/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15781073]

>Can't do any experimentation
>All you can do is observe
>Most predictions made can only be verified in a billion trillion years

How the fuck is astronomy even considered a science?

>"B-but my computer model predicts... "
I don't care. Your computer model isn't reality

[Anonymous No.15781100]

>>15781073
So what do you propose as an alternative, do nothing?

[Anonymous No.15781105]

>>15781100
if you can't work within the confines of the scientific method then you shouldn't involve yourself in science
the sciences are plagued with charlatans that wastefully devote their careers to pointlessly making conjectures which they know are not currently testable and won't be any time soon
>i know whats at the center of the earth
>i know what life was like on this planet a million years ago
>i know what the weather will be like in 200 years
its all just a bunch of gay fairy tales for the immature IFLS queers who are low iq and gullible enough to believe in it

[Anonymous No.15781109]

>>15781100
I propose astronomers stop acting like they're doing anything profound and admit that all they do is make gay computer models which they confuse reality with

[Anonymous No.15781110]

>>15781073
>make theory about light or gravity or something
>make model incorporating this theory
>model predicts some structure like a nebula or something ought to have certain feature
>make string telescope that can observe nebula or whatever and see if it matches model’s prediction
>assign value to the original theory and model based on how well they make predictions that prove to be accurate

[Anonymous No.15781117]

it is kinda strange come to think of it...

[Anonymous No.15781118]

>>15781105
It wouldn't be so bad if they explicitly said that their claims are largely conjecture and speculation, yet they present them as fact and often obscure the multiplicity of nebulous axioms upon which the derived claims rest.

This results in a general population that takes everything they say as gospel, and believes in retarded theories despite the glaringly obvious retarded ness.

[Anonymous No.15781182]

>>15781109
>>15781105
just sounds like you're mad at popsci, not astronomy. I just don't get the premise. I agree with what you're saying in general. I also hate heavy-handed interpretation of models with limited evidence, but in the sense of predictions that can only be verified in a billion trillion years, models are all you have. So we need to get better models.
>>15781118
Whatever normies do with that information is largely inconsequential because it's just talking points. If they have an incorrect worldview because of some popsci they read, what real consequence does that have aside from annoying you?

[Anonymous No.15781188]

It's all a joke when you realize that physics is simply describing our mental structure of reality. Not reality itself.

[Anonymous No.15781229]

>>15781182
I’m not mad at popsci I’m criticizing all of astronomy. For something to be called a science it has to involve experimentation but this can’t be done in astronomy. The way astronomers get around this is by creating abstract mathematical computer models and then conflating that with reality. Instead of saying “This is how galaxies form” astronomers should say “According to this model that we can’t test, this is how galaxies are formed”

[Anonymous No.15781236]

>>15781229
You test the model by looking at galaxies and seeing if the model agrees u fuckin retard

[Anonymous No.15781269]

>>15781229
I'm not sure if you don't understand science or you don't understand astronomy, but either way you're a fucking dumbass.

[Anonymous No.15781273]

>>15781236
>Wow some observations I made match up with some abstract math equations I invented. Now I can draw wild conclusion from these equations that I’ll never be able to test or observe

This isn’t how science works fucking retard

[Anonymous No.15781429]

>>15781073
Most astronomical phenomenon observed in our galaxy will eventually be visited and confirmed by direct experimentation once humans start exploring beyond the solar system. One exception may be the giant black hole at the galactic core but eventually we'll get close enough to directly image it. In a few million years if not less our civilization will have visited every solar system in the galaxy. It is inevitable. Warp drive not needed.

[Anonymous No.15781492]

>>15781229
>For something to be called a science it has to involve experimentation
So science cannot ask how the Earth formed, or how the Sun works because it can't do experiments? This is just your own childish impression of science. The reality is lots of science is observational (geology, evolutionary biology), that doesn't mean it isn't science. Not everything fits neatly in your high school impression of science. There isn't even a single agreed definition of science.

[Anonymous No.15781541]

>>15781429
>muh soience fiction space travel tranny fantasy life that I got from watching muh hollywood goyslop moooovies
go be low iq and gay somewhere else

[Anonymous No.15781731]

>>15781110
>>assign value to the original theory
Only science if you can exclude all other model with similar results. No way to be sure to know all, so scientifically impossible so pure number magic.

[Anonymous No.15781736]

>>15781492
>... (geology, evolutionary biology), that doesn't mean it isn't science.
Any part in science not backed by experiments is theory (sometimes gross hallucinations like BigBang). Repeatable measurements (like Hubble constant) are experiments, so there is science in any faculty based on physic.
Unfortunately in academic there is a "tendency" to pretend knowledge when there is speculation at best.

[Anonymous No.15781743]

>>15781229
>For something to be called a science it has to involve experimentation
Look at this retard, look at him and laugh.

[Anonymous No.15781895]

>>15781731
>Only science if you can exclude all other model with similar results.
That isn't even possible if you can do experiments. Christ. There are always an infinite number of possible models, and you can never disprove them all. What you're taking about is actually proving models and proving that it is unique. This is impossible in all empirical science. Proofs only exist in formal sciences like mathematics and logic. No model is ever proven, not evolution, not relatively. None. All there is is degrees of evidence.

[Anonymous No.15781922]

>>15781895
> Excluding experiments
>That isn't even possible if you can do experiments.
Can't see that in a repeatable measuerement like earth gravity.

>degrees of evidence.
Which isn't science or, if you like it more, it's outside the science process.

[Anonymous No.15781955]

>>15781922
>Can't see that in a repeatable measuerement like earth gravity.
Can see what? Perhaps try writing a full thought.

>Which isn't science or, if you like it more, it's outside the science process.
Or you don't understand science.

[Anonymous No.15781964]

>>15781736
>Any part in science not backed by experiments is theory (sometimes gross hallucinations like BigBang).
Define "backed by".
The big bang theory is theory? What a startling discovery.
>Repeatable measurements (like Hubble constant) are experiments, so there is science in any faculty based on physic.
Are you OP? By the OP definition these aren't experiments. By this definition of experiment astronomy is scientific.

[Anonymous No.15782526]

>>15781731
AI will make this a lot easier with their ability to sift through large numbers of models quickly.

[Anonymous No.15782547]

>>15781922
Science utilizes inductive reasoning, and indictive reasoning only results in degrees of confidence, not absolutes as deductive reasoning does.

[Anonymous No.15782556]

>>15781073
What's the difference between this and the observation of, say, a cell and its behavior, or how magnets behave or whatever? Have you tried reading the history of physics and the influence astronomy has had on it?

>How the fuck is astronomy even considered a science?
Define science.

[Anonymous No.15782594]

>>15782556
The difference is that biologists don't just observe cells, they perform experiments on them to gain a better understanding of how they work. You can only understand so much just through pure observations, especially when what you're observing is mostly static. There's barely any change we can see with stars or galaxies on a human scale and timeline.

>Define science.
Whatever follows the scientific method. A key aspect of the scientific method is experimentation which is impossible in astronomy, therefore it's not a science

[Anonymous No.15782597]

>>15782594
>A key aspect of the scientific method is experimentation
According to what definition?

[Anonymous No.15782609]

>>15782597
Is this really a point of contention? Who doesn't think that testing a hypothesis through experimentation isn't a fundamental aspect of the scientific method?

[Anonymous No.15782622]

>>15782609
Testing a hypothesis which can be falsified is literally the definition of the scientific method. These other anons are literally morons and not scientists.
The problem is that making a prediction and then observing it in an astronomy observation is a test. If I have a model (general relativity) that makes a prediction that something is going to move some way, then I do the math, then I look. That's the testing of the model

[Anonymous No.15782627]

>>15781429
Nobody is exploring space. It's completely impossible to leave the solar system due to dark energy.

[Anonymous No.15782641]

>>15782609
If your argument rests of definitions then you should cite it.

>>15782622
>Testing a hypothesis which can be falsified is literally the definition of the scientific method.
Which can be done with observations, experiments, or calculations. You say I'm retarded, but go on to agree that experiment is unnecessary.

[Anonymous No.15782683]

>>15782622
>If I have a model (general relativity) that makes a prediction that something is going to move some way, then I do the math, then I look. That's the testing of the model
It isn't if you then disregard the results of your failed predictions and continue to insist that the model (general relativity) is correct. In that case you didn't test the model because the results of the test were predetermined to prove that the model was correct.

[Anonymous No.15782692]

>>15782627
We've already sent a probe outside of the solar system. Also, dark energy isn't real, and neither is dark matter.

[Anonymous No.15782695]

>>15782594
>A key aspect of the scientific method is experimentation which is impossible in astronomy
what are man-made satellites

[Anonymous No.15782706]

>>15782683
>It isn't if you then disregard the results of your failed predictions and continue to insist that the model (general relativity) is correct.
The model was not just GR. The "predictions" are from gravity combined with a model of the mass distribution of the galaxy.

[Anonymous No.15782793]

>>15781073
>How the fuck is astronomy even considered a science?
He really get's it.

[Anonymous No.15783800]

[Anonymous No.15784825]

>>15781073
>can't possibly learn anything of any meaningful use
what a total waste of time that field of nonsense is

[Anonymous No.15785146]

>>15781073
this board should be renamed to the dunning kruger board

[Anonymous No.15785253]

>>15781100

Of course. "Space" is the image of a tunnel entrance painted on a wall.

[Anonymous No.15785459]

>>15781229
I know this is /sci/ but you need to get an autism diagnosis, anon.

[Anonymous No.15786357]

>>15785459
>I know this is /sci/ but you need to get an autism diagnosis, anon.

[Anonymous No.15786383]

Predictions in astrophysics often reference statistical distributions and they test these predictions regularly by taking statistics with obsrvations.

[Anonymous No.15787029]

>>15786383
weak excuse

[Anonymous No.15788300]

Astronomy is like a religion in which the lay people are not allowed to see the holy books.
Only the Astronomy priest class has access to the most powerful telescopes, so they have a monopoly on all data which gives them the opportunity to circulate whatever lies they please.
The lies they choose to circulate are the ones that they people funding them demand they circulate.

[Anonymous No.15788815]

>>15782594
>A key aspect of the scientific method is experimentation
Another key is that any theory must be capable of being disproved. That isn't possible when you're making up theories about what happens beyond the event horizon of a black hole or in the core of a star because those regions are fundamentally unobservable.

[Anonymous No.15788897]

>>15781073
>How the fuck is astronomy even considered a science?
You are mixing up astronomy with astrophysics.
Astronomy is pretty simple: Its about predicting the motion of the dots of light in the sky. You can't do experiments but you can still make predictions and check if they come true, that makes it a science

[Anonymous No.15789026]

>>15781736
>Any part in science not backed up by experiments is theory
looks like you fell for that one too huh
calling conjectures theories is one of the greater achievements of the nu-science propaganda, equivalent to changing the stigma of the words progpaganda and conspiracy from their original meanings to those stigmatized ones we have today.

conjecture:
an opinion or CONCLUSION formed on the basis of INCOMPLETE INFORMATION

by definition the big bang """theory""" will always in truth be a CONJECTURE.

the big bang theory tv show was probably a show designed just to subliminally suggest people to further be "sure" and "know" its a theory

and yes, evolution too, is a conjecture

[Anonymous No.15789069]

>>15789026
By that definition all theories in science are conjectures, since they are all based on incomplete information. It's quite pointless, and not appropriate for empirical science.

[Anonymous No.15789159]

>>15789069
no because most other theories will soon be proven true or not by more or less complete information

the assumption that the earth is on the arm of the milky way is based on incomplete information, because we cannot, by any appropriate definition of the word "soon", acquire complete information on the nature of the milky way nor our true position in it

[Anonymous No.15789163]

and similarly we cannot go back in time and then fast forward to observe the evolution of the myriad species of the planet
the idea of evolution will always be built upon the basis of incomplete information, that will never be acquired.
therefore both evolution, and by very similar argument, the big bang are both conjectures.

furthermore, no experiment can be done to prove either of these conjectures, so they can never be a theory, and therefore never be assigned a true hypothesis as no experiment can be done

the idea that the earth is flying around in the solar system which is in the arm of a spiral galaxy
is, and always will be,
a CONJECTURE
and that is a FACT

[Anonymous No.15789166]

>>15781073
you can verify how it will look over billions of years by looking back at galaxies different distances in time ago

[Anonymous No.15789172]

>>15789159
>no because most other theories will soon be proven true or not by more or less complete information
Nope. No theory is ever proven true in empirical science. Not relativity. Not evolution.
It also doesn't change the fact that all theories in science are based on incomplete information. It's because the information is incomplete that they can never be proven true. By your definition it is all conjecture.

>the assumption that the earth is on the arm of the milky way is based on incomplete information, because we cannot, by any appropriate definition of the word "soon", acquire complete information on the nature of the milky way nor our true position in it
Give me an example where we have complete information.

>>15789163
No experiment can be done to proven any theory in science.

[Anonymous No.15789224]

>>15789172

but fundamentally a theory is testable, that's one of the main reasons or purposes for a theory in the first place.

but evolution is not testable, neither is the big bang conjecture.

>inb4 cmb
that's a fact which a theory should also account for

experiments can be a way to test a theory, which is a theory because it is testable, and the assigned cause is the hypothesis.

since the conjectures of evolution and the big bang can never be tested, they cannot even be given the classification of a hypothesis.
they are only conjectures.

it's not about "proving" the theory, though an experiment might help to; it's about testing the theory.
is it testable.

[Anonymous No.15789226]

i should say assigned cause according to theory is the hypothesis before you go all zoomerbrain on me again

[Anonymous No.15789427]

>>15789224

>but evolution is not testable, neither is the big bang conjecture.
This is just lack of imagination. The big bang has been tested by the following: the prediction of the CMB, it's structures, the Tolman test, cosmological time dilation, the abundances of light elements from BB nucleosynthesis, the chemical evolution of the unverse, baryon acoustic oscillations, the Gunn–Peterson trough... Future tests include redshift drift, the slow increase of redshift in real time as the universe expands.

>>inb4 cmb
>that's a fact which a theory should also account for
Theories should do better than "account" for something after the fact. The big bang predicted the existence of the CMB before it was discovered, It also predicted the black body spectrum and it's angular fluctuations. It continues to predict it's polarisation properties, and secondary anisotropies like the SZ effect and lensing. The CMB has enabled many tests, and there are more predictions for the future (e.g. the recombination lines, the 21 cm absorption signal).

>it's not about "proving" the theory, though an experiment might help to
Give me an example of a proven theory in physics.

[Anonymous No.15789439]

>>15781073
but we have experimented on other planets.
also predictions can be verified through observation.

[Anonymous No.15789441]

>>15781229
Based. physics isnt science either because you can't experiment with gravitational bodies
>picrel
Just an observation

[Anonymous No.15790507]

>>15789441
newton developed that formula in when he was trying to predict the fall of cannon fire, there was a lot of experimentation

[Anonymous No.15790596]

The scientific method does not require experiments, mere observations are enough as long as the observations work as evidence for theories.

[Anonymous No.15790943]

>>15790507
k fine. How about picrel

[Anonymous No.15790964]

>>15789441
>Based. physics isnt science either because you can't experiment with gravitational bodies
The scientific method does not necessarily require experiments, it requires verification of theories. You can verify with either experiments or observations, whatever fits the situation.

Also, cavendish did gravity experiments by directly measuring the field of a huge iron sphere

[Anonymous No.15790976]

>>15789427
according to my theory of unicorns, unicorns are elusive and are almost impossible to observe.
it predicts that the likelihood of ever finding a unicorn is so incredibly unlikely that the few reports of observations are probably the only time unicorns will ever be observed in existence.
this theory has, by your use of the term "testing", been tested.

if you accept the big bang conjecture as theory then you must accept the unicorn as theory too.

the cmb was not perfectly predicted and could just as well have been a "predicted" coincidence
also if you accept the big bang conjecture as theory you must accept the concepts of dark energy and dark matter

>In 2013, data from the European Space Agency's Planck space telescope was released, showing the highest precision picture of the CMB yet. Scientists uncovered another mystery with this information: Fluctuations in the CMB at large angular scales did not match predictions. Planck also confirmed what WMAP saw in terms of the asymmetry and the cold spot. Planck's final data release in 2018 (the mission operated between 2009 and 2013) showed more proof that dark matter and dark energy — mysterious forces that are likely behind the acceleration of the universe — do seem to exist.

[Anonymous No.15790988]

>>15782692
Have you ever been in a physics laboratory? Ever done any work with a supercollider? Have you ever submitted a physics paper to a peer reviewed journal?
No? Then shut up.

[Anonymous No.15791072]

>>15790976
>this theory has, by your use of the term "testing", been tested.
But the observation is also consistent with the null (no unicorns). So no it's not really a test. All the things I mentioned are actually novel tests which make predictions which differ from other cosmologies, or a static euclidean model.

>if you accept the big bang conjecture as theory then you must accept the unicorn as theory too.
Do you have a quantitative model for unicorns that can be objectively tested? No. Then it's not even a model, certainly not a theory.

>the cmb was not perfectly predicted and could just as well have been a "predicted" coincidence
Oh yeah, it's just a coincidence that this random thing just happens to have baryon acoustic oscillations, as predicted by the big bang. What's also funny is that there are literally zero alternative models which can even explain this data after the fact, and yet the big bang model predicted them. And dozens of other tests. Note the asymmetry and cold spot are few sigma effects at best, these oscillations on the other hand are thousands of sigma.

>also if you accept the big bang conjecture as theory you must accept the concepts of dark energy and dark matter
Fine. There are zero real alternative models. Also dark matter was tested by these CMB data, as matter that doesn't interact with normal matter leaves a unique signature. Alternative models which had only normal matter failed to predict the powerspectrum. And 20 years later there is no resolution that doesn't involve dark matter.

[Anonymous No.15791211]

>>15791072
>the observation is also consistent with the null
>its consistent with my nu-science so it's not really a test
>All the things I mentioned are actually novel tests
the post-scientific methods of nu-science really tickles me, especially when they think the unsound principles justify their opinions which they are trying to enshrine as objective facts.

>muh super advanced science need quantitative models for unicorns that can be objectively tested
>it's not even a model, certainly not a theory
never was intended to be a model.
i think what you've said here highlights the very problem with mathematicians posing as scientists these days;
you put a "model" above a "theory" and then claim that a model is somehow more likely to be actual truth than a theory, when infact a model should be but a part of the theory if part of it at all.
i wouldn't expect you to understand what i just said, you're just a mathematician posing as some kind of scientist after all.
reminder: a mathematician is not inherently a philosopher.

>it's just a coincidence that this random thing just happens to have le baryon acoustic oscillations, as predicted by the big bang
stranger coincidences have happened, and scientifically valid observations and theory are no exception and are not immune to it.

>there are literally zero alternative models which can even explain this data after the fact.
i have a theory which explains it, and i'm not telling it to you because you wouldn't appreciate it.

>the big bang model predicted them. And dozens of other tests.
the only thing we know for sure is that the cmb was similar in some ways to that predicted by the big bang conjecture, but it was "tweaked" a few times.

>Alternative models which had only normal matter failed to predict the powerspectrum
ah yes, this super specific thing that is related only to big bang conjecture and which has no relevance at all to the other theories...

[Anonymous No.15791245]

>>15791211
>especially when they think the unsound principles justify their opinions which they are trying to enshrine as objective facts.
If you have an argument the actually make it. This is just an empty statement. It's hardly scientific to dismiss these observations as unscientific, without even giving a single reason why.

>never was intended to be a model.
Then it can't be a theory in my book.
>i think what you've said here highlights the very problem with mathematicians posing as scientists these days;
Without mathematics there no way to objectively test things. You observe zero unicorns. Is that consistent with your model?
>you put a "model" above a "theory" and then claim that a model is somehow more likely to be actual truth than a theory, when infact a model should be but a part of the theory if part of it at all.
No, you misunderstand. All theories in physics are models. A model is the objective term. I made no claims about truth, don't put words in my mouth.
"Theory" isn't actually formally defined in science, sometimes people use it to mean well tested and physically meaningful models. It's literally just a label. There is no objective definition. It's entirely pointless to argue over semantics like this.

[Anonymous No.15791248]

>>15791245
>>15791211
>stranger coincidences have happened, and scientifically valid observations and theory are no exception and are not immune to it.
Name me one stranger in physics. Usually if a model makes very accurate predictions but is ultimately wrong it's because it's an approximation of a better model. The universal gravitation and GR. But that is not a coincidence, it's the limiting case.

>i have a theory which explains it, and i'm not telling it to you because you wouldn't appreciate it.
You and all the other crackpots. I look forward to seeing it on the arXiv, until then it does not exist.

>the only thing we know for sure is that the cmb was similar in some ways to that predicted by the big bang conjecture, but it was "tweaked" a few times.
"similar". What great weasel words.

>ah yes, this super specific thing that is related only to big bang conjecture and which has no relevance at all to the other theories...
The other theories can't explain this data at all. It is explained only in models where there is a big bang. So yes it's relevant, it's relevant to all models currently on the table.

[Anonymous No.15792702]

>>15790988
not an argument
even if it was, you've never done any of those things either

[Anonymous No.15792911]

>>15781073
A computer model in this sense exists entirely to support a specific theory within the parameters and limitations of the currently understood view of cosmological phenomena and does not exist as any kind of statement unto itself.
Within any given set of parameters, most complex and poorly understood phenomena can be explained and simulated in over a hundred different ways, some being radically more complex and interwoven than others. But they don't want you to know that.

[Anonymous No.15793452]

>>15791245
>something about empty statements because ze was offended by calling zirs practice nu-sci
use your grey matter
you might be able to infer the arguments and reasons residing in those statements.

picrel is (you)

>never was intended to be a model therefore it can't be a theory
stop tickling me please this is just too funny
>Without mathematics there no way to objectively test things.
please stop tickling me

>You observe zero unicorns. Is that consistent with your model?
Yes.

>All theories in physics are models.
Here we go again, this is just like the stupid alphabet agenda with the stupid shit like "acktually there is no such thing as a man or a woman, it's all part of a spectrum",
appropriate, claim, and rewrite it to suit your stupid methods and stupid agenda which is just mental masturbation.
"oh wow look i made this MODEL of a galaxy in a computer, this must be what it really looks like!!!! epic!"
"oh wow the higgs boson is confirmed because of a statistically significant peak in a distribution curve from thousands of experiments!!! who would have thought!??"

fucking stupid as fuck...
those people are mentally on the same level as you, you do realize that right?

and here we go again,
more alphabet agenda style appropriating and rewriting of history and science such as:
>"Theory" isn't actually formally defined in science
>sometimes people use theory to mean well tested and physically meaningful models
>"Theory" is literally just a label
>There is no objective definition of "Theory"

[Anonymous No.15793485]

>>15793452
>use your grey matter
Or you could just make arguments like a big boy. If you find your arguments so unconvincing that you can't even write them down then I'm not going to waste my time.

>>You observe zero unicorns. Is that consistent with your model?
>Yes.
And what detection rate would reject your model at 3 sigma?

[Anonymous No.15794129]

>>15781073
>I'm goooooonnnaa obseeeeeeeerrrve!!!

[Anonymous No.15794151]

>>15793485
>what detection rate would reject your model at 3 sigma?
If you used your grey matter like you had some you would know that that question isn't going to be answered by me.

>Or you could just make arguments like a big boy.
you have to go back

[Anonymous No.15794194]

>>15781073
Science is based on observation, hypothesis, and more observation with statistical analysis. Laboratory experiments are an optional part. Retard.

Computer models for physics problems with no analytic solution are extremely common in all branches of physics, by the way. How does it feel to pontificate about science while knowing nothing about it?

[Anonymous No.15794196]

>>15785146
Dunning-Kruger is about a lack of domain-specific knowledge, not just being a moron in general. These people are just fucking stupid.

[Anonymous No.15794201]

>>15787029
That's how almost all science is done, sorry. There's almost no science that's as clean as you imagine. There are scientists who spend their entire careers just characterizing the noise in detectors.

>>15788897
Astronomy is generally considered a synonym with astrophysics. Especially since astrometry and orbital mechanics are where physics came from in the first place.

[Anonymous No.15794284]

>>15794151
>If you used your grey matter like you had some you would know that that question isn't going to be answered by me.
That was the point. Without a mathematics there is no way to objectively test models like this.

[Anonymous No.15794288]

>>15781073
notable roadblock in everyone's path

[Anonymous No.15794292]

>>15781273
No, it's mostly "These predictions we made from out observations seem to come true, allowing us to understand a little bit more of how the universe works. We will assume this is accurate for the moment until someome makes a better prediction, or is able to observe the thing in more detail because of advances in the tools we are using or our understanding of science in general".

Seems the best process we have at the moment, If you don't like it, what is your alternative suggestion? Just say 'God' did it and we dont need to look?

[Barkun No.15794293]

Modern astronomers aren't even good at it, they don't use the space telescopes properly.

Pic related. It's just the same stars repeated and making fake clusters, but they say they're different stars.

[Anonymous No.15794297]

>>15794293
And how do you know the stars are repeated?

[Barkun No.15794302]

>>15794297
What? You can't see that? You are as retarded as them.

[Anonymous No.15794305]

>>15794302
Can't see what? The shapes? The colours? Explain your reasoning.

[Barkun No.15794310]

>>15794305
The blue shining star for example is the same star in different solstices which occurs in space because you're not moving with the universe. Viewing stars from space is a moving frame not a still one.

[Barkun No.15794336]

>>15794305
What's the matter, cat-got-your-tongue?

[Anonymous No.15794338]

>>15794336
You didn't answer the question. I asked what from the image tells you they are the same star. You answered with meaningless babble. I did not ask what your interpretation is, I asked what observational evidence do you think supports it.

[Barkun No.15794341]

>>15794338
You mad.

And very, very retarded.

[Anonymous No.15794415]

>>15794284
you're literally not talking about anything anymore, it's just empty post-meta statements

[Anonymous No.15794425]

>>15794415
I am reminding you of my point, which I stated earlier. You know, putting words together to make an argument rather than spamming greentext shit posts.

[Anonymous No.15794435]

>>15794415
there is always a point here. the proof left to the horse will intensify.

[Anonymous No.15794463]

>>15794425
>>15794435

you have made a perfect circle and that is all you have done

you have:
made a model using special mathematics, which can only be proved using special mathematics which made the model which can only be proved by special mathematics which ...

so congratulations

[Anonymous No.15794467]

>>15781073
sure, these two things take the same amount of time. why wouldn't they? are you still coping with straight lines?

[Anonymous No.15794471]

>>15794463
>which can only be proved
I never said that. What I actually said repeatedly.
> No model is ever proven
Maybe you could try responding to things I actually said, rather just making up nonsense.

You disagree with my claim that only mathematical models can be objectively tested. But you have never actually offered a reasoning behind that, or a counter argument.

[Anonymous No.15794482]

>>15794471
call your carers they need to put your straight jacket back on

[Anonymous No.15794487]

>>15794482
No counter argument then?

[Anonymous No.15794492]

>>15794487
you're an insane person so there's no point continuing trying to argue with you anymore
call your carers to get a straight jacket before someone gets hurt

[Anonymous No.15794503]

>>15794492
You're not arguing with me. You can literally only respond in misquotes. The only post you put effort into was the green text shit post with absolutely no content.
It's you who constantly spams these zero effort threads. You clearly care very deeply about this bullshit. You really have your panties in a twist over astronomy. And yet you run away when someone tried to engage with your bullshit.
All you have uncovered is your deep ignorance of the philosophy of science.

[Anonymous No.15794505]

>>15794503
k

[Anonymous No.15794771]

>>15781541
>soi
>tranny
>hollywood
>goyslop
gee I wonder who could be behind this post

[Anonymous No.15795715]

>>15781073
>How the fuck is astronomy even considered a science?

it isn't, not outside of sci fi obsessed loser nerds who think Star Wars and Star Trek were documentaries

[Anonymous No.15795733]

the universe is constantly experimenting, and because of how light works we can actually see a few million billion years pass in those experiments
some sciences don't even observe things

[Anonymous No.15797092]

>>15794293
It's just the same sausages repeated and making fake clusters, but they say they're different sausages.

[Anonymous No.15798121]

>>15781110
thats not how its done, they make the observations first and then they make up nonscientific theories about the observations. once the data is available its easy to build a theory that you know can't be disproved around the data.

[Barkun No.15798124]

Astronomy also includes study of stars, not just of constellation.

[Anonymous No.15798695]

>>15781110
wrong

>>15798121
correct

[Anonymous No.15799525]

>>15786357
Nice depiction of yourself, retard.

[Anonymous No.15799548]

>>15798121
>can't be disproved around the data.
So you get more data. You do more tests. Christ.

[Anonymous No.15799555]

>>15792702
I'm not the one making retarded claims. You are.

[Anonymous No.15800030]

>>15781073
>How the fuck is astronomy even considered a science?
why would anyone bother investing their time in such trash anyway. there is no possibility whatsoever that anything astronomers learn will ever become of exploitable use to humans here on earth.
astronomy is a discipline for low IQs who are lacking in self awareness

[Anonymous No.15800528]

>>15800030
>there is no possibility whatsoever that anything astronomers learn will ever become of exploitable use to humans here on earth.
Thats what attracts them to it. Academia is a leisure class pursuit, they expect all the real work that supports civilization to be done for them by someone else while they devote their lives to preening their CVs

[Anonymous No.15801636]

>>15800528

[Anonymous No.15802218]

>>15801636
>this is considered attractive by the standards of scientists
no wonder they fuck dogs

[Anonymous No.15803306]

>hey goy, you have to trust my opinion about stupid astrocrap because i know for a fact that you don't have a billion dollar telescope to disprove me with, so I can fake date and lie about conclusions as much as I want to without fear of being exposed as a fraud

[Anonymous No.15804583]

>>15803306
Pure gatekeeping, its like how some churches used to endeavor to keep most of their members illiterate so they couldn't read The Bible on their own

[Anonymous No.15805166]

>>15804583
I think that was the rationale behind the Catholic Church doing everything in a dead language that nobody spoke up until 50 years ago. But then they turned massively gay since they ended the Latin tradition…

[Anonymous No.15806128]

Astronomy is even more bogus than psychology or gender studies

[Anonymous No.15806193]

It predicted Neptune you stupid faggot:

https://www.astronomy.com/science/finding-neptune-how-we-discovered-the-eighth-planet/

[Anonymous No.15806427]

>>15781073
>How the fuck is astronomy even considered a science?
It's not. The entirety of astronomy and cosmology is built on the single assumption that physical laws as we know them out there is the same as it is on Earth. Every single conclusion in this field is an extrapolation of this assumption.
If this assumption turns out to be false, then stars might not be suns and the galaxies might not be stars and every other thing you were taught since highschool might be complete bogus.
Point is, at the end of the day unless you can fly out there you actually don't know what the actual fuck you are really looking at.

[Anonymous No.15806468]

>>15806427
Some of the nearby stars do seem to be real based on parallax
Anything beyond that may as well be painted on a dome

[Anonymous No.15807649]

>>15806427
right, theres a lot of soience fields that justify their existence by having the subject matter so inaccessible that the theories aren't disprovable.
they aren't sciences, they're superstitions.
its like having theories about unicorns.

[Anonymous No.15807685]

>>15781073
there is definitely something deeply unsatisfying about the so-called "observational sciences". the "experiments" they involve are largely outside our direct control, so we can't necessarily know as much about the phenomena they study as we can about phenomena where we can create precise repeatable experiments under laboratory conditions. it's a valid critique but, ultimately, it might be as good as we can do right now. calling them "science" is fine, I think, as long as we all acknowledge and remember the kind of knowledge we get out of them is inherently less reliable than what we get out of other kinds. the same kind of acknowledgement is already established between "formal sciences" and "empirical sciences", for instance. i know Euclidean geometry is true, for instance, given its assumptions; i have extraordinarily good evidence that current through a wire produces a magnetic field; and there is evidence to suggest macroevolution is broadly true and a consequence of microevolution over long time scales. i don't think anybody seriously disputes the relative levels of certainty here.

[Anonymous No.15807748]

>>15807685
>calling them "science" is fine
Cosmology is literally /sci/'s achilles heel.
Unlike all the other possible bs that can be kept inhouse because normies don't know or understand them, everybody and their grandmother had modern cosmology spoon fed into their head since kindergarten and it's been represented in every media known to man.
If it ever turns out we are actually in some kind of cosmic bubble and that lot's been examining pixels on a wall, that would be it. Midwit normies that mindlessly adopt scientific conclusions would just as quickly disavow them all. Every other legit field would be dragged down with them and the insufferable christfags would start crawling out of their century long hiatus in droves.
This shitshow is possibly in the works because some people want to spin stories and just can't admit they don't know what they don't know.

[Anonymous No.15807782]

>>15789026
>the big bang theory tv show was probably a show designed just to subliminally suggest people to further be "sure" and "know" its a theory
ok now you lost me you fucking retard

[Anonymous No.15807790]

>>15807748
I'm sure you're overreacting. There are plenty of sciences where there is nothing but a continuous line of discreditation but they still persist. Evopsych, climatology, even well-funded social sciences are all embarrassments simply accept lower standards of scientific rigour as part of the study.

[Anonymous No.15808091]

>>15807649
>>/sci/image/AyUuuif/cV7MfantBdGOAQ

[Anonymous No.15808395]

>>15808091
yeah thats a popular image and for good reason
do you find it upsetting?

[Anonymous No.15809414]

>>15782683
General relatively is not a complete description of reality, but its not outright wrong. It describes reality well in many situation. Do you propose we throw it away and be left with nothing, how about throwing out Newtonian mechanics too. That is wrong as well.

[Anonymous No.15811258]

>>15809414
>It describes reality well in many situation
>describes
estimates

[Anonymous No.15811474]

>>15782594
>The difference is that biologists don't just observe cells, they perform experiments on them to gain a better understanding of how they work. You can only understand so much just through pure observations, especially when what you're observing is mostly static. There's barely any change we can see with stars or galaxies on a human scale and timeline.
proof?

[Anonymous No.15811495]

>>15806427
Astronomy is considered the first science.

[Anonymous No.15811502]

>>15806468
Except that's the point of cosmological distance ladders. We can start with parallax to verify other metrics of distance. I mean, it's a lot easier to believe than particle physics, because you can see things with your own telescope that don't really make sense as objects painted on a dome. Particle physics on the other hand looks at electrons produced in detectors by decay products to extrapolate the properties of fundamental particles. Of course, the morons here will say "Oh well that just proves physics is fake too," but singling out astronomy is a purely sociological/aesthetic choice. And do you know what that is? Not science.

[Anonymous No.15811505]

>>15811502
Oh and we also can use literal radar on solar system bodies (or even lasers in the case of the moon) to get distances even closer than parallax.

[Anonymous No.15811619]

>>15811502
You have zero proof that the ladder holds for greater distances other than just faith

[Anonymous No.15811633]

>>15811495
>first science
That would be thermodynamics, aka the science of making fire so people don't starve and freeze.
After everybody is full, astronomy, and by extension cosmology, became the first religion preached around said fire.

[Anonymous No.15811803]

>>15811495
>Astronomy is considered the first science.
only by mathematicians and astonomers, not by any true scientists

[Anonymous No.15811811]

>>15811502
>because you can see things with your own telescope that don't really make sense as objects painted on a dome
have you seen those things? no you haven't, you've never measured parallax, you're just repeating some stuff you read in an astro textbook because you "trust the soiyence", its an act of faith for you, a religion or superstition with no rationality or observation to back it up. then you pile one act of faith on top of another and another until you can emptily brag about your great understanding of the universe, but all you really have is superstitions memorized out of a book

[Anonymous No.15812054]

>>15811502
>because you can see things with your own telescope that don't really make sense as objects painted on a dome
Really, and how would you know what things painted on a cosmic dome would and would not look like?
>it's a lot easier to believe than particle physics
There's bs there as well but at least particle bs yield technologies. Staring at stars making unfalsifiable claims yields absolutely nothing but tall tales. Hell even your schzio counterpart in Astrology at least attempt to make claims that are falsifiable.

[Anonymous No.15812084]

>>15781188
this

[Anonymous No.15812204]

>>15811619
There is zero proof the Sun will rise tomorrow. But it probably will. That is not a statement of faith, it is a statement based on current knowledge and evidence. An it's also a prediction that can be tested. Similarly different distance estimates can be cross checked.

>>15811811
The same shitty logic applies equally to all science. You've never done Millikan's oil drop or Stern–Gerlach. "You can't know nothing" cries the philosophy dropout. But you still wrote this post and hit send. You assume that all that technology, software and science that you don't understand will work. Based on "faith".

[Anonymous No.15812218]

>>15781073
>Your computer model isn't reality
neither are the arbitrary lines and boundaries put down in every other science so that we can pretend to measure things yet that doesn't stop you from accepting authorities in those fields

[Anonymous No.15812234]

>>15812204
>>15812218
>but all sciences
Wrong. Claims that are subject to experimentation weeds out unaccounted for varibles and is actual science.
Unfalsifiable claims not subject to experiementation are not because ultimately you don't know what you might not have accounted for in your conclusions.

[Anonymous No.15812239]

>>15812234
>experimentation
You just dismissed observations on the basis that someone hadn't personally done them. So if you didn't do these experiments yourself then it's just "faith".

[Anonymous No.15812246]

>>15812239
That does not follow from what I said.
The only faith involved in your example is the faith that other somone is competent and truthful in his experimentation.

[Anonymous No.15812253]

>>15812204
>Similarly different distance estimates can be cross checked.
With what.

[Anonymous No.15812255]

>>15812246
>have you seen those things? no you haven't, you've never measured parallax, you're just repeating some stuff you read in an astro textbook
So what was your point then? Why is parallax invalid?

[Anonymous No.15812259]

>>15812253
With different distance estimators.

[Anonymous No.15812261]

>>15812259
There aren't

[Anonymous No.15812271]

>>15812261
Cepheids, tip of the red giant branch, RR lyrae, surface brightness fluctuations, type 1a supernovae, time delay lenses, novae, eclipsing binaries, gravitational waves...

[Anonymous No.15812272]

>>15812255
Because for parallax or any other technique you employ to lead to your current conclusions you are making the assumption about the state of the environment "out there", mainly that it is the same as the state of things here on and around Earth.
Without experimentation you do not know if this assumption is true.
Without knowing this all your conclusions are built on pillars of sand no matter how many billion dollar telescopes you send up there because ultimately you do not know what environmental variables you have not accounted for.

[Anonymous No.15812273]

>>15812271
>Cepheids
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cepheid_variable#Uncertain_distances

[Anonymous No.15812285]

>>15812272
>the assumption about the state of the environment "out there", mainly that it is the same as the state of things here
The same applies to all of science. People assume the laws of physics do t change day by day, but they could.
>Without experimentation you do not know if this assumption is true.
There are ways to test it, astrophysical tests. Gravitational waves test GR in other systems and galaxies. The fine structure constant doesn't seem to vary.
>you do not know what environmental variables you have not accounted for.
Applies in all of science. You can never prove you have accounted for everything.

>>15812273
You said there were no different estimators. Do you now accept that was false?

[Anonymous No.15812294]

>>15812285
>You said there were no different estimators
>Do you now accept that was false
Yes. I meant to say there are no other working estimators

[Anonymous No.15812300]

>>15812294
No ruler is perfect but they are still useful. And as I said, they can be cross checked.

[Anonymous No.15812330]

>>15812300
>cross checked.
With what

[Anonymous No.15812335]

>>15812330
You're stuck in a loop, bot:
>>15812259

[Anonymous No.15812339]

>>15812335
As are you
>>15812273

[Anonymous No.15812349]

>>15812339
Not a response. Every measurement is uncertain. Try forming an argument.

[Anonymous No.15812350]

>>15812285
>People assume the laws of physics do t change day by day, but they could
Not even talking about changing, talking about getting an accurate picture of how they are, NOW. Do you know exactly how the laws of physics is operating are out there, NOW?
>There are ways to test it
>astrophysical tests. Gravitational waves test GR
None of these "tests" matter if you have not confirmed the exact set of laws that are operating out there.
How do you know stars are suns and not just patterns following conservation of symmetry on the inside of some cosmic dome we are in? No telescope will verify this, only a starship.
>Applies in all of science. You can never prove you have accounted for everything.
You can, if an experiment yielded the correct result.
Again, the fact physical laws might change in the future or have in the past does not take away from the fact experimentation confirms how it is NOW.

[Anonymous No.15812366]

>>15812349
Then just fix pi = 4

[Anonymous No.15812378]

>>15812350
> Do you know exactly how the laws of physics is operating are out there, NOW?
Do you know exactly how the laws of physics are operating are on Earth, now? Nope. And you never will, science doesn't work like that. Physics is not finished.
>None of these "tests" matter if you have not confirmed the exact set of laws that are operating out there.
They show the physics out there is consistent with current theory. That's the best you can do in space or in the lab.
>How do you know stars are suns and not just patterns following conservation of symmetry on the inside of some cosmic dome we are in?
Build a model of the dome and test it. That's a spacecraft would do too.
>You can, if an experiment yielded the correct result.
>Again, the fact physical laws might change in the future or have in the past does not take away from the fact experimentation confirms how it is NOW.
Give me an example of an experiment which proved some theory of physics "exactly" correct.

[Anonymous No.15812405]

>Do you know exactly how the laws of physics are operating are on Earth, now? Nope.
Yes, proven through everyday operated technologies that works.
>They show the physics out there is consistent with current theory.
They show colors out there that MIGHT turn out to be consistent with current theories.
>That's the best you can do in space or in the lab.
Wrong, if you hypothetically have a ship you can fly out of the solar system and conduct experimentations then you would know much better than peering out of a telescope on Earth. Obviously we don't and therefore current cosmological conclusions are completely wonky.
>Build a model of the dome and test it.
The hypothetical dome would produce exact images we are observing now, just as a hypothetical lid would produce the exact sky the frog would observe in picrel.
>Give me an example of an experiment which proved some theory of physics "exactly" correct.
The fact you are successfully sending electronic messages over the internet.

Also add to the fact since you are aware no one knows if laws of physics is different in the past or might change in the future, this very possibility completely invalidates the whole of cosmology as it becomes impossible to extrapolate the origin and ending of the universe.

[Anonymous No.15812409]

>>15812378
>Do you know exactly how the laws of physics are operating are on Earth, now? Nope.
Yes, proven through everyday operated technologies that works.
>They show the physics out there is consistent with current theory.
They show colors out there that MIGHT turn out to be consistent with current theories.
>That's the best you can do in space or in the lab.
Wrong, if you hypothetically have a ship you can fly out of the solar system and conduct experimentations then you would know for sure as compared to peering out of a telescope on Earth. Obviously we don't and therefore current cosmological conclusions are completely wonky.
>Build a model of the dome and test it.
The hypothetical dome would produce exact images we are observing now, just as a hypothetical lid would produce the exact sky the frog would observe in picrel.
>Give me an example of an experiment which proved some theory of physics "exactly" correct.
The fact you are successfully sending electronic messages over the internet.

Also add to the fact since you are aware no one knows if laws of physics is different in the past or might change in the future, this very possibility completely invalidates the whole of cosmology as it becomes impossible to extrapolate the origin and ending of the universe.

[Anonymous No.15812415]

>>15812409
>>15812405
>>Do you know exactly how the laws of physics are operating are on Earth, now?
>Yes, proven through everyday operated technologies that works.
So how does quantum gravity work? How does communications tell you this?
>The fact you are successfully sending electronic messages over the internet.
And what theory of physics does this prove "exactly" true?
>The hypothetical dome would produce exact images we are observing now
To simulate parallax you need to know where the observer is. And hence it's a magical conspiracy. A single image also wouldn't work as parallax can be measured simultaneously. It also has no predictive power, it matches current observations but doesn't predict the next moment. So in that regard a physical model of the universe is far superior.

>Also add to the fact since you are aware no one knows if laws of physics is different in the past
Which can be tested astrophysically and using historical records (e.g. Oklo reactor).

[Anonymous No.15812437]

>>15812415
>So how does quantum gravity work? How does communications tell you this?
It doesn't. Experimental theories are just that. You don't see quantum gravity pasted in every media as the "settled truth" do you?
>And what theory of physics does this prove "exactly" true?
You do realize the contention here isn't just your calculation and numbers might be a bit off, it's that the entire thing might be off?
>To simulate parallax you need...
You are looking at a dot you don't know how far away or how big it is or what it is.
You see differences when observing said dot from different angles.
How do you know the light isn't bent by some environmental factors you have no idea about?
None of these can be verified while stuck here on Earth peering through a telescope.
>A single image also wouldn't work
Then the magical dome is animated of course.
>can be tested astrophysically and using historical records (e.g. Oklo reactor)
...You do realize if current known laws of physics can change then ALL bets are off the table right? You would not be able to extroplate meaning from any record because you can't be certain what rules attributed to the creation of said record.

[Anonymous No.15812446]

>>15812437
>It doesn't. Experimental theories are just that. You don't see quantum gravity pasted in every media as the "settled truth" do you?
So then you don't "know exactly how the laws of physics are operating". If you didn't make nonsensical claims I wouldn't have to ask stupid questions.
>You do realize the contention here isn't just your calculation and numbers might be a bit off, it's that the entire thing might be off?
That equally applies on earth.
>How do you know the light isn't bent by some environmental factors you have no idea about?
Why would this magical "factor" bend the light on an annual modulation? Why would it know where the telescope is?
>Then the magical dome is animated of course.
See previous: "It also has no predictive power, it matches current observations but doesn't predict the next moment. So in that regard a physical model of the universe is far superior. "
We can all dream up unfalsifiable magical ideas that can't be tested, but they're scientifically worthless. A model which is consistent with anything is useless.
>You would not be able to extroplate meaning from any record because you can't be certain what rules attributed to the creation of said record.
And yet we see no evidence to suggest that anything has changed, tests are consistent with current physics.

[Anonymous No.15812485]

>>15812446
>So then you don't "know exactly how the laws of physics are operating". If you didn't make nonsensical claims I wouldn't have to ask stupid questions.
Maybe you should have added an "every" before "laws of physics" or your question wouldn't sound so delusional.
>That equally applies on earth
Now you are sounding delusional.
>Why would this magical "factor" bend the light on an annual modulation? Why would it know where the telescope is?
>I don't know, that's just how laws of physics works out there. You conducted any interstellar experiments that says otherwise?
>We can all dream up unfalsifiable magical ideas that can't be tested, but they're scientifically worthless.
And you are absolutely right. Unfalsifiable magical ideas that can't be tested are scientifically worthless. My point exactly.
>And yet we see no evidence to suggest that anything has changed, tests are consistent with current physics.
You are the one who brought up the possibility laws of physics could change. Again, if the laws were different then your tests are worthless because sky would the limit to how different things could have been.

[Anonymous No.15812486]

>>15812446
>So then you don't "know exactly how the laws of physics are operating". If you didn't make nonsensical claims I wouldn't have to ask stupid questions.
Maybe you should have added an "every" before "laws of physics" or your question wouldn't sound so delusional.
>That equally applies on earth
Now you are sounding delusional.
>Why would this magical "factor" bend the light on an annual modulation? Why would it know where the telescope is?
I don't know, that's just how laws of physics works out there. You conducted any interstellar experiments that says otherwise?
>We can all dream up unfalsifiable magical ideas that can't be tested, but they're scientifically worthless.
And you are absolutely right. Unfalsifiable magical ideas that can't be tested are scientifically worthless.
>And yet we see no evidence to suggest that anything has changed, tests are consistent with current physics.
You are the one who brought up the possibility laws of physics could change. Again, if the laws were different then your tests are worthless because sky would the limit to how different things could have been.

[Anonymous No.15812528]

>>15812486
>Maybe you should have added an "every" before "laws of physics" or your question wouldn't sound so delusional.
"every laws of physics" isn't even English. "The laws of physics" is not"some laws of physics".
I did ask you for an example of a specific theory you thought was proven exactly by electronics. You didn't answer. So again, give me an example.
>Now you are sounding delusional.
Not an argument.
>I don't know, that's just how laws of physics works out there.
"I dunno, magic?" is not an excuse.
>You conducted any interstellar experiments that says otherwise?
The fact the aberration follows an 1 year modulation is a confirmed prediction of it being parallax. The fact that it depends on ecliptic latitude is a confirmed prediction that it is parallax. The fact that it can be measured simultaneously by different telescopes is a confirmed prediction that it's parallax.
>Unfalsifiable magical ideas that can't be tested are scientifically worthless.
And yet here you are appealing to them again.
>You are the one who brought up the possibility laws of physics could change. Again, if the laws were different then your tests are worthless because sky would the limit to how different things could have been.
The tests aren't worthless, they are constraints.

[Anonymous No.15812556]

>>15812528
>I did ask you for an example of a specific theory you thought was proven exactly by electronics
If you don't know what theories are proven by working electronics then there's nothing to say here.
>>Unfalsifiable magical ideas that can't be tested are scientifically worthless.
>And yet here you are appealing to them again.
My magic dome is on par with your cosmology; they are both at moment as you very well put it, "Unfalsifiable magical ideas that can't be tested and scientifically worthless".
>muh parallax!
Again, you never traveled out there, you don't know what factors could have attributed to you seeing the parallax effect here from this rock.
Also, what is even the percent of stars out of all stars you even observe apparent parallax, probably some astronomically low number I'd imagine, with the rest of cosmology on even shakier ground.
>The tests aren't worthless, they are constraints.
They are absolutely worthless if the rugs gets pulled from under them.
If the laws can change with time, tests concerning the past becomes worthless
If the laws can change with location, knowledge concerning nature of distant objects through pure observation becomes unattainable
If the laws can change at all, tests regarding whether laws have changed becomes impossible to conduct. Only way to tell is if you observed the transition directly.

[Anonymous No.15812592]

>>15812556
>If you don't know what theories are proven by working electronics then there's nothing to say here.
You can't give an example because there are none. Theories are never proven exactly in empirical science. Never.
>My magic dome is on par with your cosmology; they are both at moment as you very well put it, "Unfalsifiable magical ideas that can't be tested and scientifically worthless".
Cosmology is a field. It's like saying chemistry is unfalsifiable. It's meaningless. You don't even understand what you're talking about.
Cosmological models can be falsified, for example steady state has been.
>Again, you never traveled out there, you don't know what factors could have attributed to you seeing the parallax effect here from this rock.
You asked me what experiments were done here they are. Stop appealing to magic.
>Also, what is even the percent of stars out of all stars you even observe apparent parallax, probably some astronomically low number I'd imagine, with the rest of cosmology on even shakier ground.
"Of all stars", what does that mean?
In the full Gaia catalog 40% of stars have a parallax which is more than twice the error. Taking the brighter stars aboth 15th magnitude (where the parallax error is smaller) 98.8% of stars have a detected parallax above 2 sigma. So no, it's not a small fraction.
>If the laws can change with time, tests concerning the past becomes worthless
And what if those tests showed that physics had changed. That these tests could not be explained by current physics, for example the fine structure constant changing. Would it still be worthless? No. You have this bizzare idea that negative results are meaningless, it's true they don't prove there was no change. But if you don't even test things you will never know.

[Anonymous No.15812647]

>>15812592
>Theories are never proven exactly in empirical science. Never.
Why yes, 99% accurate theories proven on a daily bases are never exact.
>Cosmology is a field. It's like saying chemistry is unfalsifiable.
>Cosmological models can be falsified, for example steady state has been
That's not falsifying, that's just you spinning a new story on a sharper picture.
If I were to do the same in chemistry it would be me never mixing any chemicals but simply observing them under a microscope and spinning more and more stories as the resolution gets higher.
>You asked me what experiments were done here they are
That was a rhetoric question, there was no experiment.
>"Of all stars", what does that mean?
>In the full Gaia catalog 40% of stars have a parallax
Of all stars claimed to exist by cosmologists. There is no way in hell you observe parallax in 40% of them; not even 0.1% I'd say, not even close.
>And what if those tests showed that physics had changed
>That these tests could not be explained by current physics
>You have this bizzare idea that negative results are meaningless
Tests are good, but they are meaningless in regard to your purpose to ascertain whether or not the laws have changed.
Results not explainable by current physics not does not necessarily indicate there have been a change in the physical laws; it could merely be the insufficiency of the current physics model in describing what hasn't changed.
Like I said, in so far as determining whether or not the laws have changed in the past, no test could conclusively reveal either way, only a hypothetical direct observation.

[Anonymous No.15812677]

>>15812647
>>Cosmological models can be falsified, for example steady state has been
>That's not falsifying, that's just you spinning a new story on a sharper picture.
What the fuck does that mean? How is it not falsified?
>That was a rhetoric question, there was no experiment.
And yet there were, you just
>Of all stars claimed to exist by cosmologists.
Again, what the fuck does that even mean? All known stars, the total extrapolated number in the Galaxy? I cannot tell you about stars that haven't been detected, much less had their parallax measured.
>not even 0.1% I'd say, not even close
Please cite your calculation. Numbers pulled out your ass don't have any value. Why don't you query the Gaia catalog yourself and calculate:
https://vizier.cds.unistra.fr/viz-bin/VizieR-3?-source=I/355
>it could merely be the insufficiency of the current physics model in describing what hasn't changed.
Correct. Hence "current physics". There are however diagnostics which do not depend on current physical theory being correct, like fundamental constants.
I'm glad you have finally admitted that current physical theory is not proven, and may be insufficient.

[Anonymous No.15812691]

>>15781236
>You test the model by looking at galaxies and seeing if the model agrees u fuckin retard
Is it scientific that the model persists despite galaxies always disagreeing?

[Anonymous No.15812696]

>>15812691
What galaxies, and how do they disagree?

[Anonymous No.15812698]

>>15812696
The fact that you have to ask means you're not qualified enough to understand the material.

[Anonymous No.15812709]

>>15812698
We both know you heard it on youtoob and not arXiv. Robust arguments don't need to be sheltered.

[Anonymous No.15812739]

>>15812677
>What the fuck does that mean? How is it not falsified?
Because you never interacted with anything in your picture, never experimented on them, how the hell do you actually know what they are? How the hell would you know if your story is true or COMPLETELY bs?
Using the very chemistry analogy you brought up, you tell me. Only a microscope, no interaction/experimentation, which chemical theories you falsifying?
>And yet there were
Oh really, which star you interacted with?
>Again, what the fuck does that even mean? All known stars, the total extrapolated number in the Galaxy?
Stars claimed to exist in the observable universe by cosmologists (picrel).
The furthest star measured using parallax is in W49N, which is still in this galaxy.
Like I said, 0.1% is generous by an astronomic margin.
>like fundamental constants
You realize if the laws can change these constants among other things are the things that's changing right?
>I'm glad you have finally admitted that current physical theory is not proven
You equivocation is getting disgusting by the minute.

[Anonymous No.15812740]

>>15812677
>What the fuck does that mean? How is it not falsified?
Because you never interacted with anything in your picture, never experimented on them, how the hell do you actually know what they are? How the hell would you know if your story is true or COMPLETELY bs?
Using the very chemistry analogy you brought up, you tell me. Only a microscope, no interaction/experimentation, which chemical theories you falsifying?
>And yet there were
Oh really, which star you interacted with?
>Again, what the fuck does that even mean? All known stars, the total extrapolated number in the Galaxy?
Stars claimed to exist in the observable universe by cosmologists (picrel).
The furthest star measured using parallax is in W49N, which is still in this galaxy.
Like I said, 0.1% is generous by an astronomic margin.
>like fundamental constants
You realize if the laws can change these constants among other things are the things that's changing right?
>I'm glad you have finally admitted that current physical theory is not proven
You equivocation is getting disgusting by the minute.

[Anonymous No.15812757]

>>15812647
>Because you never interacted with anything in your picture, never experimented on them, how the hell do you actually know what they are?
Cosmological models make predictions for what should be seen. Some things (e.g. radio galaxy counts) were incompatible with steady state. Not at all necessary to know "exactly" what radio galaxies are, the model ascribes a origin and it is inconsistent with the data.
>Like I said, 0.1% is generous by an astronomic margin.
Wow, undetected stars have no detected parallax. Fucking wow. What pointless revelation are you going to come up with next?
I guess that's why clever cosmologists only use parallax for Galactic distances. They really thought this through.
>You realize if the laws can change these constants among other things are the things that's changing right?
Yes, that's my point. These constants don't depend on understanding where they come from, but if they are changing then physics is.

[Anonymous No.15812776]

>>15812757
>but if they are changing then physics is
No, if are changing then cosmology becomes completely invalidated, not general physics.
General physics deals with what are these constants NOW, which is confirmed by experimentation.
What these constants, among other things, might have been, or might become in the future, has nothing to do with what they are now and how this concurrent knowledge might be leverged in technologies.
If constants can change then reality is fluid and cosmological history becomes impossible to extrapolate from present and it's future equally unpredictable.

[Anonymous No.15812791]

>>15812776
>No, if are changing then cosmology becomes completely invalidated, not general physics.
I didn't say physics was "invalidated". It also doesn't invalidate cosmology, changing=/=unpredictable. And as I said, there is currently no evidence of changes.

>What these constants, among other things, might have been, or might become in the future, has nothing to do with what they are now and how this concurrent knowledge might be leverged in technologies.
That's a narrow view. If some constants were coupled to the expansion of the universe, (or other changes) then that would be a real breakthrough. It would influence new physical theories to describe the coupling, it could lead to a deeper understanding of current day physics.

[Anonymous No.15812872]

>>15812791
>If some constants were coupled to the expansion of the universe
You are not getting it. If there are no true "constants" in this universe then you have no bases to make any claims about this universe outside of pragmatic faith surrounding experimentations.
The only reason you think fundmental changes would definitely leave behind evidence for you to see is because you still think somethings are eternally constant.

[Anonymous No.15812878]

>>15812709
Which is why scientists apply huge fudge factors instead of abandoning their disproven models, I presume.

[Anonymous No.15812887]

>>15785459
Why do you think he and any of us are browsing sci in the first place? We’re just bunch of basement dwellers autist with nothing to show in our life. Maybe I’m just projecting.

[Anonymous No.15813356]

>>15812872
>If there are no true "constants" in this universe then you have no bases to make any claims about this universe
Changing=/=unpredictable.
>The only reason you think fundmental changes would definitely leave behind evidence
I never said that. In fact I said the opposite.

[Anonymous No.15813895]

>>15805166
Based retard. The Catholic Church used Latin because every intellectual spoke it.

[Anonymous No.15813925]

>>15812709
>projection

[Anonymous No.15813956]

>>15813925
Easy to prove me wrong. Post it.

[Anonymous No.15814005]

>>15813956
>he doesn't even know about the galaxy rotation curve discrepancy
What is it like to LARP as something you have no clue about?

[Anonymous No.15814066]

>>15814005
What "discrepancy"? The standard model of cosmology is LCDM, the CDM bit is the part that explains rotation curves.

[Anonymous No.15814271]

>>15781073
the plasma cosmologists have stronger experimental legs to stand on, standard cosmologists have had their heads up their asses for more than a hundred years

[Anonymous No.15814279]

>>15814271
This was proven with the recent comet and asteroid visitations. Plasma cosmologists had all of their predictions borne out completely while standard cosmologists were shocked as usual by the results.

[Anonymous No.15814803]

>>15814271
Nope. It's been dead for decades. They have literally zero experiments. The EUers tried to fund one, which promptly turned into a energy scam before publishing any real results.

>>15814279
And where can I read this paper?
Also electric universe =/= plasma cosmology.

[Anonymous No.15815740]

>>15814803
>And where can I read this paper?
why can't you look up academic publications on your own? are you a pseud?

[Anonymous No.15815893]

>>15781743
>Experimentation isn't part of the scientific method, goyim.
KYS

[Anonymous No.15815896]

>>15814803
>They can't get funding through (((academia))), therefore they are wrong.

[Anonymous No.15816123]

>>15815740
Because it's pretty much impossible to find a paper without the title, journal, year or authors. If you have nothing to cite then there is no substance to your claims.

>>15815896
So you were just talking shit then? If you cannot show me this proof then the logical conclusion is that it doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.15816158]

>>15781073
>black holes
>magnetars
>neutron stars
>strange quarks
>quasi stars
>beginning of our universe
>gravity
>lots and lots of other things
Astronomy is one of the most interesting fields out there. But i agree that astronomy is not a science itself, it's just a combination of physics, chemistry and math,

[Anonymous No.15817127]

>>15815896
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGDbpg1nG8Y

[Anonymous No.15817383]

>>15781073
>>Most predictions made can only be verified in a billion trillion years
Nah.

[Anonymous No.15817390]

>>15788815
The spectrum of helium and hydrogen is unobservable? Nuclear fusion is fake???

[Anonymous No.15817393]

>>15789166
Exactly. With the formation of galaxies, you look for a 'young' galaxy, and see if it looks like theories or models predicted.

[Anonymous No.15817531]

>try and measure wave function
>it just ends up collapsing
Seems like they’re trying to hide something from us

[Anonymous No.15817888]

>>15817127
good video

[Anders Munch No.15818127]

>>15806193
Newtonian math predicted Neptune. AssTronomers never predicted shit in their entire history, ironic since they keep producing it. Maybe they should stop looking in their telescopes and take a quick glance behind them.
>>15812378
>They show the physics out there is consistent with current theory. That's the best you can do in space or in the lab.
Here we have a perfect example of a pile of shit produced by an AssTronomer. Obviously wrong and still the AssTronomer can´t help but shit it out.
>>15798121


The big Bang, dark energy, dark matter, it´s all shit produced by the AssTronomers and their big gay telescopes. It has never happened, that it was a good idea to change ones perception of physics to accommodate AssTronomers. They only produce shit and any physicist hoping to gain a greater understanding of the universe would be well advised to stay far away from them.

[Anonymous No.15818129]

>>15781073
>ITT: Retards who don’t understand that science operates by abduction, not induction

[Anonymous No.15818145]

>>15818127
>Newtonian math predicted Neptune.
So why didn't Newton know immediately to look for Neptune? Newtonian mechanics modeling observations of the orbits of planets. What a retarded argument. Couldn't have been done without astronomy.
>never predicted shit in their entire history
The CMB, baryon accostic oscillations, gravitational lensing, neutrino oscillation, gravitational waves., the SZ effect, Neptune, parallax...

[Anders Munch No.15818163]

>>15818145
>So why didn't Newton know immediately to look for Neptune?
Because Newton wasn´t an AssTronomer. The fact is, the AssTronomers started looking for Neptune because according to Newton´s law of gravity there should be another planet pulling Ur-anus.
>>15818145
>The CMB, baryon accostic oscillations, gravitational lensing, neutrino oscillation, gravitational waves., the SZ effect, Neptune, parallax...
Notice the instant shit-gallop coming from the AssTronomer. I just refute the first.
First. The cosmic wave background was not only predicted in the big bang theory.
Second. Most of the cosmic wave background is from the Milkey Way. If the AssTronomers math is off by even a tiny bit, there is no cosmic wave background from the big bang. There is only cosmic wave background from the Milkey Way and the other galaxies. And we know the AssTronomers math is always shit, every single fucking time they have to adjust their math.

[Anonymous No.15818213]

>>15818163
>The cosmic wave background was not only predicted in the big bang theory.
Such as? Secondly how does another model predicting the CMB refute this as a prediction.
>Most of the cosmic wave background is from the Milkey Way.
Wrong. That is completely debunked by the existence of the SZ effect, where distant galaxy clusters leave imprints on the CMB. This was predicted by astronomers, and shows unanimously that the CMB is much more distant. If it was light from the Milky Way it wouldn't give a shit about distant clusters.
It's funny you rant about astronomers and you say we shouldn't care, but you're clearly very opinionated despite being pig ignorant.

[Anders Munch No.15818243]

>>15818213
>Wrong. That is completely debunked by the existence of the SZ effect, where distant galaxy clusters leave imprints on the CMB.
Keep coping moron. Your fucking sentence even says it.
" where distant galaxy clusters leave imprints on the CMB"

What are you going to tell me now? That you are sure your math is correct because you looked at some star 3 billion lightyears away? Just keep looking for that dark energy?

[Anonymous No.15818256]

>>15818243
>Your fucking sentence even says it.
" where distant galaxy clusters leave imprints on the CMB"
So you have no explanation for how distant galaxy clusters leave imprints on light which you claim doesn't pass them by? Does that make any sense. Nope.

>Just keep looking for that dark energy?
If it's so easy why don't you share your quanative model for the CMB angular power spectrum (>>15791072).

[Anders Munch No.15818280]

>>15818256
Dude, you are unironically lost in ultra complicated math that stopped making sense a long time ago.

https://www.space.com/before-apollo-what-we-didnt-know-about-moon.html

Here are some misconceptions about the Moon that could only be put to rest by man actually setting foot on the Moon. Our closest object in the night sky and AssTronomers couldn´t tell if the Moon was fluffy or not. They couldn´t tell there was water on the Moon. They couldn´t tell where all the craters came from, was it volcanoes or from meteors.
We then set foot on the Moon, we actually go there. Turns out the Moon isn´t fluffy, turns out there is water, even though it was believed to be completely dry and we found out all the craters came from meteors and not volcanoes. That is the closest object you can look at in the night sky and we needed to go there to figure it out.
You come with some shit observation about things going on millions and billions of lightyears away and you think you have a clue of what you are looking at, when AssTronomers couldn´t even say if the craters on the Moon were made by volcanoes or meteors. Get fucked moron.

[Anonymous No.15818291]

>>15818280
>You come with some shit observation about things going on millions and billions of lightyears away and you think you have a clue of what you are looking at
Funny, who said this:
>Most of the cosmic wave background is from the Milkey Way.
The irony claiming "you can't know nuffing" while claiming your own proposal is correct. It is a schizophrenic argument where you jump between "we cannot know" and "I know better". And when pressed to explain how your idea about the CMB is consistent with reality you start posting about the fucking Moon. Is mind so twisted that this seems like a logical argument to you? Get a fucking grip.

[Anders Munch No.15818309]

>>15818291
>And when pressed to explain how your idea about the CMB is consistent with reality
I don´t care much for explaining the CMB and I don´t need it to be consistent with reality. In fact, my very first post had one main point. To ignore AssTronomers and their copious amounts of shit.

[Anonymous No.15818320]

>>15818309
>I don´t care much for explaining the CMB
But you obviously do, otherwise you wouldn't have tried to argue.
>I don´t need it to be consistent with reality.
One of the many differences between you and astronomers, they are actually concerned with doing science.
>To ignore AssTronomers and their copious amounts of shit.
And yet you waste a great deal of your time crying in these threads you make about astronomers, but actually you care about cosmology. You just don't know enough about it to be able to debate it.
So yes, astronomers predicted the CMB based on the hot big bang model.

[Anonymous No.15818603]

>>15818320
>astronomers predicted the CMB
false, it was discovered by accident

[Anonymous No.15818825]

>>15781188
Nu physics you mean. Old physics allowed us to apply it to the real world and make things out of it from microwaves to Nuclear bombs

[Anonymous No.15818828]

>>15782692
Based optimistic nihilist who doesn't understand how dark matter works

[Anonymous No.15818834]

>>15794338
he's baiting you

[Anonymous No.15819324]

>>15801636
>average stemtard's physical fitness level

[Anonymous No.15819396]

>>15781229
So a biologist claiming that there is a difference between eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells just by simple observations, is talking bullshit?

[Anonymous No.15819932]

>>15818291
oh no, he use the f word, now hes really angry.
so scary and frightening, we'd better all do what he says or he might beat us up through the internet.

[Anonymous No.15820930]

modern astronomy revolves around the argument "you don't have a billion dollar telescope like we do therefore you can't prove us wrong, therefore we can make up whatever fairy stories we want to"

[Anonymous No.15820941]

>>15820930
Except all the data becomes public, you're just too lazy to look at it so you invent conspiracies to feel special.

[Anonymous No.15821849]

>>15820930
sounds like religion, youre not believing hard enough in my sky daddy, so you cant prove us wrong. fuck outta here clown lmao

[Anonymous No.15822580]

>>15820941
>all the data becomes public
no it doesn't
>you're just too lazy to look at it
projection, you've never opened a fits file in your life and you wouldn't know how to if you ever tried, which you won't. you choose to "trust the soiyence" as a matter of convenience because you're intellectually lazy

[Anonymous No.15822584]

>>15822580
/thread

[Anonymous No.15822804]

>>15822580
>no it doesn't
Yes it does, see these vast data archives containing largely public data.

https://mast.stsci.edu/portal/Mashup/Clients/Mast/Portal.html
>Following the expiration of the applicable exclusive access period, science data become available for public use without restriction.
http://archive.eso.org/cms.html
>The release date of any affected file is set to the date of that event (successful reception) plus "the proprietary period" (typically one year), and the proprietary countdown begins.
https://archive.gemini.edu/searchform
https://www2.keck.hawaii.edu/koa/public/koa.php
https://almascience.nrao.edu/aq/
https://science.nrao.edu/facilities/vla/archive/index

>you've never opened a fits file in your life
Cool story Bro. What are your thoughts on the new ASDF format pioneered by JWST? I think the datamodel format takes some getting used to over classical fits objects, and they are currently poorly documented as to the contents of the python objects. But it is quite powerful, although difficult to manage. How about the CRDS reference file system, with the pmaps? Personally I work with NIRCam imaging, but the modularity of the pipeline means it's easy to adapt to other modes. What data do you work with?

[Anonymous No.15822843]

>>15822804
>schizophasiac buzzword spew
go be a pseud somewhere else

[Anonymous No.15822848]

>>15781229
>it has to involve experimentation but this can’t be done
you are stupid. the most famous experiment that supported einstein's general relativity was an astronomical observation.

light bent after the scientists waited for it to pass near a large object.

[Anonymous No.15822853]

>>15822848
>>15781229

>>15781492
>reality is lots of science is observational
in terms of that, that gist is that experiment = observation in some context.

e.g. if you wait for light to bend after it passes near a large object: you did an experiment (for the intends and purposes of the scientific method): it does not matter that you didn't move whole planets yourself lol..

[Anonymous No.15822854]

>>15822848
>>15781229

>>15781492
>reality is lots of science is observational
in terms of that, the gist is that experiment = observation in some contexts.

e.g. if you wait for light to bend after it passes near a large object: you did an experiment (for the intends and purposes of the scientific method): it does not matter that you didn't move whole planets yourself lol..

[Anonymous No.15822856]

>>15822843
It was a test, you failed.

>>15781229
>Instead of saying “This is how galaxies form” astronomers should say “According to this model that we can’t test, this is how galaxies are formed”
But it can be tested. A model of galaxy evolution will make predictions about galaxies at different epoch, it can simply be tested against new observations.

[Anders Munch No.15823548]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27s_paradox
"As more distant stars are revealed in this animation depicting an infinite, homogeneous, and static universe, they fill the gaps between closer stars. Olbers's paradox says that because the night sky is dark, at least one of these three assumptions must be false"


AssTronomers shitting out shit, trying Jewish tricks to get goyim to believe in their Abrahamic creation myth because most people can´t fathom infinity. Obviously there is no paradox. Since the universe is infinite, light from a star infinite lightyears away would have to travel through infinite amount of other stars, planets and gasclouds to reach us. So it would have infinite objects between us and the star to block its light. The paradox is solved through logic on its own premise. You don´t even need to do math. Go look up at the nightsky, you only see stars in our own galaxy with the naked eye. Even according to AssTronomers about 100 galaxies are moving towards Earth/Milkey way. Including the closest one Andromeda. If our nightsky isn´t filled with light from these 100 galaxies, why would it be filled with light from a galaxy infinite lightyears away.

"Brightness
Suppose that the universe were not expanding, and always had the same stellar density; then the temperature of the universe would continually increase as the stars put out more radiation."

An argument for people who can´t understand infinity. Hurr durr I think the infinite static universe is gonna overheat from the infinite amount of stars.

There is no big bang, there is no expansion. That´s just Abrahamic culture given validity through "science". There is just the eternal infinite universe, always have been, always will be.

[Anders Munch No.15823556]

>>15823548
How long is it going to take light from a star infinite lightyears away to reach us?

[Anonymous No.15823607]

>>15823548
>So it would have infinite objects between us and the star to block its light.
But then you just end up every direction ending on the surface of a star. And so you end up with the whole sky being as bright as the surface of the a Sun. The extreme distances of some stars are made up for by the greater number of stars in each shell of the universe (as shown in the gif).

So no you haven't solved anything.

And no it's not dust clouds or planets, if you had an infinite time the whole universe would reach thermal equilibrium. The dust and planets would heat up to the temperature of the stars.

>Even according to AssTronomers about 100 galaxies are moving towards Earth/Milkey way. Including the closest one Andromeda. If our nightsky isn´t filled with light from these 100 galaxies, why would it be filled with light from a galaxy infinite lightyears away.
Olbers paradox is a thought experiment. You have to think. It obviously isnt the case, the question is why not.

>>15823556
That doesn't matter if the universe is infinitely old.

Name a more classic combination of pseuds ranting against cosmology while misunderstanding one of the simplest arguments.

[Anonymous No.15823649]

>>15781188
This is true for all sciences though

[Anonymous No.15823661]

>>15781188
>physics is simply describing our mental structure of reality. Not reality itself.
Don't know about you, but I'm part of reality and I'm pretty sure my "mental structures" are isomorphic to structures in reality because one is mapped into the other in a fairly consistent manner through the senses, therefore physics still studies the structure of reality as far as I'm concerned and your gay philosophy-for-dummies take doesn't matter.

[Anders Munch No.15823662]

>>15823607
>But then you just end up every direction ending on the surface of a star.
No every direction is going to end up on the infinite amount of gas and dust between us and the infinite stars. It´s not that hard to understand, only an AssTronomer insists on performing this thought experiment in a universe void of all matter except stars. It doesn´t take much to block photons. Anyone who ever walked outside understands how much a cloud can block light from a star 8 light minutes away from us. Now imagine how many dust and gas clouds a star infinite away will have to travel through.

>>15823607
>Olbers paradox is a thought experiment. You have to think. It obviously isnt the case, the question is why not.
3-4 hundred billion stars in the Milkey way. You can see a total of 9096 stars with the naked eye.
"But goys if the universe was infinite our entire sky would be one big giant flame of brightness!"
Give me a fucking break. Aside from the 9096 stars is the other 400 billion stars in the milkey way invisible to the naked eye because of the expanding universe?

>>15823607
>That doesn't matter if the universe is infinitely old.
It does actually. You are just one of the people who can´t fathom infinity and so now you are protecting your Abrahamic creation myth.

A star infinite lightyears away beaming a ray of light towards earth will take an infinite amount of time to reach us, right? Obviously. The age of the universe or how long the universe exists can´t change that. If the universe is infinitely old it just means that the light really does get to travel infinitely.

[Anonymous No.15823684]

>>15823662
>No every direction is going to end up on the infinite amount of gas and dust between us and the infinite stars.
Nope. Every direction ending in a star will end up in star at a finite distance. So no infinite gas and dust.

>It doesn´t take much to block photons.
Since you ignored that point.
"And no it's not dust clouds or planets, if you had an infinite time the whole universe would reach thermal equilibrium. The dust and planets would heat up to the temperature of the stars."
Gas and dust is not the answer.

>3-4 hundred billion stars in the Milkey way.
Do you understand what a thought experiment is? Clearly not.

>If the universe is infinitely old it just means that the light really does get to travel infinitely.
And so the travel time doesn't matter. It's irrelevant anyway because if you consider stars having a finite size then the horizon happens at a finite distance.

[Anders Munch No.15823820]

>>15823684
>Do you understand what a thought experiment is? Clearly not.
I understand what a thought experiment is. It´s where you play out an experiment with your thoughts. I also understand that paradoxes are man-made impossibilities constructed through language/math, that is, impossibilities that only exist in language and math, not in the real world.
Pic. related.
Now in the real world, Achilles, who is demigod, runs 14 miles in one hour. The tortoise, who had a 1 mile headstart, moved 300 yards. If anyone wanted to see the paradox being solved can watch Achilles pass the tortoise. If anyone wants a mathmatical solution they can just put actual speed and length on any point they wish to study and see there is no paradox. Doesn´t matter how small they make the unit, as long as it has an actual speed, x/meters/per second. x/millimeters/per millisecond, he will beat the tortoise no problem.

So this is a very long winded way of asking you, do you understand that Olbers paradox is not an actual argument against an infinite and eternal static universe? Even though it is presented as such. Do you understand that in the real world, there is no paradox in having infinite stars in an infinite universe and not having our sky being set on fire.

[Anonymous No.15823834]

>>15823548
>infinite, homogeneous, and static universe
Since we already know the universe isn't homogeneous (as in there are clumps called galaxies, and larger clumps called superclusters, and larger ones still called filaments), we have no need to eliminate "infinite" from the list.

[Anonymous No.15823837]

>>15823820
>I also understand that paradoxes are man-made impossibilities constructed through language/math, that is, impossibilities that only exist in language and math, not in the real world
Correct. Obviously the scenario is not reality, the question is why not. One (or more) of the assumptions in the paradox must not apply in our universe. That is the interesting thing.

>Do you understand that in the real world, there is no paradox in having infinite stars in an infinite universe and not having our sky being set on fire.
You say you understand what a thought experiment is, and then you immediately revert to talking about "the real world". You don't understand. The paradox is not about the real world.

And no, you have not demonstrated there is no paradox with an infinitely old ininfite universe. Dust is not the solution. You have not bothered to discuss any of this at all, the actual physics.

[Anonymous No.15823838]

>>15823834
Galaxies alone does not solve it. If you average on larger scales the density of stars can be considered uniform.

[Anonymous No.15823843]

>>15823838
Yeah, but no reason not to think the clumping doesn't persist at larger scaled without limit.
Also, as you pointed out, there are dust clouds in the way.
I do take exception with your attempt to blame it on Christianity, however, as if the leftyfags running the "science" of astronomy believed in Christ.

[Anonymous No.15823852]

>>15823843
>Yeah, but no reason not to think the clumping doesn't persist at larger scaled without limit.
Observationally it doesn't. And note that clumping doesn't undo the paradox, it's just a matter of factoring in a density field. The result would be the same.
>Also, as you pointed out, there are dust clouds in the way.
Not me. Dust doesn't solve it: >>15823607
Only midwits bring up religion in scientific arguments. If they can't logic refute something then they bring up the pope and jebus.

[Anders Munch No.15823863]

>>15823834
My friend. Dust and gas clouds are most certainly the solution. Just as they are the solution to why we are not blinded by the 400 billion stars in the Milky way.
Before you go on rant about infrared light. There are perfectly normal explanations for that as well. There is no paradox in having an infinite old, infinite large universe filled with infinite stars and not having our sky filled with light our the universe heating up. It´s just goyslop, it´s just abrahamic talking points trying to justify the one true god, who is so insecure he needs to be the master and creator of the universe and at the same time created a heaven for literal human slaves if they just bow to him.

[Anonymous No.15823877]

>>15823863
Are you actually reading:
"And no it's not dust clouds or planets, if you had an infinite time the whole universe would reach thermal equilibrium. The dust and planets would heat up to the temperature of the stars."
At that point the dust would radiate as brightly as the stars. It wouldn't be dark. So no it's not a solution. People understand this basic point of thermodynamics over a hundred years ago.
Ranting about religion does not hide the fact your claims have a big hole.

[Anonymous No.15823879]

>>15823877
>I don't know what an "inverse-squared law" is, but I'm pretty sure stars heat everything around them to the same temperature no matter how far away it is.

[Anonymous No.15823880]

>>15823877
You can't rationally argue with namefags or fedoras.

[Anonymous No.15823883]

>>15781073
If only people understood that vsl and aether dislocations are the secrets, we could be 7p years ahead.

[Anders Munch No.15823884]

>>15823843
>I do take exception with your attempt to blame it on Christianity, however, as if the leftyfags running the "science" of astronomy believed in Christ.
It all started with this guy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
Lemaître was a priest and the real father of the big bang hypothesis. The big bang hypothesis was later pushed by the Vatican because it at least went along with their genesis story. "In the beginning there was nothing". This is not me making shit up, that´s just reality.

[Anders Munch No.15823885]

>>15823877
>"And no it's not dust clouds or planets, if you had an infinite time the whole universe would reach thermal equilibrium.
Infinite time to heat up an infinite large universe.

[Anonymous No.15823887]

>>15823885
>Infinite time to heat up an infinite large universe.
NTA but you already allege that an infinite amount of time has already passed.

[Anonymous No.15823889]

>>15823884
I'm well aware of Lemaître. I'm just saying that leftist anti-Christians chased almost every Christian out of astronomy and astrophysics long ago.

[Anonymous No.15823891]

>>15823879
The inverse square is accounted for in the paradox. Flux decreases with radius squared, but the number of stars im each shell increases with distance squared. Cancelling out. So you didn't even understand the wiki page apparently, no wonder you ignore the mathematics.
Alternatively surface brightness is conserved and independent of distance.
>but I'm pretty sure stars heat everything around them to the same temperature no matter how far away it is.
The distance wouldn't matter if the sky was filled with stars as the paradox. Then it's just a matter of reaching equilibrium.

[Anonymous No.15823894]

>>15823885
With an infinite number of stars. Yes it would heat up.

[Anders Munch No.15823896]

>>15823887
Yes, and? I guess you are one of those people who have a problem understanding infinity. So an infinite amount of time has passed trying to heat up in an infinite large universe and here we are. If this confuses you, that´s on you.

[Anonymous No.15823900]

>>15823896
>I guess you are one of those people who have a problem understanding infinity.
Funny, I was going to say the same thing.

[Anonymous No.15823916]

>>15812698
So you have nothing, thanks and please see the door over there

[Anonymous No.15823917]

>>15781736
You don't even know what a scientific theory is, you conflate it with a hypothesis. Why do you bother vomiting your horseshit on this board?

[Anders Munch No.15823918]

>>15823891
>Then it's just a matter of reaching equilibrium.
In infinite space? It really doesn´t matter that you have infinite amount of stars, you still can´t do it in infinite space.
if a star is infinite lightyears away and sends a beam of light towards earth today, when will it hit earth? Even if it has infinite amount if time, when will it hit earth? It is infinite lightyears away, when will it hit?
If you have and infinite large cold space, filled with infinite stars, when will it hit equilibrium?

[Anonymous No.15823920]

>>15823916
Coping midwit without a degree.

[Anonymous No.15823925]

>>15823920
I know you are but what am I

[Anonymous No.15823941]

>>15823918
>In infinite space? It really doesn´t matter that you have infinite amount of stars, you still can´t do it in infinite space.
Show your working.
Each volume of space has some stars and some dust, both finite. This finite amount of stars emit for all time, so they have radiated an infinite amount of light. Do you really believe that an infinite amount of light is insufficient to heat up the finite amount of dust. Of course not.
>if a star is infinite lightyears away and sends a beam of light towards earth today, when will it hit earth?
Irrelevant because the star has been radiating for an infinite amount of time in the past. The light from the star is reaching Earth now, and fas been for all time.
>If you have and infinite large cold space, filled with infinite stars, when will it hit equilibrium?
It will have always been at equilibrium. There is no when if the universe is infinitely old.

[Anders Munch No.15823950]

>>15823941
>The light from the star is reaching Earth now, and fas been for all time.
That is some seething right there. It´s impossible for the light to reach earth. Obviously it will take forever for that light that is forever far away to reach earth. The fact that you can´t even stay within the very logic of language shows how much you lost this argument. Next you are going to tell me you met a married bachelor?

[Anders Munch No.15823954]

>>15823941
Even in the expanding goyslop big bang shit, people are told that some light will forever be out of reach, because of the ever expanding universe. You going to claim that is impossible as well?

[Anonymous No.15823964]

>>15823950
>Obviously it will take forever for that light that is forever far away to reach earth.
We're talking about an infinitely old universe. Forever has already passed.

But now you're getting hung up on irrelevancies, as I said before when the stars have a finite size you don't have to look infinitely far away. The light converges in a finite distance. Which you will agree, the light from those stars reaches the Earth in an infinitely old universe.

>>15823954
That's different. Not infinitely old and expansion can be faster than light, since it isn't a speed.

[Anders Munch No.15823970]

>>15823964
>Forever has already passed.
So you actually did just tell me you met a married bachelor.

[Anonymous No.15824058]

The reason the sky isnt infinitely bright is because photons get nuked by anti photons. You see, rhe correct theory predicts more lihht than we see, so that ia evidence of thse evil dark photons.

[Anonymous No.15824283]

>>15824058
>>15824058
>anti photons
I don't think that's a thing my nigga

[Anonymous No.15825540]

>>15781736
>earth's velocity relative to the CMB - 600km/s
>hubble (((constant))) - uniform in all directions
explain the discrepancy

[Anonymous No.15825552]

>>15823834
>the universe was more dense in the past
IS LITERALLY THE DEFINITION OF THE BIG BANG
What the fuck retarded strawman is this?

[Anonymous No.15825559]

>>15825540
>hubble (((constant))) - uniform in all directions
Only after you correct to the CMB rest frame. There is no discrepancy, there are local deviations due to gravity. But on larger scales it is isotropic.

[Anders Munch No.15825915]

>>15825552
https://www.livescience.com/space/cosmology/james-webb-telescopes-observations-of-impossible-galaxies-at-the-dawn-of-time-may-finally-have-an-explanation

"The galaxies, which the James Webb telescope (JWST) spotted forming as early as 500 million years after the Big Bang, were so bright that they theoretically shouldn't exist: Brightnesses of their magnitude should only come from massive galaxies with as many stars as the Milky Way, yet these early galaxies took shape in a fraction of the time that ours did."

So they saved their creation myth for now by fudging with the math. They made a computer simulation showing how it´s perfectly normal to find such big galaxies 500 million years after the big bang. But so far they are finding 10 times the galaxies they should find and they are finding them much bigger then they should be. It doesn´t really matter, at some point they are going to look, according to them, 16 billion years into the past and still find big galaxies. Then they revise their creation myth, ehh maybe it was 20 billion years ago. Fudge the math a bit more, add some dark energy, cut some dark matter yada yada.

[Anonymous No.15826040]

If you do optical astronomy your gay this post made by radio astronomy gang

[Anonymous No.15827465]

>>15826040
its all equally fake and worthless

[Anonymous No.15828913]

>>15824283
what do you think dark energy is?

[Anonymous No.15828963]

>>15825915
>still find big galaxies
But the Milky Way isn't a very big galaxy. Giant elliptical galaxies can be 10 or 100 times more massive than the Milky Way. They're pretty common in the local universe, but none have been found at early times. Why is that?

Also note that the article only mentions back to 500 million, but there are now galaxies confirmed at 250 million years. And yet none of them are big galaxies? All the earliest galaxies would be dwarf galaxies in the local universe. Why is that that?

Also not discussed is the fact that all these early galaxies are tiny in size (compact) and have less heavy elements than modern galaxies. Just as you would predict from galaxy evolution in a hot big bang.

[Anonymous No.15829022]

How /pol/cels think science works
>you seclude yourself into a basement
>you think very hard and magically come up with a complete model of a phenomenon
>you make predictions and test them
>if you guessed right you get a Nobel otherwise you go teach to kids in high school

How science actually works
>you find a phenomenon to study
>you apply the current models to try to make predictions
>you try to extend the current model to fit the observations
>you try to invent some new shit to fit the observations
>once the observations fit you try to make new predictions and see if they too are satisfied
>if they are not you keep tuning the model
>at a certain point if the tuning gets too hard you are probably just making shit up and you go back to square one

[Anders Munch No.15830005]

>>15828963
You either find dark energy and dark matter, in which case you proven the Big Bang, or you don´t, in which case it´s just copium. 95% if all matter in the universe is made of dark energy and dark matter? Go find it then. Because without that dark energy and dark matter, the entire Big Bang theory falls apart. Talking about how much heavy elements a tiny blob of light has, or the size of it is pointless, even it´s distance, since that is reliant on the redshift, which is reliant on the expansion of the universe, which again, is reliant on dark energy and dark matter.

[Anonymous No.15830048]

>>15830005
>Talking about how much heavy elements a tiny blob of light has, or the size of it is pointless
Testing models is never pointless.
>since that is reliant on the redshift
Metallicity doesn't depend on distance or redshift. That's why it's a nice test that galaxies are evolving.
>Big Bang, or you don´t, in which case it´s just copium. 95% if all matter in the universe is made of dark energy and dark matter? Go find it then.
You've been watching too much pop-sci on YouTube. Dark energy is not a hypothesis, is a name given to a whole field of ideas. In standard cosmology it is Lambda, the cosmological constant. A constant in integration in GR. If it is lambda, in what sense could it ever be found? It's like saying go find the permeability of free space, or the gravitational constant. It just means nothing.
>Because without that dark energy and dark matter, the entire Big Bang theory falls apart.
And what if the disproof of standard cosmology lies in studying high redshift galaxies? Which you have said no one is allowed to study until they find dark matter. Models should be scrutinized from all angles.

[Anonymous No.15830329]

>>15825915
>Then they revise their creation myth, ehh
Who cares on fairy tellers? But what you talk about is marketing, you can meddle with the latest Big Mac variant the same way. There is science in astronomy, processes, repeatable measurements, useful constructions aso. All boring, made to gain knowledge were we can't take the big picture. All usually not even at the cost of a few devices made to kill each other. So what?

[Anonymous No.15830353]

>>15781073
I get all the Astronomy I need from the Quran, which describes the real human origins. Astronomy is satanic and says that the universe was created billions of years ago in some bang. Nonsense!

[Anonymous No.15830426]

It's not even real. Who gives a fuck?

[Anonymous No.15830452]

>>15825915
>their creation myth
Why don't you tell us your creation myth? Bet you believe Earth was created 6000 years ago.

[Anonymous No.15830490]

>>15830353
Unironically based af.

[Anonymous No.15830532]

The human's curiosity of our cosmic origins is no secret, for thousands of years we have made up elaborate myths about our own creation, be it God creating the Earth in 7 days, or the carcass of a killed God becoming Earth. And finally in the 20eth century we finally arrived at the correct answer not through religion but through science and telescopes observing across unimaginable voids to tell us that we came from the big bang. And now we have this faggot >>15781073 spewing this verbal diarrhea. lol. Also let's not forget that the motions and distances to planets and moons were discovered through astronomy. Planets and moons that we very much visited.

[Anonymous No.15830539]

>>15830532
>huurrrrrr everything before now was just myths
>but the current soience gods i worship definitely could never be wrong, they're infallible gods

[Anonymous No.15830545]

>>15830539
might as well call electricity wrong at this point, it's only a scientific theory

[Anonymous No.15830572]

>>15830452
there's probably like 1000 people that believe that in the whole country. you should go back

[Anonymous No.15830576]

>>15830572
LOL are we talking about the USA here? A good few percent believe the Bible literally.

[Anonymous No.15830581]

>>15830532
>science: measures that it's almost 0 degrees Celcius where (you) live.
>(you): science says it's winter and I should put on some warm clothes.
Learn the difference between observing (science) and narrating (mythology).

[Anonymous No.15830616]

>>15830581
You're glitching

[Anonymous No.15830618]

>>15830616
You're mad he caught you out.

[Anonymous No.15830620]

>samefagging this hard

[Anonymous No.15831206]

>>15830539
>>/sci/image/n9Pe2GSaXYOBtRJn7dQPMA

[Anonymous No.15831279]

>>15830545
how come you believe modern creation myth when every past creation myth has turned out to be wrong?
let me guess, you believe the world is coming to an end because of global warming too, every past doomsday prediction has turned out to be wrong.

[Anonymous No.15831389]

>>15781073
>a billion trillion years
So which is it, a billion or a trillion? Unless you mean a billion trillions, in which case why not just type a sextillion, you absolute moronic fuck?

[Anonymous No.15831491]

>>15831279
creation myths you are just supposed to believe because a religion told you so. People went out of their way to find out how the universe was actually created.

[Barkun No.15831493]

No such thing as a billion trillion. Trillions only go up to 1000 before becoming quadrillions.

[Anonymous No.15832731]

>>15831491
>science myths you are just supposed to believe because bill nye told you so

[Anonymous No.15832750]

>>15781073
Oh look, another retard that can't science posting his diarrhetic retarded faggot valueless opinion on the Internet. 5th year of highschool?

[Anonymous No.15832801]

>>15832731
>>/sci/image/GFudvdFc1mcdz5HYOJlOfQ

[Anonymous No.15833987]

>>15832731
everyone has a religious belief system and everyone presumes their system of belief is rational and superior and that everyone who believes something else is insane &/or stupid

[Anonymous No.15834469]

>>15830532
>Ditches one religion for another.
>i HaVe ThE cOrReCt AnSwEr NoW
Absolute state of midwits.

[Anonymous No.15835049]

>>15833987
True, but soiyentism """"atheists""" are the only group that dishonestly refuses to acknowledge that their religion is in fact a religion

[Anonymous No.15835251]

>>15835049
There are science and there are basedence.
Science backed by experiment and demonstrations is not a religion and is different from soiyence backed purely by "trust the science".

[Anonymous No.15835577]

>>15781073
it works because you have a data sample of the entire universe

[Anonymous No.15836086]

>>15835577
>sample size = 1

[Anonymous No.15836563]

>>15836086
>1 trillion trillion stars
>"we can't study stars"

[Anonymous No.15836992]

>>15836563
study them all you like

[Anonymous No.15837796]

>>15836992
>>/sci/?task=search2&search_filename=jwst%20pic.jpg

[Anonymous No.15838085]

>>15837796
that pic triggers you, lol, you must've thought it was a real jwst pic when it first came out and now being reminded of your shameful folly upsets you.

[Anonymous No.15838120]

>>15836992
Is that what the Sun looks like? What spectrum was this viewed through?

[Anonymous No.15838124]

>>15838120
the chorizo spectrum

[Anonymous No.15838127]

>>15838124
Huh. Science sure is amazing. 100 years ago, nobody would have even thought looking at the Sun like this would be possible.

[Anonymous No.15838181]

>>15781109
When they can explain dark matter and dark energy I will take them seriously. I also want to know where all the antimatter went.
Most of their work involves looking at spreadsheets and building it into something we can look at in CGI.

[Anonymous No.15838668]

>>15838127
Astronomy has advanced leaps and bounds ever since JWST was launched.

[Anonymous No.15838701]

>>15782547
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5C81O1y-Ys

[Anonymous No.15838928]

>>15829022

Rather:

>you invariably start with a catholic tenet (there is such a thing as motion, exchange, space, multiplicity, etc.)
>you mandate your courtiers to backwardly reason theories from the tenets
>you declare the theories true since you own the epistemological apparatus itself (power)
>you slander, imprison, and murder any opposition

[Anonymous No.15838931]

>>15838928
There is only a small problem with your retarded answer: mainstream physics works and provides tangible results and predictions :)

[Anonymous No.15838971]

>>15838931

Yes. Because "reality" itself is indistinct from the Power that imposes it.

[Anonymous No.15840190]

>>15838931
>mainstream physics works and provides tangible results and predictions
no it doesn't

[Anonymous No.15840268]

>>15838931
satellite GPS performs better when you remove relativity corrections from the algorithm, weev figured this out years ago

you have been deceived by a big lie

[Anonymous No.15840273]

>>15840268
Mainstream GPS doesn't even do relativistic calculations.

[Anonymous No.15841572]

>>15830005

[Anonymous No.15842342]

>>15840273
why would it need to? its just a simple triangulation system

[Anonymous No.15842416]

>>15841572
You should go harass gardeners who are fascinated by pretty flowers

[Anonymous No.15843521]

>>15842416
you should stop getting emotionally triggered by your own inability to differentiate between astrophotography and pictures of sausages

[Anonymous No.15843668]

>>15843521
I am emotionally upset by your malice and derision

[Anonymous No.15844191]

>>15781073
why can't we conclude the universe is infinite and we should stop worrying about it? The scary part is that our observable universe isn't as great as you seem and they're more galaxies then you can comprehend. Even if we got the best tech and telescopes, the universe would already expanded even more, making it harder to see shit, eventually we will really truly be alone and we will wait for our heat death.

[Anonymous No.15844267]

>>15844191
we can send AI progenitors to colonize the entire galaxy, it's just not gonna be YOU, get over it

[Anonymous No.15844271]

>>15844267
I don't care if its not gonna be me nigger, my point still stands, you can't colonize the entire universe with your faggot A.I or even comprehend how vast it is. Might aswell conclude that the entire universe is infinite and our main goal is to take over our galaxy for resources until its all gone.

[Anonymous No.15845326]

>>15844271
the n word is racist

[Anonymous No.15845994]

>>15838085
Yeah, so what if I fell for it? How am I supposed to know what picture of a star taken by JWST looks like if I never saw one before? I trust the scientists because I'm not a /pol/tard consiracy theorist

[Anonymous No.15846004]

Imagine the attention. How many degrees is this part of the sky?

[Anonymous No.15846113]

>>15823661
I second this, but did you checkem?

[Anonymous No.15846145]

>>15781073
They also postulate the cosmological principle while having all their data break it, because the sky is anisotropic (the Milky Way obscures a significant portion of the sky) and inhomogenous (all observations are made from essentially a single point in space and time in cosmology scales)

[Anonymous No.15846830]

>>15846004
>How many degrees is this part of the sky?
9.26 x 19.3 degrees with a resolution of 48.5 arcseconds per pixel.
The average full moon would be this big the in the image.

[Anonymous No.15846841]

>>15846145
Neither of those mean the cosmological principle is violated. It means one has to design tests which are independent of these limitations.

[Anonymous No.15847172]

>>15846841
>It means one has to design tests which are independent of these limitations.
nobody bothers doing that

[Anonymous No.15847189]

>>15837796
link is dead

[Anonymous No.15847347]

>>15835049
soiyentism is also the only religion that can conveniently change its belief system regularly as a matter of immediate political convenience for the masters of the religious group.
real religions have consistent beliefs, soiyentism does not, instead it has "the current thing"