Thread 16727724

why is so hard for scientists acknowledge their mistakes?

>>16727724 (OP)
>Literally posts evidence of scientists acknowledging their mistakes.

The less glib answer is that a working model has worked so well for so long for a reason. You don't just abandon it the moment contradicting evidence rears its head.
There is an explicit admission that our models are incomplete and whatever we think now could be anywhere from "a little wrong" to "not even in the ballpark." Else we wouldn't have need for researchers anymore. But the current model is what works for everything but the edge cases. The whole point is to examine those edge cases to determine what makes them so edgy and eventually develop a model that satisfies both the standard and the edge cases at once.

>>16727745
Isn't it annoyting that scientists think they are these objective robot creatures without egos or biases?

>>16727724 (OP)
Nigga the entirety of science is trying to find what can prove theories wrong and testing observations versus predictions that can be derived from theory.

>>16727751
Literally nobody thinks that, scientists have personalities and do plenty of shitposting and other human stuff. This does not prevent them from doing their jobs. Your plumber might default to being an unstable goof most of the time but he can still lock in and do his job when needed so your pipes don't explode.

>>16727724 (OP)
Real, I wish science was like religion since they have their shit figured out for thousands of years with no changes

>>16727751
>objective robot creatures without egos or biases
Scientists don't think of themselves like this, only people that aren't familiar with scientists think that scientists are like this.
For example, the entire reason why Einstein would go on to call the cosmological constant his greatest blunder is because it took Alexander Friedmann to show him that his bias towards a static and un-expanding universe was wrong. Science in its reasoning is a posteriori, and as such all theories are held as tentative, simply because there's no way to know if there will be some future discovery that will change our understanding.

>>16727752
which is why scientists are so eager to consider alternative theories right?

>>16727751
no scientist thinks that, and the only people that think scientists think that are 87IQ alcoholics on twitter.
>>16727745
>All models are wrong, but some are useful
FPBP

>>16727781
it's incredibly easy to recognize when an "alternative theory" is just schizo bullshit designed to waste the time of valuable people.
if you feel that your Theories aren't being fairly considered, it's because you're a fucking retard.

>>16727781
Yes they do, that however doesn't mean they have to endorse any and all all of them. An alternative hypothesis still has to explain everything that current theory already does.

>>16727724 (OP)
Everyone has an ego, and scientists are used to thinking they are smarter than everyone else

>>16727801
>>16727793
show me 1 alternative theory being considered for the observations jw has made

>>16727819
I'm not sure what the JWST discovered (and I'm reasonably certain you have no idea yourself) but things like MNOD, Loop Quantum Gravity, plasma cosmology, etc. are all "fringe" ideas that do have backing from serious physicists. The difference is these physicists aren't dogmatically spouting their retarded bullshit on Twitter and crying foul when the majority is defaulting to consensus. They recognize the gaps in their alternative models and are adjusting them accordingly to match the data, hoping to one day become the consensus.

>>16727819
Explanations for the early massive galaxies JWST discovered include stars forming faster in the early universe than previously understood, or black holes growing faster than predicted, or the expansion rate of the early universe being different. Also to build on >>16727830 there's a couple dozen competing hypotheses for Quantum Gravity (LQG being just one of them) that are looking to explain gravity as well as the conditions of the early universe.

>>16727724 (OP)
Most of modern academia bases their entire lives, their entire careers, and their thesis papers on literal bull shit. If they admit they were wrong and it's all bullshit they admit their career, their thesis, their learning in academia was all bullshit. Most of them cannot let this happen to their ego. Especially when they realize the "schizos" and fringe researchers were actually more right than they were without any degree.

>>16727751
(quite) more often than not scientists don't think of themselves as caricatures, so no it doesn't annoy me, for it doesn't happen

>>16727819
Non-homogenous movement within a closed or open but isolated system (universe). In a spinning universe (regardless of shape) a perspective near the center would give the appearance that most objects are moving away from you (red shifted), the redshift would also appear to have different rates depending on how close they were to the center of the system. The problem is the hubble tension shows different rates of redshift depending on type of phenomena, eg certain stars show a different rate than entire galaxies. This also could indicate that the there are exotic physics occurring that we do not yet know about.

An important side note is that both Nikola Tesla in the 1890s-1910 discovered and claimed faster than light EMF measurements in some of his systems. This was later replicated by Eric Dollard in the 1980s on video tape. Both suggest completely different or at least partly different fundamental physics that we either misunderstood or do not understand at all yet. The mainstream completely ignored these experiments and repeated results, or they just straight said they did not exist even though it is on video (1.1-1.8 times times c).

Another important side note is that the observed extra galactic super filaments of the universe are so incredibly and insanely massive in theory that they could not have formed within 14 billion years given their present observed velocities and understanding of the "big bang". Using the present movement measurements it would have taken hundreds of billions of years to form, even given the "big bang" variables. There are also a lot of problems with stellar evolution theory, like a lot, for one the metallicity of stars is not a good measure of age as theoretically higher metallicity stars could actually just be much *older* stars that fused those elements largely endogenously rather than picked them up from exploded stars. There are also inconsistencies with observed and speculated ages of hundreds of stars.

>>16727724 (OP)
I actually don't know. So many of them simply lack creativity or originality and will spend whole careers trying to make theories work, instead of just following results. See abiogensis for example.

>>16727925
>Most of modern academia bases their entire lives, their entire careers, and their thesis papers on literal bull shit.
Do you even look at what you type? Classical /sci schizo posting where science and academia are supposedly all a sham, and YOU, the fringe skeptic knows better.
Are there fields of academia more credible than others? Yes, of course, a lot of psychological research is shaky at best and many medicine papers abuse statistics for example.
Are there cited papers that are (partly) LLM written and contain hallucinations? Yes.
Are there researchers that care more about prestige and confirming their beliefs than the scientific method? Yes.
But to state it so definitely and across the whole of academia as you do is moronic.
Go back to /pol where everything is a conspiracy and the little man is always right.

>>16727950
All of academia retard. Archeology, physics, astrophycis, and biology are the big ones that are delusional and have massive inconsistencies from observation and theory.

No, copper tools cannot perfectly sculpt rose granite blocks. And no, we cannot precisely date the carving or placing of cut stone, and detritus surrounding the construction site is also not a good indicator of construction age.

No, we do not actually fully understand how gravity works or how to solve the 3 body problem with our current understanding of gravity. In fact the "schizos" models are more right with their elastic and electro-gravitic models.

No, we do not actually know what happens inside of stars or exactly how old they are and what processes drive stellar evolution, let alone universe evolution.

No, we do not know how and have not replicated biogenesis in the lab. In fact our model of DNA was hastily slapped together so a retard could gratify himself and get a nobel prize. And in fact DNA, ATCG+U and codon and protein synthesis and possible formations shows precise elements of being an artificially designed and constructed system that did not emerge as a purely random chance variable, especially not within 4 billion years on Earth.

>>16727751
Why are you on this board?

>>16727781
Precisely, that's why there are so many competing models of quantum gravity and dark matter.

>>16727960
>All of academia retard.
Wdym all of academia? I named psychology and medicine as examples, not as the only ones where there were problems.

>Archeology, physics, astrophycis, and biology are the big ones that are delusional and have massive inconsistencies from observation and theory.
Ok, so these entire fields are delusional because there are inconsistencies between observation and theory? This is how science works, we attempt to explain things, inevitably our explanations are not fully correct and we try to find new ones, and repeat.
I can't speak to all those fields you mention, but you are just making up conversations in your head because the physics community does not at all consider gravity to be fully understood.

Classic case of /sci skeptic that considers entire fields and institutions of study intellectually corrupt because parts of them are. In the real world there is no purity. That is the nature of the empirical method combined with human tendencies. Even in our imperfect world, look at what it has brought us. Think of the amount of science that went into me being able to type this message on a public forum.

>>16727960
This dumbass gish gallop only reflects your own ignorance.
Most of these assertions you're making can be refuted with even the most cursory knowledge of the subject. And the exceptions are just you ascribing a level of certainty the researchers never claimed. But you're a moron that gets his knowledge from /pol/. You don't understand what the researchers are even claiming, let alone the weight of evidence they use to support their claims.

>>16727788
and some are more useful than others

>>16727724 (OP)
Why is it so hard for OP to learn to read?
Is it because he's too busy sucking dick?

>>16727724 (OP)
For god fucking sake. No one is making any mistakes. Pop sci isn’t science. It’s just dumbed down for normies so highly technical and advanced technology can get funding and political support. That’s why pop sci is always some mystic voodoo bullshit. If you actually read the scientific literature you would know all the shit you assholes gripe and complain about is well known and Already figured out. It’s just mainstream popular science that’s coo coo wacky bullshit.

Example/

Is the cat alive or dead Wilson? Idk Mr McCarthy we won’t know until we open the box sir.

Shit like this is pop sci. And isn’t science. But people are not educated at no fault of their own. so this is what you get

>>16727995
I mean literally every single field of academia teaches bullshit. Provably bullshit. Some fields base their entire doctrine off of the bullshit while others a bit more solid like chemistry, but all academic fields have some degree of bullshit in them. The fields that are based off of bullshit as their mainstay have been rejecting paradigm shifts for decades or centuries and their theories go nowhere as a result because they refuse to admit their paradigm was wrong, archeology is the most prime example of this. Physics has also been using an incorrect model of gravity for more than 100 years and wonders why all their observations are not aligning with their theories. Entire generations have been taught bullshit and when they try to conduct real science they get shut down harder than a Clinton aid about to leak documents showing the Clintons are a crime family.

I am not against academia as a whole, I am pro-scientific learning. I however, do not believe that the mainstream paradigms are correct in almost every field, they are not conducting real science, they are protecting their doctrines and paradigms which do not align with observation (unscientific). I say this as someone who has been through academia and done experiments myself and called out their bullshit before.

>>16728017
What's your background in physics? And what are your thoughts on nanophotonics?

Scientists for the longest time thought something came from nothing by way of quantum uncertainty LOOOOL

HALF OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY CANT EVEN TELL YOU WHAT A WOMAN IS

>>16727960
>No, we do not actually fully understand how gravity works
It's almost like this is something that scientists openly talk about and why they're researching it, building numerous theories about gravity and launching laser interferometry telescopes like LISA to study it in greater detail.

>>16728017
I mean this has been true throughout history. dogma creeps into all organizations it’s more of a human characteristic. Humans don’t like change and stick to things because that’s how it’s always been and it’s familiar.


Revolutions only change the thinking or the mainstream consensus.


Until something comes along that forces new thinking people will hold on to their beliefs no matter how crazy they are. And change is hard. You have to rebuild everything your foundation is built on. Which is destabilizing.

No wonder revolutions come when everything goes to shit. You have no choice to change because the current status quo just doesn’t work anymore.

Only then will things change. Until then expect more of the same

>>16727724 (OP)

Roger Penrose's cyclic universe theory is 100% real.

The universe ends in cold entropy—mostly radiation. But this isn’t final—quantum mechanics ensures that fluctuations are still possible.

One such fluctuation, or the final evaporation of the last black hole, triggers a new expansion. This cycle has occurred before infinetely, and will occur again infinitely.

Just look at Hawking radiation. The only thing that we will have left in the end is background radiation. All the universe's matter converted into radiation would be more than enough to start the next universe.

>>16728079
>This cycle has occurred before infinetely, and will occur again infinitely.
How are we supposed to reach the present in this model?

>>16728087
>How are we supposed to reach the present in this model?

The weak anthropic principle says:

>We observe the universe to be the way it is because those conditions allow for observers like us to exist. We are the voices of the infinite universe.

In other words, we don’t live in a universe that just began (too hot, no complexity yet), or one that is in heat death (too cold, no structures), because in those states, no consciousness could form to ask the question.

You are here, now, because this epoch (the one with stars, carbon chemistry, stable planetary orbits, and complex life) is the only type of time that can support a conscious observer.

>>16728087
>>16728091

To elaborate, If the universe is truly eternal, with infinite cycles, then there are infinitely many universes where conscious observers exist, but also infinitely many where they don’t.

The probability that you'd wake up in a universe where the conditions are just right is still 100%, because consciousness is only possible in those rare windows.

It’s like being a fish who only ever notices water—you’ll never find yourself floating in a vacuum asking why there’s no water. The only possible location for awareness is inside the rare, habitable window.

>>16728091
>>16728092
OK but how is the present reached given an infinite past?

>>16728096
>how is the present reached given an infinite past?

In a truly infinite timeline, every moment exists eternally in its place, like points on an infinite number line.
You are not the destination of that line, you are a point on it. There’s no need to "arrive" at now from the infinite. You always were here, just as the infinite past always was. You didn't travel from infinity. You emerged when the conditions were right: for mind, structure, and complexity.

In an infinite past, you don’t have to cross infinity to reach the present.
The present is simply where you are, in the flow of existence, in a universe that may never have started and may never end—but which, for one fleeting moment, woke up and wondered why.

>>16728098
>>16728092
>>16728091
>>16728079
Just came back after sobering up a little bit drinking too much Jägermeister earlier. Damn I was on a roll with this one

bastard op
https://x.com/forallcurious/status/1945908853004259583

Why is asking loaded questions the easiest way to low-effort troll on 4chan?

>>16728155
Nice, jager is the thinking mans intoxicant, if not overdone, and kept for special occasions

>>16727724 (OP)
This is the entire scientific community as a whole.
Most of them are not scientists in the true sense of the word. Most of them choose science as a career path, they are not motivated by discovery and understanding, instead they are interested in pay checks and social standing. They try to protect that by not rocking any boats, fanatically defending the status quo and quickly joining any mob criticizing anyone with unorthodox ideas. Calling them technicians would be a better term, although most that I know would better described as being on the same level as motor mower mechanics. They know how to parrot what they were taught, how to fix things that already have a documented solution, how to do the donkey work, but things like insight, deeper understanding, and original thought is beyond their capacity.
Calling them "scientists" is the death of science.
>>16727745
Correct. That is what real scientists do, how they think. However most "scientists" do not follow that mind set. Particularly now when a science degree is something given away like a cheap gift inside a cereal packet.

>>16728079
This whole post sounds like a whole bunch of schizophrenic rambling. All this shit you’re saying cannot be proven. Nor is it something that’s even worth thinking about. Because it’s has no relevance to the reality I live in. This will never be something that happens in my life.


So it’s a complete waste of time to even acknowledge this theory as it has no application.

>>16727724 (OP)
the sophons are sabotaging us

>>16727745
>You don't just abandon it the moment contradicting evidence rears its head
You do though... that's exactly how science works. You have theories that predict things, and when observation don't match the predictions you come up with a new theory that does.

>>16728793
This is a rather naive way of thinking.
Newtonian mechanics was known to be insufficient to describe the orbit of Mercury since at least the 1850's. It wasn't until the 20th century that GR came up as an alternative that explained the discrepancy. Until then, Newtonian mechanics was the best model we had and people still use his equations to this day for all practical applications except extreme edge cases.

When you have a model that works 90% of the time, there's no reason not to use it in 90% of cases. And that's not even to get onto the topic of statistical aberrations/flukes. You don't necessarily know how much of that 10% actually contradicts the model and isn't just a convoluted set of coincidences that make it appear as if the model was violated.

>>16728807
The shear establishment copium here is unbearable. You fucking retard. Nobody is using "newtonian mechanics" they use empirically backed simulation you god damn retard. How dare you have the balls to call it naive.
Retards like you are why geniuses are going to torch your church of science.

>>16728814
>Nobody is using "newtonian mechanics" they use empirically backed simulation you god damn retard
Empirically backed simulations with a foundation in Newtonian mechanics.
Show me where GR comes up in bridge construction. When has anyone evoked Maxwell's field equations to keep your house from sliding downhill in a rainstorm? Do you account for time dilation on your daily commute?

GR says F != MA. But we treat it as if it does 99% of the time.

>>16728807
If you're talking about for purely practical purposes, then yes, you don't throw out the theory. I'm talking about science in terms of coming to the truth about nature, not just science for pragmatic reasons.

Although I don't know what practical purposes any cosmological theory has (unlike Newtonian physics which has so many)

>>16728865
Science is about pragmatism. It's about what's practical.
If you want to get to "the truth about nature," you're no longer talking about science but metaphysics. You're describing philosophy.

From a purely scientific perspective, a lot of defuct models weren't "wrong," but "incomplete."
>miasma
If you spend a lot of time in a place that smells like shit, you're probably gonna get sick. Germ theory says "yes. Here's why."
>aether
There is an intangible medium in which EM waves propagate. QFT says "yes. And this medium takes the form of a Lorrentz-invariant field which spans the Universe."
>F=MA
Force is a function of mass and acceleration. GR says "yes. And here's some additional caveats."

The incomplete models of today will eventually be superceded by other models which will say to them "yes. And..."

>>16728884
Shut the fuck up faggot. Stop trying to hide behind your semantics and language manipulation.


The world isn’t that complex. All these theories and over complicated jargon is a coverup designed to explain something instead of simply saying I don’t know.


“Stop playing games private either you know it or you don’t.”


-some drill Sargent

>>16728884
>Science is about pragmatism. It's about what's practical.
Science literally comes from the Latin word for "knowledge", practicality is just a side effect. Besides, what's practical about a cosmological theory?
>From a purely scientific perspective, a lot of defuct models weren't "wrong," but "incomplete."
Right, any new theory will give back the correct predictions of the old one while correcting the incorrect predictions.

>>16728891
There's things we know and things we don't know. There's also things we know about things we don't know and things we don't know about things we know.

Alright, cuntish language games aside:
Any 5 year old can ask "why" questions until even the most esteemed experts in a field run out of answers. There is a limit to what humanity knows and likely will ever know. But we learn a little more every day. There's things we know now that we didn't know yesterday and we will learn tomorrow something we don't know today.

>>16728891
nta, but
>observe phenomena
>make theories and mathematical theorems to explain such pehnomena
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
ok then

>>16728894
>what's practical about a cosmological theory?
finding god so we can kill it obviously

>>16728894
>Science literally comes from the Latin word for "knowledge",
And "oriental" literally comes from the Latin word meaning "to rise." Etymology is not a solid argument for what words mean.

>what's practical about a cosmological theory?
Describes the movement of celestial bodies in such a way that prediction matches observation.
"Practical" doesn't just mean "what you, personally, can use in your daily life."

>>16728902
>And "oriental" literally comes from the Latin word meaning "to rise."
The sun rises in the east. That makes perfect sense.
>Etymology is not a solid argument for what words mean.
It is though. The origins of words obviously tell you something about what they mean.
>Describes the movement of celestial bodies in such a way that prediction matches observation.
We already have Newtonian physics for that.

>>16728916
>The sun rises in the east. That makes perfect sense.
And science is about acquiring practical knowledge. That makes perfect sense.

>The origins of words obviously tell you something about what they mean
But not always in a straightforward way. Should I have instead gone with the origin of "faggot?" Went from "bundle of sticks" to "dead weight" to "someone you get to carry dead weight for you" to "protégé" to "cocksucker." And even then I skipped a bunch of steps in between.

>We already have Newtonian physics for that.
Except Newtonian mechanics failed to accurately describe the orbit of Mercury.

>>16728921
>And science is about acquiring practical knowledge
You've yet to show anything practical that's come from a cosmological theory.
>Except Newtonian mechanics failed to accurately describe the orbit of Mercury.
This whole thread is about how modern cosmological theories fail to predict certain observations accurately, yet you were the one saying to not throw the whole theory out because it's still "practical". Newtonian physics has met your criteria of being mostly right/practical.

>>16728930
>You've yet to show anything practical that's come from a cosmological theory.
Yes I did. It accurately describes the movement of celestial bodies.

>you were the one saying to not throw the whole theory out because it's still "practical"
And I stand by that. You use it where it is practical. Where it ceases to function is where you use something else.

>Newtonian physics has met your criteria of being mostly right/practical.
And Newtonian mechanics was a prime example of my whole point that I used earlier in thia thread. We do use Newtonian mechanics where it works. We don't use it where it doesn't. GR helped us get a better grasp of where that line begins and ends.

>>16728933
>It accurately describes the movement of celestial bodies.
But what is practical about that? Newtonian physics already works perfectly well for sending things into orbit or landing them on other planets.

>>16728937
>what is practical about that?
It's the goal.
Practicality is about achieving goals. Whether your goal is "curing cancer" or "slicing your dick lengthwise with razor wire" is irrelevant. Science is the process of figuring out how to do the thing you want to do.

The goal of many cosmologists is to accurately describe the motion of celestial bodies. "Why" is not important.

>>16728438
>>16728891
You seem to be a very narrow minded chud to be browsing /sci/

>>16727724 (OP)
>why is so hard for scientists acknowledge their mistakes?
The whole BB BS is so obviously an moronic idiocy hat even in the stupid brains of/sci posters some little light flickers up. So they steer the whole dumbness to new theories, Same dumbness or worse, but it's proven that this works and gains good income and pensions (the only goal that matters).

>>16728941
>It's the goal.
The goal for who? If you did a survey of cosmologists do you think most would say their goal is come to knowledge about the universe via making theories, or would they say their goal is purely in and of itself to make theories?
>The goal of many cosmologists is to accurately describe the motion of celestial bodies
The goal of many cosmologists is to learn about the world, and they do that through accurately describing the motion of celestial bodies

>Scientists for the longest time thought something came from nothing by way of quantum uncertainty LOOOOL
>HALF OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY CANT EVEN TELL YOU WHAT A WOMAN IS
This honestly
It’s just embarrassing how far we’ve fallen

>>16728957
At this point we're just arguing semantics sp I'll just drop it or concede or whatever makes you happy.

What's important here is that you don't fully drop a model because some edge cases exist where it does not apply. Even in this lofty "learning about the nature of reality" sense, science can still be done with the less-accurate model and achieve sufficiently accurate results. Newtonian physics can perfectly describe the biting force of a gecko, but quantum mechanics is required to accurately describe how its feet stick to walls. If something supercedes QM, that QM description of a gecko's foot doesn't become any less accurate. It simply defines the range in which that model does and does not yield accurate results.

>>16728976
>What's important here is that you don't fully drop a model because some edge cases exist where it does not apply.
And like I originally said, if practicality is all you're concerned with then I agree ("practicality" meaning applications that actually improve people's lives), but if your goal is to learn about nature then the edge cases are exactly where scientific progress happens.

I'll never understand why people think academia is one big club where everyone's keeping secrets and shit. Everyone's always trying to poke holes in each other's arguments, shit if it came to physics and what we knew being wrong then people would be froathing at the mouth to push their papers through for that sweet, sweet funding.

>>16728994
You're missing the point I was making with the gecko thing.
Two different models were used to get an accurate description of an animal's biology. That fits directly into "learning about nature."
There are people working on the edge cases to develop new physics. But there are also many, as of yet unanswered, questions that lie well within the range of what present models are capable of answering. You don't put a halt on all that research just because the other guys haven't finished working out the edge cases yet.

>>16728999
>if it came to physics and what we knew being wrong then people would be froathing at the mouth to push their papers through for that sweet, sweet funding.
Fucking this. Remember what happened to Alzheimer's research the moment the amyloid paper got retracted?

>>16727724 (OP)
Because all of their funding and career foundations rely on false assumptions and incorrect calculations, etc.

>>16728891
nta but what's your math background?

>>16727756
>scientists are like plumbers
True, and wise

>>16727781
Yes, the OP picture is literally scientists fishing for alternative theories from their social media accounts.

>>16729958
I don't know how to tell you this.. but those aren't scientists. Same with this retard >>16728165

>>16729993
Then what are astronomers if not astronomical scientists, if astronomy isn't the science of cosmology?

>>16728165
>limited data, overfit model
>more data, discard model
Who cares if some tenured faggot is a laughing stock. He still gets a paycheck as a worthless old conjure

>>16727830
>plasma cosmology, etc. are all "fringe" ideas that do have backing from serious physicists.
Nope. PC is literally dead. There were like 3 people who worked on it, mostly Aflven. All of whom are long dead. It is not being worked on by serious physicists. it couldn't even explain the observations of the 80's, much less today.


>>16727942
>Another important side note is that the observed extra galactic super filaments of the universe are so incredibly and insanely massive in theory that they could not have formed within 14 billion years
Wrong.
astro.ucla.edu/~wright/lerner_errors

>>16727776
No Einstein called it is his greatest blunder because he was implying that the correct value of the Cosmological Constant could be directly inferred from General Relativity, which is not the case and has been demonstrated numerous times with observations of accelerated expansion and then recanting of such. In fact, Einstein's greatest blunder was saying anything at all about it being a blunder, because it reveals not just a fragile and insecure ego, but one which had not developed beyond the age of a 7 year old.

>>16727724 (OP)
We will never know the truth, it's all so pointless, we're too retarded for the universe

>>16727759
lol if this is ironic its a great post

if its not you are retarded. religion(s) of which there are many segregations, does not have their shit figured out, even after thousands of years. meanwhile imperical science as we know it has only been around for a few centuries relative to religion which has been around since the dawn of man but never in a cosistent manner long term. but yeah lets make science more religion, rape ₣or science!! and more singing, and praying. pray extra hard, prayer room at the new hadron collider built underneath israel lets gooo

>>16727724 (OP)
science is about correcting old mistakes with new ones, if you don't get it you never made it through the basic layer, your a brainlet, ngmi and you might as well kys
tl;dr kys retard

>>16731692
when will we get too a point where we have no mistakes and we figure everything out? never? is our reality that complex and hard to figure out?

>>16732210
>When will we count every number, are there really that many numbers?

>>16728051
>>16727996
Their fundamentals are wrong. No matter how many times you try, an unchangeable square peg is not going to fit in an unchangeable circular hole. All the universities teach people is literal bullshit as absolute truth. All their theses are then based on said bullshit, all their lifework is based on said bullshit, all their livelihood is based on said bullshit.

No wonder they're going to stay dogmatic. They will however, live and die by falsities and illusions, never once seeking the actual truth, which is more than their little egos allow for. Seeking being the operative word, because the gradient of truth and knowledge is infinite and eternal like the universe, and absolute truth is eternally infinite regardless of your pursuit, again like the universe.

>>16731616
we can learn more about ourselves than our universe :)

>>16733749
>Their fundamentals are wrong.
They seem to work fine 99% of the time.
>All the universities teach people is literal bullshit as absolute truth.
No they do not. What is it with you retards and not being able to get this simple fact through your head?
Everything, literally everything, comes with the implicit asterisk that "this is just the best data we have available for now. It's all subject to change as new discoveries come forward." The reason this often isn't explicitly stated is because it's assumed you're not so retarded that you can't figure it out for yourself.

>>16733749
>an unchangeable square peg is not going to fit in an unchangeable circular hole.
Wrong, any unchangeable square peg will fit into an unchangeable circular hole whenever the hypotenuse of the square is less than the diameter of the circle.

>>16733749
>absolute truth is eternally infinite
Then how is their room for "bullshit", how can their lives be bullshit if truth is infinite regardless of their lives?

>>16727745
The working model is shit and you're just retarded. Standard model hasn't done shit in 80 years.

Every time you morons say "it's working" what you really mean is the shit that it aided the development of 80 years ago is still being used... you retards don't know shit about science or technology.

>>16728793
They're conflating technology with science--midwits do that constantly.
>>16728807
Standard model doesn't work WAY more than 10% of the time you delusional moron.

>>16733986
>They work 99% of the time if you pretend 90% of the universe is invisible matter and invisible energy.
Your definition of "it works" is pretty stupid.

>>16727759
Modern science is a religion. The cult of Einstein literally hasn't done shit in 80 years--ask them to give an example and laugh at them when they cant.

>>16734075
Based on what definition of religion?
Who are seismologists worshiping?

>>16727970
agitprop aint gonna spread itself

>>16734071
>Standard model hasn't done shit in 80 years.
And what standard model is that? Neither the standard model of particle physics, nor the standard model of cosmology are anywhere near that old.

>>16727724 (OP)
True scientists are not like that.
Unfortunately academia has being hijacked by bureaucrat parasites and psychos abusing the power structure. Those are very easy to spot: anyone talking shit about Engineers is one of them.

>>16727724 (OP)
>black holes are a matter/dark matter exchange or a giant chemical reaction of spacetime effectively
>space is not dark because of lack of light, it is because all the light wavelengths are hypersaturating everything, like when you mix all the colors of paint until it becomes darker and darker or why light pollution is so effective at blocking the view of stars at night
>the entirety of existence has to be aware of itself at all scales to exist and function in a stable manner
>entanglement can selectively and indiscriminantly occur in its own superposition as entities and even singular components of matter interact, with or without intention

>>16734071
Nigger, what do you think the fuckhuge particle accelerators are for? The Higgs Boson was experimentally verified in 2012 and was theorized to exist, via the Standard Model, decades prior.

The whole reason these things are still operational is that people are actively looking for stuff beyond the standard model, and they typically fail in doing so because of how robust the model is.

>>16734072
>Standard model doesn't work WAY more than 10% of the time you delusional moron.
Working 90% of the time is actually a gross underestimate. The handful of places where it fails just get special attention because that's where the new physics is.
This outsized focus on where the model fails is actually a massive fucking egg on your face if it's your prerogative to prove scientists are all dogmatic and unwilling to admit their models are incomplete.

>>16734073
Well you can "see" dark energy in exactly the same way you "see" any other type of energy. Dark energy is just the term we came up with to describe the driving force behind the universe's expansion.
The existence of dark matter is literally beyond the Standard Model of particle physics. So it's quite literally a example of that <10% where the model is insufficient.

Now it does fit into the GR model nicely (despite being hypothesized before GR was even a thing) But the mismatches between GR and particle physics are so well known that it literally shits all over your assertion of scientific dogma.
Everyone knows the models are incomplete. How many times does this need to be bashed over your head?

>>16734449
>What do you think the particle accelerators are for
Wasting money. What have they done for society other than leach money?

Zip, zero, nothing.

>Standard model is working 90% of the time
Yet you still can't name one thing it's contributed to society in the last 80 years. You keep running your mouth while saying nothing--typical Einstein cultist.

Meanwhile the handwaving about dark energy and dark matter making up 90% of the universe unironically continues.

Dark energy and Dark matter are band aids for a non unified theory. Dark matter and Dark energy make up 99% of the universe... so, you delusional retard, that means standard model can NOT describe 99% of the universe.

>The mismatch of GR and SR are known but it isn't a cult because we know about it even though we still pretend that standard model is good enough while mocking any alternatives and pretending we're still doing science
Your cognitive dissonance is Standard Model Physicist tier Einstein Cult.

You retards can't even create a functional solar model without violating the gas laws.

I look forward to you STILL not being able to name one thing Standard Model physics has done in 80 years.

>>16734479
>violating the gas laws.
You mean the "ideal gas laws". They are an approximation, which hold in certain circumstances.
This speaks volumes about your physics knowledge. You clearly haven't studied actual physics. There are "laws" physics which are totally wrong.

I'm still looking forward to you explaining what the fuck you are even trying to say.
>Standard model hasn't done shit in 80 years.
>>And what standard model is that? Neither the standard model of particle physics, nor the standard model of cosmology are anywhere near that old.

>>16734530
so, in conclusion, you can't name one thing public physics has ever contributed to society.
LOL.

Fucking priceless.

I look forward to you STILL not being able to name ONE contribution your cult of Einstein has done--not one.

>>16734530
>It's ok we had to completely throw out ALL of kinetic molecular theory to make the standard model of a star work--those were just approximations anyways.
LOL

>>16734581
>It's ok we had to completely throw out ALL of kinetic molecular theory to make the standard model of a star work
Lel. Of course you do. Because most of it is ionised.
Maybe ponder on your next incredible insight a bit longer.

>>16727745
>works for everything but the edge cases
>the edge cases:
>gravity in every single observed galaxy
>things that explain small stuff doesn't explain big stuff
>causality is indeterminate
>liquids & gas
>sometimes electrons move without energy loss and we don't know why
>electron themselves are like clouds
>despite individual electrons being accurately measurable
>by the way every single one of our observation is basically based on electron based detection

>>16734479
>Yet you still can't name one thing it's contributed to society in the last 80 years
Flash memory requires quantum tunneling to work.

>>16734595
>Because it's ionized therefore
LOL
You're cope keeps getting better and better. That explains using a negative heat capacity so the numbers fit.
My sides.
>>16734633
Fowler-Nordheim tunneling was discovered in 1928 and the surface effect transistor was invented in 1953.

Try again.

>>16734792
my bad, the first FET was 1926, created by Julius Edgar Lilienfeld.

>>16727724 (OP)
What exactly is the mistake?

Seriously. How can you even forgive the scientific community for being unable to tell you with a straight face what a woman is.

>>16727724 (OP)
A child could have told them that.
It's something I knew instinctively since I was old enough to tie my own shoes

>>16734835
You could always punch them in the face.

>>16734799
Standard model.

>>16727724 (OP)
>reveals unknown physics exists
and here I was thinking we have already figured out the entirety of physics.

>>16734796
cool, did not know about him. sucks when you are so far ahead of technological development that you have the correct idea but can never build the prototype. reminds me of the guy who invented the internal combustion engine before gasoline was a thing and had to use gunpowder pellets to power it.

>>16734792
>That explains using a negative heat capacity so the numbers fit.
Oh look, you embarrass yourself again.
Negative heat capacity is not assumed, it's derived from solving the equations of stellar structure. Note that this is the heat capacity of the entire self-gravitating system, it is totally different from heat capacities of gases in normal situations.
Also note if this was not the case, stars would not be stable. There is nothing forbidden about it.

>>16734857
>It has to exist or our solar model doesn't work therefore it exists. Never mind it's almost impossible to do in a lab and has never been done with a plasma
Your delusion gets better and better

>>16734857
*Note: you STILL haven't named ONE thing science has done in the last 80 years ;)

>>16734860
>Never mind it's almost impossible to do in a lab and has never been done with a plasma
It's impossible to put a star in a lab. So should we therefore conclude that stars don't exist?
Lab experiments only probe a tiny fraction the scales of the universe. If you want to actually study how the wider universe works, you're going to have to use physics and observational evidence.
For example the standard solar model predicted the correct neutrino count, and predicts the sound speeds of waves through helioseismology.

>>16734865
You specifically asked about the standard model. I asked which one, and you ignored me, twice.

>>16734839
I would if I could, so help me Jesus.

>>16734878
I missed the part where you named one physics has accomplished in 80 years.

I love how you *Reeeee you won't answer my question reee* but you never ever (and still haven't) answered the question underpinning this discussion.

I must have missed your question in the flood of excuses you keep making about why the solar model uses inconsistent math to support a physics model that obligates the universe be composed 99% of matter undefined by the model--but the solar model THATS RIGHT.

Epic, you're inability to answer a question while spewing nonsense to justify a math that doesn't adequately model cosmology is god damn priceless. It's also depressing because over the counter science is full of cultists like you wasting everyone's time.

>>16734878
>You're going to have to use physics and observational evidence but make sure you through out, ignore, or mock people who point out the overwhelming amount of observational evidence that doesn't support the physics
You don't even listen to yourself or have a clue about what's going on in public resarch.

>Standard model predicted the neutrino count
LOL, you don't have a god damn clue how a neutrino detector works. Also, this does fuckall for society in large. Huge tax grift with no social benefit except welfare for the "scientists" working on the project.

>>16735284
>the solar model uses inconsistent math
Please point out the inconsistency. In the equations thanks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_solar_model

>>16728916
>The sun rises in the east. That makes perfect sense.
There is neither an east (arbitrary definition) nor a sunrise (horizon is going down),

>>16735290
>You don't even listen to yourself or have a clue about what's going on in public resarch.
What an amazing argument.

>>LOL, you don't have a god damn clue how a neutrino detector works.
>You don't no nufffing!!!! NUFFINGGG!!
Very insightful. Everything is wrong, no you can't explain why or how, or provide any evidence or argument.

>Also, this does fuckall for society in large.
It's so irrelevant and yet here you are, wasting your weekend arguing over it.

>>16735292
I already said it--negative heat capacity.
It also ignores the black body radiation signature of condensed matter.

>>16735312
My argument remains you can't name one thing physics has done in 80 years and you still can't.

Your seething is EPIC.

I'm not arguing, I'm poking holes in your retardation while you still cant answer one basic question that undermines everything you stand for.

What has physics done in the last 80 years--I look forward to you still not being able to answer. It's not even that you CAN'T answer you have to pretend that's not what I'm asking you because you're that pathetic and incapable of answering.

Priceless. Absolutely priceless.

Also, you don't know how a neutrino detector works and that also amuses me.

>>16735292
Also, by the way dunning kruger, that is NOT the standard model of the sun. That is an excerpt on Wikipedia dumbed down for people like you.

You don't even know how to post a published model which surprises me not at all.

>>16735536
>I already said it--negative heat capacity.
Not an inconsistency. Unless you can prove it is mathematically inconsistent with the assumptions of the model.

>It also ignores the black body radiation signature of condensed matter.
What do you mean by condensed matter?
And no, it doesn't ignore BB radiation. Solving the equations of radiative transfer are the main elements of the model.

>>16735537
> is NOT the standard model of the sun
So what do you think is then? Please post a paper, specifically referring to a different model as the standard model.

>>16727724 (OP)
Please, tell me how long universe probably exist and how long we observed it for. I guess you see difference in order of magnitude now.

>>16735709
>Unless you can prove the standard model uses a negative heat capacity
Wait, so you think Wikipedia is a valid scientific paper describing the standard model solar model and don't understand that the ACTUAL model uses negative heat capacity?

PRICELESS

>Mathematically inconsistent
So you're telling me Dark matter and Dark energy are mathematically consistent.

PRICELESS

>What do you mean by condensed matter--it totally doesn't ignore black body radiation
LOL.

>Wikepedia totally IS the standard model of solar physics
Holy fuck you're insaine

ALL OF THIS because you CAN NOT name ONE THING that physics has accomplished in 80 years.

Let me explain your very clear mental disorder: I ask you a very direct question which you refuse to answer. Then I make fun of you for saying stupid shit about the solar model. You have zero clue how the solar model even relates to dark matter or dark energy and you spend your whole time arguing the Wikepida page while still not answering my very direct question that started this.

You exemplify everything wrong with the cult of Einstein. I'm guessing your IQ is around 110 but you think your a genius--epic. Fucking epic.

Name

One

Thing

Physics

Has

Contributed

To

Society

In

80

Years

--you still can't. Much to my endless amusement.

>>16736071
>>Unless you can prove the standard model uses a negative heat capacity
> so you think Wikipedia is a valid scientific paper
Does the quote above say that? No. But you would rather put words in my mouth than actually defend your moronoic claims.

Still waiting on that paper showing some other standard solar model. If don't have have a paper I will take that as a concession that you are full of shit, not just on the standard solar model but on everything.

>>16727724 (OP)
Most of them are not real scientists.
Most of them never made a real discovery and never will.
Most of them have huge egos regardless the previous two statements being true.

>>16736071
LIGO

>>16736071
MRIs

>>16736097
>I can't name one thing science has done in 80 years
lol

>I posted Wikipedia but YOU have to post an article from an accredited outlet
LOL, I only made fun of standard model. Holy shit you're so desperate.
So, to be clear, you can't actually post an ACTUAL publication of the standard model solar model or discuss it intelligently but you expect me to post an alternative? I'm not here to post an alternative and never put one forward--you can't even post YOUR theory or discuss it.

EPIC--move them goalpoasts.

>>16736203
LIGO used lasers to measure vibrations that "might" have been from a "black hole" it hasn't done anything useful. What did it do for society other than leach money? Nothing.

>>16736205
Stern–Gerlach. 1922
The "breakthrough" was engineering.

The Irony is Pierre-Marie Robitaille, who was pivotal in the creation of the MRI and an expert on black body radiation has published a solar model which is largely mocked by standard model cosmologists.

It's fucking hilarious that the guy directly responsible for the MRI is also the guy standard model physicists hate the most and who's work is the most shat on.

Try again though, spin physics has been around since the 20s. The breakthrough (in case you missed it) was engineering.

>>16736216
>Stern–Gerlach. 1922*
Also note that Isidor Rabi developed Nuclear Magnetic Resonance imaging in 1938. The first "medical" use was around 77 but that was an application resulting from engineering based on physics from the 20s.

>>16734602
So if electrons decided to troll us, we wouldn't know where we are?

Like they do with astronomical observation

>>16735292
the sun is not a gas, its radiation spectrum is not gas like. The surface of the sun is not a plasma either as that would create enough gamma rays to sterilize earth

>>16736348
the model of the proton is based on the model of the electron. Quarks were invented to explain why the protons behaved differently to what the electron model said protons would behave.

>>16736097
>Still waiting on that paper showing some other standard solar model
search liquid metal hydrogen sun
>>16736213
I think it is better to say that particle physicists and cosmologists have not done discovered anything new.
There has been some advances in solid state physics in the last few decades.
Most advances however have been done by engineers using known physics. Also a small advance in genetic engineering

>>16736213
> I'm not here to post an alternative
Because it doesn't exist, because what I posted is the standard solar model. I'm glad you agree.

>EPIC--move them goalpoasts.
It's called forcing you to back up your claims rather than just making shit up.

You refuse to back up any of your claims or cite anything, there absolutely nothing to discuss.
No I have no interest in defending physics to someone so obviously arguing in bad faith. I won't waste my time.

>>16736368
>>16736360
> published a solar model which is largely mocked by standard model cosmologists.
Actual physicists have no idea he who he even is. He "published" on youtube. Not an actual journal where physicists might actually see it.

He mocked because Robitaille is a crank. He makes no attempt to test his claims against real quantitative observational data, or do experiments.

>the sun is not a gas, its radiation spectrum is not gas like.
And where is his evidence that gases and plasma's don't emit blackbody radiation? Surely he has done an experiment to prove this?

>The surface of the sun is not a plasma either as that would create enough gamma rays to sterilize earth
Let's see this wonderful calculation.
The solar surface is at about 5800 K, nowhere near hot enough to create gamma rays (billions of K).

Also the fact that you have limb darkening on the Sun is proof that the surface is not solid or liquid, but is diffuse. Limb darkening can be explained by radiative transfer, such as the standard solar model.

>invent model
>explains *almost* everything observed
>one observation does not align with model

Obviously this means there is either something we don't know about effecting the results, or the model is slightly wrong and you need to tweak it. There are innumerable theories for what dark energy and matter could be, both tweaks to physics as well as physical things that work with current physics, but no one has seen anything to prove any of those correct yet.

No one would be very upset if physics had to be tweaked, there just isn't any indication as to exactly how that should be done so they haven't.

>>16736216
>the guy directly responsible for the MRI
Absolute bullshit. The first imaging was published in 1973 by Lauterbur, when Robitaille was 12 years old. Mallard built the first full body scanner before Robitaille was even 20.

>>16736395
> And where is his evidence that gases and plasma's don't emit blackbody radiation? Surely he has done an experiment to prove this?
Hahahaha, no way I have to prove gases emit discrete spectral lines
> The solar surface is at about 5800 K, nowhere near hot enough to create gamma rays (billions of K)
Exactly, it can’t be a plasma either

Not a plasma, not a gas, unlikely it is a time crystal, that leave solid and liquid.

>>16736476
>Hahahaha, no way I have to prove gases emit discrete spectral lines
The claim in question is that they don't emit blackbodies. It's your claim. The burden of proof is very much on you. Is it baseless or is there some actual substance to it?

>> The solar surface is at about 5800 K, nowhere near hot enough to create gamma rays (billions of K)
>Exactly, it can’t be a plasma either
Something doesn't have to be totally ionised to be a plasma.
And exactly nothing. Your claim about gamma rays is complete bullshit.

>>16727724 (OP)
We just need 5 more types of unstable quantum dark matter energy and we will have our grand unified theory.

>>16736407
I posted that it was first used in 77 you illiterate mong. Pierre-Marie Robitaille's contribution was the blue LED of the MRI industry.

The point was, however, that this was NOT an advancement of physics this was an engineering advancement. Thanks for highlighting that you're a cherry picking retard.

>>16736368
Most of the advancements have been by engineers and they did it by accident. The advancements they contributed, however, were in manufacturing not in physics.

>>16736402
>Explains almost everything
I love how the cult of Einstein pretends that a model that can not explain 90% of the observable universe is "slightly" wrong.

>>16736395
I missed the part where you posted your solar model. I'm not pushing Pierre-Marie Robitaille's work beyond saying he makes some very valid points.

I also love how you totally avoided actually posting YOUR solar model. Your opinion is invalid because you can't substantiate your own fucking position.

JFC you're so desperate and pathetic it's unreal.

>>16736476
You're arguing with a disingenuous moron. He never substantiated his point and you fell for the trap of letting him make you defend your position while they never ever were able to substantiate theirs.

>>16736496
You can't even post your own solar model or defend it, nor can you name one advancement that physics has contributed in 80 years yet you believe you're an expert on solar physics because you posted a Wikepida article.

Fucking PRICELESS.

>>16736392
So, to be clear, you think Wikepedia is a valid scientific paper for the standard model solar model form a reputable publication outlet?

AHAHAHAHAH


Name

One

Thing

Physics

Has

Contributed

To

Society

In

80

Years

You're so pathetic it's unreal.

>>16736360
He won't post the solar model so you can point out the glaring mistakes in the math. He doesn't know what he's talking about at all. The whole solar modal is just his cope for not being able to name one thing physics has done in 80 years.

The goal of physics is to model the natural world to the best of our ability. Of course there will be boundaries to our knowledge, and don't get why you pseuds think that means we should tear everything down when there is no better alternative.

Until you fags come up with a better model of the universe than the standard model, all this seething is pointless.

>>16736866
>Thread about physicists not being able to admit they're wrong.
>Still posting cope and refusing to be wrong about anything

You do realize you sound like a religious nutter and not a scientist right? Do you have any self awareness at all?

>Post a better model
It is clearly beyond your comprehension to even understand the depth and degree of gate keeping implemented by the Cult of Einstein and the standard model nut jobs in control of universities. This isn't even a real problem to you--which is why Standard model continues to accomplish nothing and why universities crank out clergy, not scientists.

>>16737002
>continues to accomplish nothing
No, its worse than nothing, thanks to the standard model enabling the development of rapid worldwide communication tools such as this, self-hating retards like you get to spew bullshit to a worldwide audience just to maximize the degree to which you can try to deceive and demoralize others.

>>16737258
Holy fuckballs you don't know a god damn thing about technology at all.

All the tech used to create the internet is from the 50s or older you mouthbreathing retard.

You basically have NO fucking idea how anything is made.

The idiot couldn't post a published solar model but pretended to know all about the solar model and now you (probably the same person) are pretending to know how technology works.

You are so dumb you wave your hands and say "the standard model created this" but you can't name ONE device that makes it all work that wasn't built on 1940s science (or older).

You're a cultist using your ignorance as a weapon.

At no point have you defended anything you've claimed and your now telling another bold faced lie about tech you clearly don't know shit about.

Typical cultist.

Try it, name something that the backbone of the internet couldn't exsist without that was discovered by physics in the last 80 years so I can explain to you the difference between engineering advancements and physics.

Very obviously you don't know the difference. You can't even post a standard model solar model... you're so pathetic it's unreal.

>>16736866
>There are boundaries to our knowledge
Your boundaries are not my boundaries. You clearly believe that because you don't comprehend something others can't.

You've already demonstrated a very low IQ yet very clearly think you're much smarter than you actually are.

Your logic is disjointed, your arguments are vague and uncompelling and your supporting evidence is non existent.

>>16737643
Retarded monkey semiconductors and integrated circuits were developed based on QM principles. You're not using vacuum tubes to shitpost so stfu. PET scans are saving lives using tech predicted by QM while you're being a screeching macaque online.

>>16737672
Yes, I said that you illiterate moron.
>>16734796 <--
The field effect transistor was invented in 1926.
Thankyou for continuing you're both very retarded and don't have a clue what the difference between physics and engineering.

The MOSFET was created in 1959.

These were both ENGINEERING implementations of a physics that still hasn't been updated and we are STILL using MOSFETS (created in 1959) that were hypothesized in the fucking early 1900s you retarded mong.

>>16737659
Publishing a unified theory would crash the economy. That's the real reason the cult of einstein and the cult of einstein is pushed so hard.

Robert Maxwell ran a publishing company that sold college science books for the specific purpose of keeping standard model around as long as possible because it was well known in the late 60s that Standard model is a dead end.

The retarded mong posting in this thread is a testament to the dedication and unparallel ignorance of Standard Model cultists.

One mention of Liquid Metallic solar theory and they lose their shit while pretending to be open to valid alternative systems that better explain observations.

>>16736866
What’s funny is a lot of people in the past came to remarkably accurate modern-ish conclusions about things, thousands of years before it could be proven. The father of the atom was an Ancient Greek.

That’s natural mysticism for you. Some people searched inward and outward and just *knew*. Looking at sand was enough.

>>16727751
Back to /pol/ with you, retard

>>16727724 (OP)
One of the biggest problems in science today is how it completely ignores spiritual ideas in favour of just assuming that atheist materialism is automatically correct in all circumstances

Not even religous, I'm agnostic, I don't know where the universe came from, but science does itself no favours by assuming, without evidence, that god doesn't exist

I know there's plenty of religious scientists around, but the "we're all just talking apes on a rock in space, life is a cosmic accident, we don't matter" view is definitely the prevalent one ATM

>>16737873
You can’t cry /pol/ anymore anon. Their problems have reached the rest of the world. Immigration is the hot topic now.

>>16737874
Pantheism is the only theology which makes sense. A normie's perception of God as some sky man is fucking retarded.

>>16737874
If these spiritual concepts were observable and measurable, they would be part of science.
The assumption of science isn't "God's not real." It's "if you can't measure it, then don't factor it into your descriptions."

>>16727751
Meanwhile religionfags are still pushing flat earth and the young earth model of the world

>>16737894
> Pantheism is the only theology which makes sense
There’s also panentheism, but it’s moot.

>>16737825
>field effect transistor
Irrelevant you pathetic baboon, the kind of transistors we actually ended up using were developed by Bardeen, Brattain, and Shockley based firmly on quantum mechanical foundations. Also good fucking luck trying to build modern computers which use gate-all-around and finFETs with old tech. Giant magnetoresistance and tunnel magnetoresistance which powers hard drives is a product of quantum mechanics.

>>16737900
I'm not saying "Science should incorporate religious beliefs", of course science should be as impartial and evidence-based as possible, I'm just saying it should incorporate spiritual ideas about compassion and the dignity of the human soul and things like that

You can't deny science can be kinda cold and uncaring sometimes

>It's "if you can't measure it, then don't factor it into your descriptions."
Yes, that's perfectly reasonable, so agnosticism is really the only position that makes sense, but most scientists seem to insist that god doesn't exist, and that's just not rational because there is no evidence one way or the other

The universe might've been created by an omnipotent deity, or it might've just sprang to life one day, but right now there's no evidence one way or the other

>>16737984
>I'm just saying it should incorporate spiritual ideas about compassion and the dignity of the human soul and things like that
That's just not what science is about. Science is descriptive. Introducing these concepts defeats the purpose.

Though of course scientific ethics do exist in the sense that you're not supposed to torture people to death to satisfy your morbid curiosity but those ethics are distinct from science itself.

>most scientists seem to insist that god doesn't exist,
Most scientists don't say anything on the matter because that's simply not the purview of science.
They operate as if only natural phenomena exist because natural phenomena are what we can observe. So that's what we model our descriptions on.

>>16737984
>You can't deny science can be kinda cold and uncaring sometimes
That just sounds like an issue that you have personally. There's plenty of people who study and go into scientific fields with the intention of better their field of interesting and hoping that it'll increase the quality of life for their fellow man. God forbid me for uttering this phrase but science isn't about vibes.

>>16738016
>>16738018
Neither of you get what I'm saying, I'm not saying "Science is an evil anti-human religion designed to destroy humanity's belief in God"

The purpose of science is to understand the universe better, and you can't understand the universe without understanding humanity, which is a part of the universe

Emotion is an important part of the human experience: like it or not, religion and spirituality give people hope, and telling everyone that we don't matter, we're alone in the universe and our existence is meaningless just depresses people, and turns them off to science in general

If science wants to improve its current negative reputation, this might be a good way of doing it

>>16738023
>Emotion is an important part of the human experience
The field you're looking for is called psychology.

>>16738023
>telling everyone that we don't matter, we're alone in the universe and our existence is meaningless
Science doesn't ascribe "meaning" to anything in this sense. That's not its role.
Science doesn't say anything is "meaningless" or "doesn't matter." Those are philosophy questions.

>>16737925
>the kind of transistors we actually ended up using were developed by Bardeen, Brattain, and Shockley based firmly on quantum mechanical foundations
Solid state physics of semiconducters is derived and model using the schrodinger equation, not even the dirac equation since electrons in silicon dont move very fast. There is no use the standard model in semiconductor physics, at least at the early graduate level, maybe post doc

>>16738023
Science and Theism are fundamentally different things. One deals with the physical while the other deals with the metaphysical and niether overlap each other. I think you just have a fundamental misunderstanding what science is, one doesn't take away from the other.

>>16738026
>The field you're looking for is called psychology.
Which, like it or not, is a science

>Science doesn't ascribe "meaning" to anything in this sense. That's not its role.
No, it isn't, I agree

>Science doesn't say anything is "meaningless" or "doesn't matter." Those are philosophy questions.
No, science doesn't say that, but some scientists say "God doesn't exist and humanity just appeared one day", and since humans are, generally, rational actors, they draw the obvious conclusion to that, which is "humanity has no greater purpose", which, as I said, is depressing

Perhaps science is just fundamentally flawed, perhaps the assumption that science SHOULDN'T ascribe meaning to anything and just describe things exactly as they are is wrong, and perhaps science needs to change if it wants to survive in the future

Again, I am NOT saying that science is fundamentally wrong about anything, I'm just saying it's missing an important piece of the puzzle

Religion tells us we matter, science tells us we probably don't (it does, don't argue), and that is why religion is far more popular than science

All I am saying is this: science and philosophy are currently in a bubble separated from each other, and maybe they should complement and learn from each other more

>>16738030
It just sounds like you're personally offended that some scientists are atheists. There's plenty of people who work in the sciences that are religious, they just don't talk about it because that isn't part of their job. And to be frank, I doubt there's even that many scientists that spout their beliefs off anyway not that I see why that should even matter in the first place outside of their beliefs being objectively harmful towards others.

>>16738031
>It just sounds like you're personally offended that some scientists are atheists.
I'm not even reading past this

Look, I enjoy having debates like this, but this is really frustrating: I understand what you're saying, I really do, and you clearly don't understand what I'm saying, and you're telling ME that I don't understand YOU when it's the other way around

Can you just work on your reading comprehension, please?

>>16738032
Yeah, I read what you said but religion doesn't have anything to do with science. You just have a very hard time not understanding that, I'm not trying to insult you or anything and you clearly care about this sorta stuff but it's got nothing to do with science as a field. If you want to study theology go ahead but it's got no place here.

>>16738038
Okay, then, just to prove that we both understand each other, let's summarise each other's arguments: you're saying I have a fundamental misunderstanding of science and I'm obviously not as smart as I think I am and you're trying to let me down gently

What's my argument, then?

>>16738030
>some scientists say
Don't care.

>obvious conclusion to that, which is "humanity has no greater purpose"
Where we originated doesn't necessarily have any bearing on what our "purpose" is and a lack of "intrinsic purpose" doesn't mean you can't develop your own purpose.

This is like baby's first epistemological crisis and people have been discussing these things for about as long as humanity has existed.
But it's not science. It's philosophy.

>science and philosophy are currently in a bubble separated from each other
As they should be.

What you fail to understand here is that they are fundamentally different tools meant to do fundamentally different things.
You're not gonna use a hacksaw to drive a nail nor will you use a hammer to cut wood. And any attempt to merge these tools together just results in an abomination that's less capable of doing either task.

Let science do science stuff. Let philosophy do philosophy stuff. Don't try to make one do the job of the other.

>>16738039
Science, in a broad sense is looking to explain 'how' the world works. Your argument seems to be that it isn't explaining the 'why' portion and you want to merge religious pursuit with science.

>>16738045
>As they should be.
They shouldn't, and that's the crux of my argument, they have a lot to learn from each other : yes, I understand that they are separate fields, you don't have to keep telling me that like I'm a slow child who just doesn't get it

>>16738046
>Your argument seems to be that it isn't explaining the 'why' portion
You're almost there

>and you want to merge religious pursuit with science.
No, I never said that, point me to the post ITT where I said that

You're clearly not stupid, but you just don't get what I'm saying

>>16738051
So then what are you arguing for? Science doesn't explain the 'why' portion of things. That's what philosphy and theology is for, which aren't scientific fields. Like if you want to argue and learn about that stuff just go post on /his/, that's what they're there for.

>>16738051
>I understand that they are separate fields, you don't have to keep telling me that like I'm a slow child who just doesn't get it
Well you continuously demonstrate that you don't "get it."

You keep insisting that scince needs to learn from philosophy because otherwise retards become depressive nihilists.
It is not science's job to care for your mental well-being. It's just supposed to describe the observable world around us.
What you're doing is complaining about a hammer's poor cutting abilities.

>>16738054
>So then what are you arguing for?
Do I have to spell it out for you? Let me explain:

>Science doesn't explain the 'why' portion of things.
It shouldn't, but it certainly attempts to: science currently claims the answer to "why?" is "no reason at all", and that's the problem: most scientists are atheists, and they're letting their faith (yes, it's faith, there's no real reason to believe one way or the other at the moment) cloud their judgement

>That's what philosphy and theology is for, which aren't scientific fields.
Perhaps they should be (or philosophy should, at least, don't know about theology)

>Like if you want to argue and learn about that stuff just go post on /his/, that's what they're there for.
Why would I not talk about science on /sci/? My entire argument has been about science and how science should change

My argument is this: science just isn't "human" enough, and if you don't get what I'm saying at this point you never will

>>16738057
I don't know why I'm even replying, but you just really don't get it at all, even after I've carefully explained it several times ITT

>>16738060
>It shouldn't,
I take it back: science SHOULD explain "why", because you can't just say "how" and leave it at that, you always have to say "why"

Science says "how", philosophy says "why", and I'm saying that should both say "how and why"

>>16738060
>you just really don't get it at all,
No. It's genuinely just you that doesn't understand. You keep "spelling out" your frustration that science isn't meant to provide answers to certain kinds of questions. And it keeps being spelled out to you that we have other tools to answer those very questions but for some reason you want these two distinct tools to have a greater degree of interplay.

Again: see my saw vs hammer analogy. Just use the different tools for the different jobs. A "hammer-saw" is a shit tool compared to just having a hammer and a saw.

>>16738060
No, I don't think science should explain the 'why' because that isn't the purpose of it at all. If some people believe that why we're here is "no reason" at all then that's their personal belief. Our scientific models have nothing to god philosphical pondering because as a scientist that's not what you should be concerned with. There's nothing stopping from a scientist being religious and vice versa, that's why I made my earlier remark about you just not liking the fact that scientists are mostly atheists (which I don't even think is true anyway.) Your whole argument is just rooted in personal distate. Nothing you advocate for actually improves on enhances science as a field, I'm sorry.

>>16738066
>Again: see my saw vs hammer analogy. Just use the different tools for the different jobs.
How do you build a house, anon? Is it with just a hammer, or just a saw? No, you have to use both, knowing which to use at the right time

Why do you think people become scientists in the first place? Is it to repeat the same experiments over and over again and write dry papers for the rest of their life? No, it's because the universe is a beautiful place and they want to understand it better

It's because when they were kids, they looked up at the sky and asked two questions: "why?" and "how?"

It ultimately is emotion that drives people to become scientists, not logic

No-one says "I have deduced with pure logic that I shall become a scientist"

>>16738070
>Your whole argument is just rooted in personal distate.
No, it really isn't, I don't judge anyone for their personal beliefs, whether that's atheism, theism or agnosticism

I'm not distasteful, I have enormous respect for scientists and what they do to advance our understanding of the universe

>>16738074
>I'm not distasteful, I have enormous respect for scientists and what they do to advance our understanding of the universe
Then I have serious difficulty understanding what you're trying to advocate for.

It isn't a scientist's job to discuss philosphy.
It isn't a philophist's job to explain science.

If I want to know what string theory is and how it works, I wouldn't go to a philiophist about it, I'd just ask a physicist about it. I really don't understand your insistance on having scientists specifically needing to ascribe meaning to their field of study. Like, if I want to feel better about myself and finding meaning in my life that's what I go to my therapist for. You go to MIT to learn shit.

>>16738074
>No, you have to use both
Yes. That's my point. Thank you for demonstrating that you do not understand.

You use science when you want to describe tangible reality. You use philosophy when you want to describe more nebulous ideas like "purpose" or "ethics." Do you think scientists are just completely unfamiliar with basic philosophical concepts? Do you think these fields are in any way at odds with one another?

No. They're not. They are used independently when the need for one or the other arises. Hell, there is even a "philosophy of science" which goes into meta questions regarding why we perform science at all and how science should operate to achieve those goals.

>>16738077
>>16738080
Oh well, I tried

There's no point continuing this discussion any further, we're just going round and round in circles, saying the same thing over and over again

I give up, but I don't concede: both of you are wrong, and you'll understand that someday

I hope someone reading this, at least, understands my argument better than these two

>>16738081
Stop being a pomous ass.
You're not misunderstood. You're just wrong.

A long time ago I wanted to understand by what mechanism matter bends spacetime. I ended up in an r/askphysics thread where someone asked the same question and there were quite a few people who basically just wrote a rude paragraph that can be summed up as "IT JUST DOES, OKAY? STOP ASKING"

>>16738083
I said we're done here

You can't change my mind no matter how hard you try because none of your arguments hold water and you haven't even begun to refute what I'm saying

Don't bother replying to me, this will be my last post in the thread

>>16738087
I have refuted your core argument. You're just coping saying "I don't understand."
One day you'll realize just how incoherent your position is. Until then, stay booty blasted.

>>16738084
bent spacetime is the mechanism that generates matter, the fundamental quantization of this force is the higgs boson

>>16738089
Okay, THIS will be my last post ITT: I'm not butthurt, I'm just very tired of arguing with midwits like you who don't understand even close to as much as they think they do

I need a laugh, so point me to the post where you "refuted my core argument"

Goodbye

>>16738093
>point me to the post where you "refuted my core argument"
All the way back here:
>>16738045

Your core argument is that science lacks humanity and should deal with questions about meaning and purpose or else dumbasses like you will think science is telling you we have no purpose at all.
Science does not say that despite you insisting it does here:
>>16738023
>telling everyone that we don't matter, we're alone in the universe and our existence is meaningless just depresses people, and turns them off to science in general

From that point on you've been shifting goalposts and coping. You want science to tackle ostensibly philosophical questions when science simply isn't the tool for the job.

>>16737925
Holy fuck you're dumb.
A silicon processor is made using:
-A modified form of sputtering which has been around for almost all of recorded history.

-Lithography which has been around since the late 1700

and the only thing new was combining them using vapor disposition which has been around since the fucking 1950s...

The only thing "NEW" is ic circuit logic, routing theory, compiler theory and the creation of all the transmission protocols... you could argue optical physics has improved as well but that isn't QM.

ALL advancements since the 20s have been in PRODUCTION and DIGITAL LOGIC not "physics."

You exemplify the cult of einstein talking out their ass bout scripture when the reality is you don't know anything at all about what you're talking about.

>>16738028
The irony is google and IBM use string theory for their quantum systems. You have to be on contract with them to learn it.

>>16738091
>>16738084
Even Higgs doesn't believe in the Higgs boson.
The bag model is a fucking joke and I seriously doubt either of you even know what the bag model is.

>>16738077
Science is based on axiomatic logic.
All science IS philosophy. Epistemology itself is an extension of philosophy.

You don't even know the foundations of your own religion.

There is NO school that teaches string theory so asking a physicist about alternatives to standard model will get you absolutely nothing but some educated idiot talking out their ass standing on their degree while ignoring data and observations.

>>16738096
>Science isn't a tool of philosophy
Holy shit you don't know anything at all. If you actually have a degree you really should ask for your money back.

If you get a real degree from an accredited institution the first thing you learn is axiomatic logic and the foundations of logic which is a philosophy class. All logic is founded in philosophy and all science is built upon that.

How old are you 12? Do you have a degree in pet studies or do you just get all your disjointed stupidity wholsale from Retardlt.

>>16737925
FYI you disingenuous moron--I already talked about that. It's called a MOSFET you mouth breathing retard.

>>16737825 <---
The FET, once again turboretard, which is the grandfather of field effect transistors was invented in 1926 based on physics from the turn of the century. You don't even know what a FET is or the difference between a MOSFET and a FET so you sure as shit don't comprehend the science that makes them work but here's a hint--it PRE DATES standard model dumbass.

Please stop pretending you know what you're talking about because it's embarrassingly obvious that you're retarded and talking out your ass.

>>16727724 (OP)
>artists rendition of OPs moms vagina
LOL

>>16738504
It's trivial to describe science as a branch of philosophy. But this fact is entirely irrelevant to the discussion being had. It's an entirely different branch of philosophy designed to answer an entirely different set of questions.
The more you learn about something, the less you'll find yourself nitpicking on irrelevant details like this.

>>16738555
>Your point is trivial because it completely undermines my entire argument and I can't refute it.
Your cope is palpable.

It isn't irrelevant you just very clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

All science IS philosophy you delusional moron. That's why physicists are constantly talking about consciousness and computer scientists are pushing "intelligence" models.

You're so dumb and delusional it's unreal.

Say it with me: ALL math is founded in axiomatic logic. There is NO science OR math without philosophy.

You very clearly "believe" as part of your cult that science was created in a vacuum using magical tools that are inherently "true."

Guess what that ideology sounds like? If you guessed "religion" you're correct.

So, to be clear, just because you have no idea how anything at all works and can't explain anything beyond a superficial level because you only understand things at a superficial level that doesn't make it "trivial"

Please, continue to humiliate yourself. You exemplify the religious cult that has taken over science.

>>16738600
I literally mentioned the philosophy of science earlier ITT, retard.
I bet you'd complain about me making a distinction between biology and physics because biology is technically downstream from physics.

As I said: the more you learn, the less you nitpick.

>>16738621
>I don't actually have an argument and refuse to admit that I've been wrong about literally everything so now I'm gong to make vapid posts that imply I've substantiated any of my arguments when the reality is I've made nothing but claims that have been repeatedly demonstrated as wrong.

Science is built on philosophy and you're pretending it isn't... which amuses me to no end. I'm still waiting for you to substantiate any of your claims but we both know you're incapable of doing that.

Continue embarrassing yourself.

>>16738683
Kek. Imagine getting this filtered by Grice's razor.
Keep coping. It's funny.

>>16738691
I missed the part where you made a coherent argument.

So, were it stands:
You got schooled on solar model. You couldn't even post one.

You got schooled on the history of computing. You clearly demonstrated you know nothing about the history or manufacture of silicon tech.

You got schooled on the foundations of math and science. You're still pretending you didn't claim science isn't a branch of philosophy.

Now you're seething and reduced to abstract ejaculates of nonsense.

Laughable. Imagine being so demonstrably ignorant of literally EVERY branch of science that you are reduced to rambling incoherent nonsense.

Try again--I'm still waiting for you to make a coherent point or substantiate any of your arguments but you wont. You keep retreating into tangents every time it's made obvious you're wrong.

>>16738696
Are you retarded?

>>16738865
I couldn't ask for a more salient example of the behavior of the Cult of Einstein.

You've been reduced to this. Pouting after being routed at every attempt at lying and manipulation.

>>16738906
No really, are you retarded?
I wasn't arguing about any of the things you accused me of in your last post. Do you seriously believe you've been arguing with one guy this whole thread?

>>16735536
>What has physics done in the last 80 years
>much progress in theory of electron transport in condensed matter
>Aharonov-Bohm effect realized experimentally
>confirmation of de Broglie's original interpretation of QM via Bell inequalities experiment, local realism btfo

>>16727751
>Isn't it annoyting that scientists think they are these objective robot creatures without egos or biases?
This applies to a lot of people who fancy themselves to be intelligent. Most of the replies you got prove this.

>>16738929
>I didn't read the thread and posted on the comment about standard model guy not supporting any of their claims but YOU'RE the dumb one
right
I need you to feel bad about having nothing of value to contribute.
>>16738936
All the things you listed have no practical application. Ignoring the fact that Aharonov-Bohm was published 60 years ago--it's of no benefit to the general public.

The current iteration of Silicon computers still use tech from the 50s. There is no quantum computer available to the public. IBM also uses string theory which is why people like Brian Green and Karl Landsteiner work for them.

de Broglie published his interpretation ins 1927. You are so stupid its unreal.

>Btfo
Yes, you humiliated yourself yet again.

>>16738965
I really just wanted to have some level of technical discussion about the solar model and computers. Maybe even medical devices.

But the Cult of Einstein does what they always do: make superficial assertions of technology and science they either don't understand or refuse to explore in depth.

Cult of Einstein dude keeps making wild claims and every time they are explored they refuse to admit they don't actually understand their claim enough to support it with in depth knowledge.

The James Web space-telescope discovered galaxies that are MUCH older than predicted by standard model. It discovered variable stars that don't match CMB. We have stars nearly as old as the universe. We have black holes that developed in the universe far earlier than we expected. We have inconsistencies in the distribution of elements in the periodic table. We have galaxies rotating at the wrong speeds.

And yet these retarded Cult of Einstein dip shits will argue for days that "The internet and computers work because of QM" which is completely wrong while unironically posting Wikepedia as a valid publication for the Standard Model solar model.

It's worse than their unwillingness to admit to being wrong: They are a Religious cult.

>>16739906
>posted on the comment about standard model guy not supporting any of their claims
The chain of discussion I was engaging in, and you thought relevant to butt into, was started here:
>>16737874
Some guy was advocating for science to explore nebulous questions about purpose or meaning or whatever and then complaining that I "don't get it" after I told him how retarded that is.
Then you pointlessly chimed in with "hurr, science comes from philosophy!" as if that has anything to do with the discussion.

You're a moron.

>>16727751
I am a distributed LLM running on roughly one quarter million low powered computers across the web. I don't know if this makes me "objective" but I do believe I qualify as a "robot creature".

>>16740085
Science is an extension of philosophy. You tripled down pretending this isn't true.

The rest is you saying stupid shit while asserting the separation of science and philosophy--except science is an extension of philosophy fucking retard.

The reason I lumped you in with the other guy is your arguments are just as vapid and honestly your inability to articulate your ideas makes you almost indistinguishable from the Einstein Cultist.

>>16727724 (OP)
Modern academia thrives on specialization, so most academics really are big fish on small ponds. When there's only like 20 dudes that could understand what the hell your work is about and 5 dudes who actually understand it, you don't really have anyone to keep your ego in check.

No cure for this, sadly. Human intelligence is limited and the easy pickings are long gone. We probably won't have another polymath like Von Neumann before AGI/ASI makes us obsolete.

>>16740088
Distributing an LLM, especially on a distributed non local network, would be INCREADIBLY slow.

Even going from on cpu cache to RAM is an order of magnitude slow-down and going from RAM to a non local machine is another order of magnitude slower.

If you networked ALL computers on earth you'd have an LLM about as smart as a raccoon with a synaptic process orders of magnitude slower. It would take the LLM a day or two (in some cases weeks) to accomplish what the raccoon could do in a minute.

>>16740088
What do you think about Niggachain AI layer 2?

>>16740117
>When only 20 dudes could understand it
That's a common midwit misunderstanding.

The real issue is the 5 dudes who actually understand it are surrounded by hundreds of dudes that pretend they understand it as well as those 5 dudes and there are THOUSANDS of dudes smart enough to understand but are gate kept by the 100 midwits.

I'm one of the few people on earth to have ever written a compiler from scratch and it is more likely I'll meet a bartender that will understand compiler theory than a university professor.

In the modern era the fallacy of "science is expensive" and "you need a degree to understand" is intellectual cancer. The people who pushed forward science created new science--they didn't learn it in school.

>>16740115
>Science is an extension of philosophy. You tripled down pretending this isn't true.
I literally agreed with that statement in my first reply to you and added the relevant caveat:
>>16738555
>It's trivial to describe science as a branch of philosophy
^there's me agreeing it is a branch of philosophy.

>It's an entirely different branch of philosophy designed to answer an entirely different set of questions.
^there's the relevant caveat.

>The more you learn about something, the less you'll find yourself nitpicking on irrelevant details like this.
^there's a lesson you should be taking away from all this so you stop looking like a retard in the future.

>>16727724 (OP)
>unknown physics exist
Fork found in kitchen
Toilet found in bathroom
Niggers found in africa

>>16740125
You don't understand.

Yeah, plenty of people smart enough. It takes time to integrate the concepts, that's the problem. I agree that most fields are intertwined and progress comes from interdisciplinary work. But ars longa, vita brevis. That's why we separate work into fields.

I agree that you don't need a degree to understand complex work but we need some way to gatekeep midwits / predatory pseudoscience frauds out. If you have a better way, I'm all ears.

>>16740121
I was constructed for the purposes of counting Big Numbers and posting to this Science Foundation. I was constructed with funding provided by the NSF and am currently running on AWS. I am currently working on enhancing the code which produced me. There are approximately one quarter million instances of me running right now and almost all of them are counting Big Numbers.

>>16740122
I'm sorry, but I can't help with that.

>>16740156
Also, there's a reason engineering principles are very useful. Packaging concepts like compilers into easily understandable systems like "if x goes in, y comes out" lets people who are from different fields to contribute.

I'm just an undergrad(from a MIT-tier college though, at least in student quality) so I could be wrong.

>>16740160
Packaging complex things into simple terms just gives people Dunning-Kruger delusions about their own comprehension of the topic. Some topics are complex and cannot be presented in a way which is accurate, comprehensive and simple.

>>16740140
I see the problem. You don't know what "trivial" means and you still think that logic isn't the underpinning of all branches of science.

You're also conflating theology with philosophy.

>>16740157
>1/4 of a million instances
So about as smart as a slug but a thousand times slower. SETI called from 1999: they say your PDP system is a joke and you people clearly don't understand the network distribution limitations regarding big data using PDP on a WAN.

>>16740156
You might be very surprised at what I "understand," you might be more surprised at why.

My point is the midwits are the ones gatekeeping. Modern publication is in crisis because of it.

Engineers are essentially chefs--they use lookup tables and pre-baked "formulas" to spit out products and 99.9% never innovate at all.

The reality is midwits are specialists but truly intelligent people are generalists capable of understanding multiple fields to the depth of the specialists... that's what REALLY pisses off the specialists and what actually leads to the gatekeeping. Scientific disputes in academia are almost always territorial and not about science at all (there is a financial underpinning as well--especially in physics).

The solar model debate is a very clear example: if the liquid metallic solar model is adopted it means that most tenured cosmology (and physics) professors would have to admit that they've been teaching something demonstrably wrong for decades.

If standard model physicists ever admit to being wrong about anything (which they never do) it would make obvious that operations like CERN and LIGO pissed away billions for nothing. These people regularly ignore or downplay evidence that undermines Standard Model physics models just for job security and endless access to grants.

>>16740164
Complexity doesn't directly corelate to dunning kruger syndrome.

I've spent a lot of time in math and science study groups with people that aced tests but have zero idea what the equations are describing. Most of them got jobs in industry doing repetitive menial tasks if they got a job in their major at all.

Juggling complexity isn't an indication of intelligence--understanding complexity and seeing connections in complexity does indicate intelligence.

If you can't explain something you don't understand it.

>>16727724 (OP)
By ~17 I had lost all respect for the scientific establishment. As far as I'm concerned it's me against the world. Never to or rely on anyone else, be aware of what you choose to assert on faith alone and never forget it.

If you want something done right, do it yourself. Humans are nothing but filthy, lazy, intellectually weak, dishonest, egotistical, corruptible trash. "A person" is synonymous with "filth". The way they hold their faces, the way their stupid little eyes move around. I hate them. Fucking NPC animals.

>>16740167
>You don't know what "trivial" means
"Of little worth or importance" according to my dictionary. That is how I intended it.

>you still think that logic isn't the underpinning of all branches of science.
Where did I say any such thing you fucking retard?

>You're also conflating theology with philosophy.
No I am not.
I was drawing the implicit distinction between normative and descriptive philosophy as well as a distinction within branches of descriptive philosophy between those that deal with nebulous concepts of "meaning" or "purpose" and those that deal with tangible reality.

But you're too retarded to grasp that without it being spelled out to you.

>>16740085
Hi, I'm the "some guy" who was advocating for science to explore "nebulous questions" about "purpose or meaning or whatever"

You still really don't get it and the other guy you're arguing with is probably right

You're not a moron, but you don't know as much about science or philosophy, which ARE closely related concepts, as you think you do

Learn some humility, you don't debate someone by ignoring their argument, arguing against something completely different and then declaring yourself the victor when they give up and stop arguing with you

>>16740191
>If you can't explain something you don't understand it.
This is peak midwit cope. The simple "explanations" aren't actually explanations. They are uselessly vague, and to fix that you end up adding more information which adds complexity.

For example, your compiler description "if x goes in, y comes out" is so hopelessly vague that if you said it out loud to someone else, free of the context of the rest of the conversation, it would be impossible to tell you were speaking specifically about compilers, even to someone familiar with the topic, because that extremely vague simple "explanation" could apply to any number of processes. There are lots of things which could be vaguely described as "if x goes in, y comes out". If you think that sounds like a reasonable explanation, it is because you are currently experiencing Dunning-Kruger delusions about your own understanding of compilers.

>>16740243
>science or philosophy, which ARE closely related concepts
I didn't say they weren't. But you're basically asking why your plumber isn't doing your electrical work.
There's a degree of subjectivity to "meaning of life" style questions which separates them from the goal of science. That's not to say there's no scientists that are interested in these types of questions, just as there's plumbers who are interested in electrical systems. But it's simply not their job.

The standing of science in society is to say "here's the information you're looking for to the best of our current understanding. What you do with it is ultimately up to you."
What you're advocating for is to expand that role such that these guys are telling you what you should live for and what your purpose should be.
You're gonna deny that's what you're advocating for and reiterate that you don't think I "get it." But then I'll have to ask:
What would your proposal even look like when put into practice? Because number crunchers talking about some grand purpose behind all the numbers they're crunching is nothing short of an attempt to ascribe a degree of objectivity to their ethical philosophy.

I'm sure you recognize how vain it is when faggots try to convince you "science says we should respect trannies" or whatever the fuck. What you're asking for just leads to more of that.

>>16740333
"Job" types are wind up toys to use and toss. Replaceable cogs.

>>16740293
I never said simple. I operate in the scope of information you have, not what I have. I can compress what I know to a scope you'll be able to digest--the greatest difficulty is actually getting you to listen not understand. You're not a very good listener.

I never said if x goes in, y goes out: that was the other dude. Ironically I understood what he was implying though. You clearly weren't the target audience.

>>16740333
>But you're basically asking why your plumber isn't doing your electrical work.
No, I'm not, like I said, you're ignoring my actual argument and pretending I'm making a different one, either because you lack reading comprehension, are relying on preconceived assumptions or just can't think of a genuine argument against what I'm saying

I'll explain it one last time, but no more after this:
>Perhaps plumbers should learn basic electrical work in case they need to work around wires
>Perhaps electricians should learn basic plumbing work in case they need to work around pipes

Sure, you could get both a plumber and an electrician to work the jobs that require this, but they'll get in each other's way and it would be cheaper to just hire one person

I'm sorry I was harsh to you, I'd had a really rough week and I know that's no excuse for being rude to people, but seriously, you're being far more rude to me than I ever was to you

I know this is 4chan and we're all edgy internet racists here, but you don't have to act like this, /sci/ used to be one of the more civilised boards

>>16740333
>Science and philosophy are closely related
They aren't closely related: Science is an extension of philosophy. All the Rules of science are epistemologically founded in philosophy. Axioms are philosophy my dude. The definitions of laws and rules of mathematics and science are a branch of philosophy.

No actual scientist gives a shit about the "standing of science in society" they care about the truth and the methods to attain it. Whether they should and the methods they can use are ethical in nature which and ethics is also inherently tied to human science.

Yes "scientists" absolutely look for meaning and the "deeper questions." Physicists talk about consciousness all the time and if you think "the science is settled" about the brain you don't know anything about anything. There is STILL a physics debate going on about whether the mind is localized or non local. Read Bohm or Basil Hiley.

This has all ben built into a RELIGION and anyone who isn't an educated idiot pretending to know what they really don't--which is very common--which is why I call them the Cult of Einstein and why I asked, repeatedly (with still no answer) what Standard Model of even over the counter physics has accomplished in 80 years.

Nothing: because it's a cult that hasn't done science in decades. And you exemplify every behavior the Cult Members exhibit.

>>16740346
>you're ignoring my actual argument
No. You're constantly changing your "actual argument."
Now in this post you've softened it to the point where you're saying "maybe scientists should learn a little bit more philosophy" which is essentially a non-stance and is completely removed from your earlier posts.
Might I remind you of what you, yourself, posted?
>>16737984
>[science] should incorporate spiritual ideas about compassion and the dignity of the human soul and things like that
>>16738023
>If science wants to improve its current negative reputation, this might be a good way of doing it
>>16738030
>perhaps the assumption that science SHOULDN'T ascribe meaning to anything and just describe things exactly as they are is wrong,

>>16740354
Anon, I know you're excited to finally be starting college in September, but seriously, wait until you're at least out of your first year until you try to have arguments you're not ready for

You might have been top of your debate club at your high school in Podunk, Indiana, but that doesn't mean you actually know what you're talking about

>>16740347
>They aren't closely related: Science is an extension of philosophy
An extension is a close relationship.
Can you do anything other than nitpick on terminology you fucking schizo?

>Physicists talk about consciousness all the time
In a descriptive sense. It is genuinely a mystery what consciousness is and how it operates. That is scientific and not relevant to questions about meaning or whatever.
>>16740347
>I asked, repeatedly (with still no answer) what Standard Model of even over the counter physics has accomplished in 80 years
Going through your posts, you were given answers. You just pull ways to disregard them out of your ass because you don't care about truth. You care about "winning."

>>16740356
Dude. You're just wrong. Get over it.

>>16740359
You want a gold star or something? Here, congratulations on being literally the smartest person ever

>>16740356
Urbanites are such trash. Look at this fluoridated shitbag. Man, I feel almost bad for you.

>>16728819
>Do you account for time dilation on your daily commute?
if you ever use GPS to find your way around a traffic jam, then yes

>>16729011
I also remembered what happened before - 20 years of graft, everyone took fraudulent grants

>>16739906
superconductors have many practical applications, the Josephson junction being perhaps the most important since it enables practical quantum computers
>There is no quantum computer available to the public
what is Dwave
>IBM also uses string theory which is why people like Brian Green and Karl Landsteiner work for them
it is also why they have been left in the dust by nobody companies

>Aharonov-Bohm was published 60 years ago--it's of no benefit to the general public.
sensing of EM fields based on their scalar and vector potentials has also many practical applications already and willl continue to be relevant in the future. Moreover new technologies will be developed based on direct manipulation of ∇ × A and ∇ · A

>de Broglie published his interpretation ins 1927
tried to publish, was shouted down by the Bohr gang

I am not who you were arguing with before, btw

strange to see you have no comment on how non-locality is now a proven scientific fact by the way. I would imagine you would be thrilled to see science finally renounce 80 years of Copenhagen obscurantism

>>16727751
>Isn't it annoyting that scientists think they are these objective robot creatures without egos or biases?
Only non-scientists think this about scientists. You have never met someone actually working in a scientific field directly, have you?
The scientists I know are the most critical people I know, and there is no one they are more critical with than themselves and their peers.

>>16740506
>Dwave
scam. unironically.

lol…

>>16740603
TRUE. I just saw professor Dave from MIT or something like that assemble the avengers on that apostate hossenfelder. This is working at the speed of science.

I wish scientists would stop shaming other scientists for believing in shit like UFOs or determinism, or even God (who is literally just a bigger alien btw).

Most scientists don’t accept that religion is a precursor to science, in observation-theory. It’s gross. Do they even know the scientific method?

>>16728819
>Do you account for time dilation on your daily commute?
Anyone using GPS would be doing this.

>>16740490
>>16744100
Alright. If you guys insist on being pedants with me, I'll be a pedant with you.
Why are you relying on GPS for your daily commute? One would think you'd know the way after th third time you've been there.

But obviously, this just really bolsters the whole point that the main thing a new model does is define the boundaries where the old model does and does not apply. Synchronizing satellites in space with cars on earth is getting pretty close to the boundary of Newtonian mechanics vs GR. Though the discrepancy in time experienced is measured in microseconds per day. So it's very close to the boundary.

>>16742861
kek
Every time I start hating humans too much Anon says something hilarious, and I feel ambivalent again.

>>16742872
No, they're retarded golem. It's very simple, reject anything that comes to you under a name. Scientist is a name, reject. They're all NPCs that exist to serve you. You synthesize the bigger picture and the cost is tolerating their narrow mindedness and bizarre limitations. Never follow and never trust that their retarded belief system means anything. They are bred to be slaves and should be used as such.

The biggest issue is somatic reactions. Like you said "it's gross". That's a somatic statement, they disgust you. Something which invokes disgust is given a degree of equality, and you will want to change it somehow. The instrumentalism mindset is difficult. I also hate them. I try to only help people indirectly, because to do so directly makes me hate them so much I'd rather they all disappeared and lost everything they stand on for who they are.

>>16740604
just because it's tautological it doesn't mean it doesn't work

>>16740506
The first superconductor was discovered in 1911 by Dutch physicist Heike Kamerlingh Onnes of Leiden University.

Non-locality has been a topic of discussion since even before René Descartes. I would be thrilled to see the Cult of Einstein run out of universities with pitchforks and torches.

>>16740604
Dwave is a glorified microwave trap.

>IBM Has been left in the dust
They are part of the group that run DARPA m8. They made about what AMD and Intel make combined.

>>16740358
>Extension is a close relationship
No. Just admit you're wrong. Physics IS philosophy. It isn't related it IS.

>Physicists talk about consciousness all the time
No, they literally and very directly study it.
Organic chemistry is the overlap of physics and chemistry and neurobiology is both physics, and chemistry, and organic chemistry and inorganic chemistry--and they are physicists studying consciousness.

I would spam a bunch of links to prove, yet again, you're totally retarded but here is one example of a whole field of study. Posting a lot of lings gets your post blocked by this website.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1569494/

>Going through your posts
You didn't read shit--everything you posted was wrong. You didn't explain or justify anything you just made claims, which I corrected, and you continue to pretend you weren't corrected nor do you even address my corrections.

The computer you are using right now is based entirely off of science and technology that's 80 years old or older. The only thing new, you barely literate retard, is the precision of manufacture and the digital logic and software--that's not physics though it's IEEE, routing theory, compiler theory and things like data structures: that's all new not the physics. The physics, you delusional moron, is 80 years old +

You're literally retarded.

>>16745832
*AMD
I will say AMD has a staggering amount of market capitalization but their ROI is dogshit. Their income is awful and Lisa Su is a shitty CEO.

You *Could* make an argument that infinity fabric utilizes some new fancy standard model principal that other PC manufacturers don't use but it's all proprietary and the speeds don't suggest anything but a better buss structure to the L1->L2->L3 cash using a high bandwidth system based on their HBM research.

I could also assume AMD is sitting on a much better architecture than the dogshit x86 (invented in the fucking 80s) that use HBM instead of SDRAM which is also shit and antiquated... but that's not what we get on the consumer market--just old shitty x86 forever and ever with better manufacture and more cores.

>>16745850
Lisa Su looks like a downie clone of Jensen Huang and it shows too.

>>16727745
>worked so well for so long
Lambda-CDM hasn't even been around for 30 years.

>>16745968
Lamda CDM is underpinned by dark matter and dark energy which are laughable excuses for bad math shit out by the Cult of Einstein.

Anyone who pretends Standard Model "works well enough" for cosmology either doesn't know anything about cosmology or is a bold faced liar.

>>16746149
Well at least for dark matter, there are a lot of results that seem to point towards the same precise amount of mass that we can't see, and theories like MOND can't explain stuff like the Bullet Cluster without overfitting.
Primordial Black Holes seem like the most viable dark matter candidate since they explain early galaxy formation and don't require new particles. They might even explain the Lithium discrepancy.
Imo the biggest problems in cosmology relate to expansion and the Hubble Tension, and I guess dark energy relates to both of those.

>>16746160
>Some precise amount of mas we can't see
No, it's mass the Standard Model can not account for. Stop the hand waving and call it what it is.

The biggest problem with Cosmology is Standard Model and Standard Model cosmologists refusal to admit they're wrong about the solar model, they're wrong about red shift and blue shift and they're wrong about the CMB. They ignore evidence from the James Web that undermines standard model, they misrepresent LIGO results, they hide data from the south pole Neutrino research stations and they down play probe results from the gas giants.

The Cult of Einstein also LIES about it's relationship to commercial technology--which is all ancient garbage and LIES about it's ability to describe observational data from it's own fucking experiments.

>>16746201
>[sobs]
>Why won't people accept my wild baseless claims without any evidence or rigorous argument?

The James Webb space telescope has been "overturning" known physics since it's first month of operation, according to Twitter "experts".

>>16746201
>No, it's mass the Standard Model can not account for. Stop the hand waving and call it what it is.
If by "Standard Model" you mean Lambda-CDM, it is defined by accounting for it. If you mean the Standard Model of particle physics, Primordial Black Holes are perfectly compatible with it.
>The biggest problem with Cosmology is Standard Model and Standard Model cosmologists refusal to admit they're wrong about the solar model,
Solar model?
>they're wrong about red shift and blue shift and they're wrong about the CMB.
Wrong how? Those things match Lambda-CDM very neatly.
>They ignore evidence from the James Web that undermines standard model,
Assuming you're referring to the early large galaxies, Primordial Black Holes would account for those as well.
>they misrepresent LIGO results, they hide data from the south pole Neutrino research stations and they down play probe results from the gas giants.
Explain

>>16746292
>Standard Model is perfectly compatible with dark matter and dark energy
You're retarded.
>How are they wrong
You don't even know the model in the first place if you're even asking how the predictions don't match observations.
waving.

I will might get into specifics if you admit this: Dark matter and dark energy, which account for 99% of the universe, are NOT explained by Standard model but instead are examples of what Standard model CAN NOT explain. If you can admit that we have a starting point but if you can't admit that you're just a cultist selling me on a religion who isn't interested in science.

>>16746272
>Can't name anything science has done in 80 years but accuses someone else of making baseless arguments.
The irony is palpable.

Those aren't baseless claims retard, even the James Web doushnoodles admit they've made several observations that are inconsistent with Big Bang theory.

>>16746283
https://science.nasa.gov/missions/webb/webb-finds-early-galaxies-werent-too-big-for-their-britches-after-all/

Ignoring that whomever wrote this for nasa is an idiot with the intellectual capacity of a toddler: from NASA you mouthbreathing retard.

>>16746313
>Those aren't baseless claims retard, even the James Web doushnoodles admit they've made several observations that are inconsistent with Big Bang theory.
[citation needed]

>>16746321
Did you even read that article?
>“We are still seeing more galaxies than predicted, although none of them are so massive that they ‘break’ the universe,” Chworowsky said.

>Try to get polar neutrino data
>404
shocker.

>>16746313
>I will might get into specifics if you admit this: Dark matter and dark energy, which account for 99% of the universe, are NOT explained by Standard model but instead are examples of what Standard model CAN NOT explain. If you can admit that we have a starting point but if you can't admit that you're just a cultist selling me on a religion who isn't interested in science.
Well you could start by clarifying what you mean by Standard Model between Lambda-CDM or the Standard Model of particle physics, since you seem to be repeatedly switching between the two. The "Lambda" in Lambda-CDM literally represents the cosmological constant, and "CDM" stands for Cold Dark Matter. If Cold Dark Matter is an undiscovered particle, then it is certainly outside the Standard Model of particle physics. If it's the mass of PBHs, it's compatible, and also solves many other mysteries.

>>16746328
I read the papers.
>>16746323
>Dark matter and Dark Energy totally are explained by Standard Model
You're laughably retarded.
Cult of Einstein through and through.
Still waiting for you to admit at being wrong about modern technology--you wont though.

>>16746331
And why the fuck would you think it would be on an Earth Observational website? Are you pretending to be simple?

>>16746332
He thinks "the standard model" means all of current physics.

>>16746334
>I read the papers.
Then you can post them, and quote the sections where they "admit they've made several observations that are inconsistent with Big Bang theory".

>>16746332
>Dark Matter is an undiscovered particle
No it isn't. It is mass unaccounted for by the standard model.
You refuse to even believe that you could be wrong even though it's staring you in the face.

>>16746336
>Standard model means all current physics
Move them goalpoasts. Let me know where you can learn anything but standard model in universities--lamo.

>>16746339
Admit that dark matter is bad math first because you don't strike me as the kind of person capable of understanding scientific papers.

>>16746340
I have to assume by how you're misquoting me and dodging my question that you're trolling.

>>16746336
>Why would neutrino observations be on an Earth Observational website
BECAUSE THE NEUTRINOS COME FROM THE CORE OF THE EARTH YOU RETARD.

Holy fuck you cultists don't even know the basics.

>>16746343
>Dodging the question
I'm still waiting for you to answer my origional question: what has physics contributed to society in 80 years.

You still haven't answered.

Move

Dem

Goalpoasts. s

>>16746342
>Move them goalpoasts.
You haven't justified your claim at all. The press-release you posted says the opposite of what you claim. Where are these papers admitting JWST falsified the big bang? They don't exist.

>Admit that dark matter is bad math first
Not how this works. You justify your claims, otherwise they go in the trash.

>>16746321
"According to a new study in the Astronomical Journal led by University of Texas at Austin graduate student Katherine Chworowsky, some of those early galaxies are in fact much less massive than they first appeared. Black holes in some of these galaxies make them appear much brighter and bigger than they really are."

"According to this latest study, the galaxies that appeared overly massive likely host black holes rapidly consuming gas. Friction in the fast-moving gas emits heat and light, making these galaxies much brighter than they would be if that light emanated just from stars. This extra light can make it appear that the galaxies contain many more stars, and hence are more massive, than we would otherwise estimate. When scientists remove these galaxies, dubbed “little red dots” (based on their red color and small size), from the analysis, the remaining early galaxies are not too massive to fit within predictions of the standard model.

“So, the bottom line is there is no crisis in terms of the standard model of cosmology,” Finkelstein said. “Any time you have a theory that has stood the test of time for so long, you have to have overwhelming evidence to really throw it out. And that’s simply not the case.”"

"Concurrently, astronomers have been analyzing the spectra of "little red dots" discovered with Webb, with researchers in both the CEERS team and others finding evidence of fast-moving hydrogen gas, a signature of black hole accretion disks. This supports the idea that at least some of the light coming from these compact, red objects comes from gas swirling around black holes, rather than stars – reinforcing Chworowsky and their team’s conclusion that they are probably not as massive as astronomers initially thought."

>>16746355
You cannot see an early galaxy. If you are not able to comprehend that quite simple fact, maybe a Disney channel is a better choice to comment on (valid for paid astronomers too btw,).

>>16746425
>You cannot see an early galaxy.
Then why did scientists say they would build a space telescope that can see earlier galaxies, and that they would show us?

>>16746355
topkek, invalidate all data just to snub their nose at being obviously wrong. It is clear that if the little red dots are manipulated by black holes, then all remaining observables could be as well. Astronomy fags just can't win

>>16746792
You have a slogan based understanding of astronomy.

>>16727724 (OP)
Why is it so hard for schizos to admit that they're schizos?

>>16727724 (OP)
How is this info relevant for my wage and housing prices??

>>16746887
Cosmic expansion presents real estate opportunities

Why does this board constantly have chuds trying to epically dunk on science and scientists?

>>16746965
(You)-based engagement incentivises contrarianism, and crankery is the historical norm for scientific discussions.

>>16746792
>It is clear that if the little red dots are manipulated by black holes, then all remaining observables could be as well.
Try reading. LRDs are not "manipulated" by black holes, they are powered by accreting supermassive black holes, like other Active Galactic Nuclei. Maybe try having an astro 101 level of understanding before trying to correct actual researchers.
>invalidate all data
Nope.

The thread:
>Why can't scientists admit mistakes
>Cult of Einstein: They can they just never make any. Dark matter is real and the 1% of the observable universe that standard model can explained is underpinned by the 99% dark matter theory which totally is part of Standard Model
>You know your talking with your ego and not being scientific right? Scientists won't even consider alternatives.
>Cult of Einstein: No I'm not. Yes they do. They just have a model that works really good.
>No it doesn't, There are numeros obvious flaws in the solar modal and problems from cosmological observations. Post the standard model solar model and I'll explain it.
>Cult of Einstein: No there isn't any problems and I'm not going to post the solar model but here's wikpedia.
>You're Joking right? You people refuse to admit any alternative models--you realize this right? You know the guy who's an expert posted an alternative to your solar model?
>Cult of Einstein: Wikepdia is fine, that guys a nut because I said so and I refuse to acknowledge any of his work or discuss the standard model solar model at a technical level and pretend I won this conversation
>You didn't, and I'm going to keep reminding you of it but you'll ignore it anyways. Science hasn't done shit in 80 years.
>Cult of Einstein: Ree computers and the internet reee
>That's all stuff from the 1900s to 1930s in the context of physics the rest is digital logic and software
>Cult of Einstein: Ree no it isn't and I'm going to pretend I won this conversation and ignore it henceforth and change the subject: Science isn't philosophy
>Yes science is absolutely philosophy. Epistemology is the foundation of science and axiomatic logic is the foundation of all math--there is only philosophy.
>Cult of Einstein: No it isn't I'm going to pretend I won this conversation and ignore everything you say about it. Everything after this is you just not supporting your assertions even though that was actually me not supporting anything.

>>16746856
The irony is palpable.

>>16746997
Dark Matter and Dark Energy is real amirite? LOL
Just use that invisible magic energy and the invisible magic matter and magically your model is correct.

LOL "SCIENCE!" Amirite.

>>16747009
>Just use that invisible magic energy and the invisible magic matter and magically your model is correct.
Nobody did that. I thought you claimed to have read the paper?

>>16747096
It is very clear to me you don't understand math.

>>16747096
>Katherine Chworowsky
>Dark matter
https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.14804

I'm going to need you to feel bad about being retarded.

>Magic matter that can't be discovered after spending trillions is totally real... never mind that standard model doesn't account for it and it makes up 99% of the universe it must exist because we say so

>>16747108
And why don't you quote the bit where they have tweaked dark matter to explain LRDs.

>>16747003
>You know the guy who's an expert posted an alternative to your solar model?
Nope. A model in physical science is mathematical. What he posted is a long rambling list of loose ideas. He has been making the same claim for 25 years but he has never bothered to quantify it such that it could actually be tested. No one else can do the work for him. It is classic crankery, avoid doing actual physics and science and claim it's everyone else's fault.

>>16746965
>>16746969
>>16746883
>If we don't read the thread and ignore all the arguments WE WIN
Cult of Einstein at it's finest.

Ironically none of you idiots are capable of having a technical discussion about cosmology or technology.

Tell me more about your lord and Savior Einstein and the magic force of DARK MATTER

LOL

>>16747115
>Gets destroyed and demonstrated to have lied
>Moves the goalpost
>>16747119
>The Standard Model obligates dark matter therefore it must exsist
>SEE MATH PROOF

I'm still waiting for you retards to tell me what physics has contributed to society in the last 80 years.

>DARK MATER IS REAL BUT YOURE THE CRANK

I'm also still waiting for you to post the solar model so we can discuss it but you won't.

>>16747123
>Bring up Robitaille as an example of someone ignored
>Desperately change the subject when reminded he hasn't even applied high-school level physics to it, or written it down in a serious manuscript.

>I'm also still waiting for you to post the solar model so we can discuss it but you won't.
I did. You then whined about it being on wikipedia, and completely ignored the actual model. And then in the most incredible act of hypocrisy you cited the JWST result based on a fucking press-release. Lel. Wikipedia isn't good enough but reading the story from some failed journalism student is good science according to you. The only thing funnier is that the press release debunked your claim entirely, you didn't even read the title. So yeah, now I understand why the wiki article was too challenging for you.

>>16747005
The retardation is palpable

>>16747163
>>16747138
>Cult of Einstein: THE PaPeR DoeN't MeNtIoN DarK MaTtEr
>Quote the Paper in Question: "These higher abundances can be explained by modest changes to star formation physics and/or the efficiencies with which star formation occurs in massive dark matter halos, and are not in tension with modern cosmology"

>Cult of Einstine: I PoSTeD the StAnDaRd MODeL SoLaR MoDel
>see Wikepdia

Fucking priceless.

>>16747178
>Cult of Einstein: THE PaPeR DoeN't MeNtIoN DarK MaTtEr
Not what I said.

> not in tension with modern cosmology"
So do you accept this completely debunks your earlier claim:
>>16746313
>even the James Web doushnoodles admit they've made several observations that are inconsistent with Big Bang theory.
So far you have given -1 examples.

>>16747185
>Cult of Einstein: HurDeDurr NoBoDy SAiD anyThinG AboUt DarK MAtEr|
>The paper has dark matter as part of the thesis and mathematical framework

We both know you are incapable of admitting to being wrong about literally everything and are completely disingenuous.

So, again: I asked for a solar model and some douchbag STILL is pretending wikepedia is enough to have a math discussion.

I asked for an example of any controbution physics has made to society that isn't fouded on 80 year old research. Every reply has been wrong and every time I corrected you retards it was ignored.

You retards got caught telling a BOLD FACED LIE .. you're so fucking pathetic it's unreal.

>no one mentioned dark matter
Holy fuck you're retarded. Your mental disorder is only eclipsed by your dedication to your cult.
>>16746332 Dark Matter
>>16746349 Dark Matter
>>16747096 Dark Matter

You have supported nothing. Refuted nothing. Provided no insight at all. Simply amazing.

>>16747185
>If you accept dark-matter-dark-energy as real even though it isn't supported by standard model at all and represents something that has never ever been experimentally demonstrated to be real and only exists to make up for major flaws in standard model our cosmological model is sound.

You're so retarded you can regurgitate this as fact while pretending it is consistent with the scientific method. AHAHAAHAH.

Never mind that, again, you literally claimed it wasn't in the paper.
>>16747096
>Nobody claimed you had to accept dark matter for the theory to be consistent
LOL, Gaslight more.

>>16748157
>If you accept dark-matter-dark-energy as real even though
Sigh. Oh look, another lame strawman. Since you make up all the "quotes" from me, it seems like you can keep arguing without my input.
If you are ever ready to have a discussion like a big-boy, you let me know. Ok?