Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 04:05:30 UTC No. 16302817

Explain the gravitational lensing

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 04:05:45 UTC No. 16302818

>>16302816
its just regular matter the scientards cant see with their shitscopes.

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 07:02:42 UTC No. 16302908

>>16302818
The fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background and primordial nucleosynthesis say no. If you add more normal matter you cannot match the data.

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 09:10:56 UTC No. 16302983

>>16302908
>2 unproven theories say no
good try scientard

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 10:28:48 UTC No. 16303041

>>16302816
yeah, remember that one time, when we observed that Uranus' orbit in reality was different then it should be on paper and we tossed our entire understanding of orbital mechanics out the window, instead of adding a hypothetical "dark planet" that would explain the anomaly?

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 10:56:36 UTC No. 16303083

>>16302816
If we (aliens) have already harnessed gravity then it’s realistic that they can’t measure the universe based off the Big Bang symmetry.

Also the scientists just proved that when photons hit an extreme magnetic field that they turn into gravity and vise versa. Using the new telescope that’s been taking pics.

So basically they will have to recalculate the entire universe based on this concept that light and gravity are interchangeable through magnetic fields.

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 12:51:34 UTC No. 16303181

sigh, just a normal die on /sci/....no one's posted a thread about black holes in relation to Interstellar yet today...so I have that to look forward to at least.

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 12:54:04 UTC No. 16303183

>>16303181
*day

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 12:57:02 UTC No. 16303192

>>16303183
Sigh.....it's all so tiresome.

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 14:28:26 UTC No. 16303295

>>16302983
>2 unproven theories say no
Those are observations, retard.

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 18:22:29 UTC No. 16303493

>>16303295
nope they’re unproven theories.

try again scientard

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 18:26:18 UTC No. 16303498

>>16303493
>look at distant galaxies
>observe lensing without the required mass being present
>observe spin at rates faster than would be possible with the level of mass
Based off these two observations, we conclude that there is more mass we cannot see.
Are you under the belief that anything that interacts strongly with gravity also must interact strongly with light? Is there some reason that one can't exist without the other?
Just too scary for you to think about? Poor baby.

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 18:41:48 UTC No. 16303516

>>16303498
>observe lensing without the required mass being present
What if it's caused by a massive star just behind the smaller star much closer to us?

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 18:44:37 UTC No. 16303522

>>16303516
The we wouldn't observe the lensing on distant galaxies because they'd be covered up by a star.
We're talking about supergalactic levels of mass at intercalated distances.
Does you schizo pet theory explain the data? No.

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 18:49:17 UTC No. 16303530

>>16303522
>we wouldn't observe the lensing on distant galaxies because they'd be covered up by a star.
what star? a tiny star closer to us or a huge star farther from us - how would you know the difference? by the red shift? and how would you determine the actual frequency of the star to tell what the redshift is?

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 18:52:59 UTC No. 16303533

>>16303192
>what is this energy you speak of, show it to me
>see the moving car, it moves because it has kinetic energy
>you've only shown me a car. i demand you show me energy
>i have shown you energy.
>is this "energy" in the room with us right now
>yes, literally
>ok karen

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 18:53:20 UTC No. 16303534

>>16303530
Distant galaxies are angularly small. Nearby small stars are angularly larger.
Hold you pinky finger near your eye, and it line but father back hold you thumb up. Your smaller nearby pinky will occlude your distant larger thumb.

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 19:04:02 UTC No. 16303543

>>16303493
Tell me how the existence of the cosmic microwave background is an "unproven theory"?

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 19:05:38 UTC No. 16303545

>>16303516
Lensing doesn't work like that. Objects very close to the observer have less impact on lensing. The optimal distance is about half way to the source. It's just geometry.

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 19:11:17 UTC No. 16303551

>>16302816
>millions
jwst was built to look for dark matter

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 19:27:09 UTC No. 16303574

>>16303534
>Distant galaxies are angularly small. Nearby small stars are angularly larger.
Nigga wut?

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 19:28:56 UTC No. 16303578

>>16303574
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=angular+size+vs+absolute+size

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 19:36:30 UTC No. 16303584

>>16303545
>Objects very close to the observer have less impact on lensing
should I draw a picture for you? okay, I did

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 19:37:58 UTC No. 16303587

>>16303584
If there was a star in the way, we would see the star.
The issue is lensing with no apparent lenser, empty space.
That's why it's called "dark" matter, you can't see it.

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 19:38:31 UTC No. 16303588

>>16303578
are you honestly retarded? (or I dare you to show me that I am)
Larger distant galaxy can be of the same angular size as a smaller galaxy situated closer to us.

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 19:39:51 UTC No. 16303592

>>16303587
we would see the smaller star and the lensing from the larger star around it
So even though you wouldn't be able to see the larger star, there would be no reason to call it dark matter or anything of that kind.

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 19:40:04 UTC No. 16303593

>>16303588
If you followed my helpful link, the first video that shows up is "how we determine the size of distant objects [in space]"

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 19:41:56 UTC No. 16303594

>>16303592
Are you retarded on purpose, or is this just how you are?
There is nothing in the way to do the lensing, it appears to us as empty space, and yet it has massive gravitational pull.
This doesn't even go into how galaxies spin faster than possible for the level of visible matter they have.
Were science deniers always this retarded?

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 19:42:59 UTC No. 16303597

>>16303584
There is no lensing in your picture. You drew the lines straight. Geometry =\= a shitty sketch.

>>16303534
>Distant galaxies are angularly small. Nearby small stars are angularly larger.
Nope. Only a few very nearby giant stars can be resolved by Hubble and JWST (Betelgeuse, Vega), all other stars are completely unresolved (>99.99%). But these telescopes can easily remove distant galaxies, because they have a larger angular size.
This argument is nonsense.

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 19:48:42 UTC No. 16303600

>>16303593
I'm on a computer without audio, you have to tell it in your own words. If you really know that stuff, it wouldn't be a problem. Either way, sorry for the trouble, please deliver, sempai

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 19:51:29 UTC No. 16303602

>>16303597
>There is no lensing in your picture.
I didn't draw the lensing, only the lensed stuff.

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 19:59:08 UTC No. 16303612

>>16303600
Through different things like red-shift and parallax

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 20:04:43 UTC No. 16303618

>>16303584
>>16303516

This is all totally irrelevant as the lensing in question is galaxy clusters. Not stars. There is no hiding a huge cluster of thousands of galaxies. And you would need the hidden one to be even larger than the known one. It's fucking retarded.

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 20:05:24 UTC No. 16303619

>>16303594
> There is nothing in the way to do the lensing
I dare you to show me such lensing. The last time somebody made this claim, there were plenty of stars inside the lensing area, just not one massive star, but who said that combined gravity cannot cause lensing, or that some hidden stars are there behind those stars?

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 20:07:31 UTC No. 16303622

>>16303619
See >>16303618
It's not like it's a little bit of bent light, it's way more than could be accounted for by matter alone.
https://hubblesite.org/contents/articles/gravitational-lensing

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 20:07:34 UTC No. 16303623

>>16303612
>red-shift
to have it tell you something, you have to know the actual frequency of the object, which you don't
> parallax
I doubt it works on those distances and our petty state of the space exploration, though truly it would be the only real measurement technique.

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 20:09:08 UTC No. 16303627

>>16303618
>>16303622
as if you would know two galaxies one behind the other from one galaxy. Please tell me how you would.

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 20:10:22 UTC No. 16303629

>>16303627
Did you read the link I gave you? If you scroll down to the bottom there are even some pretty pictures if you can't figure out how to read the other stuff.

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 20:12:44 UTC No. 16303633

>>16303629
I know what is gravitational lensing. Give me your argument, instead of the lame "read the book" take.

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 20:16:12 UTC No. 16303637

>>16303633
Not him, but since space bends it act like a lense. If you need more than this literally read the book and teach yourself GR

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 20:17:11 UTC No. 16303644

>>16303633
If you look at the hubble photo of the galaxy cluster, you see a lot of mass centered around the galaxies which makes sense, but you also see a dead spot and then another ring of what appears to be great mass, but there is not much in the way of visible matter within the outer ring.
It lenses, but we cannot see it.
Mass, but no light.
Matter, dark
Dark matter.

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 20:19:15 UTC No. 16303649

>>16303627
Galaxies are not opaque. You could see the background one through the foreground one. You would see two sets of emission lines in the spectrum, as is commonly seen in lensed galaxies.
Furthermore, if the foreground one was big enough it would lens the background galaxy around it. Not just the background source but the background lens too.

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 20:19:50 UTC No. 16303651

>>16303644
>Dark matter.
such as... NEBULA?

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 20:20:35 UTC No. 16303652

>>16303651
No

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 20:21:44 UTC No. 16303653

>>16303649
I guess I have to study the emission lines stuff.

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 20:21:59 UTC No. 16303656

>>16303623
>to have it tell you something, you have to know the actual frequency of the object, which you don't
Which you do because galaxy spectra are all very similar. You see hydrogen and oxygen lines. You know the frequency. You are now claiming no one can ever measure redshifts, this is a ridiculously argument.

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 20:24:11 UTC No. 16303660

>>16303652
Why not?

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 20:25:37 UTC No. 16303662

>>16303660
Because nebula aren't 2.6 million lightyears across with a total ring of voidespace.
You didn't click the link, so click it and go tell them why it must be a nebula

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 20:25:56 UTC No. 16303663

>>16303656
>You see hydrogen and oxygen lines.
I am the same guy who has to study the emission lines. Thank you for your education.

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 20:28:26 UTC No. 16303666

>>16303660
The clusters in question are transparent. You can see background galaxies. Dark nebulae like that are bright at long wavelengths. Not DM.

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 20:39:43 UTC No. 16303675

I don't mind losing the argument, if I can learn new stuff in the process, but why are those blue lines not even concentric? Is it certain, that they're result of lensing in the first place?

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 20:42:28 UTC No. 16303677

>>16303675
>blue lines
?
You mean the glare? Glare exists in the lens of the camera not in space
I do see concentric lines around the center of the image, look at the stuff that's stretched and smeared, it's pretty much all following a circular path.

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 20:47:59 UTC No. 16303685

>>16303677
no, not glare, the blue lines in the centre.
The lines around the centre only look circular, but they're not. What are the chances that they're of the same nature as those closer to the centre, and were formed circular-like by chance? (considering how many of such areas there are, some of them should be like this by chance)

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 20:55:58 UTC No. 16303694

>>16303685
Interesting. I couldn't tell you.
Some of them may be simply galaxies lying at a different plane, which you can see if you look around the image, but that's probably not all of them, so I'm not sure.

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 20:58:41 UTC No. 16303696

>>16303675
You would only expect them to be concentric if you had one smooth symmetric mass profile. But a galaxy cluster is more than just one big halo, there are hundreds of galaxies inside which can all effect particular objects. The clusters like that are particularly complicated because it is two clusters in the process of merging. Complex clusters are better targets for lensing. There are models of the lensing.
Yes it is definitely lensing. As demonstrated by the reoccurring supernova refsdal, one supernova was seen multipley imaged in a cluster, it appeared simultaneously in 4 places. The lensing models then predicted (successfully) that another image of the same supernova would reappear several months later on the other side. They predicted the location and timing.

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 22:16:00 UTC No. 16303790

>>16303551
>built for Big Black Corpuscles

🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 22:44:34 UTC No. 16303828

>>16302816
>worth pouring millions of dollars into it

My bank account is low, lend me millions and I will explore why?

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 23:29:41 UTC No. 16303875

>>16303041
Didn’t they initially assume this in the 80s but latter retracted it, then later on in our time they have this hypothetical “dark planet” as a 5 Sigma?
And are you saying that Dark Matter was just a band-aid for a refusal to entertain the idea that there is a celestial body influencing Uranus’ orbit?

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 00:16:13 UTC No. 16303911

>>16303593
>>16303588
>>16303578
Why is it that specifically and only on 4chan people can't be fucked to look anything up and always want things "in your own words hurr durr." You have the largest library of human knowledge ever created right in front of you but you just refuse to use it.

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 00:21:58 UTC No. 16303920

>>16303911
If someone makes a claim, and you ask them to support it, that's one thing
But asking for a basic definition is retarded.
Therefore, 4chan users are retarded on average.

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 00:31:34 UTC No. 16303933

>>16302816
They'll pour millions of dollars into anything to support their atheist/humanist creation myths they falsely call science like the dumb big bang theory, claiming "literally nothing" (but nothing doesn't create anything) or something as small as a proton (which came from where?) exploded and created everything (and where did the energy come from, and the laws?), as though explosions create order and systems like the universe has.

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 00:32:55 UTC No. 16303936

>>16303696
So the no-one-particular-star-in-the-centre can be explained by the lensing being caused by the group of stars/galaxies?

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 00:35:11 UTC No. 16303942

>>16303920
or they're from all other fields, retard
(if you argued irl and instead of explaining would say "read about it, I'm not going to explain the basics", you would be likely to be smacked in the face, unless all your friends are pussies)

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 00:40:48 UTC No. 16303951

>>16303942
Is this real life?
No, it's closer to an email thread than real life.
And on an email thread you can be asked to read about basic definitions and ask specific questions rather than basic shit like
>what is angular size?

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 00:42:41 UTC No. 16303953

>>16303951
nobody asked that, it was answered for no reason

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 00:45:15 UTC No. 16303955

>>16303953
He was confused about me repeating the phrase "empty space" and insisted there was a star in the way, somehow behind another star, in empty space.
I chose to explain that the angular size of distant galaxies is smaller than that of nearby stars, so there is no possibility of stars being in the way if we're observing the distant galaxies, otherwise the galaxies would be occluded.

The basic concept of things can block line of sight of other things is expected to be common knowledge, so I just assumed he was having an issue with distance and size. After all, galaxies are bigger than stars but farther away.

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 00:50:27 UTC No. 16303964

>>16303955
>I chose to explain that the angular size of distant galaxies is smaller than that of nearby stars
Unless they're big as fuck
> galaxies are bigger than stars but farther away
Unless what we consider to be stars are galaxies but farther away (many such cases)

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 00:59:47 UTC No. 16303986

>>16303964
galaxies are large, but the ones he was talking about are very far away, which can be seen in the lensing photos that were shared in this thread previously
your second line is a non-sequitur and is unrelated to what you quoted

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 01:12:01 UTC No. 16304007

>>16303986
You better answer this: >>16303936

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 01:14:12 UTC No. 16304010

>>16304007
s1-s4 are all the same (dead) star, it's one nova being recorded 4 different times due to lensing.
The x on the "other galaxy" is the predicted location of what was to be s5, the 5th image of that one supernova, as predicted by astrophysicists due to gravitational lensing.

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 01:28:24 UTC No. 16304024

>>16302816
The OP meme is so strange as an argument against dark matter.

Equation 1 is false. (1+1 =/= 3)
Equation 2 is true. (1+1+1 = 3)
So adding the hypothetical "dark number" made the equation true. It improved the equation. So "doing math like a physicist" should be good, right?

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 02:06:43 UTC No. 16304053

>>16304024
wrong. it's called ad hoc or ad hack, adjustment to the answer, may a native speaker tell what they call it when your solution gives the wrong answer so you add the missing number to adjust your answer to the correct one.

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 02:07:49 UTC No. 16304055

>>16304010
Can I see those stars, please?

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 02:12:27 UTC No. 16304059

>>16304055
It's dead
It died
You see its death
Fucking moron

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 02:14:46 UTC No. 16304065

>>16304059
So it's just a hypothetical star? Can you send me the coordinates and the image to it, so that I can see the lensed star around a no-star?

🗑️ Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 02:15:34 UTC No. 16304066

astrophysics is fag shit, space is fake and gay af ong bussin no cap

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 02:16:42 UTC No. 16304067

>>16304065
What the fuck are you talking about?

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 02:17:35 UTC No. 16304069

>>16304067
about
>s1-s4 are all the same (dead) star
in the context of some dark matter causing the lensing

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 02:18:42 UTC No. 16304070

>>16304069
see >>16303622

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 02:28:47 UTC No. 16304082

>>16304070
>ctrlF s1
>0/0

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 02:30:03 UTC No. 16304083

>>16304082
You're retarded.

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 02:35:05 UTC No. 16304091

>>16304083
So that dead star of yours is imaginary, just as that dark matter of yours? I thought so.

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 02:37:19 UTC No. 16304092

>>16304091
You can't follow basic conversational threads, you're not smart enough to understand that there are things you can't see but still exist.
There is no point in doing anything but insulting your already low intellect.

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 02:43:00 UTC No. 16304098

>>16304092
>you're not smart enough to understand that there are things you can't see but still exist
Lol, fag.

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 02:51:20 UTC No. 16304105

>>16304098
>doesn't believe in x-rays

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 05:54:32 UTC No. 16304258

>>16303875
No. He's describing the discovery of Neptune.

>>16303955
>I chose to explain that the angular size of distant galaxies is smaller than that of nearby stars
Which is still false.

>>16304091
>>16304055

You can literally see it in the image. Maybe read the fucking thread. >>16303696

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 06:49:00 UTC No. 16304315

>>16304258
>You can literally see it in the image.
Just as I can see the celestial object lensing them, which doesn't qualify for anything dark.

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 06:50:33 UTC No. 16304318

>>16304258
WTF! How do we know that the Site_of_SX is their actual position?

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 07:12:37 UTC No. 16304360

>>16304315
Only because you haven't done it quantitatively. The normal matter in that cluster is not enough to explain the lensing.

>>16304318
It is not the actual position, they are all multiple images of the same source. The different paths of each image through the cluster mean there is apparent delay.
SX was the predicted reappearance based on the lensing model. This was confirmed by appeared again there months later. Those models which correctly predicted the delay are also the thing that points to the need for dark matter.

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 07:36:14 UTC No. 16304390

>>16303875
>And are you saying that Dark Matter was just a band-aid for a refusal to entertain the idea that there is a celestial body influencing Uranus’ orbit?
No, I'm illustrating how physicist don't make shit up because they're afraid to admit their math is wrong. If the math has been substantiated by countless observations and one observation contradicts it, chances are you're missing something about the observation not the other way round.
Hence why instead of deciding that Newtonian gravity was completely wrong they figured out where a celestial body would have to be in order to cause Uranus' orbit anomalies and found Neptune.

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 09:58:32 UTC No. 16304461

>>16302816
Dark matter is a meme because scientists can't admit we're in a privileged position in the universe, the laws aren't the same everywhere and the cosmological principle is false

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 11:57:13 UTC No. 16304531

>>16304461
>the laws aren't the same everywhere
And yet the discrepancy is amazingly consistent galaxy to galaxy.

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 12:39:10 UTC No. 16304558

>>16303685
The universe hasn't existed for long enough for every galaxy and galactic cluster to condense into a homogeneous spherical shape, plus the expansion of the universe means that probably won't happen for trillions and trillions of years, and the same can be said of dark matter. If you had a weird blob shape made out of dark matter, it wouldnt gravitationally lens the light behind it in a circular way, and that's generally what we can see.

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 13:57:39 UTC No. 16304623

>>16304558
You are not supposed to take scientific theories on faith, and the one you did take on faith is false to the core, and if you make an effort to comprehend it, it shall become obvious to you.

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 15:19:09 UTC No. 16304675

>>16304390
I’m sorry I’m referring to the planet 9/10 thing going on. What’s your opinion on that?

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 15:48:45 UTC No. 16304703

>>16304675
Never looked into it so I don't think my opinion on that is worth much

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 16:17:50 UTC No. 16304727

>>16304461
>the laws aren't the same everywhere
Evidence?

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 16:43:01 UTC No. 16304738

Peak 4chan:
>doesn’t even bother to look shit up online to read but instead regurgitate high school and pop sci bs
>”scientists are retards” and no proof except shitty images and plots taken by, well, scientists
>”insert accepted theory here” is false, but my pet theory that makes more assumptions is clearly right cuz it was revealed to me in my dreams by a many-armed goddess
>fixated on a singular weak point amidst many lines of reasoning supporting an argument, and then acts like the weak point completely undermines all other lines of reasoning and the argument entirely despite them being separate
>blames pajeets for their personal failing to get out of bed despite never having any friends outside of autistic white trash in high school and still single

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 17:28:15 UTC No. 16304784

>>16304623
guh??? People have been listing evidence throughout this whole thread, dude, closing your eyes and covering your ears doesn't make you any smarter. Literally all you people have in defense of your denials is "nuh uh".

Nomi at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 17:41:36 UTC No. 16304793

Dark matter is clearly horseshit but we're all apparently dumb asses because it's not like people haven't been trying to fuck with the existing formulas until they fit the data. Hell, if it really was that easy we would have probably stumbled across the formulas without understanding it at all. Like the wave equation.

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 18:12:27 UTC No. 16304828

>>16304793
We observe the inputs to the formula, so you can't change those.
We observe the outputs, again you can't change those
We're loft looking for extra mass that doesn't interact with other forms of matter.
Why is this so bad? Photons don't mess with other photons, so why can't you have mass that doesn't fuck with other mass?
>oh no a new particle!
We've found plenty before, what's wrong with one more? It's literally just retards spouting "pop sci!!! POP SCI!!!" as a schizo mantra who are bothered by new discoveries.

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 18:45:03 UTC No. 16304862

>>16304784
Evidence of the big bang theory? They have not.

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 19:09:42 UTC No. 16304883

>>16304862
The cosmic microwave background and it's fluctuations, the abundances of light elements produced by primordial nucleosynthesis and expansion.

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 20:59:35 UTC No. 16304989

>>16304883
..do not prove the big bang theory

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 21:19:10 UTC No. 16305015

>>16304793
So you don't know?

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 21:53:45 UTC No. 16305044

>>16304989
You asked for evidence. You cannot prove anything in empirical science, there are only degrees of evidence.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 00:47:09 UTC No. 16305228

>>16304989
>prove
Science is inductive and not deductive

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 09:02:07 UTC No. 16305644

>>16302816
Trollface mewed

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 09:11:46 UTC No. 16305648

>>16302816
Say it with me: Modern science is based on faith.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 09:17:44 UTC No. 16305653

>hmm, could the missing mass be rogue planetoids which are unseeable to our eyes because there is nonlight source to show them?
>no, it must some form of invisible and otherwise unmeasurable energy!
Why not call it magic at this point?

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 09:28:50 UTC No. 16305660

>>16305653
>Magic
>Energy

Pick one.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 09:35:14 UTC No. 16305664

Universe & Identity are inextricably linked.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 10:38:49 UTC No. 16305711

>>16305653
People considered that, such objects were known as MACHOs. Even without a light source those objects would occasionally pass in front of background stars, lensing them. The shear number needed to explain dark matter would make these events fairly regular. In the early 90s huge observational campaigns were undertaken over years to find these events, monitoring millions of stars. They did find microlensing events, but only of currently known populations of stars. The result was that there dark matter as planets/low mass stars/black holes/white dwarfs was ruled out over a huge range in mass. Furthermore this idea was further shot down, as both the CMB and big bang nucleosynthesis say that dark matter cannot simply be normal matter.
Maybe you should read the history before assuming everyone else is just retarded.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 11:15:16 UTC No. 16305735

>>16305711
>huge observational campaigns
Ignoring the fact that "huge" is very relative, I'll believe it once we start mass producing and using satelites in space en masse.
>before assuming everyone else is just retarded.
Hey, I'm not the one trying to make everyone else believe that their faith is actually science.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 11:24:37 UTC No. 16305738

>>16305735
> I'll believe it once we start mass producing and using satelites in space en masse.
The upper limits are orders of magnitude lower than the rate predicted by planets. Science does not require your belief, those are the observational facts.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 12:05:33 UTC No. 16305758

>>16305738
Yeah, once again, I'll believe it when observational data indicates as such.
I'm not about to put my faith in the same people who believe magic is real.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 12:37:15 UTC No. 16305777

>>16305738
Just to let you in on the joke, you are responding to a bot.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 12:39:12 UTC No. 16305779

>>16305758
>when observational data indicates as such.
That happened in the 1990's.
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...471..774A/abstract
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...542..281A/abstract
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A%26A...469..387T/abstract
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PhRvD..99h3503N/abstract

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 14:46:22 UTC No. 16305887

>>16305779
Anon, if I look at the sky and record that I've oberved no black holes, does this mean that there are no black holes?
Of course not. You need better equipment to actually observe black holes.
Instead of basing my views on the usage of a single observatory that was build exactly a hundred years ago, I'll wait until we have access to tools that will actually be able to tell us what is and isn't there.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 15:13:00 UTC No. 16305907

>>16305887
>Anon, if I look at the sky and record that I've oberved no black holes, does this mean that there are no black holes?
No, but you can place an upper limit on their abundance. Just like the microlensing experiments haven't concluded there are no rogue planets, there just aren't anywhere near enough to make a significant contribution to dark matter. Rejecting the hypothesis is much easier than looking for black holes, because you know exactly how many there needs to be.
>Instead of basing my views on the usage of a single observatory
You didn't even open those papers then. From multiple programs done with many telescopes, finding consistent results. Some of those programs are still running, collecting more data which further supports the conclusion.
>I'll wait until we have access to tools that will actually be able to tell us what is and isn't there.
Here we have the tools to test what there is and isn't and you're bending over backwards to ignore it. You said you would believe it when the data show that, and now you're rejecting the evidence and doubling down on your beliefs.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 20:03:31 UTC No. 16306158

>>16305907
>there just aren't anywhere near enough to make a significant contribution to dark matter
Dark matter doesn't exist. There is a deviation between the expected effectw of gravity and the observed effects of gravity.
>because you know exactly how many there needs to be.
Only if our current theoretical framework is perfect as is. And considering it currently requires a magical (in the literal sense of the word) concept to continue working, I have my doubts that it is.
>From multiple programs done with many telescopes
The MACHO project used primarily a singular ground telescope.
>finding consistent results.
I can keep looking at the sky, but no matter how many times I look, I will never see a black hole.
>Here we have the tools to test what there is and isn't
Using a ground telescope to search for rogue planets through gravitional lensing is like using a spoon to dig up a coin hidden somewhere in your backyard.
You do realize that we can use the same retoric on all the black matter detection attempts made so far, right? "We've used our most advanced techniques and didn't find anything, so it can't exist".
>and now you're rejecting the evidence and doubling down on your beliefs.
I am not rejecting the evidence, I am and have been saying that it's not enough evidence to discredit the entire theory.
This has been my stated belief this entire time. It hasn't changed.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 20:06:16 UTC No. 16306164

>>16302816
ITT: Guy doesn't understand dark matter, ignores every scientific research link, claims to understand scientific position, and more!
It's a once in a lifeti- once in a DAY /sci/ thread! You've only seen this 365 times per year!

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 21:08:39 UTC No. 16306221

>>16306164
Let me guess, you got the vaccine?

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 21:18:26 UTC No. 16306235

>>16304024
These are the people that make things that they want to inject into you. This is the toddler level autistic thinking you're dealing with.

The average person is fucking retarded.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 22:19:53 UTC No. 16306280

>>16306221
No, but cool schizopost, Mr. Unrelated.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 00:25:09 UTC No. 16306397

>>16306280
Wait, you didn't get the vaccine?
But all the scientific evidence pointed towards it being good for you.
Why did you not follow the science?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 00:27:22 UTC No. 16306400

>>16306397
Cool strawman, retard. Look up dark matter lensing and disprove that.
Feel free to publish your paper overturning astrophysicis.
Deflect harder, fagtard.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 00:31:21 UTC No. 16306403

>>16306400
>doesn't answer question
>gets mad and starts namecalling
Well, there goes your argument!
Feel free to actually answer whenever you want. But just keep in mind that anything you say before answering can be disregarded, since you've shown bias in choosing what evidence to believe in.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 00:32:23 UTC No. 16306406

>>16306403
Deflecting again.
Read OP, then answer the question I asked

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 03:50:50 UTC No. 16306526

>>16303498
Have they mathed a hypothetical universe birch?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 03:57:37 UTC No. 16306536

>>16306526
I think birch trees exist within this universe, even.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 04:33:41 UTC No. 16306584

>>16303041
Remember that one time, when we observed that Mercury's orbit in reality was different then it should be on paper and we added a hypothetical "dark planet" that would explain the anomaly instead of tossing our entire understanding of orbital mechanics out the window?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 04:57:15 UTC No. 16306602

>>16306584
No

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 04:59:25 UTC No. 16306608

>>16306536
Birch galaxy* Birch universe*

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 05:01:36 UTC No. 16306611

>>16306608
I don't know what you're talking about.
Birth? Like the origin?
Or birch, like the tree?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 05:02:59 UTC No. 16306615

>>16306602
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulcan_(hypothetical_planet)

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 05:04:55 UTC No. 16306617

>>16306615
Neat, and we eventually proved it wrong.
Perhaps one day dark matter will be proven wrong as well, but right now we have more than one piece of evidence supporting it, so maybe it'll stick around throughout physics as a "best working explanation" (scientific theory)

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 08:09:58 UTC No. 16306729

>>16306615
Just because we found out eventually that it was wrong, doesn't mean scientists are retards for thinking of it as a good possibility at the time.
We once thought our galaxy was the entire universe and now we know it isn't.
We once thought the universe was eternal and now we know it isn't.
We once thought the universe's expansion was slowing down, and now we know it isn't.
Having more accurate knowledge of the universe now doesn't mean scientists were retards back then, it just means they had access to less information. This is how science works, anon. We don't need to abandon relativity as long as it works, and relativity is once of the most successful theories we've ever had.
If we find a better theory, we should swap to that, but saying "there's totally a better theory" when the current one works fine most of the time, and then not actually making a better theory that explains more than our current one, is not scientific.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 08:20:40 UTC No. 16306741

>>16306158
>Dark matter doesn't exist.
On your baseless opinion. Which doesn't matter to the experiment, they are only testing if DM is rogue planets. If there is no DM then the hypothesis is false. How is it that you claim DM doesn't exist, and yet you are still trying to defend rogue planets being DM? It's completely illogical.
>Only if our current theoretical framework is perfect as is. And considering it currently requires a magical (in the literal sense of the word) concept to continue working, I have my doubts that it is.
If dark matter is simply rogue planets then everything is fine. You are rejecting a hypothesis under it's own assumptions.
>The MACHO project used primarily a singular ground telescope.
There is more than one project, and they use multiple telescopes for followup, including space telescopes. EROS, MOA, OGLE, KMTNet, PRIME. And events have been found in Gaia and ZFT data.
>I can keep looking at the sky, but no matter how many times I look, I will never see a black hole.
Back to this straw man argument. They do see microlensing events, even from rogue planets and black holes. So clearly the technique works, but there aren't nearly enough to explain DM.
>You do realize that we can use the same retoric on all the black matter detection attempts made so far, right? "We've used our most advanced techniques and didn't find anything, so it can't exist".
No, what you do is you place an upper limit set by the sensitivity of the experiment. In the case of DM candidates, you rule out particles above some interaction cross section over the range of mass. The same applies for microlensing, these experiments have a mass range and an upper limit on the rate of lensing events. In the case of lensing the cross section is set by GR, and so the upper implies an upper limit on the density. Therefore one can reject the hypothesis that rogue planets make up a significant fraction of DM.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 12:33:07 UTC No. 16306960

>>16306741
>On your baseless opinion.
No, on the fact that despite an extensive search with the latest technologies, absolutely nothing has been found so far.
If you speculate that a form of matter must exist which properties make it undetectable, you've started talking about faith rather than science.
>and yet you are still trying to defend rogue planets being DM?
Is it really that hard to keep your emotions out of this? I've said that I'd sooner believe that rogue planetoids are behind the observed gravitational deviation rather than believing that magic is behind it.
Please actually read what I say rather than react to what you believe I said.
>If dark matter is simply rogue planets then everything is fine.
It's not, because that means that there is suddenly a very large increase in mass distributed all over the universe. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that this would have a profound effect on how we believe the universe came to be.
>There is more than one project
So far, there has been only a single large-scale project which searched for rogue planets using technologies that were close to a century old.
All other projects have been much, much smaller in scale and have been using technologies built almost half a century ago.
Which you would know, if you'd read your own sources.
If I look at the sky and see no black holes, will I suddenly start seeing them 50 years later while wearing sunglasses?
>Therefore one can reject the hypothesis that rogue planets make up a significant fraction of DM.
Do you not see the hypocrisy in your own statement?
When will you accept that dark matter doesn't exist, considering that every single experiment so far has shown it to not exist?
Or are these experiments just faulty and do we need better equipment? Maybe equipment up in space, where there is less interference?
Hey, that sounds familiar. Where'd I hear that before?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 14:20:04 UTC No. 16307073

>>16306960
>If you speculate that a form of matter must exist which properties make it undetectable, you've started talking about faith rather than science
Undetected=/=undetectable.
>Is it really that hard to keep your emotions out of this?
Logic is not an emotion. If you cannot make a logically consistent argument then clearly your argument is bullshit. You also constantly regurgitate the same arguments that have already been addressed (black holes, black holes, black holes..). As if you want the discussion to run in circles. I'm just going to ignore these.
>I've said that I'd sooner believe that rogue planetoids are behind the observed gravitational deviation rather than believing that magic is behind it.
Funny, that seems like an emotion.
>It's not, because that means that there is suddenly a very large increase in mass distributed all over the universe. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that this would have a profound effect on how we believe the universe came to be.
We're talking about things that would invalidate the microlensing constraint, this is not one of them. And existing models already include dark matter.
>All other projects have been much, much smaller in scale and have been using technologies built almost half a century ago.
Bullshit. OGLE, MOA, KMTNet are all bigger than MACHO and they are all still running. OGLE has 3 decades of data. All of them use modern purpose-built telescopes.
>Do you not see the hypocrisy in your own statement
There is no contradiction. I explained as much but you would rather reply to a single sentence than try to respond to the argument holistically.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 16:37:41 UTC No. 16307260

>>16307073
>Undetected=/=undetectable.
You're correct. I guess it's time for us to accept God in our hearts. Amen!
>As if you want the discussion to run in circles. I'm just going to ignore these.
If you keep ignoring the meaning behind the example of why your reasoning is wrong, then yes, we will keep running in circles.
>And existing models already include dark matter.
Refer to the OP image.
>All of them use modern purpose-built telescopes.
Do you not realize you're making a gigantic fool out of yourself by making false statements like these? It literally takes a single Google search to confirm whether this is true or not.
>There is no contradiction.
Okay, so how do you deal with the fact that despite our best efforts, not a single detection of dark matter has been made?
Is your answer going to be "that it hasn't been detected doesn't mean it doesn't exist"? I hope not, because that means you've moved from science to faith.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 16:41:47 UTC No. 16307274

>>16307260
Explain lensing and galactic rotational speed with your model, then compare it to particles that interact with gravity but not em fields
There's a reason people pick the second model, it's cause it's evidenced rather than you just guessing at what it might be.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 18:08:30 UTC No. 16307363

>>16307260
>If you keep ignoring the meaning behind the example of why your reasoning is wrong, then yes, we will keep running in circles.
I have not. I responded to it and explained how it is different. You never responded to that or challenged it. But you keep repeating the original premise. Either you've forgotten what I said or you're just a parrot with no ability to think.
>Refer to the OP image.
Not an argument. And again ignoring half of what I said.
>Do you not realize you're making a gigantic fool out of yourself by making false statements like these? It literally takes a single Google search to confirm whether this is true or not.
Go ahead, knock yourself out.
>Okay, so how do you deal with the fact that despite our best efforts, not a single detection of dark matter has been made?
>Is your answer going to be "that it hasn't been detected doesn't mean it doesn't exist"? I hope not, because that means you've moved from science to faith.
That's not faith, that's logic. Faith would be making an absolute statement not based on evidence, such as claiming to know DM does or does not exist. Failed direct detection experiments put upper limits on the parameter space, several particle candidates have been ruled out already. But there more which have not. Without a direct detection it will remain the standard model unless cosmological tests show significant deviations from models like CDM, or until there is a serious alternative model which can explain away the observations without dark matter. The latter is not simple, people have been trying for even longer than they've been looking for DM.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 18:11:07 UTC No. 16307367

Is this 2 bots spamming or is the retard just too stupid to see that hes spamming @ a bot

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 19:23:44 UTC No. 16307474

>>16307363
>That's not faith, that's logic.
I'm sorry, but believing that something exists while every single experiment so far has ruled out its existence is the exact opposite of logic.
How is your belief in dark matter any different than someone's belief in god?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 19:27:23 UTC No. 16307484

>>16307474
Point me to a single experiment that claimed to rule out all possible candidates of DM.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 19:32:18 UTC No. 16307498

>>16304828
>Photons don't mess with other photons
You think photons are particles? Lol

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 20:08:05 UTC No. 16307576

>>16307484
...anon? You can't prove a negative. Surely you must understand this.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 20:14:23 UTC No. 16307584

>>16307576
I do, you apparently do not:
>every single experiment so far has ruled out its existence
So are you going to admit this is a lie, and the rest of your argument is bullshit too?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 21:07:21 UTC No. 16307640

>>16302816
Scientists pretend they understand orbital mechanics when they can't even solve the three body problem. Dark Matter is a meme and today's scientists can't admit that they know nothing.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 21:14:27 UTC No. 16307651

>>16307584
>So are you going to admit this is a lie
Feel free to provide evidence showing otherwise. You won't.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 21:14:56 UTC No. 16307653

>>16303790
kys american porn addict

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 21:28:02 UTC No. 16307671

>>16307651
Sure. I cite you from an hour ago.
> You can't prove a negative. Surely you must understand this.
Thus it is impossible, thus you are full of shit.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 21:30:33 UTC No. 16307674

>>16307671
Called it.
Seriously, please read the entirety of the following:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 21:40:50 UTC No. 16307686

Dark matter is mirror matter formed from the destruction of entangled anti-matter pairs which don't absorb photons and instead cause gravitational lensing over large scales

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Aug 2024 00:41:28 UTC No. 16307829

>>16303551
With the cost of the American Enpire's and their eastern counterparts forever wars, mass migration programs, ans other horseshit to fund the global elites plans, we could have had THOUSANDS of over-budget JWSTs in space right now. And orbiters at every planet.

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Aug 2024 07:36:13 UTC No. 16308231

>>16302816
What does thread think about the idea that dark matter stars collapse into black holes, explaining the high number of primordial black holes

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Aug 2024 08:03:54 UTC No. 16308244

>>16308231
>dark matter stars
Schizotalk.

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Aug 2024 17:39:15 UTC No. 16308699

>>16302816
Yes. Discovering its nature or coming up with a theory that works and doesn't need dark matter would be worthy of a Noble Prize.

>>16306584
Yes, that happened. The hypothetical planet's name was Vulcan. But it was never observed, so the theory was thrown out. Dark matter's case is more complicated since proving whether it's there or not is a lot more difficult. Some physicist are looking for it, others are trying to come up with working theories that don't need it. This is how research goes.

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Aug 2024 23:56:50 UTC No. 16309091

>>16307576
you can prove negatives its just hard to do.

Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 00:17:46 UTC No. 16309118

>>16309091
No, anon. It's literally impossible.
And I am using the word "literally" correctly here: it simply cannot be done.

Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 00:21:58 UTC No. 16309121

>>16302817
There are basic problems with galaxy rotation and incorrect hubble redshift that nukes the standard model. Dark matter and dark energy greatly exceed the observable universe.

If the fudge factor exceeds the signal, you fucked up.

Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 00:23:25 UTC No. 16309122

>>16309121
You're nearly 20 years behind the times.
https://hubblesite.org/contents/news-releases/2007/news-2007-17.html

Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 00:34:40 UTC No. 16309131

>>16304828
>You cannot change the inputs or outputs
Bad assumptions. The telescope image is "true", however the assumptions about how large or far away the galaxy is, is an assumption. The hubble constant isn't constant and space expansion is far from proven.

Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 00:48:55 UTC No. 16309144

>>16309131
You can measure red shift from hydrogen emission lines.
You can measure parallax.
If you disagree, feel free to write your paper and get your medal

Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 21:33:00 UTC No. 16310250

Dark matter is made out of unicorns

Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 22:23:36 UTC No. 16310299

>>16310250
Correct and true.

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 02:04:58 UTC No. 16310475

>>16309118
its not impossible.

negatives are proven all the time.

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 05:31:49 UTC No. 16310602

>>16310475
Sigh. Alright, name a single example.

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 06:55:47 UTC No. 16310647

>>16310602
Suppose there is a box. I think it contains no apples. You say prove it. I open the box and there are no apples.
I have proven the box contains no apples.
Also look into any proof by contradiction.

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 07:17:43 UTC No. 16310663

>>16307640
Scientists can't solve the double pendulum. By your logic that means they don't understand how anything moves and the basic equations of motion are nonsense.

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 09:23:50 UTC No. 16310730

>>16310647
How do I know the box doesn't contain a secret compartment with more apples?

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 22:16:50 UTC No. 16311428

>>16310647
>I open the box and there are no apples.
How do you know there are no apples?

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 23:29:02 UTC No. 16311521

>>16311428
You can look at the box with the knowledge of what defines an Apple, and note that nothing it the box meets the definition of apple.

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 23:32:20 UTC No. 16311529

>>16311521
How do you know there aren't any invisible apples?

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 23:38:56 UTC No. 16311533

>>16311529
Being invisible is not one of the properties that classifies an apple, and I'd even say that being an apple precludes being invisible.
If you handed me an invisible object and said it was an apple I wouldn't believe you.
You could also feel around the box and confirm you're not just going blind.

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 23:58:11 UTC No. 16311561

>>16311533
We once didn't realize radiation existed until we created the right tool to detect it.
How can you be sure we just haven't created the right tool to detect invisible apples yet?

Anonymous at Tue, 6 Aug 2024 00:16:51 UTC No. 16311581

>>16309121
>If the fudge factor exceeds the signal, you fucked up.
This nigga literally talking science.

>>16309122
I have found a series of holes in my back yard. In light of my "8 inch tall Viet Cong" theory, I am actively denying my neighbor's contention that they are, in fact, prairie dog burrows and have begun to shun him. Tiny Viet Cong are the only acceptable theory that fits my model.

Anonymous at Tue, 6 Aug 2024 00:34:44 UTC No. 16311603

>>16311533
>You could also feel around the box and confirm you're not just going blind.
What if the apple is invisible to electromagnetic radiation and also electromagnetic forces?

Anonymous at Tue, 6 Aug 2024 19:06:21 UTC No. 16312497

>>16309121
What if the object isn't red shifting, nor are the other objects gravitationally lensing, but we are? What then?

Anonymous at Wed, 7 Aug 2024 18:32:01 UTC No. 16313809

>>16310663
If the the basic equations of motion aren't nonsense, why does NASA need ground control for all of their spacecraft? NASA should be able to launch everything with preplanned navigational instructions and save a fortune by doing away with ground control entirely if the basic equations of motion aren't nonsense.

Anonymous at Wed, 7 Aug 2024 18:33:33 UTC No. 16313814

>>16313809
Did you not understand the double pendulum example? Minor inaccuracies build up over time.
If you understand the basic laws then why can't you balance a sharpened pencil on its tip for 1 minute?

Anonymous at Wed, 7 Aug 2024 18:38:24 UTC No. 16313825

>>16313809
A perfect simulation would require perfect knowledge. So even if we understand how things move in principle, in practice we can only approximate since we don't know the exact speed and direction of everything.

Anonymous at Wed, 7 Aug 2024 23:01:20 UTC No. 16314258

>>16310663
I think you misunderstand. The three body problem means that we can not bring 3 or more bodies with their own gravitational pull into a stable orbit.
Then how can it be that our solar system, which has way more than 3 bodies, is stable? That means we don't understand why they are stable and that gravity alone can't explain it. But scientists pretend as if gravity explains it.

Anonymous at Wed, 7 Aug 2024 23:09:21 UTC No. 16314277

>>16314258
The classic 3 body problem is only a problem when the masses are similar sizes. Notice how satellites tend to be much smaller than their parent. This stepping in size makes things act more like nested 2 body systems. Of course all multi-body systems will eventually go unstable, but they can remain stable for a good while due to the unequal sizes.

Anonymous at Thu, 8 Aug 2024 19:21:41 UTC No. 16315511

>>16313825
why do you presume you understand the laws of motion exactly when you can't predict motion exactly? egotism?

Anonymous at Fri, 9 Aug 2024 05:15:40 UTC No. 16316304

>>16304531
no it isn't

Anonymous at Sat, 10 Aug 2024 00:05:11 UTC No. 16317880

no

Anonymous at Sat, 10 Aug 2024 19:31:17 UTC No. 16319008

>>16302816
the invented the dark matter meme because if they didn't then they'd have to admit that the sacred albert einstein, the infallible jew god of the scientism "atheists", made a mistake

Anonymous at Sat, 10 Aug 2024 20:17:31 UTC No. 16319070

IT'S DA DARK MATTER! LITERALLY DARK MATTER!

Anonymous at Sun, 11 Aug 2024 19:23:17 UTC No. 16320430

>>16319008
In astronomy and physics your career is immediately ended if you try to publish anything which suggests that Einstein could possibly have ever made a mistake about anything

Anonymous at Sun, 11 Aug 2024 19:40:41 UTC No. 16320458

>>16320430
literally everyone agrees that quantum physics makes relativity obsolete. For most practical applications, physicists still use newtonian physics despite it also being obsolete.

There's massive holes in relativity but it's just the best we have for now. You wouldn't have shit like string theory if people didn't try to fill in these missing parts.