/sci/ - Science & Math

even before turning into dark matter light pulls the galaxies thanks to its gravity, NASA says that light has no mass but they are fake scientists

>>10286492
Show your work.

Einstein was probably been trolled by the guy who actually created the formula E = m.c2 since the formula clearly shows that energy has mass, it it is the case of fake scientists who actually can't even interpretate a formula.

There are experiments that show that light has mass, that one with the eclipse showing that the Sun affects the trajectory of light and later on scientists discovered the black holes and this is a final proof that light has mass since it's sucked by the hole. So we have the formula and the experiment's that's it. My work is to show you that and interpretate the formula. More about light, I think that it becomes dark energy and later dark matter.

after sometime the photon loses it's luminosity and becomes dark energy instead of "light". after that it becomes dark matter. I have a theory for this phenomena but I don't wanna share that because it's pure logics and I don't have a formula or proofs.

>>10286492
Even if you were right, all the light in the universe an the gravity it exhibits is insufficient to explain what we see in modern theory.

>>10286542
What the hell you shouldn't say that you have it if you won't share it, but I take it as you are saying that in the same way water is the 'ash' of hydrogen, and so can't burn, dark matter is the ash of light?

>>10286492
>>10286506
>>10286519
>>10286539
>>10286542


Not sure if troll, but you are completely wrong. Light doesn't "become" dark matter for many reasons. One simple explanation is that Photons don't decay spntaneously. This is a fundamental property that allows the electromagnetic, and weak nuclear forces to work as they do. We have detected photons from the edge of our causality horizon, they the only change they experience is redshift due to expanding spacetime.

There are about five other very good reasons I can give you, but I fear you might not understand.

The post above is from a fake scientist, photons have mass and are not moving forever, according to the fake scientist above photons are eternaly moving forever. This is what fake scientists tell to children so that they can be schooled with fake ideas created by the actors who say that are scientists. Of course these actors (many would preffer to work for Holywood but all they have found is a job at NASA or colleges) also believe in spontaneous creation of light by stars, this belief is naturally wrong since it's an energy emission and the stars are losing mass thanks to this. Light has mass.

>>10287109
gibberish spouting retarded nutjob

>>10287109
mental ill

The name dark matter was a stroke of PR genious but also a nuthob magnet because of it.

I love you guys I feel better when I have contact with you and verify that dummies exist I feel like I'm very clever. Keep dealing with very good actors from NASA. I could tell you more but that's enough. The guys think that light is spontaneous creation that's enough for me I'm feeling too clever that's not even good I wonder how this exists an entire institution of actors and many colleges faking everything. But I'm very proud of Holywood they are good because they actually don't fool anyone telling that they are not actors. We at least know who they are.

>>10287146
yep, giving scientific concepts cool names should be punished with death, it ruins progress for decades

89/5000
>> 10286492
>> 10286506
why lamp in my room didn't pull me when i turn it on?

>>10286492
>>10286506
why lamp in my room didn't pull me when i turn it on?

>>10287146
It's a really bad name, "imaginary ethereal matter" is more accurate.

>>10286542
>after sometime the photon loses it's luminosity and becomes dark energy instead of "light"
It's not a matter of time, it just has to be redshifted so much it has no energy left.

>>10287422
if it has no energy how does it have mass

post above is good

however the actors can guarantee that there is something that they can't see exercing a lot of gravity and it's not a black hole

of course it's light itself when it get's on a stage of transformation that our eyes can't detect (the fake scientists keep researching about) that It's called "dark energy"

I call it dark energy because the actors are calling it dark energy I'm just using the invented name, it's actually light that can't be seen since it's on another stage of propagation

I'm very clever these fake scientists (NASA actors) should be schooled by me however it costs a lot the institution can't afford me

I was referring to the post about "imaginary etherium matter" good post

>>10287449
no you weren't

according to the calculations of some of the scientists that are studying the subject the universe is 85% dark energy or matter, they tell it based on gravity

now take a look at the picture that I've showed and try to imagine what would that mass or energy be since I'm telling you that light has mass and this is related to the propagation of light

of course all that you need to understand is what is light and how it propagates

and that stars are sending light to the whole universe for so long

>>10287146
>>10287360
Dark matter is a literal description of what it is though, it is matter that is completely dark. It's just uninformed idiots that call every alternative theory dark matter too. Something like Modified Newtonian Dynamics is not dark matter, it is only another possible solution to the same problem. It just turns out that the more we look into it, the better the dark matter models look, we just don't know what this matter actually is yet. Stop talking about shit you have no idea about.

>>10286492
Energy(without mass) will bend space time, but we already know this and have it in our models. You're just dumb.

you can't just invent word-games and call them physics OP, sorrey

there is no time for Physics, forget this idea for a while

it's just a method of comparation of movements

space-time is a game of words

all that you need to know is that light is propagating on space and that it has mass and it's exercing gravity

and that Physics is a science that at the momment belongs to me and to a few and I'm teaching a bit to you

sadly fake scientists are trying to develop something that belongs to the holders of the force

they should go to Holywood it's a better place for them

>>10287580
>space-time is a game of words
I guess general relativity being the most accurate model for gravity was just luck then. huh.

>all that you need to know is that light is propagating on space and that it has mass
What is mass to you? How do you measure it?

you need to stop asking me otherwise I would end up using my hands to move objects and so on I think that Physics has been developed a lot by me already

now let's fight against poverty and hunger

So your model provides an excellent fit to the attached data? Oh....

>>10287109
dunning & kruger should have lobbied more to make people aware of retards like yourself

>>10287547
>The longer we look and measure shadows, the more they will become real
No, a "Shadow" is the absence of light. How do you plan on reifying an absence?

>Energy(without mass) will bend space time, but we already know this and have it in our models. You're just dumb.

Space has no properties. If so what property does space have that causes it to "bend".

>>10287551
>quantum
>darkmatter
>quantum foam
>strings
>virtual photons
>particles
>wave particle duality
Just to name a few. OP gets a pass since everyone here is relying on half-assed descriptions of things

>>10287360
They're too scared to call it "aether" because they already "disproved" it.

>>10286492
>dark matter
Now why wouldn't light just become regular matter?

>>10287601
>I guess general relativity being the most accurate model for gravity was just luck then. huh.
The cause of gravity has never been explained by any branch of science, so I don't know what you're trying to say here.

>>10286539
>the eclipse showing that the Sun affects the trajectory of light
relativity talks about gravity warping spacetime though
in that description, light doesn't need mass to be affected (i think)

>>10287883
>Space has no properties. If so what property does space have that causes it to "bend".
Mass and energy warps space-time, we know this happens, we observe it.

>The cause of gravity has never been explained by any branch of science, so I don't know what you're trying to say here.
Depends on what you mean by cause, you can always be super regresssionist and always ask why. But through general relativity we get a great and intuitive understanding of why things fall, and how they do it. You clearly don't understand what you are denying.

>>10286492

Einstein was always wrong, check the links below:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-46778879

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/07/india-scientists-claim-ancient-hindus-invented-stem-cell-research-dismiss-einstein

bump

>>10287912
Mass and energy warps space-time, and bent space-time will affect anything moving through it, even if it has no mass.
Straight space-time vectors no longer look straight when the space-time its moving through is curved.

>>10287440
Maybe it has no real energy but imaginary energy.

>>10287931
>Mass and energy warps space-time, we know this happens, we observe it.
>we observe a shadow, measure it, feel it, say it's a thing, even though it's the absence of something.

Shit doesn't explain itself. What property does "space" let alone "spacetime" have that makes it "bend".

>Depends on what you mean by cause, you can always be super regresssionist and always ask why
Really makes you think. It's almost like that's the purpose of science. Perhaps if there's no cause to be found then maybe you should look at how things are ordered and related.
>But through general relativity we get a great and intuitive understanding of why things fall, and how they do it
>We don't even understand what light or gravity is but we know what it does.

You clearly don't understand what I'm denying.

>>10287977
and how strong do you imagine that energy to be?

it's certainly strong because it's a lot of light coming out of a star and the light is constantly being sent to space... a good job would be to calculate the total mass sent to space (only by light) during the lifetime of a star... and then start to sum the mass sent by many stars... and you would realize that it's certainly a lot of mass sent to far places... this mass certainly exerces gravity and pulls everything...

>>10288076
>What property does "space" let alone "spacetime" have that makes it "bend"
What property does you knee have that makes it bend? What kind of question is this, and what is it supposed to show?

>Really makes you think. It's almost like that's the purpose of science.
Its absolutely not, science is a tool we use so we can make better predictions for our world. It will never tell you why. Why is a question of philosophy.

>You clearly don't understand what I'm denying.
I clearly don't, why dont you explain it.

>>10288263
>What property does you knee have that makes it bend?
The "property" of being made of something that isn't stiff. Made of a "joint" which empirically and demonstrably proves it can "bend". It has the properties of being "bendable"

Now what is "space" made of that allows it to "bend"? "space" as in the "absence of matter", or "space" as in filled space, in either case this "space" has no properties, therefore cannot "bend" because "bending" is a fucking property that something has! How does an absence bend?

>Its absolutely not, science is a tool we use so we can make better predictions for our world. It will never tell you why. Why is a question of philosophy.
Science is a process, not a prediction maker. So I guess this is a philosophical question then. Why does space "bend"?

>I clearly don't, why dont you explain it.
The stuff "in" space has properties to be "bent". differentiate "Space" and "filled space" and you'll see why space has no properties and isn't even a thing.

>>10288321
Your whole reasoning is just based on your intuition on what space should be able to do.
While General relativity keeps being used to this day.

Why does space bend? I don't know, and I don't know why a neutron decays neither, but I know they do. You can't just ask "why" and when you don't get a satisfying answer claim that its wrong. Nothing works that way, you have live in the real world.

You could have a philosophical discussion if space-time is an actual entity in our world or not, but I really don't think you are equipped for that, and I wouldn't say I am neither. And that wouldn't disprove anything when it comes to science, the physics would still stand.

Don't care about these questions about space at the momment. Just wanna know about the mass sent to space by stars throught light. It seems that light becomes dark energy and then dark matter. We are talking about the stages of transformation of light. Calculate the mass sent by star at high speed and you would see that it's a good point. Light doesn't move at constant speed and it would be interesting to find out the speed of light when it becomes dark energy to better comprehend the propagation of light.

>>10288352
>Your whole reasoning is just based on your intuition on what space should be able to do.
Space doesn't fucking exist. You're the one who is reasoning based on intuition(?) that space exists and does things. I'm asking "how does this space/spacetime "bend". You're having a hard time because again, you're assuming that "space" has properties and is a thing.

>While General relativity keeps being used to this day.
Lots of secularized metaphysics are still practiced to this day, yes.

>Why does space bend? I don't know, and I don't know why a neutron decays neither, but I know they do.
>"is just based on your intuition on what space should be able to do"

>You can't just ask "why" and when you don't get a satisfying answer claim that its wrong. Nothing works that way, you have live in the real world.
What reality do you live in?

>You could have a philosophical discussion if space-time is an actual entity in our world or not, but I really don't think you are equipped for that, and I wouldn't say I am neither. And that wouldn't disprove anything when it comes to science, the physics would still stand.

What the fuck do you think I'm doing right now? Space does not have properties...therefore it cannot be a thing. You're stating otherwise...so please state a property that space has. Things don't define themselves. "Space exists because it can be bent" is also not an answer, that's an assumption that it has the property of being able to "bend". What is being "bent" is a medium.

You want to talk about "time" to? Time also doesn't exist. It has no properties, is not a force not a modality nor a phenomena. It is a recording of an event, not the actual event. It is purely a human language.
So when you combine the terms "space-time", it doesn't make the connotation or denotation of the term have any more basis in reality since neither "space" nor "time" by themselves have a basis in reality. And if they do then please, name a property of them.

Just to add, think that light moves at "c" when no forces influence it. Sometimes it's not constant naturaly...

>>10288401
>propagation of light
>transformation of light
>speed of light

Lol so which is it moron?

>>10288404
>Space does not have properties
Space expands, it warps and it contains matter and energy. Its transparent to electromagnetic radiation, it carries waves, it has volume.

>Things don't define themselves.
I agree, we defined them. And we have a thing in physics we call space-time that works with what we observe in our world.

You just need to rethink how you think of space, space is not nothing, true nothing would not have space for things to happen.

>You want to talk about "time" to?
Time has basically the same property as space, but I really don't think you get what space-time is, so it feels dumb arguing about it with you.

>>10288457
>Space expands, it warps and it contains matter and energy. Its transparent to electromagnetic radiation, it carries waves, it has volume.

So does everything else. Also if it was transparent to EM then how the fuck do you observe it? Like I said, a shadow can be "measured", but that doesn't make it exist. It is the ABSENCE of light. An absence is not reifiable. It is ABSENT of that which makes it reified (the light). You're basically saying that something that doesn't exist exists.

>I agree, we defined them
>humans defining thins makes them real
>And we have a thing in physics we call space-time that works with what we observe in our world
And surely to "observe" something, it must have properties. Can you "observe" absence?
>I am in absence observing it
>"I" in "absence"
Again, what properties does "space" and "time" have?

>Time has basically the same property as space
Oh so now it's a distinction without a difference? Get real.

>but I really don't think you get what space-time is, so it feels dumb arguing about it with you.
I could say the same to you only I "get" that there is actually nothing "to get". Space and time have no properties and therefore have no basis in reality. Unless you have evidence to prove otherwise...the evidence obviously not being the thing defining itself...

OP is top-downing us from dank matter, reasonable approach.

>>10288510
>So does everything else.
No, everything doesn't expand and warp the way space-time does, that is retarded,

>Oh so now it's a distinction without a difference? Get real.
Space-time as in; a single entity. Not space and time, its space-time. You really don't get it, yet you are so confident in denying it. Its incredible to me how someone can be so stupid and confident at the same time. You're going again scientific consensus here with basically nothing. Its so fucking dumb.

>humans defining thins makes them real
No, what i'm saying is that we have something we defined, and we observe that in our world, so that thing is real. You can't come after the fact and change what that thing we observe is, so you can deny it's existence.

>>10288562
>No, everything doesn't expand and warp the way space-time does, that is retarded,
>what are the states of matter for $1000, Alex.

>Space-time as in; a single entity. Not space and time, its space-time. You really don't get it, yet you are so confident in denying it. Its incredible to me how someone can be so stupid and confident at the same time. You're going again scientific consensus here with basically nothing. Its so fucking dumb.
LOL you can call it whatever the fuck you want to buddy, it has no basis in reality. "Filled space" is confused as "space", the measurement of "time" is confused as something even thought it's a concept with NO PROPERTIES. IT ACTS UPON NOTHING BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST, JUST LIKE SPACE.
The only thing you've actually said that I consider remotely correct is "Time has basically the same property of space", the caveat being that the "property" is not there in the first place. They both have the property of not having any fucking properties! So

>scientific consensus
>consensus: an idea or opinion that is shared by people in a group
>"I suck off people who describe things that they don't even know"

>No, what i'm saying is that we have something we defined, and we observe that in our world, so that thing is real.
>"A shadow can be measured.."

>You can't come after the fact and change what that thing we observe is, so you can deny it's existence.
Your observations may have been flawed and your descriptions are not explanations. This is why appeal to authority is bad. Not because it enforces potentially incorrect ideas, but because the people that enforce it are so ignorant to other ideas not adherent to the group-think mentality. They can't think beyond what they are told to think, and are ignorant to the fact that it is better to learn how to learn rather than what to learn. One path offers growth and the other leads to stagnation.

>>10288617
>NO PROPERTIES.
I listed a bunch of property's

>IT ACTS UPON NOTHING BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST
It acts upon mass and energy.

>Your observations may have been flawed
Show that then, and dont just deny something because you say so. We can measure gravitational waves from distant events, which we again have confirmed with telescopes. What more do you want?

>This is why appeal to authority is bad.
Tell that to your doctor next time you see him. Don't confuse fallacious appeal to authority with a reasonable appeal to authority. Some things are more complicated than 5 minutes of thinking about it. Some people have studied this for longer than you have spent on 4chan.

>>10288640
>I listed a bunch of property's
>transparency to EM is a property
So tell me how these "properties" you list were measured? If "space" is transparent to EM does that not make it unreifiable? What is "no light"? "Dark matter"? That's a description not an explanation.

>It acts upon mass and energy.
How? It is mass and energy to begin with. It's not a "void" of nothingness, it is FULL. Unless you're saying it is something different than mass and energy..then what would that be? The Absence of mass and energy? Again, how do you reify an absence? Is it not purely a pressure mediation of the same thing?

>We can measure gravitational waves from distant events, which we again have confirmed with telescopes. What more do you want?
there is no branch of science that has explain what the cause of gravity is, so that would be a great start. You know, actually being able to explain your observations?

>Tell that to your doctor next time you see him.
>he has only one doctor
Does he do your dental work too?

>Don't confuse fallacious appeal to authority with a reasonable appeal to authority.
>reasonable appeal to authority
I should just drop you right here, but it's entertaining to watch.

>Some things are more complicated than 5 minutes of thinking about it. Some people have studied this for longer than you have spent on 4chan.
You convince yourself that something exists when it doesn't then of course you're going to spend an eternity chasing shadows.

>>10288685
>So tell me how these "properties" you list were measured?
You're the one denying science. We measure it on the things it affects. We can deduce it's existence, the same way we would do for an electron.

>You know, actually being able to explain your observations?
Gravitational waves were predicted decades before it was observed, we could explain them before we even observed them. Goddamn, its like you aren't familiar at with this topic. Ever heard of the Dunning Kruger effect?

>Does he do your dental work too?
No, I would appeal to my dentist's knowlage there. As I appealed to the conscious of physics on a topic of physics. How retarded are you, everything you know comes from an authority, you didn't figure out how a computer works on your own. Or are you a flat-earther too or something?

>You convince yourself that something exists when it doesn't then of course you're going to spend an eternity chasing shadows.
This is so dumb, you live in a world where science has again and again proven incredibly usefull and accurate, but you deny it when it feels wrong to you.

>>10287339

>>10288719
>You're the one denying science
I'm denying something that has no properties.

>We measure it on the things it affects.
>Shadows are cold and objects cast the,, since you can feel the effect of them and measure them they exist. What causes them? What do you mean "cause"? They're their own thing because we see them, they must explain themselves!

>Gravitational waves were predicted decades before it was observed, we could explain them before we even observed them.
A wave is not a thing, it's what something does. What causes gravity? Can't fucking explain it can you? It's okay not to know, it's another to pretend that you do.

>This is so dumb, you live in a world where science has again and again proven incredibly usefull and accurate, but you deny it when it feels wrong to you.
The only thing science has ever done throughout history is disprove itself.

Anyway, this is your last (you) unless you want to disprove my claim of "time/space has no properties" without using circular logic/appeal to authority. What causes "space". What "bends" space? What causes "time"? If any of your replies falls under the category of "conceptual" then prove so. Prove how it has a basis in reality. Give me a real world example of time and space at work.

Alright /sci/, please correct me if I'm wrong. But if energy and mass are the same.....wouldn't that mean that light DOES have mass? What implications would this have? Would this mean, that as light travels it loses energy, which would explain the red shifting of the furthest galaxies as opposed to the galaxies moving further away. Would this result negate an expanding universe if it is true?

>>10288888
Mass is hard light. The smaller the wavelength the higher the capacitance. Wavelength becomes entangled in itself and other high frequency light and produce matter. Through constructive/destructive of light itself as against itself, matter is formed.

>>10288854
I mean, its really dumb to claim that shadows don't exits too, thats not how anyone uses language. I think you just need a more nuanced understanding of the world.

You have reduced this to semantics by now, which makes it really boring, you're clearly not interested in the actual science of it.

@10288907
>I mean, its really dumb to claim that shadows don't exits too, thats not how anyone uses language.
Wow, I'm not talking about language. I'm talking about reality.

>You have reduced this to semantics by now, which makes it really boring, you're clearly not interested in the actual science of it.

There is no semantics involved, all I want is an explanation as to how time and space have properties. There is nothing semantic about asking for proof. If they have no properties then explain how they exist and how have a basis in reality. It is really that fucking simple.

>>10288510
Shadows are real as hell, you ever sit in the shade of a tree after day of hard work in the hot summer sun. That shadow is definitely real, even if you were blind.

>not distinguishing between invariant mass and mass in special relativity

This whole thread is basically idiots not getting this simple concept.

the whole thread denies part of the things that Einstein said and is stating that light has mass and it has even more mass than it seems

Every data we have says that photon does not have invariant mass, period.
Saying otherwise is like denying evolution.

>>10290426
photons didn't evolve

of course it's very hard to stop the photon and put it on a balance to measure it's mass, nobody has done it at least nobody published it

and I think that it would be very good to do that to understand the propagation of light, according to me yould actually be measuring the weight of something that we are calling "dark matter" here

>>10290434
dark matter is not actually dark colored

just keep trying to understand things while I keep feeling clever I feel good when I see you posting I feel so superior

>>10290434
It’s impossible to stop photon because it has zero invariant mass, thus travels only with the speed of c.

It’s hilarious how people here lack basic physics knowledge and reasoning skills.

you should take this idea more seriously since it could it be used for bigger purposes, one day it could save mankind

>>10290492
he may kill millions

understanding the propagation of light could save many lifes on fields like medicine

>>10290622
light's not that dangerous

>>10286492
>>>/x/
Wrong board

It's quite impressive how people idolatrate scientists that are actually responsible for big mistakes of science, it seems that Einstein has given important ideas for space and some other things but certainly not for light. Let's stop this Einstein hoax because it's destroying Physics.

>>10290677
scientists don't exist, science is grown in pods not in humans

they do and some are studying light, I hope they realize what I've said... and that light is clearly something that needs to be better measured, understood and is linked to the expansion of the universe thanks to it's mass

and it seems that this was very well known long time ago even before the scientists that you idolatrate

>>10290756
>and it seems that this was very well known long time ago even before the scientists that you idolatrate
that makes no sense, light was invented very recently

>>10290207
Reify it. What is a shadow made of? It is a PRIVATION of light, do you not understand what that means? It is not a quality, it is the absence of quality. What you call "shadow" is the absence of light, you can call it something but that doesn't make it real or a cause to things. A shadow has no properties because when you talk of the properties it has you end up talking about something else...because again it's a privation.

>That shadow is definitely real, even if you were blind.
You could have blind men on every side of an elephant, feeling what it is. One blind man will grab a leg and tell you it's a tree, one will grab it by the trunk or tail and think it's a snake. One would grab the belly and assume that it's another animal of a similar size. However none of them will be able to tell you what it actually is because the method of observing is FLAWED from the beginning. Similar things happen to men of science when trying to figure out what light is to this day.
>>10290756
How do you measure what is not physical? How much mass does it have? How much "mass" does the blue end have as opposed to the red end? How is it different than mass? What is the difference between a 10 watt lightbulb and a 10 watt laser? How does a change in density "travel"? Does a phase change "travel"?


Can anyone here actually differentiate light from illumination?

>>10290975
how are shadows not real lad? what kind of drugs are you on?

>>10291141
>how is less light not real
This is what you're basically saying. It makes no sense whatsoever. This is why a shadow is not real. The light is real and even it is on a fucking spectrum. You still have to classify what quality of light is present. How do you classify the quality of a shadow? It's cause is simply "less light" or resultant in the quality of light.

>>10291181
>It's cause is simply "less light"
yup, and that is a shadow.

It seems you're very hung up on things being made of particles, when that is clearly not the case.

>>10291185
>less of something else is something
No, it's still a part of that something.
>It seems you're very hung up on things being made of particles, when that is clearly not the case.
I have never said particles exist and don't believe they do. If you want to go even more in depth, not even light fucking exist.

>>10291195
>I have never said particles exist and don't believe they do. If you want to go even more in depth, not even light fucking exist.
Okay, I'm done. This just got way too dumb.

>>10291181
that's like saying blacks have no skin color, makes no sense

>>10291222
Without light there isn't even color to begin with so your point is moot.
>>10291204
too deep for you? Which light is more real? Infrared? Ultraviolet? Gamma?

>>10291245
>Which light is more real?
Light a is part of the electromagnetic spectrum, maybe you should read up a bit before you discuss this.

>>10291257
>it's on a specrum bruh
>quality of something is something itself
>so gender is on a specrum because there's seperate real genders in between male and female.

Now differentiate light from illumination.

>>10291348
What is real too you, you seem to be finding a reason to deny everything that is brought up.

>>10291363
>What is real too you, you seem to be finding a reason to deny everything that is brought up.
Holy fucking shit, this is a science board.

>>10291552
Science is about denying things?

>>10291570
What process are you going to use to deny what I've stated and form your own hypothesis? How are you going to test that hypothesis?

>Dark Energy is Radiation

I guess somebody didn't study general relativity. That's gonna be a yikes from me.

>>10291570
science is whatever you want it to be