Why is this considered a legit scientific approach?
>>16480412>math like a physicistMathematicians make up nonsense like negative numbers and irrational numbers all the time.>wait you can't add any number to 2 to get 1??>let's just make up a "negative number" -1 with the property that 2 + (-1) = 1 durrrrr
>>16480412Astronomers arent real scientists. They are getting there. Crashing shit into asteroids and taking precise measurements is getting close to a real experiment. But unless you have the budget for those kinds of space missions astronomy is observation only, no tweaking variables. Therefore not real science.
>>16480412>create theory>theory works great in most cases and predicts a bunch of stuff incredibly well>get more data>some data in edge cases doesn't fit>theory still works in most cases>find ways to modify theory such that edge cases fitdo you not understand how science works or are you just retarded?
>>16480423Astronomy is one of the first sciences. Cope seethe etc
>>16480427>>some data in edge cases doesn't fitultraviolet catastrophe is anything but an edge case
>>16480412Filling blanks in models with plausible functions is indeed a legitimate approachSelling it as "Dark Matter" and grifting out millions in grants for it is not
>>16480497Thankyou. Finally someone said it. This. So much this. Where has common sense gone?
If you knew how much damage this is...
>>16480497>Selling it as "Dark Matter" and grifting out millions in grants for it is notSo then how would you gain the funding to discover it's properties?
>>16480427>Observations suggest a mismatch in observed forces and theory.>Jump ten steps ahead and conclude invisible mystery mass is responsibleWe'd still think phlogiston are heat if we used the same reasoning in the past, we'd just have 12 flavors of dark phlogiston to make it do the approximate job of thermodynamics.
>>16480511>Jump ten steps ahead please enlighten me what steps were skipped
>>16480509By describing it as an anomaly and not some new bullshit voodoo particle that violates physics
>>16480527>what steps were skippedAll of them
>>16480539Nobody claims dark matter violate physics you sperg lord. It makes physics work
>>16480511>see shit orbiting faster distant from center of galaxy>either there's more shit such that it's bound tighter gravitationally or f_g=1/r2 is wrongno 10 steps there, it's pretty fucking basic.Either it's held in tighter or force doesn't drop as quickly as we expected.Something doesn't match, those were the two most popular possibilities they came up with.Dark Matter is in no way confirmed, and no one is claiming otherwise.
>>16480447seems like that theory wasn't describing our observations well in that case...anon... get your shit together, OP was clearly referring to dark matter
>>16480561It's also been confirmed through gravitational lensing
>>16480586You referring to the Bullet Cluster?Hossenfelder at some point made a video how that might be supporting MOND, but I won't pretend to be an expert.Simply competent enough to call out the fags that don't understand the basics of why Dark Energy/MOND/something is required to fix our models.
>>16480586Gravitational lensing doesn't confirm dark matter any more than rotational curves do. It only says our models are shit.>Our model says a galaxy couldn't spin like this. >Let's add a freely adjustable parameter of mysterious mass that we will never be able to observe to fudge the number.>Mystery mass have to be the dominant form of mass if we do this? No problem just fucking dial it to 11
>>16480598>something is required to fix our models.Yeah the models are shit. But fixing it with dark matter is on parity with saying it's the hand of god variable that can apply an arbitrary force vector of any size in any direction to any or all particles at any time.>Is the hand of god detectable? Sure if god Wills it. I can suggest a hundred experiments to investigate it. >Is it explainable as rules. Yes sure but God moves in mysterious ways so we can always repostulate the rules as experiments fail and observations change.Sounds better than dark matter, everyone will understand the core concepts of the theory just by its name unlike the subterfuge that supports dark matter
>>16480681Sorry but "We don't know, therefor God" is an order of magnitude more retarded than saying "We know there is a type of matter out there, but we don't know it's properties yet"
>>16480681>I can suggest a hundred experiments to investigate it.>Gives none
Poo
>>16480704This has to be a well thought out punishment and thereafter. it's not just doing something they don't like. In my opinion, leave it to me. Not because you can't, but because of how much intentional training and bulking up I did enough to create any tech including proper advanced tech, and defeat countries by myself or with bots. I'm trying hard to express some kind of super intelligence.
>>16480712At least consider sentence 1.A bit of poo for you
>>16480412I don't see you doing any better
Scientism is a coping drug for logical errors
>>16480846Your god must be a real retard, just like you
>>16480412science studies modelsif a theory fits observation, is explanatory, is predictive, and doesn't contradict known good models within their domains of applicability, it's a good modelnot everything is figured out at once. models are made tractable by making simplifying assumptions that focus on only the most important things relevant to what is under study. if an existing model is known to be good in certain domains of applicability, refinements to the model to extend it to other domains of applicability shouldn't negate what is already known. for instance, quantum mechanics is weird on the microscopic scale where it applies, but gives way to classical mechanics on the macroscopic scale. QM doesn't negate classical mechanics.
>>16480427science requires that your theory works for every case, not just most.
>>16480427That theory can't predict anything.In the other side if advanced civilizations hide themselves to survive, and migrate as far away as possible from each other we can make some predictions:There should be less "DM" in younger galaxies and if we look at far away galaxies those should also contain less "DM". All that because it takes time for advanced civilizations to emerge, hide themselves, and migrate far away from the visible part of their galaxies.The data we have so far agrees with such predictions.
>>16480412Are you mixing up science with religion. Science is 1+1+1=3, religion is 1+1=3
>>16480412I would like to point out that both the planet Neptune & Neutrinos were predicted to exists by other observations not adding up right, and some scientist proposing that some matter that they were not able to see yet was needed to explain things. With neutrinos being a thing, I don't see why the idea of dark matter (in the form a particle that is similar to a neutrino but even more of a bitch to detect) makes so many people butt hurt. It may or may not be true, and wish the MOND guys the best of luck in creating an alternate explanation, but it strikes me as pure hubris to assume we have discovered every form of matter and should not try to see if we are missing anything.
>>16480412Step 1 of revising any hypothesis is to start with relaxation of assumptions.Ex. If an experimental result doesn't match with conservation of energy, you don't throw conservation of energy out, you ask 'is there some interaction I'm not accounting for that's using some of that energy?'. If relaxing that assumption works, you ask questions about what that interaction might be (friction, drag, etc.) if not, then you start considering major revisions to the theory.Same thing here. We have a hypothesis, GR, which can very accurately predict behavior across ~60 orders of magnitude in terms of mass, but struggles with orders of magnitude about 10 orders above or below this range (subatomic particles and clusters of galaxies). Relaxing an assumption (maybe there's more mass on the bigger scales that we're not currently able to detect) solves the disparities between the observations and the models on those larger scales without requiring us to completely rewrite everything about gravity (again) and come up with an even more complex model that not only need to explain the new results, but also accurately fit all of the existing results that GR previously explained.Relaxing a single assumption is always, always easier than starting over from scratch, and therefore always the first thing you try.
>>16480656What are the alternative explanations, then, for the distortion of spacetime?
>>16481301>That theory can't predict anything.Distribution of galaxies, shapes and sizes of galaxy filaments/voids, baryon acoustic oscillations, size of galaxies, rate of star formation in early universe...there's quite a lot of predictions lambda-cdm makes, I've got no clue what you're on about.
>>16480681oh my yuhabaha
>>16482862That seems silly; Newton still has a very good reputation with the general public despite his theory of gravity ending up just being a good approximation for everyday speeds & masses. I don't see why it wouldn't be the same for Einstein if his theories also end up just being good approximations for certain use cases.
>>16480412Memes aside, why wouldn't this be?>observations shown to be missing component to be consistent with reality>assume missing component must exist and we simply haven't observed it yet>run tests to observe it until successful or until evidence of contrary foundIt's literally the scientific equivalent of algebra.
>>16482862You are dumb. Relativity is proven and nothing will change that. If and when a new theory replaces Relativity, the new theory will not disprove relativity rather it will be a more accurate description of reality, but in many cases will match the results of relativity. The same thing happened for newtonian gravity, relativity is more accurate, but still matches newtonian gravity in most cases.
Because in the beginning, all we had is 3, and most people are retarded so they cannot figure out how we got there.
>>16485854explain why a rocket keeps accelerating mid-flight despite its thrust being constant, without sounding mad
>>16487424Experiments are not a fundamental part of science. Observation is whats important. Experiments are just a means to create useful things to observe. Experiments are obviously impossible in astronomy, but its not an issue because nature has created numerous interesting things to observe.
>>16482862This, but unironically
>>16487522
>>16487646he's right actually. Repeated observation is what leads to scientific inference. experiments just make observations possible
>>16487424>>16487522>>16488225It should be pointed out that the astronomical observations that lead to the dark matter hypothesis has spurred plenty of experimental attempts here on Earth to directly detect the proposed dark matter. So its not like scientist just said "oh dark matter has to be a thing, lets stop there" but instead used it as a start for serious investigation. Granted all those experiments have proven null so far, but at the very least that have ruled out a lot of proposals and lead to some new data that helped in some other areas of particle physics. And hey, its not like neutrinos were easy to find either.
>>16480412It's called a hypothesis retard the problem is they don't revise the theory when the observations aren't supporting it's predictions
>>16480422Do you unironically believe that the only numbers that "exist" as coherent concepts are the number of fingers you can hold up?
>>16490209Dark matter defacto exists until a new model comes along and gets rid of it.
>>16490209>so all the available evidence shows that dark matter doesn't existNo, you've ignored all the astrophysical evidence.
>>16480422He finally starts to understand.GoogleMathemathical Fictionalist position.>like negative numbersLiterally a DLC expansion for accountants.What if I have $5 and pay for $12?Oh then I'm $7 in the red lets call this thing a negative number. So my account is -$7All the other DLC basically makes math crash at this point. Divide by zero? ERROR 404 System crash can not do that.We need to go back to the basics.PS: All numbers are fake even the basic assumptions of math are objectively wrong and debunked. 1 =1 is wrong 1+1 = 2 is objectively wrong and debunked! You school teachers indoctrinated you into this shit!
>>16480422>but le mathfagsMath concerns with the manipulation of pure logics and doesn't care about making shit up.Science that make shit up on the other hand is called pseudoscience.
>>16485851>Relativity, the new theory will not disprove relativity rather it will be a more accurate description of reality, but in many cases will match the results of relativity. The same thing happened for newtonian gravity, relativity is more accurate, but still matches newtonian gravity in most cases.LOL did the same happen for the Luminiferous aether Theory? OH WAIT! I'm posting facts!>>16485854>>oy vey muh sacred Saint Albert the Einstein, the infallibleAnd they say this about saint Einstein because we can not question the ancient dogma of the ancient relativity that a even older and more obscure prophet of science declared while under candle light in old times.So say we all!
>>16490209>>16490209>so all the available evidence shows that dark matter doesn't exist, yet the so-called scientists still take it as a given fact that dark matter exists >>lolScience is as retarded as any religion.>muh invisible things that can not be detected!Basically 100% of science.Remember science = natural PhilosophyThese retards are only philosophers.
>>16490398Luminiferous aether is not a scientific theory, it has no actual evidence or data or equations or anything. Relativity on the other hand has a large amount of confirming evidence. Whatever replaces relativity will still have to agree with relativity in most situations.
>>16480502So, what does your common sense say about weak lensing in the bullet cluster?
>>16490446
>>16490446>Silence As always with this crowd they have no actual understanding of the problem. Lots of loud ignorant opinions though.>>16490369>Science that make shit up on the other hand is called pseudoscience.Building hypotheses is a key part of science.
>>16490447>>16490451Jesus fucking Christ, is this board run entirely by bots that post unrelated shit? My comment was both silence and some absurd tinfoil hat shit that was aimed at discrediting slightly less tinfoil-hatty people?
>>16490447However dino bones are literally fake.Dinosaurs never existed it is all lies!
>>16490475The silence is the non-response you got from the loud autist. Sorry, I should have been more clear. Your question is a very good one, but you won't get any engagement from these types because they lack even a basic knowledge of the field. Despite the large number of threads like this, they have no interest in really defending their argument or considering the data.
>this thread againseriously guys, dark matter denialism is so surface level please come up with something new, this is embarrassing
>>16492371Okay, how about the less memorably named Macs J0025.4-1222 cluster? It is another case of two galactic clusters colliding and the visible matter not matching the gravitational lensing that is observed. So the Bullet Cluster is not a one-off observation.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MACS_J0025.4-1222
>>16480842Wtf is that image supposed to mean? lmaoReject simple fulfillment, embrace depression via trying and failing to achieve a high impact goal?
>>16480427>theory works great in most cases and predicts a bunch of stuff incredibly wellAre you talking about relativity? Because that theory is fake and gay. It has failed to predict anything meaningful. Gravitational lensing? Only observed around the plasma of suns' corona and galaxies. Not observed where refraction does not occur.Mass dilation? Not observed in particle accelerators, relativist hacks had to make up "relativistic mass", I kid you not ...GPS? Does not actually use relativity, only make-believe terms that cancel out. Most prolific gps researcher has actually come out and stated this.It's all fake and gay, and the people claiming to have found evidence for the theory just fudge some bad data to hope to get a nobel prize. Like 40% of science students that get surveyed admit to faking results for the sake of career advancement! All those particle accelerators, gigantic neutrino detectors, etc. are gigantic scam operations who can get away with it because nobody who is not part of their small clique can replicate their massaged data!
>>16492745>not matching the gravitational lensing that is observedNo shit, because gravitational lensing is fake and gay in the first place. It's just good ol' refraction lensing from the plasma around galaxies.>Einstein fake and gay prediction does not match observations? Well chud, here is an example of another of Einstein's fake and gay predictions being contradicted by the data, so clearly that means the mass data we can actually observe is false and dark matter must exist. It's not my hoax rheory that is wrong!
We were under attack by birdkin, a type of human sized and formed bird. This whole simulation was a bird attack, until today, when I defeated the birds. Some of you may have noticed this change. Tell me about it.
>>16493728Sounds less insane and more plausible than relativity or quantum mechanics. At least there's nothing logically impossible about your theory.
>>16480412Data don't sorted?Write a new "sorting" algorithm to sort data.Now you're solving the problem like a physicist!
>>16493719>Are you talking about relativity? Because that theory is fake and gay. It has failed to predict anything meaningful. Gravitational lensing? Only observed around the plasma of suns' corona and galaxies. Not observed where refraction does not occur.Nope. Refraction is strongly wavelength dependent, the amount of deflection increases with increasing wavelength. Like how a prism deflects light. Plasma refraction around the Sun is measurable, but only at radio wavelengths and very near the Sun. At visible wavelengths it is totally negligible. Lensing on the other hand is completely independent of wavelength, it is not refraction. In the Solar System the gravitational lensing is simple, and only proportional to the mass of the Sun multiplied by the gravitational constant. That has been confirmed to 0.01% precision, soon even higher with GAIA. Funny that it doesn't depend on the plasma parameters at all, and instead follows Einstein's prediction.https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.07674https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ESASP.402...49F/abstracthttps://arxiv.org/abs/1502.07395>>16493724>No shit, because gravitational lensing is fake and gay in the first place. It's just good ol' refraction lensing from the plasma around galaxies.How about looking at the data for more than 10 seconds and think. In these cluster collions we can see the hot plasma in the center (pink), and we can see that the gravitational lensing (blue). The plasma has been stripped out by the collision, away from the cluster cores. But the lensing is still centered on the cluster cores. The lensing doesn't give a shit about the plasma being removed, the lensing does not follow the plasma.So if one actually thinks about it, these data make it very clear that it cannot be any plasma effect.
>>16493883Why don't they use satellites to confirm it at the sun?
>>16493887They do, in measuring the Shapiro delay. Voyager, Viking, Cassini are spacecraft.
>>16493719>Mass dilation? Not observed in particle accelerators, relativist hacks had to make up "relativistic mass", I kid you not ..[citation needed]Relativistic mass is an old concept which people don't use any more, for decades. Maybe you should go back to school. The relativistic effect is the same, but people only talk about rest mass.>GPS? Does not actually use relativity, only make-believe terms that cancel out. Most prolific gps researcher has actually come out and stated this.Not true. From the official document setting out the GPS User interface:"The algorithms defined in paragraph 20.3.3.3.3.1 allow all users to correct the code phase time received from the SV with respect to both SV code phase offset and relativistic effects."https://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200N.pdfThe satellite clocks are adjusted for the general relativistic terms prior to launch.https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA516975.pdfThere are many papers on the topic. There are even tests of relativity using atomic clocks in space which are not updated in the way GPS ones are, these agree with relativistic predictions.https://link.springer.com/article/10.12942/lrr-2003-1https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010Sci...329.1630C/abstracthttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/332996924_A_new_test_of_gravitational_redshift_using_Galileo_satellites_The_GREAT_experimentAtomic clocks are now so precise that they can measure the gravitational time dilation while just being 1 millimeter higher.https://physicsworld.com/a/gravitational-time-dilation-measured-on-centimetre-and-millimetre-scales-in-atomic-clocks/Other relativistic effects confirmed are the Shaprio Delay, frame dragging, Pound–Rebka, time dilation in cosmic ray muons, binary pulsars, gravitational waves.
>>16480447Uhhh, we solved that over 100 years ago. Why are you bringing this up?
>>16493883>Refraction is strongly wavelength dependentWhat is a lense again, you fucking retard?>In the Solar System the gravitational lensing is simple, and only proportional to the mass of the Sun multiplied by the gravitational constantLOL he did it "proportional to" ... kek no shit do you know how refraction works? Those hacks won't admit it to your stupid face, but a retired NASA head scientist admitted that so-called gravitational lensing was ONLY observed at the corona of stars, not outside.>How about looking at the data for more than 10 seconds and think. In these cluster collions we can see the hot plasma in the center (pink), and we can see that the gravitational lensing (blue). The plasma has been stripped out by the collision, away from the cluster cores.>Assumption + assumption + assumption + assumption = Einstein rightThis is why nobody takes astrophysicists seriously. Did you even stop and think that the distribution of actual plasma is all around the two object's centers of gravity? No, you just parrot the phrases your priest told you to repeat!
>>16480412Dark matter is just a way to measure error from predictions. Stop listening to popsci influencers.
>>16480412>Dark energy>Dark matterScientists are such cowards, they cant imagine the fact Einstein was wrong and that this shit is literally just aether with science(TM) approved naming.
>>16480543Which are?
>>16494026>>16494026>[citation needed]People working at particle accelerators on tape admitting it LOL.>Relativistic mass is an old concept which people don't use any more, for decades>Look, that completely ridiculous garvage we came up with? That was decades ago goy, just gloss over the fact that this came from the same people you are supposed to blindly trust and on whose research we base our entire religion.>Not true. From the official document setting out the GPS User interfaceContains no actual relativistic calculation whatsoever, just an engineering calibration value which could come from anything affecting the clocks (you know, flying at high altitude is unlikely to not effect those clocks, no need for your cranky theories using division by 0 to explain that).>Other relativistic effects confirmed are the Shaprio Delay, frame dragging, Pound–Rebka, time dilation in cosmic ray muons, binary pulsars, gravitational waves.In other words, more made up garbage, or stuff that doesn't need relativity to explain at all.On the other hand, there's plenty of stuff that contradicts the theory, but they are put under the rug and explained away with ad hoc unprovable nonsense.>What, the energy produced by particle decay does not correspond at all to what's predicted by saint Einstein?>No problem lmao, just invent a new particle with no mass and no interactivity to explain it!
>>16494059>What is a lense again, you fucking retard?Wavelength dependent. Do you know why telescopes have more than one lens (doublets, triplets)? Because one lens alone leads to chromatic aberration. The power of the lens is wavelength dependent, and so they need additional lenses to try and correct. It is still there though. This is why prisms disperse light, because the index of refraction depends on wavelength.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_aberrationEven the refraction in the atmosphere is wavelength dependent. How is it you claim to understand the universe but don't know how a fucking prism works? >LOL he did it "proportional to" ... kek no shit do you know how refraction works? Why don't you derive the equations and show that you get the same number as GR? >>How about looking at the data for more than 10 seconds and think. In these cluster collions we can see the hot plasma in the center (pink), and we can see that the gravitational lensing (blue). The plasma has been stripped out by the collision, away from the cluster cores.>Assumption + assumption + assumption + assumption = Einstein rightAre you capable of thinking for yourself? Or are you just a chatbot? If you're not going to think for yourself, there is nothing to discuss.>This is why nobody takes astrophysicists seriously. Did you even stop and think that the distribution of actual plasma is all around the two object's centers of gravity? But it's not, you can literally see the x-ray emitting plasma in pink. It is not centred on the lensing cores (blue).
>>16494078>People working at particle accelerators on tape admitting it LOL.Not a citation.>Contains no actual relativistic calculation whatsoever, just an engineering calibration value which could come from anything affecting the clocks (you know, flying at high altitude is unlikely to not effect those clocks, no need for your cranky theories using division by 0 to explain that).It literally does, and it explicitly says it does. The official documentation says you are wrong.
>>16480422The title of the board: science & math The content of the board: 5th grade arguments
>>16494089>chromatic aberrationSome lenses don't have much of it, it's not a necessary feature and finding one image of lensed objects without much apparent chromatic aberration is no evidence for gravitational lensing. And most images showing supposed "gravitational lenses" do in fact show chromatic abberation, which the cultists explain away as blue or red shift. They offer no real evidence for it other than "einstein right therefore redshift".>Are you capable of thinking for yourself?Oh the irony ... So why did you fail to think about my comments on the matter? Plasma is all around such massive objects, of course the lensing is not going to be centered where the two objects meet and the plasma heats up (and is made visible to idiot astrophycicucks) ... Duh! The plasma is around both objects!>>16494093>Not a citation.It's straight from the horses mouth, from the documentary "Einstein wrong" ...>B-but muh heckin citation from le reputable science paperinooo!>If it's not from a peer-reviewed circlejerk publication it's not true chud!>It literally does, and it explicitly says it does. It litterally doesn't and just say it does while nothing evidences that it does, except for an engineering calibration that has fuckall to do with relativity. All they are doing is paying their obligatory respects to st. Einstein so they don't get witch-hunted by the jewish media.Again, most important contributor to GPS is on record saying they don't actually use relativity calculations in any way.
>>16494100That's just the nature of the internet anon, everything gets dragged down to the lowest common denominator. Also if you just set up a dozen filters this board is mostly ok. These retards have a specific writing style and only talk about a few topics
>>16494109>NOOOOOO WHAT ARE YOU SAYING NEGATIVE NUMBERS DON'T EXIST, I LEARNED THAT IN 5TH GRADE OF SPECIAL ED!!!!!>-5 EXISTS AS A NUMBER BUT *5 DOES NOT BECAUS- BECAUSE IT JUST DOES, OK????????
>>16490360>I have negative one apple >You give me an apple>Neither of us has an apple Imagine being the first dudes to conceptualise that shit. Away from physical reality and into make believe math land.
>>16494115(You) are trying too hard. Maybe posting to Re[spoiler][/spoiler]ddit will be closer to your speed.
>>16494168Can you give me an observation of -5 apples existing somewhere, then?
>>16494177In a empty apple case of 5 slots
>>16494177Bait used to be believable.
>>16494108>Some lenses don't have much of itThey always have some. And the point you're missing is this is chromatic aberration over the tiny wavelength range of visible light. There are no lenses with the same power from radio wavelengths to the visible. But gravitational lensing is consistent.>finding one image of lensed objects without much apparent chromatic aberration is no evidence for gravitational lensing. And most images showing supposed "gravitational lenses" do in fact show chromatic abberationIt's not one, it's every lensed image. Show me the ones with chromatic aberration.>which the cultists explain away as blue or red shift.Chromatic aberation is not redshift. You don't even understand the words you are using. Lenses don't cause redshifts. >Plasma is all around such massive objects, of course the lensing is not going to be centered where the two objects meet and the plasma heats up (and is made visible to idiot astrophycicucks) ... Duh! The plasma is around both objects!Shall we call this dark plasma? I like that name. You just assume it exists wherever you like. And no, the plasma is not only shining because of the collision. In normal non-colliding clusters, the x-ray emitting plasma is quite detectable. The plasma is really gone.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intracluster_medium>It's straight from the horses mouth, from the documentary "Einstein wrong" ...>B-but muh heckin citation from le reputable science paperinooo!>If it's not from a peer-reviewed circlejerk publication it's not true chud!Thanks for refuting your own empty claim. I don't care what someone said. I care if there is data to support it. If every particle accelerator violated relativity, then you should be able to point to some data that shows it.
>>16494205>They always have some. Irrelevant.>But gravitational lensing is consistent.Good one. It's consistent ... Except when it isn't, like most of the time.>Chromatic aberation is not redshift. It's a change in the relative frequency of wavelengths towards lower wavelengths. Prove that those "Einstein lens" rule out chromatic aberration and not red-shifting. PROVE it.>Show me the ones with chromatic aberration.See picrel.>Shall we call this dark plasma? I like that name. You just assume it exists wherever you like. No, I assume it exists wherever it is shown to exist, like around galaxies, which is evidenced when two galaxies meet and the plasma is heated up and becomes visible, nice try tho, moishe.>>16494205>Thanks for refuting your own empty claim. I don't care what someone said.Litterally people working for these scam centers for years saying that they have not observed mass increase. They are whistleblowers of these billion-dollar scam operations. Just because their observations are not peer-reviewed to be accepted in journals (read censored by the holy council of relativity), does not mean they are invalid.
>>16494246>Good one. It's consistent ... Except when it isn't, like most of the time.See the papers I posted measuring in the solar system with radio and visible, showing a consistent amplitude. But of course you didn't look.>It's a change in the relative frequency of wavelengths towards lower wavelengths. Nope. Go ahead and click the wiki link I posted, you have no idea what you are even arguing. Chromatic aberration does not change wavelengths, it has nothing to do with redshift. Pic related is actual chromatic aberration.>No, I assume it exists wherever it is shown to existBut it hasn't been shown to exist in these clusters. You are blindly assuming. You're also blindly assuming that plasma can cause enough refraction to explain all this, when you have nothing to demonstrate that. Two huge assumptions. >Just because their observations are not peer-reviewed to be accepted in journals And why haven't they published them elsewhere. Self publish, put the analysis on a website, viXra? Can you point to any of these observations? No.Without anything to back up the claim it is just a claim.>Litterally people working for these scam centers for years saying that they have not observed mass increase.As I said, no one talks about relativistic mass anymore. Saying they have not observed mass increases is perfectly consistent with the current interpretation of mass and relativity.You will say "oh, they didn't mean that" but you have no idea. That's the problem with words, they are imprecise.You disregarded several tests of relativity, because you didn't understand them. But you expect people to be totally convinced by some random persons words. This is not how science works.
>>16494266Pic of actual chromatic aberration
>>16494072Basedentists are the dumbest people on earth
>>16494266>>16494267>Chromatic aberration does not change wavelengths, it has nothing to do with redshiftIt does, see picrel.>You are blindly assuming. No, I am not. If it's all around the galaxies where they meet, it can be assumed to be elsewhere. In fact, that's the least amount of assumptions you can make. Imagine you weak up in a tent, it's pitch black but you know where your car is. You turn the car's lights on and you seethe light reflected from the foggy particles. It's only logical to assume that the fog is also where the light does not shine, unless proven otherwise.>As I said, no one talks about relativistic mass anymore. Yeah, because it's yet another failure by your guru einstein.>You disregarded several tests of relativityNah, I have other things to do than refute the nonsense from the cultists who have already been refuted since the beginning and have corrupted science and silenced everyone who disagrees. GPS does not use relativity, there is no evidence for it. The first experiments "proving" relativity were all hoaxes.
>>16494300>It does, see picrel.Nope. Drawing your delusions does not change reality. Show me an experiment which shows a glass lens changing the redshift of a source. I'll wait.>Nah, I have other things to do than refute the nonsenseSo you admit you cherry pick the experiments you reply to and ignore the rest. Ignoring all the data which doesn't confirm your prejudice is just confirmation bias. It's not scientific at all, not is it convincing.
>>16494332>Nope. Drawing your delusions does not change reality.Reality is that you'd expect refraction to change the amount of blue or red light that arrives on your telescope based on the distance, though it's going to mostly shift red because of the long distance, and blue light sources dim out more quickly. Redhift happens because red light scatters less than blue light, so plasma will scatter the light from blue objects away.Chromatic aberration like in your pic happens with close foreground objects and far away background objects that form weak lenses. If the lensing galaxy is very large, and the lensed objects (relatively) close to it, the unfocused light is highly diffuse and thus barely visible. See picrel for a blue ring.
>>16494370forgot pic.
>>16494370>Redhift happens because red light scatters less than blue lightNo it doesn't. Redshift is when all the photons have their wavelengths increased. What you describe would not cause spectral features (e.g. emission lines) to move in wavelength, and yet that is the signature of redshift. What you are describing is extinction/reddening, which happens due to dust or other scattering. This is not redshift, it is unrelated.You don't even understand the basic terms of the fields, and yet are trying to argue you know better than everyone else. But what you are saying is just gibberish, because you are using terms you just don't understand and are too arrogant to go away and learn.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_(astronomy)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift
>>16494393>This is not redshift, it is unrelated.It is related. It litterally means that the light shifts red because of time and distance. Your gurus don't even know what light is, yet they are so arrogant as to think that they can predict exactly how it behaves over billions of light-years. We know light has wave properties, what happens when it encounters resistance? It shifts its frequency to adopt a state where it loses less energy to the medium, just like an arrow will adapt its trajectory to move straight towards the point it is thrown at. It's simple physics and explains your point about absorbtion lines easily.
>>16494393Also, you didn't respond to my point, because you know it's right. Cosmic refraction rings are generally blue, but are made to appear more red due to refraction, so they can be red sometimes.
>>16494393This is how redshift actually happens btw. shlomo.Splashes from the sticky "aether" are more likely to hit the wave multiple times and disturb it, weakening the signal. Cope.
>>16490447>MY conspiracies conspiracies are based and redpilled.>YOUR conspiracies are a fed psyopsI hate this board.
>>16494638You have no argument AND you are retarded.
>>16481713why do scientists have such a hard time with "we don't know"?
>>16488719> Granted all those experiments have proven null so far,Dark matter contradicts particle physics. Which one is right?
>>16494766You do know the idea of dark matter predates Einstein's work on relativity, right? Way back in 1884 good old Lord Kelvin noticed that stars were rotating around the center of the galaxy too quickly for mass of the visible stars to hold everything together. So he offered the idea that there may be a large number of "dark bodies" we couldn't see whose gravity was holding things together. Einstein would have been like 5 at the time.
>>16494801Particle physics itself has long history of predicting a particle may exist due to other stuff not adding up right, and then finding said particle years, or even decades later. Neutrinos would be the classic example. This is still ongoing; there plenty of open problems in particle physics where new particles have been proposed to solve the issue, and physicists are trying to find said particles. For example, axions have been proposed as a solution to the strong CP (no, not that kind of CP!) problem, and sterile neutrinos have been proposed as a solution to the gallium anomaly. Both proposed particles have active experiments trying to find them, and conveniently both of those proposed particles would also be forms of dark matter that the astronomers have been looking for.
>>16494072Relativity is proven. It may not be 100% correct, but its not false.
>>16495593The universe is not an equation therefore no theory will ever be 100% correct. Theories will always be approximations of something which can never be described exactly.
>>16485851>Relativity is provenThat proof? Some jews made shit up.
>>16494267>>16494300Imagine actually believing these million of galaxy shit while you look into tiny dots in the sky that get distorted from your cameras.
>>16496160They also believe that the Milky Way is surrounded by dark matter and that dark matter causes gravitational lensing but somehow whatever they're seeing when they try to look outside of the Milky Way is accurate and not distorted by the Milky Way's dark matter
>>16495593>you're system of reasoning is self contractingInaccuracy is not a contradiction. If your theory matches observations with 99% of accuracy is still good, just not perfect.
>>16482193>Distribution of galaxies, shapes and sizes of galaxy filaments/VOIDSLambda CDM fails on all of these miserably. It may have some other small successes you mention, but without these what good is it anyway?
>>16480412Labeling it as a dark number is retarded, it's (one of) the answers to the equation.
>>16480412ftfy
>>16497233[citation needed]
>>16500334lolWater is wet can't disprove it can't be science
>>16480422Why are these retards always the very first posters in any math-adjacent thread?
>>16480557It violates his 6th grade understanding of physics, therefore it must be wrong.
>>16503299>t. transwomen are real women and also piltdownman is legit
>>16505538>YEAH WELL IF YOU DISAGREE WITH ME IT MEANS YOU LOVE TRANNIES!!!!!This is always a sign of a retard without an argument.I hate troons.
>>16505581stfu TERF
>>16481160science requires this be the case only in order for something to be a generally accepted truth or law, the latter is for theories. the first guy is right anon.
>>16506531Wrong, GR is a disproved theory
>do science>some things don't add up>get depressed that science is fake and gay>find new particle>things add up again>science is again true and heterosexual>repeat this a dozen times>things don't add up [current year]>start to get depressed that science after all is fake and gay>hold on>what if...
>>16480412My insanity has caught on
I used to be surprised that so many people were dumb enough to believe the dark matter lie, but they I remembered that 50% of all people are below 100 IQ.
>>16492453The cosmic microwave background isn't cosmological, its the heat signature of the milky way's dark matter halo
>>16494536so why are you here?
>>16510335that makes so much more sense than the official story
>>16480412
>>16512353what the square root of -4i
>>16513460Imaginary mathematicians can only imagine
>>16480412the force exerted by dark matter should be measured in unicornpower
I think it's a miracle humanity has come this far, seeing what's been said here.
>>16515833>i am sooooooo smart!!>everyone else is sooooo dumb!!!https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20366662
>>16513460is the square root of -0.9999999i = 1?
>>16513460nobody knows
>>16480412Money.Reality is what it is no matter what we believe it to be.So it really doesn't matter other than the fact it retards our progress. Then again, maybe we haven't earned it yet. We are our own warden.Saved.
>>16494048I think he meant the vacuum catastrophe
>>16515833I don't believe they are genuine
>>16480412the people who consider it legitimate aren't real scientists
>>16494536>conspiracies MKUltra: revealed to actually exist, not a conspiracyPrivate central banks: revealed to actually exist, not a conspiracyMedia run by 6 companies: not a conspiracy its literally on their Wikipedia pagesSpying on citizens: revealed to be truth, not a conspiracyGreat reset: actually openly discussed on WEF for the last 2 decades, not a conspiracyVaccine deaths: There are documented cases of people dying after taking covid vaccines, not a conspiracy. The discussion here is not about Elon Musk injecting everyone with a microchip, its that the big pharma decided to make a bank by selling everyone "ambrosia" from the spooky virus while cutting budget on its quality which caused lethal reactions in some cases because they didn't even bother to test it properly
>>16521143
>>16494536are you sad that your well poisoning didn't work?
>>16480412it's not
>>16521143What leads me to believe vaccine schizos are planted by pharma is that the vaccine isn't a secret poison, it's just kinda shit and has slightly more common side effects for healthy people than just getting the virus effectively making it pointless at best. But thanks to these useful idiots, pharma can hand wave all criticism as conspiracy theories. The WEF thing is more complicated. The original idea was for people to move from goods to services for example instead of owning an oven to bake bread, you'll just buy it locally from a bakery. Of course the idea was was twisted to profit megacorpos so that the line eternally goes up but the premise wasn't sinister.
>>16522955>buying bread isn't buying goods, its a service because they bake it for you
>>16480412>Why is this considered a legit scientific approach?BecauseScience = making up shit with no evidence.Like all of it since forever to this day.You are literally making shit up with no evidence or proof.Science = NATURAL PHILOSOPHY.You are engaging in philosophy!AKA Making shit up with no evidence. >>16480422>>wait you can't add any number to 2 to get 1??>>let's just make up a "negative number" -1 with the property that 2 + (-1) = 1 durrrrrThe difference is that this made up math nonsense has some real life use cases and is useful(I'm a mathematical fictionalist) you telling lies and using photoshop cartoons and CGI to fool kids in into the worlds most retarded religion is not.
>>16494100>>16494638>>16480422I like how you retards start seething the moment someone uses your retarded "logic" against you
>>16480427>>theory still works in most cases>>find ways to modify theory such that edge cases fitImagine trying to twist facts to not sound retarded.No retard the problem is that there can be 100s of 100s of different theories who explain the same thing the same way as yours and I can make up god particles or demon particles or Buddha forces or Karma radiation or include ghosts in there to make it all work. Your theories are not different from saying>Gods finger moves the sun in the skyThe fact that you can say this or make a calculation that makes this work is not evidence of anything. The only reason your god finger theory is accepted is consensus meaning popular vote, get enough retards to think your made up nonsense sounds cool and they vote for it and hate the other solutions. Like all of the history of Christianity.>No you saying jesus is not god IS A HERESY!!!!!!!!https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_heresiesThe point is that you made up a theoretical Buddha particle to explain why stars wiggle a little different does not mean the Buddha particle is real. The fact you made calculations to explain how gods finger moves all the stars in the sky is not evidence gods finger is real.You making up calculations for your dark matter and energy dose not mean any of this shit is real!>Muh occam's razorIs retarded and arbitrary bullshit. The 5 elements are simpler then modern chemistry table therefore they are accepted and modern chemistry rejected.
>>16523483ywnbaw
>>16524103He fails to understand that the line is the occam's razor is bullshit because 4 element model is far simpler therefore true then the 118+ element model.
>>16523199the tl;dr post you replied to was tl;dr because it takes a lot of words to explain tortured logic
>>16512353>genders don't add up?>add a hypothetical "imaginary gender">now you're doing biology like a humongous faggot
>>16526467
>>16513460Wolfram says 4 * ((-1)^(1/4)) or 4 times the 4th root of negative one.
>>16480412Because publishing a unified physics would crash the economy.
>>16480427I find it amusing you just described OPs meme using words as if it justifies anything.
>>16524106You're quoting Einstein not Occam Occam saidNumquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necesssitateWhich loosely translates to don't compound more than necessary Some translate it as mistakes compound.
>>16529431>Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necesssitate"do not create unnecessary entities"
>>16480412>create model>model fails to match with experimental data>create new model to account for experimental dataliterally what else are they supposed to do
>>16530895>>16530456>literally what else are they supposed to doStop being retarded.>Nooo I must know what is 999999 billion billion billion light years away or I will have a meltdown!!!!You have a mental disorder and belong in a mental hospital.>literally what else are they supposed to doRecord reality you dumb fuck stop playing around with models.>muh models>muh match with experimental dataWhen was the last time we did need to adjust our models[sic] of when ice melts? How about the melting point of iron?See the difference?Your models and theories are literally identical to "MAKING SHIT UP"1) The sky exists[fact]2)>REEE I must know who created the sky! [your mental disorder]3)>>Here friend here Is my 100% scientific theory how the river god wushwush created the sky!>>Prof this is real?>>It is a theory!>>Muh pear reviewed science!>>Muh model!>>The sky exists therefore my god created the sky theory is proven!You are mentally ill and exactly like every religious idiot in history.
>>16530456rejecting the initial model instead of adding epicycles to it. name one instance in all of the history of science where adding epicycles was what was needed to go from a failed model to a correct one
>>16531423All our models are wrong, we should reject them all and return to monkey.
>>16531423When beta decay seemed like it was violating the conservation of momentum, rather than tossing out that theory the good'ol Pauli suggested that maybe some tiny invisible particle that no equipment at the time could detect (sound familiar?) was carrying off the missing momentum. It took a couple of decades to directly detect said particles, neutrinos.
Mathematicians may as well be wizards
>>16480412Determinism crosses superposition I.E objects exsisting in MULTIPLE TIMELINES so determinism is no cause and effect it is a new timeline at the end of a reaction and it completes the reaction because of two understandings being undermined
>>16494141>dig a hole 1 meter below ground level, call it -1 meter in height>have a mound 1 meter above ground level, call it 1 meter in height>move mound to fill hole and both will be 0 meter in height
>>16480412The thing is that the predictions are done through really complicated methods that can go "wrong" because of many things. Dark matter appears because it literally patches many troubles with calculations by a single modification. So it is highly compatible in some sense with our best theories and it requires in most cases just one extra assumption on the magnitude of a single parameter which is the mass. It is not that they are just adding that to every wrong calculation, it is that they are adding it in the "same way" and different phenomena that can be used to calculate the theoretical quantity have given the same results. Well according to astronomers at least, but yeah I'm more skeptical if their calculations are sound in other ways, but trusting their results, scientifically it is a good explanation. The thing is a new theory has to be compatible with the existing knowledge so if you want a new revolutionary theory that explains these particular phenomena but is also consistent with all we already know, well Einstein is considered one of the greatest scientists of all times because he exactly did this.
>>16480412Why is math so funny bros
>>16533374Because math people are nutty
So it's not LITERALLY imaginary, is it?
>>16535116A meme isn't science anon.
>>16480412isnt that all abstract reasoning is? adding stuff that didnt exist so you can make sense of it lmao
>>16535800Preach brother!Physics has been alive and well for th last 100years at the department of defense.
>>16480412Sove for x:1 + 1 + x = 3 ----> 2 + x = 3 -----> x = 1Dumb faggot
>>16535964>Gets proven wrong>REEE KYS Cope harder retard
sus af that >>16535840 got deletedhttps://warosu.org/sci/thread/16480412#p16535840everyone nose who did it and why
>>164804121+1+.999...=3
>>16538903>add a hypothetical 0.999… to account for inaccuracy
>>16523483>only two gendersHe's right you know.
>>16538903>1+1+.999...=3It's wrong. 0.(9) is just infinite summation and infinite equals -1/12. Therefore it is [ math ]\fract{9}{10^-\fract{1}{12}} [ /math ] and 1+1+0.999...≈2+11=14
>>16490214do you actually believe trumptards are capable of more?
>>16541096Just KYS already, zetta function is in the sticky.
>>16530411entities is entia in laten and appears no where in that phrase.It was always about compounding errors.
>>16530896>Nonsensical rambling as if it's a coherent argument punctuated with name calling.This is your mind on standard model physics.
>>16533223Einstein was a hack.Lorentz created frame transitioning; Poincare came up with C as a universal constant and Hasenohry wrote E=3/8MC^2 a year before Einstein published his paper on relativity.Your opinion is more like a cult mantra than a scientific observation.
>>16541690>Your opinion is more like a cult mantra than a scientific observation.While you are correct about that, history has proved that large midwit cults win out over the tiny minority of high IQ individuals that are smart enough to understand that the cult's beliefs are idiotic.
>>16492745Keep going you're already half way through the handful of evidence against MONDMeanwhile MONDchads effortlessly explain 99.999% of the sky
>>16480423>Astronomers arent real scientists.correct>They are getting thereincorrect, they're only getting worse
>>16541809:(
>>16480427> Dark matter makes up the vast majority of actual matter> edge caseYou can't be serious.
>>16513460sqrt(2) - sqrt(2) i
>>16542514>Keep going you're already half way through the handful of evidence against MONDLol no. MOND doesn't work in any galaxy cluster, it under predicts the mass in all of them. The Bullet Cluster also shows that the gravitational field doesn't follow the majority of the visible mass, which MOND models say it should. So doubly problematic.MOND proponents are trying to cope by adding their own dark matter.>Meanwhile MONDchads effortlessly explain 99.999% of the skyThings not explained by MOND:Cosmology: Hubble constant, expansion history, matter density, baryon acoustic oscillations, supernovae, weak gravitational lensing.Large-Scale Structure: Matter only cosmologies do not form structure like we observe. The Cosmic Microwave Background: Dark matter models successfully predicted the form of the power spectrum. MOND inspired fits failed, and cannot be made to fit the data even decades later. (pic related)Galaxy formation: Luminosity functions, galaxy clustering, dwarf galaxies, planes of satellites, high redshift galaxies, quenching and morphology....Things actually by MOND: Dynamics of spiral and dwarf galaxies. (Which it was designed to do)"99.999%"? My ass. The reason it seems to explain "everything" is that MONDians only talk about the places that it works.
>>16480412A glass is on the table (1), the glass falls onto the ground (=2), something had to make the glass fall onto the ground (x)So we get1 + x = 2
>>16512353Shouldn't you lose the second 2?
>>16546287it arbitrary, you can just make up whatever numbers you want
>>16549054thats what makes math and physics so easy
>>16480412What going on in that picrel is they start the experiment by assuming the equation is correct and that 3 is the correct answer, they aren't open to considering the legitimacy of the equation or of the answer because they've already accepted those as dogma.
