[–] carlip 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Or it could not be an apparent effect. There is no way to actually verify this.

[–] knightwarrior41 2 points 3 points (+5|-2) ago 

so much theory and so little facts.in fact.pardon my redundancy,the amount of knowledge that we have about the earth and the universe could equated with a drop of water in a vast sea.

[–] B3bomber 2 points 2 points (+4|-2) ago 

Please, it wouldn't even equate to 1 single atom in that drop of water.

[–] The-Dude-Abides 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Its all one giant ass puzzle, and we are just slowly piecing it together.

Everything involved in the scientific method is just a theory. Thats it. The entirety of it is based off of the idea that there isnt a 100% truth. Instead we can only disprove things.

[–] boogieboogie 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago 

Hu, Maybe tell your fellow scientists about that. They seem to have some real issues understanding that their little experiments and theories aren't 100% facts that we need to change the whole earth for.

[–] LinoleumFulcrum 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

The ignorance in this thread is impressive - even for Voat.

Now tell me why "science is wrong" - from your personal computer, with your electricity, interconnected to the world's other computers and be sure to include your scientific credentials when doing so.

[–] The_Cat 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Dunning-Kruger is always strong when it's about advanced science on the internet.

[–] tweezed 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Damn straight, voat is pretty fucking stupid as a whole. I like how people who are quick to point out the vileness of Islam are also the first to go "HEY FUCK YOU, MR. JEW SCIENTIST MAN WITH YOUR BIG WORDS AND FANCY THEEOOORRIIEEESSS!!"

[–] LinoleumFulcrum 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I like your style.

[–] maxoverdrive 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

What's always bothered me is that modern scientists are so enamored of their complex theories that they forget, or even disparage, Occam's Razor. And in ignoring it they develop complex theories about "dark matter" and "dark energy" which boggle the imagination, while at the same time denigrating the idea that perhaps a more simple explanation - that gravity doesn't' work over large distances exactly as they predicted it does - might be the more logical explanation. A flawed theory about gravitation is far simpler than this horseshit over imaginary "dark energy" and "dark matter', yet they're so wrapped up in their stupid, human, flawed egos they'll go to great lengths to 'prove' that dark energy and dark matter exists (which they've never done, ever), rather than admit the fact that they were wrong about gravity to begin with.

[–] ZombieUnicorn 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Ahh, but the simplest explanation may be substrate and approach conditional. And Bayesian needs to remain open to update conditions.

The no free lunch theorem states that there is no one model that works best for every problem. Yet to transact a question is to downselect the space and pass information. So we split the space, because well, falsifiable science requires nulls and then we realize that no matter what solution we obtain, by deciding how to look at a given opportunity, there is going to be a pluralism.

So we are to assume those that are most easily nested within our brains, language, structures whose proofs have not yet shown contradictions, and approximations that match the present canonical idealisms are simple.

Eliminativism of all dictomies false appears, is far simpler. Unity is saved via Occam's Razor. A blade that does not cut. Yet has no context for use.

In all honesty I would say this is an overgeneralization. So instead, maybe in some contexts, we should accept metrics like Kolmogorov complexity.

Maybe we should take time to explore false dicotmoizes with fancy neurotic features. And maybe if we are lucky will can find a label for a those that are experimentally redeemed, pragmatically irrefutable presently, and perhaps just figments of our imagination.

We have to measure in the lab to renormalize Feynman diagrams, yet apply bits flipping to dark energy and dark matter is going stretch the limits of closed form for our synaptic crossfiring. Completeness is a bitch, embraced and rebelled like Nature. It is a requirement as a holism for our best relational discrete theories, yet bits flip.

I get what you are saying though. If gamma ray bursts matched the equations for dark matter, it might make a very measurable prediction. Chances are it is a conglomerate of things that get exotic very fast and not just one thing in the fruit cake of the universe. Questioning our knowledge of our presently taken standard candles might be a better start than the measured redshift for our present instruments. But even with a 95% confidence interval it is probable 1/20 observations that will pass the test. That and we don't publish the negatives....

[–] tweezed 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

This is a very content dense post, I approve. By chance, are you a scientist as well?

[–] maxoverdrive 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

And yet, despite all efforts, there is zero proof - and I do mean zero - that 'dark energy' or 'dark matter' exists. With every passing year it becomes more likely that we're simply a bunch of stupid, arrogant apes who don't really understand how gravity works over distances...yet we refuse to believe such a thing might be true, despite the math that says that it may be so.

[–] captainstrange 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

The no free lunch theorem states that there is no one model that works best for every problem.

I too am a fan of random forests.

[–] The_Cat 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

"This is too difficult for me to understand, so it must be too complicated to be true."

The universe does not owe it to you to make sense.

[–] RicardoCabesa 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

For several years Ive been saying that dark matter and dark energy are science's version of "God did it." Some people get so defensive about those theories even though theyre just laymen like myself, that it seems like a religion at this point.

[–] The_Cat 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

You clearly don't understand what dark matter and dark energy is, then.

[–] InterDigitated 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

I've been saying this for years....
it has aways bothered me that we make the observation that
our visible universe appears to be expanding
the entire universe is expanding

[–] The_Cat 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

It's the copernican principle. No part of the universe is particularly more special than any other. Thus cosmological laws apply to the entire cosmos at a grand enough scale.

There have been other hypotheses which posit that we are in a local void or something, but they don't really work as well.

[–] InterDigitated 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

sure, we're not special and neither is our part of space... that is reasonable.
However, it is not only our snapshot of space that is nearly infinitesimal, so too is our snap shot of time within this reality.

In chemistry, if you observed 0.000001% of the kinetics at a random point in time of some chemical reaction, it would be ludicrous to state that the behaviour of the system observed at this point is average or at equilibrium, etc.

[–] Silver_Sky 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

If this is true, this represents a pretty serious shift to the paradigm of physics and the universe as we know it, since Dark Energy is assumed to be part of the rapid inflation mechanic which took place early on in the universe's history. Without the expansion of space, a lot of other things break.

[–] FelonyVoaterFraud 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

We have our eyes on the universe but it's so much easier and more rewarding to have our eyes on God.

[–] RedditisPropaganda31 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 


[–] knightwarrior41 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 


you will drive yourself insane with this thinking

load more comments ▼ (2 remaining)