/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15812677
>What the fuck does that mean? How is it not falsified?
Because you never interacted with anything in your picture, never experimented on them, how the hell do you actually know what they are? How the hell would you know if your story is true or COMPLETELY bs?
Using the very chemistry analogy you brought up, you tell me. Only a microscope, no interaction/experimentation, which chemical theories you falsifying?
>And yet there were
Oh really, which star you interacted with?
>Again, what the fuck does that even mean? All known stars, the total extrapolated number in the Galaxy?
Stars claimed to exist in the observable universe by cosmologists (picrel).
The furthest star measured using parallax is in W49N, which is still in this galaxy.
Like I said, 0.1% is generous by an astronomic margin.
>like fundamental constants
You realize if the laws can change these constants among other things are the things that's changing right?
>I'm glad you have finally admitted that current physical theory is not proven
You equivocation is getting disgusting by the minute.