/sci/ - Science & Math

no & sage

Yes.

>>6296319
>ask an actual /sci/ related question
>sage

it means both are approximations that work well for their indented problems, a theory does not have to be 100% correct to be credible and objective.

It's already credible, because it explains so much with so few assumptions. Also, because it can be applied (i.e. engineering). It is by its nature objective.

What this would mean is that there is some underlying mechanism from which you can derive each, using some approximation.

EXAMPLE: Newtonian physics is still "correct" in the sense that it works, even though it treats the world as being far more continuous than it actually is. It works because you can mathematically approximate to continuity when you're dealing with so many billions of particles.

But both aren't correct. Both are just the best models which are currently available and have evidence supporting their novel claims.

OP, it's possible to have models that are different from each that can accurately predict universal behavior since we are basing our "truths" on our subjective experience of what the universe actually is. Stephen Hawking discusses this in an easy to understand way in his book "Grand Design."

>>6296628
What's this supposed to be an image of?

>>6296649
its an illusion you dumbfuck. it doesnt have to look like anything.

>>6296656
Doesn't look like an illusion to me.

>fixing soon before it can be considered credible and objective?

Yes, this is exactly what string theory does.

>>6296660
you must have some eye problem then. any normal person will see the shape move to the right.

>>6296664
Dunno.
I just see the colors moving, rather than the object itself.

>>6296649
>>6296656
>>6296660
>>6296664
>>6296667
it's just a .gif of some cool abstract shit chill

>>6296649
Two s㏌gularities orыt㏌g each oᵺer by graⅵtatюnal pull. i.e. Black Hole