/sci/ - Science & Math

Energy that is dark.

>Yes it's unobservable but it does have observable effects.
Totally not religious.

>>16076490
There are already far better explanations, only einstein cultists morons are stuck with dark energy.

>>16076490
Yes very religious to say "we don't know" when it comes to a measurement.

>>16076600
>"we don't know"
That's your answer when pressed to make the amount of calories in a food item visible to the naked eye because you want to hide that the quest for knowledge has degenerated into bookkeeping.

>That's your answer when pressed to make the amount of calories in a food item visible to the naked eye because you want to hide that the quest for knowledge has degenerated into bookkeeping.

>>16075867
sabine says dark energy, dark mass and quantum gravity have been solved already
Basically they dont exist and gravity is a bit different than expected (MOND) and it doesnt need to be quantized because IT JUST isnt quantum

>>16075867
my rizz

>>16076997
>sabine says
Who cares what that dumbass thinks.
>MOND
Lol, lmao even.

>>16077036
shes just a content publisher now, the source is a real scientist

>THERE'S DARK ENERGY ALL AROUND US
>WHAT DO YOU MEAN IT'S NOT REAL?
>JUST BECAUSE WE CAN'T SEE OR MEASURE IT IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER DOESN'T MEAN IT'S NOT REAL YOU FUCKING ANTISEMITIC CHUD!!!
>WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU BELIEVE IN GOD YOU 5TH CENTURY PISSCEL?
>GOD ISN'T REAL BECAUSE WE CAN'T SEE OR MEASURE HIM IN ANY WAY!!!!

Bumo

>>16075867

>>16075867
aliens trolling us

>>16075867
Atomists more or less admit it's a placeholder by the very term "dark" itself

"Dark" as in "we've got no effin clue based off of our limited frame of reference"

Dark matter is Dark Metal, properly. And anti-matter is Anti-Metal or a specific type of crystal. Matter is too broad of a term, as you may notice dark energy and dark matter aren't synonymous, energy and matter are not part of the same category.

>>16075977
Thiiis

>>16075867
There is no such a thing, galaxies do not have stable orbits.

>>16075867
It's energy, but it's like really dark because nobody bothered to turn on the lights.

>>16082727
Derp

>>16075867
>What could dark energy be?
Real thread: >>16082742

>What could dark energy be?
Dark energy literally can not exist since it is literally nonsense.

>Wow we can not explain why this moves this direction? Lets name it dark energy!
This is literally all there is.
Daily reminder that scientists would call wind dark energy when it was the stone age.

>>16076490
>Totally not religious.
Science is basically theology retard edition See >>16082742

>>16076490
>>16076600
>"we don't know"
This is anti science not science.

Science:
1) We do not know what is going on here
2) So let me make up a theory that makes up magical entities like dark matter and dark energy who magically influence the world to make it this way
3)Get consensus!
4) Other guy has another theory that has other magical entities in it? Try to character assassinate him and start decade long shit throwing fests!

Dark Matter and Dark Energy are as valid as the ghost and demons cause sickens theory of medicine!

Science never says
>>"we don't know"
science makes up nonsense (a theory) to explain things it does not understand.

however science is self condemning since it parades the
>Actually it is OK to say we do not know

why not just called it cope energy and cope matter
if it exists, it means your model is obviously wrong

>>16076997
>Basically they dont exist and gravity is a bit different than expected
The sane solution.

Science:
>>>NOOOOOO our fagot retards of old siting at candles decided that EVERY force field must uniformly decrease in strength!
>THAT IS UNQUESTIONABLE DOGMA NOW!
>THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED!
>You are not allowed to question old dead science super tar and the bullshit he made up!

Yes because begin a primitive siting at candle light and writing on your parchment makes you all knowing.

What a joke science is.

>>16076997
MOND isn't even relativistic. It's definitely wrong. And propoponents are currently reaching for the ultimate cope of adding there own dark matter, because MOND doesn't work.

>>16082765
>The sane solution.
This is pure bias. There is no logical reason as to why describing something with forces is better than additional mass. It all comes down to which solution has more predictive power, and that is clearly DM.

>NOOOOOO our fagot retards of old siting at candles decided that EVERY force field must uniformly decrease in strength!
Nobody said that. But when you look at situations like the bullet cluster where the gravitational lensing is offset from the visible mass, it's clear that no radially symetric force will explain that. MOND cannot explain it without DM, no alternative can. And yet it was a trivial prediction on CDM.
Remember that people have spent literally a century trying to modify, test and improve up GR. It's not like people haven't tried.

>>16082883
>MOND isn't even relativistic.
>relativistic
Like Einsteinism?
Yea because that old retard was ever right.

>This is pure bias
You literally started with a UNPROVABLE assumption that all fields have uniform weakening with distance.
I ask you to prove this religious dogma and you get angry.

>There is no logical reason
Once more prove the shit you assert as your divine dogma. I wait.

>Nobody said that
This is your dogma. This is the basis of science (when it is not pointless wars between competing theological theories).

The funny part is that you do not admit it.
And avoid answering the question. The problem with science is that you idiots are to delusional to even interact with reality.

Some old guy did say that energy and matter can not be created or destroyed and this is dogma for you now.

Some old retard wrote down by candles that light can only travel in straight lines and this IS FUCKEN RELIGIOUS DOGMA to you idiots. This is why you need nonsense like Einsteinism where you try to explain light bending by inventing nonsense like space time and making it bend so the OLD ORTHODOX DOGMA of light never bending can be uphold.

Science was always for 70 IQ retards and degenerates.

>my tiny insignificant lights in the sky go funny funny
Do you understand how irrelevant this is?

>funny funny sky lights
This is literally you. Making up theory based on theory based on theories and he ask stupid questions while we have to live in the real world not your Carl Sagan fueled porn.

How about making something that matters no making religious porn based on ass pulled assumptions, unquestionable cult dogma and data that is so limited that it is not even funny.

wow everyone here is so smart, I wonder where all of the anons' papers are published

>>16082897
>muh dogmuh
Don't be so obvious next time bud. At least pretend to engage.

>>16082909
>where all of the anons' papers are published
On 4chan.
Why can scientists not publish on 4chan?
Nature is a trash journal!

PS: 2 can play this game!