingenuous. BTW, thanks for inviting me not to contribute.
    - Infinitesimus 7y ago
      Might be a language/culture difference but "attack" also means strong/aggressive criticism and is valid in this context
dkersten 7y ago
YouTube is not, by itself, a credible source. Lots of bunk masquerading as science on YouTube.
nkrisc 7y ago
Lots of claims, not a lot of evidence.
fsloth 7y ago
Look... the are bunch of us here who recieved a scientific training. While we don't claim that science can explain everything at the moment, we do claim that there are a lot of crackpots out there with appealing ideas but zero capability of explaining them in a credible fashion. For some reason these crackpot theories appeal to people who feel for one reason or other that they are "missing something". Then charismatic personalities gravitate towards these communities and spin out yarn that feels right to the specific people listening to them creating a belief. Feels right and belief are the keywords here. There is no proof that would withstand rigorous criticism. With science, you should love your pet theory, put also put the hard labour in to prove it. And if your testing creates evidence to the contrary, you should be cognitively able to abandon it. These crackpot theorists start from their pet theory, don't actually study physics or what ever their theory is about, and spend all the effort in spinning yarn about how great their theory is, instead of actually proving it. If you want to learn about actual physics, there is great introduction lecture series by Leaonard Susskind called "The theoretical minimum": https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL47F408D36D4CF129 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL47F408D36D4CF129 Grab a pencil and paper and start watching :) !
- m4r35n357 7y ago
  I can highly recommend Susskind's free continuing education lectures at Stanford https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQrxduI9Pds1fm91Dmn8x1lo-O_kpZGk8 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQrxduI9Pds1fm91Dmn8x... I've done the classical mechanics, special & general relativity series, can't comment on the quantum stuff, but I hear he has some sort of track record in it.
- erikpukinskis 7y ago
  I’m not sure I understand what you’re trying to say... that you have put in the effort and you are confident in your analysis that this “electrical universe” hypothesis is not well formed? I think it’s a bit disingenuous to give a long, vague treatise on crackpots in response to an actual human being, without directly addressing them.
  - m4r35n357 7y ago
EddieCPU 7y ago
@mathiasrw: "This is no surprise if you follow the wave of evidence for the electrical universe model .." I disagree but can offer no opposing evidence, therefore I'm going to mod your post into oblivion :]

tiborsaas 7y ago

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Electric_Universe https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Electric_Universe

ColanR 7y ago
The attitude of the content there isn't much better than the poster below who got flagged.
- m4r35n357 7y ago
  It is called a scientific attitude. Do you have a problem with science?
  - tomhoward 7y ago
    People who are sincerely devoted to promoting knowledge and the betterment of the world are generally not arrogant and/or mean.
DiabloD3 7y ago
Rational Wiki is a bit of a weird joke site where quasi-intellectuals go to troll and shitpost. Dang can correct me, but I think HN's rules, at some level, prohibit linking to such sites as a way to criticize someone.

m4r35n357 7y ago

Grow up, or learn some science, or both.

clSTophEjUdRanu 7y ago
Unnecessary
- m4r35n357 7y ago
  I disagree. This sort of new-age wankery is a direct route to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy
dang 7y ago
Attacking another user like this will get you banned on HN. If you know more than someone, the thing to do is to share some of what you know, respectfully and generously, so we all can learn. If you don't want to or don't have time, that's fine: not posting is always an option, and you're probably not the only user who knows more. Acting like an asshole is not ok. It poisons the commons.
- m4r35n357 7y ago
  Using the word "attack" as if I've mortally wounded someone is pretty disingenuous. BTW, thanks for inviting me not to contribute.
  - Infinitesimus 7y ago
    Might be a language/culture difference but "attack" also means strong/aggressive criticism and is valid in this context

dkersten 7y ago

YouTube is not, by itself, a credible source. Lots of bunk masquerading as science on YouTube.

nkrisc 7y ago

Lots of claims, not a lot of evidence.

fsloth 7y ago

Look... the are bunch of us here who recieved a scientific training. While we don't claim that science can explain everything at the moment, we do claim that there are a lot of crackpots out there with appealing ideas but zero capability of explaining them in a credible fashion. For some reason these crackpot theories appeal to people who feel for one reason or other that they are "missing something". Then charismatic personalities gravitate towards these communities and spin out yarn that feels right to the specific people listening to them creating a belief. Feels right and belief are the keywords here. There is no proof that would withstand rigorous criticism. With science, you should love your pet theory, put also put the hard labour in to prove it. And if your testing creates evidence to the contrary, you should be cognitively able to abandon it. These crackpot theorists start from their pet theory, don't actually study physics or what ever their theory is about, and spend all the effort in spinning yarn about how great their theory is, instead of actually proving it. If you want to learn about actual physics, there is great introduction lecture series by Leaonard Susskind called "The theoretical minimum": https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL47F408D36D4CF129 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL47F408D36D4CF129 Grab a pencil and paper and start watching :) !

m4r35n357 7y ago
I can highly recommend Susskind's free continuing education lectures at Stanford https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQrxduI9Pds1fm91Dmn8x1lo-O_kpZGk8 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQrxduI9Pds1fm91Dmn8x... I've done the classical mechanics, special & general relativity series, can't comment on the quantum stuff, but I hear he has some sort of track record in it.
erikpukinskis 7y ago
I’m not sure I understand what you’re trying to say... that you have put in the effort and you are confident in your analysis that this “electrical universe” hypothesis is not well formed? I think it’s a bit disingenuous to give a long, vague treatise on crackpots in response to an actual human being, without directly addressing them.
- m4r35n357 7y ago

EddieCPU 7y ago

@mathiasrw: "This is no surprise if you follow the wave of evidence for the electrical universe model .." I disagree but can offer no opposing evidence, therefore I'm going to mod your post into oblivion :]