Dark Matter Electromagnetically Debunked

[TagliatelliMonster]

You can keep your feelings and conspiration theories to yourself.

"conspiration"?

I´m NOT going further into your personal accusations.

I'm not making any "personal accusations".
I'm asking questions about the content of your OP.

But point taken, I guess....

Make your own research on the video author, Professor Donald E. Scott.

No. It's your OP and your claim.
You do your homework.

BTW: May I suggest you to listen to the entire video content before posting further suspicious fly away comments?

Why would I waste my time with that? I don't do "argument by youtube". Any moron can post a youtube video.

Point me to his scientific publications and I'll be happy to read them and the responses to it.
Until then, why would I bother?

Youtube is not a reasonable platform for this. You should know that.

 

[Native]

Until then, why would I bother

Yes, why should you when you even don´t bother til listen to the video contents?

Why do you even bother to comment at all when you don´t have any serious arguments?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, why should you when you even don´t bother til listen to the video contents?

I told. I don't do "argument by youtube".
There is no BS filter on youtube.

If the contents of this video is scientific, then you should be able to point me to scientific sources instead of silly social media and entertainment platforms.

Why do you even bother to comment at all when you don´t have any serious arguments?

I'm asking serious questions, but I'm not getting serious answers.
Where are the scientific sources of the claims in the OP?

If there are no such sources, just say so.

 

[Native]

I'm asking serious questions, but I'm not getting serious answers.

You´re doing nothing of the kind!

All you´re doing is making unsubstantiated questions and conspiration suggestions to a video content which you don´t bother to listen to, thus making yourself a very untrustworthy and lazy debater in general.

 

[Aupmanyav]

He is trying to be a valid science educator. I would disagree with you that just because he is a science educator that his views mean nothing. They do mean something since his views do not belong to him and he is very open about it. He merely agrees with the experts in the fields, and can properly source them to show that various science deniers are wrong.

I apologize for my ignorance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I apologize for my ignorance.

I thank you sincerely. I do try to shun the science deniers and support those that also support the sciences. As bad as YouTube seems there are some sources that are very good there. They tend to be far less dramatic than "Modern science refuted!" posts and have to really earn their clicks and views. I would say do not give up on YouTube totally. There are those that follow the sciences and give credit where it is due.

On advanced physics PBS hosts a nice channel with real scientists as the hosts. It is only partially dumbed down which means that quite a bit of the physics is over my head.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

I thank you sincerely. I do try to shun the science deniers and support those that also support the sciences. As bad as YouTube seems there are some sources that are very good there. They tend to be far less dramatic than "Modern science refuted!" posts and have to really earn their clicks and views. I would say do not give up on YouTube totally. There are those that follow the sciences and give credit where it is due.

On advanced physics PBS hosts a nice channel with real scientists as the hosts. It is only partially dumbed down which means that quite a bit of the physics is over my head.

Some of the YouTube channels I subscribe to, would suggest to others, and would wager my reputation on the methods employed by the different content creators in the following list:

The Royal Institute
World Science Festival
PBS Spacetime
Mathologer
Fermilab
Sabine Hossenfelder
Anton Petrov

 

[rational experiences]

Dark matter to a human who lives inside water oxygen heavens bio only Conscious relating to electric terms is coal.

It's mass is black.

Humans make a thesis. Don't own the mass. Think a vision. Do a calculus.

Change the mass their mind thought upon.

Leaves blank space. Really black in a thought.

Coal black plus removed coal is really black to a human rethinking.

Same consciousness.
Same ideas.
Same paths of maths of a human is used.

Topic subject nothing to do with your consciousness.

No man is God reiterated time and again ignored by the theist man scientist.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You´re doing nothing of the kind!

Sorry to see you think that.
Nonetheless, my question is a serious one.
Here it is again: where are the scientific sources dealing with this?
Youtube is not a scientific source.

If there are no scientific sources, just say so.

All you´re doing is making unsubstantiated questions

"unsubstantiated questions"???

Your OP makes scientific claims. Your thread title makes a very serious scientific claim.
Asking for scientific sources dealing with these topics is "unsubstantiated"????

and conspiration suggestions to a video content which you don´t bother to listen to, thus making yourself a very untrustworthy and lazy debater in general.

Again. You are making scientific claims. Why is it "unsubstantiated" and "conspiration" to ask for the scientific sources of said claims?

Why can you only point me to unscientific youtube clips?

 

[joelr]

Yes, isn´t it just fantastic to be able to combine it all together

Dr Dave ripped it all apart.
Meanwhile,

HOME SPACE NEWS
Einstein Proven Right Yet Again: Theory of General Relativity Passes a Range of Precise Tests

https://scitechdaily.com/einstein-p...l-relativity-passes-a-range-of-precise-tests/

 

[Clara Tea]

OP Subject: Dark Matter Debunked by E&M explanations.

Video abstract.
It's time to put to bed the fairytale of Dark Matter. Something so dark and mysterious that it remains undetected after decades of searching with sophisticated instruments. In 2014, a vast network of plasma filaments—the Intergalactic Web—was discovered that connects many if not all the galaxies in the universe. Evidence shows stars are connected to their planets and to other stars, and all galaxies are connected. The more we carefully examine, we find the cosmos interconnected with plasma filaments—also known as Birkeland Currents. Author and electrical engineer Donald E. Scott, PhD, systematically debunks the theory,

Take you time to listen here -

 

[Clara Tea]

Sorry to see you think that.
Nonetheless, my question is a serious one.
Here it is again: where are the scientific sources dealing with this?
Youtube is not a scientific source.

If there are no scientific sources, just say so.



"unsubstantiated questions"???

Your OP makes scientific claims. Your thread title makes a very serious scientific claim.
Asking for scientific sources dealing with these topics is "unsubstantiated"????




Again. You are making scientific claims. Why is it "unsubstantiated" and "conspiration" to ask for the scientific sources of said claims?

Why can you only point me to unscientific youtube clips?

Some theists are baffled by science, and completely unwilling to learn it. Other theists have studied science intensely, achieved high honors and degrees, and their awe of science actually enhances their belief in God. They wonder how something can be so complex without some intelligent design (the workings of the human body, for example).

I spoke to a cardiologist who insisted that something supernatural does exist. He claimed that on several occasions, dying people had out of body experiences, and they saw and heard conversations many rooms away, though they were not breathing and their hearts were not beating.

When non-scientists try to prove religion, they often overstep the bounds of rational thinking, because they are so intent on proving their point, that they don't bother researching. Furthermore, legitimate sciences would likely not make the simple mistakes that they do.

Real scientists are supposed to prove everything before accepting it.

However, there has been a spate of weird scientific beliefs lately. For example, Neil De Grasse Tyson believes that we are in a virtual world (like the Matrix movie). A real scientist shouldn't leap to conclusions, nor speculate what could have been rather than "what is."

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Some theists are baffled by science, and completely unwilling to learn it. Other theists have studied science intensely, achieved high honors and degrees, and their awe of science actually enhances their belief in God. They wonder how something can be so complex without some intelligent design (the workings of the human body, for example).

I spoke to a cardiologist who insisted that something supernatural does exist. He claimed that on several occasions, dying people had out of body experiences, and they saw and heard conversations many rooms away, though they were not breathing and their hearts were not beating.

When non-scientists try to prove religion, they often overstep the bounds of rational thinking, because they are so intent on proving their point, that they don't bother researching. Furthermore, legitimate sciences would likely not make the simple mistakes that they do.

Real scientists are supposed to prove everything before accepting it.

However, there has been a spate of weird scientific beliefs lately. For example, Neil De Grasse Tyson believes that we are in a virtual world (like the Matrix movie). A real scientist shouldn't leap to conclusions, nor speculate what could have been rather than "what is."

While this post contains loads to unpack, none of it actually is relevant to the point of the post you are responding to.

It deals only with the claims in the OP and the fact that there don't seem to be any scientific sources discussing this.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

Neil De Grasse Tyson believes that we are in a virtual world (like the Matrix movie).

I'm not sure, but you may be mistaken here. Firstly, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, the 'poster-boy' or media-centric persona of astrophysics is not my favorite of all his contemporaries, but he's not intellectual inept.

I'm pretty sure you're referencing a debate/lecture in which the gentleman in question was presenting and explaining the Simulation Argument. At the 1hr 38min mark, he does seem to make a claim confirming your assertion, but I'm not sure he believes it is a simulation as much as he believes it to be possible... or in his words 'likely'. He puts a lot of explanation behind this statement, which seemed steeped in a desired self-reassurance.

The reason I don't like the simulation argument is because of how it's laid out, in which it forces that one must accept the parameters of the argument. In a nutshell, it's an "At least one of the following unlikely scenarios is reality." argument.
It's much more likely in my opinion, that our universe is within a blackhole within a blackhole within a blackhole and it's birthing more blackholes!

Edit: Added YouTube link to debate video in question.

 

[Native]

Meanwhile,

https://scitechdaily.com/
HOME SPACE NEWS
Einstein Proven Right Yet Again: Theory of General Relativity Passes a Range of Precise Tests

https://scitechdaily.com/einstein-p...l-relativity-passes-a-range-of-precise-tests/

IMHO this bending-space idea is confused for simple and natural light refractions in different media of cosmic gas and dust around the "lensing object".

 

[Native]

Nonetheless, my question is a serious one.
Here it is again: where are the scientific sources dealing with this?

You would have all the informations you like if it wasn´t because you´re too lazy to listen to the video.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You would have all the informations you like if it wasn´t because you´re too lazy to listen to the video.

My PC doesn't have sound.

Are the sources mentioned in the video?
Please link the sources here, so I can check them out.

Thanks.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

My PC doesn't have sound.

Are the sources mentioned in the video?
Please link the sources here, so I can check them out.

Thanks.

Does it make toast at least?

 

[Native]

My PC doesn't have sound.

This is simply pathetic!
So you´re judging this OP video and all other YouTube videos without having listened to anything!?
Seriously!? Get out of this thread!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Does it make toast at least?

Technically, it could I think.
It would involve unplugging the cooler and overriding certain setting in the BIOS.

But it would only work for half a toast. And it might have a plastic-ish taste.