I call BS! The Unruh Effect from

Math is not science.
Original:
• The Unruh Effect

[@eragonawesome]

I think I might have some intuition but I'm not an expert in the field or even particularly well studied, so could be completely wrong: It seems to me like the Unruh effect is essentially doppler shift, any random excitation could appear to have enough energy, relative to the observer in the accelerating reference frame, to become a real particle for that observer. An external inertial observer though would not see that particle as they would not be experiencing that extra energy in the field provided by the acceleration of the other. Again, I could be way off, I'd love to discuss with someone knowledgeable!

[@xyhilwastaken]

The problem is that you think observe means to look at or something similar. This is a huge misconception; In science, "observing" something means to read or write, gather or add information; quantum mysticism magazines and terrible clickbait online has used "observe" the same way the misconception version is used. |:

[@abighairyspider]

To observe means to measure. Yes.

[@Hashtag_Redacted]

A very radical claim, Why don't you publish a paper And provide evidence

[@abighairyspider]

I could natural philosophy (physics) like by Watts and Weber is done with evidence. It's where we get the idea of the scientific method. This mathematical stuff is a hypothesis looking for justification without evidence and it's jacked us up for more than a hundred years now. A paradigm shift is coming and the papers have been being written for, like I said, a hundred years. They're starting to be published now in peer review though because JWST evidence supports plasma physics and disproves Big Bang assumptions including the significance of red shift distances and velocities.

[@Hashtag_Redacted]

@@abighairyspider but mathmatics is like a tool, and just like a tool we can fine tune it to fit our needs. Without maths we cannot predict anything

[@abighairyspider]

@@Hashtag_Redacted Exactly. It's a tool. They looked for antimatter particles because quadratic equations, and they found actual evidence of positrons, or whichever antimatter... But, standard model cosmology ignores the electrical engineering and plasma physics math that applies universally because astronomers never believes electric charge separation was possible in space, and they've left-brain ignored evidence to the contrary. This is a little like pulling out the bible to prove god, but if you want math: Donald E. Scott: Dark Matter Debunked | Thunderbolts kzbin.info/www/bejne/eIi6kKCqns2WZ7M

[@Hashtag_Redacted]

@@abighairyspider what about this than? kzbin.info/www/bejne/h5axpKN3rMmaiLs

[@abighairyspider]

@@Hashtag_Redacted I love her. BUT, there's a much more simple explanations about M87.... Plasma focus, or plasmoid. They're grow and shrink and they'll pull stars around them at the middle of our own galaxy in ways that are impossible for black holes to do without tearing apart the stars orbiting. "We know it exists because of its strong gravitational effects," except that we don't.. . we hypothesize it might because equations for gravity don't explain what happens in stellar motions through galaxies or at the centers....