Sign into an existing account

"We were wrong about the facts surrounding X, but that's ok, and here's how it doesn't defy our laws of physics."

I knew this science nigger was retarded when I saw the clip of him twirling his iPhone around without a case on it because hurr durr practice makes perfect, if I spin it around in my fingers like it's a coin I'll get so used to it that I'll never drop it.

Cool, I'll brush up on my pull-out method enough times and I won't have to pay child support to fat chicks!

False, science changes all the time based on evidence.

General relativity is rock solid. What cosmology gets wrong is that it uses the inverse square pattern for gravity. Mass interacts with gravity, causing it to fall off slower than 1/r^2. This negates the need for dark matter.

While relativity is solid, Einstein did steal it.

It's a fair bit more predictive than Phlogiston Theory, Aether Theory, or any number of things that came before it. It's gotten us to the Moon, Mars, out of the Solar System (or at least to some semblance of interstellar medium).

Einstein's Special Relativity equations basically enable GPS to exist, so you're likely benefiting from SR now (and it's used on bulldozers to grade roads so you're benefiting from it sometime whether you believe in it or not). We've observed gravitational lensing (also predicted by General Relativity) from the sun and from distant black holes. Relativity is pretty good, and Einstein was just the last in a list of scientists to describe it (not like he laid all the groundwork for the entire theory and all that). Maybe he was the best to articulate it, but I mean, Newton vs. Leibniz, Edison vs. Tesla... breakthroughs like this always have more than one person working on them. At least Watson & Crick collaborated on DNA characterization I suppose...


Now that, yes, I've always had a problem with. BILLIONS of dollars have been awarded to find dark matter with ZERO proof AT EVERY FUCKING STEP. And what's the excuse every fucking time? "Oh, we just need a bigger, more expensive detector!". It's a goddamn racket just like the race hustlers. "Oh there's racism out there! We just need more gibs to find it." It's only a matter of time before the dark matter zealots start falsifying data like the race hustlers.

Anyway that's why there are competing theories like Modified Gravity which I personally like because I mean... like you said, the current models are falling short of a full explanation of reality (which, we're not God, we'll never get the full understanding in this realm). But that doesn't mean we just discard them as useless - they've certainly proven some worth. We modify them, adapt them, bring them into accord with our observation of reality. GR/SR doesn't mesh with quantum mechanics, quantum mechanics literally rests on "random chance" which is about as wishy washy as you get with science (and yet we still make it useful, interestingly enough)...

So yea, our physics falls a little short of explaining the entirety of reality, but it sorta works gooder than the physics that was in place before it, so we're gonna run with it. Unless you've got something better to bring to the table? Which brings me to my final point - physics and all of science generally is only useful insofar as man can use it. Of what significance is the origin of the universe? How does that butter my bread? How does that drive me to work? What good does knowing that do?

But yea man, dark matter is definitely one of the dumber grifts in physics. Unless you count anthropogenic global warming aka climate change aka "whatever the new grift is" as in the realm of physics.

So your saying space is fake and gay, aliens are demons. Project blue beam incoming?

What did the bible say about it?

There also the fact that a consensus of 99 scientists or engineers is actually just the word of one or a small few.

One expert says something, maybe he gets checked and vindicated by another expert, but the rest of the experts who agree are simply agreeing with the first 1-3 experts whose work they never checked but whose word they simply trust in to be correct.

So it may look like 99 experts when in truth it's just the word of 3 experts at most.

We all do this, the large majority of what we believe in is based on trust, it comes from a long chain of trust between us and the source of the information.

Even within the professional communities of scientists and engineers, most are unable to personally verify everything with evidence or experimentation, they rely upon their colleagues for the majority of what they believe to be true eveb within their own specialized field.

Exactamundo senior!

The same, except that everybody was considered a peer. No cloistered brotherhood of "experts" safeguarding their secrets and telling outsiders that they were unqualified to participate in the scientific endeavor.
Everything was a matter of public record and all knowledge was made as accessible as it could possibly have been.
Peer review fails because gatekeeping the accessibility to participation in the scientific world means that most works go without replication or falsification.

Remember how scientists covered up the fact that obesity was tied to the consumption of neosugars, and had successfully done so over the course of decades?

Post-truth world. We are drowning in information, so we just grab onto whatever confirms our biases and tae faith in that, while at the same time denying that we believing as we do on the basis of faith.

Well there is supposed to be an Arctic nuke test in the next year or two. We'll be able to see what happens then. (Russia has announced it will test)