/sci/ - Science & Math

> The Earth is an oblate spheroid.
> The Moon landings happened and space travel is real.
> Newtonian Mechanics is an accurate and incomplete description of reality.
> Quantum Mechanics is an accurate and incomplete description of reality.
> Special and General Relativity are accurate and incomplete descriptions of reality.
> The Standard Model of particle physics is an accurate and incomplete description of reality.
> The Lambda-CDM model is an accurate and incomplete description of reality.
> Faster-than-light communication is impossible.
> Perpetuum mobiles, over-unity devices, energy-from-nothing generators, propulsionless drives and the like can not and will never work.
> Likewise, it is impossible to extract work from the zero-point energy of the vacuum.
> More generally, if you disagree with thermodynamics, you are wrong.
> Climate change is real, is happening right now, is a real threat and is mostly caused by humans.
> Approved vaccines are effective and much safer than the diseases they prevent.
> "I don't understand this" or "this doesn't make sense to me" are not legitimate criticisms of established scientific theories. The fact that the universe is not simple enough for you to understand is your failing, not the universe's.
> Anyone claiming to have an alternative theory to established science should be able to explain why established science seems to give accurate answers and be able to give a concrete prediction that can be checked by experiment, where it should outperform the current theory.

For those who will start arguing about "accurate and incomplete":
"Accurate": Models built from the theory accurately predict the outcomes of experiments and do not differ appreciably from reality within the theory's domain of validity, which is large enough to be useful.
"Incomplete": The theory's domain of validity does not encompass the entire universe.

If you want to argue this, first read > http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

> The Earth is round.
> The Moon landings happened and space travel is real.
> Newtonian Mechanics is an accurate and incomplete description of reality.
> Quantum Mechanics is an accurate and incomplete description of reality.
> Special and General Relativity are accurate and incomplete descriptions of reality.
> The Standard Model of particle physics is an accurate and incomplete description of reality.
> The Lambda-CDM model is an accurate and incomplete description of reality.
> Faster-than-light communication is impossible.
> Perpetuum mobiles, over-unity devices, energy-from-nothing generators, propulsionless drives and the like can not and will never work.
> Likewise, it is impossible to extract work from the zero-point energy of the vacuum.
> More generally, if you disagree with thermodynamics, you are wrong.
> Climate change is real, is happening right now, is a real threat and is mostly caused by humans.
> Approved vaccines are effective and much safer than the diseases they prevent.
> "I don't understand this" or "this doesn't make sense to me" are not legitimate criticisms of established scientific theories. The fact that the universe is not simple enough for you to understand is your failing, not the universe's.
> Anyone claiming to have an alternative theory to established science should be able to explain why established science seems to give accurate answers and be able to give a concrete prediction that can be checked by experiment, where it should outperform the current theory.

For those who will start arguing about "accurate and incomplete":
"Accurate": Models built from the theory accurately predict the outcomes of experiments and do not differ appreciably from reality within the theory's domain of validity, which is large enough to be useful.
"Incomplete": The theory's domain of validity does not encompass the entire universe.

If you want to argue this, first read > http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm