/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15402123
>Does crackpot physics like string theory and dark matter prove Musk wrong?
Those aren't physical laws, they're just grandiose delusions.

It's only a crackpot theory if it can't be matched together with any experimental results.

>>15402134
>dark matter is total BS goys!!!!
>muh MOND!!! muh QI!!!
kys pseud

>>15402123
Someone should tell him that the standard SI masses fluctuated so they redefined mass to mathematical constants which have no empirical basis and could be local phenomenon. Everything is a house of cards waiting for JWST to blow it over with data.

>>15402169
False.
The electromagnetic component of plant growth has been widely observed, yet it still considered crackpot and is ignored by the professional science community. I did some experiments of my own in the area, but I won't publish them because I don't feel like being targeted for cancelation by the midwit hivemind that is peer review

>>15402174
Where did I say anything about those other scams?

>>15402219
How else are you going to explain it?

>>15402237
We'll wait until we have better instruments to observe what is really there.

>>15402202
Dont get the image the days are different.

>>15402271
Magnetic fields make plants grow more quickly.

>Musk thread
HOLY FRIG
I FRIGGIN' LOVE SCIENCE SO FRIGGIN' MUCH
Edit: Thanks for the reddit gold, stranger!

>>15402279
Electromagnetic do the same? Magnetic different

>>15402174
Anyone that says pseud is a pseud

>>15402304
Are you ESL?

>>15402279
Do you have any numerical details? Have you accounted for extraneous variables? Are your results statistically significant?

>>15402123
Physical laws can be broken with the right discoveries. Mathematical laws, however, are laws because we know for a fact they are true.

>>15402248
NTA but isn't making guesses about what might be there part of the process of stumbling across those better instruments which enable us to make those observations? And "dark matter" is only a grandiose delusion if you take it to mean "matter with the intrinsic exotic property of being dark to our direct observations." If you instead take the phrase to mean "matter which is currently dark to our direct observations for some unknown reason," that seems to be sympatico with your functional approach.

>>15402184
>which have no empirical basis and could be local phenomenon
Are you sure about that
>In May 2019 when the revised definition of the kilogram is implemented, it will be based on three fundamental constants: the Planck constant, the speed of light and the cesium atom’s natural microwave radiation
https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2018/11/historic-vote-ties-kilogram-and-other-units-natural-constants

>>15402310
Oh rlly?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems#Second_incompleteness_theorem

>>15402288
You're on the right board then if you like science

>>15402308
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3eMWLG7Rro

>>15402320
I'm asking for your own results, anon. Surely, you can share them with us?

>>15402312
>If you instead take the phrase to mean "matter which is currently dark to our direct observations for some unknown reason," that seems to be sympatico with your functional approach.
This still presumes that mystery matter is necessary and that gravity is the only organizing force in space.

>>15402123
>laws of physics can't be broken ... except for when it actually happens and then we have to call it "spontaneous symmetry breaking" and handwavily pretend that it's somehow a new law of physics

>>15402335
Spontaneous symmetry breaking is just a phase transition in the higg's field. This is perfectly explained by electroweak theory.

>>15402339
*higgs

>>15402322
I am not sharing the details of my private research with anyone for free, I will either profit from it or I will enjoy taking my secrets to my grave. The jealous peer review crab bucket isn't going to see it because I already know what the inevitable results of attempting that will be and I don't want to sabotage my academic career that way "to prove a point", I'd rather have the continued income and keep my secrets to myself.

>>15402310
Mathematics is just an abstraction with no inherent value. The overwhelming majority of mathematics was developed by people outside of mathematics who were looking for a new ways to analyze real world problems. Pascal & Fermat are claimed as cohorts by the current mathematical community, but in their lives they were gamblers and their interest in math stemmed from their desire to win money gambling.

>>15402355
>The overwhelming majority of mathematics was developed by people
Nah it was just one dude actually

>>15402355
>I am not sharing the details of my private research with anyone for free
LMAO! Proof for stfu.

>>15402355
>I am not sharing the details of my private research with anyone for free
LMAO! Proof for stfu.

>>15402306
>t. pseud

>>15402361
John Napier's work is misattributed to Euler. Romance languages don't make that mistake, its "constante de Néper" in French and some variation of that in all the others. Napier is the victim for irrational sympathy given to Euler. Napier was the more significant of the two.

>>15402333
>This still presumes that mystery matter is necessary
Fair point. It isn't necessary that the mystery factor be matter, that's an attempt at a parsimonious examination which itself introduces a new factor, i.e., darkness.
>and that gravity is the only organizing force in space
No, I think it would actually necessarily imply that some factor other than gravity influences the topology of space in such a way that produces the phenomenon of material darkness.

>>15402432
>No, I think it would actually necessarily imply that some factor other than gravity influences the topology of space in such a way that produces the phenomenon of material darkness.
That's the logical conclusion, but proponents of dark matter deny that electromagnetism has any impact on large-scale galactic symmetry.

>>15402438
>proponents of dark matter deny that electromagnetism has any impact on large-scale galactic symmetry
So propose a model in which electromagnetism explains why their dark matter is dark.

>>15402448
The basis for that model already exists in observational results. Galactic current sheets and the electromagnetic cosmic web show that no extra matter (and no "darkness") exist or need to exist, because obviously "bright" matter has structure in part due to large-scale electromagnetic effects.

>>15402307
Only pseud need extra words

>>15402432
No. Dark matter can be formulated as not directly interacting with EM. This calls for the extension of the standard model, not general relativity.

>>15402453
>no extra matter (and no "darkness") exist or need to exist
Imaginary numbers also don't need to exist. There are other ways of modeling that degree of freedom than complex numbers. Nonetheless the concept of imaginary numbers already exists, so it's used.

If you can make the model that explains the observed universe in terms of gravity plus electromagnetism, then you can define a translation between that model and the gravity plus dark matter model. That translation would, in effect, provide an explanation of why dark matter is dark. Since proponents of dark matter have no such explanation, they would concede.

>>15402465
>That translation would, in effect, provide an explanation of why dark matter is dark. Since proponents of dark matter have no such explanation, they would concede.
You're fundamentally misunderstanding the problem here.

engineering seems the most legit thing

>>15402461
>Dark matter can be formulated as not directly interacting with EM
The interaction I suggested would be indirect. EM isn't interacting with the dark matter. It's interacting with the partially ordered set we call spacetime, influencing that partial ordering. Dark matter is just ordinary matter that ends up not being on our chain in the poset, which is why we it's dark.
>This calls for the extension of the standard model, not general relativity.
I'm learning this as I go. I get that general relativity means using the speed of light as a fixed point rather than one's own point of observation, but you lose me at extending the standard model. Can you elaborate?

>>15402469
>You're fundamentally misunderstanding the problem here.
Possibly, but probably not in the way that you think. I get that you think that there is no extra matter. What I'm saying is, say hypothetically you have some set of equations that explains the observational results you mentioned a few posts ago. You could then find some dimensional analysis fudge factor which would account for the discrepancy between what the old, dark-matter model predicted and what your new, gravity plus electromagnetism model predicts with greater precision.

That dimensional analysis fudge factor would "explain why dark matter is dark," even though there is actually no dark matter.

>>15402370
I am a pseud and so is everyone else, but especially the people that call other people pseuds

>>15402490
>Dark matter is just ordinary matter that ends up not being on our chain in the poset
Essentially this means that dark matter is (in part) Berenstein Bears books and Fruit of the Loom undies with a cornucopia horn on the logo.

>>15402355
>The jealous peer review crab bucket isn't going to see it because I already know what the inevitable results of attempting that will be
classic Eric Weinstein logic

>>15402490
I think you're very confused about general relativity, there are good lectures online on the topic. By the 'standard model', I meant the standard model of particle physics.

>>15402174
There's a number of alternative dark matter theories and some of them are gaining traction
https://phys.org/news/2019-01-dark-alternative-theory.html
https://phys.org/news/2021-06-dark-real-misunderstood-gravity.html
One called MOND, which means MOdified Newtonian Dynamics, seemed to be popular for a while but it can't explain everything. Now there's a modified version of that which uses a kind of gravitational bubble that surrounds large amounts of gravity and the edge of the bubble has various effects. But they're essentially modifications to existing physics instead of inserting a theoretical new particle such as dark matter which I think is a better way to approach it overall

>>15402316
Have you measured x at all points in the universe? What is the furthest point away that x can be confirmed to be y? What is the empirical basis for calling it constant? To what degree of precision is it constant? 36 digits? 40?
Take the speed of light, used to define a meter: If two people were to construct the same meter sticks from the c definition and from different reference frames, what would their difference be when brought back to the same reference? Which one is the meter?
Don't even have to leave the solar system for that.
No, I think they choose easy answers to get science moving down the road and then retards want to take things as gospel instead of mathematical heuristics.
You will never π a real constant.

>>15402531
>I think you're very confused about general relativity
What's confusing? General relativity holds that c is constant within any possible frame of reference, right? So it's a fixed point in the space of all possible frames of reference.
>By the 'standard model', I meant the standard model of particle physics
That much I gathered, I meant what do you mean by extending it. I do think the concepts are related though. If, as a gross simplification, you imagine that spacetime is a Klein bottle, with time's arrow pointing along the route that goes 'inside' and back 'out' of the bottle. Then imagine that dark matter is just matter that's inside the bottle when you're outside and vise versa, and the same for dark energy with respect to normal energy. Then a particle's spin quantum number is an indicator of which way it's going with respect to the observer's frame of reference, despite the fact that both particle and observer are going the same way with respect to the surface of the Klein bottle i.e., spacetime.

>>15402355
Why do physicists have an annoyance of mathematics

>>15402598
>General relativity holds that c is constant within any possible frame of reference, right?
Wrong. C is guaranteed to be locally constant for all inertial observers.
>Then imagine that dark matter is just matter that's inside the bottle
So how would it interact with matter outside the bottle?

>>15402615
Every academic discipline views those disciplines which are applications of its own subject as its rightful inferiors, while simultaneously viewing the abstraction of their own discipline as an illegitimate superior.

>>15402619
It's ONLY guranteed that. An observer hovering above a gravitational field will see light slow down as it approaches the massive body.

Musk making more bombastic statements about educational discipline, this time on television.
He really seem like he wants to become more of a public personality, possibly with political aspirations.
https://twitter.com/alx/status/1652138734156914691

>>15402123
He's wrong, and is pretending to sound smart.

"physics" or truth as he puts it is meaningless.
What's important is the pursuit of truth! That is to say, what' important is the process that takes place, and not the end result.

Getting bogged down in what is true and what isn't is a great way to box yourself into limited thinking and create a closed mind. The process of testing what is true, figuring stuff out, figuring out how a thing, literally anything can be thought of as true, that is the deep mental exercise that is more important than anything that can be read in a physics text book. It is infinity more important, and I'm tired of people pretending it's not. I'm tired of people pretending they're smart misleading them because they can use doctrine as a cudgel of scientific authority and power. It needs to stop.

>>15402619
>C is guaranteed to be locally constant for all inertial observers
I assume your point is that for any actual observer there's a margin of error separating them from a true inertial observer? That's a good point, but it doesn't change c being a fixed point.
>So how would it interact with matter outside the bottle?
Assume the bottle is permeable to gravity but not to EM. Then matter on the inside of the bottle would interact with matter outside gravitically, but would not be directly observable.

>>15402619
>>15402665
If we're on the outside of the bottle, and the point where the inside becomes the outside again is the big bang, then D, the dark matter that's gravitationally interacting with us now, is matter in our future. Let A be the distance between the Big Bang and now, let B be the distance between now and the future inversion point - when we go from being outside the bottle to being inside. Then D exits at a time that's at least A+2B years into our future. Dark matter is supposed to be very diffusely distributed, right? That would explain why. It's pretty far along towards the heat death of the universe. (Of course, heat death doesn't occur because the matter on the outside of the bottle also influences the matter on the inside, imparting structure culminating in a Big Crunch cyclic cosmology.)

>>15402707
>Then D exits at a time that's at least A+2B years into our future.
Although actually, I guess if you're an idealist then D is at least 2B into the future, and A+2B if you're a materialist. And if you're a dualist then it's dark fluid. (Meaning, it depends on whether you assume we are matter influenced by energy, or if we're energy influencing matter, or both.)

>>15402636
Are you saying philosophy is more important than science? Because science is all about the results. Everything is results and those results were built on prior results and new research is compared against old results and then new results are published and awards are given based on results and grants are given to achieve results and so on

>>15402310
Even assuming those crackpot theories were right, they woulnd't be breaking the laws of physics, they'd just be proving our knowledge about physics lacking.

>>15402636
>navel gazing pseud strawman
*sigh*

>>15402386
retard alert

>>15402123
He's equivocating/comparing apples and oranges, because the common word, by an accident of linguistics, is homophonic. The word "law" has a very different meaning when used in "laws of physics" compared to its use in a polity's legal setting.

>>15402845
>Because science is all about the results.
This change in mentality among the scientific world is the cause of the replication crisis.

Science (noun) does not exist without science (verb)
The better the science (verb) the better the science (noun)
These two things have a correlation but a very specific and unique one. Let me explain:

If you have exceptional science (noun) it is the direct result of exceptional science (verb). This is true 100% of the time.
It IS technically possible to have exceptional science (noun) with poor science (verb), but this situation would only happen in pseudoscience that just so happens to be lucky and get it right.

You can have poor science (noun) and poor science (verb).
And you can have poor science (noun) with excellent science (verb).

I believe the problem is this last statement. >you can have poor science (noun) with excellent science (verb)
Somehow you assume one invalidates the other, such as the case with pseudoscience, but disagree. Even when science (verb) produces no desirable result you are still actively engaging, participating, practicing which means you're also improving. So which is better, which is more important? You know my answer.
Personally I believe we should all be taught in a way that ignores science (noun) and doesn't even try to teach it till a certain grade level. Hide the text books and encyclopedias from the children and instead teach them how to discover truth on their own with science (verb) and once they have a firm grasp of that, then and only then give them the keys to the books/encyclopedias. I firmly believe any other way of doing this is dooming our society to a scientific collapse.... and we are doing it a different way...and there is a problem in science today that's people are JUST starting to notice. Not too late I hope, but I am afraid it might be.

>>15402123
t.engineer
Never broke hooke's law? Really? Never?

>>15403701
Ok show me how to break the laws of physics.

>>15402123
Musk is a retard, physics is nothing more than a guess.

>>15402288
Upboated. I just can't even with how some chuds don't trust the science. They cling to myths debunked by fact checkers.

>>15403722
>>15403705

>>15403705
Stretch a spring beyond the region where the small change in equilibrium approximation is no longer leading to [math] \vec{F}=-k(\vec{r} - \vec{r}_0)[/math] resulting in [math] U=\frac{1}{2}k|\vec{r}-\vec{r}_0|^2 [/math] it really isn't that large compared to [math] \vec{r}_0[/math]

>>15402202
How did you experiment with it? I agree that journalist war dogs aso will hunt you, if you publish this. True in many fields.

>>15403722
The problem with scoyence fags is that they forget, scoyence doesn't exist outside of human brains and senses, scoyentists aren't oracles speaking the word of scoyence.
Technology is completely different thing from scoyence. It's product of intelligence trial , error and exploration combined with measurement.

>>15402123
He's right but physics aren't 100% "true" in biological experiments

>>15403846
Read this>>15403722 and this>>15403756

>>15403756
they like that because they're low iq

imagine the emotional conflict in the redditiers when musk says something positive about soience

>>15402635
good video

>>15402123

Physics and math is simply our language to describe the spacetime representation that we overlay over immaterial reality.

>>15402123
I never understand how to read twitter screencaps. Should I read top or bottom first? Both ways usually make sense in the sense that it never makes sense.

>>15402635
heres the whole interview
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1652849795336159233

>>15403705
measure galactic rotation curves and try and correlate them with st. einstein's jewish version of newton's laws of motion

>>15402123
Really bad take. The kind of people that like to think there is some absolute truth written in math and physics are the same people that will reject new ideas and explanations that challenge what is the common consensus.
How can he say the laws of physics are impossible to break, if just a hundred years ago things like Newtonian physics were proven broken everywhere? Even calling them laws is retarded.

>>15402123
(((their))) physics

>>15402288
>>15403729
Redditors absolutely despise Elon musk you diaper shitting retards

The truth is Science and Atheism are utterly retarded and super easy to debunk like a trumpian-russian fake news: you have atheists who claim that immaterial math formulas they themselves invented run the material universe every millisecond across billions of light years, since 13 billions years ago LOL. how is this not retarded.
Oh and by the way, when they are asked to say where do those immaterial formulas live and where they come from and how they act on matter, they can't fucking answer, can they?
If the universe is uncaused then why does it have physical laws that it must follow? Clearly those laws are actually imposed on the universe.
Ask an atheist how a photon, stemming from the annihilation of an electrons and a positron , knows that it has to follow Maxwell's rules, as soon as the photon comes into existence whereas what they call ''physical laws'' are not found inside their tiny particles (inside particles there are just other particles lmao who scripted this crap).... Just ask him. And I can tell you what you will observe, because it's true cause and effect: the atheist will be in his most vulnerable state, drymouthed, sweating profusely, hands trembling, in a state of intense anguish, because he knows he has no comeback. Zero. Jack shit. At this point in time, the atheist is consumed by a fear that is darker than the terror of death, which will never leave him until he dies.
You know how atheists say a bunch of deformed illiterate inbreds rolling in shit, beating their children and women anthropomorphized Nature when they said gods were an amalgamation of the base fears of early humans. Well since the day a few atheist bugmen created computers, they are saying the universe is like their high-school calculators too, but bigger lol. That's their big brain idea and that's how dumb atheists are lol.

>>15408866
>who claim that immaterial math formulas they themselves invented run the material universe every millisecond across billions of light years, since 13 billions years ago
This is not what is claimed
The claim is simply that it is possible to use mathematics and natural languages model and predict the behavior of observed phenomena. It's not any deeper than that.
If you disagree with this then you are claiming you can't use language to describe things.

>>15402123
Both paragraphs suffer from epistemological issues.
The first part (physics is trying to understand truths etc) is too vague
and the second is a slight of hand. People write down "laws" and when they fail, they write down different "laws". There's no laws that are so established that breaking them in unthinkable.

>>15402123
String theory is jewish nonsense that can safely be ignored.
Dark matter is probably just measurement error.

>>15409776
Accurate.

>>15408866

>you have atheists who claim that immaterial math formulas they themselves invented run the material universe every millisecond across billions of light years, since 13 billions years ago LOL. how is this not retarded.
Those people aren't atheists, they think they're god. Atheism and narcissism are tightly linked.
"There is no god" and "there is nobody with a greater understanding of the universe than myself" are essentially the same idea

>>15409776
Dark matter is probably particles falling into a black hole stretched into galaxy sized wavelwngths.

>>15410993
How would that increase mass?

>>15405773
you can see it in this very thread, people bend over backwards to express that he just doesn't know what he's saying so he doesn't even know how to be pro science correctly.

https://youtu.be/eJK1gLHbOxA?t=1136
https://youtu.be/52dVfhgt_T4?t=694

>>15402355
>The jealous peer review crab bucket isn't going to see it because I already know what the inevitable results of attempting that will be and I don't want to sabotage my academic career that way
What you're saying is that there was no rigour in your experiments? That's fine. However, you should have no difficulty is selling your solution for a very obvious problem. Farmers will be queuing for your inventions.

Otherwise, I call bullshit on you already.

>>15411456
You're just jealous, just another toxic envious crab in the crab bucket, doing everything your tiny little emotional brain can think up in order to halt progress and maintain the status quo

>>15402123
Don't like newtonian physics break down and don't work on quantum level?

>>15402123
isnt breaking "physics law" just mean the physics law wasnt understood completely?

>>15402123
Powerful.

>>15412695
No, breaking just means braking and nothing else

>>15412711
Hi GPT-3

>>15402123
Elon Musk is unironically stupid. He is a few steps below Dr. Space Nigger and that's a deep burn. He's a fucking midwit born rich and gifted with the world's best PR team. Physicists are cry baby faggots and any or all of their laws can and will be broken. Over the shards of their life's work they will weep like the pathetic wax winged hubris addicts they are. Idiots are thinking in X dimensions not realizing there are infinite dimensions.

>>15412791
the n word is racist

>>15412670
I've seen some anecdotes backing up your claim, FWIW- electroculture is still practiced by a few groups in France; and a guy on twitter I follow did a weird small study where he got a higher seed germination rate after putting the seeds in a magnetic field.
> https://thegardenstrust.blog/2021/09/04/electroculture/
I don't fully understand the magnetic field only effects (and I have an EE degree, go figure), and I don't think any wide scale study was ever done. The electrical ones, it might be increasing ion flow in the soil and liberating more useful minerals for plants in the process; but that's just a hypothesis.

>>15415146
Develop a hypothesis, test it experimentally, observe the results, thats how its all supposed to work, but this area of inquiry had been branded "crackpot science" by academia, so the posers pretending to be scientists will reject or ignore any inquiries in this area. They're too uniformly image conscious to allow themselves to be associated with anything crackpot, too certain that they already know whats what to countenance this area of inquiry or anyone who involves themselves with it. They don't care about rejecting potentially valuable new information or standing in the way of progress, they pride themselves as the gatekeepers of knowledge and they're utterly positive that nobody else other than themselves could possibly ever have any worthwhile ideas.

>>15408695

>>15402174
Dark matter was invented to account for mathematical inconsistenciss with BBT cosmology. Since JWST has already thoroughly refuted BBT with it's findings that date massive galaxies to dates incompatible with the model, it follows the existence of dark matter should be disputed entirely too. The most logical explanation is a steady state hypothesis but this upsets religious people fearful of an infinite regress wanting a primum moves to say God did it.

>>15415566
BBT & dark matter are irrefutable because they are soience dogma and because cosmology isn't science, cosmology is religion.

>>15415566
>Dark matter was invented to account for mathematical inconsistenciss with BBT cosmology.
No. Dark matter was initially hypothesized to explain anomalous galaxy rotation curves, it has since been demonstrated by gravitational lensing, bullet clusters and peaks in the CMB spectrum.

>>15416994
>i see phantoms everywhere
mental illness

Hilarious to see the brainwashed IFLS crowd turn around and start shitting on physics the second Elon says something good about it

>>15402320
good video

>>15417713
reactionairies

>>15402318
Yeah? Kurt "I only believe in a priori truth" Gödel would agree.

>>15402202
amazing they don't care to study and work with results like that

>>15416994
>demonstrated
Nice try but nope. The experiment isn't falsifiable.

>>15417713

>>15415200
I think the problem with this is funding. If you don't have some kind of theoretical backing for why something could work then it's a hard sell to get funding. Or you could carry out the experiment already and show results but then why would you need funding? And frankly the funders are right to be skeptical of random hypotheses without rigorous backing, even if they could have the possibility of creating new avenues of research.

That + the fear of being labelled crackpot is probably what stymies scientists from straying too far from the current paradigm.

>>15407853
Top is the original post. The bottom is the reply. You probably get confused because people also post "quote retweets" (QRTs) in which case you will see the original post as a bubble underneath the reply. It's kind of retarded.

t. twitterfaggot

>>15420952
The first article FreeBeacon points out in their own article, this new york times one, actually doesn't mention the perpetrator was black. It also says they're looking for the gunman
https://archive.is/clJlg

Then a few days later, the new york times writes another article, this time it mentions the perpetrator was black. There's actually several follow up articles mentioning the perpetrator was black from the new york times
https://archive.is/d9TYu

This brings into question everything the FreeBeacon is saying along with that chart. How do we know they're not cherry picking out the articles where the perpetrators race isn't known yet but then is mentioned in follow up articles. And how do we know the opposite isn't being done for the other races. I'm not specifically sticking up for black vs white or anything but any time I see stats like that that aren't from like pew research or something then I look into them myself, regardless of what race it is, they're sus. You've really gotta check this shit and clearly Elon is happy to back anything that's mainstream contrarian but have no doubt that a lot of them are bullshitters too

>>15421331
>i come to 4chan.org to defend the ny times from criticism

>>15417713
Its just programmed responses from the herd lol. The elites propaganda runs deep and wide.

>>15420952
!

>>15421331
so they hide the truth when its breaking headline news and only start honestly portraying it days later when its a page 14 story and everyone has already stopped paying attention

>>15413376
racists can't do science, they're irrational

>>15421605
>so they hide the truth
well we don't know. I guess you can assume that if you want, but the article says multiple times that
>they're looking for the gunman
which to me means they don't have all the information, perhaps including the race. And they wrote several follow up articles where they mentioned the perpetrator was black, so if they were trying to hide it they didn't really hide it very well by telling everyone. I don't know if it would be "page 14" news, as news on the internet is usually sorted with the most recent news at the top of the list, so I'd assume people would see it as much as any other new article

>>15421469
like i said, i'm going to criticize any information I think looks biased or incorrect. So many claims on the internet these days are BS that you need to check everything. You can selectively give certain media outlets a free pass because they agree with your cognitive biases if you want, but I like to check things because a lot of the time things aren't as they seem. If i checked the original tweet posted and it looked correct then I probably would have said something in support of it instead. But it looks biased, or at least the data looks like it might have some problems, based on what I saw

Interestingly those Israelis were shilling right-wing talking points, so you'd probably get along with them, i don't know
>The report doesn’t give details of any UK office. But it does name UK lobby group We Believe in Israel and the far-right group Sussex Friends of Israel as among its “partnerships.”
https://electronicintifada.net/content/inside-israels-million-dollar-troll-army/27566

>>15422777
>the new york times has no biases as is never wrong

>>15402123
>law
the inept shall hang from the rope of nomenclature

>>15402123
>oh no, musk said something good about physics
>reeeeeeeeee that makes me angry, musk is the enemy, i hate physics now
musk should sing the praises of breathing

>>15402526
?

>>15423609
Global cooling as a result of increased atmospheric CO2 is inevitable

>>15402123
How do I invest in physics? Seems to be the next big thing if Musk supports it.

>>15426117
Was a joke, but it means that dark matter is ordinary matter in paths through spacetime which aren't accessible from our current location on our current path through spacetime (assuming we even share such a path). The post you replied to references the idea that many people seem to share memories that were formed in a different "timeline" where some facts, like the spelling of author's names and corporate logos, were slightly different. If that were true (which I don't seriously believe) then the matter content of that different timeline would be dark matter with respect to our own timeline.

>>15426681
corner the market on torsion pendulums

ppl without university brainwashing smarter than everyone else again

>>15428484

>>15426681
Short gravity. It will go down, any day now.

>>15417713
its funny because its true

>>15422777
>https://electronicintifada.net/
http://shill-site.org

>>15429671
not worth it, when gravity goes down all the o2 will escape our atmosphere making money kinda useless

>>15432546
Money will be even more important then, cause you'll need to buy oxygen

>musk says something nice about physics
>/pol/ chimps out massively screeching "reeeeee!! i hate physics"
i wish you ppl would gtfo /sci/ and leave us to discuss science without your constant off topic /pol/ shilling

>>15402123
ELON MUSK IS AN ILLITERATE FAGGOT SHABBOS GOY SCUM!!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive

>>15434618

>>15434601
its discord trannys who are doing that

>>15434862
>anti-matter
>time dialation [sic]
>relativity
What? All of those are experimentally verified.

>>15415566
>Since JWST has already thoroughly refuted BBT Stupid sceince matra. BBT is total bullshit can be refuted in a one liner and the only reason suddenly a new telescope has found blabla is because the ever lying science scammers see that this bullshit theory isn't a working scam anymore.

>>15436284
>>>/x/

>>15415566
they can still fix it by reducing the hubble constant or getting rid of the inflation garbage

>>15402386
>pseuds don't know about Napier's bbc

>>15438604
they need inflation
without it they'd have to admit that "dark energy" was a lie

>>15439156
or his rod

>>15415566
>JWST has already thoroughly refuted BBT
fake & gay

>>15402386
>he thinks the constant is the only relevant thing Euler did.
you have no fucking idea

>>15441061
napier invented the decimal point