/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11506939
I'm not a sciencefag at all but I love vids about astronomy and I can't help to call BS on every other study I see a vid about on youtube.
Just recently they were surprised that the area around the sun is super hot (as in, more than a million degrees or so). So if they can't even tell basic shit like that about the sun I wonder if they are really qualified to say anything about stars billions of light years away.
TL;DR might be a pseudo science/science fiction but I dunno really lol

>>11506939
So you're upset that they state facts as facts, and then are surprised when they discover something new? Also, what part of dark matter/energy is explanatory? It's literally just a name given to something which they don't understand. You're not looking at it objectively; you're picking and choosing certain aspects of the way astrophysicists act as a basis for your claims.

>>11506939
>substitute missing information

You are talking about theorising, how can you come to the conclusion that astrophysicists don’t know what they are talking about?
The distinction between science and religion should be obvious to you.
How do you think we got to the point we are at now scientifically? How could science evolve without surprises and failures?

>>11506939
“Settled science” is something lobbyists hock and only pseuds believe. Any actual scientist will tell you that we don’t have a clue why things are the way that they are, but we’re working really hard to figure it out. There are some good ideas that ~mostly~ align with observation, but nothing is concrete. You’re likely getting information through pop-sci channels, which are chock full of pseuds and high schoolers who are desperately trying to come of as “intelligent”.

>>11506986
>they state facts as facts
An who exactly determines what is fact and what isn't? It's the same "they" you are referring to.
>then are surprised when they discover something new?
I'm surprised that the entire field hasn't been upended at this point, considering the explanations given have more holes than Swiss cheese, especially in seemingly important and fundamental areas like the mechanics of our own sun like what >>11506969 mentioned with it's corona.
>Also, what part of dark matter/energy is explanatory? It's literally just a name given to something which they don't understand.
Idk, evoking an entirely new type of matter and energy doesn't sound like "just a name" or placeholder.
>>11506991
>The distinction between science and religion should be obvious to you.
The distinction is practically null at the layman's level, i.e. the one I am on and what you are probably on (given that you are on 4chan). Your average normalfag spews abstracted runoff of astronomic facts as a Christian would parrot Bible verses.
>How do you think we got to the point we are at now scientifically?
Don't start down that road. The modern scientific establishment as it is right now didn't even exist barely a hundred years ago. Science experienced dramatic upheavals and shifts over time; if you want to speak of historical trends, our current understanding will probably be considered mostly psuedo-science and laughable in the future. With that understanding, the astrophysicist probably does know nothing, or at best has a hint of a hint.

>>11507047
>An who exactly determines what is fact and what isn't? It's the same "they" you are referring to.
you're perfectly allowed to read up on the evidence yourself, anon. Just because you don't and have to take their word for it doesn't take away from the evidence.
>considering the explanations given have more holes than Swiss cheese
>evoking an entirely new type of matter and energy
it is still possible to learn things and rule out possibilities and discuss inconclusive science. For example we KNOW of "dark matter" that it interacts with gravity and doesn't interact with light. These are facts and whatever dark matter ends up being doesn't change this and we can derive further facts about it from that. The inconclusiveness about what it actually is has no bearing on our ability to describe it.

>>11507047
>>11506969
So you think that the fact that a result is surprising is reason to believe that the field is bs? They observed that the corona has a hotter temperature than the surface of the sun, and there is some debate over the reason - i.e. they aren't certain.
Yet your complaint with the subject is that they act as if "the science is settled", which is in direct contradiction with this. Perhaps you should worry more about your own inconsistencies and let people with mild intelligence worry about astrophysics.

>>11507093
>doesn't know shit about what's happening in own home
>be made responsible to find out what's happening in different towns
Nothing inconsistent on finding this fishy and being sceptical about people who get paid mostly on government dime perhaps pulling shit outta their arse to have comfy and safe jobs with benefits.
If you blindly trust people you ain't gonna make it, bud.

>>11507112
>doesn't know shit about what's happening in own home
Who? Are you referring to yourself?
You've already said that you don't know anything, so how are you going to say that I'm not gonna make it? I've learned enough on the topic to make a reasonably informed judgement, while you haven't, so it's quite clear that you're the blind one.

>>11507093
>*a* result
>implying this isn't a run-of-the-mill occurrence that happens over and over again
A model that is consistently contracted by direct observation isn't a good model...
>Yet your complaint with the subject is that they act as if "the science is settled", which is in direct contradiction with this
Yet people DO treat it as settled even with these contradictions. It is not an inconsistency on my part. What's worst, as >>11507112 mentioned, millions of government money (i.e. taxpayer's money) is funneled into the endeavors of scientists to inaccurately describe phenomena millions of light-years away to no one's benefit besides the intellectual masturbation and steady income of those involved.

>>11506939
Hey OP, only because you called yourself a layman, shall I now explain to you with normal tone, otherwise I would've labeled you with words.

>science is settled
You're confusing between 3 different areas of physics. You can very broadly classify physics into 3 parts i.e.
1) Relativistic physics - Has barely anything to do with our lives and mostly to do with astrophysics and the likes.
2)Classical physics - physics to explain our world
3)Quantum physics - physics to explain the sub atomic level

Note that we only have a near complete description of classical physics. The rest we don't.
Why do we have a complete description of classical physics? Because the laws are easier to state and can be solved by simple equation and are deterministic. What you see in real life is described exactly by the equations. You find a box jumping to the other side of a thin wall. But note that even our simple everyday observations are governed by complex laws. For example a falling cat always follows newtonian mechanics. Newtonian mechanics is extremely well defined, but complex equations can arise. The laws are settled but our everyday lives are governed by those laws in a complex form. The easiest way to visualize this is to think of common table salt i.e. sodium chloride. Even though its properties are way different than sodium and chloride, its still made up of only those two.

>>11506939
>>11507172(2/2)

Why do I say relativity and quantum physics isn't settled? For one we do have laws governing astronomical scale phenomenon, but we can't readily see it with our naked eyes. In order to measure something, we have to collect data for sometimes months, unlike that of say throwing a tennis ball from the top of a tower to measure the acceleration with which it falls. Secondly we do know how gravity works, but when combined on large scales with a lot of matter, you get something as wonderful as galaxies or something as dark as a black hole, no pun indented. In astrophysics, we are discovering stuff in the sense, we are finding new galaxies, new quasars etc. But we already know how these galaxies formed etc.

What about quantum physics? Things get weird here. For one we haven't discovered a lot. Also because quantum physics is not deterministic i.e. probability is involved (What I mean here is that you cannot exactly determine the position and velocity of a sub atomic particle with enough precision unlike in classical mechanics, I won't explain why), we start to see new behavior among particles pretty frequently. A good example is the Higgs boson. Although predicted much before(same goes for anti matter) in 1964, it was only in 2012 that it was experimentally confirmed. What d yu mean by experimentally confirmed? It basically in layman terms means to ask nature if such a thing is true or whether it exists. A lot of things are proposed but don't turn out to be true.

Hope this helps. Also forgive me for missing words. My brain doesn't have perfect co ordination with my hands for some reason.

>>11507153
>I've learned enough on the topic to make a reasonably informed judgement
Apparently you are too emotionally invested to actually see a bigger picture here. Some theories are fine and all, but there are too many contradicting and outlandish theories on matters too far beyond reasonable observation out there to take the field really serious, when they are unironically surprised and bamboozled about things happening so close to us.
For the time being there are about a dozen or so more important things to do and fund than pumping endless amounts of money into getting "dark matter did it" as answer.

>>11506939
>that's strategically placed within galaxies to account for the fact that they couldn't stay together otherwise according to previous math
gravity?

>beginning that we are just fallible apes
No we aren't. We have done a ton of experiments to verify our theories and they all turn out to be true.

>propagate information through the gorillion pop-science media outlets
the media loves to exaggerate and blow things out of proportion. A good example would be labeling the higgs boson the 'God Particle', when it isn't. Read from reputable websites. Don't read thesun.co.uk or dailymail.co.uk

>>11507231
>they all turn out to be true
Not all, but a good proportion.

>>11507167
>A model that is consistently contracted by direct observation isn't a good model...
First of all wrong, e.g. classical mechanics.
Second of all, the model isn't complete and no one is claiming that it is. When they observe something unexpected, they make changes to the model literally so there isn't a contradiction. You clearly have absolutely no understanding of how science works if you can't wrap your head around this concept.
>>11507194
>there are too many contradicting and outlandish theories on matters too far beyond reasonable observation
Such as?
>they are unironically surprised and bamboozled about things happening so close to us.
Yes, it is possible to observe things farther away and then only later discover something that is at a closer distance. How can you not grasp this concept? It's like saying, "how can you know what a rock looks like if you don't even know what atoms look like?"
>Apparently you are too emotionally invested to actually see a bigger picture here\
There it is; when you lack any argument you just say that I'm emotionally invested and don't see the bigger picture. It's quite clear that I see a lot more of the picture than you given that I've learned this stuff.
>there are about a dozen or so more important things to do and fund than...
The same can be said about literally everything aside from a dozen things; it's not a good argument for any specific thing. Also, no one is pumping endless amounts of money into astrophysics - compared to a significant amount of things, it gets peanuts.
>getting "dark matter did it" as answer.
Please stop touting your lack of knowledge. It might be lauded on /x/ and /pol/ but not here.

>>11506939
>I'm dumb and uneducated but here is my opnion anyways - the post

>>11507234
>is posting on 4chan
>propagates nonsense theories concocted by thumb twiddling mouth breathers playing with mathematical abstractions, that he knows no more about than anyone else, i.e. a cursory, pop-science understanding, all for Good ̶G̶o̶y̶ Boy Points and a smug sense of superiority
Go eat bugs.

https://discord.gg/FFwRXKq

>>11507062
>have to take their word for it doesn't take away from the evidence.
this is a weak argument

>>11507537
no, a weak argument is "I refuse to educate myself AND refuse to accept educated opinions therefore from my uneducated perspective the entire field is bs"

OP
>>I came here for an argument!