/sci/ - Science & Math

https://www.thedailybeast.com/joe-rogan-boosted-a-bad-space-study-but-its-scientists-who-are-paying-the-price

The entire article is a hoot! "Mainstream scientists" are rabid dogs grown over the rotting corpse of big bang theory. The article is pure seeth and cope. Give it a read!

>>15598888
>The entire article is a hoot! "Mainstream scientists" are rabid dogs growling over the rotting corpse of big bang theory. The article is pure seeth and cope. Give it a read!

>>15598891
why did you just quote his post verbatim?

>>15598882
>Joe Rogan retweeted some dumb pajeet's pet science theory, he's so based!

/sci/ went mainstream

has science ever studied derangement syndromes? because rogan derangement syndrome is a very real and debilitating affliction apparently

>>15600485
joe rogaine

>oh no muh innocent soientists !!
>its not fair!!!
>they don't deserve to suffer
they can just cope by fucking their pet dog, not that they wouldn't have fucked their dog anyway, but maybe now they'll do it twice

>>15598882
Heresy!

>>15598882
i member when scientists used to gladly go and debate and engage with the rest of the public. the sad part is that this wasn't even that long ago. but i guess that was when reality conformed to the scientific community's stance, like with evolution. now the scientific community is overrun with disingenuous midwit grant whores who spout whatever propanganda nonsense the ruling class that enslaved them with some delusional numbers on a shitty banking app tells them to.

>>15601041
That was before bad faith debate me bros used their platforms to spread disinformation and damage cognitive infrastructure, solely motivated by the grift.

>>15598888
>Rogan and Musk ... chipping away at one of the last bastions of pure science—the space sciences.

Pic related.

Joe Rogan isn't an independent journalist so whatever agency has ordered him to go against the mainstream knows what it's doing.
>But He'S inDePeNdENT
No, he isn't lol.

>>15601069
>That was before bad faith debate me bros used their platforms to spread disinformation and damage cognitive infrastructure, solely motivated by the grift.

Wow you actually wrote that without a hint of awareness

>>15601087
>Pic related.

Imagine telling Elon that he's the one holding back space science.

>>15601090
>Joe Rogan isn't an independent journalist so whatever agency has ordered him to go against the mainstream knows what it's doing.

Lol. Wat. Rogan has fu money. Not saying he's perfect, but to insinuate that he's more bought off than the fcking Daily Beast... holy kek bro

>>15601090
>Joe Rogan isn't an independent journalist so whatever agency has ordered him to go against the mainstream knows what it's doing.

Ah yes, the diabolical plot to question big bang theory so that people to reject the vaccine. Do you clowns even listen to yourselves?

Why does mainstream normie slop hate theoreticians so much? Allah forbid we try to better understand the universe.

>>15602020
>Why does mainstream normie slop hate theoreticians so much?

Because big bang is u ironically the biggest mistake in the history or science, and when it ultimately comes crashing down it will take countless careers and indeed the entire Nobel Committee with it.

>>15601041
debate and science are two separate skills. you can't expect every physics autist to be able to handle themselves well in a conversation.

>>15602023
> big bang is u ironically the biggest mistake in the history or science
It wasn't a mistake, it was a conscious effort to replace the book of Genesis with an identical tale that removed God's involvement from the narrative. It was concocted as a means of separating people from the traditional beliefs which protected them from tyranny
>Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.

>>15603386
and then the dementors took all of the evil wizards to azkaban.

>>15601909
no, they're mentally ill

>>15603386
Didn't do a very good job at protecting then did it.

>>15601041
>>i member when scientists used to gladly go and debate and engage with the rest of the public.
No, not really? A few media whores like Dawkins used to do that, but most scientists never did.

>>15602074
Yes, I can, because that's part of informing the public. If you can't do it, stick to flipping burger.

Why do chuds hate the Trump vaccine anyway?

>>15603548
conservatives are afraid of everything. they're like little babies.

The traditional scientific method was created as a response to the old discipline of natural philosophy. Rather than studying ancient texts and venerating "the greats", the scientific method broke free of all that by rejecting dogma. And dealing only with experimentally verified models for understanding the world. No indisputable facts. Everything can be questioned, the models are constantly being refined, amended, changed or discarded. This has worked well for the many centuries that the method has been around.

The problem is, there are a lot of people nowadays who want science to be not just a way of understanding the world, but an authoritive moral guide. Something that can guide government policy and personal morality. Something that can be trusted and believed in the same way someone would believe a religious doctrine. But how can science fulfil that role if it doesn't deal with facts but only models, and if it can be questioned? And that's where this new conception of science; scientism/nu-science/soience/whatever you want to call it; comes from. In a way, soience is a regression back to the days of natural philosophy. Where there are facts and authorities to be trusted and dogma that can be settled. If you ever hear the phrase "the science is settled", you know exactly which kind of science they are talking about. The traditional scientific method has models that can't be settled. Soience has facts that can be.

This is the crux of the article. They are anxious that the big bang model is being questioned because how can people TRUST THE SCIENCE(tm) if they see science as a whole being constantly questioned and changed? But this is just the scientific method at work. It's normal. And the illusion of hard, fixed, morally authoritive soience shatters in the face of it.

>>15603560
who are the ones existentially terrified about trans genocides, a mild flu, russia stealing our elections, the police, crypto fascists behind every blade of grass, the global average temp being .2 degrees too high, getting mowed down by an ar-15 at the mall, putin taking over all of europe, etc etc?

>>15603832

>>15603834
>no, you see, when WE'RE terrified little overreactive crybabies about something it's for a good reason!!!

>>15598882
>"Questioning the Big Bang is dangerous because it leads to questioning covid vaccines"
The opposite is true.

just wait till rogan gets an electric or plasma cosmologist on the podcast

lmao at anyone dumb enough to believe in the big bang

>>15598888
Those digits don't lie.

>>15602074
doesn't have to be every. if you look historically there were always at least some if not many scientists will to engage in debate with the rest of the public, not just dawkins.

>>15598888
>Flouting decades of work by hundreds of the world’s best astronomers and physicists, Gupta invented a new formula, blended it with data from NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope and concluded the universe is 26.7 billions years old.
>That’s nearly twice as old as the universe’s actual age—13.7 billion years, a figure scientists spent decades calculating.

Exertion = Epistemology. Can't make this up.

>>15598888
>Gupta’s main mistake was to revive a discredited theory about light. Space scientists agree that light tends to change color across time and space. Since the universe is expanding, light—in order to keep up—tends to stretch out as it radiates. Over billions upon billions of miles and millions of years, this stretching-out changes the light’s wavelength and makes it more red.

>universe stretches
>light stretches to keep up
>i fukcin luv syoence1

>>15603457
>no, they're mentally ill

You're calling me mentally ill for concisely summarizing the mainstream cosmologists article in the daily beast. Kek

>>15603760

Couldnt have said it better myself

>>15605137
>>universe stretches
>>light stretches to keep up
>>i fukcin luv syoence1

Big bang cosmology really is retrded on its face. It's laughably and blatantly false. 100 years from now we'll look back on it like we do geocentrism or flat earth scuence. Big bang cosmology is like what a 5 year old would dream up. It's especially hilarious since all waves stretch as they travel because they lose energy to their medium... how serendipitous that light stretches just enough to align it with other wave qualities while not being another wave. Think about it: space stretched 14 billion light years yet right, so why sisnt the light stretched 14 billion light years long... no its only stretched a smidgen. It's patently idiot.

Big bang cosmologists are either drooling morons or corrupt liars. There is no in between. And if they don't want those labels then it's so simple: just tell the truth.

>>15598902
He meant to make picrel a seething transwojack maga soijack big whopper jack type character, but he forgot to.

steady-state chads rise up

>>15605386
>Big bang cosmologists are either drooling morons or corrupt liars.
Reminder that this guy believes the world was created 6000 years ago by the magical sky fairy.

Chelsea Clinton is on the board of the Daily Beast.

>>15605827
No less likely than simulation theory.

>>15606059
both are nonsense that haven't been demonstrated.

>>15605827
>Reminder that this guy believes the world was created 6000 years ago by the magical sky fairy.

Lol. Wat?

I don't believe in the big bang just like I don't believe in Santa Claus. You made the leap from my disbelieve in your big bang fairy tail to I "believe the universe is 6k years old" anfmd you wonder why we call you corrupted drooling idiots.

>>15606076
It's never been demonstrated that any theory of existence can be proven.

>>15605827
>>>15605386 (You) #
>>Big bang cosmologists are either drooling morons or corrupt liars.
>Reminder that this guy believes the world was created 6000 years ago by the magical sky fairy

Let me help you out since you're a drooling idiot who thinks the only options are big bang and 6k year old universe.

Our universe is an infinite and eternal perfect fluid fractal. I am right. You are wrong. I don't care about your Overton window. I don't care about your culture. I don't care about wording this in a way that aligns with your values or to help the drooling idiot scientific establish save face. I am not waiting for you idiots to catch up or figure it out. I say it because it's true. It was true then, now and always.

>>15606235
>Our universe is an infinite and eternal perfect fluid fractal.

Before you rebutted like a drooling idiot about "but ma redshift ma cmb"

Redshift is caused by energy loss to the cosmic fractal. Cmb is energy bounce back from the fractal.

There is no expansion. There was no big bang. We will continue finding older and older galaxies forever.

I am right. You drooling morons are wrong.

>>15598882
Socialist based science only.

>>15605827
will believing in billions of years give me eternal life?

>>15605976
fitting, she turned out fat and ugly as sin

>>15603532
>>15602074
https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2015/02/15/how-scientists-engage-public/
>A survey of 3,748 American-based scientists connected with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) finds that 87% agree with the statement “Scientists should take an active role in public policy debates about issues related to science and technology.” Just 13% of these scientists back the opposite statement: “Scientists should focus on establishing sound scientific facts and stay out of public policy debates.”
>2015

>>15606624
Agreeing with it doesn't mean doing it. Most of those guys never debated anybody.

>>15606363
>will believing in billions of years give me eternal life?
No, nor will believing in the magical sky fairy. It's a fantasy tale for children.

>>15606696
doesn't have to be most. enough did, and not just dawkins. it was a much more lively culture back then in general.

>>15606719
Only a few media whore scientists ever publicly debated anybody. Maybe a dozen or so. Out of literally MILLIONS of scientists in America and around the globe. Debating the public has never been a common activity for average scientists. I think you're fixating on the rare few media hounds and missing the forest for the trees.

>>15606729
again doesn't have to be most or even the expectation. but it wasn't just a few media whores. there were debates on campuses which were pretty much science vs religion threads. and plenty of profs and ras would attend as debaters. again the scientific community was much more willing in general to engage in debate before the institutional capture that occurred from that time.

>>15606749
Most people never participated in any of that nonsense, it was only ever about attention whores, with normal people ignoring it.

>>15606756
attention whoring is a critical part of modern science. h-index and grants are things after all.

>>15606774
>attention whoring is a critical part of modern science.
You have a media fixation.

>>15606776
ah yes the media constantly talks about h-indices. very frequent topic on msm.

>>15606784
Most scientists with a high h-index never participated in public debates. You have a media fixation.

>>15606788
you keep missing the point with this. again doesn't have to be most. the general attitude of the community has changed since then and it's blatantly apparent.

>>15606797
The point is that you think scientists publicly debating people was once important to science, but that is a misconception induced by your media fixation.

>>15606810
87% of scientist back in 2015 agreed with me. were they all media fixated too?

>>15606797
>you keep missing the point with this. again doesn't have to be most. the general attitude of the community has changed since then and it's blatantly apparent.

It would take one public debate about big bang to crash the entire house of cards, that's why. Big bang is so logically inconsistent it's laughable. The very first question one could ask is "why don't galaxies appear closer and closer together the further we look into space if they all came from singularity? Boom. Done. Killshot. And there are countless more killshots lined up behind that one. It would be a massacre.

>>15606837
87% of scientists agreed with the premise of debating people but 86.5% of them never had any interest in doing so themselves.

>>15606841
>And there are countless more killshots lined up behind that one. It would be a massacre.

"If redshift is caused by 'stretching light' as opposed to energy loss then why is the observed image if distant galaxies not stretched as expected by basic optic principles?" boom. Done. Killshot.

>>15606845
indicating they valued what that supposed only .5% were doing.

>>15606866
indicating that public debate was never important to them but they were willing to support others who chose to do it.

It a certain point you get to occams razer with big bang. Yeah sure you COULD invent a billion contorted add-on hypothesis like dark energy etc... etc... etc... to explain why big bang doesn't match observation. Or you could just acknowledge it's a bullshit theory. Same with geocentrism. Yeah you COULD model orbits as corkscrews, but it would make a lot more sense to model them as ovals.

>>15606867
not quite, maybe they couldn't get around to it for whatever reason. clearly their support for those who did indicated that debate is important if not crucial to science. and how can it not? throughout history there have been countless debates with non-scientists. if it wasn't for these debates science would've been hamstrung by the church, let alone get public funding.

>>15606525
>no
k, dismissed

>>15606867
>indicating that public debate was never important to them but they were willing to support others who chose to do it.

A public debate with a big bangers would consist of the opposition calmly speaking like an adult while the big bangers screams cries and shouts insults "SCHIZO!!!!! Crackpot!!!!!! TRUST THE SCIENCE FUCKFACE!!!!!"

Seriously. Have you ever read "Professor Dave's" comments to people who question the big bang? He devolves to being a 5 year old.

>>15598882
>call it a theory
>cant question it

>>15601909
people who are mentally ill do not know they are mentally ill, no. Hence the gaslighting and projection, attempting to convince you (and whoever else will listen tot hem) that YOU are the one who is mentally ill

>>15606810
This, public demonstration of scientific concepts as proof of the concept was once important, not public debate, but instead of public demonstration we now have peer review, which is just a bunch of frauds circlejerking

>>15606869
>Or you could just acknowledge it's a bullshit theory.
only if you consider it science, if you consider it the origin story of your religion then you need to keep on adding epicycles

>>15600480
Actually it always was, and was even more mainstream a few years back, systematically believing in mainstream $cience bullshit, NASA fan-fiction, germ theory of disease, harmlessness of electromagnetic fields like cell towers or wi-fi,

>>15610724
>only if you consider it science, if you consider it the origin story of your religion then you need to keep on adding epicycles

Yeah

>>15598882
>“If we can't convince people to trust science about things that have very little impact on their lives,” Kirkpatrick asked, “how can we convince them to trust scientists on the most important questions facing humanity?” The safety and effectiveness of vaccines, for instance. Or the urgency of climate change.
>In this case, they may have seeded in millions of minds the incorrect notion that the universe is twice as old as it actually is.
This article is about media control, and they don't posit a solution to the problem they've identified.

>>15612276
>This article is about media control, and they don't posit a solution to the problem they've identified.

I didn't think climate change was bullshit until they inserted it into that paragraph.

>>15612276
>This article is about media control, and they don't posit a solution to the problem they've identified.
>>>

The author either has 0 awareness of how blatant the propoganda is, or is well aware and the article is a cry for help coming from the last remaining shred of humanity locked in that poor, pathetic, npc, wage-slaves soul.

>>15598882
>scientists most affected

https://www.bitchute.com/video/OjbcVB0tmVXg/

>>15612276
>The safety and effectiveness of...

He literally said the words. Holy kek X-D

>>15612416

The first amendment to free speech is now "you are entitled to your opinion as long as you don't say it"

>>15612412
>The author either has 0 awareness of how blatant the propoganda is, or is well aware and the article is a cry for help coming from the last remaining shred of humanity locked in that poor, pathetic, npc, wage-slaves soul.
Probably both. I don't understand how:
>In this case, they may have seeded in millions of minds the incorrect notion that the universe is twice as old as it actually is.
Made it through a few revisions. The author appears to be seething and throwing a fit because people that watch the history channel exist.

>>15612462
>Made it through a few revisions. The author appears to be seething and throwing a fit because people that watch the history channel exist.

Big bang is a religion for those people. Not metaphor. It is textbook religion. Not science.

>>15606714
It's a good thing Christians believe in a God that is the uncaused cause who is Being itself, and not some magical creature who is merely powerful.

>>15612276
>This article is about media control,
You mean mind control.

>>15612483
The problem isn't the Big Bang. Scientifically, it's just a question mark where the limits of our current cosmological models start. The problem is when anyone says anything about the nature of the "bang" itself or the time preceeding it. Infinite regress of preexisting universes, multiverses, simulations, etc. All of that is pure bullshit.

>>15612545
Aristotle did too, at least the unmoved mover part. So what?

>>15612578
I think he's pointing out that the omnigod (or maybe his particular god, though it'd only be true of an omnigod) is necessary.

>>15612629
The way Christians try to imply that the existence of the Absolute Unconditioned demonstrates that their Book uniquely reveals His intentions just really bothers me. It's such a dishonest tactic.

>>15612545
>It's a good thing Christians believe in a God that is the uncaused cause who is Being itself, and not some magical creature who is merely powerful.
Those are the same thing. Utter pedantry.

>>15612545
>i'm an expert in Christianity because I'm and atheist

>>15615337
>pretending Christians actually read the bible

>>15598882
When the spinning ball-Earth is finally exposed worldwide for the 400+ year deception it was, Earth's entire population will suddenly be faced with the reality that every government, every space agency, university, secret society, religious organization, mainstream and alternative media outlet have ALL been duplicitous in propping up a monstrous manipulation to fleece and control the masses. The resulting mass mental exodus away from the control system is exactly what humanity needs. Once the flat Earth truth gets out, these lying politicians, spokesmen, reporters and teachers suddenly change from being heralded voices of authority to being ridiculed, shunned and denounced as they deserve. Once the flat Earth truth gets out, these governments, universities, media outlets and other entangled organizations which have long been hard at work weaving this multi-generational ball-Earth myth, suddenly and completely lose all credibility. Once the truth of our flat Earth gets out, so does the truth of these few elite families/societies who have kept this most important and fundamental reality from us for these hundreds of years! Essentially, once the flat Earth truth gets out, so does every other important truth by proxy, because this "mother-of-all-conspiracies" holds under its umbrella literally ALL of the other conspiracies, and exposes them.

https://youtu.be/0514L2QwOBE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUL7y8AMeU8

When did /sci/ become /x/-lite?

>>15615735
>i'm an expert in Christianity because I'm and atheist

>>15616006
>pretending Christians actually read the bible

How can I believe vaccine science when they haven't actually done the studies to disprove the idea that vaccines cause autism? Virtually all the studies either look at specifically the mmr vaccine and compare kids who are highly vaccinated to other kids who are highly vaccinated. Where are the studies comparing kids who are not vaccinated to kids who are vaccinated?

>>15616446
They have done the studies, unvaccinated kids never have autism
>>/sci/thread/15552941

>>15617905
Thats studies by other people, when the Pfizers of the world do studies they're able to concoct results that exonerates their products from causing harm

>>15620135
Thats a big part of why the replication crisis will never be solved, the corporations that fund a lot of the replication crisis publishing depend on getting their lies published in the scientific press as part of their business strategy

>>15622512
>the corporations that fund a lot of the replication crisis publishing depend on getting their lies published in the scientific press as part of their business strategy
and the scientists have no misgivings about cooperating because they are godless atheists with no morals other than "how much dishonesty can I get away with without putting my salary at risk"

What is it about the ΛCMD model that absolutely mindbreaks /sci/?

>oh hey this seems interesting
>i'll share it on twitter
>
>BREAKING NEWS: JOE ROGAN BELIEVES THAT PARAKEETS ARE HUMANS IN DISGUISE
I fucking hate these "people".

>>15603386
>It wasn't a mistake, it was a conscious effort to replace the book of Genesis with an identical tale that removed God's involvement from the narrative.
BBT restores a place for a divine act of creation you nitwit. That's why Hoyle disliked it and wanted an infinitely old cosmos

>>15598882
How pathetic to be fighting a mush brain like Rogan to keep confidence in your political regime.

>>15623890
it belongs on /x/ with the other creation myths

too much of the "evidence" in astrophysics is retroactively bending models to fit around their inconsistencies without threatening tenured careers (have you ever looked up why they need lambda in the first place? it's an entire term for an arbitrary and completely unexplained expansion period that began, then slowed, precisely to allow a given big bang model to yield the density of the current observed universe within the currently modeled age frame) - in short, it's all about protecting the priesthood.

this is by far the easiest in astrophysics because the experimental tests are legitimately out of reach for our species' current technology (well, unless you take into account plasma scaling, in which case you have to admit the electric universe people are at least partially correct, and current astrophysics careers and institutions might not survive the shame of being to those people exactly as retarded as the Catholic church was to Galileo; i suspect as the model unravels, they'll go great lengths to downplay any suggestion that academian exiles got there first).

ultimately, all standard models are unfalsifiable. contradiction never triggers reexamination of the core assumptions, but rather increasingly convoluted addendums and exceptions to them. the standard model of cosmology, for example, couldn't survive a hypothetical falsification of the standard model of solar structure from which it is constructed - a model which itself couldn't survive proof that, say, fusion occurs elsewhere in the sun to what is modeled. thus, anyone invested in the model - anyone taught that it shows reality, and tested on their faithfulness to the holy tex- i mean tested on their ability to recall the model - is invested in protecting it from true science: the application of doubt.

scientific fact is not what "experts" (i.e. the priesthood) decree - it is what survives all doubts thrown at it, REGARDLESS OF WHO'S THROWING.

Shitlibs:
> The Catholic church is the most evil religion ever and should be mocked and undermined at every opportunity
> Big bang theory (created by a Catholic priest) is dogma and anyone questioning it is up to no good
Make your mind up faggots

>>15606363
To decipher the meaning of verses like that, you have to understand that Jesus represents the Truth in the story.
By Truth I mean eternal self-evident properties like trigonometric ratios.
The early Church fathers were into platonism for a reason.
In the story the villains who are described as the children of the father of lies kill the man who represents Truth.
Truth/Logos/Satya comes back from the dead and reigns at the end of time because the Truth is immutable and eternal.

To think that top /sci/ chads will be some of the few to achieve eternal life out of the billions on Earth is an interesting thought, to say the least.

>>15598882
>Rogan
Reminder:
https://youtu.be/__CvmS6uw7E?t=338

>>15605137
Yeah pop sci is retarded. The world also has accepted the many worlds thing as just absolute truth, reason being
>ITZ THE QUANTUMS! KWANTUMS

>>15624631
Can't hear what she's saying.
Bondo ape?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bili_ape

>>15605382
This is what doesn't make sense. All the stars and galaxies in the night sky should be stretched the fuck out but stars appear as little pin pricks and galaxies mostly appear their "true" shape.

They also say there's no physical center to the universe and wherever you go, everything will look like it's redshifting away from you. Okay, so put two observers on opposite sides of a star. Will it appear to be redshifting away from both of them? How could it? The entire thing is so obviously retarded.

>>15606363
Stick with the King James, friend.

>>15624670
>Okay, so put two observers on opposite sides of a star. Will it appear to be redshifting away from both of them? How could it? The entire thing is so obviously retarded.
It wouldn't at that scale. You would need to be way farther than andromeda because andromeda is blue shifting

>>15624543
tldr another nibiru schizo speaks his truth

>>15624593
well said my brother in hamashiach

>>15605382
>space stretched 14 billion light years yet right, so why sisnt the light stretched 14 billion light years long
Stars and galaxies weren't formed at the beginning of the big bang, dumdum. It took many billions of years for that to happen. Moreover, in images from the JWT we actually can see the light from some very old galaxies being stretched.

>>15624543

Couldn't have said it better myself

>>15624670
>They also say there's no physical center to the universe and wherever you go, everything will look like it's redshifting away from you. Okay, so put two observers on opposite sides of a star. Will it appear to be redshifting away from both of them? How could it? The entire thing is so obviously retarded.

They will say that expansion happens from everywhere, but that is also retrded since we can look back in time 13 billion years and the spacing of galaxies is exactly the same as it is now, i.e. we see no observable evidence of any expansion away from from a singularity.

>>15624823
>It took many billions of years for that to happen.

Have you even been keeping up with JWST? We have now observed mature galaxies only a few hundred million years after "big bang" which would have been unthinkable only a few years ago.

We will continue to find older galaxies forever. Infinite and eternal universe

>>15624543
The flat earth truth is heavily censored on /x/ and on /sci/ as well, /his/ too. Basically everywhere except /pol/ and that's because the board moves so fast and flat earth threads either get to 300 replies fast or get moved to /bants/ or deleted by the jannies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uJX6Gv8XrM

>>15624823
>Moreover, in images from the JWT we actually can see the light from some very old galaxies being stretched.

That stretching in the image is caused by gravitational lending - totally different thing. Why are you trying to gaslight us? We question your idiotic big bang theory because we know the science, not because we are niave to it.

>>15625250
>a few hundred million years after "big bang
How can you receive that light if everything coming from a single point. Hyperroom transportation?

>>15625256
Gravitational lensing doesn't stretch the wavelength of light; it acts like a lens (hence the name) in that it bends waves of light. Redshift changes the wavelength of light while keeping its direction the same. Gravitational lensing changes the direction of light as to magnify it while keeping its wavelength the same.

>>15625318
All matter/energy came from a single point, which would later go on to form stars and galaxies and such; the big bang didn't just send out completed stars and galaxies in a state similar to how they exist today.

>>15625327
Gravitational lensing can change wavelength also.

>>15625327
>Gravitational lensing
Is a sphere, cannot have any effect because the income bending is nullified on the outgoing. Please try to grasp simple geometric 3D effects.

>>15625338
But the expansion must be greater than c at any point in timeline.

>>15625346
>Gravitational lensing can change wavelength also.
Every lense do, but when the wave exit the lense it speeds op to "vacuum speed". Simple optic.

>>15624795
complaining about lambda CDM has nothing to do with nibiru bullshit, besides a similar level of empiricity

>>15625253
i'm always encouraged by flerfer replies - it's essentially only something that happens when somebody wants whatever is being replied to to be summarily dismissed - and in that case, is an admission that the source of that desire is unable to contend on merit and must settle for guilt-by-association bullshit.

like nibiru, like lambda CDM, flat earth does not survive doubt. ergo, it is not scientific.

on the infinitesimal chance you're genuine, you've not escaped the folly of dogma by simply adopting a contrarian one. popularity - or lack thereof - isn't truth, you absolute retard.

so i was researching the bbt and have found this vid. hes 100% right
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=racfNX0tnTU

>>15625935
You talk like a fag no offence idiot. Typical of sciencefags..

>>15626044
>so i was researching the bbt and have found this vid. hes 100% right
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=racfNX0tnTU

yep. The electric universe bros are *essentially* correct. They have some woo woo in their models but less than BBT stick bundles

>>15598882
scientists are pond scum

>>15605827
>Reminder that this guy believes the world was created 6000 years ago by the magical sky fairy.
As opposed to being created 14 billion years ago by the magical space fairy?

>>15625935
good post

>>15605137
whats wrong with this claim? if space time is expanding then so does anything in it, such as light. Explain how this doesnt make sense.

>>15626176
No.

>>15625256
>we know the science

>>15626153
the biggest problem they have by far is the association with Velikovsky - that's probably the least popular part of that community, but it is still there. i find their treatment of geology and anthropology to be quite... dubious. however, i'm wary of guilt by association.

those dubious ideas aren't really necessary for the crux of the argument being made - namely, that charge and current are strong influences on observed astrophysical phenomena, and a model of cosmology that assumes total homogeneity of charge in a universe that bombards every probe we send into it with charged particles is not really modeling cosmology so much as dogmatically insisting that "gravity-only calculations are sufficient, stop questioning it"

i mean, for fuck's sake, if someone showed galactic arms can be partly cohered by electromagnetism, you wouldn't need dark matter at all to explain the rotation curves - and "dark matter-less galaxies" would simply lack that same EM structure

if electric universe is wrong, then applying doubt to it will show that. applying incessant ad hominem attacks and summary dismissal of the ideas for failing the test of "does it agree with me and my buddies' model that we've forgotten is a model and not reality itself" is the actual source of the distrust here - not the doubts themselves. that's not the kind of response you have to a theory you can disprove... you just disprove it. because yes, electric universe theories ARE falsifiable. they... legitimately have an impressive track record of confirmed predictions. the problem, of course, is that standard models aren't, unless the contradictions are literally unsustainable - a paradigm shift.

i think many researchers are hoping for one, but if they remain this hostile to other paradigms they'll just delay it more and erode their credibility the entire time - hence the current rise of "anti science" actually being "anti academia". to equate the two is obscene epistemological hubris.

>>15626978

Yep. But Electric Universe theories greatest mistake IMHO is to assume that cosmologists are acting in good-faith. They are not. This will sound inflammatory, but its just true: cosmology is a Jesuit corruption that is eating science from the inside. The big bang lie, planted by the church, was their way of weaseling into the sciences.

Electroc universe peeps should stop trying to prove themselves to cosmologists, and simply ignore them.

>>15627225
no one takes big bang cultists seriously in the current year

>Joe Rogan Boosted a Bad Space Study. It's Who Are Paying the Price.
Joe Rogan - 1
Scientists - 0
imagine the massive combined IQ of all the space scientists and the all got OWNED by one midwit joe rogan

>>15598888
>Exactly how red a star, or a galaxy full of stars, appears to be can tell us how far away it is, and—as the universe is expanding—how old it is.
how should we make these journalists realize how stupid they are?

>>15628807
>how should we make these journalists realize how stupid they are?

Mainstream cosmology is fully aware of how lying, fraudulent, corrupted and full of sht they are. Arguing with them is pointless.

The biggest mistake made by Galileo, Giordano Bruno, Ignaz Semmelweis and other martyrs of REAL science was in assuming good faith from those people - they have none.

Geocentricism continued for HUNDREDS of years even after every last one of the elite knew it was bullshit.

It's about ego. JWST is sitting on images of galaxies older than big bang as I type thus. THE KNOW it's bbt is bullsht. They also know that as soon as the plebs find out that it will end their entire grift. In fact it would end the entire Nobel scam too.

>>15628863
>It's about ego. JWST is sitting on images of galaxies older than big bang as I type thus. THE KNOW it's bbt is bullsht. They also know that as soon as the plebs find out that it will end their entire grift. In fact it would end the entire Nobel scam too.

The author of that article literally says it, 'if the plebs question big bang they might start question everything we tell them... they might even start questioning covid and the vaccine'. I'm not making that up. It's in the article. The Daily Beast literally says big bang is important because questioning it is a slippery slope to questioning covid.

>>15628863
>JWST is sitting on images of galaxies older than big bang as I type thus. THE KNOW it's bbt is bullsht

You can look at the JWST images of their "oldest galaxies" 200 million years after "big bang" and look BEHIND those galaxies. It's fcking endless. Galaxies forever. Infinite and eternal universe. Admiting this destroys modern cosmology. It ends the career of every single cosmologist. It destroys the Nobel. It destroys the legacy of JWSTs project lead who won his nobel for "proving the big bang" i.e. sucking a bunch of d*cks and writing and publishing a paper he thought could not be falsified WHOOPS!

>>15628863
>>15628877
>>15628894

The east knows this too. Cannot stress enough that EVERYONE who actually understands modern cosmology knows this: steady state is true and inflation theory was a massive grift invented by a priest to weasel western religion into the sciences.

So what will likely happen is the East will built a telescope and BTFO of western science by publishing images of mature galaxies that predate the big bang. This will be the turning point... it will be a message to the world: western scientific leadership is over.

We can already see this happening with the superconductor and how the west is trying to suppress it because it makes them look like the h*mo tyr*nny clowns that they are. Wh*te academics were cutting their d*cks off while the Asians were making super conductors.

>>15628863
>it would end the entire Nobel scam too.
The black hole image already did that

>>15629132
>The black hole image already did that

Explain

>>15629145
It's a fake AI generated image that won the nobel price

>>15629160
>It's a fake AI generated image that won the nobel price

Yeah. Also when Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize just because he is half black and then he went and drone striked a bunch of kids the next day

>>15626978
>they... legitimately have an impressive track record of confirmed predictions
Two off the top of my head, if more anons can chime in even better:
>Both poles of Saturn being hot
>Flash of light before the probe landed on comet 67p

>>15631071
i'm fairly sure Jupiter's auroral heating was predicted by them before Juno confirmed it

they also predicted a much higher density and charged nature of the ISM than standard models after the heliopause, and cosmologists are still basically trying to forget that the Voyager probes observed exactly that

auroral heating is also continually insisted to be Jupiter-exclusive because "claiming it happens on Earth is climate change denial"

if they were actually being genuine instead of just bending over backwards to avoid anyone so much as suspecting their models match observation more poorly than something they've declared to be "pseudoscience", they'd realize the potential for auroral heating of Earth's atmosphere INCREASES the risk of greenhouse gas heating, because it provides a thermal source without a thermal sink (and the whole concept of greenhouse gases is that they constrict the thermal sink of radiative cooling). like the retarded "questioning BBT leads to vaccine denial" thing, it's just cosmologists haphazardly invoking other fields' reputations for their own protection. it's fucking shameful.

i've got to be real with you, the only conclusion i can draw from this - and i say this as someone who thinks the EU interpretation of anthropological evidence is retarded at best - is that standard model cosmology is an institutional pseudoscience, persisting not by congruence with observed facts but by appeals to the authority of the institution. it's fucking phlogiston... except this time, even as the theory itself is dying, the phlogiston theorists still have the power to simply dismiss any Antoine Lavoisier or Elizabeth Fulhame as a "pseudoscience hack fraud" and destroy their empirical contributions and academic careers in the cradle.

Even if it turns out that the big bang is false, it doesn't mean God is true. Just sayin.

>>15631514
BBT is basically a Catholic insertion of a "sciencey" Genesis retelling into cosmology.

>>15631525
>Catholic
jesuit
jesuits are not Christians
replacing Genesis with science means replacing a rigid, self consistent system of belief with one that changes at a whim as a matter of convenience, thats why every bible story now has a "science" counterpart. its done as a means of separating Christians from their tradition systems of belief that have preserved them for centuries

>>15631525
>BBT is basically a Catholic insertion of a "sciencey" Genesis retelling into cosmology.
Where's the talking snake in the big bang theory?

>>15631525
This is what proto-neckbeards who desperately wanted steady state thought, and they were proven wrong. The fact the universe was created may or may not be evidence for God (it is, though). But Lemaitre was emphatic that he was merely doing science.

>>15631499
I think it's all artificial and on purpose to keep people in a prison planet and prevent break away civilizations. What are your thoughts on T. T. Brown and electrogravitics, if you ever heard of this of course? It seems like him and more people a few decades before were getting close to big discoveries that were too big for some people so they propped up a star (as in celebrity) mathematician to lead very deep but also very confused thinkers down a dead end.

>>15632123
>The fact the universe was created
[citation needed]

>>15632123
>But Lemaitre was emphatic that he was merely doing science.

Oh the priest was emphatic that we wasn't really trying to further a religious cause. I guess we can wrap this up then. Case closed.

U r a clown

>>15632155
> all artificial and on purpose to keep people in a prison planet and prevent break away civilizations
i don't. way too fucking easy to leave, energetically speaking. the motive of self-preservation of careers/institutions is alone enough to explain the persistence of their dishonesty. a word of advice: malice isn't just less reasonable to assume than incompetence, it's also less reasonable to assume than fear.

>T. T. Brown and electrogravitics
calling his observations EHD is basically correct.

i strongly suspect that IF there's a coupling of EM and gravity, it'd be mainly via quantum-scale magnetism, not charge. gotta have a way to account for neutron mass plus neutron chargelessness

>were getting close to big discoveries that were too big for some people so they propped up a star (as in celebrity) mathematician
nah. celebrities are just a thing our species is predisposed towards creating, for whatever reason - and the charge densities required for EHD make it impractical for use EVEN IF it was interacting somehow with gravity. there just wasn't anything "big" there.

besides, the "distract by propping up" model is never something that actually works in practice because the people you're trying to "fool" are legitimately the least concerned with celebrity in the first place.

tl;dr: there's a hell of a lot less evil in the world than there is just scared and stupid. "they're just evil" is a fallback of someone who can't or won't empathize - and those are the kinds of people we don't want to be if we want to keep the evil in the world to a minimum.

>>15632801
>calling his observations EHD is basically correct.
EHD? I'm not familiar with scientific terms.

>it'd be mainly via quantum-scale magnetism
Do you know about Ralph Salsbury's theory of subtrons? I sounds like it's something happening at that level and Wal Thornhill suggested this might be causing gravity.

> gotta have a way to account for neutron mass plus neutron chargelessness
What if the neutron is not real tho? I've heard there's some evidence suggesting it really is just protons and electrons at the nucleus, not any chargeless particle like a neutron.

>nah. celebrities are just a thing our species is predisposed towards creating
I mean yes, and it's entirely possible groups exploit this instinct for their own gain.

>"they're just evil" is a fallback of someone who can't or won't empathize
I think that's assuming much. There really are people that are just evil: they'll kill your entire family and then laugh at your face in the court room, such people exist. There's an issue with these antisocial personality disorder types in complex social hierarchies like companies, academia and universities. Having no problem backstabbing people and no way to form real connections, they can raise to the top through ruthless means. Most of them also have adjacent personality disorders like narcissism and machiavelianism, so no, I disagree, and I think it's more likely there are people will their own interests doing things. I agree there's people who just want to keep their careers and whatnot tho, but no, there really is evil people out there.

>OY VEY YOU GOTTA TRUST THE SOIENCE!!!
>IF YOU DON'T YOU'RE A NAZI!!!
Protocols of the Elders of Zion
Protocol 2, parts 2 & 3
>2. The administrators, whom we shall choose from among the public, with strict regard to their capacities for servile obedience, will not be persons trained in the arts of government, and will therefore easily become pawns in our game in the hands of men of learning and genius who will be their advisers, specialists bred and reared from early childhood to rule the affairs of the whole world. As is well known to you, these specialists of ours have been drawing to fit them for rule the information they need from our political plans from the lessons of history, from observations made of the events of every moment as it passes. The GOYIM are not guided by practical use of unprejudiced historical observation, but by theoretical routine without any critical regard for consequent results. We need not, therefore, take any account of them - let them amuse themselves until the hour strikes, or live on hopes of new forms of enterprising pastime, or on the memories of all they have enjoyed. For them let that play the principal part which we have persuaded them to accept as the dictates of science (theory). It is with this object in view that we are constantly, by means of our press, arousing a blind confidence in these theories. The intellectuals of the GOYIM will puff themselves up with their knowledge and without any logical verification of them will put into effect all the information available from science, which our AGENTUR specialists have cunningly pieced together for the purpose of educating their minds in the direction we want.

>DESTRUCTIVE EDUCATION

>3. Do not suppose for a moment that these statements are empty words: think carefully of the successes we arranged for Darwinism, Marxism, Nietzsche-ism. To us Jews, at any rate, it should be plain to see what a disintegrating importance these directives have had upon the minds of the GOYIM.

>>15632899
>EHD
electrohydrodynamics - similar to magnetohydrodynamics except no magnets. it pumps a fluid, that's why it doesn't work in a vacuum but does work in air

>subtrons
i see don't see evidence for composite electrons

>if the neutron is not real
i was actually considering that when i said what i did - even if the neutron is a composite proton+electron, the proximity and opposite signs cancel out the range of the force from charges, meaning it should have a different response to gravity than a charged particle in isolation if gravity is influenced by charge (and not, as we observe, the mass of a proton plus an electron). if/when the Structured Atom guys explain neutrinos, then i'm more interested in that model.

>groups exploit this instinct for their own gain
you're assuming organized malice when a natural explanation (for which we have ample historical evidence) will suffice. stop it.

>There really are people that are just evil
i didn't deny that, i said the phrase was a fallback for the un-empathetic. the reality is evil people are shit at working together. conversely, a shared motive like self-preservation leads to less flashy but more stable efforts WITHOUT the need to organize explicitly.

evil at the top is a result of shared motives within the mythology of "success = merit". selfishness is politically and economically profitable, so it accumulates at the top in the absence of "merit based" tools to recognize and respond to the risks that lack of empathy poses. i love Carlin, but it's not a club - it's a class of self-interested individuals that only align if they can benefit. if they think they can benefit more by ripping each other's throats out, they'll start grabbing necks.

researchers aren't part of that class - they're just desperate and largely unsupported. you have to go to administrators to find what you're talking about - and they neither get along nor plan ahead well enough to pull off the strategy you suggest WITHIN an institution.

>>15633279
>electrohydrodynamics - similar to magnetohydrodynamics
Ah I see, thanks.

>i see don't see evidence for composite electrons
Valid.

>i was actually considering that when i said what i did
Oh okay.

>if/when the Structured Atom guys explain neutrinos, then i'm more interested in that model.
Edwin Kaal, not a scientist but my intuition says he's mostly in the right direction but there's still some details he's missing, like there' something at that level our equipment is not sensitive enough to detect but that affects things somehow. It might be just faster to brainstorm as many ideas as possible and check to see if any of them successfully predict something, but now I'm ranting, anyway.

> a shared motive like self-preservation leads to less flashy but more stable efforts WITHOUT the need to organize explicitly.
You have a great point, makes me think.

>researchers aren't part of that class - they're just desperate and largely unsupported.
This is true, I can see this, you have to be mentally unwell in the best sense of the term to research a topic over and over, it's hard work and it doesn't attract the ones lusting for power.

>>15631993
>replacing Genesis with science means replacing a rigid, self consistent system of belief with one that changes as new evidence arises
Yes that's the point.

>>15632155
Electrogravitics doesn't work. Quantized inertia is a much better model, and is being tested in space on a satellite in October.

>>15598882

>>15633842
Newton didn’t think so

>>15633858
>Quantised inertia explains inertia, for the first time, by combining relativity and quantum mechanics.
Hope it works tho, best of luck.

>>15632099
>Where's the talking snake in the big bang theory?
the big bang theory says time and space had a beginning, which is a philosophical belief that most idealist and religious thinkers had in the western tradition.

thats why atheists and physicalists were so against it when it was first proposed

>>15633908
Newton didn't have disproof of a moment of creation

>>15632099
The purpose of rewriting the Genesis story for atheists is to eliminate the rigid moral aspects from the tale in order to create a servile population that can be ordered to do anything on a whim with the magical incantation "the science has changed…"
You watched the magic work during the covid episode, at first masks were evil paranoid anti-asian racism and the suddenly they were a wonderful symbol of altruism. Then the vax came out, at first it was a one time cure-all and then the science changed and it became a never ending series of shots and the atheist soigoys never questioned it

>>15633948
Newton wasn't dabbling in cosmology when he was trying to understand gravity, he was trying to understand and predict the fall of cannon fire

>>15633968

>>15633899
I always thought they gave me the placebo because I had zero side effects

>>15633899
>some schizo claims
yawn.

>>15598882
Questioning the big bangerino is a hecking dangerino to our democracy, and is only a single step removed from the holocaust.

>>15634212
>some triple vaxxed double digit IQ drooler on 4chan says
kek

>>15598882
>boosted

Hope he doesn't get myocarditis.

>>15634320
Meeting the replication crisis face to face is the first tipoff for a lot of people that all other officially sanctioned media is also just as fake as the soience journals are.

>>15637149
>Meeting the replication crisis face to face is the first tipoff for a lot of people that all other officially sanctioned media is also just as fake as the soience journals are.

Yeah.

>>15633922
>>15633968
ok, so where's the talking snake in the big bang theory? you know that snakes can't talk, right?

>>15625253
shocking lack of self awareness
this>>15624543
>contradiction never triggers reexamination of the core assumptions, but rather increasingly convoluted addendums and exceptions to them
is exactly what flat earth retards like (You) do as well
>>15625935
basado

>>15612276
>convince trust convince trust safety effectiveness
these people are done, scrambled their own brains just to stay a part of the herd
fucking sad seeing stuff like this

>>15598888
No big bang = no God = no morality = collapse of society. So called atheist who believe in the big bang believe in God, still act as though there is a God.

>>15638697
maaaaaaaaa

>>15638697
this is some true toddler logic.

>>15638706
>>15638790
He's right. Big bang theorists are quasi religious and subscribe to humanism. They aren't materialists hence are idealists and subscribe to the same moralfaggotry as christcucks. Their reaction to the JWST evidence and holding on to their clearly wrong model no different from the church's reaction to Galileo and insisting the geocentric model was correct.

>>15606235
>>15606254

>>15638399
you'll agree that snakes can talk the second someone tells you "the science has changed"

>>15598882
Also directly inversely correlated to Ukraine winning. So... stop doing it.

>>15598882
Trust the science chud
Dark matter exists
Black holes exist
The standard model is correct
Trump is a fascist

>>15601892
He could've worded it better, but he's not wrong. The vast, vast majority of people on these platforms looking to start arguments over scientific issues aren't making arguments in good faith, they're not looking to debate or to be persuaded/convinced, they're either schizos looking to validate their beliefs to the exclusion of all evidence to the contrary (which they accomplish by either jackknifing from claim to claim as they are subsequently debunked or trying to content-bomb discussions with endless 10 hour youtube videos or 10,000 word infographics to drown out any actual debate), or they're grifters doing the same thing in an effort to shill products or scams to the former group.

You think guys like that Mandlbauer faggot coming on here for twelve hours every day for two years straight screaming about MUH 12000 RPM are looking to have a good faith argument about physics? You think guys on YouTube posting videos of astronauts with big yellow arrows pointing at every other pixel and then shilling for penis enlargement pills are looking to have an honest debate about the space program?

>>15642381
>You think guys like that Mandlbauer faggot coming on here for twelve hours every day for two years straight screaming about MUH 12000 RPM are looking to have a good faith argument about physics?

Mandelbaur does this because he is being stalked and harassed for sport by a group of sociopaths who are shockingly actual physicists. Mandelbaur is like a cornered animal. Its basic psychology. The situation with him never would have happened if the physicist community acted in good faith by either ignoring Mandelbaur or treating him like a person rather than a plaything. Mandelbaur is wrong, obviously, but his situation highlights the kind of person who operates in the cosmology community these days. There is a mandelbaur subteddit that breaks every single rule against harrassment that exists on the platform, but they get away with it because they "are physicists". It's an evil community. And yes, big bang is wrong, and your post is pure projection.

>>15642429
Welcome to reality, people with money and authority...

>>15642429
>It's an evil community

Evil is the wrong word perhaps. Cosmology has turned into a modern religion. The ills of religion have become the ills of cosmology.

>>15642429
People tried having good faith discussions with him on Quora, on Reddit, on /sci/, etc. for YEARS, explaining why his position was wrong, walking him through it from multiple angles, holding his hand through proofs or breaking down flaws in his reasoning. Even the editors from the journals he kept submission-bombing displayed an enormous amount of patience in constantly explaining time-after-time why they were rejecting to submit "papers" like 'Ball On String Disproves Conservation of Angular Momentum' or 'Applying The Chain Rule To The Cross Product Is Stupid And Dumb' for peer review and publication. His response to this endless patience was to insult, harass, and even threaten posters and publishers, and by his own admission he genuinely believes that this is "the best way to get through to people". That's a textbook example of someone who's not setting out with the goal of having a discussion in good faith, and it should come as no surprise that people's patience inevitably ran out and that his shitty attitude was eventually returned in kind.

I don't condone targeted harassment (it's why I avoid social media like the plague), not even of someone as obnoxious as Mandlbauer, but he very clearly brought it on himself.

>>15640799
If snakes could talk, they would be using ethnic slurs

>>15640799
>you'll agree that snakes can talk the second someone tells you "the science has changed"
No, I'll agree that snakes can talk once someone demonstrates that snakes can talk.

>>15603386

>>15625253

>>15598888
Mainstream scientists want to lead public policy without running for office so it's no surprise they're all authoritarian spergs.

>>15645741

>>15645741
>>15646671
how many terabytes is your out of context talking head quote folder?

>>15646852

>>15646878
are those quotes where you get your worldview from?

can any of the big bang experts here explain to me why they couldn't tell the difference between JWST pics and pictures of sausage?

>>15598882
Joe Rogan is a homosexual

>>15649351
everyone in hollywood is

>>15646852
>out of context
I have the interview it is from
https://ugetube.com/watch/rabbi-moshe-aryeh-friedman-on-the-holocaust-mythos-and-zionism_vAfYKWy1oUKS7Mg.html

anything else?

>>15649929
>anything else?
sure, you can answer the question i asked.

>>15647769
The slice of sausage was purported to be alpha centauri. What does that have to do with the big bang?

>>15645754
Yeah, they knew it was flat. They told the goyim it's a ball. I love the jew blaming though, keep naming them.

>>15650360
why couldn't you tell the difference between JWST pics and pictures of sausage?

>>15652424
Me? I have no relevant expertise!

>>15651404
>polygonal complete graphs produce concentric polygons
>points move in concentric circles around a rotational axis
>geometry? no, jewometry
this is so obviously a false flag i almost feel sorry for the flerfers

>>15633547
i'm the person you replied to, and i apologize for taking so long to respond, but i want to say i appreciate your willingness to consider things beyond your existing perceptions - that's the core of any true scientist's mindset, regardless of experience.

it's funny - what turns scientific thoughts into dogma and what turns dissent into conspiracy cults is exactly the same thing: a retreat to certainty. some in either category may assert that they are paragons of doubt because they doubt institutions, but their "doubt" manifests more as certainty in institutional dishonesty - contrarianism isn't doubt, it's certainty of the contrary. just because they can be wrong and can be lying doesn't mean they can't be right and can't be telling the truth. the more polarized members of the discussion become, the less willing any seem to be to accept that applying doubt to themselves - and to their own doubts - is part of the scientific process as well. science isn't a territory to be conquered to drive your opponents away, but academia appears predisposed towards operating that way.

however, academics themselves aren't really to blame for that (mostly - they can absolutely be petty territorial assholes to each other, but that's thankfully a career risk these days) - they just operate in extremely top-heavy (funding wise), territorial organizations (this applies to universities and private companies). basically the only exceptions are labs with funding certainty (i.e. not results-based; this is more likely, albeit not guaranteed, in state run labs, and almost nonexistent in private organizations unless a true scientist is the one in charge), and that's often in defense research that will be kept out of the public scientific discourse anyway.

tl;dr: thanks for keeping an open mind. if we want scientific institutions, we can't run them with unscientific motives. science needs to be able to afford to doubt anything - itself included.

>>15629308
how come obama's white half is never held responsible for white supremacy, but his black half gets credited for victim status?

I trust the science. Praise Fauci.

>>15647769

>oy vey you goyims can't question the soience religion
>in the beginning einstein used the big bang to create the universe
>on the 5th day darwin created the plants and animals