aside it being alternative history, For All Mankind. With season 3, it seems like the new Star Trek, we all wanted. Not the NuTrek shit, but actual Star Trek. Ron D Moore at the helm, so that should be convincing enough.
>inb4 christcucks enter the thread and say "my 2000 year old book of israeli fairytales explains everything!!"
I love science as much as the next guy, but lets not pretend the new influx of science haters isnt because scientists are sucking trans wiener and going along with whatever pseudo-stuff they come up with
>scientists are sucking trans wiener and going along with whatever pseudo-stuff they come up with >scientists
You have made 10 errors in the word "Americans" despite there being only 9 letters.
>Nothing can travel faster than light, it is the universal speed limit
what about the light from a source moving the direction of the light it's producing?
light is affected by physics after all
Except the post i’m replying to was the one that instigated it. Let me spell out what you are doing so you can avoid the attempt to be disingenuous in your next post: nobody mentioned religion or christianity, you choose to bring it up and get mad at it, and then derailed the thread. You then attempted to blame the imaginary people you got mad at for doing what you just did. It’s a tactic a lot of moronic /misc/ users employ constantly to make it look like the people they hate are the annoying morons and not them, who are the ones constantly bringing up random groups of people and ruining threads with their obsession.
the guy who lead the human genome project is a christian, pretty sure one of the best astronomers in the world is a catholic too. they are exceptional people and you are a mediocre person trying to force some ideological divide that doesn’t exist
>Nothing can travel faster than light, it is the universal speed limit
what about the light from a source moving the direction of the light it's producing?
light is affected by physics after all
Half of these are wrong on their face or assert an unknown as known. I hate the IFLS crowd.
In any reference frame you choose, the light will always be moving at the speed of light. The way this is rectified is through something called Lorentz transformations. A stationary observer would see the source as having contracted in length and its clocks moving at a slower speed.
It's confusing intuitively but it works out mathematically and experimentally. We know relativity is correct because (among other things) satellites require relativistic corrections to give accurate results.
>We know relativity is correct because (among other things) satellites require relativistic corrections to give accurate results.
It’s semantics but all that tells us is the model of relativity works for the uses it has been applied to. It doesn’t mean it’s a correct description of anything in the real world.
No, it is a useful model. It doesn’t describe anything in the real world. If I tell you to go out and make a note of every red object you see on your lawn, you’d probably get a good return on data from your viewpoint. We could even improve the model by sending you out with a magnifying glass. But nothing about that model will tell you anything about how those red objects work, it’s all an abstraction to fulfill a function. Relativity isn’t how the universe works, it’s a tool.
I'm the one you replied to. You're essentially correct, I just didn't want to delve into the minutiae. All models are wrong, but some are useful; science is in essence a heuristic process of error minimization between theory and experiment. We're not guaranteed that any theory is correct, even if it works really, really well in practice. This is because it's impossible to prove the universality of a rule, and experimental error never goes away completely because all tools are only finitely precise.
Take the speed of light for instance: we think that nothing can go faster than the speed of light, so much so that it's one of the postulates of general relativity. We haven't observed evidence to the contrary, and if we did it would upend a lot of theory. But we can't know that for certain that such a particle doesn't exist because you can't prove a negative.
You might be looking at it from a Platonic epistemological angle though so I don't know.
It should at least read >according to our current understanding, nothing in our universe can travel faster than the maximum calculated speed of light in a vacuum
And I’m not even going to get into how dark matter is hilarious bullshit and quantum entanglement cannot transfer information.
You don't into relativity. Two beams of light moving directly away from each other STILL have a total speed difference of speed of light times ONE, due to spacetime warping shenanigans.
its called the time loaf you brainlet and its a representation of each atomic slice of time that you move through linearly. you perceive it as time moving forward but in this thought experiment time is a static concept which you cannot perceive.
Yeah it is speculation, like most of the stuff on that "info"graphic. But the current best guess is that there should to be a shitload more stuff around than what we can see.
>current best guess
I weigh a pebble and determine it weighs thirty tons. I declare the pebble must be composed of “Mystery Stuff.” Does that sound reasonable, or do you think maybe my scale is broken?
>observe galaxies >galaxies would need x% greater mass than is observable in order to exist at all, according to our models >but the galaxies exist >and our models also function
thus, dark matter. this isn't complicated.
Now you replace the scale, and it says 30 tons again. Repeat for 30 years. 30 tons, every time.
What now?
I’d say you should stop building the same scale and wondering why it keeps giving you an obviously incorrect answer
2 years ago
Anonymous
>an obviously incorrect answer
It's obviously correct if you measure it time and time again and it gives you the same result.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Were going in circles. My point is the assumption that our models are correct is in itself unscientific. Hammers work great at punching nails in. If you try to cut glass with it and it fails, you don’t say there is something mysterious about the glass, you say the hammer was the wrong tool to use and search for another. Trying to make results fit the model is just silly.
2 years ago
Anonymous
there is no assumption that the models are correct, only the constant verification that they work.
2 years ago
Anonymous
That’s the whole point, they don’t. If you have to create some magical material to make your equations balance, you haven’t done anything. Relativity works for lots of things, you keep repeating the same thing over and over, I don’t disagree. It still doesn’t work for this use. Bad Air theory worked great for controlling disease, but it had nothing to do with reality.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>That’s the whole point, they don’t.
they do though.
2 years ago
Anonymous
they dont
thats why pseuds come up with random bullshit to make the equation work because they cant come up with a better formula that is correct
2 years ago
Anonymous
you're right and obviously this means the bible is completely 100% true.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Once again, retreating to strawmanning the exactly ONE (1) religion you're aware exists, with your tiny reddit pea brain.
2 years ago
Anonymous
is it a strawman or is it just heading directly to the endpoint of the logic?
2 years ago
Anonymous
The problem is, you have a tiny brain that only holds about 80 IQ points, so you lack the knowledge that your worldview is fricking laughably small.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>if you make fun of my stupid religion you have a small world view, IQ, and penis.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I'm not a christian, you moron. That's precisely my point.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>i'm not a part of the group you're mocking but i am irrationally upset about the fact you're mocking said group
2 years ago
Anonymous
to be fair i’m not him nor am I a christgay and i’m sick of the constant anti christian shit in netflix, Amazon shows and movies. if you are being told to hate someone constantly in an intrusive preachy manner it gets annoying quickly.
2 years ago
Anonymous
for some reason, i don't believe you
2 years ago
Anonymous
no i’m serious. I hate propagandists full stop. i know most people are okay with propaganda that agrees with them, like you, I hate anything that pushes some kind of message on me whether it’s religion or the opposite. and of course the screeching tribal people on both sides can’t stand that
2 years ago
Anonymous
you've fallen into the trap of confusing propaganda with anything that's repeated often
2 years ago
Anonymous
>hmm we cant explain why X is so >therefore we came up with random impossible bullshit to justify everything
sums up both religion and quantum moronation
2 years ago
Anonymous
except one is testable, and the other isn't.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>well if we assume our made up bullshit is real then the theory checks out
smartest quantum theorist >testing religion
that means you are trying to rationalize it
to rationalize is to doubt
doubting is the opposite of believing
therefore any religious person trying to explain and rationalize gospel is a heathen and will burn in hell for all eternity
2 years ago
Anonymous
>yes
that's all you needed to say
2 years ago
Anonymous
Doubt isn’t a sin. Is it just amerimutts seething at christianity on here? No christian in the world would say you can never doubt, all human beings benefit from it.
2 years ago
Anonymous
unironically yes. probably people brought up by evangelicals or who get their world view from reddit posts. you have tons of christian literature all about doubt like john of the cross or kierkegaard, even aquinas says he wishes to understand in order to believe. it’s a made up strawman thing
2 years ago
Anonymous
Because a 'better formula' would mean saying that the physical laws we've been using to use satellite data, and to put men on the moon, were wrong, when we've got the hard results to show they were not wrong.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Because a 'better formula' would mean saying that the physical laws we've been using to use satellite data, and to put men on the moon, were wrong
No, that they were incomplete
2 years ago
Anonymous
>that they were incomplete
so we came up with dark matter to complete them.
2 years ago
Anonymous
No, idiot.
That's why we still use classical mechanics even though quantum mechanics is more accurate.
2 years ago
Anonymous
feel free to elaborate
2 years ago
Anonymous
Read a book Black person
2 years ago
Anonymous
If all scales are all wrong then how are there any accurate weights of anything to compare the 'obviously wrong' weights to?
2 years ago
Anonymous
The solution has nothing to do with the weights or scales. It's operator error.
2 years ago
Anonymous
But how did the operators ever weigh ANYTHING correctly then?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Because better men than they started the work.
2 years ago
Anonymous
The current men use current scales and come up with the same established weights of known things as the old guys did.
2 years ago
Anonymous
No they don't. Modern moron physics doesn't even work with Newtonian physics, but modern moron soientists' own admission. These are the guys who do "hard science" btw lol
2 years ago
Anonymous
>No they don't
Wrong.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>soientists
every time you say this i hear that south park character in the day after tomorrow episode
2 years ago
Anonymous
Because certain tools work for certain uses, and not others. That’s the whole point. Creating some fantasy to make a tool do more than it’s capable of is just nonsensical.
A more accurate analogy is that you're too stupid to read scales for 50 years and the scales were never wrong, you were just too stupid to read them correctly because you had an a priori assumption that pebbles must always weigh at least 30 tons, because if they didn't all your other beliefs would be wrong.
>observe galaxies >galaxies would need x% greater mass than is observable in order to exist at all, according to our models >but the galaxies exist >and our models also function
thus, dark matter. this isn't complicated.
By your dumbfrick model galaxies shouldn't EXIST at the furthest edges of the observable universe. Yet they do. Any "predictions" that the current model of the universe has made have either:
A: Been shown to be wrong
B: Were predicted by another model
C: Have been "fulfilled" by morons with preconceived notions that lead absolutely nowhere, despite being world-shattering discoveries
Some dude accidentally got a petri dish moldy and it revolutionized medicine. Modern physicists find the supposed particle that LITERALLY CREATES FRICKING MASS. And nothing comes out of it. It's almost like they imagined the entire thing.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>A more accurate analogy is that you're too stupid to read scales for 50 years and the scales were never wrong, you were just too stupid to read them correctly because you had an a priori assumption that pebbles must always weigh at least 30 tons, because if they didn't all your other beliefs would be wrong. >because if they didn't all your other beliefs would be wrong.
You're so close anon.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yet you're not.
2 years ago
Anonymous
No, I am not. Because my believes aren't all dogshit.
2 years ago
Anonymous
the thing with dark matter is it isn't just a belief. the functionality of relativity can be verified, over and over. and the existence of things that shouldn't work under relativity can also be verified, over and over.
the thing you're using to have this conversation functions in accordance with relativity. but, according to you, relativity MUST be wrong, if something millions of lightyears away contradicts it.
2 years ago
Anonymous
You just keep going honey. You're doing great!
2 years ago
Anonymous
The fact that the Higgs boson was predicted to exist at a certain energy level, and that they then came up with actual evidence of a fundamental particle at that energy level, is fricking amazing.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Is it? So what? What's come from it? This is how you know it's a fake "discovery".
>math can say anything.
Absolute brainlet take.
You mean reality? This is Cinemaphile, not fricking reddit.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Cinemaphile brainlet is literally lost
lmao back to your containment board for morons
2 years ago
Anonymous
>This is Cinemaphile
It isn't
Oh shit, lol. I forgot this was a random physics discussion on Cinemaphile. Disregard this I suck dicks.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>You mean reality
What? This has no meaning.
2 years ago
Anonymous
E=mc^2 didn't have anything come from it for a few decades, but now nukes and nuclear power exist.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Literally none of that has anything to do with that shitty formula. People literally played with a sphere of radioactive material until they died. And Einstein's moronic ass was afraid the entire atmosphere would explode.
2 years ago
Anonymous
It has absolutely everything to do with that formula. If there was no mass/energy equivalency then splitting an atom would release zero energy.
>there is no center of the universe
yes there is, its me >black holes may contain a universe
may or may not >everything we see is made up of nothing
did they look inside their brains or something >dark matter is invisible
so we see everything pretty clearly then >time flow is affected by gravity speed mass and light
what a bunch of bullshit. 1 second is 1 second whether its here or on jupiter in nighttime >what is gravity
attraction of masses? how do they have a degree >faster than light
darkness xd >newtonian and quantum physics are contradictory
because quantum ones are made up >there was no before the big bang. time came into existence with it
its time for whoever wrote this to kill himself for being stupid >what is the universe expanding into
a bigger universe morons >almost certainly, likely impossible, probable
so do they or do they not? >what is consciousness
a social construct >scientists dont know why quantum theory works
because they arent scientist >quantum entanglement
so replace fiber with quantum entangled particles >time is a cube
no its a circle
But we wouldn’t know they think, I know I think, therefore I am. A sign that says he thinks isn’t thinking, and other people we don’t have real proof of their internal thought, but for ourselves we do
based arm chair physicist.
Science is a load of horse shit. Even E=mc2 isn't infallible and likely plagiarized.
The definition of science is the act of observing and measuring. How can we measure things we can't observe, like consciousness or the center of our galaxy, or the beginning of the universe.
Everyone is so obsessed with knowing all the science, and dying on any hill the moment someone has an alternate viewpoint, they blind themselves from the fact that all good science exists to be disproved.
Doesn't excuse their dogmatic opposition to their theories being disproven.
In fact, by being so obtuse and against it, they make it harder for their theories to be disproven, which is against the nature of science itself.
Which is corrupt.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>their dogmatic opposition to their theories being disproven
example
2 years ago
Anonymous
Neil the Black person Tyson in general is an insufferable prick in general.
But you also have the likes of Richard Dawkins and Brian Cox, Bill nye etc, etc, etc
2 years ago
Anonymous
>moron thinks Brian Cox is obtuse
Yeah you're just a moronic christBlack person, religion is more your speed
2 years ago
Anonymous
>religion bad >follows the religion of science
oooh boy.
Fyi, i'm not especially religious. God, if real, would out of my realm of understanding, therefore I neither believe nor disbelieve.
asking a person about religion or god would be like asking your cat what lies beyond the observable universe.
2 years ago
Anonymous
you're really just projecting your own moronation onto others, to feel better about being moronic.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I just like to focus on things within my realm of influence.
I feel that being proven wrong gives us the opportunity to understand why we were wrong in the first place and correct that going forward.
Even if we are proven wrong again, and again, and again, every time, we get one step closer to finding a fact and improve ourselves.
Don't be afraid of failure or being wrong, it's an opportunity for improvement.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>i'm wrong alot, therefore everyone else must be too
2 years ago
Anonymous
A very narrow interpretation of what I said. >the master has failed more times than the student has even tried.
I strive to fail in order to find my limits. By learning why I failed and improving myself, I expand my limits.
I strive to be wrong, so when I get corrected I learn something new.
2 years ago
Anonymous
you come across as narrow minded, whether you realize it or not.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Now you're not even trying.
Stop repeating what i'm saying and come up with an original thought rather than something recycled from another.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>stop calling me stupid when i look stupid be more original
2 years ago
Anonymous
>>i'm wrong alot, therefore everyone else must be too
now you're just repeating yourself.
2 years ago
Anonymous
yea, the truth will be repeated a lot
2 years ago
Anonymous
>worships popsci for midwits
not a christgay, you’re just cringe
2 years ago
Anonymous
You don't know what theory means
In the vernacular, "theory" means "educated guess" or "hypothesis". In formal science, a theory is a robust explanation of a given phenomena supported by tons of evidence and independently replicated many times over. It isn't a "law" because laws simply state that something "is", not "why" or "how" it is.
It's not an exaggeration to say that "theory" and "scientific theory" are almost completely different concepts.
2 years ago
Anonymous
But they still call it a scientific theory because they distinctly know it’s just a constructed model used to observe and handle a reality that is more vast and mysterious than we could ever perceive. Yes a scientific theory is more developed than just any theory but it’s still recognized as just a model, and you can have wrong scientific theories too like miasma theory which still gets that name.
2 years ago
Anonymous
did you notice how you didn't actually say anything?
2 years ago
Anonymous
I said something specific, that scientific theories don’t claim to hold ultimate truth about the universe - we don’t even know why gravity is or why any of these laws of physics occur
2 years ago
Anonymous
Theory and Hypothesis are 2 different things.
A hypothesis is a simple idea, made of conjecture with no real evidence.
A theory is as you said. 'Scientific theory' and 'theory' are no different.
You can disprove a theory, because a theory, regardless of how much supporting evidence is present, is not fact.
>>time flow is affected by gravity speed mass and light >what a bunch of bullshit. 1 second is 1 second whether its here or on jupiter in nighttime
learn what relativity is brainlet. or better yet, continue being a loser. we need homosexuals like you. who else can clean my toilet?
>nothing can travel faster than the speed of light
light travels faster than the speed of light, the so called "speed of light" that we usually talk about (3*10^9) is actually the speed of observation
Depends on the question. Why is there high redshift in quasars? Because they're infant galaxies. Many questions in astrophysics are this way, but the standard response is to degenerate into math to answer science questions, which turn into non-answers, which further devolve into superstitious fricking nonsense.
>moron thinks Brian Cox is obtuse
Yeah you're just a moronic christBlack person, religion is more your speed
>religion bad >follows the religion of science
oooh boy.
Fyi, i'm not especially religious. God, if real, would out of my realm of understanding, therefore I neither believe nor disbelieve.
asking a person about religion or god would be like asking your cat what lies beyond the observable universe.
Most soientists and soience lovers are only aware of one religion: christianity. They're vaguely aware israelites exist and may not be questioned and know that muslims are basically a race and only ever a positive influence on society. That's the extent of their religious "awareness".
>That's the extent of their religious "awareness".
most people aren't capable of understanding even basic scripture of Christianity.
Their minds aren't capable of understanding how deep the religious rabbit hole goes.
>degenerate into math to answer science questions, which turn into non-answers, which further devolve into superstitious fricking nonsense
What on Earth are you talking about?
I don't know, how about "the results changed because I looked at them!" or "96% of the universe can't be measured!". You people need to be put in a hole.
I read a short story a while ago that had an interesting idea. Basically the universe is expanding, and galaxies are expanding outward with it, getting further away from each other, but individually galaxies are contracting, with the constituent solar systems getting closer together. As a result light travelling between galaxies is going to be much more attenuated, and ambient light within galaxies is going to be much stronger. So species and civilisations that arise in a few hundred million years aren't going to be able to detect the existence of other galaxies, since the signal will be weaker and you'll have much more "noise" light within galaxies. They'll likely think that their galaxy is the entire universe, they'll have no reason to believe anything exists outside it.
Just thought you'd like that Cinemaphile you like cool things.
Yup, the lonely epoch where a galaxy or two will make up the observable universe. Utterly brutal, imagine what was seen by the earliest sentient species in the primordial universe.
Now imagine the final epoch on the cusp of heat death. Even the stars have all collapsed into black holes and brown dwarfs, any surviving civi will undoubtedly be the final ones in existence. Anything primitive will witness a dark sky and an absolutely empty universe, not one thing appears to exist. A hyper-advanced species could survive in dyson-like structures around their dying star, harvesting as much energy they can knowing they can basically calculate the end of their energy reserves and thus the time limit of their species.
All things considered we live in a pretty decent time in the history of this reality.
In the 1960s astrophysicists started to notice that there was a discrepancy between galaxy rotation curves (angular velocity of stellar matter as a function of a galaxy's radius) and luminosity. The luminosity, and therefore the stellar mass within galaxies, is heavily concentrated in its center. It was therefore expected that rotation speed would drop off as a function of radius, as predicted by Kepler's laws and Newtonian mechanics. It did not.
No one was willing to throw out Newtonian mechanics, so it was hypothesized that there was something with a lot of mass present in the edges of these galaxies that didn't emit light and fudging up the rotation curves. Hence the name "dark matter." The problem is, no one has been able to find it, probably because whatever "it" is either interacts weakly with light, or not at all.
Normally I'd be inclined to agree with you, but the problem is that the only assumptions are the qualitative assumption that star density is correlated with mass, and Kepler's 2nd law, which is derived from Newtonian mechanics. Newtonian mechanics have been the underpinnings of physics for the past 400 years, are responsible (directly or indirectly) for all of our technological wonders, and have never before been "disproven" like this.
The only alternative is to create a new model that accounts for both this phenomenon and the past 400 years of observations. There are proposals of different mechanical models that try to account for this by adding convoluted new rules to Newton, and they are not self consistent.
No. No that's wrong. There are all SORTS of wrong ass assumptions that lead to other wrong assumptions, ad infinitum. That's why modern physics is such a moronic clusterfrick and you can only make it work through math because math can say anything.
If maths can say anything, why don't they just get it to say that there's no contradiction between the standard theories and the observations that require some kind of dark matter to explain them?
2 years ago
Anonymous
That’s exactly what they’re doing by inventing dark matter.
>by using the same model that doesn’t make sense without dark matter, we determined dark matter was the only explanation that makes sense
Ah, yes, that’s settled then.
It's not dumb at all. If it was ordinary matter, like dust, planets, dead stars, etc, it would be opaque, and not invisible. If it was black holes, we'd be able to observe gravitational lensing. Whatever "dark matter" is does not appear to interact with light at all.
>Humanity could have rallied together to send a probe to this thing >50/50 chance of finding cool ayyy lmao artifacts, even if its just a rock we kickstart our asteroid mining age >Nope, we'll let the once in a species chance slip because we're dumb fighting capitalist monkeys
wouldn't a sufficiently large black hole lens the appearance of it's own surrounding galaxy and therefore explain the discrepancy between predicted newtonian behavior and observed behavior?
- Universe and time came from nothing through random chance
- Life came from inorganic matter (never replicated even in a lab)
- That first single-celled organism turned into all life on Earth through random genetic mutation and you are related to a potato
- Irreducibly complex biological mechanisms like sexual reproduction from asexual organisms can be formed through random genetic mutation
- Horseshoe crabs were practically the same 400 million years ago but you were a fish
- Lining up fossils of similar looking animals is proof that one evolved into the other
- Modern humans existed for 200,000 years but did practically nothing for ~196,000 years and then suddenly started building amazing civilizations and leaving documents/records
- The Earth got its water from getting hit by space ice
also >the Earth is a ball >scientists have never been able to replicate standing on a big ball upside down like Australians in a lab using """gravity""" alone
SCIENCE IS A FRAUD
aside it being alternative history, For All Mankind. With season 3, it seems like the new Star Trek, we all wanted. Not the NuTrek shit, but actual Star Trek. Ron D Moore at the helm, so that should be convincing enough.
its expanding (your mum)
>inb4 seething judeochristians sperging out at the mere mention of science
I love science as much as the next guy, but lets not pretend the new influx of science haters isnt because scientists are sucking trans wiener and going along with whatever pseudo-stuff they come up with
>scientists are sucking trans wiener and going along with whatever pseudo-stuff they come up with
>scientists
You have made 10 errors in the word "Americans" despite there being only 9 letters.
Science doesn't even know what gender dysphoria is. Stop confusing science with propaganda, fricking smoothbrained moron
>scientists are sucking trans wiener
Not all of them. See: Professor Robert Winston.
Don't give attention to shitposters. Truth seekers are religious.
Albert israelitestien
Oh my science, is that the funny israelite from the israeli sitcom? EPIC!
The big bang is just a theory.
what's a theory?
Yeah, and a theory is an hypothesis backed by empirical results, what is your point?
>just a theory
2/10 bait
What about religious scientists?
>starts seething about imaginary seething before it even happens
>nobody brings up thing
>bring it up and derail thread seething about it
>ugh damn thing fans
why is this so common with the mentally ill
christians are the only ones seething about science
Except the post i’m replying to was the one that instigated it. Let me spell out what you are doing so you can avoid the attempt to be disingenuous in your next post: nobody mentioned religion or christianity, you choose to bring it up and get mad at it, and then derailed the thread. You then attempted to blame the imaginary people you got mad at for doing what you just did. It’s a tactic a lot of moronic /misc/ users employ constantly to make it look like the people they hate are the annoying morons and not them, who are the ones constantly bringing up random groups of people and ruining threads with their obsession.
the guy who lead the human genome project is a christian, pretty sure one of the best astronomers in the world is a catholic too. they are exceptional people and you are a mediocre person trying to force some ideological divide that doesn’t exist
so? whenever you see someone call science fake they're always a christan
They are always a /misc/tard, not always christian. Although i’ll admit there’s overlap.
>catholics
stopped reading right there
>Nothing can travel faster than light, it is the universal speed limit
what about the light from a source moving the direction of the light it's producing?
light is affected by physics after all
Half of these are wrong on their face or assert an unknown as known. I hate the IFLS crowd.
In any reference frame you choose, the light will always be moving at the speed of light. The way this is rectified is through something called Lorentz transformations. A stationary observer would see the source as having contracted in length and its clocks moving at a slower speed.
It's confusing intuitively but it works out mathematically and experimentally. We know relativity is correct because (among other things) satellites require relativistic corrections to give accurate results.
>We know relativity is correct because (among other things) satellites require relativistic corrections to give accurate results.
It’s semantics but all that tells us is the model of relativity works for the uses it has been applied to. It doesn’t mean it’s a correct description of anything in the real world.
it's the most correct description until something even more correct is discovered
No, it is a useful model. It doesn’t describe anything in the real world. If I tell you to go out and make a note of every red object you see on your lawn, you’d probably get a good return on data from your viewpoint. We could even improve the model by sending you out with a magnifying glass. But nothing about that model will tell you anything about how those red objects work, it’s all an abstraction to fulfill a function. Relativity isn’t how the universe works, it’s a tool.
I'm the one you replied to. You're essentially correct, I just didn't want to delve into the minutiae. All models are wrong, but some are useful; science is in essence a heuristic process of error minimization between theory and experiment. We're not guaranteed that any theory is correct, even if it works really, really well in practice. This is because it's impossible to prove the universality of a rule, and experimental error never goes away completely because all tools are only finitely precise.
Take the speed of light for instance: we think that nothing can go faster than the speed of light, so much so that it's one of the postulates of general relativity. We haven't observed evidence to the contrary, and if we did it would upend a lot of theory. But we can't know that for certain that such a particle doesn't exist because you can't prove a negative.
You might be looking at it from a Platonic epistemological angle though so I don't know.
It literally described why they have to make corrections with satellite signals, in the real world.
the frequency changes, like an ambulance siren coming towards you vs moving away
It should at least read
>according to our current understanding, nothing in our universe can travel faster than the maximum calculated speed of light in a vacuum
And I’m not even going to get into how dark matter is hilarious bullshit and quantum entanglement cannot transfer information.
You don't into relativity. Two beams of light moving directly away from each other STILL have a total speed difference of speed of light times ONE, due to spacetime warping shenanigans.
that's getting pretty close to motion is relative, which isn't even close to being proven.
Huh? In what way is it not?
there are non it's impossible to go into space
>inb4 christcucks enter the thread and say "my 2000 year old book of israeli fairytales explains everything!!"
>nothing travels faster than light
didnt some homosexuals manage to send a particle that traveled a little bit faster
no, but they fricked up their instrumentation enough to make it not outright fraud when they claimed such
>some scientists believe time is a cube in which all moments are eternally "now"
lmao what does that even mean, that one has to be tacked on as a joke
no one has a coherent definition of time. the only thing that even remotely works out is that it is always "now"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Cube
No different than saying time is a flat circle
It is. We've done this before and we'll do it again.
Did someone say muthafrickin' Time Cube?
this is the truth the FBI's flat earther-spammers are actually trying to suppress
gotta get me green cube
That's actually the only one that makes sense
its called the time loaf you brainlet and its a representation of each atomic slice of time that you move through linearly. you perceive it as time moving forward but in this thought experiment time is a static concept which you cannot perceive.
2/10 bait got me to reply
A lot of these are speculation or plain wrong. For example I think the dark matter-baryonic matter split is around 80-20.
which, of course, is also speculation and just plain wrong. lol "dark matter".
Yeah it is speculation, like most of the stuff on that "info"graphic. But the current best guess is that there should to be a shitload more stuff around than what we can see.
>current best guess
I weigh a pebble and determine it weighs thirty tons. I declare the pebble must be composed of “Mystery Stuff.” Does that sound reasonable, or do you think maybe my scale is broken?
>observe galaxies
>galaxies would need x% greater mass than is observable in order to exist at all, according to our models
>but the galaxies exist
>and our models also function
thus, dark matter. this isn't complicated.
>according to our models
I’d say you should stop building the same scale and wondering why it keeps giving you an obviously incorrect answer
>an obviously incorrect answer
It's obviously correct if you measure it time and time again and it gives you the same result.
Were going in circles. My point is the assumption that our models are correct is in itself unscientific. Hammers work great at punching nails in. If you try to cut glass with it and it fails, you don’t say there is something mysterious about the glass, you say the hammer was the wrong tool to use and search for another. Trying to make results fit the model is just silly.
there is no assumption that the models are correct, only the constant verification that they work.
That’s the whole point, they don’t. If you have to create some magical material to make your equations balance, you haven’t done anything. Relativity works for lots of things, you keep repeating the same thing over and over, I don’t disagree. It still doesn’t work for this use. Bad Air theory worked great for controlling disease, but it had nothing to do with reality.
>That’s the whole point, they don’t.
they do though.
they dont
thats why pseuds come up with random bullshit to make the equation work because they cant come up with a better formula that is correct
you're right and obviously this means the bible is completely 100% true.
Once again, retreating to strawmanning the exactly ONE (1) religion you're aware exists, with your tiny reddit pea brain.
is it a strawman or is it just heading directly to the endpoint of the logic?
The problem is, you have a tiny brain that only holds about 80 IQ points, so you lack the knowledge that your worldview is fricking laughably small.
>if you make fun of my stupid religion you have a small world view, IQ, and penis.
I'm not a christian, you moron. That's precisely my point.
>i'm not a part of the group you're mocking but i am irrationally upset about the fact you're mocking said group
to be fair i’m not him nor am I a christgay and i’m sick of the constant anti christian shit in netflix, Amazon shows and movies. if you are being told to hate someone constantly in an intrusive preachy manner it gets annoying quickly.
for some reason, i don't believe you
no i’m serious. I hate propagandists full stop. i know most people are okay with propaganda that agrees with them, like you, I hate anything that pushes some kind of message on me whether it’s religion or the opposite. and of course the screeching tribal people on both sides can’t stand that
you've fallen into the trap of confusing propaganda with anything that's repeated often
>hmm we cant explain why X is so
>therefore we came up with random impossible bullshit to justify everything
sums up both religion and quantum moronation
except one is testable, and the other isn't.
>well if we assume our made up bullshit is real then the theory checks out
smartest quantum theorist
>testing religion
that means you are trying to rationalize it
to rationalize is to doubt
doubting is the opposite of believing
therefore any religious person trying to explain and rationalize gospel is a heathen and will burn in hell for all eternity
>yes
that's all you needed to say
Doubt isn’t a sin. Is it just amerimutts seething at christianity on here? No christian in the world would say you can never doubt, all human beings benefit from it.
unironically yes. probably people brought up by evangelicals or who get their world view from reddit posts. you have tons of christian literature all about doubt like john of the cross or kierkegaard, even aquinas says he wishes to understand in order to believe. it’s a made up strawman thing
Because a 'better formula' would mean saying that the physical laws we've been using to use satellite data, and to put men on the moon, were wrong, when we've got the hard results to show they were not wrong.
>Because a 'better formula' would mean saying that the physical laws we've been using to use satellite data, and to put men on the moon, were wrong
No, that they were incomplete
>that they were incomplete
so we came up with dark matter to complete them.
No, idiot.
That's why we still use classical mechanics even though quantum mechanics is more accurate.
feel free to elaborate
Read a book Black person
If all scales are all wrong then how are there any accurate weights of anything to compare the 'obviously wrong' weights to?
The solution has nothing to do with the weights or scales. It's operator error.
But how did the operators ever weigh ANYTHING correctly then?
Because better men than they started the work.
The current men use current scales and come up with the same established weights of known things as the old guys did.
No they don't. Modern moron physics doesn't even work with Newtonian physics, but modern moron soientists' own admission. These are the guys who do "hard science" btw lol
>No they don't
Wrong.
>soientists
every time you say this i hear that south park character in the day after tomorrow episode
Because certain tools work for certain uses, and not others. That’s the whole point. Creating some fantasy to make a tool do more than it’s capable of is just nonsensical.
Now you replace the scale, and it says 30 tons again. Repeat for 30 years. 30 tons, every time.
What now?
A more accurate analogy is that you're too stupid to read scales for 50 years and the scales were never wrong, you were just too stupid to read them correctly because you had an a priori assumption that pebbles must always weigh at least 30 tons, because if they didn't all your other beliefs would be wrong.
By your dumbfrick model galaxies shouldn't EXIST at the furthest edges of the observable universe. Yet they do. Any "predictions" that the current model of the universe has made have either:
A: Been shown to be wrong
B: Were predicted by another model
C: Have been "fulfilled" by morons with preconceived notions that lead absolutely nowhere, despite being world-shattering discoveries
Some dude accidentally got a petri dish moldy and it revolutionized medicine. Modern physicists find the supposed particle that LITERALLY CREATES FRICKING MASS. And nothing comes out of it. It's almost like they imagined the entire thing.
>A more accurate analogy is that you're too stupid to read scales for 50 years and the scales were never wrong, you were just too stupid to read them correctly because you had an a priori assumption that pebbles must always weigh at least 30 tons, because if they didn't all your other beliefs would be wrong.
>because if they didn't all your other beliefs would be wrong.
You're so close anon.
Yet you're not.
No, I am not. Because my believes aren't all dogshit.
the thing with dark matter is it isn't just a belief. the functionality of relativity can be verified, over and over. and the existence of things that shouldn't work under relativity can also be verified, over and over.
the thing you're using to have this conversation functions in accordance with relativity. but, according to you, relativity MUST be wrong, if something millions of lightyears away contradicts it.
You just keep going honey. You're doing great!
The fact that the Higgs boson was predicted to exist at a certain energy level, and that they then came up with actual evidence of a fundamental particle at that energy level, is fricking amazing.
Is it? So what? What's come from it? This is how you know it's a fake "discovery".
You mean reality? This is Cinemaphile, not fricking reddit.
>Cinemaphile brainlet is literally lost
lmao back to your containment board for morons
Oh shit, lol. I forgot this was a random physics discussion on Cinemaphile. Disregard this I suck dicks.
>You mean reality
What? This has no meaning.
E=mc^2 didn't have anything come from it for a few decades, but now nukes and nuclear power exist.
Literally none of that has anything to do with that shitty formula. People literally played with a sphere of radioactive material until they died. And Einstein's moronic ass was afraid the entire atmosphere would explode.
It has absolutely everything to do with that formula. If there was no mass/energy equivalency then splitting an atom would release zero energy.
>there is no center of the universe
yes there is, its me
>black holes may contain a universe
may or may not
>everything we see is made up of nothing
did they look inside their brains or something
>dark matter is invisible
so we see everything pretty clearly then
>time flow is affected by gravity speed mass and light
what a bunch of bullshit. 1 second is 1 second whether its here or on jupiter in nighttime
>what is gravity
attraction of masses? how do they have a degree
>faster than light
darkness xd
>newtonian and quantum physics are contradictory
because quantum ones are made up
>there was no before the big bang. time came into existence with it
its time for whoever wrote this to kill himself for being stupid
>what is the universe expanding into
a bigger universe morons
>almost certainly, likely impossible, probable
so do they or do they not?
>what is consciousness
a social construct
>scientists dont know why quantum theory works
because they arent scientist
>quantum entanglement
so replace fiber with quantum entangled particles
>time is a cube
no its a circle
I am waiting for my PhD
>>what is consciousness
>a social construct
god damn
don't have kids
go on, define consciousness working from axioms anyone will agree with
it's (You)
I think therefore I am
You say that because you’ve been told so by society. Paint some nutrients on a dish and you could get bacteria to say that.
But we wouldn’t know they think, I know I think, therefore I am. A sign that says he thinks isn’t thinking, and other people we don’t have real proof of their internal thought, but for ourselves we do
Damn son, you assblasted that poor niqqa
based arm chair physicist.
Science is a load of horse shit. Even E=mc2 isn't infallible and likely plagiarized.
The definition of science is the act of observing and measuring. How can we measure things we can't observe, like consciousness or the center of our galaxy, or the beginning of the universe.
Everyone is so obsessed with knowing all the science, and dying on any hill the moment someone has an alternate viewpoint, they blind themselves from the fact that all good science exists to be disproved.
>all good science exists to be disproved.
No shit ? Goddamn animal level IQ thinks he's a genius
moron, given that simple face, why does everyone, including 'scientists' defend theories like they are dogmatic gospel?
because they can't be disproved despite tremendous effort to do so
Doesn't excuse their dogmatic opposition to their theories being disproven.
In fact, by being so obtuse and against it, they make it harder for their theories to be disproven, which is against the nature of science itself.
Which is corrupt.
>their dogmatic opposition to their theories being disproven
example
Neil the Black person Tyson in general is an insufferable prick in general.
But you also have the likes of Richard Dawkins and Brian Cox, Bill nye etc, etc, etc
>moron thinks Brian Cox is obtuse
Yeah you're just a moronic christBlack person, religion is more your speed
>religion bad
>follows the religion of science
oooh boy.
Fyi, i'm not especially religious. God, if real, would out of my realm of understanding, therefore I neither believe nor disbelieve.
asking a person about religion or god would be like asking your cat what lies beyond the observable universe.
you're really just projecting your own moronation onto others, to feel better about being moronic.
I just like to focus on things within my realm of influence.
I feel that being proven wrong gives us the opportunity to understand why we were wrong in the first place and correct that going forward.
Even if we are proven wrong again, and again, and again, every time, we get one step closer to finding a fact and improve ourselves.
Don't be afraid of failure or being wrong, it's an opportunity for improvement.
>i'm wrong alot, therefore everyone else must be too
A very narrow interpretation of what I said.
>the master has failed more times than the student has even tried.
I strive to fail in order to find my limits. By learning why I failed and improving myself, I expand my limits.
I strive to be wrong, so when I get corrected I learn something new.
you come across as narrow minded, whether you realize it or not.
Now you're not even trying.
Stop repeating what i'm saying and come up with an original thought rather than something recycled from another.
>stop calling me stupid when i look stupid be more original
>>i'm wrong alot, therefore everyone else must be too
now you're just repeating yourself.
yea, the truth will be repeated a lot
>worships popsci for midwits
not a christgay, you’re just cringe
You don't know what theory means
In the vernacular, "theory" means "educated guess" or "hypothesis". In formal science, a theory is a robust explanation of a given phenomena supported by tons of evidence and independently replicated many times over. It isn't a "law" because laws simply state that something "is", not "why" or "how" it is.
It's not an exaggeration to say that "theory" and "scientific theory" are almost completely different concepts.
But they still call it a scientific theory because they distinctly know it’s just a constructed model used to observe and handle a reality that is more vast and mysterious than we could ever perceive. Yes a scientific theory is more developed than just any theory but it’s still recognized as just a model, and you can have wrong scientific theories too like miasma theory which still gets that name.
did you notice how you didn't actually say anything?
I said something specific, that scientific theories don’t claim to hold ultimate truth about the universe - we don’t even know why gravity is or why any of these laws of physics occur
Theory and Hypothesis are 2 different things.
A hypothesis is a simple idea, made of conjecture with no real evidence.
A theory is as you said. 'Scientific theory' and 'theory' are no different.
You can disprove a theory, because a theory, regardless of how much supporting evidence is present, is not fact.
>Science is a load of horse shit
>all good science
Make your mind up.
>>time flow is affected by gravity speed mass and light
>what a bunch of bullshit. 1 second is 1 second whether its here or on jupiter in nighttime
learn what relativity is brainlet. or better yet, continue being a loser. we need homosexuals like you. who else can clean my toilet?
>nothing can travel faster than the speed of light
light travels faster than the speed of light, the so called "speed of light" that we usually talk about (3*10^9) is actually the speed of observation
light doesn't travel
>tfw the more I study physics, chemistry, biology and math, the more I believe in God
aka evidence for God's existence thread
We know...LE NOTHING?!
>israeli gibberish
None of this shit is how the universe works.
how does the universe works then
Depends on the question. Why is there high redshift in quasars? Because they're infant galaxies. Many questions in astrophysics are this way, but the standard response is to degenerate into math to answer science questions, which turn into non-answers, which further devolve into superstitious fricking nonsense.
Most soientists and soience lovers are only aware of one religion: christianity. They're vaguely aware israelites exist and may not be questioned and know that muslims are basically a race and only ever a positive influence on society. That's the extent of their religious "awareness".
>bemoans superstitious nonsense while espousing it
>That's the extent of their religious "awareness".
most people aren't capable of understanding even basic scripture of Christianity.
Their minds aren't capable of understanding how deep the religious rabbit hole goes.
Belong to a non-abrahamic religion and refute a soientist. They literally don't know what to do with themselves.
>degenerate into math to answer science questions, which turn into non-answers, which further devolve into superstitious fricking nonsense
What on Earth are you talking about?
I don't know, how about "the results changed because I looked at them!" or "96% of the universe can't be measured!". You people need to be put in a hole.
>"the results changed because I looked at them'
Doesn't apply to anything beyond the ultra-microscopic.
>Have a point to make
>Use slur
Many such cases
>scientists who use quantum theory don't know why it works
That's as bullshit as the time cube.
It isn't 1940 anymore.
I read a short story a while ago that had an interesting idea. Basically the universe is expanding, and galaxies are expanding outward with it, getting further away from each other, but individually galaxies are contracting, with the constituent solar systems getting closer together. As a result light travelling between galaxies is going to be much more attenuated, and ambient light within galaxies is going to be much stronger. So species and civilisations that arise in a few hundred million years aren't going to be able to detect the existence of other galaxies, since the signal will be weaker and you'll have much more "noise" light within galaxies. They'll likely think that their galaxy is the entire universe, they'll have no reason to believe anything exists outside it.
Just thought you'd like that Cinemaphile you like cool things.
Yup, the lonely epoch where a galaxy or two will make up the observable universe. Utterly brutal, imagine what was seen by the earliest sentient species in the primordial universe.
Now imagine the final epoch on the cusp of heat death. Even the stars have all collapsed into black holes and brown dwarfs, any surviving civi will undoubtedly be the final ones in existence. Anything primitive will witness a dark sky and an absolutely empty universe, not one thing appears to exist. A hyper-advanced species could survive in dyson-like structures around their dying star, harvesting as much energy they can knowing they can basically calculate the end of their energy reserves and thus the time limit of their species.
All things considered we live in a pretty decent time in the history of this reality.
Relativity was the beginning of the end of secular science
What is dark matter?
In the 1960s astrophysicists started to notice that there was a discrepancy between galaxy rotation curves (angular velocity of stellar matter as a function of a galaxy's radius) and luminosity. The luminosity, and therefore the stellar mass within galaxies, is heavily concentrated in its center. It was therefore expected that rotation speed would drop off as a function of radius, as predicted by Kepler's laws and Newtonian mechanics. It did not.
No one was willing to throw out Newtonian mechanics, so it was hypothesized that there was something with a lot of mass present in the edges of these galaxies that didn't emit light and fudging up the rotation curves. Hence the name "dark matter." The problem is, no one has been able to find it, probably because whatever "it" is either interacts weakly with light, or not at all.
OOOOOR it could just be a math error based on incorrect assumptions.
Normally I'd be inclined to agree with you, but the problem is that the only assumptions are the qualitative assumption that star density is correlated with mass, and Kepler's 2nd law, which is derived from Newtonian mechanics. Newtonian mechanics have been the underpinnings of physics for the past 400 years, are responsible (directly or indirectly) for all of our technological wonders, and have never before been "disproven" like this.
The only alternative is to create a new model that accounts for both this phenomenon and the past 400 years of observations. There are proposals of different mechanical models that try to account for this by adding convoluted new rules to Newton, and they are not self consistent.
No. No that's wrong. There are all SORTS of wrong ass assumptions that lead to other wrong assumptions, ad infinitum. That's why modern physics is such a moronic clusterfrick and you can only make it work through math because math can say anything.
Dunning Kruger
>math can say anything.
Absolute brainlet take.
If maths can say anything, why don't they just get it to say that there's no contradiction between the standard theories and the observations that require some kind of dark matter to explain them?
That’s exactly what they’re doing by inventing dark matter.
https://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/aug/HQ_06297_CHANDRA_Dark_Matter.html
>by using the same model that doesn’t make sense without dark matter, we determined dark matter was the only explanation that makes sense
Ah, yes, that’s settled then.
Thanks for the QRD.
Couldn't dark matter just be... matter? As in, space rocks instead of stars, so no light given off? Sorry if it's a dumb question.
Pic related is an Ayyyyy lmao probe.
It's not dumb at all. If it was ordinary matter, like dust, planets, dead stars, etc, it would be opaque, and not invisible. If it was black holes, we'd be able to observe gravitational lensing. Whatever "dark matter" is does not appear to interact with light at all.
>Humanity could have rallied together to send a probe to this thing
>50/50 chance of finding cool ayyy lmao artifacts, even if its just a rock we kickstart our asteroid mining age
>Nope, we'll let the once in a species chance slip because we're dumb fighting capitalist monkeys
we didn't even detect it until it was on its way out of the solar system.
could be some dead space ayylmao disease on it too so you gotta look at both sides of the coin
wouldn't a sufficiently large black hole lens the appearance of it's own surrounding galaxy and therefore explain the discrepancy between predicted newtonian behavior and observed behavior?
>there is no center of the universe
cope. the big bang singularity emitted from a single point in space
space didn't exist before the big bang
Current best theory is that big bang occurred EVERYWHERE, instantaneously.
yes, because there was no "where" for it to occur in until it happened
>Some scientists believe time is a cube
it's just some flat earth-tier pseudo science
taiwan styled on the theory by titling it "proving human stupidity: time cube"
>4/16 Cube Divinity
>Your ignorance of the Harmonic Cube is demonic.
frick it i'm sold
>Science Friday cucks still fumbling about with Fermis paradox
Hint: They're faeries. They've always been here. No, they probably don't want to talk to you, but if they do, you won't like it.
I might like it.
>Black holes may contain a universe, or begin one.
> There was no "before" the Big Bang. Time came into existence with it.
Don't these two contradict each other?
They meant einsteinian not newtonian. Shit meme
thought your name was just a one time gag but you're actually a namegay
frick off
half of those aren't mysteries.
>time is a cube
>There was no "before" the Big Bang
Bzzt, wrong
What a load of acktchually sperglords in this thread. Anyways watch Aniara it's pretty good space kino
>evolutionary explanation
"Science" believers believe:
- Universe and time came from nothing through random chance
- Life came from inorganic matter (never replicated even in a lab)
- That first single-celled organism turned into all life on Earth through random genetic mutation and you are related to a potato
- Irreducibly complex biological mechanisms like sexual reproduction from asexual organisms can be formed through random genetic mutation
- Horseshoe crabs were practically the same 400 million years ago but you were a fish
- Lining up fossils of similar looking animals is proof that one evolved into the other
- Modern humans existed for 200,000 years but did practically nothing for ~196,000 years and then suddenly started building amazing civilizations and leaving documents/records
- The Earth got its water from getting hit by space ice
also
>the Earth is a ball
>scientists have never been able to replicate standing on a big ball upside down like Australians in a lab using """gravity""" alone
SCIENCE IS A FRAUD
but that's just a theory
a game theory
>biblically accurate science