/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15488453]

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbmJkMhmrVI
New kino dropped

[Anonymous No.15488574]

>>15488453
She literally just reads off of wikepedia

[Anonymous No.15488583]

>>15488453
don't care, still don't believe in it

[Anonymous No.15488585]

>>15488453
Bruh, even gravity is considered a theory

[Anonymous No.15488590]

oh, you have evidences but no proofs?
unfortunate, enjoy your theory (its wrong also fyi)

[Cult of Passion No.15488597]

>>15488453
What a bunch of sychophants seeking confirmation to their ignorance based feelings.

"I want to believe...I choose to ti believe."

[Anonymous No.15488606]

>>15488453
oozes reddit energy

[Anonymous No.15488618]

I don't see why this is considered controversial, a scientific theory required the element of disprovability and dark matter lacks that element, so it is not a scientific theory

>>15488606
everything on youtube does, youtube is a sjw politcal propaganda outlet barely disguised as a video sharing site, reddit is a sjw politcal propaganda outlet barely disguised social media network

[Anonymous No.15488622]

>>15488453
>It's not theory
That's not even wrong because a theory has to be testable. How does one test an absence assumed to be filled?

[Cult of Passion No.15488629]

Now *THIS* is science. I'm so glad science is a democracy.

[Anonymous No.15488631]

>>15488629
> you can't just throw away dark matter!
> If you do our dark calculations don't work
I hecking love science bros

[Anonymous No.15488660]

>>15488453
Lol these people better hope they find dark matter.
If a different explanation turns out to be correct, are they going to an hero?

[Anonymous No.15488667]

>>15488660
The professors will still have their sinecures and be impossible to fire, even though they were wrong for decades. It's their students who find themselves unemployable that will end up suffering.

[Anonymous No.15488686]

It's like she saw pic rel and didn't get the joke

[Anonymous No.15488787]

I've enjoyed a bunch of her videos so far. Did she go off the deep end here?

[Anonymous No.15488899]

>>15488660
but that's the whole point of the video is that we've found it, dark matter is the finding not the explanation

[Anonymous No.15488903]

>>15488899
>but that's the whole point of the video is that we've found it
lol

[Anonymous No.15489020]

>>15488453
Not gonna click that shit. That's clearly a tranny face in the pic.

[Anonymous No.15489024]

> woman
It's all so tiresome

[Anonymous No.15489035]

>>15489020
Trannies are going to the moon. They are literally the future of science

[Anonymous No.15489036]

I like her! She's sticking to the approved script from Wikipedia, framing FACTS like dark matter and big bang etc... where they belong, as FACTS as opposed to germ theory, gravitation theory, etc... and in doing so she draws a clear distinction and makes it known that WE (Cathys), and our ideas, are above questioning. She does all this while being she/hers which means if you disagree with science you are a notzee. Bravo!

[Anonymous No.15489038]

>>15489035
No one is going to the moon, remember NEVER AGAIN.

[Anonymous No.15489039]

>>15489035
>They are literally the future of science

YOU WILL TRUST THE SCIENCE. YOU WILL BOW TO THE SCIENCE.

[Anonymous No.15489042]

>>15488453

She seems exactly like the kind of person who could lead development on a Manhattan Project or engineer a new fleet of battleships. Promote 1 million more like her and send all the men they replace to Siberia.

[Anonymous No.15489044]

>>15488453
I don't know why, but she comes across as someone who is absolutely horrible to work for but incredible to work with or to have work for you. Something in the way she talks.

[Anonymous No.15489054]

>>15489044
>but incredible to work with or to have work for you. Something in the way she talks.

Agreed! It's the way that she casually defames people who made the correct predictions about the JWST that does it for me. Shows that she's going to tow the establishment line no matter what. She's part of the club!

[Anonymous No.15489060]

>>15489054
The phrase is "toe the line," not tow. You can't pull a line, but you can make sure your toes don't cross it.
And it's more that she has the same speaking style I've heard from a lot of postdocs and younger faculty I've worked with. It's hard to pin down what it is but I've come to associate it with people who are very competent and get things done quickly but who you never ever want as an advisor or head of group.

[Anonymous No.15489062]

>>15489054
>Agreed! It's the way that she casually defames people who made the correct predictions about the JWST that does it for me. Shows that she's going to tow the establishment line no matter what. She's part of the club!

You can just tell. We could find galaxies that predate the big bang by billions of years and she'll still be calling those kooks crackpots (like they deserve). I like that! She's religiously dedicated to her craft and that's exactly the kind of person we need to rise as a nation from this hole the west has been in for the past few hundred years. Let's face it: free thought and merit haven't gotten the west anywhere. That's why as the rest of the progressed for the past few hundred years, America and other western countries have trailed.

[Anonymous No.15489064]

>>15489060
>And it's more that she has the same speaking style I've heard from a lot of postdocs and younger faculty I've worked with. It's hard to pin down what it is but I've come to associate it with people who are very competent and get things done quickly but who you never ever want as an advisor or head of group.

100% understand & I agree, except I disagree about her place in leadership. I think that if strong women like her where promoted instead of crackpots like, say, Oppenheimer, then the Western nations would have excelled rather than trailered the east in achievement for the past several hundred years.

[Anonymous No.15489065]

>>15488453
she is so hot and reminds me of area51freak on ph

[Anonymous No.15489067]

>>15489065
>she is so hot and reminds me of area51freak on ph

Agreed! I could fall asleep listening to her read Wikipedia like she does here, every night!

[Anonymous No.15489084]

Please explain why there is an anon replying to everyone with absolutely seething sarcastic comments ITT. What did she do to make you this angry?

[Anonymous No.15489093]

>>15489084
perhaps be dumb

[Anonymous No.15489101]

>>15489084
>What did she do to make you this angry?

I'm assuming your replying to me. Angry? How did you get that? I think she's outstanding and more powerful women like her should be promoted to positions of authority. You disagree?

[Anonymous No.15489106]

>>15488453
What is the evidence of dark matter existing?

[Anonymous No.15489107]

>>15489084

Women like her in all positions of authority are how the west will finally lead after trailing the east for hundreds of years. Are you disagreeing with me?

[Anonymous No.15489111]

>>15489106
>What is the evidence of dark matter existing?

Did you not watch the video you FUCKING CRACKPOT?

Dark matter is a FACT it's not a theory.

Jesus christ next you'll do one of those one armed salutes guys are always doing. Is it the work "dark" that triggers you? Racist much?

[Anonymous No.15489128]

>>15488899
Her point is bullshit.
The findings are the anomalous observations.
Dark matter is the idea that certain hidden mass distributions solve those anomalies. That's great. But she claims that's the only possible explanation. "It HAS to be extra matter." It's a good idea, but it's fallacious to state that's the only alternative.
If it turns out it's not hidden matter, are you and she going to say "but see, the dark matter was the friends we made along the way"?

[Anonymous No.15489135]

>>15489107
Are you that one severely mentally ill anon replaying to all kinds of sci threads?

[Anonymous No.15489137]

>>15489128
>Her point is bullshit.
>The findings are the anomalous observations.
>Dark matter is the idea that certain hidden mass distributions solve those anomalies. That's great. But she claims that's the only possible explanation. "It HAS to be extra matter." It's a good idea, but it's fallacious to state that's the only alternative.
>If it turns out it's not hidden matter, are you and she going to say "but see, the dark matter was the friends we made along the way"?

You sound like an idiot, trash crackpot who should be force-fed his meds for the safety of himself and others.

[Anonymous No.15489141]

>>15489128

Watch her accurate video about crackpots to know just how dangerous and schizo your line of reasoning is.

https://youtu.be/11lPhMSulSU

She's a trained physics and like she accurately says (paraphrasing) "only physics graduates are capable of making any contribution to science" so STFU

[Anonymous No.15489145]

>>15489135
>Are you that one severely mentally ill anon replaying to all kinds of sci threads?

You think my correct assertion that only women who are trained physics graduates can, or should be legally allowed, to be authorities on science us... mentally ill?

[Anonymous No.15489147]

>>15488453
I fucking hate this annoying bitch

[Anonymous No.15489150]

>>15489137
>>15489141
41% yourself troon

[Anonymous No.15489158]

>>15489150
>41% yourself troon
>>15489147
>I fucking hate this annoying bitch

This is exactly the attitude that women like her are fighting against and why their promotion is so important. Dark matter is a fact no matter how much you cry and wet your bed. And anyone doing science without the approved credentials is dangerous and a crackpot crank schizo just like she says too.

[Anonymous No.15489178]

Absolutely unhinged poster ITT

[Anonymous No.15489202]

>>15488453
The earth is flat and stationary with a dome. Dark Matter doesn't exist. Black Holes don't exist. Dark Energy is a complete meme.

https://youtu.be/UOLLMkAHHQI?t=2477

[Anonymous No.15489208]

>>15489202
Whoa dude you're so BASED and REDPILLED, you're so cool with your le epic schizoposts, you're gonna be the next epic meme I can just feel it!

[Jealous No.15489224]

"Dark matter" is usually understood as the theory by which anomalous galactic rotation curves are said to be caused by underestimations of galaxies' masses due to the presence of non-luminous, "dark" matter particles pervading the universe. It's theory, and not really good one now that experiments have ruled out the first 350 variants of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve

[Jealous No.15489236]

I watched the first 20 seconds of OP's video. There is literally ZERO evidence for dark matter, that bitch is stupid as fuck. There's evidence that galaxies seem to contain more mass than expected, but there is ZERO evidence that dark matter is the reason for that. After 500 experiments failed to detect dark matter, there's actually a lot of evidence by now that dark matter is not the reason for our anomalous observations.

[Jealous No.15489238]

>#1: velocities
There is no evidence that these velocities are caused by dark matter. It is a theory that dark matter particles might explain these velocity measurements, but there is no evidence at all supporting that theory.

[Jealous No.15489242]

Vera Rubin did not show that there was missing mass in galaxies. She showed that our best estimates of galaxies' masses failed to account for certain incontrovertible observations.
>tfw these are the people they think are smart while they call you an imbecile and try to rape you to death after kicking you of college under the pretense that you were too stupid to do anything with a PhD anyways

[Anonymous No.15489248]

>>15489178
I'm pretty sure it's just the same troll who frequents this board. They reply to every heterodox opinion with "/pol/schizo/chud" buzzwords because they know it pushes people's buttons. At this point, the stuff they say is so retarded I doubt they actually believe it. It's probably a right-wing psyop to make trannies look ̶b̶a̶d̶ worse.

[Jealous No.15489256]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbmJkMhmrVI&t=183
It really irks me to hear her say this. The galaxy is not missing matter. The physicists are failing to accurately compute and/or predict the galaxy's observable properties. For the galaxy to be missing matter, there would have to be some objective reference saying how much matter the galaxy was supposed to have. That would be **EXTREMELY** stupid to say that the galaxy's matter content is supposed to conform to physicists' estimates. It's the other way around, actually; physicists' estimates are supposed to conform to the galaxy's observable properties.

[Jealous No.15489259]

>I decided this sack of potatoes should weigh 20kg
>it only weights 3kg
>who the fuck stole potato?
>somebody call police

[Jealous No.15489267]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbmJkMhmrVI&t=325
Dark matter is the literally the theory that the anomalous galactic rotation curves might be attributed to non-luminous matter. It was 100% by made up. Does this person in the video have a PhD in astrophysics?

[Anonymous No.15489312]

>>15489128
other anons are right to call you a crank, but they're not explaining it well. because you're absolutely right that they're assuming matter must be the cause of this extra rotation. this comes from a fundamental assumption on the validity of the virial theorem and kepler's laws. so, while there are alternatives, they're tantamount to rejecting some of the most accurate and strongly supported laws of physics out there. it's a stupid hill to die on.

[Anonymous No.15489320]

>>15488453
? there's a debate about dark matter? It's just a catch all name for stuff we know we dont know yet, but know exists because of how it effects maths and observations.

[Jealous No.15489325]

>>15489320
>It's just a catch all name for stuff we know we dont know yet,
That's completely wrong. It's the theory that anomalous galactic rotation curves can be explained by pervasive distributions of non-luminous matter. Since 100 or more experiments have ruled out the first hundred models of dark matter, the 101st that we're on now is contrived and stupid.

[Jealous No.15489328]

>>15489312
>it's a stupid hill to die on.
The stupid hill to die on is the one where magical invisible masses are everywhere in the universe except for all the places a hundred experiments have looked. Dead theory is dead.

[Jealous No.15489335]

The theory that galactic structures are more complicated than the simplest 3D shapes that can be extrapolated from 2D telescope images is at least as a good as the magical particle theory for explaining the observed rotation curves. The complicated shape is much better than the magic theory, IMO.

[Anonymous No.15489336]

>>15489328
are you really trying to say kepler's laws are wrong?

[Jealous No.15489337]

>>15489336
I think you responded to the wrong person.

[Anonymous No.15489338]

>>15489036
>I like her! She's sticking to the approved script from Wikipedia, framing FACTS like dark matter and big bang etc... where they belong, as FACTS as opposed to germ theory, gravitation theory, etc... and in doing so she draws a clear distinction and makes it known that WE (Cathys), and our ideas, are above questioning. She does all this while being she/hers which means if you disagree with science you are a notzee. Bravo!
ues

[Jealous No.15489342]

>>15489338
>you are a notzee
It's ok to hate jews even if you don't think fascism and national socialism are the best political and economic systems.

[Anonymous No.15489343]

>>15489337
i responded to the right person. you responded to me, remember? the fundamental assumption in dark matter is that our laws of physics (e.g. kepler's) are valid. you showed up, said nuh-uh! dark matter is farcical! well, fine. so the alternative must be that you reject the assumptions under which dark matter is valid, meaning you reject kepler's laws. is that true? do you reject kepler's laws?

[Anonymous No.15489344]

>>15489312
Yours is the only serious reply, so we can play.
>other anons are right to...
I think he's being facetious, same as the comments on women and schizos and etc. His point is to ridicule the leftists and the orthodoxy, trannies etc. It's just one dude samefagging, and the other less /pol/lish anons picked up on it and are annoyed.
Now about me supposedly being a crank:
1. I haven't made a single claim about what the solution actually is, because I have no idea. Hardly how cranks operate.
2.
>while there are alternatives (...)
IIRC the alternatives do change GR, do they not? Impacting Kepler's laws? And they sprung from the idea that GR is not strongly supported on a galactic and greater scale.
I'm not the one who came up with them.
So in conclusion, I'm not a crank by any sense of the word.
I have no clue what the solution is, and I haven't proposed any.
All I've done is point out the flaw in her and others' reasoning.
It remains for her to actually prove dark matter exists with direct evidence, even if I were to agree that it's more likely than a serious reworking of gravitation.
The moment she stated "it's a fact, ok guys" based on indirect evidence, she became the crank.
Now here's my question to you and others:
The dark matter idea has been around for what, 60 years?
And from the beginning alternatives were proposed. This is public knowledge.
The experiments to detect it directly all ate shit AFAIK.
So I ask you, if dark matter is now fact, when and how exactly did it become a fact?
Is it simply more evidence that was gathered where similar mass distributions would then conform to expectations?
State the turning point that, in your opinion, made dark matter go from "a good possible explanation" to "the only possible explanation with six sigma certainty", since that's certainly how she and others treat it.

[Anonymous No.15489347]

>>15489337
Fuck off namefag, he was talking to me and you're derailing it

[Jealous No.15489348]

>>15489343
You are stupid. You're not so stupid that I won't respond to you---i do 4chan mainly to burn time---but you are too stupid for me to entertain your inquiry.

[Anonymous No.15489349]

>>15489342
Lmao make it a rainbow horse

[Jealous No.15489350]

>>15489348

[Anonymous No.15489354]

>>15489060
>And it's more that she has the same speaking style I've heard from a lot of postdocs and younger faculty I've worked with.
It's the "ok guys I'm so professional" style.

[Anonymous No.15489358]

>>15489344
>so we can play
this is an easy way for me not to take you seriously, since you're admitting you're not open to changing your perspective.
>I haven't made a single claim about what the solution actually is, because I have no idea.
>I have no idea
that much is clear. and yes, that is very much how cranks operate.
>And from the beginning alternatives were proposed. This is public knowledge.
such as?

it's clear you didn't watch angie's video, and if you did you didn't understand it. if you couldn't understand it at the level she explained, then regrettably, there is no level at which i could explain it to you such that it will make sense.

[Anonymous No.15489360]

>>15489348
>i do 4chan mainly to burn time
jon, i say this not to be mean, but to be real. you have time to burn because you're homeless. you're mentally ill, and i don't mean because of your opinions on physics. get help.

[Jealous No.15489365]

>>15489360
>you burn time because you have time to burn
Please share more of your profound insights.

[Anonymous No.15489367]

>>15489354
Yeah, it's slightly different in postdocs compared to your bog standard office worker/linkedin faggot. Kind of like an academic dialect of the same langauge.

[Anonymous No.15489381]

>>15488585
the fact that masses attract is an observation.

The laws describing that attraction are theories.

You can have different theories of gravity aka sets of equations to describe it like Newtonian gravity or general relativity or quantum whatever, but the fact that masses attract each other IS a fact

[Cult of Passion No.15489383]

>>15489360
>you have time to burn because you're homeless
Give it try, you'll have more than enough time for research, leisure, physical training and community service!

>This is me laying in bed, what a beatiful morning! Time to study Mathematics and shitpost!

[Anonymous No.15489386]

>>15489358
If you're not going to reply seriously, I won't deal with you either. I have better things to do.
>that is very much how cranks operate.
It is not, and not according to her either.
Cranks make up some bullshit explanation and stick to it irrationally no matter what. Not only that, they think it'll "solve everything".
I can't be a crank without a crank theory, much less a crank who's never approached anyone.
Clearly you need to watch her video on cranks.
RE alternatives
>such as
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternatives_to_general_relativity
Bro are you ok?
People have been fucking around with modifications to GR damn near since it was first published.
And various modern alternatives fit the dark matter question with various accuracies.
Your reply tells me the lunatic troll is right to dunk on you.
At the end of the day, all you have is what she talks about in her video: an abundance of indirect evidence, but no demonstration. This isn't a court of law.
Best of luck.
Like I originally stated, try not to an hero if it turns out there's no dark matter, and something else resolves the anomalies

[Anonymous No.15489394]

>>15489386
>The dark matter idea has been around for what, 60 years?
>And from the beginning alternatives were proposed
not my problem if you don't remember what you wrote. it seemed like you were proposing alternatives to dark matter in the 60s.

[Anonymous No.15489397]

>>15489386
>At the end of the day, all you have is what she talks about in her video: an abundance of indirect evidence
you don't seem to have understood angie's video. she spoke of indirect evidence, but she also spoke of direct evidence. try watching again, you might actually learn something this time.

[Anonymous No.15489402]

>>15489383
kek tooker rejected. cult of passion is my new favorite schizo here.

[Anonymous No.15489426]

>>15489208
Reddit. The post.

[Anonymous No.15489431]

>>15488453
>Dark matter isn't a theory.
She means that it hasn't been experimentally proven, right? And because of that it's just a hypothesis. I didn't watch the video.

[Anonymous No.15489436]

>>15489431
>I didn't watch the video.
clearly.

[Anonymous No.15489463]

>>15489084
Half the anons on this board are mindbroken by reality.

[Anonymous No.15489467]

>>15489426
it's exactly right, half the faggots on this board post random bullshit because they want to larp as le based schizo

[Anonymous No.15489572]

I wish I could slaughter everyone in this thread.
You are exactly what ruins everything on the internet, nothing good has ever come out of this shithole board

[Anonymous No.15489601]

>>15489128
>don't propose any alternative (cranky) model, but still get called a crank
the responses you got are a joke

[Anonymous No.15489604]

>>15489107
>Women like her in all positions of authority
She isn't in a position of authority, she dropped out of academia to be an e-celeb grifting thot.

[Cult of Passion No.15489611]

>>15489604
>She isn't in a position of authority
She say she has a PhD and thats the Accredited Authority Certificate.

Just like MD on twitter, "Trust me, Im a doctor." then says a bunch of anti-medical advice that aligns with politics.

Having a PhD is a 50/50 their retarded and know nothing of their field of research, its a bought certificate, not a verification of competency.

[Anonymous No.15489648]

>>15489604
you don't know what any of the words you used mean. first of all, she's still in academia as a post-doc. secondly, she's not even close to an e-celeb. thirdly, she's not a grifter. if you think she is, specify exactly what it is she's trying to sell you. lastly, she's in a committed relationship and engaged. if you want to assume she's some promiscuous woman, you need evidence.

[Anonymous No.15489653]

>>15489648
e-celebing is inherently promiscuous, she's cheating on her boyfriend by cultivating a parasocial following of simps.

[Anonymous No.15489662]

>>15489653
lol go outside and touch grass dude. you're completely detached from reality

[Anonymous No.15489665]

>>15489662
>go outside, says the simp

[Anonymous No.15489673]

>>15489665
are you ready to admit you lied?

[Anonymous No.15489675]

>>15489673
Lied about what, schizo? She's demonstrably pursuing an e-celeb career, and that makes her an inherently promiscuous thot.

[Anonymous No.15489680]

>>15489675
you said she dropped out of academia. why did you lie?

[Anonymous No.15489681]

>>15489680
she has, she's "in industry" now.

[Anonymous No.15489687]

>>15489681
proof?

[Anonymous No.15489697]

>>15489687
she is in the adult industry, go check out her OF

[Anonymous No.15489700]

>>15489697
proof?

[Anonymous No.15489731]

>>15489687
>I'll give you an example from my own field; I'm a dark matter guy, but like I'm not anymore, because I'm in industry, where the cash is..
https://youtu.be/kya_LXa_y1E?t=2910

[Cult of Passion No.15489739]

>>15489731
Jeez...put a fork in him, he's done.

/thread

[Anonymous No.15489819]

>>15489653
>>15489665
>>15489675
This isn't the board for you to act out your fetish.

[Anonymous No.15489824]

>>15489819
simping belongs on /soc/, get off of /sci/

[Anonymous No.15489850]

>>15489731
Oh no no no
I was wondering why the thread was still going.
This is just hilarious. I don't know about the simp wars bullshit you guys have there, but the extract is perfect.
Now I'm very glad I came back here.

>>15489397
>>15489394
>>15489358
>>15489312
Hello again retarded dark matter obsessed faggot simp/shill/illogical fucking retard of the worst kind.
48:30 to 50:00
https://youtu.be/kya_LXa_y1E?t=2910
Today is an unfortunate day for you.
As it turns out, despite her video where she semantically conflates the anomalous observations that dark matter seeks to explain with the idea of dark matter itself, Dr. Collier is well aware of alternative theories that seek to explain the abnormalities without invoking dark matter, and not only that but she's glad people are working on them.
So here's a few verbatim quotes for all to see:
"That doesn't mean MOND is bad."
"That doesn't mean that MOND isn't a valid idea. Like, modified gravity as an answer to dark matter is interesting and is an interesting path to pursue."
"I would never pretend that I have the answer, because it is an open question."


So now you, and anyone else calling me a crank for merely saying a hidden distribution of extra mass isn't the only possible explanation, all of you just got fucked.
Get fucked. Get slaughtered. Get annihilated.
You're not a scientist. You're a retard. You're a worthless simp faggot.
Get fucked and die.

>this comes from a fundamental assumption on the validity of the virial theorem and kepler's laws. so, while there are alternatives, they're tantamount to rejecting some of the most accurate and strongly supported laws of physics out there. it's a stupid hill to die on.
You have no fucking idea what fundamental means. You have no idea what laws have what support. You have no fucking idea what the virial theorem is, or kepler's laws, much less anything GR-related.
You're a fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.15489866]

The basis of both dark matter and dark energy is the observation of gravity existing outside of the known behaviors of gravity. Dark matter and dark energy can only be understood within our constrained understanding of gravity. Seeing that the understanding of gravity is very much still a theory, then both dark matter and dark energy are still theories.

Rule of thumb, if we cannot recreate something or 100% observe the creation of something, it is still a theory. If we apply this truth to astronomy, then it's quickly obvious that we understand fuck all relative to all there is to be understood about our universe. The entire field hasn't made it past theories.

[Anonymous No.15489884]

>>15489850
you sound upset.

[Anonymous No.15489889]

>>15489884
you sound simpish.

[Jealous No.15489900]

[Anonymous No.15489907]

>>15489889
>accuses someone of being a simp
>has literal time stamps of angie's videos at the ready for specific statement
hmmm.

[Anonymous No.15489911]

>>15489907

> yt-dlp --write-subs --write-auto-subs --sub-lang en --skip-download https://www.youtube.com/@acollierastro/videos
> grep ndustry *

the most important material in science [1eUI38MpiYo].en.vtt:evolved<00:13:59.279><c> I</c><00:13:59.880><c> don't</c><00:13:59.940><c> know</c><00:14:00.060><c> I'm</c><00:14:00.240><c> in</c><00:14:00.360><c> an</c><00:14:00.480><c> industry</c>


[Anonymous No.15489916]

>>15489911
pasted the wrong line from grep, but the point is it took me literal seconds of effort to find this, and also, you suck at computers and should feel bad about it.

[Anonymous No.15489923]

>>15489884
Nah, i'm fucking happy. Simps and dark matter lunatics got destroyed as they should be.
>>15489907
That's not me retard.
I only found the video from >>15489731
and now you all got fucked.

[Anonymous No.15489933]

>>15489916
>you should feel bad about not being autistic
tell me how your dating life is.

[Anonymous No.15489936]

Just want to thank /sci/ for showing me her channel, the videos are really good

[Anonymous No.15489940]

>>15489933
>gets told
>responds with sex-based insult
are you actually her?

[Anonymous No.15489947]

>>15489940
it's not a sex-based insult. it's a relationship-based question. how's your dating life?

[Anonymous No.15489955]

>>15489947
You really do argue like a bitch. Why are you so mad about her working in industry?

[Anonymous No.15489968]

>>15489955
i'm not mad about her working in industry. i'm calling out your hypocrisy and projection. i admit you're far more autistic than i. it's not something you should be proud of, since my levels of normie led me to multiple girlfriends over time. does that upset you to hear? at least you're good with computers, man!

[Anonymous No.15490021]

>>15489936
She's a pseud if you haven't realized

[Anonymous No.15490072]

>>15489386
>At the end of the day, all you have is what she talks about in her video: an abundance of indirect evidence, but no demonstration. This isn't a court of law.
>Best of luck.
>Like I originally stated, try not to an hero if it turns out there's no dark matter, and something else resolves the anomalies

If you don't have a few PhDs you should STFU.

[Anonymous No.15490083]

>>15489381
>but the fact that masses attract each other IS a fact

Yeah but "gravity" =/= "the fact that masses attract each other". Gravity is the name of the theories that explain that observation. This is to leave a window that the explanation is completely wrong, so wrong we laugh that people believed in gravity and it was actually something worthy of a different name the whole time.

[Anonymous No.15490089]

>>15489386
>I can't be a crank without a crank theory, much less a crank who's never approached anyone.

Last time I checked, your crank Bingo sheet included 1) saying Einstein was wrong 2) Saying Einstein had humble beginnings too

There are other examples, but this is a tell. No matter one's opinion on Einstein, right or wrong, you will call them a Crank.

Why? Because to you anyone without the correct degree is a crank regardless of opinion.

Therefore I say to you, if you don't have at least 5 PHDs you need to STFU.

Also you don't have any ideas of your own because you're a coward.

Also no one is sending you their theories, stop pretending. No one cares about you or your opinion at all.

Go get 5 PHDs and we can talk all about it. Until then STFU

[Anonymous No.15490091]

>>15488453
Buy a ad already

[Anonymous No.15490107]

>>15490083
>he doesn't know the difference between the law of gravitational attraction and theories of gravity
kek ngmi

[Anonymous No.15490126]

>>15489111
Lol but I wasnt trying to make a joke, I was actually just asking for someone to give me a midwit understandable qrd on why people think dark matter is a thing when as far as I know there is no way to sense or measure it?

[Barkun Demi-GodofSCI !hax6YPhEF6 No.15490129]

Gravity is just solar repention.

[Anonymous No.15490142]

>>15488453
how legit is she? I know Dr Becky is a real astrophysicist

[Anonymous No.15490149]

>>15490142
From what I've seen she's done about 3-4 postdocs in astrophysics. I know she's done more than 2. Like other anons have said here, she transitioned to industry.

[Anonymous No.15490150]

>>15490142
>>15490149
>https://jila.colorado.edu/sites/default/files/group-files/2021-09/cv_collier.pdf
Here is her cv

[Anonymous No.15490162]

>>15489850
This is what gets you angry? Pathetic. You are living in a larp dreamland. When the mudslimes decapitate you, your last moments of awareness will be my dismembered head cracking a smile.

[Anonymous No.15490169]

>>15489035
Do they still remember how? They should help NASA.

[Anonymous No.15490203]

>>15490162
>>15490089
>>15490072
Whoever this is, stop spamming your non-sequitur bot you faggot.

[Anonymous No.15490964]

>>15488453
Yes it is a scientific theory and just like 99.99% of scientific theories, it is made up garbage.

[Anonymous No.15491047]

>>15490964
Kys

[Anonymous No.15491052]

>>15490150
Surely she is omitting something? After so many postdocs there should be more first authored papers. I had 4 during my PhD alone. What happened?

[Anonymous No.15491054]

>>15490126
>as far as I know there is no way to sense or measure it
that's not correct, dark matter is named because it interacts with the gravitational force but not the electromagnetic force, so this is why we can detect something through gravitational lensing, for example, since we see some kind of gravitational effect, but whatever mass is there does not interact with light

[Anonymous No.15491064]

>>15491052
experimentalist?

[Anonymous No.15491093]

>>15491064
Yes, I forgot. My mistake.

[Anonymous No.15491143]

>>15489141
>only physics graduates are capable of making any contribution to science
everyone thinks theyre own job is the most important in the world but I must admit physicsts who advance science are based

[Anonymous No.15492706]

>>15491047

[Anonymous No.15492724]

>>15488453
>dark matter is not a theory
wtf i love her now

[Anonymous No.15493233]

>>15490083
lol, are you really trying to back up your argument with terminology? plus, gravity is the attraction, the theories/laws are called "theories of gravity".

also what do you suggest to name it instead of gravity?

[Anonymous No.15493313]

>>15493233
The law of massive attraction.

[Anonymous No.15493482]

>>15489224
That's not the only thing that dark matter explains.

[Anonymous No.15493487]

>>15488629
Even though she's a commie, and so is that commenter, those are all factually correct statements and everyone in this thread has sub 90 IQ.

[Anonymous No.15493495]

>>15489141
>"only physics graduates are capable of making any contribution to science"
I mean, she's not entirely wrong. But she's not contributing to science. She left for industry.

[Anonymous No.15493501]

>>15489064
whether or not a woman is strong does not necessarily mean her intentions line up with the good of the country as a whole rather than a disguised attempt of such while making her own social circle benefit, or just herself, which is typically how most americans function regardless of what is spoken

[Anonymous No.15493507]

>>15491143
She's right from a totally practical sense, in that you will not get NSF funding if you aren't part of the system.

[Anonymous No.15493522]

>>15488629
he's right that you can't just throw away dark matter, you have to also throw away everything related to it

[Anonymous No.15493537]

>>15488453
rember when everyone thought there was another mass between mercury and the sun because Newton's laws didn't explain the orbit of Mercury?
I rember

[Anonymous No.15493544]

>>15493537
how old are you?

[Anonymous No.15493548]

>>15493544
read the site rules, you have to be from the 1800s to post here

[Anonymous No.15493554]

>>15489158
>You must be approved to think

[Anonymous No.15493567]

>>15493537
any good source? everything i find on precession of mercury's orbit jerks off about GR rather than giving a historical accounting of how they tried to solve it.

[Anonymous No.15493587]

>>15493567
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulcan_(hypothetical_planet)

[Anonymous No.15493779]

>>15493487
>smug semantics clickbait bullshit is smart

[Anonymous No.15493921]

>>15489381
It's not a constitutive fact, it's a description of a phenomena by analogy: it's *as if* masses attract each other. You're taking a Newtonian description and applying it as constitutive knowledge (a "fact") long after Newton's description has been superseded and newer scientific regulative *as if* descriptive explanations no longer posit that masses attract each other, but rather masses accelerate towards each other due to the distortion of spacetime by mass.

[Anonymous No.15493928]

Can't wait for Quantized Inertia to be proved right to the tears and screaming of thousands of bugmen "scientists"

[Anonymous No.15493935]

Dark matter is whatever scientists need it to be. It's duct tape they throw on whatever cracked theory is broken.

i will NEVER fall for the scam

[Anonymous No.15493996]

>>15489381
This is only an argument from a set of assumptions. Suppose the universe is a simulation, then it is all just bits on a computer and the whole concept of motion is some data changing. Not so much of a fact then.
Further, the idea that you have some access to objective reality through purely subjective intuitions is highly dubious. There is no reason to believe anything you consider as a fact can be factual for everybody. For example, retards may not understand math or concepts and fail to grasp the so-called facts. Is it not likely that your interpretation of facts, whatever understanding that may be, pales in comparison to a superior intellect than yours? Indeed, this is the only conclusion. What you call facts are merely myths, bedtime stories you tell yourself to cope with living on mid.
The pseudoscience of causality underlies all of these facts, as you call them. Of course, causality is not consistent with itself and depends on a prima nocta of sorts, where some undefined invisible boogey fucks the material and claims responsibility for all things - be it god, laws, prime movers, etc.
The best you can say is that there some models that have some correspondence to motion in your mind. And now I must ask, have you observed the motions of stars, planets, or other cosmic bodies? Have you verified that the models work up to some tolerance level? Are you a good little engineer?

[Anonymous No.15494046]

>NOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST OBSERVE THINGS IN NATURE I DON'T UNDERSTAND
t. /sci/ aka pol 2.0

[Anonymous No.15494052]

>>15494046
It's called "dark" because they say it's impossible to observe.

[Anonymous No.15494055]

>>15494052
No. It is entirely based on observation. Dark matter isn't observed directly, but there is an apparent distribution of noninteracting (or gravity only) matter. That observation is what we call dark matter.

[Anonymous No.15494058]

>>15494055
>but there is an apparent distribution of noninteracting (or gravity only) matter
No, there's a discrepancy between actual and predicted galactic rotation curves. All that means is that the model is wrong, it doesn't say why the model is wrong.

[Anonymous No.15494059]

>>15494055
That's a dishonest framing of it.
We observe that galaxies don't behave as we would expect it based on our current models.
Dark matter is an explanation of why that is. Dark matter is not the observation in itself.

[Anonymous No.15494066]

>>15494058
>>15494059
That is an observation about nature. It's not dishonest. The models could be wrong and physicists are perfectly open to that. Dark matter is a name for this set of observations, which seem to imply a distribution of noninteracting matter in terms of current theories. Dark matter is not really an explanation of anything. It's a way of describing an observation and physicists do not claim that it's a complete account of those observations.

[Anonymous No.15494068]

>>15494055
>it's the 1800s
>netwonian gravity is all that's known
>mercury's orbit precesses, inconsistent with model
>must be extra mass causing precession
>hypothesize planet between sun and mercury
>call it a "dark planet" because it's not directly detected, but its effects are indirectly detected on mercury
that's what dark matter arguments amount to. the absolute audacity to assume that the models used to detect xyz are infallible. if physicists back in the 1800s adhered as strongly to "dark planets" as physicists today do to dark matter, i have no doubts einstein never would have gotten his works published.

[Anonymous No.15494070]

>>15494068
There's no dark matter "argument" like you seem to think. Dark matter is a name for a set of observations. There's no particular dark matter theory. Physicists have a whole circus of competing theories about dark matter. "Dark matter" is analogous to "anomalous precessions".

[Anonymous No.15494072]

>>15494066
>"But I did have breakfast."

[Anonymous No.15494073]

>>15494068
>>15494070
Furthermore scientists DID hypothesise "dark planets" to explain anomalous precessions. It's a reasonable hypothesis that was worth exploring.

[Anonymous No.15494075]

>>15494066
>>15494070
So according to you dark matter is not even a hypothesis. It's just the name given for an observation
Are you sure about that?

[Anonymous No.15494076]

>>15494075
Honestly you can view it either way. It's inconsequential.

[Anonymous No.15494077]

>>15494076
If it was inconsequential scientists wouldn't be trying to detect dark matter right now

[Anonymous No.15494080]

>>15494077
The way you view it is inconsequential. It can refer to the set of observations or the hypothesis that there really is noninteracting matter. And there is nothing wrong with exploring that hypothesis, or alternative ones like modified gravity or whatever you like.

[Anonymous No.15494083]

>>15494070
by that argument, there is no "precession of mercury's orbit" observation. there is merely "dark planets" which is a collection of observations. period.

[Anonymous No.15494086]

>>15494076
>>15494080
saying it's "inconsequential" is ignorant at best, and dishonest at worst. observe:
>problem: galactic rotation curves disagree with model
>proposed solution: dark matter
>alternative solution: MOND
if you had it your way, then
>proposed solution == problem
in other words, you completely reject the possibility of alternative solutions to the discrepancy between data and models. in other words, you're assuming (without proof!) that your proposed solution is THE solution. do you see why you're wrong yet?

[Anonymous No.15494087]

bruh fix your shit audio. why do most chimps not care about the audio, do care for it for fucks sake.

[Anonymous No.15494090]

>>15494083
Anomalous precessions are more specific than dark matter observations. There are a variety of observations that all seem to suggest dark matter according to existing theories. That's why "dark matter" is a good name for that collection of observations. It highlights what they have in common. It's also a name for various hypotheses and theories about those observations. The nature of our language is inexact, even when it comes to physics. "Dark planets" is a silly name for anomalous precessions, since they are only one type of observation. But you could call them that if you wanted, who cares? You, I guess.

>>15494086
No. There's nothing about calling it dark matter that precludes alternative theories. It just seems to make contrarians on 4channel insanely butthurt. But if you like MOND I encourage you to publish a paper showing how it explains "dark matter" observations.

[Anonymous No.15494099]

>>15494087
Only autists care more about the audio than the actual content of the videos.

[Anonymous No.15494101]

>>15494099
They're both shit. Might as well ask her to fix the one she'll actually follow through with.

[Anonymous No.15494102]

>>15488453
Is this a man or a woman?

[Anonymous No.15494104]

>>15494090
>equating discrepancies between models & observations with a singular proposed solution does not discount alternative explanations
are you trolling?

[Anonymous No.15494106]

>>15494099
nah, she decided for all of us that that audio is good enough. either that either she usually misses details. it's actually a bit rapey to my ears.

[Anonymous No.15494107]

>>15494104
It's not equating. It's using the same term for multiple things. That happens all the time in physics, especially if you tease apart the distinctions between theory and observation. It's not ideal but what are you gonna do? And it is not a single proposed solution. There are a whole lot of different dark matter candidates coming from different theoretical ideas.

[Anonymous No.15494109]

>>15494107
>It's not equating. It's using the same term for multiple things
okay so you're just a fucking idiot. note that i'm being generous here by assuming you aren't a pseud, and that you're therefore an idiot. where did you get your degree? i want to know which university never to read physics papers from.

[Anonymous No.15494113]

>>15494109
In what way? "Dark matter" clearly refers both to the various observations suggesting the hypothesis, and to various more specific hypothesis and theories of dark matter candidates. Do you disagree with that?

[Anonymous No.15494117]

>>15494113
>clearly
if you're an idiot. as has already been described to you multiple times, all the observations you're talking about that suggest a dark matter hypothesis can also suggest alternative hypotheses. i could just as easily say such collections of observations are called MOND, and that MOND is also a proposed answer to such MONDic observations. if that sounds weird to you, or somehow off, that's because it is. but i assume you still won't understand even with this example.
>but i did eat breakfast

[Anonymous No.15494119]

>>15494113
>"But I ate breakfast."

[Anonymous No.15494128]

>>15494117
Not really. As I explained, many of these observations can be explained by some kind of dark matter i.e. by adding gravity-only matter to the existing distribution. That's why it's a good name for that set of observations. What that dark matter might actually be has not been determined conclusively, and it's entirely possible that an alternative explanation exists. Currently MOND can't explain shit, but maybe it hasn't been applied properly. I've talked to various physicists who were intrigued by the idea of MOND but so far it remains unsuccessful.

[Anonymous No.15494134]

>>15494128
lol. i didn't know sub90 iq people could get degrees in physics. yet here we are.

[Anonymous No.15494141]

>>15494070
>>15494076
>>15494113
>"Dark matter is a hypothetical form of matter thought to account for approximately 85% of the matter in the universe.[1] Dark matter is called "dark" because it does not appear to interact with the electromagnetic field, which means it does not absorb, reflect, or emit electromagnetic radiation and is, therefore, difficult to detect."

[Anonymous No.15494152]

>>15494141
>yeah we just invented this shit that is 85% of the mass of the universe to fit our models which don't work
>what is it? Shut up chud we can't see it or detect in any way because uhhhh shut up incel this is settled science don't you dare propose any alternative theories or we'll cancel you from your tenure

Cool science bro

[Anonymous No.15494188]

>>15494141
Yeah, that's the dark matter hypothesis. What's your point? It even says hypothetical. So are you guys MONDies or what? Maybe you can link me some convincing MOND papers? Has anyone ever done successful galaxy formation simulations with MOND? I would like to know.

[Anonymous No.15494190]

>>15494188
>Why are you saying I didn't eat breakfast?

[Anonymous No.15494191]

>>15494190
>maybe if I keep saying "breakfast"...

[Anonymous No.15494192]

>>15494191

[Anonymous No.15494196]

>>15494191
You have to be over 100 IQ to get it (literally).

[Anonymous No.15494209]

>>15494192
>>15494196
Back to the point, when can I expect your MOND preprints to appear fellas? Remember that anyone can upload a paper to the arxiv, so there should be no stopping you

[Anonymous No.15494211]

>>15494209
The point is that you don't understand conditional hypotheticals.

[Anonymous No.15494212]

>>15494211
I understand the breakfast meme, anon. It's just irrelevant, and repeatedly spouting it is pure COPE on your part.

[Anonymous No.15494214]

>>15494212

[Anonymous No.15494216]

>>15494212
>It's just irrelevant
>"Why are you saying I didn't have breakfast?"

[Anonymous No.15494225]

>>15488453
she does have a point tho

[Anonymous No.15494322]

Video is kinda boring but she's right, dark matter is real sorry chuds
Also MOND-tards, what do you think about le bullet galaxy?