/sci/ - Science & Math

c-c-c-citation needed

There is a 99.8% possibility that your mom is a whore.

There is a 00.2% possibilities that the CERN calculations were WRONG.
We ARE able to "break the light speed" because that is VERY POSSIBLE.
If you disagree with these objective truths, you are a mouthbreathing idiot and you should be removed from the human genetic pool.

I can troll and not give citations to!

>He thinks the laws of Physics are rigid

Laughingwhores.jpg

>learn to comp sci

http://blog.zorinaq.com/?e=58>>3819863
>>3819875

>>3819875
So... when will the gravity be over? I'm looking forward to fly like a bird.

This is the least scientific thing I've ever heard.

There is a 99.8% that Copernicus is WRONG.
The Earth DOES NOT revolve around the Sun because that is IMPOSSIBLE.

There is a 99.8% probability that Darwin is WRONG.
We DID NOT come from apes because that is IMPOSSIBLE.

>>3819875
They ARE rigid, though.
They're just now known yet.

>MFW this thread
>MFW people are discounting possibilities

Ok, I will admit that it is UNLIKELY that they broke the speed of light. However, it being a not-well studied subject, there is still a chance.

>>3819891
>speculation on the experimental set up.
>ctrl+f "99.8%", not found. not a citation.

>>3819905

>Relativity

>not well studied.

>99.8%
>impossible

thanks op my jimmies are thoroughly russled

>>3819896

Stop being a fucking simpleton. Would it be unscientific if someone said that it is 100% impossible for you to get more energy out of a system than you put into it?

Relativity is almost as certain as thermodynamics. One experiment cannot refute the millions of experiments that have confirmed relativity's validity.

How is gold golden, if relativity is wrong?

>>3819922
>Would it be unscientific if someone said that it is 100% impossible for you to get more energy out of a system than you put into it?

yes, it would be very unscientific. quantum tunnelling can produce results like that anyway.

>There is a 99.8% possibilities that the CERN calculations were WRONG.
And you're basing this in...

relativistic effects

>>3819947
?????????????????????????????????????????

Dude.

Guys, guys.
There is a 99.8% possibilities that the URBAIN LE VERRIER's calculations were WRONG.
Mercury will NEVER be able to "advance its perihelion" because that is IMPOSSIBLE. Newtonian relativity and classic mechanics is the an absolute objective TRUTH.

If you disagree with these objective truths, you are a mouthbreathing idiot and you should be removed from the human genetic pool.

THERE IS A 99% POSSIBILITY THE EARTH IS FLAT, MAN WILL NEVER ACHIEVE HEAVIER THAN AIR FLIGHT, MAN WILL VISIT THE MOON.

ect ect ect

Try being scientific for one second, there is a chance this is true and this does not mean relativity is wrong but needs expanding.

Impossible should not be ever fucking used when talking about stuff like this, if we think like this we will get fucking no where and go in circles.

Its like the saying "the Wright brothers only managed flight because they didn't go to university to learn it was impossible"

>>3819967
Perihelion advance happens under Newtonian gravity too, due to the influence of the other planets. What GR resolved was the discrepancy between the calculated advance and the measured one. And GR was confirmed by several other experiments before it was widely accepted. A lot of new physics discoveries turn out to be errors. We have additional reason to believe this one is wrong because the effect isn't seen in neutrinos from supernovas.

>>3819857
who said anything about breaking the lightspeed barrier
ftl neutrinos =! anything really usable for us, but it does reveal an interesting case

Guys, guys...
There is a 99.8% possibilities that the ERATOSTHENES's calculations were WRONG.
We will NEVER be able to "travel around the world" because that is IMPOSSIBLE: the world is FLAT.

If you disagree with these objective truths, you are a mouthbreathing idiot and you should be removed from the human genetic pool.

>>3819997
You're an idiot.

Guys, guys...
There is a 99.8% possibilities that the TESLA's calculations were WRONG.
We will NEVER be able to "use alternating current for power" because that is IMPOSSIBLE: DC energy is BETTER!

If you disagree with these objective truths, you are a mouthbreathing idiot and you should be removed from the human genetic pool.

>>3819985

Stop talking and go somewhere else. You have no concept of what you're talking about.

>>3819922
It would be unscientific to immediately dismiss an experiment that demonstrates something like that performed by the some of the world's most capable scientists, yes.

Guys, guys...
There is a 99.8% possibilities that the EINSTEIN's calculations were WRONG.
We will NEVER be able to "bend light around gravity" because that is IMPOSSIBLE: Light is a WAVE not a PARTICLE!

If you disagree with these objective truths, you are a mouthbreathing idiot and you should be removed from the human genetic pool.

>>3819857

Just stop... leave the board please? Please? Too many trolls on /sci/ and none of them are even funny or clever anymore.

Guys, guys.
There is a 99.8% possibilities that Cabrera's discovery of a monopole was WRONG.
We will NEVER be able to "detect monopoles" because if they exist they were diluted by INFLATION.

If you disagree with these objective truths, you are a mouthbreathing idiot and you should be removed from the human genetic pool.

Guys, guys.
There is a 99.8% possibilities that our calculations were WRONG.
We will NEVER have an OP that "isn't a fag" because that is IMPOSSIBLE.

If you disagree with these objective truths, you are a mouthbreathing idiot and you should be removed from the human genetic pool.