/sci/ - Science & Math

>>16241965
The entire theoretical system that led to these two hypotheses is false and queer.

>>16241965
Because it's not Dark. It's Clear. You can see Dark stuff. Clear stuff you cannot see.
And that is Gay.

>>16241965
>>16241969
What's your beef with ΛCDM?

>>16241980
True, but I've made it a habit to ignore dark stuff whenever possible. To hate it, even.

>>16241965
okay let's here your alternative theory then anon

>>16242021
*hear

>>16241965
Anon, are you aware that dark matter and dark energy are two completely separate and unrelated things? They have nothing at all to do with each other.

>>16241965
Reality doesn't care about what you consider "gay."
>>16241969
And the alternative systems are...?
>>16242027
Of course not. Like most OPs on /sci/ nowadays, he doesn't actually care about or have any interest in science, outside of desperately trying to deboonk it to justify his conspiracy theories (and because things he does not understand or concepts that are new to him make him angry and paranoid).

>>16242030
>Humphreys' book Starlight and Time presents his alternative to the Big Bang in an attempt to solve what young Earth creationists call the Distant Starlight Problem. Its thesis is that the Earth and universe are about six thousand years old when measured in Earth's reference frame, whereas the outer edge of an expanding and rotating 3-dimensional universe is billions of years old (as measured from its reference frame). It proposes, using the principles of relativity, to postulate that time ticked at different rates during the universe's origin. In other words, according to his theory, clocks on Earth registered the six days of creation, while those at the edge of the universe counted the approximately 15 billion years needed for light from the most distant galaxies to reach Earth. The model places the Milky Way galaxy relatively near the center of the cosmos.

>>16241965
They're not. This board is just full of larping retards who can't do high school physics and console themselves by pretending various parts of modern physics are wrong and that they are therefore smarter than physicists. I would remind all such posters that
>You
>Will
>Never
>Be
>A
>Physicist
(YWNBAP)

>>16242047
>Humphreys graduated with a B.S. from Duke University and was awarded his Ph.D in physics from Louisiana State University in 1972. He has worked for General Electric and Sandia National Laboratories where he received a patent and a science award. From 2001 to 2008, he was an associate professor at The Institute for Creation Research. He currently works for Creation Ministries International (USA). Humphreys is a board member of both the Creation Research Society and the Creation Science Fellowship of New Mexico.

>>16242045
>Its thesis is that the Earth and universe are about six thousand years old
hypothesis discarded

>>16242051
>>16242045
lol
I've looked into that retarded model before. It doesn't even have anything to do with dark matter, the purported topic of this thread.

>>16242054
What's wrong with it?
>>16242053
Why?

>>16242059
It's retarded

>>16242060
https://www.icr.org/article/recordbreakinggalaxy

>>16242063
https://rule34.xxx/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=8076323

>>16242065
Not clicking on a potentially pornographic link.

>>16242059
>What's wrong with it?
The Earth is not 6000 years old FROM ANY REFERENCE FRAME and there was no "six days of creation."
If you base your model of the universe around this retarded judaic fairytale then it's automatically invalid.

>>16242067
Oh, it's definitely pornographic

>>16242067
>rule34.xxx
>potentially pornographic
You REALLY don't belong here, election tourist.

>>16242082
Why don't you respnd to his claims?
https://www.icr.org/article/wars-starlight-time-withstands-attacks/

>>16242083
>>16242085
Why do you never question your religion?
https://www.icr.org/article/scientists-question-big-bang-assumption

>>16242087
I already did respond to his claims.
He claims the Earth is 6000 years old and experienced "the six days of creation."
These claims are directly contradicted by literally everything we know about the universe and the planet. And quite frankly, if you don't dismiss them off-hand, you're a fucking schizo.
We have carbon dating. We have fossils. We have geological evidence of plate tectonics. All of these prove that the Earth is not 6000 years old and was not shaped in 6 days by God.
Creation "science" is the last desperate gasp of christcucks trying to reconcile their fairy tales with observed reality. Nothing more.

>>16242091
Dark matter?

>>16242095
https://www.icr.org/article/doesnt-carbon-dating-prove-earth-old

>>16242102
How desperate? One theorist recently suggested that perhaps dark matter somehow existed before the Big Bang. How is that possible? Haven’t we been led to believe that the Big Bang was the origin of everything?
https://www.icr.org/article/continuing-troubles-for-the-big-bang-model

>>16242106
OK, and?

>>16242104
>A "Back to Genesis" way of thinking insists that the Flood of Noah's day
lol. lmao. "Back to Genesis." Your religion is dying and the only people who still believe it are deluded boomers with lead poisoning, incels, trailer trash, and non-whites.
>>16242106
>look at my articles from the christcuck propaganda website! see, a website says it so it must be true! just like how my desert holy book says things so they must also be true!

>>16242104
Oh, also.
>That is until careful measurements revealed a significant disequalibrium. The production rate still exceeds decay by 30%
He provides no citation for this claim.
He also ignores that radiocarbon dating is NOT the only radioisotope dating method. Some elements have isotopes with half lives of hundreds of millions of years, some with billions.

>>16241965
its just regular matter our telescopes cant pick up because its too cold

>>16242125

>>16242047
>>16242030
Midwits detected

>>16242063
> The researchers were quoted as asking, “This starlight implies that the galaxy is several hundreds of millions of times the mass of the sun!...How can nature make such a bright, massive, and large galaxy in less than 300 million years?”1

>The answer is that nature did not and cannot make or create anything at all. Rather, the Lord Jesus Christ, not a deified or personified nature, deserves the credit and glory for creating the stars and galaxies on Day 4 of the creation week, just as described in Genesis. [end of article]

Wow. That solves everything. "Jesus did it", no explanation needed. Perhaps if biblical science is this strong they could predict how common these type of galaxies are, or their properties.

You're aware that these terms simply mean that there's something there, but we don't know what. It's like using the letter "x" to designate an unknown. Do you think an equation with an unknown is gay and fake too? Do you realize now how much of a joke you are in the scientific community?

>>16242344
Who did it then?

>>16242226
>christcuck realizes his "Back to Genesis" propaganda articles written by senile boomers in the late 90s won't actually convince anyone who isn't already a brainwased christcuck
>resorts to posting "a-atheists are c-c-cringe" memes instead
Like clockwork.
>>16242468
Nobody. Not everything needs some person behind it.

>>16242949
So, something came from nothing. How?

In April 2012, an analysis of previously available data from Fermi's Large Area Telescope instrument produced statistical evidence of a 130 GeV signal in the gamma radiation coming from the center of the Milky Way. WIMP annihilation was seen as the most probable explanation.

In 2013, results from the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer on the International Space Station indicated excess high-energy cosmic rays which could be due to dark matter annihilation.

>>16242965
It's always funny when christcucks try this 'argument.' "B-b-but how could something come from nothing?"
Your religion has the exact same problem. How did God come from nothing? And of course, your response will be "God is eternal and has always existed." Why can the same not be true of the universe?

>>16242965
Something didn't come from nothing. There was never a time when there was nothing, because the beginning of the universe is the origin of time. The universe has always been infinitely large and full of stuff.

>>16243565
>>16243574
https://www.icr.org/article/christs-creativity-canyon-critters/

The recentish news that some galaxies do not have dark matter was a major advancement in my eyes.

>>16244010
boomers are deranged

>>16245111
no galaxies have dark matter.

>>16244010
Is there a possibility you can clarify something for me?
Assuming a global flood:
Why did some areas become mountains and others become deep canyons, rather than everything sort of getting washed out and hilly as with any other flood we've seen on earth?
How would small, delicate fossils have formed such as footprints in clay or other sediment without being washed away assuming they were totally underwater?
Why do no modern geologists find any evidence for a global flood?

Earth may not be 6000 years old from Earth's reference frame, but that doesn't stop Atheists from being cringe and wrong.
The founders of modern physics, namely Bohr, Heisenburg and Pauli, were not Atheists.
"The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass, God is waiting for you." - Heisenburg

>>16246864
>some people who were smart believed in god!
some people who were smart didn't believe in god.

>>16246865
Very few smart people subscribe to Atheism, which is the absolute non-existence of any deity.

>>16246868
Basically every modern physicist, chemist, geologist, biologist, or scientist in general. But we can discount those.

>>16246871
Lol, lmao even. Just because one thinks the Christian church's teachings does not, on a surface level, correspond to classical physics, does not make one an atheist, which is the absolute denial of the existence of any deity, something that cannot be proven wrong.
More interesting is why you think the way you think. Tell me, how does observation collapse the wave function?

>>16246878
Atheism is a- (lack of) theism (the belief in a god)
And something like 98% of scientists polled don't believe in a god (are atheists)

>>16246881
Atheism is the belief that there must exist no deity, not the lack of explicit worship of a specific God/gods.

>>16246884
atheism
noun
athe·ism ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm
Synonyms of atheism
1 : a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

98% of scientists lack a belief of any god or gods.

>>16246888
>a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
That is close to the correct definition. Atheists are those who believe in the non-existence of any diety

>>16246897
I gave you the defittion form merriam webster.
Here's one from american atheists:
>Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.
dictionary.com
>a person who does not believe in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
wikipedia
>Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities.

All of them are able to INCLUDE the claim your making, but as it is used by human beings in real life, you are trying to strawman your opponents.

>>16246864
Earth is not 6000 years old. Period. There were no 6 days of creation. Period.
Bohr, Heisenberg, and Pauli weren't young earth creationists. Indeed, many modern Christians do not subscribe to young earth creationism at all. It's only the most deluded boomers and their brainwashed flocks of sheep who still cling to a literal interpretation of Genesis. Even the fucking Catholic Church acknowledges that the Earth is not 6000 years old and was not created in 6 days.
Atheists are not wrong, in fact they are more likely to be right than theists. There is no evidence, no proof, nothing of the existence of a God or Gods. The only indication that any deities exist are religious texts, and those aren't evidence or proof. Since there is no logical reason to think a deity exists, the logical position is not to believe in one at all.

On an intuitive level, our universe *feels* created, designed. The physical constants are arbitrary, and the very founding blocks of it are abstract probability functions. Due to this, I've seen people saying that we live in a virtual world, implying that our universe was created by something outside of our universe. If true, those beings are effectively Gods. They are equivalent to Gods, in the same way that your state during free fall is the equivalent to your state while in orbit.
Personally, I don't see the need for an outside layer of deterministic and "real" universe to have created our non-deterministic and non-real universe. Our universe could simply be random, non-deterministic and non-real fundamentally, as a state of being, no need for the existence of an outside "real" layer, simply due to Occam's Razor.
Of course, that doesn't preclude the *chance* of that existence, therefore I'm not an atheist and neither are most physicists.

>>16241965
Because its not real and straight?

>>16246912
2009 pew research, fewer than half of physicists have ANY supernatural beliefs.
46% are stated atheists.

>>16246919
>women are more likely than men to believe bullshit
kek

>>16246912
At the National Academy of Science, an even older study found only 7% of scientists believe in a personal god in 1998. 93% are atheistic.
Study from Nature.

>>16246919
>universal spirit or higher power
That's not everything though. Universal spirit describes something explicitly within this universe, higher power describes something that may or may not be within this universe.

>>16246912
>Of course, that doesn't preclude the *chance* of that existence, therefore I'm not an atheist and neither are most physicists.
Exactly. Physicists are concerned with experimental results and models that can best predict further experimental results. They aim to describe our universe as best as possible, but they don't presume as to what our universe is. That is the job of philosophers and theologists, which include atheists.
To give a simple example, like in that Netflix show, the atheist Cultural Revolutionaries killed a physicist because the Big Bang Theory leaves room for the existance of God.

>>16246919
>>16246929
The vast discrepancy between those two "studies" only show that social science isn't a real science and the liberal arts and related fields need to be removed from universities.
The fundamental question "What is a belief in God" or "What is disbelief in God" or "What is atheism" isn't and can't be experimentally defined.

>>16246932
>That's not everything though.
Higher power is general enough, I feel, that even if you explicitly included some other things on there that one would consider "religious," you'd still have the largest section disbelieving it all.
Of course, I don't know, and I didn't run the study myself. I'd love to see an updated version for 2024 or beyond.

>>16246934
The study shows that the highest scientific achievers from 1914 to 1998 were exceedingly unlikely to believe in a personal God.
Even general "scientists" in specific fields are less likely to believe in a God than to be atheistic.
Overall, most scientists are atheists, and the smartest people there are even MORE atheistic on average.

>>16246938
Bohr/Heisenburg/Pauli would not register as "religious" or "believer of god/gods" on those studies, yet they weren't atheists.
There's miles and miles of space between those studies' (varying) definition of "belief of god" and atheism.

>>16246934
Correct.

>>16246942
Why not perform your own study then? Or just cite one that agrees with you?
Everything I've seen seems to support my claim, even under two different cases.
I'm not usually a big source-sealion but if you're saying "most aren't atheists" than show it! If you think most scientists are theists, show it! Show that they believe in god.

>>16246942
It doesn't matter whether they were atheists or not. They didn't believe the Earth was 6000 years old or created in 6 days. Your christard boomer website didn't convince anyone because it's schizo shit, so now you've resorted to "b-b-but atheists are c-cringe, amirite guys?"

>>16246945
>If you think most scientists are theists, show it! Show that they believe in god.
That's a fallacy. From my interaction with social science "people" it seems that they're taught to use fallacies in their argument more than just to recognize them
I'm not an atheist, which means I do not believe or presume to know that there exists no dieties. That's it. I don't need to believe in some specific god.
>>16246947
I didn't bring up the 6000 yo Earth theory, that theory isn't correct afawk and was created to retroactively and materialistically fit the biblical description.
Atheists, in the very definition of the word, not in the nebulous social science studies, *are* extremely cringe though.

>>16246956
You're misdefining atheist, again, by strawmannish friend.
The term you're looking for is "strong atheist"

>>16246956
>Atheists, in the very definition of the word, not in the nebulous social science studies, *are* extremely cringe though.
Why, because we deny the existence of something for which there is not a single shred of evidence (the Bible and other religious texts are NOT evidence)?

>>16246961
yet you readily accept dark matter

>>16248195
Because there is evidence for the existence of dark matter. Astronomers have observed multiple colliding galaxy clusters that have had their dark matter separated from their normal matter (look up the Bullet Cluster or MACS J0025.4-1222). We haven't directly observed dark matter, but we can and have observed its gravitational influence.

>>16241982
Broken Lambda CDM:
> The ecliptic plane of earth neatly divides the entire universe into warmer and cooler halves, violating the Copernican principle which is one of the assumptions of Lambda CDM
> Polarization of polarized quasars are all aligned with the ecliptic plane of the earth violating the Copernican principle which is one of the assumptions of Lambda CDM
> z=16.7 galaxies right after big bang violating the assumptions of Lambda CDM
And unrelated issues:
> Lack of evidence for string theory
> Lack of evidence for super-symmetry
> Lack of evidence for non-baryonic, cold, dissipation-less, collision-less Dark matter.
Do not assign credit for everything in electronics, and engineering to post-1970 physics: Most of these engineers merely use rules of thumb and patterns from observation which are far removed from how physicists describe reality. e.g. Most electronics is taught using the Lumped Element Model which teaches engineering using myths like ball shaped electrons and holes transferring energy by moving inside a solid conductor at the speed of light.

>>16242082
>The Earth is not 6000 years old FROM ANY REFERENCE FRAME

you are such a baby and you lack imagination
what if Earth had an orbital speed of 25 km/h for most of its existence and only recently sped up

>>16248892

>>16249629
That is not how orbits work.

>>16249120
> z=16.7 galaxies right after big bang violating the assumptions of Lambda CDM
Lel no. That galaxy candidate was debunked, turned out to be z=4.9, as correctly predicted by many people. This is what happens when you get your science news from cranks on youtube, you only hear about the inital claim and never the
https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.15431
The earliest confirmed galaxies show pretty good agreement with LCDM simulations run before JWST launched.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.13755
> Polarization of polarized quasars are all aligned with the ecliptic plane of the earth violating the Copernican principle which is one of the assumptions of Lambda CDM
[citation needed]

>>16250538
>its not true because I'm ignorant of the relevant research and refuse to look it up on my own
common disingenuous argument used by dishonest people

>>16250550
Who are you quoting there? Please link the paper.

>>16241965
>Looks into sky at night and can see dark matter
>Can look at any shadow
>Dark matter

>>16250550
>I'm ignorant of the relevant research and refuse to look it up on my own
Rich coming from the guy still talking about the z=16.7 candidate over a year after it was refuted.

>>16250538
Here is an excellent paper, which will sum up the absolutely astonishing alignment we now see not only in the CMB but *also* in the polarization of light from quasars no matter in which direction we look:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1011.2425v2

Excerpt:
> "First of all, there is a statistically very unlikely planarity between quadrupole and octopole, which is seen in different releases of the data as well as in different statistical analyses , and the octopole is unexpectedly planar by itself....there is a very easily identifiable preferred axis, the cosmological dipole once again; that is, the normal vectors to the planes determined by the quadrupole and the octopole (there are four of them) point all in the same direction, that of the ecliptic or equinox....Let us stress here that the most important feature of all the observational findings reviewed in the previous section is the fact that they require a mechanism operating on unbelievably large scales, which generates coherence among disparate light signals from diverse sources".

The observed anisotropy in the CMB, in quasar polarization, and in the preferred periodic Earth- centered z-values in galaxy distributions out to a billion light years reported here:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0711.4885v3

TLDR: Lambda CDM is toast. Go debunk more to feel better.

>>16250581
>Here is an excellent paper, which will sum up the absolutely astonishing alignment we now see not only in the CMB but *also* in the polarization of light from quasars no matter in which direction we look:
That's a review. Not the actual research or results. Which reference this are you citing for evidence of "Polarization of polarized quasars are all aligned with the ecliptic plane".

>The observed anisotropy in the CMB, in quasar polarization, and in the preferred periodic Earth- centered z-values in galaxy distributions out to a billion light years reported here:
Haha. Nope. The author of that paper retracted and debunked his own claims a month later:
>https://arxiv.org/abs/0712.3833
>Unknown selection effect simulates redshift periodicity in quasar number counts from Sloan Digital Sky Survey
>Discrete Fourier analysis on the quasar number count, as a function of redshift, z, calculated from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey DR6 release appears to indicate that quasars have preferred periodic redshifts with redshift intervals of 0.258, 0.312, 0.44, 0.63, and 1.1. However the same periods are found in the mean of the zConf parameter used to flag the reliability of the spectroscopic measurements. It follows that these redshift periods must result from some selection effect, as yet undetermined. It does not signal any intrinsic (quantized) redshifts in the quasars.
Funny you missed this in you extensive research of the field.

>>16241965
its particle clods they are emmited by the primary time point 1 out 3 time vectors.

>>16250594
its a probabilite function of tiem cores its like a super shredder.

>>16250581
>>16250590

Here is more http://staff.ustc.edu.cn/~wzhao7/c_index_files/main.files/CQG2023.pdf

I have even more links for you to debunk.

>>16250581
>>16250590

https://orbi.uliege.be/bitstream/2268/264575/1/CosmoPrinciple_2021.pdf

>>16250608
>>16250603
I'm not asking for more. I asked you for the reference for this claim. One paper.
>Polarization of polarized quasars are all aligned with the ecliptic plane

>>16250612
>>16250608

See the last slide. I have highlighted the claim.

You can try to nitpick and insult, but Lambda CDM is gone now.

>>16250615
That is a claim in a slide. I want to see the evidence behind it, the paper. Without that it's pretty meaningless, what significance are they talking about?

Also note what they are doing is not what you claimed, they do not claim "quasars are all aligned". Already your claim is falling apart.

>>16250623
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.6098
I think the general argument is that Lambda CDM has certain premises which are invalidated by data. If the premise is critical to the theory, then it is reasonable refutation. Of course, they probably should have went back to the drawing board after discovery of larger structures anyways. And they probably are, but it takes a long time for it to trickle down, or at least it has a much slower turnover rate than shitposts.

>>16250697
Nope. That paper says nothing about the axis of evil. They are not looking at a global asymmetry. Nor do they mention LCDM.
That paper is measuring the polarisation of 20 quasars which live in the same structure. Their polarisations are correlated to the structure. But that is allowed, it just means that the galaxies the quasars live in are preferentially orientated with respect to the structure they live in.

>>16249695
lol, astrotards will believe anything as long as you say its a space pic

Isnt the whole point of dark energy the fact that its a filler concept (I.E. for something we dont understand yet)

>>16252436
how come it never says that in any of the published academic literature?
you're just making up excuses for them in order to justify the trust you irrationally place in a bunch of retarded schizos who pose as legitimate scientists for a living. its like a form of stockholm syndrome or something, you're just rationalizing your trust in idiots because you don't want to feel foolish about having believes their idiotic tripe in the past

>>16253940
>how come it never says that in any of the published academic literature?
It literally does. Your bitter buttflustered rant is invalid.

>>16241965
Dark matter are advanced civilizations hidding from cosmic-horror level predators.
That is why there is less dark matter the farther away you look in spacetime.

>Honor and Conquest are reagents in TWW

Based or cringe?

>>16253952
no it doesn't

>>16256088
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-nucl-102115-044553
>Understanding the reason for the observed accelerated expansion of the Universe represents one of the fundamental open questions in physics.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6633/aa997e
>Still, one of the central challenges of modern cosmology is to shed light on the physical mechanism behind the accelerating universe.
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/47w4g5mq
>The title of this article follows the common but inexact usage of “dark energy” as a catch-all term for the origin of cosmic acceleration, regardless of whether it arises from a new form of energy or a modification of GR.

>>16241965
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caxiX38DK68

>>16256735
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5rRZdiu1UE

>>16249120
the copernican principle is cringe anyways. humans are obviously in an extremely unique and special position, and to say otherwise implies you have solved the fermi question. earth is weird, the solar system is weird, the sun is weird, our local region is weird, everything about our location is weird in a way which is utterly unique despite many attempts to find "Earth 2"

>>16241965
Because neither math nor jewish religion is science. When you begin with jewish myth as the foundation of your cosmology and proceed with nothing but equations that defy observations thereafter you get a model of the universe which is gibberish.

Dark matter and dark energy are literally just massive math errors based on the delusional jewish religious belief that the universe began 14 billion years ago.

>>16242027
Funny look like the same sort of math error to me. Have you tried science that DOESN'T start with "And then yahweh created the heavens and the Earth!"?

>>16242082
You mean like the big bang theory? If you get rid of judenphysik you have to throw it all out (and you should, but you won't because you're a coward).

>>16241965
>Why is “dark matter” and “dark energy” so fake and fucking gay?
They're trying to save the dumb big bang theory.

>>16258478
finish the thought
>They're trying to save the dumb big bang theory in order to preserve the legacy and reputation of St. Albert Einstein the infallible science god of the atheists

>>16258471
>judenphysik
>>16258478
What do you propose as an alternative to the big bang theory?
>>16259394
What do you propose as alternatives to Einstein's theories such as relativity?

>>16259394
Relativity is observable fact. GPS satellites have to account for both special and general relativity in order to function properly.

Reminder to both sides of the thread that Einstein kvetched endlessly about quantum mechanics and was decisively proven wrong post-mortem.

>>16259489
>being wrong about some things = being wrong about everything
What is an alternative theory to general and special relativity that accounts for the fact that relativity is observable? Note that the alternative theory must make an observable, testable prediction.

"Dark Matter" is a stopgap to keep using relativity, despite cosmologist having witnessed phenomena that show its limits.
In that regard it's pretty much like ether.

The only way to explain stuff is a new model.
The best current option is imo JP Petit's Janus model, whose main hypothesis is "What if negative energies and masses were possible?"

http://www.savoir-sans-frontieres.com/JPP/telechargeables/English/gemellaire_anglais/twin_universe.pdf
http://www.savoir-sans-frontieres.com/JPP/telechargeables/English/janus-model-livre-Zejli/Janus_Cosmological_Model_Hicham_Zejli.pdf

>>16260196
That is to say, the "I'm an idiot" model. If negative energy were possible the universe would not be. Think about quantum fields with negative mass terms and spontaneous symmetry breaking.

>>16260200
> Model that solves a bunch of issues in current model
> Can't work because it contradicts current models.

>>16260211
A new theory is only better than a previous theory if it solves more problems than it introduces. It's not so much about it contradicting the current model as it is contradicting observed facts that the current model correctly predicts or explains.
Haven't read much about the Janus model but I suspect that like most LCDM alternatives (such as MOND theories), it makes predictions that go against observed reality in ways that are even more significant than current theories.

>>16260815
It introduces 2 things (variable speed of light, negative mass and energies)

It solves a bunch of stuff (from the top of my head, the great repeller, galaxies' spiral structure, acceleration of cosmic expansion, why the primitive universe is so homogeneous).
I can't pinpoint the exact number of open questions it solves (there's no pdf file listing them, and I've only seen JPP mention them in YT vids in French, which isn't practical to ctrl+f), but i recall him listing 20+ (and it's just a handful of guys in their kitchen)

>>16261933
>variable speed of light
Yeah, this doesn't work. VSL theories never match our actual observations and they break physics in all sorts of ways that are a lot more significant than the dark matter problem.

>>16261933
It doesn't really. None of these things are problems in standard cosmology.
>the great repeller
The dipole repeller is just a fancy name for a local region under-dense in matter. When you have a relatively homogeneous universe voids have an effective repulsion. Really it's just the unbalanced force of all the other matter. Nothing strange.
>galaxies' spiral structure
Not really explained in any of the papers. The one simulation he seems to have done (from 1992) had hand picked inital conditions. He does not show that galaxies can form from simple inital conditions, which has been done extensively in LCDM. The galaxy has a strong bar, this does not mean much. Most real galaxies are not grand design spirals. Do galaxies form naturally like this in his model without the tuned parameters? Who knows, he has had 3 decades to test this.
>acceleration of cosmic expansion
Not shown in any numerical detail. There is lots of data to match.
>primitive universe is so homogeneous
The issue here is standard cosmology predicted those primitive fluctuations in detail. He can only say how big the fluctuations should be, but this is meaningless without a scale. The real CMB has more structure on some scales than others.

>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!!!!

>>16262054
Utterly wrong. We can indirectly measure and observe dark energy. We can measure that the universe is expanding, and dark energy is a potential explanation for why.
On the other hand, there is no direct or even indirect evidence for the existence of God.

>>16262061
How big is the universe?

>>16241965
Because Einsteinian relativity is a hoax and it gave rise to them

>>16242021
>>16242030
Fucktards

>>16246912
>the very founding blocks of it are abstract probability function
>he believes the copenhagen interpretation
laughing_girls.jpg

>>16262061
>We can measure that the universe is expanding
Utterly wrong

>>16262071
The observable universe is roughly 100 billion light years across. The whole universe goes on forever.

>>16262081
What do you propose as an alternative to relativity?
>>16262082
>t. worthless moron who screams "THESE THEORIES ARE WRONG" but offers no alternatives and no reasoning beyond midwittery and "it goes against my intuition"
>>16262089
Nope. The universe is expanding and that is a fact. We have observed it. If the universe were not expanding then distant galaxies would not be redshifted.

>>16262153
If the universe is expanding, then how much bigger is it today compared to yesterday?
Who took those measurements? Where can I see the data?

>>16262155
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=expansion+of+the+universe

>>16262153
>in order to not believe a theory you must have an alternative theory
Why are pseudointellectuals like this?
Exactly 38583727292 lightyears from here is an orange glow in the dark unicorn penguin. He created the universe and he also explicitly decided to make (you) a dumbass retard.
If you disagree, then give me a better theory of why the universe exists and why (you) are such a dumbass retard. Oh wait (you) cant.
>>16262153
>If the universe were not expanding then distant galaxies would not be redshifted.
>some galaxies are moving apart from each other, therefore the entire universe is expanding
retard

>>16259476
>What do you propose as an alternative to the big bang theory?
Fallacy.

You don't need to propose some alternative people like you would be willing to accept in order to criticize something.

You're anti-science. People like you have turned modern science into dogmatic religion and not science.

Get off /sci/.

>>16262153
>What do you propose as an alternative to relativity?
I don't have any such proposition.
>>16262153
>offers no alternatives
Unlike you, I don't pretend to be omniscient. I admit to not having all answers.
Let me guess, you are a university student?

>>16262161
Thank you for not being retarded.

>>16262158
>Why are pseudointellectuals like this?
They can't defend their dogmatic religion they call science and can't prove it, so they'll demand you provide alternatives which they can pretend like they're smart for debunking as though that's defense for their dogmatic religious beliefs they call science but which they can't scientifically prove using the scientific method.

>>16259483
Wrong.

>>16262164
People like you give me hope that maybe science is not completely doomed.

>>16262158
>If you disagree, then give me a better theory of why the universe exists and why (you) are such a dumbass retard. Oh wait (you) cant.
The Big Bang. There you go, there's a better theory for why the universe exists.
>>16262161
If all you can say is "I think this theory is wrong" and you cannot offer any alternative explanation for the phenomenon described by the theory, why should anyone give a fuck about what you have to say? Any retard can say "this theory is wrong." That doesn't make your opinion valuable.
>>16262162
>I don't have any such proposition.
Then why do you expect anyone to care that you think the theory is wrong?
>Unlike you, I don't pretend to be omniscient. I admit to not having all answers.
I don't pretend to be omniscient either. I'm not asking for a theory that explains everything, I'm just asking for a theory that explains things *better* than the current theories that you insist are wrong.
Throwing away the best explanation we have for how the universe works without having an alternative is fucking retarded.
>>16262164
I demand you provide an alternative because that's how science actually works. "nuh uh you're wrong, I dunno why though I just feel like you are" is not science. "You're wrong, this is why, and here is a better model" is science.

>>16262179
Alternatives are not required for science, nor are you an arbitrator of valid alternatives.

>>16262179
>The Big Bang. There you go, there's a better theory for why the universe exists
Why did the "big bang" happen? I think it happened because of an orange glow in the dark unicorn penguin.

>>16262179
>I'm just asking for a theory that explains things *better* than the current theories that you insist are wrong.
Has it ever occured to you that maybe humans have yet to develop accurate theories for certain things? Apparently not. "People" like you are a cancer on science.

>>16262179
>"You're wrong, this is why, and here is a better model" is science.
So is "you're wrong, this is why, and we don't yet have a good model"

>>16262164
they're just playing a burden of proof game. dark matter is indefensible so they try to set up the discussion so that someone else has to defend their position rather than them having to defend dark matter. its rhetoric, they aren't interested in learning or figuring out the truth or in science at all, they're interested in winning a debate.

I know how to test the one way speed of light but it would be very expensive, likely billions of euros. I don't want to state my method because I don't want anyone to steal credit. How can I go about getting someone to carry out this experiment and give me credit?

>>16262193
Reality is an arbitrator of valid alternatives, though. And it so happens that every alternative theory to LCDM is debunked by reality.
>>16262194
I don't care.
>>16262196
Of course it has. Obviously our current models are not entirely accurate (in fact no model can be, that's why they're models) but they are more accurate than anything else. Scientists admit there are many things we don't know about the universe. That doesn't mean you just throw up your hands and say "well, we don't know" and call it a day. Science is about trying to find the answers for questions we don't have the answers to.
>>16262198
Yes, but until we DO have a better model, we work with the models we do have. Especially when those models are incredibly accurate outside of the few issues that they have. For example, the standard model predicts the masses of particles to a very, very high degree of precision. That alone tells us that something about the model is correct, even if not all of it is.

>>16262269
>Scientists admit there are many things we
>calling yourself a scientist
lol

>>16262271
I didn't say I'm a scientist. In that sentence "we" refers to humanity as a whole.

>>16262269
>Yes, but until we DO have a better model, we work with the models we do have
That doesn't mean we should say they are correct, just that they provide a useful mathematical framework for some applications.
Do you admit, then, that Einsteinian relativity is objectively false, even if we may not yet have a better model and even if it provides a useful framework for some calculations?

>>16262274
Nope, because relativity is 99.9% correct with only a few small issues. It is not objectively false unless you don't believe that a model can be updated and improved upon as we gain more knowledge.

>>16262429
It's objectively false because its central ideas such as relativity of simultaneity and constancy of c relative to observer are objectively false.

>>16262446
In order for something to be "objectively false" it has to contradict observed reality.
Do you have any observations which falsify the theory of a constant speed of light?

>>16262456
It doesn't have to contradict observed reality. It has to contradict reality. Sorry to disappoint but science and reality are not subject to your feelings.

>>16262458
And you have evidence that it contradicts reality, then? Show me.

>>16262459
>And you have evidence that it contradicts reality, then
Yes
>Show me
Maybe tomorrow, I'm tired

>>16242047
This

>>16262273
>i speak for all of humanity
how presumptuous of you

so what is up with the nova explosion? they say it is a once in a lifetime event but that sounds weird. Plus, they say it keeps happening but how does that work?

And yes, dark matter and dark energy are both stupid names.
>space expands
>matter gets converted into energy
>energy create a specific spacetime curvature
>spacetime curvature makes dark matter look like it should exist
>it is actually the definition of gravity