/sci/ - Science & Math

Science was replaced with soience a long time ago

>>15382183
Yes

>>15382159
Science isn't ending, we just need another scientific revolution. Academics have become what scholastics were in the 1700s. People who actually want to gain knowledge need to do so outside of academia.

>>15382220
Flat earth theory is a conspiracy to make people outside of academia look stupid.

>>15382159
>opinionated retard decides to share his opinion on a subject he doesn't even understand on a basic level

Many such cases. I hate to break to you, since I know incel often struggle with anything that challenges their narrow and simplistic worldview, but science isn't ending. Science will go on as long as there are people who value truth and progress more than tradition, ignorance, and superstition. Moreover, incels like you will always continue to hate science, and hate everything else you don't understand, and people who are actually smart will continue to ignore you guys, and will be better off for it.

Science may change, but science deniers always seem to stay the same.

>>15382305
>Science may change, but science deniers always seem to stay the same.
Narcissistic personality disorder. Pathological need to feel special combined with no or nearly no actual ability, and so these people gravitate to wherever they can get the most attention. Whether the beliefs are paranoid or confident delusion depends on the type of narcissism it is.

Historically this manifested as extreme superstition, mostly as the ability to control events. Magic, paranormal, etc. Extreme confidence in the state of affairs based on no actual knowledge or learning or personal efforts. It's especially bad in narcissists with low IQ, or narcissists with very bad numeracy ability or skills.

>>15382305
You are a tranny and ugly ewww and stupid you are not a scientist and never can be

>>15382305
>>>/pol/

>>15382159
>Joe Horgan
Never liked him.

viruses don't exist

>>15382159
The guy has a pretty shit and inaccurate take on current physics. However, it does seem the primary route in fundamental physics has met its end, even so there's still plenty of weird unexplained phenomena to tackle (dark-matter, neutrino oscillations etc.), however unrelated, it may lead to paradigm-shifting results (such as in the case of the UV catastrophe).

>>15382429
>dark-matter
Dark matter is like making up an imaginary friend and then convincing yourself your imaginary friend is the cause of all the problems in your life because there is no other explanation. Science version of the God of the gaps I guess

>>15382577
Unlike God, there's an intensive search for it, and research on modified cosmological models.

>>15382650
There's still some scientists that admit the theories of gravity could be wrong thankfully. There's alternatives to dark matter that produce basically the same results without making up imaginary matter. Still a work in progress
https://phys.org/news/2021-06-dark-real-misunderstood-gravity.html

>>15382723
Why are you so against dark matter? Modified GR fails to explain all these seperate observations in galaxy rotation, gravitational lensing, cmb and bullet clusters together.

>>15382429
>The guy has a pretty shit and inaccurate take on current physics.
You can say that again. I just looked at some of his articles and he has the anthropic principle totally backwards. He thinks we use it to say something about life being special but its the exact opposite; You invoke the anthropic principle to explain why laws that gave rise to a perceiver which (somewhat) understands them exist. It isn't pretty, but its more or less saying that this value works like this because if it hadn't, then there would have likely been no minds to ever measure the particular value.

I know the logic is a little 3deep5me and the payoff is subtle but I would expect a science journalist to at least get closer.

>>15382934
Why are you so for dark matter? You could just as well say it's invisible fairy floss that has special gravitational properties that's causing all of this. They've already just about exhausted all methods of detecting dark matter. Maybe it is real but I think it's good there's people looking into the possibility there's problems with the assumptions about the fundamental properties of gravity

>>15382650
cosmology isn't a science, its a belief system. science has disprovable theories and repeatable experiments

>>15383170
Because we know the properties of matter and not invisible fairies. If you're opposed to induction merely because it's induction, then you hate science. "Thing like what we know but is hard to detect" is a lot simpler of a leap than "gravity is wrong in a way we can't explain", and even so plenty of people are working on all these things anyway. Nobody, so far, has succeeded one way or other.

Nothing about dark matter is magical or unscientific. It is simply the fact that whatever it "really is" it doesn't reflect or emit light to be detectable and galaxies differ WILDLY in ways that are best explained by different quantities of such matter. That, too, is a lot simpler than "gravity differs wildly for no reason". Go ahead and solve it if you think you're so smart. Dark matter is just a placeholder.

>>15383204
holy triggered. Why do I personally have to prove it myself using an alternative method just to have that opinion when what you're claiming it is is also hypothetical, bit of a double standard there. But if you spend any time looking up alternative theories you'll find there's often scientists looking at alternatives after many years of searching for dark matter and finding nothing
https://phys.org/news/2019-01-dark-alternative-theory.html
https://www.quantamagazine.org/modified-gravity-theory-passes-a-critical-test-20200728
https://bigthink.com/hard-science/dark-matter-theory/

>>15382159
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEgS5lSZ61s
Science doesn't matter only consensus

>>15383227
>emotional projection
weird cope just because someone disagrees with your hot take but okay
>alternative method just to have that opinion when what you're claiming it is is also hypothetical, bit of a double standard there.
False equivalence. >>15383204 "Because we know the properties of matter and not invisible fairies."
>But if you spend any time looking up alternative theories you'll find there's often scientists looking at alternatives after many years of searching for dark matter and finding nothing
That is exactly what I wrote. >>15383204 "and even so plenty of people are working on all these things anyway. Nobody, so far, has succeeded one way or other."

Anyway, "You could just as well say it's invisible fairy floss" is bullshit. Enough said. If you think otherwise go solve the problem with your brilliance. If you can't, it's pretty obvious people are justified in describing it so far as dark matter as explained, and your contrarianism on the subject is just for the sake of being contrary.

>>15382220
>"The Earth a Plane"
>big nogger on the front
>"Does the Earth Rotate? No!"
>star of david at the top

Might wanna review your well-poisoning slop a bit more carefully next time, Schlomo. Shabbat shalom!

>>15382159
Modern science is literally a religion now. It's over for soifags.

Luckily I make a lot of money off of retarded sois and SJWs who believe modern science lol

>>15383277
I miss that day when Israel got rocketed to hell
board quality across the site was wonderful for that brief window

>>15382335
>https://phys.org/news/2021-06-dark-real-misunderstood-gravity.html

I believe NPD is insufficient to explain the phenomenon. NPD is only 6% of the population according to the psychiatry industry (although the psychiatry industry is not a reliable source of information.)

Anyway, my theory is it is cultural indocrination, mainly from evangelicals. At an early age these people are conditioned to obey the ingroup. If their church says that climate change is a hoax that's whatever they will believe.

So psychological speaking, the type of people you are looking at are those who have a strong need to feel as part of their group. And/or people who tend to let other people do their thinking for them. And/or gullible people.

>>15383204
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEgS5lSZ61s

Disagree. Dark matter seems to be a placeholder for equations that don't work. Dark matter is like the kid at recess who when you LARP with them, always has an excuse as to why your attacks never got them to 0 hp, or the boss battle where the boss just grows another health meter once you get them to 0 hp.

Its an indicator the theory doesn't work. Really a theory needs to be widely consistent. For instance if you have a faulty theory (like flat earth or geocentrism, but flat earth for instance.) In a lot of reference frames flat earth seems to be true. You have to seek out reference frames that invalidate the theory (for instance, being 60 miles above the horizon to disprove flat earth.) If a theory appears to be true in common reference frames but not true in all reference frames then its not a theory of absolute reality. Flat earth appears to be in common reference frames, but not all reference frames. So it is useful for small tasks like Microsoft flight sim which uses the flat earth model, or computer games, but is not that useful in modelling space equipment and such. This could be said for other theories, for instance Newtonian Mechanics. Its useful for small engineering projects but at the quantum level, atoms are probably not literal billiard balls. (Or maybe they are, idk lol.)

>>15384341
Sounds like leftists and gender, race, and dozens of other topics where their ideology trumps reality.

>>15382159
Technology and Innovation is definitely ending as IQ keeps declining. All we are left with illiterate schizo zealots like this >>15382305
We have definitely hit a plateau as far as widening the horizons is considered.

>>15384341
Self-selection. Entirely possible for a small minority to grossly over-represent in magical thinking, particularly given disorders that present consistently with "magical thinking".
>>15384351
>Dark matter seems to be a placeholder for equations that don't work.
Alright. How would you explain observational evidence demonstrating offset behaviors like you'd expect from matter, then? For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster

Even so, yes, it is possible to be wrong in any case. Just not for the reasons you're reaching for. Inferring "something else that behaves exactly like matter but isn't" is far less sensible absent good cause or evidence. Many alternatives people dream up, such as you postulate regarding analogy to reference frames, do not work as their necessary conclusions are false. There are plenty of other examples like the bullet cluster, and where various alternatives are proposed they fail to explain all the observations or make predictions. The only one that does? Dark matter. You don't have to like it, but it remains the most parsimonious explanation.

Most of Theoretical science is basically educated guesswork, significant part of it is outright BS, specially physics.
We stopped Experimentation in Physical Science long ago.
R&D in various other areas such as Materials, Rocketry, Nuclear Energy, Computing has stalled because "Expanding Horizons" is now considered Imperialistic, Racist and Fascist. Sterility, Mediocrity and Degrowth are the new Gods.

>>15384383
Dark matter refers to a form of matter they don't understand.

"The third component, the dark matter, was detected indirectly by the gravitational lensing of background objects"
They did not detect any dark matter directly, they just indirectly infer and speculate about it.

The alternative is the theory of Gravity is wrong, there is no "dark matter", just a new theory of Gravity is needed.

>>15384442
>The alternative is the theory of Gravity is wrong, there is no "dark matter", just a new theory of Gravity is needed.
So I linked a summary where you find multiple citations, from multiple authors, continuously confirming over the years how none of the alternative ideas of gravity explain exactly this observation. Your response? "Yeah but muh gravity wrong".

If you don't realize how colossally stupid that was there's no hope for you. What part of "behaves exactly like matter, NOT GRAVITY" do you not understand?

>>15384383
The thing is, dark matter is not an explanation. Why its called dark matter is because it doesn't explain anything, its called dark because they dont understand it.

>>15384383
>cause
Interesting to see a materialist use that word.

>>15384448
This is horseshit. All I see is a wikipedia wall of text full of nerd babble and some mentions of MOND (modified newtonian dynamics). Aether based theories (or based aether theories) aren't even mentioned in the article.

>>15384454
It's called "dark" because it isn't visible. It is very clearly and clearly evidenced as behaving exactly like matter. We just don't know exactly what kind because dark. As in not visible.

>>15384459
Ah. You lot are retarded. That explains it.

>>15384383
Your NPD theory is bunk, that's what. Atheism is a relatively knew trend and for the most part, the mass majority of humanity was delusional for centuries. This is inconsistent with NPD being only 6% of the population. Unless you believe that 90% of the population has NPD which is more plausible.

>>15384460
>>>
50 years from now i will be proven right and society will see your "dark matter" nonsense as the horseshit as it is.

If you believe dark matter is a form of matter can you tell me why it's invisible and normal matter interacts with light? Of course not because you don't know what it is, you're just a cosmology fag like the rest of the circlejerkers.

>>15384465
>If you believe dark matter is a form of matter can you tell me why it's invisible and normal matter interacts with light?
You are basically denying abiogenesis on the basis we don't know which of the numerous plausible mechanisms were the originating process, in spite of the fact every single mechanism has been demonstrated to work in some fashion. The problem is not a lack of possible explanation with respect to matter, the problem is determining exactly which one is really the explanation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Theoretical_classifications
So basically, per usual, science haters don't even do a child's level of reading about anything they criticize.
>Of course not because you don't know what it is, you're just a cosmology fag like the rest of the circlejerkers.
I'm sorry you hate science and regress to the level of flat earther to feel smug, but there's nothing wrong nor circlejerking about pursuing the simplest and most parsimonious explanation.

>>15382159
The biggest problem in science over the past 500 years wasnt the lack of geniuses, we had a pretty good stream of them. The biggest problem was observation, if you asked a question then you could reasonably expect to design an experiment and get an answer. It was this way for the past few thousand years even, and later on the problem shifted to technology, so you would have needed a particle accelerator to confirm, but we still had a reasonable way to answer it.

What's happened since the 70s however, is that we're running out of questions with physical answers. Everything's been done already, all the particles discovered, all the principles of gravity, etc. They can only be discovered once. The questions we do have have to have giant telescopes for them which take 14 year to make, or even bigger particle accelerators. There are no more low hanging fruit.

Indeed it appears we have reached the limits of the physical world. The future of science will be in a fluorescent lit room on a chalkboard vs actually observing the world.

>>15384495
Dark matter is woo woo fairy dust.

What I love is the scientific method. Cosmology fags embrace soiscience nothing more. Dark matter is invisible cannot be detected and is not science.

You start with a false-premise (dark matter) and introduce a strawman (MOND) that is easily disproven so your theory looks more credible. And reject all other theories of gravity while clinging on to your presumption. Alternative explanation: Maybe gravity does not follow a straight linear trajectory which would explain why the lensing indicates a off center gravitational field. Or other reasons that are beyond the comprehension of the cosmology cultists.

And because i dont have a solid understanding yet or a properly formulated rebuttal you'll just say im wrong and go back to your fantasy dust dark matter. WHEN chances are I will be proven right in 50 years by AI BECAUSE NO HUMAN ON EARTH IS PROBABLY GOING TO MAKE A THEORY OF GRAVITY ON THEIR OWN...certainly not in the limited 24 hr timespan of this message board. And because im unable to convince you with a coherent theory of my own you'll automatically gravitate back to the same retarded theories of dark matter and whatever other buzzwords the soi science jacks off to these days.

>>15382159
>>15384533
This is to say the age of enlightenment... is probably over. We have entered a new age without realizing it, the age of uh, inversion. Instead of looking outwards towards the natural world, we must look inwards towards the theories we already have, an "inversion" if you will.

I made this thread to bump a shitty attention-whore thread off the catalog, meanwhile niggas actually discussing shit in it.

>>15384618
Says a lot about the state of discussion when a shitpost has more worth