[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

File: 16 KB, 400x400, 1520622082867.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9943346 No.9943346 [Reply] [Original]

>Mercury doesn't orbit the sun the way Newton's equations predicted
>Newton was wrong

>Galaxies don't move the way Einstein's equations predicted
>Einstein is still right it just means the Universe is 85% invisible and undetectable matter

>> No.9943358

They did the same with the speed of light. It's quite literally a cult of circular logic.

>> No.9943367

>>9943358
What do you mean?

>> No.9943377
File: 186 KB, 1286x724, 220B75B4-7B9A-44A3-BBE4-70B0F3F602EC.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9943377

>all vector spaces must have a basis
>oh wait they don’t, but let’s assume that they do anyway

>all partially ordered wet must have a maximal element
>oh wait they don’t, but let’s assume they do anyway

>oops it turned out that those are equivalent to AC tee her

>> No.9943384

>there was no way to modify Newton's theory to account for Mercury
>something must be fundamentally wrong
>there was a way to modify Einstein's theory without starting from scratch
>it is kept until a better theory is found
everything tracks, OP

>> No.9943440

>>9943346
seems like someone got triggered trying to calculate the Christoffel symbols

>> No.9943449

>>9943346
>>Mercury doesn't orbit the sun the way Newton's equations predicted
> >Newton was wrong
You have forgotten all the decades trying to explain the anomalous behavior of Mercury, for example, by including corrections to the shape of the Sun.

>> No.9943597

>>9943377
if you refuse AC, you get some pretty stupid shit like algebraic closures not existing, for example, and that's pretty fundamental.

it's not just about "muh borsuk ulam"

>> No.9943635

>>9943377

What world are you living in

>> No.9943663

>>9943367
Hard relativists will say things like how isotropic in-vacuum light speed invariance cannot be disproved by simply setting two clocks apart and measuring a one-way light source because relativity doesn't permit it. Why? Because of invariant light speed, which is the second postulate of SR. I can guarantee they'll find a way to make the theory virtually impregnable to what the OP mentioned too.

>> No.9943689

>>9943663
>measuring a one-way light source because relativity doesn't permit it.
>Why? Because of invariant light speed, which is the second postulate of SR.
No, it's because you are an idiot that don't know physics. That's why. Relativity doesn't say that it is impossible explicitly, but you either will find a problem on how to synchronize your clocks or your method will be equivalent to Einstein synchrony convention (in which the one-way speed of light equals the two-way speed of light). It is very well explained in https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/205656/is-there-any-way-to-measure-the-one-way-speed-of-light

>> No.9943812

>>9943346
>Newton was wrong
He wasn't wrong, its just that newtonian mechanics doesnt explain everything.
You still use his physics in math when you're dealing with things that aren't
A) extremely small
B) extremely dense
C) extremely fast
It's that whole "If I see farther it's because I stand on the shoulders of giants."
But you seem like a brain damaged meme spouting schizophrenic who's got an axe to grind.

>> No.9943897

>>9943346
>>Mercury doesn't orbit the sun the way Newton's equations predicted
>>Newton was wrong
Not really. Newtonian mechanics is an excellent approximation of what goes on at every day scales.

>>Galaxies don't move the way Einstein's equations predicted
>>Einstein is still right
Relativity is still an approximation--an excellent one at that. That's why it's still taught in university. Nobody every claimed it was the ultimate theory to end all theories of mechanics.

>> No.9943933

>>9943897
is it that excellent? if we don't take dark matter into account it's completely wrong at the movement of Galaxies, which is not that big of a scale compared to what scientists use relativity for, can they really just make dark matter up and move on to try and predict the shape of the Universe?

>> No.9943937

>>9943897
>>9943812
You pinheads are deliberately missing the point. 100 years ago the obvious solution was "new physics". Now the solution we're going for is "patchwork of random bullshit".

>> No.9943948

>>9943937
well in their defence it's true there were also attempts to "fix" the Mercury thing but it was never at the level of Dark Matter and it was also always seen as Newton's laws biggest flaw

this on the other had it's barely talked about as a problem, Dark Matter is the center point, the error in the prediction is just brought up to introduce Dark Matter

>> No.9943964

>>9943384
>there was no way to modify Newton's theory to account for Mercury
Dark wind that develops around stars such as the sun as they rotate, however the dark wind in our solar system only travels with enough strength to affect Mercury's orbit.

Dark wind is formed from spinning neutrinos that fly off the rotating sun, they become magnetically charged attracting each other at such a rate that they collide into seeming non-existence, but are actually still moving as dark wind.

There's no direct evidence of it because we can't detect it, but we know it's there because we can see its effects.

>> No.9944285

>>9943689
Their justification *is* that you'll "find a problem on how to synchronize your clocks". Why? Because of (relativistic) time dilation. How does that effect arise? From the invariant speed of light. Do you see it now?

>> No.9944293

>>9943346
>it is literally impossible for there to be matter in the universe that is hard to see
your bait is as tedious as your life

>> No.9944308

>>9943346
>Newton was wrong
Popper is a retard that never actually studied science. Stop buying into his falsification meme.

All science is wrong, the real question is how useful is it.

>>9943384
>>there was a way to modify Einstein's theory without starting from scratch
There's nothing wrong with starting from scratch. It's "saving the phenomena" that you have to worry about.

>> No.9944310

>>9944308
>all science is wrong

What do you have to say about "1+1 = 2"?

Does it leave something to be debated, you think?

>> No.9944347

>>9943377
>he actually refuses AC
This is like refusing topology because you think it's confusing. Also it makes perfect sense that existence of basis is equivalent to zorn's lemma.

>> No.9944366

>>9944310
Algebraists would say so.

>> No.9944390
File: 82 KB, 680x649, BaitGod.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9944390

>>9943346

>> No.9944397

>>9944310
>math is science

lel, no.

>> No.9944556

>>9943346
Einstein is jewish so he's always right

>> No.9944809
File: 1.34 MB, 2564x3838, 1472783377234.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9944809

>Uranus doesn't orbit the sun the way >Newton predicted.
>Astronomers predict "dark planet" to >account for its orbit.
>25 year later, "dark planet" is found, >called Neptune

>> No.9944883

>>9943346
>it's another "I don't know the first thing about dark matter but it's categorically wrong because I feel like it's wrong" thread
https://youtu.be/iu7LDGhSi1A should be mandatory viewing for these types of threads, yes it's entry-level but it's not pop-sci tier

Also, this >>9943897
If you're saying "Newton's theory of gravity is wrong" because it can't predict Mercury's orbit, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is and what it aims to accomplish.

>> No.9944893
File: 5 KB, 177x278, 1467766545197.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9944893

Nobody said those things are right 100% of the time. They work at certain scales and at larger scales they work as relatively correct approximations. As far as I know we haven't been able to prove relativity remains valid if you consider very large scales.

>> No.9944904

>>9944293
>it's literally impossible for their to be a God that's hard to see

>> No.9944906

>>9944809
space is so fucking cool

>> No.9944911

>>9943384
I say that there is a dark energy around mercury that is creating quantum tunnels that change mercury's orbit.

I will gladly admit my Nobel prize.

>> No.9944935

So dark matter accounts for how celestial bodies move, but does anything account for how dark matter is distributed? Does that weird neural mesh like pattern make sense in our physics?

>> No.9945183

>>9944935
>but does anything account for how dark matter is distributed?
Gravity.

>> No.9945286

>>9943663
>Because of invariant light speed, which is the second postulate of SR
Which comes from Maxwell's equations which says that the speed of light is [math]c=\frac{1}{sqrt{\mu_0\epsilon_0\mu\epsilon}}[/math]
In a vacuum [math]\mu=\epsilon=1[/math] which means that in a vacuum the speed of light is only based on two constants, and thus is a constant

>> No.9945494

>>9945183
Do you just enjoy telling barefaced lies on the internet or does someone pay you as well?

>> No.9945727

>>9944883
underrated post

>> No.9945773

>>9943358
Newton did the same with gravity, dumbfuck. It's called an axiom.

>> No.9946041

>>9943933
>can they really just make dark matter up and move on to try and predict the shape of the Universe
Do you have a more elegant theory that makes similar predictions or better?

>> No.9946044

>>9943937
I would love to know the extent of your knowledge of "new physics"

>> No.9946618

>>9945286
Maxwell's equations never presumed that they would hold across all inertial frames of reference.

>> No.9946625

>>9946618
But they are. Maxwell showed that the speed of light only depends on the medium it travels in, not the speed of that medium.
And you can show that his laws are Lorentz invariant. If they aren't, do you have a proof?

>> No.9946646

>>9943812
>Newton wasn't wrong
He literally was though. Acceleration is not actually proportional to force, it just seems that way at the speeds we're used to.

>> No.9946824

>>9946625
No, you're quite right that Maxwell's equations are form-invariant under Lorentz transformations. However, they are also largely form-invariant under Galilean transformations: in fact Maxwell is indifferent to any conceivable physical coordinate transformation. The difference is that the Lorentz transformations already assume an invariant c.

>> No.9946831

>>9943937
>100 years ago the obvious solution was "new physics". Now the solution we're going for is "patchwork of random bullshit".

lol no, they thought that it was an undiscovered planet called Vulcan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulcan_(hypothetical_planet)

>> No.9946846

>>9946831

This. Undetected form of matter is a simpler explanation and preferred by Occam razor to changing basic laws of physics.

>> No.9946884

>>9946824
Okay, so let's recap
>Maxwell's equations are indifferent to coordinate transformations
>thus, they are the same in all reference frames
>thus the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant in all reference frames
>thus Lorentz transformations are needed to correctly transform between reference frames

>> No.9946904

Pilot Wave reconciles all observational issues.

>> No.9947160

>>9946904
>>>/x/

>> No.9947171

>>9947160
There's more observational evidence for Pilot Wave than any other interpretation of QM friendo.

>> No.9947172

>>9944347
>existence of basis is equivalent to zorn's lemma.
No, Zorn's lemma is stronger

>> No.9947196

>>9944310
Wanna know how I know you're still in highschool?

>> No.9947330

>>9947171
Interpretations are not falsifiable as they all come from the same data.

>> No.9947367

>>9943346
does't understand something so naturally
>muh conspiricah

>> No.9947373

>>9947196
I got the impression that he was in highschool as well. How odd.

>> No.9947547

>>9943937
Your ignorance is not a flaw in the theory.

>> No.9947550

>>9944293
It is very difficult to see your schlongette, that does not mean it does not exist -- just that it is very, very small.

>> No.9947555

>>9943597
If you refuse AC, you're going to lie in bed sweating all night, needlessly.

>> No.9947557

>>9943812
Explains exactly what the situation is

Trolls still pretend not to understand.

>> No.9947560

>>9945183
Dark gravity.

>> No.9947564

>>9947373
>Double 73s of Truth

Good news, friend, is that summer is almost over and they'll be busily back at school shortly.

>> No.9947696

>>9945494
lol the entire point of dark matter is that it doesn't interact with any of the forces except gravity, which is why it's so hard to detect

>> No.9947719

>>9943377
>denies AC
>can’t even state zorn’s lemma properly.

>> No.9947954

>>9944347
No, the AC is the Devil's handiwork.

>> No.9947958

>>9943384
This isn't true, by the way. All theories are infinitely adjustable if you add fudge.

>> No.9947982

>>9947330
Wrong.

>> No.9948065

>>9943346
Einstein's equation doesn't really predict how much light will come from galaxies. When we say, "Not enough matter in that galaxy," what we really mean is, "Not enough luminosity from that galaxy in our astrophysical detectors." This is why the galactic motion doesn't disprove Einstein. Einstein's equation makes a prediction with the amount of matter in the galaxy as its input. That is calculated from the EM spectral luminosity, but Einstein's equation does not predict that spectrum.

>> No.9948256

>>9943346
>What is gravitational lensing?

>> No.9949711

>>9943964
LOL