[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
/sci/ - Science & Math

File: maxresdefault.jpg (146 KB, 1280x720)
146 KB JPG
> The Earth is round. (Yes oblate spheroids are round.)
> The Moon landings happened and space travel is real.
> Newtonian Mechanics is a correct and incomplete description of reality.
> Quantum Mechanics is a correct and incomplete description of reality.
> Special and General Relativity are correct and incomplete descriptions of reality.
> The Standard Model of particle physics is a correct and incomplete description of reality.
> Big Bang cosmology (The Lambda-CDM model) is a correct and incomplete description of reality.
> Darwinian evolution is a correct and incomplete description of reality.
> Faster-than-light communication is impossible.
> Perpetuum mobiles, over-unity devices, energy-from-nothing generators, propulsionless drives and the like can not and will never work.
> Likewise, it is impossible to extract work from the zero-point energy of the vacuum.
> Climate change is real, is happening right now, is a real threat and is mostly caused by humans.
> Approved vaccines are safe and effective.
> "I don't understand this" or "this doesn't make sense to me" are not legitimate criticisms of established scientific theories. The fact that the universe is not simple enough for you to understand is your failing, not the universe's.
> Anyone claiming to have an alternative theory to established science should be able to explain why established science seems to give correct answers *and* be able to give a concrete prediction that can be checked by experiment, where it should outperform current scientific theory.

For those who will undoubtedly start arguing about "correct and incomplete": With "correct" I mean that the theory correctly predicts the outcomes of experiments and does not differ appreciably from reality within the theory's domain of validity. "Incomplete" means that the theory's domain of validity does not encompass the entire universe. If you want to argue this, first read > http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm
>>
lol tru tru
>>
>>9926508
>correct and incomplete
This doesn't make sense when talking about descriptions of reality. No model is "correct" ever, only best approximations at any given time until replaced.
>>
>>9926508
> Climate change is real, is happening right now, is a real threat and is mostly caused by humans.
>>
>>9926601
Can't say one way or the other until you have an operating TOE, and even then, the models may still be correct in their scope, while the TOE simply ties them together. Until that arises, all the aforementioned models make correct predictions within their scopes, and regardless of what the TOE may entail, will continue to do so.

Newtonian physics will always predict the eight ball in the corner pocket correctly, provided the conditions are nominal. No subsequent theory is going to make that prediction incorrect - the best another theory can do is explain the reaction in more depth or widen the scope of conditions in which it will be correct (eg. relativistic eight balls.)
>>
>>9926604
I'm still skeptical. Why is/isn't it real?
>>
I like this list
>>
>>9926612
Politics.
>>
>>9926612
Ugh, there should really be an admission exam for /sci/

https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
>>
>>9926508
This list is completely reasonable,but I know dozens of poeple irl who would kick and scream at at least half of those statements, while going "wut is this" to the rest
>>
>>9926608
>Newtonian physics will always predict the eight ball in the corner pocket correctly, provided the conditions are nominal.
>always
>as long as you don't go fast
It doesn't work like that. Newtonian mechanics are not correct. They are wrong 100% of the time, even if the error is very small. GR replaces it completely.
>>
>>9926508
The first sign you are a delusional idiot is parroting what yout authority says and using words without defining their meaning,please define:
>correct
>incomplete
>impossible
>real
>safe
>effective
>legitimate criticisms
>>
File: 1508042969653.jpg (196 KB, 1080x1136)
196 KB JPG
>>9926508
Lol Globetards BTFO
>>
>>9926644
GR does not replace Newtonian physics, it doesn't even cover the same shit. You can't, for instance, use GR to predict an eight-ball going into a corner pocket. There's not even a mechanism for inertia.
>>
>>9926508
It's a shame people will accept most of that list except climate change because muh tribal politics.
>>
>>9926667
Wikipedia for inertia:
>As a result of this redefinition, Einstein also redefined the concept of "inertia" in terms ofgeodesic deviation instead, with some subtle but significant additional implications. The result of this is that, according to general relativity, inertia is the gravitational coupling between matter and spacetime.
>>
File: six-epochs.jpg (85 KB, 930x773)
85 KB JPG
>>9926508
> The Singularity is near.
>>
>>9926687
Which is great for planets, not so much for eight balls sitting at the bottom of a planet sized gravity well.
>>
>>9926704
General relativity still applies, just the values get negligible enough to use Newtonian physics. Newtonian is convenient and accurate at low speeds, but is still wrong 100% of the time. You will always be off, even for eight balls. Negligibly.
>>
>>9926696
Brains are more complicated than hardware and software.
>>
>>9926508
>Big Bang cosmology (The Lambda-CDM model) is a correct and incomplete description of reality.

Maybe in the 1990s, but science has moved on since then.

>Approved vaccines are MOSTLY safe and MOSTLY effective.

fixed
>>
>>9926715
>>9926687

GR does not explain electromagnetism, the strong and weak force, which are at work in the case of the eight-ball, >>9926667 is right. All it does is relating the curvature of space-time to its energy content, hence providing an excellent prediction of gravitational effects.
>>
>>9926696
Science fiction isn't real.
>>
>>9926742
GR does explain electromagnetism. Way more than Newton anyway.

Let's narrow our focus a bit. How about Newtonian gravity? Is it correct?
>>
>>9926746
Fiction isn't real?
>>
>>9926749
How about we move the goalposts back to where they were, and you make predictions in a game of pool with relativity?
>>
>>9926749
No it doesn't. In which part of GR does charge and photons appear?

Newtonian gravity is approximately correct in select cases, just like GR. It just turns out that GR explains everything Newtonian gravity does + more. But Newtonian physics describes cases which GR doesn't, like the eight-ball.
>>
>>9926715
You can no longer reasonably talk about being "off" when the corrections are smaller than any quantum uncertainty.
>>
>>9926508
> The Earth is round. (Yes oblate spheroids are round.)
False. There's no measurable curvature.
> The Moon landings happened and space travel is real.
False, the moon landings were staged and space travel is impossible because "space" doesn't exist.
> Newtonian Mechanics is a correct and incomplete description of reality.
It's a mathematical framework that can be useful in some situations but nothing more than that.
> Quantum Mechanics is a correct and incomplete description of reality.
Ditto above. Also needs to understand the role of "consciousness" on its effects.
> Special and General Relativity are correct and incomplete descriptions of reality.
Horseshit mathematical models parading as "science".
> The Standard Model of particle physics is a correct and incomplete description of reality.
Horseshit mathematical model parading as "science".
> Big Bang cosmology (The Lambda-CDM model) is a correct and incomplete description of reality.
Horseshit mathematical model parading as "science". Supposed "scientific observations/tests" are twisted to fit the model.
> Darwinian evolution is a correct and incomplete description of reality.
Horseshit theory that leads to an infinite regress.
> Faster-than-light communication is impossible.
Light doesn't have a speed.
> Perpetuum mobiles, over-unity devices, energy-from-nothing generators, propulsionless drives and the like can not and will never work.
They can if tapping into the magnetic field properly.
> Climate change is real, is happening right now, is a real threat and is mostly caused by humans.
Horseshit doomsday cult theory backed up by corrupted data for the purposes of green energy profits.
> Approved vaccines are safe and effective.
Not for everyone it seems.
>>
>>9926647
>The first sign you are a delusional idiot is parroting what yout authority says and using words without defining their meaning,please define:
I parrot nothing, I think for myself. I don't need to deny reality to feel intelectually satisfied.
>correct
Defined in the OP
>incomplete
Defined in the OP
>impossible
Cannot occur due to the way the universe works, and cannot be made possible with technological advances.
>real
It is true, regardless of anyone's personal belief that it is real or not, and there is sufficient evidence that it happened.
>safe
With minor side effects which have been deemed acceptable.
>effective
It works as intended with a small to negligible margin of error.
>legitimate criticisms
A criticism which rightfully points out a flaw of reasoning, an internal inconsistency or an inconsistency with empirical evidence.
>>
>>9926820
redpilled
>>
>>9926820
Found the Electric Universe fanatic. Have you found any plasmoids in your garage lab lately?
>>
>>9926508
>Big Bang cosmology (The Lambda-CDM model) is a correct
No. It is impossible for something to come out of nothing.
>>
>>9926860
I can see them when looking up at the night sky.
>>
>>9926865
> No. It is impossible for something to come out of nothing.
Current cosmology claims no such thing. Know what you criticize or keep quiet.
>>
>>9926639
oh man, your brain must be so big
>>
>>9926508
>The Jews are socially engineering Western nations to prepare them for the ultimate goal of creating an easily controllable mixed negroid race.
^ Here OP, you forgot one.
>>
>>9926508

>$\lim_{x\to\infty} \sin(x)$ does not exist.
>>
>>9927023
That's wrong, retard
>>
>>9926670
>>
>>9926653
Magnificent troll image.
>>
>>9926601
By OP's definition of correct the usage is fine. They are accurate within the scope they claim to be
>>
>>9927203
Glad to see some people still possess a sensible level of reading comprehension.
>>
>>9926696
God I wish it were.
>>
>>9926508
When people say FTL communication is impossible, are they meaning only in the conventional sense? Like: a particle will never fly faster than the speed of light?

Or do they also mean it in less conventional ways? Such that even warp communication will never be possible, despite warping space-time not technically breaking the FTL speedlimit?

._. Am a newb and really want a galactic internet to become a reality.
>>
>>9926508

good list, I mean we can argue about muh race or political conspiracies, but anyone claiming conspiracies in hard sciences is delusional
>>
>>9927383
It means that the universe will protect causality at all costs. If it can carry information, it is limited by c. Any information sent or caried faster than light means the future can influence the past. This cannot happen, causes must precede effects.
>>
>>9926508
This is more than five
>>
>>9927465
Probably the case, but this could also be wishful thinking, as were it not the case, it'd start breaking our brains.

The universe doesn't seem to care about whether it breaks our brains though. Einstein thought there must have been a hitherto unknown mechanism to prevent black holes from forming for the same reason (ie. singularities being mathematical abominations) - yet we've found all these superdense masses with no other explanation, in addition to having come to rely on them for the existence of the structures we observe.

Shit may happen.

Granted, at the same time, while there's nothing about the nature of space to prevent it from being folded in such a way, there may simply be no material mechanism that can cause it to do so.
>>
>>9927543
You raise a good point, but I am not arguing for causality because I like it or think it should hold.

The way the universe is structured seems completely rooted in causality. Everything we try to work out to circumvent or break causality always has some caveat or breaking detail. It reminds me of when people desperately tried to break or circumvent the second law of thermodynamics. Even though there was no deep reason to assume it couldn't be done, there was no way to do it.

This is my intuition as a physicist speaking by the way, but the way I see it, causality is as fundamental as the second law.
>>
>>9927627
Sure, but our understand of the second law had to be adapted to include information (demonic/information engine based on Maxwell's Demon). Our understanding of causality could be similarly lacking
>>
>>9926820
>Imagine being this delusional
>>
>>9926508
> Approved vaccines are safe and effective.
>Using epidemiologic and mechanistic evidence, the committee developed 158 causality conclusions and assigned each relationship between a vaccine and an adverse health problem to one of four categories of causation:
>However, for the majority of cases (135 vaccine-adverse event pairs), the evidence was inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship. Overall, the committee concludes that few health problems are caused by or clearly associated with vaccines.
>not related to vaccines because no data
>safe
>We didn't do the studies, therefore vaccines are safe.
>>
>>9927704
>Sure, but our understand of the second law had to be adapted to include information (demonic/information engine based on Maxwell's Demon). Our understanding of causality could be similarly lacking
I don't see how we had to modify the second law based on that thought experiment.

My point is: it's impossible to build a perpetuum mobile, and going FTL is the same kind of impossibility. No matter which clever trick you employ to try to make it work, another detail will crop up to render your design useless.
>>
>>9928197
This basically means that there was probably a single or a handful of cases for each where it's unclear whether the vaccine was relevant to the symptom at all. This means that even if there is a link, it is extremely rare. If there was a real significant harmful side effect, we'd have seen it by now.
>>
>>9926508
This should be a sticky thread
>>
Stop arguing with the logically illiterate.

>>
>>9926508
>> The Earth is round. (Yes oblate spheroids are round.)
no they aren't they are more like flattened ellipses because they spin you know
>>
>>9926508
I was with you until you wrote this pearl of nonsense
> Special and General Relativity are correct and incomplete descriptions of reality.

Then you outdid yourself a mere couple lines later, with an even bigger turd
> Big Bang cosmology (The Lambda-CDM model) is a correct and incomplete description of reality.

This one is mostly a harmless mistake:
> Climate change is real, is happening right now, is a real threat and is mostly caused by humans.
which tells me that you're a typical clueless bandwagoner.
>>
>>9926749
You are legit retarded.
>>
>>9928315
That's literally what an oblate spheroid is.
>>
>>9928318
If you think relativity is wrong, you're exceptionally delusional.
>>
>>9928329

flattards are in the thread, relativity denial is merely a rite of passage for them

just point and laugh, you cannot fix stupid
>>
>>9926601
>OP explicitly defines what is meant by "correct"
>"nuuuu it's not because I'm using a different definition of "correct" (which I'm not even going to bother to define btw)"
The absolute state /sci/, christ.
>>
>>9928403
Reading comprehension seems to be at an all time low.
>>
>>9928322
round? no they aren't
>>
>>9928303
>thought experiment
Do you have literacy issues?

>>
File: 1815-0309044995-450.jpg (62 KB, 450x725)
62 KB JPG
>>9928305
How would we see it? We don't do studies for vaxxed vs un vaxxed, saline injections, long-term, cumulative vaccines it used to be only a couple shots in a visit now children can get up to 9 in one doctor visit. We don't have a proper injury reporting system, vaers is unreliable.
>Although the FDA receives many adverse event reports, these probably represent only a fraction of the serious adverse events encountered by providers.
>Only about 1% of serious events are reported to the FDA, according to one study
>Aside from adverse events associated with specified vaccines(listed in the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act9, most reporting by health providers is voluntary.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2016-title42/pdf/USCODE-2016-title42-chap6A-subchapXIX-part2-subparta-sec300aa-14.pdf
Only a select few injuries are required to be reported by doctors, there is severe under reporting.
This is a list of commonly reported vaccine injuries, it wasn't a small handful these are what they get told most often when someone has an issue with a vaccine.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK234363/
https://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/prevguid/m0046738/m0046738.asp
>Inadequate evidence to accept or reject a causal relationship: Aseptic meningitis; Chronic neurologic damage; Learning disabilities and attention-deficit disorder; Hemolytic anemia; Juvenile diabetes; Guillain-Barre syndrome; Erythema multiforme; Peripheral mononeuropathy; Radiculoneuritis and other neuropathies; Thrombocytopenia; Thrombocytopenic purpura
>If research capacity and accomplishment in this field are not improved, future reviews of vaccine safety will be similarly handicapped.
These things have been commonly reported since 1991 and we still do not have any data on them, that is absolutely unacceptable to brush off.
>>
File: ftygh.png (1.27 MB, 1024x780)
1.27 MB PNG
>>9926508
>Climate change is real, is happening right now, is a real threat and is mostly caused by humans.

WHY DO THE SOLAR CYCLES MATCH UP WITH THE MIDEVIL WARMING PERIOD?!?!??!?!

HAVE YOU EVEN LOOKED INTO ROBERT SHOCH?!?!?!??!?!

https://youtu.be/Vka2ZgzZTvo

https://www.robertschoch.com/

DURING THE END OF THE ICE AGE THERE WERE MMMMMAAAASSSSIIIIVEVEVEEEEEEE

SOLAR STORMS AND AURORAS AND EXTREME RADIATION ON EARTH

THAT IS WHY MAN WENT UNDERGROUND AND TURNED WHITE

THIS IS WHY THERE ARE SIMILAR CAVE DRAWING ALL OVER THE WORLD OF THE "SQUATTING MAN" WHICH LOOKS LIKE AN AURORA SEEN FROM LOWER LATTITUDES
>>
>>9926604
This.

Probably the only reason for the thread. Post a bunch of obviously true statements and one obviously false statement. Pretty good bait
>>
File: Nintenbrainlet.png (13 KB, 211x239)
13 KB PNG
>>9926508
Kill yourself faggot
>>
>>9928678
seek help, schizo
>>
>>9926508
>"""""facts"""""
Brainlet.
>>
>>9928688
nah you fucking challenge your dogmas you brainwashed sheep
>>
>>9928709
This is not dogma. I have challenged each and every single one of the points mentioned on the list, and each and every one has turned out to be irrefutably true. If you deny this, you are delusional and no longer believe in reality, clear and simple.
>>
>>9928332
>guilt by association
You're retarded.

>>9928329
>you're exceptionally delusional.
No, just scientifically literate. Quantum Mechanics and Relativity cannot both be "correct but incomplete descriptions of reality". The math simply does not add up, so one of them is plain wrong. Since Quantum Mechanics has more evidence behind it, the choice is simple.
>>
>>9928726
Each covers shit outside the other's privy, and huge swaths QM require relativity. One does not replace the other, anymore than screwdrivers replace wrenches.
>>
>>9928726
You don't understand how domains of validity work. Both QM and relativity have significant overlap where they are both correct. Most notably, they both completely encompass Newtonian Mechanics.

There is just a small domain where both quantum and gravitational effects become of equal importance where the two theories appear to be incompatible. This does not negate the validity of GR and especially not that of SR in those instances where quantum effects do not interfere with strong gravitational effects.

Where did you learn physics? Pop-sci uni?
>>
>>9928306
I agree.
>>
>>9926508
>I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE the post
>>
>>9928717
>If you deny this, you are delusional and no longer believe in reality, clear and simple.
ego serving dogma

you think the Star in our solar system is purley STATIC???

greenland isotope data shows us this is not the case
>>
>>9928717
and btw im not saying that human carbon output has no effect

you said that quantum mechanics is correct and incomplete why do you think CLIMATE SCIENCE is correct and COMPLETE?!?!??!?!

even the best models and supercomputers cant simulate what's going on and require FUDGING to work
>>
>>9927034
>blindly believing one .jpg which reasserts my beliefs

https://www.skepticalscience.com/New-paper-agnotology-scientific-consensus.html
>>
File: 1526597837368.jpg (39 KB, 720x514)
39 KB JPG
>>9928519
There is decades worth of information for non vaccinated humans because vaccines came to the forefront after the invention of the small pox vaccine in 1796, small pox was declared eradicated in 1980. Using smallpox as an example we can see that vaccines could be many times more dangerous than they in fact are and they would still provide favourable health outcomes. Smallpox has a mortality rate in adults of 20-30% and 80% in children in addition hemorrhagic smallpox occurs in approximately 3-25% of fatal cases depending on the strain and is almost always fatal. Its estimated that smallpox killed 300-500 million people in the 20th century alone.
>>
>>9928797
>>
>>9926604
>>9928684
>>9926820
>>9928318
>>9928678

Lma imagine being an Amerimutt lurking on a """"science"""" board and being this stupid, as your President is.
Sorry, climate change is real shit. The 'human made it' thing can be debated, but climate change is real.

Seek help bras.
>>
>>9929106
>climate change is real
That's like saying "weather change is real". Got any more enlightening comments Sherlock?
>>
>>9929123
>haha the thing you said is technically another thing good job loser
>>
File: 2435.jpg (122 KB, 864x306)
122 KB JPG
>>9929106
>>9928717
DID I SAY THE CLIMATE WASN'T CHANGING??!?!?

DID I SAY HUMANS ARE NOT HAVING AN IMPACT?!??!?

ALL I SAID WAS THAT THE SUN CANNOT BE RULED OUT AS A VARIABLE AFFECTING THE CLIMATE AND TEMPERATURE?!?!?!?!

DID YOU KNOW WE DODGED A SOLAR STORM THAT WAS AS POWERFUL AS THE CARRINGTON EVENT IN 2012?!??!?

DID YOU KNOW THAT A FUCKING BUNCH OF ALUMINUM FOIL SENT TO THE LAGRANGE POINT COULD BOTH SLOW GLOBAL WARMING AND ALSO PROTECT US FROM SOLAR EVENTS LIKE THE CARRINGTON EVENT WHICH LIT TELEGRAPH POLES ON FIRE IN THE 19th CENTURY AND WOULD KNOCK OUT OUR POWER GRID FOR MONTHS?!?!??!?!

AND THE SOLAR CYCLES AND GREENLAND CORE SAMPLES CORRELATE TO THE MIDEVIL WARMING PERIOD AND END OF THE ICE AGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

REEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
>>
File: maxresdefault (1).jpg (65 KB, 482x487)
65 KB JPG
>>9929106
also trump derangement syndrome spotted

AND ALSO SOCIALIST SPOTTED REeeeeee

FUCKING ANY NON CONSENSUAL RELATIONSHIP IS RAEP INCLUDING TAXES (EXTORTION)
>>
File: G11.2-UK-Deaths-1838-1978.png (617 KB, 1742x1106)
617 KB PNG
>>9928904
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsb022994
>Disappearance was facilitated, not impeded, by economic development. Long before the World Health Organization's Smallpox Eradication Program began, and despite low herd immunity, unsophisticated public health facilities, and repeated introductions, smallpox disappeared from many countries as they developed economically, among them Thailand, Egypt, Mexico, Bolivia, Sri Lanka, Turkey, and Iraq.
http://www.vaclib.org/news/drmacks.htm
>If people are worried about endemic smallpox, it disappeared from this country not because of our mass herd immunity. It disappeared because of our economic development. And that's why it disappeared from Europe and many other countries, and it will not be sustained here, even if there were several importations, I'm sure. It's not from universal vaccination.
https://youtu.be/oT6ABaWN3gA
Vaccinated vs unvaccinated has NEVER been done, and small pox was eradicated because of economical developments, not vaccines. Also provide source of the smallpox mortality rate because I would like to know whether you are talking about 1st world countries or 3rd world.
>>
>>9926741
condoms are mostly effective

>>
>>9926508
Luckily I agree with it all
>>
>>9926508
Climate change is both real and manmade but there are legitimate reasons to be worried about bias
>>
>>9926508
>Faster-than-light communication is impossible.
Fucking brainlet
>But I also believe in Global Warming
As I said, fucking brainlet
>>
>>9926508
Also
>The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
>>
>>9929762
>>
>>9928403
>Expects people to read the whole entire post in 2018; a time where people's attention spans are at an all time low

The only brainlet here is you.
>>
228 KB PNG
>>9926746
Yet
>>
>>9926508
isn't science about not accepting anything without questioning?
>>
>>9926508
>If you don't accept an appeal to authority for all your beliefs you're delusional
Citation needed.

It seems strange that 97% of /sci users can't explain a few of these but they're delusional if they don't believe in them...Thinking a person is delusional for not believing in something they don't understand it just with-us-or-against-us tribalism.

Polling physicists doesn't even produce a consensus on the idea of quantum mechanics with some saying it will eventually be proven false. But their opinions don't count I guess because OP says they're delusional and OP is god.
>>
>>9926508
Gonna have to disagree with you anon, faster than light communication may be possible. other than yeah seems pretty sound
>>
>>9926653
your an idiot if you think that roller coaster is spinning at 60 miles an hour
>>
>>9926820
oh you got a problem there bud... the standard model of particle physics and quantum mechanics kinda go hand in hand.
also... light doesn't have a speed?!?!?!?!
>>
>>9930192
Unless you believe people are actively lying to you, data, like the one in physics, doesn't depend on interpretation, if you believe the scientist are somewhat competent. You see if the data matches and there's enough evidence and everything is "correct" (in the sense OP mentioned) until proven otherwise, but usually what changes is the domain of validity, if things were blatantly wrong they wouldn't be used.

I would put climate change is correct and incomplete (we can't really tell if it's a real threat) because we don't have a lab for the economics and other shit that may affect it without running a simulation for it.

I would also say vaccines are only mostly safe, some shit may not show up in tests until later and it's hard to fully verify
>>
Oh I see OP!!! GLOBAL WARMING IS MAN MADE...

DON'T YOU KNOW THAT THE EARTH STARTED GETTING HOT AS SOON AS PIRATES LEFT.
Global warming is cause we dont have pirates any more.
Ramen
>>
>>9930192
These are things that all scientists agree upon. If you assume scientists are at least minimally competent, it would be wise to accept these and build upon the work that scientists have already done for you. That doesn't mean you should blindly believe what one person tells you, and you should keep an open mind, but it's delusional to blatantly reject any of these, because they are extremely well established and will never be overthrown.

And people may disagree on the interpretation of quantum mechanics, everyone agrees on the theory itself. And what you say that "it will be proven wrong" is encompassed in me saying it is incomplete.
>>
>>9929956
Of course. The questions you should ask are "how do you know this? ", "what evidence is there?", "how could I confirm this for myself?".

Asking these honestly will lead you to conclude that the list is true, and anyone who disagrees is delusional, incompetent or lying.
>>
>>9930194
popsci brainlet
>>
>>9930279
>>
>>9930281
*correction
>>
>>9926738
yeah most biological systems are insanely complicated for no good reason other than thats what worked well enough to continue working. complexity is literally the inverse of information, the fact that information is preserved and transmitted at all in nature is a miracle of probability.
>>
>>9930215
>data, like the one in physics, doesn't depend on interpretation
This is so absurdly wrong. It can take a hundred years of interpreting data to understand something and create a working theory or rule. You're basically implying researchers never ask the question "what does this data mean?"

>>9930262
>because they are extremely well established and will never be overthrown.
that's pretty neat kid.

If rainbow gravity theory is correct it will force us to reject the big bang and accept an infinite age universe with no beginning.

As a direct consequence of coupling your statement with the above knowledge we must conclude the scientists at CERN who are currently trying to prove rainbow gravity theory are *delusional* because the end result will never be true because of your a priori conclusion that the existing zeitgeist will never be "overthrown." They should just write it off as "false" right now....If we "know" the big bang cannot be untrue then anyone who seeks knowledge that, as an unintended consequence, would nullify the BB must be delusional.... according to you that is. You should do them a solid an tell them to stop wasting so much money and quit with their experiments since you already know they're wrong.

I can agree with you that anyone who disagrees with the OP list is likely not doing so out of a properly formulated opinion. But when you say all items on the list will never be "overthrown" you sound like a clueless zealot. In fact, using "delusional" in the first place shows you have a lot of animosity towards people who disagree with you. Using faulty logic doesn't make someone delusional. Even lots and lots of faulty logic doesn't make them delusional. Ignoring indisputable evidence makes someone delusional. However, using bad logic to dismiss incontrovertible evidence is not ignoring it, again it's just bad logic.
>>
>>9929420
Not that anon but you realize in that article they claim 100% effectiveness of the smallpox vaccine and extrapolate that increased literacy due to development contributed to its eradication.
>"About 2 1/2 million health care professionals and technicians work in U.S. hospitals and are at some excess risk of caring for a patient with smallpox. Vaccination of the entire 2 1/2 million, assuming 100 percent compliance, would prevent all deaths of caregivers from smallpox, but at a cost of at least 7 to 8 deaths from vaccinia."
>"Prophylactic vaccination of contacts is an important containment strategy, although the actual effectiveness depends on the timing of the vaccination in relation to exposure. Nearly twice as effective as vaccine alone, however, is vaccination followed by the administration of vaccinia immune globulin."
>"Smallpox is not as infectious as its reputation would suggest. Whether in Punjab,15 Bengal,16 or Europe,17 variola major was almost always transmitted at the bedside of the source, not at an external location. The source of infection was reported for about 96 percent of the cases that resulted from 51 introductions into highly susceptible European populations after World War II.17-19 Among the 18 cases, on average, per introduction, 3.8 occurred among household contacts and only 1.1 appeared among the multitude of community residents with no acknowledged exposure. None of the 945 cases involved disease contracted on an airplane, train, or bus. "

You have misinterpreted this article to fit your narrative, the author is making a case that vaccination was not the sole or even overwhelmingly primary contributor to the eradication of the disease. Not that vaccinations arent effective. Additionally literacy through development doesnt explain its eradication in totally undeveloped and illiterate areas.
>>
>>9930374
>this is wrong
When you have a model and multiple sources of data confirm it, it's gonna be scientific consensus. That's obviously what I meant, not what the fuck you're trying to say I did

>big bang
How is the big bang a thing all scientists agree upon? Are you trying to discuss science when you don't even have a correct rudimentary understand of pop science, and think that everything that goes on documentaries is the truth?

You should spend more time on reading comprehension
>>
>>9926601
Uhh, no. We need to make sure the scientific consensus is not challenged. We have found the perfect, eternal truth and we must make it into enforceable dogma.
>>
>>9930374
It's for these kinds of things that the final point is there. All of these can be challenged, but only by a rivaling theory which outperforms it and can explain why the accepted theory worked in the first place. Which is a concept that most science-deniers don't really understand.
>>
>>9930374
>If rainbow gravity theory is correct

nobody takes rainbow gravity seriously, it is an extremely fringe idea disproved by observations, and even Smolin, who is a borderline crackpot himself, thinks that it is very unlikely

>>9931034

>All of these can be challenged, but only by a rivaling theory which outperforms it and can explain why the accepted theory worked in the first place.

Quoted for truth. Science-deniers have this ridiculous notion that science progresses by disproving old theories. Back in the real world, science almost always progresses merely by extending or unifying old theories. Actually disproving a well established scientific theory is very rare. It is likely that OPs list will remain true until the heat death of the universe.
>>
>>9931053
Exactly. The only now-defunct theories that I can think of are the theories of the electric fluid and the caloric fluid, which still technically work, but have been superceded by better conceptualizations and are thus no longer considered useful.
>>
>>9926820
clearly bait
>>
>>9926508
>Darwinian evolution is an incomplete description of reality.
proofs?
> Climate change is real
yes
>is happening right now
yes
>is a real threat
yes
>and is mostly caused by humans
proofs? We know that co2 is a mild greenhouse gas, but amount of atmospheric co2 has not historically correlated with global temperatures. There are many factors that affect the climate, many that affect it drastically more than co2, and we still dont know what all of those factors are. It would be foolish to claim that we know for certain that climate change is entirely or even mostly man-made.
> "I don't understand this" or "this doesn't make sense to me" are not legitimate criticisms of established scientific theories.
If theories dont make sense and can be criticized in a way that cannot be refuted, then they deserve to be criticized. If they can be refuted, but you dont know how to, then that is a fault with you, not the one asking questions in good faith.
>The fact that the universe is not simple enough for you to understand is your failing, not the universe's.
What a retarded statement. Nothing is "the universe's fault", if people generally cannot understand something, that is the fault of those explaining it, not the person trying to understand.
>>
>>9930192
>Polling physicists doesn't even produce a consensus on the idea of quantum mechanics with some saying it will eventually be proven false. But their opinions don't count I guess because OP says they're delusional and OP is god.
>proven false

I believe phrasing it like this is either overly pedantic or misleading. There clearly is a consensus among physicist that QM is the best theory we currently have for it's associated phenomena. If QM is gonna be replaced at some point, it will be analogue to getting a new car. Our QM car clearly works for a lot of things, but we may be able to construct new car with better property X,Y,Z,.. at some point, thus rendering our QM car not appealing to use anymore. OP proposed terminology of "correct" and "incomplete" theories to avoid this type of confusion. Breakthroughs happen though, maybe our next car can travel in space? (just for the sake of completing the analogy)
>>
>>9931145
>What a retarded statement. Nothing is "the universe's fault", if people generally cannot understand something, that is the fault of those explaining it, not the person trying to understand.
Many people claim quantum mechanics is wrong because they don't understand it. That point is a direct counter to argument from incredulity.
>>
>>9931146
>OP proposed terminology of "correct" and "incomplete" theories to avoid this type of confusion.
Glad to see at least one person understood what I was trying to say.
>>
>>9930192
>Polling physicists doesn't even produce a consensus on the idea of quantum mechanics with some saying it will eventually be proven false.
Holy shit are you mentally challenged? In physics consensus theories are never false, they are incomplete. When a physicist says I think QM will eventually be proven false what they mean is I think QM will eventually be replaced with something that FULLY incorporates QM and then makes further predictions.
>>
>>9926653
Your image implies that the earth can't be a flat disc, son.
>>
>>9926746
Just because it's imaginary doesn't mean it isn't real
>>
File: 1491548329534.jpg (26 KB, 300x300)
26 KB JPG
>>9926508
>mostly caused by humans
combined human race burns coal/oil/gas for 300 years and we get sibyllas everywhere prophesying everything from ice age to 2nd Venus for fucking decades ANY DAY NOW!
a volcano farts or a fuckhuge wildfire rolls by and global average drops 2 degrees overnight and nobody says a fucking word
>>
> Faster-than-light communication is impossible.
> it is impossible to extract work from the zero-point energy of the vacuum.
Just because we lack the technological sophistication to explore these possibilities doesn't mean they aren't true. Are you forgetting that a lot of physicists today, who base their models off of Quantum Mechanics and Special/General Relativity, support the idea that these are indeed possible and worth investigating?
> Climate change is... mostly caused by humans.
Our impact is over-exaggerated, but that's not to say we have absolutely no impact. The cycles of warming and cooling for our planet are natural, and we are speeding it up slightly ahead of its time. The giant garbage island in the pacific does need cleaning up, though.
> Approved vaccines are safe and effective.
Say that again to someone who got a 102 fever for an entire day, and became an aspie, after receiving a chicken pox vaccine. Not saying vaccines need to be banned, but to claim they are completely safe is bullshit. There are always side effects for every pharmaceutical product.

Other than that, I see no problems with this list.
>>
>>9933234
>Are you forgetting that a lot of physicists today, who base their models off of Quantum Mechanics and Special/General Relativity, support the idea that these are indeed possible and worth investigating?
Citation needed.
>>
>>9933234
For the vast majority of people, vaccines are safe and effective
>>
>>9933459
So are guns.

I assume that you're equivalently in favor of the mass proliferation of firearms.
>>
>>9933234
>Are you forgetting that a lot of physicists today, who base their models off of Quantum Mechanics and Special/General Relativity, support the idea that these are indeed possible and worth investigating?
LOL
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem
>>
>>9930445
>physics doesn't depend on interpretation
>That's obviously what I meant, not what the fuck you're trying to say I did
There's no "obviously I meant XYZ" from that statement. It's idiotic end of story. Even a scientific consensus depends on the consensus having a uniform interpretation so you're now wrong twice.
>>9931034
>All of these can be challenged, but only by a rivaling theory which outperforms it and can explain why the accepted theory worked in the first place
this is nothing but zealous thinking. A theory can be debunked by finding a critical flaw, not just by creating a new/better theory. If you claim OP's list *can* never have critical flaws discovered in the future you've created yourself a new religion. A discovery of a perpetual motion machine would not have to explain NM, it would outright violate the concept and NM would thus need to be amended, probably everything else too and it would not be required to explain our old thinking at the exact same time.
>>9931053
>nobody takes rainbow gravity seriously, it is an extremely fringe idea disproved by observations, and even Smolin, who is a borderline crackpot himself, thinks that it is very unlikely
You really don't need to give us your opinions on how to set up your own bespoked appeal to authority fallacy by letting us know which authority is valid to appeal to and which are crackpots and not valid to appeal to.
Gonna need a link to that "disproved by observations" claim ASAP, and please wipe your excrement off of it first.
I'm not claiming RGT is likely. I'm only conveying the idea its not delusional to explore alternative options and hold different minority beliefs accordingly.
>Actually disproving a well established scientific theory is very rare
Everything in OP's list is a "well established scientific theory" so you just affirmed any of the theory categories could be wrong.
What does "very rare" mean.. 1 in 100? Are you delusional to believe in 1 in 100 odds something is wrong?
>>
File: Local sun.webm (1.03 MB, 900x506)
1.03 MB WEBM
> The Earth is round. (Yes oblate spheroids are round.)

Does this look like an "oblate spheroid" to you?
>>
File: moon-earth-iss-wakata-1.jpg (28 KB, 1024x679)
28 KB JPG
>>9933650
Does this look like "flat" to you?
>>
>>9933683
Yes pretty flat, not a perfectly straight line but certainly doesn't look like a spheroid.
>>
>>9933710
a photo of a milimeter of your bellend would also look flat
>>
>>9933727
Spheres don't look like that, the clouds are flat as well. Everything should be curving away equally.
>>
>>9933755
*exponentially
>>
>>9933755
>Spheres don't look like that
wanna bet?
>>
File: 1523079698002.jpg (800 KB, 4288x2929)
800 KB JPG
>>9933710
>>
>>9933770
Yes.
>>
>>9933650
Hey Anon - on what continent are you?
>>
>>9933777
Kek, nice satellite. The curvature still looks a bit weird, but there - what land is in the picture?
>>
File: canvas.png (1.11 MB, 1399x936)
1.11 MB PNG
>>9933802
>Kek, nice satellite.
Ya, AKA the Hubble Space Telescope.
I have no idea what land below.
>>
File: Untitled.jpg (113 KB, 721x1600)
113 KB JPG
>>9933779
>>
>>9933793
The balloon footage was taken from northern UK
>>
Instantaneous information transfer is possible using quantum entanglement. Faster than the speed of light.
>>
>>9933807
If that's a real photo then yes definitely looks like a globe - is it a real photo?
>>
File: Fisheye.jpg (16 KB, 353x288)
16 KB JPG
>>9933814
Cool.
Ah yes, the balloon footage. So...
It is really necessary to understand the behaviour of geometry in wide-angle imnagery to be able to interpret what you see correctly. It is necessary to know where the center of the photograph is (cropping can shift that around). When using wide-angle lenses, only lines *radiating from the center* show their true linear geometry. If a horizon passes under the center, it will bend upward at the edges. If above, then downward. Pic related. The closer a line passes the center, the less the distortion. When you see a round Earth and the curvature is convex, you know it has to be convex. When it's concave near the edge, it's exaggerated.

In your image, the horizon is shown below the center, so there is a concave bias that, because of its serendipitous position (or perhaps that's why you chose that particular clip from the whole video), the curve of the horizon is neatly canceled by the curve of the lens.

>>
>>9933811

What altitude is the ISS at?
>>
>>9933824
>tags a picture with ISS altitude written on it
>>
>>9933816
Yes. Not only that, It's almost real-time. It's a satellite feed for weather. This happens to be the true-color version. This is GOES-16, an American satellite placed over the east coast. The older GOES-West (and there's an East, too - to be replaced by 16) does not have true-color. The point would have been to show you that you can see the imagery and correlate it to your own weather for added proof. Pick your own satellite and light frequency...
https://www.ssec.wisc.edu/data/geo/#/animation
>>
>>9933821
Oh I see - and the sun looks right to you as well?
>>
>>9928926
It's solar activity! It's just natural variability of stuff like albedo and aerosols! No wait, it's volcanic eruptions! Never mind that annual emissions from economic activity is equivalent to 100 volcanoes erupting that year.
>>
>>9933832
I'm asking you does the altitude in the video match up with your picture?
>>
>>9933838
The light-saturated blob that represents the Sun looks right to me, yes.
>>
>>9933835
Wow neat. How far away is the satellite to be able to get the whole globe in frame at once?
>>
>>9933843
Thank you.
>>
>>9933841
ISS altitude is nowhere near constant, it fluctuates around 100km.
I cannot divinate it from the video.
Rephrase your question, please, I cannot tell what are you trying to make me say.
Are you confused because you can see much more curvature in the video?
That's just wider field of view.
My sim picture >>9933811
lines up with>>9933683

which is a photo or a part of a photo taken from ISS
>>
>>9933868
>Are you confused because you can see much more curvature in the video?
Yes.
>That's just wider field of view.
Okay.
>>
>>9933815
It's not. You cannot use quantum entanglement to send information faster than light. Think of it like this: a giant cloud casts a shadow on two towns simultaneously. Both measure this effect. But the only way for one to know that the other measured the same thing is to pick up the phone and ask. There is no way to know this from each other without a classical message, and there is absolutely no way to send a message through that is not limited by the speed of light. Quantum entanglement is the same way. It ensures an instantaneous correlation, but you can not use it for causation.
>>
>>9933850
That depends on the focal length of the lens and the distance to the satellite. However to be geostationary (its orbital period equaling the Earth's sidereal day), it has to be out at about 26k miles (42k km) from the center of the Earth. That means the Earth would appear to be about 34°. I don't know enough about cameras to pinpoint the focal length required to fit that into a full frame, but it's nothing extraordinary.
>>
>>9933899
Very cool, you can't argue with real photos like that.
>>
>>9933924
>you can't argue with real photos like that
flat earth cultists do it nonstop
>>
>>9933930
Why?
>>
>>9933937
you can dismiss literally anything as conspiratory fabrication
if you took a flat earth person and put them on the next ISS-bound Soyuz and even made them undergo an EVA, they would claim you've drugged them and used electormagnetism induced virtual reality to fool them and they've been sitting tied up in an underground bunker under Area 51 or some such.
>>
>>9933955
Is there a 24 hour live stream inside the ISS?
>>
>>9933937
That's a question no-one has every really answered. Some possibilities:
- Trolling (this *is* 4chan, after all);
- Debate: it's a safe, sandboxy-type exercise in scientific thought. Of course you can send up a rocket or balloon and see for yourself, but the real point is to find the flaw9s) in the FE arguments. They are *all* rife with errors, but you have to be articulate and precise to point them out effectively.
- True believers: there can't be many out there, but intelligence and mental stability is a spectrum, and there are mentally ill people who will rationalize the craziest shit, with no rational explanation as to why.
- Seekers: folks who simply don't know any better and want genuine answers, perhaps to help them come to terms with a friend or relative who is going off the deep end.
And with facts coming into question by the US's current 'leadership', acceptance of stupidity and confusion can be the end of our civilization.
>>
>>9933969
there is one but it's not continuous (they periodically replay footage) because ISS orbits 16 times a day and nobody wants to look at black screen
why?
>>
>>9933969
If there is, I don't know of one. There's not even one external. Live video at night is black, so they replay daytime video then. But...
Check heavens-above.com to confirm whether it's in daytime (live) or night (not).
>>
>>9933148
https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=28&p=5
Youre retarded.
>>
>>9933970
Does the globe have any errors?
>>
>Implying Global Warming is a threat
It just means we'll get more solar energy since the globe is getting hotter. It's best for us if it keeps going on.
>>
>>9933234
>Just because we lack the technological sophistication to explore these possibilities doesn't mean they aren't true.
Its not a technology problem you idiot its a laws of physics problem, there is no mechanism by which it can be done even as a thought experiment. >>9933611
>Our impact is over-exaggerated
Cite your sources and also consider that you as a non climate scientist are arguing against thousands of climate scientists when you make this claim. Meaning your evidence must be incontrovertible.
>completely safe
No medical professional has ever claimed this, there are a list of side effects like literally every other medication. That idiots dont read it and dont understand it is not the doctors fault.
>>
>>9933981
shut the fuck up you ignorant intellectual midget, that argument wasn't about volcanoes adding more CO2 to the atmosphere
CO@ is a fucking meme
you breathe it out you fucking imbecile so do the planet a favor and stop
>>
>>9933984
I can't think of any, and I've never seen any posted.
Keep in mind that there is no flat Earth model. A model has predictability as well as explanation for phenomena. FE has some degree of explanation for isolated phenomena, but it is usually a very short step to a consequence that negates the explanation. Everything jives with the oblate spheroid. FE''s singular tactic is to show "flaws" in OS models, but those arguments are *always* flawed. Every single one.
>>
>>9933937
As I was saying.. there are the trolls. For example:
>>9933995
>>
File: 1532540504531.jpg (22 KB, 420x420)
22 KB JPG
>>9933995
Technically youre correct, it was argument made by an illiterate conflating absolute Co2, rate of emission, and other atmospheric factors. Just like are mentioned in that article.
>you breathe it out you fucking imbecile so do the planet a favor and stop
You actually got me with this, well memed my friend.
>>
File: wtff.gif (1.02 MB, 655x347)
1.02 MB GIF
>>9933979
Wanna see what they get up to.

>>9933980
Wtf? Gif related
>>
>>9934009
I assume you mean "why isn't it black?"
These are sequences of longer exposures. Video frames are too fast - 1/15th of a sec is a typical slow rate. There are many YouTube vids of the nighttime passes, and I do not have the link offhand to the one that explains that these are longer-exposure stills compiled.
>>
>>9933998
Gyroscopes.
>>
>>9934014
>>9934009
Oh wait... here:
https://randomphotons.com/alone
>>
>>9934018
>>
>>9934000
Check 'em!
>>
>>9926508
>Quantum Mechanics is a correct and incomplete description of reality.
>>
>>9929292
BASED
>>
>>9934071
There is no interpretation that could be called a complete description of reality.

Quantum gravity doesn't work.
>>
File: Image4853.gif (38 KB, 528x405)
38 KB GIF
>>9929106
If the co2 concentrations where proportional to the hwat, we shluld be at 50C now, retard
>>
File: 1487853936939.jpg (2 KB, 125x119)
2 KB JPG
>>9929942
>pleasure of 1 trillion shots of heroin per second
>>
>>9934084
Except Broglie-Bohm's interpretation wich doesnt contracict newtonian phisycs
>>
>>9934096
Can you write the wave function that corresponds to a quantum electron under a gravitational field with, say, a quantum harmonic oscillator potential?
>>
>>9926508
Also vaccines work for the most part and heavily contributed to eradication of many deadly diseases and increased life expectancies.
>>
>>9933650
>Does this look like an "oblate spheroid" to you?
Obviously, round earthers are not gonna accept photos of the earth too close to show curvature when flat earthers routinely reject photos that show curvature. It stimulated some discourse, but it felt kind of underwhelming and too short. Do anybody know of archived thread that is the ultimate flat earth debate thread?
>>
File: TrollingIsKing.png (849 KB, 663x873)
849 KB PNG
>>9934246
There is never a 'debate'. It's charlatans lying about reality and then making stuff up.
>>
>>9927353
What makes you think it isn't?

https://www.unz.com/akarlin/short-history-of-3rd-millennium/
>>
File: 1515194851321.png (50 KB, 645x729)
50 KB PNG
>>9934086
>If the co2 concentrations where proportional to the hwat
>>
>>9934316

Trolling is the ultimate aspiekiller. Why they so hard on aspies? Fuck ... all the time I've lost. It's pure evil, especially considering all the good work they do. At least /sci have taught me to spot it and let go sometimes.
>>
>>9934334
>Why they so hard on aspies?
Pecking order.
You must understand that /b/ is full of the dregs of society and losers of the DNA lottery. So it helps to find someone who might universally be considered even less desirable than themselves. By posting and ridiculing they hope to elevate their own status above pitiful, thereby unwittingly heaping the attribute of contemptible upon the burden of negative qualities already crushing their spirits. In short, they're failing at establishing their position in the pecking order of life.
>>
>>9930197
au contraire
>>
>>9926820
i can just imagine your retarded face
>>
>>9933990
wow
>>
>>9926508
>> Anyone claiming to have an alternative theory to established science should be able to explain why established science seems to give correct answers *and* be able to give a concrete prediction that can be checked by experiment, where it should outperform current scientific theory.
>>where it should outperform current scientific theory.

Science is pleb engineering in disguise, confirmed.
>>
File: crab.jpg (17 KB, 480x354)
17 KB JPG
>>9928678
>squatting man petroglyphs found all around the world
My God, you've disproven Out-Of-Africa! All of humanity must actually be descended from Slavs!
>>
>>9926508
(1) Assume FTL is possible.

What actually breaks? Unlike time or 2nd law of thermo I'm not seeing the problem.
>>
>>9935548

fucking causality breaks, thats what
>>
>>9935548
Causality and matter.

>>
>>9935553
>>9935554
So you just ignore (1) instead of thinking for yourself. Brainlets...
>>
>>9935548
>What actually breaks?
nothing
superluminal objects going towards you would be invisible until they slowed down under c and have afterimage that goes backwards
that's it
>>
>>9935548
Causality breaks, which means everything breaks. There is no sensible answer because the question is of the form "What does physics predict when you assume physics no longer applies?"
>>
>>9926508
>>9926604
If the climate on this planet was always constant and only changed/got worse due to human industrialism, why was there an Ice age?
>>
>>9935748
>climate on this planet was always constant
When has either side in that debate made that claim? Why are you scaring the birds?
>>
>>9935598
What is "everything breaks"? Causality not important. FTL just means we get what looks like freaky magic.

See >>9935564
>>
>>9926508
>everything should be able to be checked by experiment
>humans are causing climate change
Okay chump, design an experiment for me to check this. Get two earth's, the one we have now and another one as a control and we can see what happens
>>
>>9929292
Guys...
Someone refute this I'm actually believing climate change is not caused by humans.
>>
>>9935888
>Causality not important
Causality is the MOST important thing. It's what lets the universe work. If it wasn't a thing, there'd be no matter, no thermodynamics, no time, and everything would be one. Masses could crash into themselves (if not for the fact that you couldn't have mass to begin with), nothing would be predictable, there would be no physics, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria.

More simply, if you could exceed the speed of light, you could return to your starting point, and kill yourself before you left.

That and matter with mass can't exist at the speed of light, let alone beyond it, as that mass is dependant on light speed interactions inside subatomic composite particles. If you are traveling at or faster than the speed of light, the quarks inside your protons can't interact with each other to remain bound. As soon as you hit the speed of light, you're gonna be reduced to a bunch of free electrons and gamma radiation.
>>
>>9935930
>More simply, if you could exceed the speed of light, you could return to your starting point, and kill yourself before you left.
no
>>
>>9926508
Hello, Anon. Congratualtions on turning 16! Now get the fuck off 4chan.
>>
>>9935935
If you travel to a place that's moving away from your starting location, and back again, yes you can.

For instance, let's say I use a warp drive to travel at 1000% of c relative to "Poxus", which is moving 0.2c away from Earth. Relative to Earth, I am approaching at -980% of c. In Earth's reference frame, I will arrive on Earth before I leave Poxus. Now you may say this in itself isn't a causality violation, because we've applied Earth's calendar to Poxus. And that's true, but I'll make a round trip:

- In the futuristic Earth year of 3000, Poxus is 98,000 light years away, and receding at 20% of c. I leave Earth at 1000% of c, relative to Earth.

- In Earth year 13000 Poxus is 100,000 light years away, and I catch up to it. I turn around and leave Poxus at 1000% of c, relative to Poxus.

- In Earth year 2796, I arrive home.

Earth's calendar certainly applies to Earth, and I arrived home two centuries before I left. No two ways about it, I'm a time traveler!

Suffice to say, it's simple enough to tweak this speed out to arrive and kill myself before I leave.
>>
>>9935928
anon is absolutely right that the sun can have an effect on earth's climate in a general sense. however, recent climatic changes Cannot be explained by solar changes. if the earth was tracking with solar activity the climate would be getting slightly cooler, not warmer
>>
>>9935930
Except none of what you said is true other than we dont know how to reach FTL.

Time travel breaks causality. FTL breaks nothing.
>>
>>9935950
>- In Earth year 2796, I arrive home.
"no"
>>
>>9935957

Also view: >>9935554

Causality only exists because of the universal speed limit. Break it, and you break causality.
>>
>>9935950
you cannot put into human language how in the satan's fiery dickhole would you arrive into past, even if you could jump 100,000 light years instantaneously, turn areound and do it again
>>
>>9935966
Thought I just did...

Speed is relative - say two planets are moving away from each other at 0.2c, are 100K light years apart, and you're traveling at 1000c between them, but relative to which end?

Let's say Proxus is moving at a steady 0.2c, away from Earth. (So, Earth is moving at a steady 20% of c away from Proxus). If I leave Proxus (in the direction of Earth) and I am travelling at anything less than 0.2c relative to Proxus, then I am still moving away from Earth. I'll never get there.

Let's say instead I am travelling at 60% of c relative to Proxus. I will catch up to Earth. Relative to Earth, how fast am I approaching? Obvious answer is 40% of c (though actually it's 45.45%, due to the way relativistic velocity subtraction formula works.)

Let's say instead I am travelling at 100% of c relative to Proxus. Take our Lorentz, plug u=c,v=0.2c into the formula and get w=c. Relative to Earth, I am approaching at 100% of c! The speed of light is the same for everyone.

So, yes, if I go between these two planets repeatedly, at faster than the speed of light, I am going to go back in time with each round trip. It doesn't matter if I hyperspace or teleport.

To put it another way, when applying the Lorentz transformation between two frames of reference (as described >>9935554), if v > c, then t becomes an imaginary number. This is why you can't go faster than c.

Running out of ways to express this off hand, maybe wikipedia can help you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyonic_antitelephone
>>
>>9926598
Fpbp
>>
>>9932719
>Many people claim quantum mechanics is wrong because they don't understand it.
If they don't understand it, then teach them. But if what you mean is they don't believe it because it's not intuitive, then they are not arguing with facts and are wrong.
I never said the argument from incredulity is valid, I said that if people are trying to understand and are unable to then you must not be a very good teacher. Perhaps you should go back to elementary school so you can get some reading comprehension.
>>
>>9926653
The spin does lift us up but gravity pulls us back down even more.
That's why it's 9.8 m/s/s instead of 10 m/s/s.
>>
>>9927466
checked and keked, OP confirmed delusional idiot
>>
>>9927034
I like how the numbers don't even add up.
>>
>ftl communication is impossible
I think you're misunderstanding e=mc^2. There is nothing that we know of that travels faster than light. That doesn't mean things aren't capable of traveling faster than light. It's not some universal speed limit.
>>
>>9936929
the spin is felt strongest at the equator and not at all at the poles
It's doesn't change the acceleration due to gravity, only the distribution of the Earth's mass does. Centripetal (or centrifugal) force does cancel a little bit of Earth's gravity but only if you're actually standing on Earth.
>>
>>9937237
I understand relativity quite well. It genuienly is a universal speed limit, since FTL information exchange breaks causality. And causlity seems to be extremely fundamental to the workings of the universe.
>>
>>9933650
Show me picture of video of Sun going closer to clouds and ground or even below them. Because this is what you flatards believe
>>
>>9926508
retard
>>
>>9937237
But that's exactly what c is.
>>
>>9926508
I agree with you OP. So does everybody disagreeing with you in this thread.
>>
>>9937237
Exactly. All we have to do is capture dark matter which is known to expand spactime. So now we can go the same speed and travel farther in space with the same amount of energy.

t' = t sqrt[(1/z) - (v^2/c^2)] where z is our dark energy constant. We can make z arbitrarily big and hence velocity can be arbitrarily big.
>>
>>9937595
I can't tell if you're trolling or just genuinely stupid.
>>
File: sunnn.webm (2.48 MB, 640x360)
2.48 MB WEBM
>>9937321
>>
>>9937631
Please enlighten me what is wrong with my theory?
>>
>>9926508
Darwinian and now Lamarckian with the newest research on DNA methylation.

At least in theory, some parts of an organism may adapt in their lifetime and their offspring may inherit these newly activated genomes.

Delete Post: [File Only] Style: