🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 10:30:03 UTC No. 16480412
Why is this considered a legit scientific approach?
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 10:37:30 UTC No. 16480422
>>16480412
>math like a physicist
Mathematicians make up nonsense like negative numbers and irrational numbers all the time.
>wait you can't add any number to 2 to get 1??
>let's just make up a "negative number" -1 with the property that 2 + (-1) = 1 durrrrr
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 10:38:39 UTC No. 16480423
>>16480412
Astronomers arent real scientists.
They are getting there. Crashing shit into asteroids and taking precise measurements is getting close to a real experiment. But unless you have the budget for those kinds of space missions astronomy is observation only, no tweaking variables. Therefore not real science.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 10:40:40 UTC No. 16480427
>>16480412
>create theory
>theory works great in most cases and predicts a bunch of stuff incredibly well
>get more data
>some data in edge cases doesn't fit
>theory still works in most cases
>find ways to modify theory such that edge cases fit
do you not understand how science works or are you just retarded?
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 10:40:56 UTC No. 16480428
>>16480423
Astronomy is one of the first sciences. Cope seethe etc
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 11:00:24 UTC No. 16480447
>>16480427
>>some data in edge cases doesn't fit
ultraviolet catastrophe is anything but an edge case
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 11:42:46 UTC No. 16480497
>>16480412
Filling blanks in models with plausible functions is indeed a legitimate approach
Selling it as "Dark Matter" and grifting out millions in grants for it is not
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 11:45:09 UTC No. 16480502
>>16480497
Thankyou. Finally someone said it. This. So much this. Where has common sense gone?
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 11:47:34 UTC No. 16480507
If you knew how much damage this is...
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 11:50:34 UTC No. 16480509
>>16480497
>Selling it as "Dark Matter" and grifting out millions in grants for it is not
So then how would you gain the funding to discover it's properties?
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 11:52:00 UTC No. 16480511
>>16480427
>Observations suggest a mismatch in observed forces and theory.
>Jump ten steps ahead and conclude invisible mystery mass is responsible
We'd still think phlogiston are heat if we used the same reasoning in the past, we'd just have 12 flavors of dark phlogiston to make it do the approximate job of thermodynamics.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 12:02:04 UTC No. 16480527
>>16480511
>Jump ten steps ahead
please enlighten me what steps were skipped
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 12:07:41 UTC No. 16480539
>>16480509
By describing it as an anomaly and not some new bullshit voodoo particle that violates physics
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 12:11:34 UTC No. 16480543
>>16480527
>what steps were skipped
All of them
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 12:20:34 UTC No. 16480557
>>16480539
Nobody claims dark matter violate physics you sperg lord. It makes physics work
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 12:21:56 UTC No. 16480561
>>16480511
>see shit orbiting faster distant from center of galaxy
>either there's more shit such that it's bound tighter gravitationally or f_g=1/r2 is wrong
no 10 steps there, it's pretty fucking basic.
Either it's held in tighter or force doesn't drop as quickly as we expected.
Something doesn't match, those were the two most popular possibilities they came up with.
Dark Matter is in no way confirmed, and no one is claiming otherwise.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 12:25:41 UTC No. 16480565
>>16480447
seems like that theory wasn't describing our observations well in that case...
anon... get your shit together, OP was clearly referring to dark matter
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 12:40:07 UTC No. 16480586
>>16480561
It's also been confirmed through gravitational lensing
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 12:47:16 UTC No. 16480598
>>16480586
You referring to the Bullet Cluster?
Hossenfelder at some point made a video how that might be supporting MOND, but I won't pretend to be an expert.
Simply competent enough to call out the fags that don't understand the basics of why Dark Energy/MOND/something is required to fix our models.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 13:22:17 UTC No. 16480656
>>16480586
Gravitational lensing doesn't confirm dark matter any more than rotational curves do. It only says our models are shit.
>Our model says a galaxy couldn't spin like this.
>Let's add a freely adjustable parameter of mysterious mass that we will never be able to observe to fudge the number.
>Mystery mass have to be the dominant form of mass if we do this? No problem just fucking dial it to 11
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 13:45:06 UTC No. 16480681
>>16480598
>something is required to fix our models.
Yeah the models are shit.
But fixing it with dark matter is on parity with saying it's the hand of god variable that can apply an arbitrary force vector of any size in any direction to any or all particles at any time.
>Is the hand of god detectable?
Sure if god Wills it. I can suggest a hundred experiments to investigate it.
>Is it explainable as rules.
Yes sure but God moves in mysterious ways so we can always repostulate the rules as experiments fail and observations change.
Sounds better than dark matter, everyone will understand the core concepts of the theory just by its name unlike the subterfuge that supports dark matter
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 13:54:26 UTC No. 16480689
>>16480681
Sorry but "We don't know, therefor God" is an order of magnitude more retarded than saying "We know there is a type of matter out there, but we don't know it's properties yet"
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 14:06:43 UTC No. 16480701
>>16480681
>I can suggest a hundred experiments to investigate it.
>Gives none
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 14:08:37 UTC No. 16480704
Poo
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 14:16:44 UTC No. 16480712
>>16480704
This has to be a well thought out punishment and thereafter. it's not just doing something they don't like. In my opinion, leave it to me. Not because you can't, but because of how much intentional training and bulking up I did enough to create any tech including proper advanced tech, and defeat countries by myself or with bots. I'm trying hard to express some kind of super intelligence.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 14:17:46 UTC No. 16480714
>>16480712
At least consider sentence 1.
A bit of poo for you
🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 16:11:07 UTC No. 16480823
>>16480701
>Throw a nigger in a lake
>If Hand of God exists it will push them below the surface until they drown.
I need ten thousand niggers more to feed the lake but so far it have more experimental evidence in favor of it than dark matter
🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 16:18:22 UTC No. 16480828
>>16480823
So by that logic a nigger that can swim is proof God doesn't exist?
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 16:20:16 UTC No. 16480831
>>16480412
I don't see you doing any better
🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 16:35:18 UTC No. 16480846
>>16480828
The hand of god pushes inconsistently. Maybe all swimming niggers enjoy the blessing of god.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 17:11:33 UTC No. 16480884
>>16480846
Your god must be a real retard, just like you
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 18:45:42 UTC No. 16481046
>>16480412
science studies models
if a theory fits observation, is explanatory, is predictive, and doesn't contradict known good models within their domains of applicability, it's a good model
not everything is figured out at once. models are made tractable by making simplifying assumptions that focus on only the most important things relevant to what is under study. if an existing model is known to be good in certain domains of applicability, refinements to the model to extend it to other domains of applicability shouldn't negate what is already known. for instance, quantum mechanics is weird on the microscopic scale where it applies, but gives way to classical mechanics on the macroscopic scale. QM doesn't negate classical mechanics.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 20:02:09 UTC No. 16481160
>>16480427
science requires that your theory works for every case, not just most.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 21:46:57 UTC No. 16481301
>>16480427
That theory can't predict anything.
In the other side if advanced civilizations hide themselves to survive, and migrate as far away as possible from each other we can make some predictions:
There should be less "DM" in younger galaxies and if we look at far away galaxies those should also contain less "DM". All that because it takes time for advanced civilizations to emerge, hide themselves, and migrate far away from the visible part of their galaxies.
The data we have so far agrees with such predictions.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 21:57:44 UTC No. 16481312
>>16480412
Are you mixing up science with religion. Science is 1+1+1=3, religion is 1+1=3
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 22:23:32 UTC No. 16481350
>>16480412
I would like to point out that both the planet Neptune & Neutrinos were predicted to exists by other observations not adding up right, and some scientist proposing that some matter that they were not able to see yet was needed to explain things.
With neutrinos being a thing, I don't see why the idea of dark matter (in the form a particle that is similar to a neutrino but even more of a bitch to detect) makes so many people butt hurt. It may or may not be true, and wish the MOND guys the best of luck in creating an alternate explanation, but it strikes me as pure hubris to assume we have discovered every form of matter and should not try to see if we are missing anything.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 22:28:54 UTC No. 16481353
>>16480412
Step 1 of revising any hypothesis is to start with relaxation of assumptions.
Ex. If an experimental result doesn't match with conservation of energy, you don't throw conservation of energy out, you ask 'is there some interaction I'm not accounting for that's using some of that energy?'. If relaxing that assumption works, you ask questions about what that interaction might be (friction, drag, etc.) if not, then you start considering major revisions to the theory.
Same thing here. We have a hypothesis, GR, which can very accurately predict behavior across ~60 orders of magnitude in terms of mass, but struggles with orders of magnitude about 10 orders above or below this range (subatomic particles and clusters of galaxies). Relaxing an assumption (maybe there's more mass on the bigger scales that we're not currently able to detect) solves the disparities between the observations and the models on those larger scales without requiring us to completely rewrite everything about gravity (again) and come up with an even more complex model that not only need to explain the new results, but also accurately fit all of the existing results that GR previously explained.
Relaxing a single assumption is always, always easier than starting over from scratch, and therefore always the first thing you try.
Anonymous at Tue, 19 Nov 2024 04:27:08 UTC No. 16481713
>>16480656
What are the alternative explanations, then, for the distortion of spacetime?
Anonymous at Tue, 19 Nov 2024 12:55:26 UTC No. 16482193
>>16481301
>That theory can't predict anything.
Distribution of galaxies, shapes and sizes of galaxy filaments/voids, baryon acoustic oscillations, size of galaxies, rate of star formation in early universe...
there's quite a lot of predictions lambda-cdm makes, I've got no clue what you're on about.
Anonymous at Tue, 19 Nov 2024 13:10:34 UTC No. 16482222
>>16480681
oh my yuhabaha
🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 19 Nov 2024 18:50:26 UTC No. 16482862
>>16480412
Because it's necessary to maintain the reputation of Saint Albert the Einstein, the infallible jew god of the soience atheist religion
Anonymous at Tue, 19 Nov 2024 21:01:54 UTC No. 16483196
>>16482862
That seems silly; Newton still has a very good reputation with the general public despite his theory of gravity ending up just being a good approximation for everyday speeds & masses. I don't see why it wouldn't be the same for Einstein if his theories also end up just being good approximations for certain use cases.
Anonymous at Tue, 19 Nov 2024 22:54:31 UTC No. 16484786
>>16480412
Memes aside, why wouldn't this be?
>observations shown to be missing component to be consistent with reality
>assume missing component must exist and we simply haven't observed it yet
>run tests to observe it until successful or until evidence of contrary found
It's literally the scientific equivalent of algebra.
Anonymous at Wed, 20 Nov 2024 04:06:04 UTC No. 16485851
>>16482862
You are dumb. Relativity is proven and nothing will change that. If and when a new theory replaces Relativity, the new theory will not disprove relativity rather it will be a more accurate description of reality, but in many cases will match the results of relativity. The same thing happened for newtonian gravity, relativity is more accurate, but still matches newtonian gravity in most cases.
🗑️ Anonymous at Wed, 20 Nov 2024 04:10:08 UTC No. 16485854
>>16485851
>oy vey muh sacred Saint Albert the Einstein, the infallible jew god of the soience atheist religion!!!
you've never studied physics, can't do math and have no idea what you're talking about, you're also completely ignorant of the scientific method. you're just a cringey IFLS tier soience atheist worshipping your false god
Anonymous at Wed, 20 Nov 2024 12:54:02 UTC No. 16486272
Because in the beginning, all we had is 3, and most people are retarded so they cannot figure out how we got there.
Anonymous at Wed, 20 Nov 2024 12:55:23 UTC No. 16486275
>>16485854
explain why a rocket keeps accelerating mid-flight despite its thrust being constant, without sounding mad
🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 21 Nov 2024 03:00:04 UTC No. 16487424
>>16480412
it isn't considered a legit scientific approach, astronomy isn't a science, it doesn't have disprovable theories or repeatable experiments. it trys to dress itself up as a science in order to gain respectability, but it doesn't follow the rules laid down by the scientific method so it isn't a real science
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Nov 2024 05:07:23 UTC No. 16487522
>>16487424
Experiments are not a fundamental part of science. Observation is whats important. Experiments are just a means to create useful things to observe. Experiments are obviously impossible in astronomy, but its not an issue because nature has created numerous interesting things to observe.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Nov 2024 06:51:54 UTC No. 16487588
>>16482862
This, but unironically
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Nov 2024 08:26:04 UTC No. 16487646
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Nov 2024 19:52:15 UTC No. 16488225
>>16487646
he's right actually. Repeated observation is what leads to scientific inference. experiments just make observations possible
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Nov 2024 02:57:54 UTC No. 16488719
>>16487424
>>16487522
>>16488225
It should be pointed out that the astronomical observations that lead to the dark matter hypothesis has spurred plenty of experimental attempts here on Earth to directly detect the proposed dark matter. So its not like scientist just said "oh dark matter has to be a thing, lets stop there" but instead used it as a start for serious investigation. Granted all those experiments have proven null so far, but at the very least that have ruled out a lot of proposals and lead to some new data that helped in some other areas of particle physics. And hey, its not like neutrinos were easy to find either.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Nov 2024 03:01:55 UTC No. 16488724
>>16480412
It's called a hypothesis retard the problem is they don't revise the theory when the observations aren't supporting it's predictions
🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 05:27:24 UTC No. 16490209
>>16488719
>Granted all those experiments have proven null
so all the available evidence shows that dark matter doesn't exist, yet the so-called scientists still take it as a given fact that dark matter exists
lol
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 05:30:39 UTC No. 16490214
>>16480422
Do you unironically believe that the only numbers that "exist" as coherent concepts are the number of fingers you can hold up?
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 06:06:39 UTC No. 16490228
>>16490209
Dark matter defacto exists until a new model comes along and gets rid of it.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 09:43:03 UTC No. 16490287
>>16490209
>so all the available evidence shows that dark matter doesn't exist
No, you've ignored all the astrophysical evidence.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 12:06:59 UTC No. 16490360
>>16480422
He finally starts to understand.
Google
Mathemathical Fictionalist position.
>like negative numbers
Literally a DLC expansion for accountants.
What if I have $5 and pay for $12?
Oh then I'm $7 in the red lets call this thing a negative number. So my account is -$7
All the other DLC basically makes math crash at this point.
Divide by zero? ERROR 404 System crash can not do that.
We need to go back to the basics.
PS: All numbers are fake even the basic assumptions of math are objectively wrong and debunked. 1 =1 is wrong 1+1 = 2 is objectively wrong and debunked! You school teachers indoctrinated you into this shit!
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 12:23:55 UTC No. 16490369
>>16480422
>but le mathfags
Math concerns with the manipulation of pure logics and doesn't care about making shit up.
Science that make shit up on the other hand is called pseudoscience.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 12:57:42 UTC No. 16490398
>>16485851
>Relativity, the new theory will not disprove relativity rather it will be a more accurate description of reality, but in many cases will match the results of relativity. The same thing happened for newtonian gravity, relativity is more accurate, but still matches newtonian gravity in most cases.
LOL did the same happen for the Luminiferous aether Theory? OH WAIT! I'm posting facts!
>>16485854
>>oy vey muh sacred Saint Albert the Einstein, the infallible
And they say this about saint Einstein because we can not question the ancient dogma of the ancient relativity that a even older and more obscure prophet of science declared while under candle light in old times.
So say we all!
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 12:59:35 UTC No. 16490400
>>16490209
>>16490209
>so all the available evidence shows that dark matter doesn't exist, yet the so-called scientists still take it as a given fact that dark matter exists
>
>lol
Science is as retarded as any religion.
>muh invisible things that can not be detected!
Basically 100% of science.
Remember
science = natural Philosophy
These retards are only philosophers.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 13:44:08 UTC No. 16490425
>>16490398
Luminiferous aether is not a scientific theory, it has no actual evidence or data or equations or anything. Relativity on the other hand has a large amount of confirming evidence. Whatever replaces relativity will still have to agree with relativity in most situations.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 14:07:52 UTC No. 16490446
>>16480502
So, what does your common sense say about weak lensing in the bullet cluster?
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 14:10:03 UTC No. 16490447
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 14:15:20 UTC No. 16490451
>>16490446
>Silence
As always with this crowd they have no actual understanding of the problem. Lots of loud ignorant opinions though.
>>16490369
>Science that make shit up on the other hand is called pseudoscience.
Building hypotheses is a key part of science.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 14:59:49 UTC No. 16490475
>>16490447
>>16490451
Jesus fucking Christ, is this board run entirely by bots that post unrelated shit? My comment was both silence and some absurd tinfoil hat shit that was aimed at discrediting slightly less tinfoil-hatty people?
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 15:00:28 UTC No. 16490477
>>16490447
However dino bones are literally fake.
Dinosaurs never existed it is all lies!
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 15:48:59 UTC No. 16490520
>>16490475
The silence is the non-response you got from the loud autist. Sorry, I should have been more clear. Your question is a very good one, but you won't get any engagement from these types because they lack even a basic knowledge of the field. Despite the large number of threads like this, they have no interest in really defending their argument or considering the data.
🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 03:17:12 UTC No. 16492371
>>16490475
>b-b-but muh boooollliitt clusther!!
>muh boooollliitt clusther muffugguh!!!
constantly harping on one cherrypicked outlier data point only proves how weak your argument is
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 04:41:07 UTC No. 16492453
>this thread again
seriously guys, dark matter denialism is so surface level
please come up with something new, this is embarrassing
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 12:56:39 UTC No. 16492745
>>16492371
Okay, how about the less memorably named Macs J0025.4-1222 cluster? It is another case of two galactic clusters colliding and the visible matter not matching the gravitational lensing that is observed. So the Bullet Cluster is not a one-off observation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAC
🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 26 Nov 2024 01:04:40 UTC No. 16493541
>>16492453
>reeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!
>stop liking what I don't like!!!
lol butthurt
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Nov 2024 04:01:02 UTC No. 16493687
>>16480842
Wtf is that image supposed to mean? lmao
Reject simple fulfillment, embrace depression via trying and failing to achieve a high impact goal?
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Nov 2024 04:28:43 UTC No. 16493719
>>16480427
>theory works great in most cases and predicts a bunch of stuff incredibly well
Are you talking about relativity? Because that theory is fake and gay. It has failed to predict anything meaningful. Gravitational lensing? Only observed around the plasma of suns' corona and galaxies. Not observed where refraction does not occur.
Mass dilation? Not observed in particle accelerators, relativist hacks had to make up "relativistic mass", I kid you not ...
GPS? Does not actually use relativity, only make-believe terms that cancel out. Most prolific gps researcher has actually come out and stated this.
It's all fake and gay, and the people claiming to have found evidence for the theory just fudge some bad data to hope to get a nobel prize. Like 40% of science students that get surveyed admit to faking results for the sake of career advancement! All those particle accelerators, gigantic neutrino detectors, etc. are gigantic scam operations who can get away with it because nobody who is not part of their small clique can replicate their massaged data!
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Nov 2024 04:36:02 UTC No. 16493724
>>16492745
>not matching the gravitational lensing that is observed
No shit, because gravitational lensing is fake and gay in the first place. It's just good ol' refraction lensing from the plasma around galaxies.
>Einstein fake and gay prediction does not match observations? Well chud, here is an example of another of Einstein's fake and gay predictions being contradicted by the data, so clearly that means the mass data we can actually observe is false and dark matter must exist. It's not my hoax rheory that is wrong!
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Nov 2024 04:42:13 UTC No. 16493728
We were under attack by birdkin, a type of human sized and formed bird. This whole simulation was a bird attack, until today, when I defeated the birds. Some of you may have noticed this change. Tell me about it.
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Nov 2024 04:56:52 UTC No. 16493743
>>16493728
Sounds less insane and more plausible than relativity or quantum mechanics. At least there's nothing logically impossible about your theory.
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Nov 2024 05:02:46 UTC No. 16493745
>>16480412
Data don't sorted?
Write a new "sorting" algorithm to sort data.
Now you're solving the problem like a physicist!
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Nov 2024 08:46:15 UTC No. 16493883
>>16493719
>Are you talking about relativity? Because that theory is fake and gay. It has failed to predict anything meaningful. Gravitational lensing? Only observed around the plasma of suns' corona and galaxies. Not observed where refraction does not occur.
Nope.
Refraction is strongly wavelength dependent, the amount of deflection increases with increasing wavelength. Like how a prism deflects light. Plasma refraction around the Sun is measurable, but only at radio wavelengths and very near the Sun. At visible wavelengths it is totally negligible. Lensing on the other hand is completely independent of wavelength, it is not refraction.
In the Solar System the gravitational lensing is simple, and only proportional to the mass of the Sun multiplied by the gravitational constant. That has been confirmed to 0.01% precision, soon even higher with GAIA. Funny that it doesn't depend on the plasma parameters at all, and instead follows Einstein's prediction.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.07674
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1
https://arxiv.org/abs/1502.07395
>>16493724
>No shit, because gravitational lensing is fake and gay in the first place. It's just good ol' refraction lensing from the plasma around galaxies.
How about looking at the data for more than 10 seconds and think. In these cluster collions we can see the hot plasma in the center (pink), and we can see that the gravitational lensing (blue). The plasma has been stripped out by the collision, away from the cluster cores. But the lensing is still centered on the cluster cores. The lensing doesn't give a shit about the plasma being removed, the lensing does not follow the plasma.
So if one actually thinks about it, these data make it very clear that it cannot be any plasma effect.
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Nov 2024 09:03:46 UTC No. 16493887
>>16493883
Why don't they use satellites to confirm it at the sun?
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Nov 2024 09:08:04 UTC No. 16493890
>>16493887
They do, in measuring the Shapiro delay. Voyager, Viking, Cassini are spacecraft.
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Nov 2024 13:40:58 UTC No. 16494026
>>16493719
>Mass dilation? Not observed in particle accelerators, relativist hacks had to make up "relativistic mass", I kid you not ..
[citation needed]
Relativistic mass is an old concept which people don't use any more, for decades. Maybe you should go back to school. The relativistic effect is the same, but people only talk about rest mass.
>GPS? Does not actually use relativity, only make-believe terms that cancel out. Most prolific gps researcher has actually come out and stated this.
Not true. From the official document setting out the GPS User interface:
"The algorithms defined in paragraph 20.3.3.3.3.1 allow all users to correct the code phase time received from the SV with respect to both SV code phase offset and relativistic effects."
https://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/
The satellite clocks are adjusted for the general relativistic terms prior to launch.
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA5
There are many papers on the topic. There are even tests of relativity using atomic clocks in space which are not updated in the way GPS ones are, these agree with relativistic predictions.
https://link.springer.com/article/1
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2
https://www.researchgate.net/public
Atomic clocks are now so precise that they can measure the gravitational time dilation while just being 1 millimeter higher.
https://physicsworld.com/a/gravitat
Other relativistic effects confirmed are the Shaprio Delay, frame dragging, Pound–Rebka, time dilation in cosmic ray muons, binary pulsars, gravitational waves.
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Nov 2024 13:55:16 UTC No. 16494048
>>16480447
Uhhh, we solved that over 100 years ago. Why are you bringing this up?
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Nov 2024 14:12:17 UTC No. 16494059
>>16493883
>Refraction is strongly wavelength dependent
What is a lense again, you fucking retard?
>In the Solar System the gravitational lensing is simple, and only proportional to the mass of the Sun multiplied by the gravitational constant
LOL he did it "proportional to" ... kek no shit do you know how refraction works? Those hacks won't admit it to your stupid face, but a retired NASA head scientist admitted that so-called gravitational lensing was ONLY observed at the corona of stars, not outside.
>How about looking at the data for more than 10 seconds and think. In these cluster collions we can see the hot plasma in the center (pink), and we can see that the gravitational lensing (blue). The plasma has been stripped out by the collision, away from the cluster cores.
>Assumption + assumption + assumption + assumption = Einstein right
This is why nobody takes astrophysicists seriously. Did you even stop and think that the distribution of actual plasma is all around the two object's centers of gravity? No, you just parrot the phrases your priest told you to repeat!
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Nov 2024 14:23:09 UTC No. 16494068
>>16480412
Dark matter is just a way to measure error from predictions. Stop listening to popsci influencers.
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Nov 2024 14:25:03 UTC No. 16494072
>>16480412
>Dark energy
>Dark matter
Scientists are such cowards, they cant imagine the fact Einstein was wrong and that this shit is literally just aether with science(TM) approved naming.
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Nov 2024 14:28:31 UTC No. 16494077
>>16480543
Which are?
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Nov 2024 14:28:32 UTC No. 16494078
>>16494026
>>16494026
>[citation needed]
People working at particle accelerators on tape admitting it LOL.
>Relativistic mass is an old concept which people don't use any more, for decades
>Look, that completely ridiculous garvage we came up with? That was decades ago goy, just gloss over the fact that this came from the same people you are supposed to blindly trust and on whose research we base our entire religion.
>Not true. From the official document setting out the GPS User interface
Contains no actual relativistic calculation whatsoever, just an engineering calibration value which could come from anything affecting the clocks (you know, flying at high altitude is unlikely to not effect those clocks, no need for your cranky theories using division by 0 to explain that).
>Other relativistic effects confirmed are the Shaprio Delay, frame dragging, Pound–Rebka, time dilation in cosmic ray muons, binary pulsars, gravitational waves.
In other words, more made up garbage, or stuff that doesn't need relativity to explain at all.
On the other hand, there's plenty of stuff that contradicts the theory, but they are put under the rug and explained away with ad hoc unprovable nonsense.
>What, the energy produced by particle decay does not correspond at all to what's predicted by saint Einstein?
>No problem lmao, just invent a new particle with no mass and no interactivity to explain it!
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Nov 2024 14:40:00 UTC No. 16494089
>>16494059
>What is a lense again, you fucking retard?
Wavelength dependent. Do you know why telescopes have more than one lens (doublets, triplets)? Because one lens alone leads to chromatic aberration. The power of the lens is wavelength dependent, and so they need additional lenses to try and correct. It is still there though. This is why prisms disperse light, because the index of refraction depends on wavelength.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrom
Even the refraction in the atmosphere is wavelength dependent.
How is it you claim to understand the universe but don't know how a fucking prism works?
>LOL he did it "proportional to" ... kek no shit do you know how refraction works?
Why don't you derive the equations and show that you get the same number as GR?
>>How about looking at the data for more than 10 seconds and think. In these cluster collions we can see the hot plasma in the center (pink), and we can see that the gravitational lensing (blue). The plasma has been stripped out by the collision, away from the cluster cores.
>Assumption + assumption + assumption + assumption = Einstein right
Are you capable of thinking for yourself? Or are you just a chatbot? If you're not going to think for yourself, there is nothing to discuss.
>This is why nobody takes astrophysicists seriously. Did you even stop and think that the distribution of actual plasma is all around the two object's centers of gravity?
But it's not, you can literally see the x-ray emitting plasma in pink. It is not centred on the lensing cores (blue).
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Nov 2024 14:44:00 UTC No. 16494093
>>16494078
>People working at particle accelerators on tape admitting it LOL.
Not a citation.
>Contains no actual relativistic calculation whatsoever, just an engineering calibration value which could come from anything affecting the clocks (you know, flying at high altitude is unlikely to not effect those clocks, no need for your cranky theories using division by 0 to explain that).
It literally does, and it explicitly says it does. The official documentation says you are wrong.
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Nov 2024 14:55:01 UTC No. 16494100
>>16480422
The title of the board: science & math
The content of the board: 5th grade arguments
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Nov 2024 15:03:24 UTC No. 16494108
>>16494089
>chromatic aberration
Some lenses don't have much of it, it's not a necessary feature and finding one image of lensed objects without much apparent chromatic aberration is no evidence for gravitational lensing. And most images showing supposed "gravitational lenses" do in fact show chromatic abberation, which the cultists explain away as blue or red shift. They offer no real evidence for it other than "einstein right therefore redshift".
>Are you capable of thinking for yourself?
Oh the irony ... So why did you fail to think about my comments on the matter? Plasma is all around such massive objects, of course the lensing is not going to be centered where the two objects meet and the plasma heats up (and is made visible to idiot astrophycicucks) ... Duh! The plasma is around both objects!
>>16494093
>Not a citation.
It's straight from the horses mouth, from the documentary "Einstein wrong" ...
>B-but muh heckin citation from le reputable science paperinooo!
>If it's not from a peer-reviewed circlejerk publication it's not true chud!
>It literally does, and it explicitly says it does.
It litterally doesn't and just say it does while nothing evidences that it does, except for an engineering calibration that has fuckall to do with relativity. All they are doing is paying their obligatory respects to st. Einstein so they don't get witch-hunted by the jewish media.
Again, most important contributor to GPS is on record saying they don't actually use relativity calculations in any way.
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Nov 2024 15:03:52 UTC No. 16494109
>>16494100
That's just the nature of the internet anon, everything gets dragged down to the lowest common denominator. Also if you just set up a dozen filters this board is mostly ok. These retards have a specific writing style and only talk about a few topics
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Nov 2024 15:09:06 UTC No. 16494115
>>16494109
>NOOOOOO WHAT ARE YOU SAYING NEGATIVE NUMBERS DON'T EXIST, I LEARNED THAT IN 5TH GRADE OF SPECIAL ED!!!!!
>-5 EXISTS AS A NUMBER BUT *5 DOES NOT BECAUS- BECAUSE IT JUST DOES, OK????????
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Nov 2024 15:33:09 UTC No. 16494141
>>16490360
>I have negative one apple
>You give me an apple
>Neither of us has an apple
Imagine being the first dudes to conceptualise that shit. Away from physical reality and into make believe math land.
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Nov 2024 16:10:04 UTC No. 16494168
>>16494115
(You) are trying too hard. Maybe posting to Re[spoiler][/spoiler]ddit will be closer to your speed.
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Nov 2024 16:22:48 UTC No. 16494177
>>16494168
Can you give me an observation of -5 apples existing somewhere, then?
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Nov 2024 16:24:17 UTC No. 16494181
>>16494177
In a empty apple case of 5 slots
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Nov 2024 16:31:34 UTC No. 16494187
>>16494177
Bait used to be believable.
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Nov 2024 16:43:04 UTC No. 16494205
>>16494108
>Some lenses don't have much of it
They always have some. And the point you're missing is this is chromatic aberration over the tiny wavelength range of visible light. There are no lenses with the same power from radio wavelengths to the visible. But gravitational lensing is consistent.
>finding one image of lensed objects without much apparent chromatic aberration is no evidence for gravitational lensing. And most images showing supposed "gravitational lenses" do in fact show chromatic abberation
It's not one, it's every lensed image. Show me the ones with chromatic aberration.
>which the cultists explain away as blue or red shift.
Chromatic aberation is not redshift. You don't even understand the words you are using. Lenses don't cause redshifts.
>Plasma is all around such massive objects, of course the lensing is not going to be centered where the two objects meet and the plasma heats up (and is made visible to idiot astrophycicucks) ... Duh! The plasma is around both objects!
Shall we call this dark plasma? I like that name. You just assume it exists wherever you like.
And no, the plasma is not only shining because of the collision. In normal non-colliding clusters, the x-ray emitting plasma is quite detectable. The plasma is really gone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intra
>It's straight from the horses mouth, from the documentary "Einstein wrong" ...
>B-but muh heckin citation from le reputable science paperinooo!
>If it's not from a peer-reviewed circlejerk publication it's not true chud!
Thanks for refuting your own empty claim. I don't care what someone said. I care if there is data to support it. If every particle accelerator violated relativity, then you should be able to point to some data that shows it.
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Nov 2024 17:29:53 UTC No. 16494246
>>16494205
>They always have some.
Irrelevant.
>But gravitational lensing is consistent.
Good one. It's consistent ... Except when it isn't, like most of the time.
>Chromatic aberation is not redshift.
It's a change in the relative frequency of wavelengths towards lower wavelengths. Prove that those "Einstein lens" rule out chromatic aberration and not red-shifting. PROVE it.
>Show me the ones with chromatic aberration.
See picrel.
>Shall we call this dark plasma? I like that name. You just assume it exists wherever you like.
No, I assume it exists wherever it is shown to exist, like around galaxies, which is evidenced when two galaxies meet and the plasma is heated up and becomes visible, nice try tho, moishe.
>>16494205
>Thanks for refuting your own empty claim. I don't care what someone said.
Litterally people working for these scam centers for years saying that they have not observed mass increase. They are whistleblowers of these billion-dollar scam operations. Just because their observations are not peer-reviewed to be accepted in journals (read censored by the holy council of relativity), does not mean they are invalid.
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Nov 2024 18:05:31 UTC No. 16494266
>>16494246
>Good one. It's consistent ... Except when it isn't, like most of the time.
See the papers I posted measuring in the solar system with radio and visible, showing a consistent amplitude. But of course you didn't look.
>It's a change in the relative frequency of wavelengths towards lower wavelengths.
Nope. Go ahead and click the wiki link I posted, you have no idea what you are even arguing. Chromatic aberration does not change wavelengths, it has nothing to do with redshift. Pic related is actual chromatic aberration.
>No, I assume it exists wherever it is shown to exist
But it hasn't been shown to exist in these clusters. You are blindly assuming. You're also blindly assuming that plasma can cause enough refraction to explain all this, when you have nothing to demonstrate that. Two huge assumptions.
>Just because their observations are not peer-reviewed to be accepted in journals
And why haven't they published them elsewhere. Self publish, put the analysis on a website, viXra? Can you point to any of these observations? No.
Without anything to back up the claim it is just a claim.
>Litterally people working for these scam centers for years saying that they have not observed mass increase.
As I said, no one talks about relativistic mass anymore. Saying they have not observed mass increases is perfectly consistent with the current interpretation of mass and relativity.
You will say "oh, they didn't mean that" but you have no idea. That's the problem with words, they are imprecise.
You disregarded several tests of relativity, because you didn't understand them. But you expect people to be totally convinced by some random persons words. This is not how science works.
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Nov 2024 18:07:09 UTC No. 16494267
>>16494266
Pic of actual chromatic aberration
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Nov 2024 18:53:24 UTC No. 16494298
>>16494072
Basedentists are the dumbest people on earth
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Nov 2024 18:54:33 UTC No. 16494300
>>16494266
>>16494267
>Chromatic aberration does not change wavelengths, it has nothing to do with redshift
It does, see picrel.
>You are blindly assuming.
No, I am not. If it's all around the galaxies where they meet, it can be assumed to be elsewhere. In fact, that's the least amount of assumptions you can make. Imagine you weak up in a tent, it's pitch black but you know where your car is. You turn the car's lights on and you seethe light reflected from the foggy particles. It's only logical to assume that the fog is also where the light does not shine, unless proven otherwise.
>As I said, no one talks about relativistic mass anymore.
Yeah, because it's yet another failure by your guru einstein.
>You disregarded several tests of relativity
Nah, I have other things to do than refute the nonsense from the cultists who have already been refuted since the beginning and have corrupted science and silenced everyone who disagrees. GPS does not use relativity, there is no evidence for it. The first experiments "proving" relativity were all hoaxes.
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Nov 2024 19:16:09 UTC No. 16494332
>>16494300
>It does, see picrel.
Nope. Drawing your delusions does not change reality. Show me an experiment which shows a glass lens changing the redshift of a source. I'll wait.
>Nah, I have other things to do than refute the nonsense
So you admit you cherry pick the experiments you reply to and ignore the rest. Ignoring all the data which doesn't confirm your prejudice is just confirmation bias. It's not scientific at all, not is it convincing.
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Nov 2024 19:54:56 UTC No. 16494370
>>16494332
>Nope. Drawing your delusions does not change reality.
Reality is that you'd expect refraction to change the amount of blue or red light that arrives on your telescope based on the distance, though it's going to mostly shift red because of the long distance, and blue light sources dim out more quickly. Redhift happens because red light scatters less than blue light, so plasma will scatter the light from blue objects away.
Chromatic aberration like in your pic happens with close foreground objects and far away background objects that form weak lenses. If the lensing galaxy is very large, and the lensed objects (relatively) close to it, the unfocused light is highly diffuse and thus barely visible. See picrel for a blue ring.
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Nov 2024 19:56:07 UTC No. 16494372
>>16494370
forgot pic.
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Nov 2024 20:15:54 UTC No. 16494393
>>16494370
>Redhift happens because red light scatters less than blue light
No it doesn't. Redshift is when all the photons have their wavelengths increased. What you describe would not cause spectral features (e.g. emission lines) to move in wavelength, and yet that is the signature of redshift. What you are describing is extinction/reddening, which happens due to dust or other scattering. This is not redshift, it is unrelated.
You don't even understand the basic terms of the fields, and yet are trying to argue you know better than everyone else. But what you are saying is just gibberish, because you are using terms you just don't understand and are too arrogant to go away and learn.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redsh
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Nov 2024 21:09:40 UTC No. 16494463
>>16494393
>This is not redshift, it is unrelated.
It is related. It litterally means that the light shifts red because of time and distance. Your gurus don't even know what light is, yet they are so arrogant as to think that they can predict exactly how it behaves over billions of light-years. We know light has wave properties, what happens when it encounters resistance? It shifts its frequency to adopt a state where it loses less energy to the medium, just like an arrow will adapt its trajectory to move straight towards the point it is thrown at. It's simple physics and explains your point about absorbtion lines easily.
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Nov 2024 21:14:02 UTC No. 16494474
>>16494393
Also, you didn't respond to my point, because you know it's right. Cosmic refraction rings are generally blue, but are made to appear more red due to refraction, so they can be red sometimes.
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Nov 2024 21:21:53 UTC No. 16494490
>>16494393
This is how redshift actually happens btw. shlomo.
Splashes from the sticky "aether" are more likely to hit the wave multiple times and disturb it, weakening the signal. Cope.
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Nov 2024 21:51:36 UTC No. 16494536
>>16490447
>MY conspiracies conspiracies are based and redpilled.
>YOUR conspiracies are a fed psyops
I hate this board.
🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 26 Nov 2024 23:30:08 UTC No. 16494638
>>16480422
>>16490360
You are retarded.
Anonymous at Wed, 27 Nov 2024 00:41:49 UTC No. 16494723
>>16494638
You have no argument AND you are retarded.
🗑️ Anonymous at Wed, 27 Nov 2024 02:23:02 UTC No. 16494766
>>16494072
>they cant imagine the fact Einstein was wrong
They can imagine what happens to their academic careers if they challenge the teachings of St. Einstein, the infallible jew god of the soiyence atheists.
Anonymous at Wed, 27 Nov 2024 02:38:27 UTC No. 16494790
>>16481713
why do scientists have such a hard time with "we don't know"?
Anonymous at Wed, 27 Nov 2024 02:45:40 UTC No. 16494801
>>16488719
> Granted all those experiments have proven null so far,
Dark matter contradicts particle physics. Which one is right?
Anonymous at Wed, 27 Nov 2024 15:29:05 UTC No. 16495158
>>16494766
You do know the idea of dark matter predates Einstein's work on relativity, right? Way back in 1884 good old Lord Kelvin noticed that stars were rotating around the center of the galaxy too quickly for mass of the visible stars to hold everything together. So he offered the idea that there may be a large number of "dark bodies" we couldn't see whose gravity was holding things together. Einstein would have been like 5 at the time.
Anonymous at Wed, 27 Nov 2024 15:42:45 UTC No. 16495170
>>16494801
Particle physics itself has long history of predicting a particle may exist due to other stuff not adding up right, and then finding said particle years, or even decades later. Neutrinos would be the classic example. This is still ongoing; there plenty of open problems in particle physics where new particles have been proposed to solve the issue, and physicists are trying to find said particles. For example, axions have been proposed as a solution to the strong CP (no, not that kind of CP!) problem, and sterile neutrinos have been proposed as a solution to the gallium anomaly. Both proposed particles have active experiments trying to find them, and conveniently both of those proposed particles would also be forms of dark matter that the astronomers have been looking for.
Anonymous at Wed, 27 Nov 2024 16:31:26 UTC No. 16495223
>>16494072
Relativity is proven. It may not be 100% correct, but its not false.
🗑️ Anonymous at Wed, 27 Nov 2024 23:36:00 UTC No. 16495593
>>16495223
>its might be false, but its not false
you're system of reasoning is self contracting, you'd be happier and mentally healthier if you didn't inflict cognitive dissonance on yourself like that.
Anonymous at Thu, 28 Nov 2024 07:11:00 UTC No. 16495970
>>16495593
The universe is not an equation therefore no theory will ever be 100% correct. Theories will always be approximations of something which can never be described exactly.
Anonymous at Thu, 28 Nov 2024 08:37:32 UTC No. 16496018
>>16485851
>Relativity is proven
That proof? Some jews made shit up.
Anonymous at Thu, 28 Nov 2024 13:53:28 UTC No. 16496160
>>16494267
>>16494300
Imagine actually believing these million of galaxy shit while you look into tiny dots in the sky that get distorted from your cameras.
Anonymous at Thu, 28 Nov 2024 21:42:40 UTC No. 16496567
>>16496160
They also believe that the Milky Way is surrounded by dark matter and that dark matter causes gravitational lensing but somehow whatever they're seeing when they try to look outside of the Milky Way is accurate and not distorted by the Milky Way's dark matter
Anonymous at Fri, 29 Nov 2024 07:47:27 UTC No. 16496982
>>16495593
>you're system of reasoning is self contracting
Inaccuracy is not a contradiction. If your theory matches observations with 99% of accuracy is still good, just not perfect.
Anonymous at Fri, 29 Nov 2024 15:59:34 UTC No. 16497233
>>16482193
>Distribution of galaxies, shapes and sizes of galaxy filaments/VOIDS
Lambda CDM fails on all of these miserably. It may have some other small successes you mention, but without these what good is it anyway?
🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 30 Nov 2024 16:47:43 UTC No. 16498314
>>16495223
its fake and has been disproved many times
Anonymous at Sun, 1 Dec 2024 02:35:13 UTC No. 16498812
>>16480412
Labeling it as a dark number is retarded, it's (one of) the answers to the equation.
Anonymous at Sun, 1 Dec 2024 02:59:21 UTC No. 16498835
>>16480412
ftfy
Anonymous at Sun, 1 Dec 2024 09:34:17 UTC No. 16499050
>>16497233
[citation needed]
🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 17:18:57 UTC No. 16500334
>>16498812
"the invisible boogeyman did it" is not a solution for an equation in science. non-disprovable assertions are outside of the scientific method
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 17:21:01 UTC No. 16500339
>>16500334
lol
Water is wet can't disprove it can't be science
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 03:10:49 UTC No. 16501766
>>16480422
Why are these retards always the very first posters in any math-adjacent thread?
🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 5 Dec 2024 04:52:15 UTC No. 16503236
>>16501766
they wouldn't trigger you so badly if they weren't pointing out something completely legitimate that you don't want to acknowledge. thats the nature of cognitive dissonance
Anonymous at Thu, 5 Dec 2024 06:25:18 UTC No. 16503299
>>16480557
It violates his 6th grade understanding of physics, therefore it must be wrong.
🗑️ Anonymous at Fri, 6 Dec 2024 03:46:56 UTC No. 16504491
Anonymous at Sat, 7 Dec 2024 05:03:22 UTC No. 16505538
>>16503299
>t. transwomen are real women and also piltdownman is legit
Anonymous at Sat, 7 Dec 2024 07:06:59 UTC No. 16505581
>>16505538
>YEAH WELL IF YOU DISAGREE WITH ME IT MEANS YOU LOVE TRANNIES!!!!!
This is always a sign of a retard without an argument.
I hate troons.
Anonymous at Sun, 8 Dec 2024 04:47:30 UTC No. 16506404
>>16505581
stfu TERF
Anonymous at Sun, 8 Dec 2024 08:46:48 UTC No. 16506531
>>16481160
science requires this be the case only in order for something to be a generally accepted truth or law, the latter is for theories. the first guy is right anon.
Anonymous at Tue, 10 Dec 2024 02:46:45 UTC No. 16508360
>>16506531
Wrong, GR is a disproved theory
Anonymous at Tue, 10 Dec 2024 03:25:42 UTC No. 16508390
>do science
>some things don't add up
>get depressed that science is fake and gay
>find new particle
>things add up again
>science is again true and heterosexual
>repeat this a dozen times
>things don't add up [current year]
>start to get depressed that science after all is fake and gay
>hold on
>what if...
Anonymous at Tue, 10 Dec 2024 06:00:34 UTC No. 16508473
>>16480412
My insanity has caught on
Anonymous at Wed, 11 Dec 2024 03:20:15 UTC No. 16509441
I used to be surprised that so many people were dumb enough to believe the dark matter lie, but they I remembered that 50% of all people are below 100 IQ.
Anonymous at Thu, 12 Dec 2024 03:04:17 UTC No. 16510335
>>16492453
The cosmic microwave background isn't cosmological, its the heat signature of the milky way's dark matter halo
Anonymous at Fri, 13 Dec 2024 04:26:10 UTC No. 16511326
>>16494536
so why are you here?
Anonymous at Sat, 14 Dec 2024 03:32:38 UTC No. 16512289
>>16510335
that makes so much more sense than the official story
Anonymous at Sat, 14 Dec 2024 04:55:30 UTC No. 16512353
Anonymous at Sun, 15 Dec 2024 04:47:48 UTC No. 16513460
>>16512353
what the square root of -4i
Anonymous at Mon, 16 Dec 2024 03:27:26 UTC No. 16514335
>>16513460
Imaginary mathematicians can only imagine
Anonymous at Tue, 17 Dec 2024 05:09:05 UTC No. 16515560
>>16480412
the force exerted by dark matter should be measured in unicornpower
Anonymous at Tue, 17 Dec 2024 13:43:00 UTC No. 16515833
I think it's a miracle humanity has come this far, seeing what's been said here.
Anonymous at Wed, 18 Dec 2024 03:33:00 UTC No. 16516606
>>16515833
>i am sooooooo smart!!
>everyone else is sooooo dumb!!!
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases
Anonymous at Thu, 19 Dec 2024 03:37:17 UTC No. 16517661
>>16513460
is the square root of -0.9999999i = 1?
Anonymous at Fri, 20 Dec 2024 02:56:35 UTC No. 16518616
>>16513460
nobody knows
Anonymous at Fri, 20 Dec 2024 03:04:23 UTC No. 16518628
>>16480412
Money.
Reality is what it is no matter what we believe it to be.
So it really doesn't matter other than the fact it retards our progress. Then again, maybe we haven't earned it yet. We are our own warden.
Saved.
Anonymous at Fri, 20 Dec 2024 04:47:34 UTC No. 16518742
>>16494048
I think he meant the vacuum catastrophe
Anonymous at Sat, 21 Dec 2024 02:18:00 UTC No. 16519647
>>16515833
I don't believe they are genuine
Anonymous at Sun, 22 Dec 2024 03:35:10 UTC No. 16520472
>>16480412
the people who consider it legitimate aren't real scientists
Anonymous at Sun, 22 Dec 2024 20:45:00 UTC No. 16521143
>>16494536
>conspiracies
MKUltra: revealed to actually exist, not a conspiracy
Private central banks: revealed to actually exist, not a conspiracy
Media run by 6 companies: not a conspiracy its literally on their Wikipedia pages
Spying on citizens: revealed to be truth, not a conspiracy
Great reset: actually openly discussed on WEF for the last 2 decades, not a conspiracy
Vaccine deaths: There are documented cases of people dying after taking covid vaccines, not a conspiracy. The discussion here is not about Elon Musk injecting everyone with a microchip, its that the big pharma decided to make a bank by selling everyone "ambrosia" from the spooky virus while cutting budget on its quality which caused lethal reactions in some cases because they didn't even bother to test it properly
Anonymous at Tue, 24 Dec 2024 05:01:51 UTC No. 16522468
Anonymous at Tue, 24 Dec 2024 05:27:04 UTC No. 16522488
>>16494536
are you sad that your well poisoning didn't work?
Anonymous at Tue, 24 Dec 2024 05:30:21 UTC No. 16522489
>>16480412
it's not
Anonymous at Tue, 24 Dec 2024 19:12:52 UTC No. 16522955
>>16521143
What leads me to believe vaccine schizos are planted by pharma is that the vaccine isn't a secret poison, it's just kinda shit and has slightly more common side effects for healthy people than just getting the virus effectively making it pointless at best. But thanks to these useful idiots, pharma can hand wave all criticism as conspiracy theories.
The WEF thing is more complicated. The original idea was for people to move from goods to services for example instead of owning an oven to bake bread, you'll just buy it locally from a bakery. Of course the idea was was twisted to profit megacorpos so that the line eternally goes up but the premise wasn't sinister.
Anonymous at Wed, 25 Dec 2024 01:10:25 UTC No. 16523199
>>16522955
>buying bread isn't buying goods, its a service because they bake it for you
Anonymous at Wed, 25 Dec 2024 10:17:44 UTC No. 16523474
>>16480412
>Why is this considered a legit scientific approach?
Because
Science = making up shit with no evidence.
Like all of it since forever to this day.
You are literally making shit up with no evidence or proof.
Science = NATURAL PHILOSOPHY.
You are engaging in philosophy!
AKA Making shit up with no evidence.
>>16480422
>>wait you can't add any number to 2 to get 1??
>>let's just make up a "negative number" -1 with the property that 2 + (-1) = 1 durrrrr
The difference is that this made up math nonsense has some real life use cases and is useful(I'm a mathematical fictionalist) you telling lies and using photoshop cartoons and CGI to fool kids in into the worlds most retarded religion is not.
Anonymous at Wed, 25 Dec 2024 10:35:26 UTC No. 16523481
>>16494100
>>16494638
>>16480422
I like how you retards start seething the moment someone uses your retarded "logic" against you
Anonymous at Wed, 25 Dec 2024 10:44:29 UTC No. 16523483
>>16480427
>>theory still works in most cases
>>find ways to modify theory such that edge cases fit
Imagine trying to twist facts to not sound retarded.
No retard the problem is that there can be 100s of 100s of different theories who explain the same thing the same way as yours and I can make up god particles or demon particles or Buddha forces or Karma radiation or include ghosts in there to make it all work.
Your theories are not different from saying
>Gods finger moves the sun in the sky
The fact that you can say this or make a calculation that makes this work is not evidence of anything.
The only reason your god finger theory is accepted is consensus meaning popular vote, get enough retards to think your made up nonsense sounds cool and they vote for it and hate the other solutions.
Like all of the history of Christianity.
>No you saying jesus is not god IS A HERESY!!!!!!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_
The point is that you made up a theoretical Buddha particle to explain why stars wiggle a little different does not mean the Buddha particle is real.
The fact you made calculations to explain how gods finger moves all the stars in the sky is not evidence gods finger is real.
You making up calculations for your dark matter and energy dose not mean any of this shit is real!
>Muh occam's razor
Is retarded and arbitrary bullshit. The 5 elements are simpler then modern chemistry table therefore they are accepted and modern chemistry rejected.
Anonymous at Thu, 26 Dec 2024 05:13:02 UTC No. 16524103
>>16523483
ywnbaw
Anonymous at Thu, 26 Dec 2024 05:15:31 UTC No. 16524106
>>16524103
He fails to understand that the line is the occam's razor is bullshit because 4 element model is far simpler therefore true then the 118+ element model.
Anonymous at Fri, 27 Dec 2024 04:27:27 UTC No. 16524843
>>16523199
the tl;dr post you replied to was tl;dr because it takes a lot of words to explain tortured logic
Anonymous at Sat, 28 Dec 2024 18:40:42 UTC No. 16526467
>>16512353
>genders don't add up?
>add a hypothetical "imaginary gender"
>now you're doing biology like a humongous faggot
Anonymous at Sun, 29 Dec 2024 21:09:21 UTC No. 16528253
Anonymous at Sun, 29 Dec 2024 21:26:33 UTC No. 16528284
>>16513460
Wolfram says 4 * ((-1)^(1/4)) or 4 times the 4th root of negative one.
Anonymous at Mon, 30 Dec 2024 05:19:42 UTC No. 16529420
>>16480412
Because publishing a unified physics would crash the economy.
Anonymous at Mon, 30 Dec 2024 05:20:49 UTC No. 16529422
>>16480427
I find it amusing you just described OPs meme using words as if it justifies anything.
Anonymous at Mon, 30 Dec 2024 05:26:40 UTC No. 16529431
>>16524106
You're quoting Einstein not Occam
Occam said
Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necesssitate
Which loosely translates to don't compound more than necessary
Some translate it as mistakes compound.
Anonymous at Tue, 31 Dec 2024 02:27:56 UTC No. 16530411
>>16529431
>Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necesssitate
"do not create unnecessary entities"
Anonymous at Tue, 31 Dec 2024 03:38:28 UTC No. 16530456
>>16480412
>create model
>model fails to match with experimental data
>create new model to account for experimental data
literally what else are they supposed to do
🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 31 Dec 2024 14:47:54 UTC No. 16530895
>>16530456
>literally what else are they supposed to do
Stop being retarded.
>Nooo I must know what is 999999 billion billion billion light years away or I will have a meltdown!!!!
You have a mental disorder and belong in a mental hospital.
>literally what else are they supposed to do
Record reality you dumb fuck stop playing around with models.
>muh models
>muh match with experimental data
When was the last time we did need to adjust our models[sic] of when ice melts? How about the melting point of iron?
See the difference?
Your models and theories are literally identical to "MAKING SHIT UP"
1) The sky exists[fact]
2)
>REEE I must know who created the sky! [your mental disorder]
3)
>>Here friend here Is my 100% scientific theory how the river god wushwush created the sky!
>>Prof this is real?
>>It is a theory!
>>Muh pear reviewed science!
>>Muh model!
>>The sky exists therefore my god created the sky theory is proven!
You are mentally ill and exactly like every religious idiot in history.
Anonymous at Tue, 31 Dec 2024 14:49:06 UTC No. 16530896
>>16530895
>>16530456
>literally what else are they supposed to do
Stop being retarded.
>Nooo I must know what is 999999 billion billion billion light years away or I will have a meltdown!!!!
You have a mental disorder and belong in a mental hospital.
>literally what else are they supposed to do
Record reality you dumb fuck stop playing around with models.
>muh models
>muh match with experimental data
When was the last time we did need to adjust our models[sic] of when ice melts? How about the melting point of iron?
See the difference?
Your models and theories are literally identical to "MAKING SHIT UP"
1) The sky exists[fact]
2)
>REEE I must know who created the sky! [your mental disorder]
3)
>>Here friend here Is my 100% scientific theory how the river god wushwush created the sky!
>>Prof this is real?
>>It is a theory!
>>Muh pear reviewed science!
>>Muh model!
>>The sky exists therefore my god created the sky theory is proven!
You are mentally ill and exactly like every religious idiot in history.
Anonymous at Wed, 1 Jan 2025 02:35:03 UTC No. 16531423
>>16530456
rejecting the initial model instead of adding epicycles to it. name one instance in all of the history of science where adding epicycles was what was needed to go from a failed model to a correct one
Anonymous at Wed, 1 Jan 2025 02:45:31 UTC No. 16531433
>>16531423
All our models are wrong, we should reject them all and return to monkey.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 01:50:32 UTC No. 16532200
>>16531423
When beta decay seemed like it was violating the conservation of momentum, rather than tossing out that theory the good'ol Pauli suggested that maybe some tiny invisible particle that no equipment at the time could detect (sound familiar?) was carrying off the missing momentum. It took a couple of decades to directly detect said particles, neutrinos.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 16:35:28 UTC No. 16532701
Mathematicians may as well be wizards
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 16:52:52 UTC No. 16532722
>>16480412
Determinism crosses superposition I.E objects exsisting in MULTIPLE TIMELINES so determinism is no cause and effect it is a new timeline at the end of a reaction and it completes the reaction because of two understandings being undermined
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 21:44:32 UTC No. 16533181
>>16494141
>dig a hole 1 meter below ground level, call it -1 meter in height
>have a mound 1 meter above ground level, call it 1 meter in height
>move mound to fill hole and both will be 0 meter in height
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 22:24:59 UTC No. 16533223
>>16480412
The thing is that the predictions are done through really complicated methods that can go "wrong" because of many things. Dark matter appears because it literally patches many troubles with calculations by a single modification. So it is highly compatible in some sense with our best theories and it requires in most cases just one extra assumption on the magnitude of a single parameter which is the mass. It is not that they are just adding that to every wrong calculation, it is that they are adding it in the "same way" and different phenomena that can be used to calculate the theoretical quantity have given the same results. Well according to astronomers at least, but yeah I'm more skeptical if their calculations are sound in other ways, but trusting their results, scientifically it is a good explanation. The thing is a new theory has to be compatible with the existing knowledge so if you want a new revolutionary theory that explains these particular phenomena but is also consistent with all we already know, well Einstein is considered one of the greatest scientists of all times because he exactly did this.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 00:51:43 UTC No. 16533374
>>16480412
Why is math so funny bros
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 15:49:09 UTC No. 16533963
>>16533374
Because math people are nutty
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 16:21:23 UTC No. 16535116
So it's not LITERALLY imaginary, is it?
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 16:36:07 UTC No. 16535128
>>16535116
A meme isn't science anon.
raphael at Sun, 5 Jan 2025 00:53:34 UTC No. 16535646
>>16480412
isnt that all abstract reasoning is? adding stuff that didnt exist so you can make sense of it lmao
🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 5 Jan 2025 03:05:36 UTC No. 16535800
>>16533223
Dark matter and dark energy are bad math to patch together a non unified theory of physics.
Einstein was a hack who's only real contribution to science was coming up with better names for things other people already created.
Hasenohry wrote E=3/8MC^2 over a year before Einstein published his paper on relativity; Lorentz Wrote the equations for frame transitioning (General Relativity) and Poincare was the one that came up with the speed of C as a universal constant.
The Cult of Einstein is why physics has been in a dead end for a 100 years.
🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 5 Jan 2025 03:08:02 UTC No. 16535802
>>16532200
Indeed.
Like that magic Gravitron? Or the W- Boson that totally isn't sucking energy directly from the fabric of space.
Anonymous at Sun, 5 Jan 2025 03:23:27 UTC No. 16535819
>>16535800
Preach brother!
Physics has been alive and well for th last 100years at the department of defense.
🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 5 Jan 2025 03:34:32 UTC No. 16535840
>>16535819
It gets even better.
Robert Maxwell, Ghislaine's dad ran a publishing company that sold text books to universities... such titles as:
“The Standard Model in a Nutshell” by Dave Goldberg
and
“An Introduction to the Standard Model of Particle Physics” by W. N. Cottingham and D. A. Greenwood
Anonymous at Sun, 5 Jan 2025 04:16:43 UTC No. 16535900
>>16480412
Sove for x:
1 + 1 + x = 3 ----> 2 + x = 3 -----> x = 1
Dumb faggot
🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 5 Jan 2025 06:03:46 UTC No. 16535964
>>16535900
You should follow the examples of your idols.
Anonymous at Sun, 5 Jan 2025 06:11:43 UTC No. 16535967
>>16535964
>Gets proven wrong
>REEE KYS
Cope harder retard
Anonymous at Mon, 6 Jan 2025 21:31:05 UTC No. 16537570
sus af that >>16535840 got deleted
https://warosu.org/sci/thread/16480
everyone nose who did it and why
🗑️ Anonymous at Wed, 8 Jan 2025 05:01:58 UTC No. 16538877
>>16522468
dumb people aren't able to form internally consistent worldviews, thats why they're angry all the time.
cognitive dissonance is when you believe in two ideas that are mutually exclusive
Anonymous at Wed, 8 Jan 2025 05:31:38 UTC No. 16538903
>>16480412
1+1+.999...=3
Anonymous at Fri, 10 Jan 2025 03:46:49 UTC No. 16541001
>>16538903
>add a hypothetical 0.999… to account for inaccuracy
Anonymous at Fri, 10 Jan 2025 06:02:45 UTC No. 16541079
>>16523483
>only two genders
He's right you know.
Anonymous at Fri, 10 Jan 2025 06:25:03 UTC No. 16541096
>>16538903
>1+1+.999...=3
It's wrong. 0.(9) is just infinite summation and infinite equals -1/12. Therefore it is [ math ]\fract{9}{10^-\fract{1}{12}} [ /math ] and 1+1+0.999...≈2+11=14
Anonymous at Fri, 10 Jan 2025 10:45:15 UTC No. 16541198
>>16490214
do you actually believe trumptards are capable of more?
Anonymous at Fri, 10 Jan 2025 11:46:26 UTC No. 16541231
>>16541096
Just KYS already, zetta function is in the sticky.
Anonymous at Fri, 10 Jan 2025 19:14:02 UTC No. 16541681
>>16530411
entities is entia in laten and appears no where in that phrase.
It was always about compounding errors.
Anonymous at Fri, 10 Jan 2025 19:15:19 UTC No. 16541682
>>16530896
>Nonsensical rambling as if it's a coherent argument punctuated with name calling.
This is your mind on standard model physics.
Anonymous at Fri, 10 Jan 2025 19:18:32 UTC No. 16541690
>>16533223
Einstein was a hack.
Lorentz created frame transitioning; Poincare came up with C as a universal constant and Hasenohry wrote E=3/8MC^2 a year before Einstein published his paper on relativity.
Your opinion is more like a cult mantra than a scientific observation.
Anonymous at Fri, 10 Jan 2025 20:19:17 UTC No. 16541809
>>16541690
>Your opinion is more like a cult mantra than a scientific observation.
While you are correct about that, history has proved that large midwit cults win out over the tiny minority of high IQ individuals that are smart enough to understand that the cult's beliefs are idiotic.