/sci/ - Science & Math

>>16195595
Christ-tard OP comes in with his bullshit.
progressives come in with their own bullshit.
Random insane schizophrenics say stuff that doesn't make any sense.
What next?

>>16195599
Extended argument about science being ruined because of da jooz, one well-informed anon with enough free time on their hands replies to the dumbest shit with interesting and accurate information and everyone ignores them anyway, then the thread dies.

>>16195595
>the exoplanets they claimed to have discover
the planets they claim to be detecting are probably dyson spheres or other large orbital structures around those stars

>>16195595
You will never know reality. You will always only ever know models that describe reality. Those models are valid within their scope of application and limitations. This is no different for any science. Fundamental assumptions might of course be wrong, like there not being any other possible explanation for periodic diming that follows a very specific pattern. Also keep in mind that all scienctists across disciplines are competing for funding. Alot of the popscience stuff you find pushed towards normie media outlets is just that: Part of a campaign for public sympathy and ultimately gibs.

>>16195595
All the data(knowledge) we have about reality beyond Earth's atmosphere would fit on a few servers in a single building. That's it......the entire Universe outside Earth as far as we know it fits inside a single building, perhaps a single room. That's how little we know, that's how little real data we actually have compared to the alleged size and span of The Universe.

What you have is an issue of Qualia. We can't be sure that tiny data stream "from space" is anymore real than an advanced VR headset in front of your eyes is real. Unfortunately the same issue holds true if you were to send astronauts to a far flung star system to observe first hand.

>>16195668
Well said. If scientists were honest like anon was people like OP, and me, wouldn't say the things we say. Instead they abuse their intelligence to mislead and misguide normies for the purpose of profits. These "scientists" are just sin filled ape men like us all. They lie, cheat, and steal so they can eat well....like most humans. But normies indoctrinated in the cult of science see them as priests and infallible. It's a very very dangerous thing and you see where it gets us, COVID lock downs and government goon squads "enforcing the science". Scientists have moved from seekers of knowledge to seekers of cash and power.

>>16195707
No scientist can prove to me what they see via a telescope is real and not Descartes' Demon sending you false Qualia, which would be trivial and easy for such a simple data stream. Most modern space observations are just data on a computer not even a physical image like back in the day.

The only way to even try to counteract this issue is to send physical humans to physical points in space to explore, collect data, and report back. This however opens many more cans of worms related to the above philosophical issues. At it's core the issue is qualia and how you can never trust it. Deep space observation is just a very glaring example of this problem.

Anyone who denies the above is a liar or a retard. They take at face value the qualia others have observed who also take it at face value as true. This is folly however and your entire basis for reality is built on a house of cards. So I won't debate the subject as it's not up for debate. You can't prove any planets outside our solar system exists. You can't even prove Jupiter exists....you can't even prove YOU EXIST.

>>16195668
>>16195707
Thank you for your thoughtful replies.
However, I do not believe that the issue can be generalised across all sciences. I guess my problem with astronomy is that there is no way to make sure that fundamental assumptions are wrong in some way.
COVID is a good example. Sure, it might be that the "trust the science" narrative was misused, but at the end of the day, scientists were able to produce vaccines that actually worked, so we know that they weren't full of shit. We do not have any such guarantee when it comes to astronomy.

>>16195595

Anon, never mind the mean people here who are mocking or insulting you. You are doing exactly what a curious mind should do: asking questions, and any good scientist will try to give you as clear of an answer as possible.

>Can we really take the facts presented by astronomers at face value?
Well, depends on which facts you are talking about. Some of it is very easy to verify, just buy some binoculars. But for leading-edge research, like the exoplanets in your image, unless you have any sort of scientific equipment to verify yourself, that is the best you can do. But there are many science teams around the word gathering and verifying each other's data and conclusions, so these aren't far-fetched absurdities being claimed, it's based on data that we always attempt to reproduce and verify.

>there is no actual way to verify their existence, is there?
Again, there is, but leading-edge astronomy requires equipment not available for you to use simply because it is incredibly complex, expensive to conceive, design, engineer, run, and maintain. In other words: it's very scarce. There is only one Hubble Telescope. only one JWST, one Chandra Space Telescope, etc. The same goes for serious land-based equipment: do you have any giant radio telescopes lying around the house? I don't! lol
However, no one is stopping you from assembling such equipment if you have the monetary means to do so.

>Can we really take the facts presented by astronomers at face value
If you're such a big brain then read the paper and decide for yourself.
>For example, all the exoplanets they claimed to have discover, there is no actual way to verify their existence, is there? If there is even a slight error in their model, the universe might look completely different.
They can be tested with other observations. Like the fact that you have transits detected in a distant star, if these transits are really planets then they can be confirmed with radial velocity follow-up. If it was some random other event causing the transits-like-features then there is no reason it should have the orbital signature of an exoplanet. Some exoplanets have been cross-confirmed by multiple methods.
> The so called photo of a black hole is actually a computer generated image.
Wrong. Pic related.
> The so called photo of a black hole is actually a computer generated image.
Generated from millimeter wavelength very long baseline interferometry data. The same technique which has been used for decades at lower frequencies.

>>16195595
>For example, all the exoplanets they claimed to have discover, there is no actual way to verify their existence, is there?
90% of exoplanet detection is just looking at periodic dips in stellar light curves. A dip means something is blocking the star (something small enough not to block all of the light) and periodic dips mean it’s something in orbit - hence, planet. The other 10% are found through redshift measurements or direct imaging. All of these methods are incredibly reliable for detecting something is present, so while one could argue the exact estimates on size, composition, etc. could have some error, whether those planets are there or not is a matter of fact, not interpretation.

>>16195595
no
>>16195804
lmao that you're gullible enough to think black holes are real, they're just a stupid sci-fi meme

>>16195595
the only thing we do know for real, is what is in our own solar system, a probe has flown to farthest planets in our solar system and took a picture

actually you can even see with a binocular, most of the planets when visibility is good in a dark sky

>>16195718
>Anyone who denies the above is a liar or a retard
often both

>>16195595

>>16195599
>>16195653
big based
I feel like the interwebz are getting stale, bros.

>>16198354
so go somewhere else.
you don't contribute anything of any value here, so why do you expect others to do so?
where'd you get your massively outsize sense of entitlement from?

>>16198758
>You're not contributing therefore I can schizopost and you can't call it retarded
wat

>>16195599
Atheists are cuck at best

>>16195718
based

Astronomy and astrophysics aren’t real physics. It’s just science for people who never got over there space phase and want to get paid to look through telescopes. All the real discoveries that furthers physics happen in particle physics.

>>16195595
>Is astronomy scientific?
No.

>>16195595
Its amazing how gullible people are that they'd believe those pics are real.

>>16200327
>educated artistic renditions are meant to be interpreted as being real

lmao this retard >>16200417 actually thinks those pics are real

>>16195595
>If there is even a slight error in their model, the universe might look completely different.
Who cares of right or wrong? Astromodels have no impact over here. World is spinning, regardless of geocentric loneliness or multieoxplanets billion of km/miles away.

>>16195595
cool CGI marbles

>>16195595
this garbage is so fake and gay.

>>16198344
the sausage pic only highlighted how gullible and ignorant the IFLS fags are. none of them learned anything from that incidence, they're still slack jawed morons who'll fall for anything even the stupid crap in OP

>>16195595
how come they presume that all of those planets are habitable, earth-like planets when 2 of the 3 planets in the 'goldilocks zone' in our own solar system are uninhabitable dead wastelands with poisonous atmospheres?

>>16195595
>Is astronomy scientific?
Fuck no! It's a bunch of assholes making shit up for funding because they know 99.999999% of the population has no way to fact-check them.

>>16195599
>YES, there are sixty genders!
>NO, I can't show you any besides the two, and a few ultra-rare genetic accidents.
>Also gender and sex are totally unrelated, but people need surgery to "affirm their gender."
Could you please neck yourself?

>>16202748
They don't, these are artists' renderings.

>>16202759
>Random insane schizophrenics say stuff that doesn't make any sense.
There you are!

>>16203341
How come the artists of NASA don't paint more realistic scenarios?

>>16205014
NASA is a government propaganda agency, they don't do science and they don't do realism, they do propaganda exclusively

>Is astronomy scientific?
no

>>16195718
>The only way to even try to counteract this issue is to send physical humans to physical points in space to explore,
As for the non schizopreniacs like me it's sufficient to predict events before they happen. If your tell me a stars gonna dip at the exact moment in time based on the orbit of a hypothetical planet, it's good enough for me.

>>16207798
>it's good enough for me
nobody cares about your opinion

>Is astronomy scientific?
science has repeatable experiments and disprovable theories, astronomy has neither of those, it isn't a real science

>>16202756
>99.999999% of the population has no way to fact-check them.
100%
nobody is going to spend $88 billion on their own JWST just to fact check NASA

>>16199087
>All the real discoveries that furthers physics happen in particle physics.
what have they produced in the past half century?

>>16195718
>send physical humans to physical points in space to explor
since you seem to think its all fake anyway, what's to say that if you did go to mars, for example, that you wouldn't just be made to believe you saw whatever the Grand Fakers want you see anyway?

You already deny the trustworthiness of every kind of sense we can extend to Jupiter, which are mostly light, radio, radar and so on, so why not the very light that enters your eyes?

where does the madness stop?

>>16196417
This image is supposed to be mocking but it is just true.
The left side of the equation is what is known and calculated and the right side is observation. We know 1+1 = 2 which isn't what we observe, 3. So of course we KNOW we are missing some kind of information it's just whether it is going to be 1+1+1=3, 1+1+0.5+0.5=3, or some other new model that will generate what is observed.

>>16195595
>Canals on Mars!
Astonomy is literally people drawing pictures of optical illusions

>>16211077
Absolutely nothing, why do you ask?

>>16211935
it people drawing pictures of optical illusions and then using those optical illusions as an excuse to demand $88 billion in tax money for a new telescope from a government that is already $35 trillion in debt.

>>16213235
>$88 billion

>>16213235
>$35 trillion

>>16202759
Bringing up gender when discussing astronomy is just dumb but highlights your simplistic way of thinking. While I agree with you that there are only two genders, that has nothing to do with this thread. That is unless you believe that astronomers are somehow gatekeepers of "science". Or that you lump all scientists together like astronomers somehow all believe critical race theory and gender is a spectrum bullshit. That all scientists are the bad guys. It's a very black and white method of thinking. Good guys vs bad guys. No better than the marvel s oys that simplify everything like Trump is Thanos and Biden is Captain America. You are a different side of the same coin in that sense and each passing day I'm more convinced of this fact.

>>16213588
only the sith deal in absolutes

>>16213593
You did the same reply in that one /fit/ thread.
>>>/fit/74422207

>>16195595
You would need a telescope the size of the solar system if you wanted an actual photo of an explanation. Until then, we have Spectoscropy.

>>16213793
wasn't me bro. its a well known quote from a well known movie. ive never posted on /fit/ in my life.

>>16213588
Not all of them believe in the woke bullshit but a lot of them do and some are even prominent "scientist"
>Sitting on the same chair that Feymann did btw

>>16213588

>>16209203
>science has repeatable experiments and disprovable theories, astronomy has neither of those, it isn't a real science
Being very critical to actual science myself i have to admit that observing a periodical variation seems reproduceable to me. The "no experiment so no science" argument looks dogmatic too. You cannot do experiments on plate tectonics too but i never heard it is disputed for that reason. Science had made a lot of crimes, lot of lies, surround themselves with a priestly aura of know-it-all-ness and licks the ass of the ones in power every day. But that is true for nearly everything humans doing. Problem looks for me out of a mirror.

>>16195668
>not being any other possible explanation for periodic diming that follows a very specific pattern
Can be a orbiting dust cloud or a assymetric rotating one in the light path or whatever. But I doubt that you can measure the dimming of an Earth-sized object over the given distances.

>>16195595
Do you get paid to pretend to be this stupid, or do you do it for free?

>>16219381
If you knew how much trouble you were in you would shit yourself. The total bounty is quadrillions. You allow very little space for digits to do their fixing your mistakes work through the Sun. You're looking at 2000 years from men punishing you for what you did to them, and 12,000 for the digits. If you do ever get caught, you're more that murred in comparison. It's only been 35 years.

Do you know how long you will suffer and be barred from anything pleasurable if captured? You *must* hope that doesn't happen

It will all happen within minutes, you'll get to see my 10 minute after face taking the piss out of you.

>>16218704
>blatant ESL meme
you are brown

>>16219399
>>16219403
>>16219406
meds. take them

Proof that JWST data isn't just generated by computer models?

>>16195595
>>16221264
how do we know they're not faking all their data?

>>16222300
You don't. In order to truly know that you have to go out and get an education in the field so you have the necessary knowledge to answer the question yourself. You are too ignorant to understand this.

>>16195668
Fake and Gay! Many do not know this, but if you make enough posts like this Christ will come to your house and burn you alive. Sad!

>>16195595
>Is astronomy scientific?
Yes

>>16224351
>astronomy
>scientific

>>16202035
>they're still slack jawed morons who'll fall for anything even the stupid crap in OP
Dumb people do dumb things because they're dumb

>>16213235
>$35 trillion in debt.
USA's debt was only $20 trillion in 2021 when Trump left office. What happens when debt doubles every 4 years?

>>16195718
Even though I cannot exist I reminded you the ocean is dark.

>>16228718
reminder that hyperinflation contributed to the conditions which lead to the rise of naziism in germany

>>16195595
Not even slightly scientific, its all just conjecture and consensus. Most astronomers can't do math and don't understand physics, so they're at the mercy of the tiny majority who can. For the ignorant majority its either go along with the program and agree with the guy who learned calculus or get shut out of the profession. They abuse the peer review system that way, peer review decides who gets to do research as well as who gets to publish

>>16231811
>Most astronomers can't do math and don't understand physics
Never left your moms basement huh? Let's see your statistics backing this.

>>16221264
Proof you aren't just a chatbot?

>>16219254
>Can be a orbiting dust cloud
Would cause different obscuration at different wavelengths.
>Can be a orbiting dust cloud
Wouldn't fit the symmetric transit models.

>>16232070
>>16219254
Also the density of some transiting exoplanets has been measured with radial velocity follow-up to get the masses. The Earth-mass ones are way to dense to be dust.
>But I doubt that you can measure the dimming of an Earth-sized object over the given distances.
You would be wrong.

>>16232070
astronomers can't do math and don't understand physics, sorry if that triggers you.

>>16233782
They can do simple math and understand most of undergrad level physics, but astrophysics is a separate field from astronomy for good reason.
People with math or physics BS degrees are just as likely to get astro graduate degrees as people with an astronomy BS are.

>>16233782
>>16234979
Let's see your evidence. Surely this is a scientific claim and not obvious bullshit.

>astrophysics is a separate field from astronomy for good reason.
Lel no. If you liked in the early 20th century. No one doing research today is doing astronomy, everyone does astrophysics. They are synonymous in modern research.

>>16233782
Let's see your evidence. Surely this is a scientific claim and not obvious bullshit.

>>16234979
>astrophysics is a separate field from astronomy for good reason.
Lel no. If you lived in the early 20th century, not now. No one doing research today is doing astronomy, everyone does astrophysics. They are synonymous in modern research. Nobody is teaching 20th century astronomy either.

Any astronomy nerds know of an orbital simulator that would predict things like seasons as you tweak things like orbital plane angle, angle of revolution, eccentricity of the orbit, etc?

>>16235225
universe sandbox?

>>16235302
That came to mind but I didn't remember it having things like seasonal temperature data, and that's the main thing I'm looking for.
I'm interested in seeing how the durations and temperature fluctuations of seasons change with minor adjustments.

>>16235302
>>16235334
Well, it seems like it does. So thanks for recommending it.
https://universesandbox.com/blog/2020/07/sciencelog-1-energy-and-heating/

I had the Legacy version, and I'm not sure if it does such calculations.

>>16195595
>The so called photo of a black hole is actually a computer generated image.
Not until the 13th dPerson. lands on the Moon in greater definition, will anyone believe it? Is that syphon filter on a memory card or a wifi mod from the kuiper belt?

>>16195707
Why would you need a roof in a place like this? I doesn't rain or snow. Temperature is likely controlled, too.
As a matter of fact, you could probably just sleep outside looking at the stars every night.

>>16195595
>Is astronomy scientific?
no

>>16235225
you can do all that yourself easily if you could pass freshman level thermodynamics and astro 101. the fact that you're unable or unwilling to do so speaks volumes about your personality and intelligence.

>>16235495
lmfao shit-eating trolls infest every board on this site, don't they?
I didn't take Astro 101, but I had perfect marks in Physics and Thermo, so I could spend an hour or two brushing up on Kepler's Laws or something, and figuring out what equations to use to calculate how much light would be hitting parts of a planet at various times. Maybe plug it all into excel or matlab.

But then it takes some meteorology to figure out how to convert that incident energy to atmospheric outcomes, and that sounds like an even bigger hassle than spreadsheeting a bunch of tweaks to Earth's orbit.

But if it's so easy, let's see you do it. Surely you're not a dumbfuck talking out of their ass, right? Surely you can demonstrate how incompetent I am and easily bust out all the calculations I could possibly need, right?

>>16235495
>just simulate your own universe bro

>>16235904
>I can't do basic analytical physics and I have no idea how simple of complex that I'm asking for is because I have no education whatsoever
>You must listen to and respect my opinion on this topic

>>16236924
Show us this basic analytical physics.
Show us how easy it is.

>>16236940
try opening a schoolbook sometime

>>16199087
When is astronomy going to finally invent laser swords?

>>16195595
It's amazing that these retards (assuming it's more than one) have enough time to make these worthless threads.

>>16195595
Until we can travel to the nearest star and conduct actual scientific experiments, I don't trust anything anybody says about anything outside the solar system.

>>16235495
This, predicting average temperatures based on solar energy input is incredibly basic stuff. Used to be taught in high school before curriculums were switched over to focusing on racial politics, feminism, the holocaust and homosexuality

>>16195920
It's not just the dips, either. It's the shape of the dips too, which are totally consistent with a planetary transit.

>>16211931
I don't think the person who made the meme knows enough physics to even understand your point.

>>16216402
Sean Carroll, who is not a biologist, thinks that chromosomal disorders have anything to do with sex being defined by gamete production.

>>16234979
The reason people with physics degrees are just as likely is because most schools don't even have astronomy degrees. Those people with physics degrees probably did the astronomy track for their degree, or took astronomy electives, or did an astronomy minor. Every school is slightly different with how they do it, and not all schools have dedicated astronomy departments.

>>16242274
>It's not just the dips, either. It's the shape of the dips too, which are totally consistent with a planetary transit.
Aren't we also either currently measuring light that seems to have refracted through an exoplanet's atmosphere, or planning to perform those observations?

>>16242275
Good thing there are thousands of other biologists, geneticists, etc, that all tend to believe the same thing. For everyone one of them that opposes nonbinary or trans identities there are hundreds more refuting them.

>>16242802
>nonbinary or trans identities
nonscientific word salad. i bet you can't even meaningfully define any of those three words. (i'll give you "or" for free)

>>16242805
https://academic.oup.com/jsm/article-abstract/18/6/1122/6956015
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811920301002
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11682-019-00121-8
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8955456/
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/nf-2020-0007/html
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6677266/
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180524112351.htm
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33440198/

Something more easily digestible for you: https://youtu.be/kT0HJkr1jj4

This will come as a momentary shock to you, but when you shut down and put up walls and reject all new information, the rest of the world doesn't give a shit. We keep moving. We keep evolving. We keep growing. We are doing you a COURTESY by informing you about new findings and developments, even though your kind is fundamentally anti-science because you're terrified of change.

Unluckily for you, the universe IS change. So the longer you reject new information the more changes accumulate and the more painful it is when you finally reach a breaking point. Eventually, you'll find that the weight of reality is too great for you to reject in your little echo chamber and it'll come crashing through and obliterate your outdated beliefs, or even take you out entirely.

This pattern has repeated for all of human history.
Some people study reality or develop new ideas and regressives dig their heels in and resist to their dying breath. And the only progress we ever get to make as a species happens as regressives from previous generations die off and their kids grow up with slightly more progressive beliefs.

Again: The vast, overwhelmingly, staggering majority of experts say you're wrong.

So how fucking stupid do you have to be to insist that you're right?
Why would you ever think that the talking heads on TV were more likely to be correct than the thousands of experts studying the topic in detail?

>>16242834
NTA
>Unluckily for you, the universe IS change.
The only way this is true and trans can be normalized is if the schizo metaphysics is correct and somehow this world is a simulation.

From a materialistic scientific perspective how the fuck do you justify this normalization. The 2 gendered biology is the stable emergent product of millions of years of evolution evident across the entire planet. Any other temporary deviation are non-sustainable mutations that do not survive long or otherwise it would have became a prevalent NATURAL trait in humans. The only reason trans is an emergent trait right now is because of advanced artificial medicine, surgery, and politics, in the West. Baring some miraculous sci-fi technological advancement, the logical conclusion of the normalization of this trend is the extinction of the homo sapien race.

While this topic is not directly related to OP, the fact serious papers are published supporting a purely politicalized view shows just how far bullshit can now run in the academia. Biology, cosmology, astronomy, the list just keeps piling on. Picrel is truly the absolute state of /sci/.

>>16243096
You sure skipped a lot. Ask yourself why you had to do that.

>The only way this is true and trans can be normalized is if the schizo metaphysics is correct and somehow this world is a simulation.
In what way? We should expect variation in everything if the universe is always changing. And we see that. We see mutation and evolution. We see traits recombine in myriad permutations all the time. Gender is just one of countless examples.

>The 2 gendered biology is the stable emergent product of millions of years of evolution evident across the entire planet.
No it's not. For one, we know of species with 3 genders, like those lizards that have femboys, and arguably orangutans. Did you mean sex? If so, go read those papers I linked until you get it through your head that sex isn't gender.

>Any other temporary deviation are non-sustainable mutations that do not survive long or otherwise it would have became a prevalent NATURAL trait in humans.
Millions of people have these traits. Some cultures, particularly in SE Asia, have recognized nonbinary and transgender identities for centuries. We also see evidence of transgender identity and homosexuality in non-human animals.

>The only reason trans is an emergent trait right now is because of advanced artificial medicine, surgery, and politics, in the West
You are 100% wrong. And laughably so. We have evidence of other animals experiencing inverted gender roles and of humans all over the world behaving in a way that's congruent with modern theory about gender even going back 2,000 years.

>>16243096
>Baring some miraculous sci-fi technological advancement, the logical conclusion of the normalization of this trend is the extinction of the homo sapien race.
On the contrary, see the "Gay Uncle" hypothesis and the fraternal birth order effect:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5777082/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6976918/
tl;dr, the more sons a woman has, the higher the odds of them being gay, and these gay sons do not compete for women but do help raise their nieces and nephews, conferring a competitive advantage to their families while minimizing disruption and despite not having kids of their own.

You should be ashamed of yourself for not knowing even the most basic information on this topic but loudly and proudly making bold assertions as if you do. This is why people despise your kind.

Oh, and:
>Baring some miraculous sci-fi technological advancement,
YOU MEAN ADVANCEMENT LIKE THE EXACT KIND YOU JUST SAID ARE ALLOWING US TO CHALLENGE BIOLOGICAL DETERMINISM? It's so like your kind to baselessly assume that technology is just going to stop. You can't imagine what we'll be capable of in 20 years so you just pretend nothing will change. You're pathetic.

>the fact serious papers are published supporting a purely politicalized view
>waaaaah! the evidence disagwees with me!
>waaaah! if experts don't pander to my ignorance they must be pushing politicized trash on us!
>waaaaah! i'm a lazy, stupid piece of shit that's terrified of new information so I'll make up ANY reason to reject it and double down on my prior beliefs instead of facing reality!
>wwwaaaaaahhhhh! i'll keep doing this until reality changes so much that i become a delusional lunatic clinging to the version of reality that existed when i was 9!
>AND IT'S EVERYONE ELSE'S PROBLEM. I WON'T SUFFER ALONE. I'M GOING TO FUCK OVER EVERYONE ELSE BECAUSE *I* AM A LAZY MORON.

>>16243096
>Baring some miraculous sci-fi technological advancement, the logical conclusion of the normalization of this trend is the extinction of the homo sapien race.
The wildest part of this take is we know that the thing suppressing birth rates and actually causing extinction is not queer people. It's capitalism. We know this because we see birth rates plummet even in nations that EXECUTE LGBTQ people for being queer.

The problem is that capitalist exploitation of workers is incompatible with having children.
You force both parents to work.
You fight mandatory paid parental leave.
You fight universal healthcare.
You fight universal education.
You fight accessible transportation.
You fight affordable childcare.
You fight food regulations that prioritize nutrition.
You fight affordable housing.
You fight walkable cities.

You fight every single policy proven to promote birth rates and force more and more people to live with none of that, getting crushed by jobs that leave them exhausted and depressed, and then wonder why they won't pump out babies to fuel such a horrifically broken system?

It's simple biology: You can't bury a species under a mountain of stress and give it no free time or resources to spend on reproduction and then get mad when it stops reproducing.

>>16243138
>>16243141
>>16243154
Cut the bullshit. Answer this simple question.

Can a society of pure trans become generationally sustainable without normal people. If yes why aren't there any in the history of the entire planet.

And if not, why would the growth of this trend not logically lead to the extinction of the entire species.

>>16243235
No, you cut the bullshit. Your hypothetical is asinine, insane, and a complete non-sequitur. You can't respond to a single thing that has actually been said you you run and hide and fixate on this scenario you made up that your middle schooler brain think somehow justifies all of your other beliefs.

You even contradict yourself. Because, yes, hypothetically a 100% trans nation can exist. Because trans men and trans women can still remain fertile and they can still reproduce. There are cases of trans women impregnating trans men and having children together.

And, again, you claim so much of this only due to modern technology allowing it. So you know that if this is possible, that we wouldn't have seen an example of it so soon. It's not like trans gender identity became a possibility only in the past few decades and suddenly some nation would 100% invert their genders.

And why would they even if they had the power? Trans people are like 1% of the population. In no reality does 1% of the population being trans pose a threat to the rest of the population.

The more you think about your claims, the more psychotically unhinged they get.

And we know why. We have 2600+ hacked emails from your masters all about how they're going to scapegoat trans people to distract their supporters from the fact that they have no solutions for any real problems. They're not addressing housing prices or stagnant wages or obscene healthcare costs. They're doing nothing to make your life any better. So they just fearmonger you about trans people and make you think they're an existential threat to your way of life.

And you fall for it because you do not fact check them. You mindlessly believe whatever they say and repeat it like a parrot.

>>16243308
I didn't ask if a hypothetically a 100% trans nation can just exist, I asked if they can hypothetically be naturally GENERATIONALLY SUSTAINABLE. Yes, a society of 100% /lgbt/ can hypothetically exist, then they would logically die out in a generation or two; it's unsustainable, not without some sci-fi technological intervention.
>Trans people are like 1% of the population. In no reality does 1% of the population being trans pose a threat to the rest of the population.
>1%
>posts graph of 5.6% and growing
I used to be sympathetic. I don't care if it's natural or by choice. Nobody is perfect and it aren't right to go after a small percentage of the population who just want to be left alone to live their life how they choose.
But that's not the case now is it. Now it's everybody else got to use YOUR pronouns, allow YOU to use whatever washroom, tow YOUR line or get cancelled.
You don't want to be left alone, you want your life style to be the future norm, by force if necessary, and it shows.

>>16243361
>I asked if they can hypothetically be naturally GENERATIONALLY SUSTAINABLE
Yeah?
Why wouldn't they be?
And all evidence now points to them being inevitable products of otherwise cishet populations. You can't prevent them from existing because they're born this way.

>>posts graph of 5.6% and growing
Not all LGBTQ people are trans, you illiterate monkey.

>But that's not the case now is it. Now it's everybody else got to use YOUR pronouns, allow YOU to use whatever washroom, tow YOUR line or get cancelled.
Don't care. Didn't ask. But thanks for finally confessing that you don't care about evidence or logic. All you care about is your pathetic little feelies got hurt when someone asked you to show a tiny bit of respect to your fellow man.

We had this whole big back and forth and, predictably, it was all just you making up bullshit to justify a fundamentally emotional rejection of new information.

You see how fucked up that is? Do you even realize that you spent all that fucking time arguing in bad faith? Do you realize that because so many of you subhumans do this, it's destroying our civilization? We can't address ANY major problems we have as a species because every time we even try to talk about them all of the people like you reflexively shit yourself and start smearing it all over the walls to avoid having to learn something new or change your fucking minds.

Over and over and over and over. All discourse on this fucking planet is corrupted and ruined by you fucking animals throwing fits because you can't keep your fucking emotions in check.

It's pathetic.

>You don't want to be left alone, you want your life style to be the future norm, by force if necessary, and it shows.
Force will only be necessary when you start persecuting LGBTQ people by force. And then you'll get curbstomped and humanity will get to make some progress for a generation or two until the next crop of your kind come along and dig their heels in on every little issue.

>>16243419
>And all evidence now points to /lgbt/ being inevitable products of otherwise cishet populations
Live by the sword die by the sword.
You gained people's sympathy when others persecuted you through no fault of your own.
Now that you decide others need to follow your lifestyle, your rules, by force, because you apparently believe it's the inevitable next step in human evolution, the pendulum is going to swing back, hard.
Get ready, it's coming.

>>16243458
If you weren't wrong, you could respond to more than 1 point. The fact that you have to dodge 99% of them and cherrypick one that you can twist to suit you should be a red flag to you that you are wrong.

btw I'm not even LGBTQ. My only stake in this is that if dipshits like you refuse to treat people with basic dignity and respect, you'll be made to.

>Get ready, it's coming.
It is, but not how you think. All of history is just people like you protesting any change harder and harder, until you get violent. And then, when you finally start drawing blood, everyone else rises up against you and kicks your teeth in.

Repeat every 60-80 years. 1776. 1860. 1940. We're just about due for another round and it's guaranteed to go the same way every previous round has gone.

The sad part is if you'd read a history book you'd know that every word you're vomiting up is almost identical to the rhetoric your ancestors spewed as they spiraled down into self-destructive hate as well.

>>16243474
>btw I'm not even LGBTQ
And I'm not white nor am I residing in the West. But I have observed my share of your bullshit studying there and am simply observing the logical conclusion of the idiocracy playing out in your countries that's infected everthing up to and including the scientific academia.
You think /lgbt/ have it bad in the West? See what happens if you try preach your bs in the Middle East, in Africa, or here in Asia.
Respect is earned. The only thing your lot earned had been sympathy in your country, which you squandered in it's entirety endlessly pushing political agendas.
It won't be me swinging the axe; I'll be chuckling on the other side of the Pacific.
But you have fun have people made to respect you, because no one is.

>>16243419

>>16244996

>>16195718
If you assume reality isn't real, then why do you care what other people see in it?
If you assume reality is real, then why make the argument that if it isn't real you can't prove it?
You misunderstand Descartes, his idea was that a demon could fool EVERYTHING you think, so not even the things you're reading right now would really be there. You couldn't just go somewhere and expect because you think you're there it's real, that's ignoring the whole point of Descartes.
To be clear: Descartes probably wasn't right, but if you believe him you shouldn't believe ANYTHING you see at all, period, end of story.

>>16208389

I do. Using calculus we can determine the exact positions and movements of stars. This was the foundation for modern astronomy and is how we managed to estimate the amount of all matter in the universe. Astronomy is a branch of physics for this reason, in the same way cartography used to be a branch of geology. Cartographers aren't a dedicated profession anymore because we successfully mapped the entire planet, which is what astronomers wish to do with the galaxy and the universe.

>>16238865

This isn't a bad position. It doesn't respect the existence of our own sun, but many astronomers agree with it which is why astronomy's current goal is to find a way to fly to alpha centauri.

>>16195595
I heard that the black hole image was created by getting each pixel with the satellite at a different location in it's orbit so that effectively it acted as a planet sized camera.

>>16195595
All you need to know why black holes are there is logic and understanding other basic facts. General relativity just solidified the idea.

For exoplanets all you need is common sense, really. We have 8 in our system and everywhere you look at the sky, you see shitton of stars, with your naked eye. Assuming they have no planets is silly.

>>16246604
I trust enough about our own sun, I can literally feel the heat everyday. I am just skeptical enough about everything else.
Once we actually travelled to a nearby star, and confirmed that indeed these blinking lights in the night sky are suns like we thought, then it becomes astronomically more reasonable to think every other similar blinking lights are also suns.
But nobody have yet, and far as I'm concerned it's still all just numbers and guesswork on a piece of paper.

>>16195595
For many years the general public was misinformed about the color of Neptune. It's entirely possible that the data we are getting is not entirely accurate. Generally the astronomers can be trusted, however it's good to have a healthy skepticism about the field. And at the end of the day, the science they do doesn't really affect your life. Maybe one day it will be relevent (like asteroid detection and deflection), but I doubt it.

>>16248183
asteroids are another think they lie about. if asteroids were a legitimate danger then they wouldn't be irresponsibly wasting all their research funds on space telescopes to look for nonexistent dark matter. the fact that all of the research money goes to useless junk like JWST proves that astronomers aren't even slightly worried about asteroids

>>16248974
This. If anyone legitimate cared even slightly about asteroids then the astronomers who study astroids would be the most famous ones and respected ones, instead its the cosmologists who get all the fame and research funding.

>>16246601
>Astronomy is a branch of physics
no it isn't. astronomers can't even do basic math and don't understand physics. astrophysics is not astronomy

>>16251708
Bullshit.

>>16248974
>fact that all of the research money goes to useless junk like JWST proves that astronomers aren't even slightly worried about asteroids
>fact that all of the research money goes to useless junk like LSST proves that astronomers aren't even slightly worried about climate change
>fact that all of the research money goes to useless junk like jellyfish proves that astronomers aren't even slightly worried about societal collapse
>fact that all of the research money goes to useless junk like climate change proves that astronomers aren't even slightly worried about nuclear Armageddon
Society can fund more than one thing.

>>16248183
>I saw a picture
>Nobody said "this is the true color".
>This must be the true color.
Because everyone knows there's no such thing as white balance and color is always objective.

>>16251714
neil tyson got a phd in astronomy from an ivy and he never even was able to learn calculus. astronomers are low iq

>>16251737
Bullshit. Also one guy =/= astronomers.

>>16195718
>what if your camera is just a demon

>>16251737
Calculus is easy, even if you never understand it there were people in my classes that did fine just memorizing rules.
They did suffer on tests without notes, however.

>>16251813
presumably half of the astronomers are dumber and less skilled than the one random sample. nearly all of astronomy is just measuring angles in the sky and measuring how bright things are, its on par with the kind of amateurish surveying that undergrad engineering students do. don't confuse astronomy and and astrophysics.

>>16253414
>astrophysicists can do math
see >>16196417 picrel

>>16253414
He's not a random sample since he doesn't even work in research anymore. And you haven't even established he cannot do calculus.
>nearly all of astronomy is just measuring angles in the sky and measuring how bright things are
Fucking lel. Maybe in the 1800s.
What fraction of papers did you study to come up with this conclusion? Come on post your big meta study. Let's see the evidence, surely you're not just making shit up.

>>16255313

>>16195595
>We have no way knowing if they actually exist.
Yes we do.

>>16256977
no you don't

>>16248183
>pic
Turn it back

>>16256862

>>16255313
>And you haven't even established he cannot do calculus.
he said it himself

>>16195595
>there is no actual way to verify their existence, is there?

>>16195595
heres how astronomy works:
one group of people with an agenda monopolize the most powerful telescope and keep everyone else out and they write all the narratives and determine what the conventional wisdom is.
it was HST for decades now its JWST

>>16260298
JWST isn't monopolised, though. you can apply to use it to look at something specific for some amount of time, and they'll let you use it if your research proposal is good enough. Plus they let you have first dibs on its data for some amount of time (I think it was a year?) You just have to write up a good enough research proposal.

>>16260687
>You just have to write up a good enough research proposal
have you ever tried to write a "good enough" research proposal but you are not in some of the prominent research groups?

>>16260298
Or you could just download the mountains of public data available. Every observation done my the telescopes becomes public after a year. There is literally nothing stopping you from downloading some data and doing your own analysis, other than the fact you wouldn't have a clue what do to.

https://mast.stsci.edu/

>>16260690
JWST proposals are ranked anonymously.

>>16260858
>peer review is completely anonymous and honest
thats been disproved, see >>16261748 for the details

>>16262559
What the thread claims:
>in at least a third of academic publications
What the article actually looked at:
>Peer review trends in six fisheries science journals
Fucking lel. Quite a leap to extrapolate half a dozen fish "science" journals to all of publishing.
So not JWST proposals. Maybe you should have peer reviewed your citation here.

>>16195735
can you prove the vaccines worked? you need control groups

>>16263171
What evidence to you have that trends in fisheries research aren't common with trends on other fields of science? Why would fisheries be some sort of oddball outlier? You're just looking for excuses to dismiss the fact that peer review "anonymity" was proved to be a farce and that collusion and other forms of cheating are rampant amongst professional scientists

>>16263955
Can't prove a negative. Where is your proof that this extends to all fields?
Also the paper doesn't even claim that there is collusion. So you don't even have any evidence at all of this existing in any field.

>>16264019
>I have no evidence that fisheries is atypical therefore I can only resort to trying to flip the burden of proof
so why do you believe that fisheries is atypical when you have no evidence of that?

>>16195595
>Is astronomy scientific?
no, science had repeatable experiments and disprovable theories, astronomy has neither

>>16265131
Why are you assuming that it is typical? Why are you assuming it at all when the source doesn't even claim it for these specific fisheries journals?

>>16266272
Astronomy has lots of disprovable theories, like the Copernican solar model and tired light.
Science doesn't require repeatable experiments, see geology.

>>16266445
>geology
theres massive amounts of nonscientific nonsense in academic geology

>>16267285
So you don't claim geology as a whole isn't a science because it has no experiments. Just because you were taught in school that science=experiments doesn't mean empiricism is limited to that.