Is there even a chance we will find out how universe work? I mean something real and not balls that are bending spacetime or some made up quantum magic.
Anon, you're a simulated brain in a vat experiencing the panhallucinogenic states of a multiverse.Nothing is really real.
>implying the universe workskek
>>16994730>Is there even a chance we will find out how universe work?Yes, read your bible.
pee is stored in the balls. that is all you need to know
We could start granulating matter into plank-sized black holes, then gather them into a bunch and play gravity games.
>>16994730any day nowhttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lr2K71gtZk4&ra=m
Just stick to newtonian mechanics and ignore big and small scales
>>16994730Study the telescope first before studying the universe. If you dont have the proper lenses, if you dont know how the telescope works, the universe wont get you there.That telescope is your consciousness.
There is a lot of maths and nerds doing sums and a lot of it has seemed to work. We have big telescopes to help study things moving around. The more we get up there and the more we do things in the cosmos the more we will learn. We have a lot of satellites up there and have sent a lot of probes but research is still kinda limited as we are mostly stuck down here. I think getting hands on with other planets will unlock a lot of mysteries. As they are all different compositions but getting samples from them to study is quite difficult for the time being. I think space stuff will speed up exponentially for a long time so in a few hundred years we will know far more.
>>16995087When do we get to a level that cosmological experiments can be performed? I want to know if the Earth is the cause of gravity. We need to move Earth out of its current orbit to see what its like without it. And then we can bring it back.
>>16995357I do not think we will be doing that for a long time. Putting more shit in space and probing more planets is probably the first step figuring out what and how they ended up with whatever compositions. Making a universe wide comm system and trying different things is also up there. We can move comets and asteroids but only did that recently and are still studying the data, maybe one day it will lead to being able to move a planet but it won't be earth for a long time lol. It wouldn't take much to cause a game of cosmic pinball. If we decide to move a planet if will probably be one on the other side of the galaxy that won't potentially cause a mass extinction event on earth. In the millions of years future, we might have to move the earth if we cannot colonise and adapt to other planets, there is titan and then nothing for a while, but thats theoretical.
>>16994730Incompleteness proves that a universe is mathematically impossible since no physical container could possibly contain all true physical objects.
>>16994730>>16994862lmaooo
>>16994730yes>>16994779Yes
>>16994730People are desperate to understand the lore of the universeBut they wont even learn high school biology, chemistry, physics, calculus We figured a lot out already desu
>>16994730If woman stands off against herself for a balance then she can't stand to be here and would leave for another world.
>>16994779The bible says the earth is flat with a dome with water on the outside of the dome, also that the sun and moon are inside the dome.
>>16997180>We figured a lot out already desu
>>16994730Yes
>>16997193>if I reference plato's cave (I've never read plato) then I can deny all modern knowledgegrow up
>>16994730the only way for us to understand how the universe works is to take it apart, or destroy it...https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hKdfReE0qds&ra=m
>>16997196>I've practiced symbolic representation my entire life so why ask about the fundamental principles that give rise to symbolic representation?>Kant? Noumenon? You haven't read the Kritik der reinen Vernunft so I don't need to consider such ideas.Yeah I figured as much.
>>16994730>be brilliant physicist>take existing understanding of the world>add another layer of models below the lowest existing layerAnd the loop continues
>>16994730This image summarizes the state of this board. Infested with frogs.
>>16994730Flip that switch
>>16999729>>17001753lol
>>16999729Most of the single line posts are glowies trying to shit up threads for some reason? Like, I get it on /pol/ and /x/ is stop info seeping out and make the board seem shit but do not get why they do it on /sci/ If anyone dropped anything too crazy here they would just pull the thread since it's a pretty slow board.
>>16994730In some senses, no, it can’t be done. Even if we have some proposed fundamental model that explains what the universe is made of and why it evolves the way it does, any measurements we make regarding it are (by definition) going to be a part of that fundamental system, thus rendering them unable to provide data that would be counter to such a model. Now, if one supposed that the universe is indeed nestled in some background, such as a computer simulation, then what can be made of that? The answer is that it inevitably leads to the same situation, where one has to either continue to nestle the more fundamental structures within deeper models or consider that their universe be background-independent. Either way, no matter how far the chain extends, one’s universe is ultimately free of external influence. Reality is therefore self-contained, and questions such as what it is made of can only be confidently answered as “being made of itself”. You can find a lot of answers (i.e. frames of reference) that answer this question, though each one would have to be consistent with that one thing, reality, being referenced. Information, consciousness, love, all these answers to your age-old question are common viewpoints that are able to be reconciled with each other. One could say the universe is made of hotdogs, that hotdiggity dogs is life, though language itself presupposes how accessible that frame of reference is.
>>16999729I approve of the frog threads.
