"Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?

[SandyCox]

You weren't able to spot the blatantly obvious mistake in Catt's paper. I assume that you are also unable to identify the mistakes in all these "papers".

When can we expect equations that describe "new electric"?

Which mistake. I think u mean Cahill's paper. What mistakes in the other papers.
I have read all of them & i dont remember any mistakes, but it was a long time ago.

Equations have given us Higgs gluons gravitons etc. These only exist in mathland.
Electons are not mathland.

Let's try one last time:

He confused a transmission line with a capacitor.

And no the two are not the same!

Electons live in crazy land.

[penfold]

You weren't able to spot the blatantly obvious mistake in Catt's paper. I assume that you are also unable to identify the mistakes in all these "papers".

When can we expect equations that describe "new electric"?

Which mistake. I think u mean Cahill's paper. What mistakes in the other papers.
I have read all of them & i dont remember any mistakes, but it was a long time ago.

Equations have given us Higgs gluons gravitons etc. These only exist in mathland.
Electons are not mathland.

An electron is just as much a mathematical object as any other (detected) particle. Experimental evidence has shown that an entity or phenomina matching the characteristics of a Higgs exists just as much as an entity or phenomina matching the characteristics an electron exists. There remains a lot that we do not know about either. I'm sorry if you feel that just because you cannot see/feel/touch any of those particles that they may not exist and yes it relies on a lot of trust to believe the reports are true and incorrupt. Science is not easy, live with it.

[adx]

<snip stuff getting long just keeping for the link above>

So my experiment wouldn't work it seems. There is an unanticipated (by me, and your numeric claims) side-wind effect which cancels or mostly cancels the headwind slowing tailwind speeding. It really sounds to me like you simply don't understand what I said, when you mention "average speed", which is the same whichever way my apparatus is pointing (that just doesn't sound right).

And there is now suddenly a correction to your given delay figures for length contraction (which I know you described earlier, so was inconsistent with your calcs, but is another strike against your calcs - I admit an inaptitude with numbers myself so perhaps the mistake is mine).

Can you see how this is rolling straight down from Lorentz land to come to unavoidable rest in Einstein land, like I said?

Because of its various adjustments and tweaks to minimise the otherwise easily measurable (my experiment isn't very clever and is just the first thing that came to mind after seeing your numbers), your theory is progressively removing all measurable effects from the aether's grip.

I'm not extremely against your theory, I just think if you don't think up something new real soon, you have unavoidably already landed very close to special relativity.

I like your twin media idea, but because thin insulation makes no difference to the speed of electricity down a wire, it's not going to achieve much, unfortunately.

Your screw thread idea was actually someone else's here. Nobody seems keen to say, but that will also fail because it also will have no effect on speed (unless it's my "solid core delay line" from earlier to mix cats and pigeons, dangerously).

It's good you provided a much clearer description of things like ticking dilation, but the above is a problem of facts, which end up rolling down from Newton Mountain through Maxwell Pass and Heaviside Steppe, on to Lorentz Hill then come to rest in Einstein Flat. That doesn't mean there are no other paths or further jouneys (which there are), just we have a lot mapped out for us, and how far off the beaten track you want to travel is up to the explorer. Just beware trying to beat a path into the sea.

[HuronKing]

An electron is just as much a mathematical object as any other (detected) particle. Experimental evidence has shown that an entity or phenomina matching the characteristics of a Higgs exists just as much as an entity or phenomina matching the characteristics an electron exists. There remains a lot that we do not know about either. I'm sorry if you feel that just because you cannot see/feel/touch any of those particles that they may not exist and yes it relies on a lot of trust to believe the reports are true and incorrupt. Science is not easy, live with it.

I agree with much of what you said - though I would add that cloud chamber experiments offer something more than mathematics to ascribe some sense of physical reality to these particles. We can see the traces of these particles and we can see them deflect in the presence of magnetic fields. This is, as you likely already know, how they found the positron - something with as much mass as an electron deflecting the opposite way in these chambers.

There is remarkable triumph in the mathematics predicting such entities ought to exist (such as antimatter) and then finding traces of them via experiment. It's why I have so much admiration for Dirac, Feynman, Meitner, and Maxwell.

Seriously, this is absolutely amazing:

[TimFox]

Another name for a physical electron (particle) that can be detected one-by-one with, for example, a Geiger–Müller counter, is the "beta" particle.
That nomenclature for a class of radiation named by Rutherford in 1899.  The positron, when discovered experimentally later, is often called a β⁺, while the electron is called a β^-.
The three classic particles are distinguished from each other:  Alphas have small penetration, betas have medium penetration, and gammas have higher penetration.
Anyway, my employer before my retirement manufactures electron linear accelerators, producing electron beams with kinetic energy between roughly 1 and 25 MeV (depending on model). 
Since the rest-mass of the electron is approximately 0.511 MeV/c², the effect of special relativity is very large at these energies.
(The electrons normally are used to produce x rays by Bremsstrahlung on a tungsten target.) 
The relativistic equation in my earlier post for energy vs. velocity of a massive particle is very important to the design of these accelerating structures, and they do work!

[bpiphany]

I have lost track of who is trolling who in this thread…
https://www.reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/comments/t068jb/e_equals_not_mc_squared/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf

[aetherist]

<snip stuff getting long just keeping for the link above>

So my experiment wouldn't work it seems. There is an unanticipated (by me, and your numeric claims) side-wind effect which cancels or mostly cancels the headwind slowing tailwind speeding. It really sounds to me like you simply don't understand what I said, when you mention "average speed", which is the same whichever way my apparatus is pointing (that just doesn't sound right).

And there is now suddenly a correction to your given delay figures for length contraction (which I know you described earlier, so was inconsistent with your calcs, but is another strike against your calcs - I admit an inaptitude with numbers myself so perhaps the mistake is mine).

Can you see how this is rolling straight down from Lorentz land to come to unavoidable rest in Einstein land, like I said?

Because of its various adjustments and tweaks to minimise the otherwise easily measurable (my experiment isn't very clever and is just the first thing that came to mind after seeing your numbers), your theory is progressively removing all measurable effects from the aether's grip.

I'm not extremely against your theory, I just think if you don't think up something new real soon, you have unavoidably already landed very close to special relativity.

I like your twin media idea, but because thin insulation makes no difference to the speed of electricity down a wire, it's not going to achieve much, unfortunately.

Your screw thread idea was actually someone else's here. Nobody seems keen to say, but that will also fail because it also will have no effect on speed (unless it's my "solid core delay line" from earlier to mix cats and pigeons, dangerously).

It's good you provided a much clearer description of things like ticking dilation, but the above is a problem of facts, which end up rolling down from Newton Mountain through Maxwell Pass and Heaviside Steppe, on to Lorentz Hill then come to rest in Einstein Flat. That doesn't mean there are no other paths or further jouneys (which there are), just we have a lot mapped out for us, and how far off the beaten track you want to travel is up to the explorer. Just beware trying to beat a path into the sea.

Your north-south & east-west & south-north & west-east & back to north-south kind of electrical X can work. I forgot that Reg Cahill has already done lots of such Xs using coax. And he got an aetherwind signal.

Yes, length contraction will affect the 1/(c+V) stuff that i mentioned yesterday. I didn’t mention it koz my stuff is getting too complicated for readers here anyhow. And i didn’t expect anyone to be following so closely & realizing anyhow, so well done. But length contraction duznt make things impossible, re experiments & tests, it just makes things harder, ie the measurements have to a thousand times as accurate (unless we use a twin media wire)(bare wire & plastic coated wire).

I don’t need anything new. My electons tick all of the boxes (& nothing else comes close). The screw-thread X will simply add another box that electons tick (& nothing else ticks). The screw-thread X is just the cherry on top of the icecream.

What??  When did u decide that insulation on  wire duznt affect the speed of electricity on the wire?

No, the screw-thread X idea was my idea. I did however think of it after the question of roughness of the surface of a wire was mentioned. And i already knew about roughness affecting the speed of electricity anyhow.

I have said very little about ticking dilation. Just enough to point out that time dilation is crazy. But i could start another thread about ticking dilation. I have lots of good stuff about that. Actually, it touches on anti-gravity of sorts. That would really start a commotion around here.

[penfold]

An electron is just as much a mathematical object as any other (detected) particle. Experimental evidence has shown that an entity or phenomina matching the characteristics of a Higgs exists just as much as an entity or phenomina matching the characteristics an electron exists. [...]

I agree with much of what you said - though I would add that cloud chamber experiments offer something more than mathematics to ascribe some sense of physical reality to these particles. We can see the traces of these particles and we can see them deflect in the presence of magnetic fields. [...]

An excellent example. What I was really trying to convey is that as much as there is "something" in nature we call an electron that produces a distinct signature in a cloud-chamber/bubble-chamber/calorimiter/sparkgap/scintillator, the higgs is no different, albeit in a much more complex experiment. I suppose the point of contention may be that the higgs was theorised before discovery and a specific experiment was designed to reveal it.

The cloud chamber is particularly interesting in this context because it also shows up muons as rather distinct entities... and delayed muon decay shows evidence of relativity.

In addition to the GM tube are the scintillation detectors that produce a good discrimination between particle types. Using that discrimination with detectors in arrays can determine direction and characteristics of particles simultaneously. And those properties and detectors when applied to muons can be used to "x-ray" things like the great pyramids and is a proven technology in as much as getting correct results for known objects - all that can only exist due to relativistic effects... otherwise the muons would have decayed before getting close.

[aetherist]

[...]Science advances one funeral at a time.
Aether has been proven. STR has been disproven.
None of Einstein's stuff has ever been peer reviewed, at least not at the time of publishing.

I can accept an inferred peer review from the enormous quantity of work over the years on the development of STR.

Einstein got one peer review for one of his papers & the result was that he withdrew his paper in protest & published in a different journal, & never submitted another paper ever again to the offending journal. What a guy.

What definition of 'proven' and 'disproven' are you using? I assumed that the definition I go by was reasonably universal, but I may be wrong. The dictionary definition probably uses the word 'truth' but thats a bit connotative of 'absolute truth'; 'verified' or 'showing agreement with experimental data' is closer to what I'm considering proof here. In the stricter sense, proof would be a 'demonstration through rational argument of an agreement with a concrete truth', but, lets just stick some some valid evidence for the moment.

I think that i am happy to go along with -- A theory can be proven wrong, but it can't be proven correct. An X can confirm, but it can't prove.

Who was it here that mentioned that science is a consensus. That mightbeso, but if it is then that is a criticism of science. Koz it should only take one fact, one scientist, to sink a flawed theory.
However, Einsteinists are good at stopping that one scientist from publishing.

[aetherist]

You weren't able to spot the blatantly obvious mistake in Catt's paper. I assume that you are also unable to identify the mistakes in all these "papers".
When can we expect equations that describe "new electric"?

Which mistake. I think u mean Cahill's paper. What mistakes in the other papers.
I have read all of them & i dont remember any mistakes, but it was a long time ago.

Equations have given us Higgs gluons gravitons etc. These only exist in mathland.
Electons are not mathland.

Let's try one last time:

He confused a transmission line with a capacitor.

And no the two are not the same!

Electons live in crazy land.

A fully charged DC transmission line, having 2 parallel closely space wires, acts exactly like a capacitor.
Especially if it is a coax.
And AC might, in a way, sometimes.
A capacitor might have a more complicated geometry, which might make direct comparison difficult in some ways.

But my electons tick all of the boxes for TLs & for capacitors. So i don’t know why u are worried about it.

[penfold]

[...]
Who was it here that mentioned that science is a consensus. That mightbeso, but if it is then that is a criticism of science. Koz it should only take one fact, one scientist, to sink a flawed theory.
However, Einsteinists are good at stopping that one scientist from publishing.

By example: I have a huge quantity of data that shows a diurnal variation in background radiation counts all recorded at an almost exact location, measured with maybe 100 different detectors over the course of several years. I personally attributed it to thermal drift in the detection circuit. Hypothetically, I could publish it and claim it shows an aetherwind that is affecting the propagation of electrons or whatever in the detector head. To claim that of the data would invalidate many theories... surely you agree that peer review is a good thing in preventing me from doing that, even if I really believed it?

[aetherist]

[...]Who was it here that mentioned that science is a consensus. That mightbeso, but if it is then that is a criticism of science. Koz it should only take one fact, one scientist, to sink a flawed theory.
However, Einsteinists are good at stopping that one scientist from publishing.

By example: I have a huge quantity of data that shows a diurnal variation in background radiation counts all recorded at an almost exact location, measured with maybe 100 different detectors over the course of several years. I personally attributed it to thermal drift in the detection circuit. Hypothetically, I could publish it and claim it shows an aetherwind that is affecting the propagation of electrons or whatever in the detector head. To claim that of the data would invalidate many theories... surely you agree that peer review is a good thing in preventing me from doing that, even if I really believed it?

I dont understand. U are actually making my point. Of course i like peer review. It is Einsteinists who stop peer review, & they do this by stopping publication of the critical paper.

Re your data, this is obviously linked to the Shnoll Effects. Your data supports the aether, i mean the aetherwind, i mean the turbulence of the aetherwind (as explained by Reg Cahill).
But u dont know what i am talking about. Koz u have never heard of Cahill's explanation of the Shnoll Effect. Koz Cahill has never been allowed to publish in the journals that u read.
So, all of your data is useless.
Pity.
The Einsteinian Mafia gatekeepers win again.

[penfold]

[...]
I dont understand. U are actually making my point. Of course i like peer review. It is Einsteinists who stop peer review, & they do this by stopping publication of the critical paper.

Any/Most/(Ones i glanced at) papers and reports you've presented have not been from peer reviewed journals and have frequently cited other non-peer reviewed sources as their primary evidence? To me that shows an undue amount of trust in non-peer-reviewed sources. Peer review serves to prevent poorly designed experiments and impropper/irrational conclusions from reaching publication... and yes, peer review is itself peer reviewed and the rationality of conclusions is an absolute and non-subjective measure.

I did actually know of the Shnoll effect, it was definitely not a significant contribution to my data and nor was it wasnt aetherwind dependent.

[aetherist]

[...]I dont understand. U are actually making my point. Of course i like peer review. It is Einsteinists who stop peer review, & they do this by stopping publication of the critical paper.

Any/Most/(Ones i glanced at) papers and reports you've presented have not been from peer reviewed journals and have frequently cited other non-peer reviewed sources as their primary evidence? To me that shows an undue amount of trust in non-peer-reviewed sources. Peer review serves to prevent poorly designed experiments and impropper/irrational conclusions from reaching publication... and yes, peer review is itself peer reviewed and the rationality of conclusions is an absolute and non-subjective measure.

I did actually know of the Shnoll effect, it was definitely not a significant contribution to my data and nor was it wasnt aetherwind dependent.

None of Einstein's papers have been in a peer reviewed journal.
Einstein almost never cited other sources (at least not in his early days).
So, what do u think that your data showed? Oh, ok, i just then saw that u reckoned that it was thermal. Yes, temp is the usual source of a daily effect. But as u will be aware an aetherwind signal has a sidereal day signal, whilst temp has a solar day signal, the difference being say 4 minutes per day. Your data would/should i think reveal that.

[TimFox]

Einstein's four seminal papers from 1905 in Annalen der Physik were peer-reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief Max Planck and the Co-Editor Wilhelm Wien, both scientists of some reknown who later won Nobel Prizes.
It is true that Einstein later was highly critical of the process of peer review, when his draft paper was shown to other specialists before publication.
Modern peer review became popular in the mid 20th century.  Wikipedia's article  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review  discusses the process, history, and controversies about scholarly peer review.

[aetherist]

Einstein's four seminal papers from 1905 in Annalen der Physik were peer-reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief Max Planck and the Co-Editor Wilhelm Wien, both scientists of some reknown who later won Nobel Prizes.
It is true that Einstein later was highly critical of the process of peer review, when his draft paper was shown to other specialists before publication.
Modern peer review became popular in the mid 20th century.  Wikipedia's article  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review  discusses the process, history, and controversies about scholarly peer review.

Opening the mail, & checking to see if it came to the correct address, is not peer review.
Science papers that mention aether are automatically dumped into the waste paper bucket today (or returned) by office assistants who have never done much science, the papers dont reach the editors.
Einsteinists have to get around this by calling the aether quantum foam, or dynamic space, or vacuum energy or somesuch.
Einsteinists rule.
But the www & youtube etc is slowly changing things.
The aether will return.

I would award Nobels to ..
Demjanov -- for his invention & work with his twinmedia MMX which confirmed aetherwind, & for his discovery of the proper calibration of MMXs.
Cahill -- for his inventions & work on the aetherwind & aetherwind turbulence, & for his separate discovery of the proper calibration of MMXs.
Ranzan -- for his explanation of the dynamic steady state cellular universe, including his explanation of redshift.
aetherist -- for his discovery of electons, being the main cause of electricity on a wire, especially for his screw-thread X.
Pollack -- for his discovery of EZ water, & for his explanation of electrical weather.
On the electricity side (in addition to aetherist & Pollack), we have Catt & Bishop & Wakefield, jointly, for showing that old electricity (electron drift) is false.
Crothers -- for showing that Einstein's equations for GTR etc are false.
Pierre Marie Robitaille -- for explaining that the CMBR is false.
Plus we have all of the aetherists throo history, now dead -- Morley Miller Ives & many others.
Arp, & Shnoll, now dead -- for their work.

[eugene]

Science papers that mention aether are automatically dumped into the waste paper bucket today (or returned) by office assistants who have never done much science, the papers dont reach the editors.

You might be right. The US Patent Office will not consider any patent that claims to have invented perpetual motion. There's a reason for that...

[adx]

No, the screw-thread X idea was my idea. I did however think of it after the question of roughness of the surface of a wire was mentioned. And i already knew about roughness affecting the speed of electricity anyhow.

Ok I had that detail wrong - apologies for that. Your statement is also short of the truth. I was going to say I thought it was penfold but chose not to check a thing in the interests of sleep. Here is the original text to focus in on this point:

[...]The reason i don’t like drift is that it can't explain how electricity propagates at the speed of light, ...

...

Would a surface current also not imply a rather significant increase in resistance for conductors with a particularly rough or serrated surface?

...

I agree re serrations.  New electricity could be tested by using a say wire with a serrated surface.
I don’t think that serration would have much effect on resistance, it would mainly affect distance, ie time.
A threaded surface might say double the effective length of the wire (or rod or pipe). The extra time for propagation would show. And i am confident that this test would be fatal for old electricity.
Howardlong could do the test(s), using his 20 GHz scope, using say 12" of threaded steel rod, versus 12" of plain rod.

Hmmmm -- a threaded pipe might be a problem, ie threaded outside, smooth inside. Electons could sneak throo the central short-cut.
But a pipe might introduce some other aspects that might give us some new info. Dunno.

Serrations weren't (your idea), threads were (and only add practicality but the helix does not affect your principle as you later seemed to confirm), and so was your surprising suggestion that it would affect the propagation time, and even more surprising suggestion of a directly falsifiable test.

To be perfectly honest I thought you were latching onto this idea purely because it hadn't already been tested out in plain view, giving your then-new theory about electons a life they were otherwise destined not to have, driven by pathological confirmation bias. That is why I said that when later discussing the test, and was reluctant to suggest a way forward beyond some possible ground rules. I didn't say "just test it" or whatever you recently claimed I said, my expectation of the null result I've alluded to a few times leads me to suspect with near certainty that you would find a need to change those rules or discredit the test. Your roo-tons arose from that discussion, and although I agree you had no desire to invoke them, a thread-hopping scenario was ripe for the plucking if you ever got your theory too hopelessly trapped. If you weren't at least partly aware of what you are doing then I would simply look upon it as a full-blown delusion and I guess steer clear entirely - but it's not, is it? I know you know that.

My simple point is, science can't work that way in general, it might in your head, but people in general are as unable to swallow it as you are unable to swallow a confounding result. It's a sliding scale of course, with some people so rigidly accepting of a set of scientific principles that they abandon all creativity. Very few to none of them here though, they all seem to be more interested in the madness that resides outside of all our heads, rather than within. Ie, the theories.

[aetherist]

Science papers that mention aether are automatically dumped into the waste paper bucket today (or returned) by office assistants who have never done much science, the papers dont reach the editors.

You might be right. The US Patent Office will not consider any patent that claims to have invented perpetual motion. There's a reason for that...

But a lowly patent officer came up with time dilation. And started the present Dark Age of science.

[HuronKing]

Pierre Marie Robitaille -- for explaining that the CMBR is false.

Ooo he's a fun one. The CMBR isn't false - just Pierre's laughable inability to even understand what it is. He's kinda like you in that regard: blatantly ignorant of even the basic tenets of the physics at play.

This video explains why:

[aetherist]

No, the screw-thread X idea was my idea. I did however think of it after the question of roughness of the surface of a wire was mentioned. And i already knew about roughness affecting the speed of electricity anyhow.

Ok I had that detail wrong - apologies for that. Your statement is also short of the truth. I was going to say I thought it was penfold but chose not to check a thing in the interests of sleep. Here is the original text to focus in on this point:

author=aetherist link=topic=299756.msg3997681#msg3997681 date=1644456911][...]The reason i don’t like drift is that it can't explain how electricity propagates at the speed of light, ...

...Would a surface current also not imply a rather significant increase in resistance for conductors with a particularly rough or serrated surface?

...I agree re serrations.  New electricity could be tested by using a say wire with a serrated surface.
I don’t think that serration would have much effect on resistance, it would mainly affect distance, ie time.
A threaded surface might say double the effective length of the wire (or rod or pipe). The extra time for propagation would show. And i am confident that this test would be fatal for old electricity.
Howardlong could do the test(s), using his 20 GHz scope, using say 12" of threaded steel rod, versus 12" of plain rod.

Hmmmm -- a threaded pipe might be a problem, ie threaded outside, smooth inside. Electons could sneak throo the central short-cut.
But a pipe might introduce some other aspects that might give us some new info. Dunno.

Serrations weren't (your idea), threads were (and only add practicality but the helix does not affect your principle as you later seemed to confirm), and so was your surprising suggestion that it would affect the propagation time, and even more surprising suggestion of a directly falsifiable test.

To be perfectly honest I thought you were latching onto this idea purely because it hadn't already been tested out in plain view, giving your then-new theory about electons a life they were otherwise destined not to have, driven by pathological confirmation bias. That is why I said that when later discussing the test, and was reluctant to suggest a way forward beyond some possible ground rules. I didn't say "just test it" or whatever you recently claimed I said, my expectation of the null result I've alluded to a few times leads me to suspect with near certainty that you would find a need to change those rules or discredit the test. Your roo-tons arose from that discussion, and although I agree you had no desire to invoke them, a thread-hopping scenario was ripe for the plucking if you ever got your theory too hopelessly trapped. If you weren't at least partly aware of what you are doing then I would simply look upon it as a full-blown delusion and I guess steer clear entirely - but it's not, is it? I know you know that.

My simple point is, science can't work that way in general, it might in your head, but people in general are as unable to swallow it as you are unable to swallow a confounding result. It's a sliding scale of course, with some people so rigidly accepting of a set of scientific principles that they abandon all creativity. Very few to none of them here though, they all seem to be more interested in the madness that resides outside of all our heads, rather than within. Ie, the theories.

Ah yes u are correct Penfold thort of serrations -- ok we were going to share the Nobel anyhow, if he did the X.

If a screw-thread (or serrations)(eg bar thread like ribs done in a lathe) duz not slow the electricity in exactly the proportion of the extra distance up n over the threads, then surface hugging electons might be a dead duck.
Bar threads sounds  good. Test1 is with no thread. Test2 is with L/4 threaded. Test3 is with L/2. Test4 is with 3L/4. Test5 is with L/1.
The depth of bar thread would be W/2, which would double the distance for the electons.
Test6 7 8 9 is same kind of rod but painted with enamel, L/4 at a time up to L/1.

But as i have said i am willing to put cash on it (with any takers, no limit)(hmmm -- i would luv to have a new scope).

[aetherist]

Pierre Marie Robitaille -- for explaining that the CMBR is false.

Ooo he's a fun one. The CMBR isn't false - just Pierre's laughable inability to even understand what it is. He's kinda like you in that regard: blatantly ignorant of even the basic tenets of the physics at play.
This video explains why:

U stick with doktor Dave. I will stick with Dr Pierre-Marie Robitaille.

[HuronKing]

U stick with doktor Dave. I will stick with Dr Pierre-Marie Robitaille.

Oh I know you would. Professor Dave even predicted all the reasons why you would (he's got a list of all the boxes at 46:03 in his video that you happily check off for yourself).

[aetherist]

U stick with doktor Dave. I will stick with Dr Pierre-Marie Robitaille.

Oh I know you would. Professor Dave even predicted all the reasons why you would (he's got a list of all the boxes at 46:03 in his video that you happily check off for yourself).

Dave aint a professor. And he aint a Dr. And u obviously have not looked at Dr R's youtube(s).

[HuronKing]

Dave aint a professor. And he aint a Dr. And u obviously have not looked at Dr R's youtube(s).

I have and I split a gut laughing at his claims that the CMBR originates with the Earth's oceans. There is a reason that Pierre sticks to Youtube to preach because his claims wouldn't survive anywhere else. I don't really need Professor Dave (other than the entertaining video) because I already know what the CMBR theory is about (it originates from the Recombination Era).

Pierre thinks the theory originates from mere moments after the BB. Which, as I said a few posts ago, means he has absolutely no concept of what the CMBR even is. He's so inept at understanding the basic science that he doesn't even know where to begin in attacking it.