/sci/ - Science & Math

Well according to my calculations based on the hypothesis of deeznuts I have found a way to manipulate the 2nd law of thermodynamics to prove that young thug is indeed the second coming of christ

>>10283328
Shh, you'll wake up the pseudoscientist cunts who also happen to be the same people that support the quantum bullshit

There are new theories being worked on indeed who dont need to make up big BS like dark energy/matter to explain some phenomena like the "Bullet Cluster"which is the main "evidence" for dark bullshit, one of them is Erik Verlide's new gravity theory that can explain a lot of things without the need of a fictional fantasy magic dark energy.

Dark e/m supporters are as moronic as 21st century islamists

I think the answer might unironically be that laws of physics are localized to regions within the universe and we might just be looking out too far to properly comprehend it any time soon.

I like to think that light just redshifts on its own as it travels through space and since we dont account for it, it makes the distances we calculate based off of it totally get blown out of proportion.

>These anons on an image board pretending to be smarter than modern cosmologists and physists

Go earn your Nobel prize, little dudes. I’m sure you can actually provide a superior model that has no need of dark energy and matter. Right?

>>10283379
kek

They recently identified rogue stars gravitationally attracted to intergalactic regions that models show should have high concentrations of dark matter. Might be that or maybe there are fucking black holes out there and on the edge of the Galaxy and there are.fucking black holes everywhere. Holy God it's like a nightmare in space

>>10283474
>I’m sure you can actually provide a superior model that has no need of dark energy and matter. Right?
No, I can't, but I don't think that bars me from pointing out that it sounds like bullshit.

It sounds a lot like the geocentric paradigm and its astronomers with extremely complex equations to predict the movement of the planets and the sun before Gallileo provided a much simpler, although not church approved, explanation of the data.

>>10283495
>It sounds like

Much logic. Very science.

>>10283517
Right. I don't have an equation disproving dark matter. This isn't the submission office for the Nobel Prize. It's an anonymous Mongolian cricket farming forum.

>>10283517
youre doing the exact same thing you were mocking you moron

>>10283328
YES TOTALLY THIS

Step 1: Hey i discovered this equation, it works in 0.0000000000000000000000001% of the known universe, then i look at another 0.000000000000000000000000001% of the known universe and see it works exactly the same

Step 2: OBVIOUSLY OUR UNIVERSE IS TOTALLY CONSTANT, EVERYTHING IN EVERY DIRECTION IS MADE OF EXACTLY THE SAME CONSTITUENT ATOMS AND GOVERNED BY THE EXACT SAME RULES, NO EXCEPTIONS AT ALL.

Step 3: observe that 99.99999999999999999999999999999% does not behave according to your initial rules.

Step 4: Obviously there's something that works exactly like we predicted but it's absolutely invisible for some reason.


Genius

>>10283452
>I think the answer might unironically be that laws of physics are localized to regions within the universe and we might just be looking out too far to properly comprehend it any time soon.

This violates a basic principle of science. The principle of nature's uniformity. Which is a realyl really retarded way of seeing life that could not have been invented by anyone other than a christian society.

>>10283542
I'm a bit confused, are you criticizing the principle of nature's uniformity or my post?

>>10283542
>Natural uniformity
Imagine a baloon blown up and the end tied in a knot. Wouldn't you say things would be different on the part beyond the knot, than the part ballooned with air?

>>10283557
at least to an observer who couldn't see that one part of the balloon was inflated and the other part was beyond the knot, so had a thicker skin, it'd seem like they had different laws of physics.

>>10283561
for example stabbing a needle through the inflate balloon would be catastrophic but stabbing a needle through the little knot flab would be harmless, and could even capture the needle.

>>10283547
Im criticizing the principle of natur'es uniformity.

It's really really retarded for scientist to still believe in that shit.

We have precise measurements of a trillion millionth times less than
0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 times the observable universe.

According to that we made a few hypothesis and formulas.

We see that the extremely low amount of data we have regarding anything else in the universe does not fit with our data.

We conclude that our formulas must still be right but there has to be something that's as close as possible to what we already know but somehow magically invisible.


It's the most retarded way of thinking ever.

It's like you go into a brothel, you fuck a girl you cum inside. Get tested 8 months later , youre std free. CONCLUDE THAT THERE ARE NO STDS IN THE WORLD

>>10283557
>Imagine a baloon blown up and the end tied in a knot.
But that has nothing to do with what we know about the universe.

Imagine a midget who lived all his life in an underground bunker 1 km underground and never saw the light of day never communicated with the exterior trying to make hypothesis about how the whole known universe must exactly the same. This is a closer metaphro. Humanity has very VERY little information

>>10283570
Humanity can see the stars better than if they were in an underground bunker, and as a result, the silhouette of some black holes. The balloon seems like a better analogy, and we can only experience the local region of the balloon we are on, and when we look at another region of the balloon, it's flexed differently, changing the outcomes that we'd expect. Honestly though I'm not going to shit on either analogy, you got the point I was making, I'm saying we have very little data as well, like whether or not the nature of space time can change if it's flexed or compressed a or expanded or inflated a certain way, which it's very possible it can be considering that 0 point energy is a thing now.

>>10283570
I just imagine that the universe could be a giant set of field equations for each constant and it only differs by noticeable amounts of maybe thousands of light years. It's better than "muh invisible matter"

>>10283441
Verlinde is full of contradictions... autistic guy who only cares about being right manipulating evidence to right with his hypothesis (entropy & gravity)

>>10283577
>zero point energy level is a way to measure the compression of space, like air pressure.
Why not?

>>10283570
Why does the height of the underground dweller matter?

>>10283495
Actually, there's an interesting experiment where the geocentrists and heliocentrists both believed that the earth's orbit around the sun should create a measurable parallax effect on the positions of the stars at different times of years.

When it turned out that this did not occur, the heliocentric model had to introduce the hypothesis that the stars are actually *extremely* far away, and that the parallax is there but too small to measure. This was not the status quo belief, and arose as an ad hoc explanation of why the heliocentric model failed the test.

I read this very recently on slate star codex

>>10283469
Not sure if I agree with this exact interpretation but I've thought about a similar approach myself. We have serious problems with fitting general relativity on large scales and it might just come down to a lack of observational precision on our end. The most hilarious part to me is that verification of these things with experimental evidence would require a level of technology we probably won't have for thousands of years.

>>>10283577
>Humanity can see the stars better than if they were in an underground bunker, and as a result, the silhouette of some black hole

no, that is totally arrogant. Why you think you can know how it works? just because we are getting light? you know how much lights travels in solar system distance, why do you assume its exactly the same everywhere, maybe light just stops after 1000 light years and then speeds up, at some point, for some reason we dont understand, maybe theres another kind of matter thats not an atom thats not made up of electrons or positrons or anything but it somehow emits light. We have very, very little data.

>>10283579
this is a much saner explanation. It makes more sense, its more logic

>>10283582
It does not, but it shows how much he can do to change its situation. When people say "wait but humanity now developed a new tellescope that is AT LEAST 2.5 times bigger than the last.
Thats like saying the midget arranged the books in which he writes his theories alphabetically and also has gloves made out of dildoes.
it changes nothing

>>10283586
>this is a much saner explanation
Thanks, the only problem is that it has test-ability issues along the lines of string theory

>>10283586
I've been at higher than 30 kilometers above sea level.
I never said that the laws of physics are the same everywhere, I said that maybe if space itself is tied up and filled with compressed air, the outside knot would have seemingly different rules of physics than the inflated part of the balloon, especially to any observers trapped on one part that could somehow kinda see the other, but not see the surface material of the balloon that they live on at all.
If your goal is to convince me that the theory that reality is objective is wrong, then you haven't done so so far though. My position is more simple and a more well thought out explanation that does not require dark energy or dark matter and also does not require subjective reality zones.

>>10283583
It's my understanding that the stars did indeed turn out to be really far away.

>>10283586
If you were a cave man and you saw a dude flying with one of those water jetpacks, or on a drone, after a while you might deduce that he's taking advantage of the mechanical nature of reality to fly, but at first you'd think it's magic or that he was ignoring the laws of reality, because you were stuck on the ground and your carriage was too.

>>10283328
>all matter was compressed into an infinitely dense point that exploded into the universe

this is literally what physicists believe, imagine actually taking this approach and thinking it's undeniably true, that's some religious determination to nonsense

The idea of an omni supernatural force interacting with all the matter in the universe but somehow cant be detected in our vicinities nor in the entire known universe sounds as plausible as a cat bigger than the universe playing with us outside. Even gravitational waves were proven to be real.
But what can you expect in a century where the quantum rant is applauded even though their billionaire "quantum computer" massive SCAM horribly flopped as they were not better nor faster than their 80's counterparts and actually were shown to be 20% worse. They tried to excuse it by saying that it can solve "certain" problems a normal computer cant, which to date are still not known , and somehow they got out with it.

>>10283616
>arguing about something that isnt as stupid as what we're actually talking about

>this is literally what physicists believe
no it isnt, its your retarded over simplification that you dont understand in the slightest

>>10283589
>it has test-ability issues along the lines of string theory
It has the same testability issue as any other theory. Traditional physics works, sure as long as you asume everything is 98% bigger than it should be, wow what a great margin of error, must be instrumental error right retards? sheesh i hate those guys.


I think there should be a couple of institutes dedicated to create totally random explanations about how the universe could be assumming we only know exactly what we know, assuming 0 interpolation, literally only actual factual data.

You need people that are great at abstract thinking and are not tied up by any known theory, Mathematicians probably.

Maybe 99% of whatever you did would be gibberish, but out of sheer luck eventually maybe some of those theories could be corroborated as other experiments and we could find out a bit more.


Im particularly appalled at particle physics. Well, we have held in our hands like 0.00000(a trillion million million trillion zeroes)00001 of all matter that exists, we can conclude that its all made up of little balls called atoms, and those atoms are made of electrons neutrons and positrons. Because thats how it behaves, surely absolutely else is like this.

It's like russels teapot, only retarded fedora faggots think this is a "checkmate christians" kind of thing when its totally the opposite.

you CANNOT prove there isnt a teapot orbiting around the sun until you precision probes mapping the entire solar system vecinity. Until you do you have to assume you dont know.

The problem is what we dont know WE DONT KNOW. Scientist assume that what we dont know, meh probably is the same we already know, like some stoner kid but unironically and gets awarded prizes that supposedly represent a superior ability to think, top fucking kek.

>>10283530
Nope. I’m making fun of your criticism of established models without an ability to actually challenge them. You don’t have an established model.

>>10283557
Nature isn’t a balloon.

Didn't the voyager satellites only just leave our solar system's influence? We barely know what's beyond that.

>>10283623
>you CANNOT prove there isnt a teapot orbiting around the sun until you precision probes mapping the entire solar system vecinity. Until you do you have to assume you dont know.


Are you trolling or something? You have to prove your claim if you make it. If you can’t, it’s rejected, and that’s why no should believe in teapots orbiting the sun.

>>10283616
>this is literally what physicists believe, imagine actually taking this approach and thinking it's undeniably true, that's some religious determination to nonsense

No it isn’t. You don’t understand the model of Big Bang cosmology whatsoever.

>The idea of an omni supernatural force interacting with all the matter in the universe but somehow cant be detected in our vicinities nor in the entire known universe sounds as plausible as a cat bigger than the universe playing with us outside. Even gravitational waves were proven to be real.

You’re welcome to refute dark energy since it offends you so much. You won’t.

>>10283328
ockham's razor mate

>>10284187
Why? Because daddy science tells you to. Youre such technicians youre not thibkers. You accept the rules and dont question.

Altough its convenient. A true thinker must always conclude that theres no way to really check if something isnt there.

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absense.

THINK WITH THE BRAINY BRAINATOR DO NOT REPEAT PEATY REPEATY WITH YOUR TONGUE IMITONATORTOR

>>10284450
>Why? Because daddy science tells you to. Youre such technicians youre not thibkers. You accept the rules and dont question.

No, because it’s irrational to believe a claim that has not met its burden of proof.

>Altough its convenient. A true thinker must always conclude that theres no way to really check if something isnt there.


Yes there is, if it’s detectable. If something isn’t detectable, there’s no reason to believe it exists.

>The absence of evidence is not evidence of absense.

Depending on the context, it can be. If I look in a small room and see no cows in there, that is evidence that cows aren’t in there, but if I look in a small room and don’t see a small hair, that’s not evidence a small hair isn’t in there. With something like Russell’s teapot that is too small to detect, no evidence of its absense or existence can be obtained, making it unfalsifiable and therefore not a claim anyone should give the time of day.

>THINK WITH THE BRAINY BRAINATOR DO NOT REPEAT PEATY REPEATY WITH YOUR TONGUE IMITONATORTOR

You seem to be having some kind of fit.

>>10284450
>A true thinker must always conclude that theres no way to really check if something isnt there.

Great thinkers must have a hard time getting their pants on in the morning.

>>10284936
Everyone knows that real thinks are pants-agnostic.

>>10283542
Nature is uniform. It's just that there are unknown factors in play that cannot be waved away with magical energy.

>>10283469
A variant of this is posted on Scientific American 100 times every single day.