/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11606272]

>The Earth is round (oblate spheroids are round)
>The Moon landings are correct and incomplete descriptions of reality
>'The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' is a correct and incomplete description of reality
>Newtonian Mechanics is a correct and incomplete description of reality
>Quantum Mechanics is a correct and incomplete description of reality
>Special and General Relativity are correct and incomplete descriptions of reality
>The Standard Model of particle physics is a correct and incomplete description of reality
>Big Bang cosmology (The Lambda-CDM model) is a correct and incomplete description of reality
>Darwinian evolution is a correct and incomplete description of reality
>Faster-than-light communication is impossible
>Perpetual motion machines, over-unity devices, energy-from-nothing generators, propulsionless drives and the like can not and will never work.
>Climate change is real, is happening right now, is a real threat and is mostly caused by humans
>Vaccines are correct and incomplete descriptions of reality
>"I don't understand this" or "this doesn't make sense to me" are not legitimate criticisms of established scientific theories. It only shows that you don't know what you're talking about
>Anyone claiming to have an alternative theory to established science should be able to explain why established science seems to give correct answers *and* be able to give a concrete prediction that can be checked by experiment, where it should outperform current scientific theory

For the know-it-alls who will undoubtedly start arguing about "correct and incomplete": By "correct" we mean that the theory correctly predicts the outcomes of experiments and does not differ appreciably from reality within the theory's domain of validity. "Incomplete" means that the theory's domain of validity does not encompass the entire universe. If you want to argue this, first read this popsci article > http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

[Anonymous No.11606313]

What i can't understand is why do they say the "universe" began with the big bang? From my understanding the idea is that the galaxies are moving apart, so when you go back in time you reach a point where all the observable galaxies came from a single source. Ok fine, but how does that tell us that there was nothing before that point? What if it's only the galaxies in our observable universe that were created, how can they know that other galaxies and stars don't exist outside of that?

[Anonymous No.11606339]

>>11606313
>Ok fine, but how does that tell us that there was nothing before that point?

You misunderstand. There was no universe as we know it before that point. It doesn't speculate before that and it definitely doesn't claim nothing came before it.

>What if it's only the galaxies in our observable universe that were created, how can they know that other galaxies and stars don't exist outside of that?

It is suspected that there is more universe outside the observable universe because the "edge" of the observable universe is just a horizon, where everything is racing away faster than the speed of light because of the expansion of space, so nothing outside there can possibly interact with us without FTL travel or warp drives.

[Anonymous No.11606352]

>>11606272
>"Incomplete" means that the theory's domain of validity does not encompass the entire universe
>The Moon landings are correct and incomplete descriptions of reality
So I fail to see how the moon landings are incomplete.

[Anonymous No.11606354]

>>11606352
OP BTFO

[Anonymous No.11606359]

>>11606272
>>'The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' is a correct and incomplete description of reality
Incorrect, if evidence has a nonzero chance of being found then its absence is definition evidence of absence. The two well known applications of this phrase illustrate this. The failure to find evidence of WMDs in Iraq despite searching increased the probability they didn't exist. The failure of SETI to find aliens increased the probability they don't exist.

[Anonymous No.11606403]

>>11606339
>It doesn't speculate before that and it definitely doesn't claim nothing came before it.
I guess it depends on who you ask. Lawrence Krauss for example says there was nothing.

>It is suspected that there is more universe outside the observable universe because the "edge" of the observable universe is just a horizon, where everything is racing away faster than the speed of light because of the expansion of space, so nothing outside there can possibly interact with us without FTL travel or warp drives.

I didn't mean just outside what is observable to us, I meant outside whatever was created with the big bang. But i guess that's answered by the multiverse theory, about how our universe is created with a certain ratio of materials and a different big bang would've created a completely different type of universe?

[Anonymous No.11606419]

>>11606403
>Lawrence Krauss for example says there was nothing.

Pretty sure I remember him making the point that "nothing" is something. That the universe came out of quantum fluctuations, which definitely isn't nothing.

>I didn't mean just outside what is observable to us, I meant outside whatever was created with the big bang.

Ok, but those might be the same thing. It's the same answer. We can't detect that stuff but there's no reason to not think it's there or was there.

Basically all your household cosmologists subscribed to some kind of multiverse theory, whether universes are discrete or emerge from inside one another, or there's one universe at a time and it cycles through beginnings and ends. It's actually the only way to be an atheist these days because you need more than one universe to explain the conditions for life that could all be barely different and ruin everything.

[DoctorGreen !DRgReeNusk No.11606500]

>>11606359
>The failure to find evidence of WMDs in Iraq despite searching increased the probability they didn't exist.
>despite searching
pff, Citation Needed

[Anonymous No.11606514]

>>11606272

[Anonymous No.11606571]

>>11606500
https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/no-wmds-in-iraq/

[Anonymous No.11606589]

>>11606419
>multiverse theory
more cringy pseudoscience (because unverfiable) like string theory just to keep their falling apart standard model (not even to mention BS like dark matter and energy).

[Anonymous No.11606602]

>>11606589
it isn't pseudoscience you are just a pseud tard. The Universe is an egg and undergoes mitosis just like any other cells. Each egg is a new Universe. This is what the Vedas meant by the Universes coming out of the pores of Brahma, I just figured it out the other day.

Before you even respond, you are stupid and ignorant so your opinion doesn't matter. This is how it works period, figure out why if you like but don't run your dick sucker with some retarded response.

[Anonymous No.11606606]

>>11606602

[Anonymous No.11606615]

>>11606602
>pores of Brahma
>>>/X

[Anonymous No.11606628]

>>11606615
https://www.disabilities-r-us.com/

[Anonymous No.11606677]

>>11606589
>more cringy pseudoscience (because unverfiable)

The only thing more retarded is believing this is the first and only universe and we got the exact laws of physics we needed for us to be here and me to tell you how retarded you are.

Also so far there has not been a single thing in reality that is unique. Think about that. There's multiple particles. Multiple atoms. Multiple molecules. Multiple organisms. Multiple retards like you. Multiple planets. Multiple star systems. Multiple Galaxies. Multiple super-clusters. But oh we gotta stop and replace it with a non-theory that our universe is special.

[Anonymous No.11606696]

>>11606677
wonder what retarded explanations you STM faggots will pull out of your arse in the future LOL
More Higgs Bosons, anyone ?

[Anonymous No.11606718]

>>11606696
Doesn't matter when you explanation is we won the existential lottery

[Anonymous No.11606727]

>>11606602
He gets it.
Also called the world egg or cosmic egg. Zero is a great example of this. It contains literally every number paired with its negative counterpart. In that way zero is infinite if not greater then infinity. Glad to see people waking up.
I like the idea of pinpoints of the universe coming through the membrane of the Brahma.
You should have a look at Eric Weinstein's twin nuclei problem. theportal.wiki/wiki/Twin_Nuclei_Problem

[Anonymous No.11606743]

>>11606727
Cool I will tx, I think you will enjoy this

http://esotericawakening.com/what-is-reality-the-holofractal-universe

[Anonymous No.11606746]

>>11606727
Also here is the art lol sorry I forgot to add the pic again

[Anonymous No.11606753]

>>11606727
oops it is Vishnu not Brahma, strange Brahma is the creator odd it come from Vishnu though he is the sustainer. Anyhow, good shit
https://www.holy-bhagavad-gita.org/chapter/8/verse/18

[Anonymous No.11606769]

>>11606602
I like that image tbqh

imo the universe is infinite in both size and scale, the more you zoom in the more particles you will find that are smaller than the last one you found and the more you zoom out the more larger entities you will find

Existence is just bizarre no matter how you look at it. Like why the fuck does all this shit even exist?

[Anonymous No.11606772]

>>11606769
by universe of course i mean the traditional meaning of the term, all existence, all that is

[Anonymous No.11606776]

>>11606769

[Anonymous No.11606798]

I see the schizo containment thread is working

[Anonymous No.11606810]

>>11606776
I like the way you're thinking, we generally agree. Also i really wish i could try dmt tbqh

[Anonymous No.11606811]

>>11606798
luke warm IQ I see, why am I not surprised to see you in a thread on scientism?

[Anonymous No.11606824]

>>11606810
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1jXX-B7eerhotFTnvU3YbJCkIePYZJD15

[Anonymous No.11606877]

>>11606359
This is the second time I've seen this used incorrectly this week. Your definition crumbles apart because you cannot specify a timescale sufficient enough for an observer to collect all possible evidence. What you are ACTUALLY doing is using it as a heuristic that you cut off at an arbitrary time. "I haven't found evidence of X, and it's been T amount of time, therefore this is proof of evidence of absence". Behold as your evidence pours in at T+6. Heuristics are not definitions, just useful shortcuts for being right more often than random.

[Anonymous No.11607178]

>>11606877
>Your definition crumbles apart because you cannot specify a timescale sufficient enough for an observer to collect all possible evidence.
Huh? Why would the observer need enough time to collect all possible evidence? The simple fact that some evidence had some nonzero chance of being found in some time frame, but was not found, increases the probability of absence. This is not a heuristic, it is a hard fact of probability.

[Anonymous No.11607359]

>>11606359
The failure of SETI to find aliens increases the probability that density of live in the universe is so low we may never discover it. The actual probability of aliens existing is, always has been, and always will be 1.

[Anonymous No.11607416]

>>11607359
"May never discover it" is not the same as nonzero chance of discovering it. If SETI had probability 0 of success, why was it undertaken?

[Anonymous No.11607442]

>>11607416
There is no way to know what the chance is before trying, the more we try the better the estimation is

[Anonymous No.11607523]

>>11607442
>There is no way to know what the chance is before trying
There's a prior probability.

>the more we try the better the estimation is
Which means failing changes the probability.

[Anonymous No.11607584]

I don't understand why you faggots can't just admit that God is real and put us in this shit hole to watch us suffer. A fucking big bang pops out of nowhere and now there are billions and probably quadrillions of lifeforms scattered across the universe dying in horrible ways and watching their families and loved one in pain and it's all just a bunch of bullshit.
I mean all evidence and philosophical pondering clearly shows this is what has happened, I don't know why this has happened or why he did it and desu I've been getting pretty pissed off about it lately

[Anonymous No.11607642]

>>11607584
God isn't real. We're all only here because of energy conservation and the four fundamental forces and space existing. Still terrifying.

[Anonymous No.11607661]

>>11607642
That does not seem to be the case, those do not explain the big bang and never will

[Anonymous No.11608176]

>>11606419
There is no proof that the universe came to be because of "quantum fluctuations".

[Anonymous No.11608179]

>>11606746
>>11606602
Actually, it's Mahavishnu.

[Anonymous No.11609143]

>>11608179
Yah I said that already mate

[Anonymous No.11609169]

>>11606339
>It is suspected that there is more universe outside the observable universe because the "edge" of the observable universe is just a horizon
This is completely incorrect. As unfathomable as it is there can be nothing outside the universe. Not even space can exist outside the universe because even that would be measurable. There is and can only be absolutely nothing beyond the universe.