/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10165171
What are dark energy and dark matter? Aren't they just used as an excuse to fill the gaps in our understanding of the universe?

literally aether

>>10165177
Yes but dark matter seems to behave like matter (has gravity) and dark energy seems to behave like energy (pushes things apart). We can calculate these values despite not fully understanding them.

>>10165171

Yes, of course they do. Modern physics has been corrupt ever since wangdong's proof of maxwell's semen demon, extending netwon's principles of semen liquifaction (the black booty problem) was swept under the rug in favour of more esotheric frameworks of quantum nucleation.


Once strong AI is achieved, this ridiculous trend-following speculation in physics will end for good.

>>10165189
>Seems
But how can you calculate something which you know nothing about? I can invent things and pull their properties out of my ass to calculate things with them as well.

>>10165171
How do you measure how much matter?

Matter can be measured in many ways.

>>10165195
I encourage you to try and see if your made up theory is even consistent with physics and sufficiently different from what is known or others' ideas

>>10165195
>Make mathematical model
>Compare to observed data
>Models that include mass that doesn't interact with light match astronomical observations the best
>Models that include dark energy match cosmological observations the best
That's it, we didn't realise we were missing something until these models gave us the suspicion, we'll see in the coming years if they keep up with better observations and we'll see if we can get some candidates for what they are, it's not just pulling things out of your ass

>>10165171
A thing doesn't move as one unless there are active attractions between its parts.
"Stillness" would disperse if disturbed.

You're stupid as hell to dismiss Vectorial Phenomenology as "little pedestrian bricks"
just like any invertebrate that fails to openly address disputants.

>>10165171
A thing doesn't move as one unless there are active attractions between its parts.
"Stillness" would disperse if disturbed.

You're stupid as hell to dismiss Vectorial Phenomenology as "little pedestrian bricks"
just like any invertebrate that fails to openly address disputants.

>>10165195
Solve the problem then.
There's a Nobel in Physics for you if you do it

>>10165273
Purging academia of sycophants and intellectual cowards won't be well received by the Nobel prize committee.

>>10165287
That's a convenient excuse for your theory failing.

>>10165208
it was measured based on its gravitational force.

>>10165191
Could you unretard what you just said so I can read up on it.

>>10165342

>2018
>Believing in gravity
>ishygddt

>>10165171
>pie charts
>seriously
kek

>>10165171
monkeys don't, it seems

Everyone knows it's fake

>>10165728
www.pastebin.com/8fgM3uLh

ITT OP is smarter than all the leading theoretical physicists. Who would have thought? Great job OP!

>>10166032
>theoretical """""physicists"""""
glorified philosophers

Is this even science at this point
>https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-dark-matter-encircle-earth/
>Adler estimates in the October 17 Journal of Physics A that at most some 24 trillion metric tons of dark matter lies between Earth and the moon. Such a dark matter halo might explain the anomalies seen in the orbits of the Pioneer, Galileo, Cassini, Rosetta and NEAR mission spacecraft, he adds.

I knew it was bullshit when dark matter was hypothesized to be precisely in the structure of an object that eliminates inconsistencies.

>>10165171

>>10165171
Well how big a percentage would Ordinary Matter have to be before you start considering the pie chart reasonable enough that you wouldn't dumpster it and the research that went into it? I'd be interested to know where you came up with such a number.

>>10166062
Every volume is a mass with varying levels of unity: solidity: oneness: solidarity.
A thing doesn't move as one unless there are active attractions between its parts. "Stillness" would disperse if disturbed.
The attractive force of a mass is determined by how much turnover into a luminal field it is, not a property called mass.
Fields are what masses destruct into due to the test of being forced together in conflict.
To actually travel straight a thing must zigzag or spin. Attempting to travel straight causes, eventually circular, veering.
To actually turn right you must also turn left as much.
To actually stay the same *stay intact* you must replace all your vectors in a process of turnover.
To actually change and be a chaotic fluid like space you must not replace anything.
To actually "create" *bring together* you must "destroy" *disperse* as much.
To actually "destroy" DISPERSE you must "create" BRING TOGETHER as much (combatants into conflict).
A thing is just nothing in two places and if you bring them together in conflict
they make like the Gingham Dog v. the Calico Cat and fly apart into a field that causes all it passes through to shift inward.
You are creating "gravity" *all attractions* by fighting our forward antientropic vectors.

>>10165357
This