/sci/ - Science & Math

Its matter, but dark. There's a lot of it at goth clubs.

>>14739143
There are many observations, like the way some galaxies spin or the magnitude of some gravitational lensing effects, that could only be explained assuming there is a certain amount of mass in those places. But the matter that we can see and measure is way way less than what we are expecting.

So we just hypothesized that there must be some kind of matter that we can't detect but it's still there for our models to works, thus dark matter.

Whether it's an actual thing or our theories are just wrong is yet to be discovered, but there are strong evidences that at least some of it is actually real.

mathematical hack to salvage general relativity

Matter that is hypothesized to be there and making an influence on the universe, it is detectable by it's gravity but nothing else is known about it and some scientists believe it not to be there at all and an error in calculations.
The "dark" comes not just from that it's not visible but also that nothing is known about it.

Despite making up 13% of total matter in the universe, it accounts for 50% of gravitational pulls

>>14739143
Basically we can see galaxies acting like they have a lot more gravity than seems appropriate for the amount of stars we can see. Logically there must be something there we can't see, so we call it dark.

Alternatively there could be different physical rules for different galaxies, because we do see galaxies of similar size behaving differently, but that explanation sounds a lot less convincing than "there's something we're not seeing."

>>14739168
It's also very dark

>>14739202
Yeah that's the other thing with dark matter, it's really hard to see at night

>>14739143
Basically the theory of General relativity postulates that galaxies or even solar systems will behave a certain way, more specifically towards the edges. They don't so rather than to destroy jewish hegemony in science they came up with dark matter. It's basically wooden doors, hole in the roof and the most effective ovens ever on a cosmic scale.

>>14739218
saved

>>14739143
It doesn't exist

>>14739143
Its information

>>14739288
Whose information?

>>14739292
Everyones

>>14739143
>Grug lift stone
>Grug lift many stones
>One day Grug lift stone
>Stone is so heavy
>Stone drag me no hands
>Grug not know why
>Grug call it magic

>>14739143
stars at the edge of galaxies orbit its galaxies too quickly

dark matter was invented because missing mass

it probably doesn't exist but dark matter keeps 120 year old theories still kind of hold together, at least for now

what is it about black holes that makes them the number one most popular popsci topic of discussion amongst the brainlet soience fangoys?
is it the comic bookish aspects of the spectacular, unrealistic and completely non disprovable conjectures which go along with the topic that make black holes so popular amongst the scientist posers and wannabes?

>>14739143
>people watch galaxies formation/shapes
>they calculate gravity and apply to galaxies
>the results dont match
>something must be interacting with galaxies/universe at large
>but we can't see it in our light sensing technologies
>so lets call it dark matter

Also
>the universe expands
>it must be constant
>but wait, the cosmological background radiation shows its differences in expansion rate
>hmm maybe its not constant but some other energy driving random expansion
>lets call it dark energy, the cosmological constant is same as dark energy

>>14739439
This thread is not about black holes you absolute 85 IQer

>>14739143
Galileo showed us that Earth is not the center of the universe and is nothing special.
Darwin showed us that humans are just one branch on a tree of life and are nothing special.
Freud and neuroscience came along and showed consciousness is just the tip of the mind iceberg and is nothing special.
Now physics and astronomy are showing that the matter we can see and interact with directly is only a tiny amount of matter and is nothing special.
Most of human history has been looking at nature assuming we were the center of it all and that is turning out to be false in multiple ways.

Its a dogmatic tenet of the cult of Physics that (((Einstein))) is infallible, so when experimental observations disagree with Relativity, they have to cook the experiment numbers until they match. Its turns out that relativity is so hilariously off on the large scale that we have to pretend the universe is made up of like 90% invisible magic pixie dust and angels so as not to insult the tribes of Israel.

>>14739749
So in other words Einstein is wrong but nobody smarter than him came up to figure out a viable alternative?

>>14739143
I'll give you a hint: Our souls are composed of dark matter and that's why scientists still haven't been able to measure them yet

>>14739164
Kepler's Law in the case of galactic rotation curves, faggot.

>>14739760
Yes. Gravity is still an unsolved problem. Mostly because zionism is holding physics since its basically illegal to question General Relativity.

>>14739787
what does zionism have to do with nobody being clever enough to offer a theory that works?
I mean there's no practival value in saying "einstein a shit" if you are not able to add "here's how it actually works instead:"

>>14739143
imagine you were at the gym
you are going for a max bench press of 315 pounds
you make an attempt but you can only get 305 pounds
you know you should have been able to bench 315 so extra invisible dark matter plates on the barbell were responsible for your failed lift
its the only reasonable explanation

>>14739787
Where do you get the idea that it is "illegal" to question general relativity? Tons of different modified gravity hypothesis have been published & given serious consideration. Its just that so far all of them have ran into major issues with explaining certain observations.

One big issue with any modified gravity theory are the so called "dark matter deficient" galaxies. That is, there are a small number of dwarf galaxies that do behave like relativity says they should, based on their visible matter, while most other visually similar dwarf galaxies do act as if they have a bunch of extra mass. The dark matter hypothesis explains those galaxies as having some odd event separate the visible matter from the dark matter, while pretty much all of the modified gravity ones fall flat on their face. Well, aside maybe from the idea that gravity works differently in different parts of the universe, but that would be a bitch to test, to say the least.

>>14739904
>there are a small number of dwarf galaxies that do behave like relativity says they should
Exactly. A small number. You dont throw the baby out with the bathwater

>>14739158
>but there are strong evidences that at least some of it is actually real
such as?

>>14740104
If it’s really due to a modification to gravitation then there can be no exceptions.

>>14740112
The acoustic modes of the cosmic microwave background are sensitive to both the total gravitational matter and the matter which feels pressure. These are unequal according to observations, this was a verified prediction of the cold dark matter model. This is backed up by the abundances of light elements produced in the early universe, which agree with the normal matter density from the CMB and don’t allow for dark matter to be normal matter. Lastly there is the bullet cluster, where most of the normal matter has been removed from the cluster cores, and yet the mass traced by gravitational lensing shows that most of the mass just ploughed straight through.

>>14739713
That has nothing to do with the thread and is also a very biased way of looking at those scientific discoveries.
Take your demoralizing crap somewhere else

>>14739843
>what does zionism have to do with nobody being clever enough to offer a theory that works?

Because if literally anybody else had come up with Einstein's theories then the current reaction would be
>they're wrong

instead the current reaction is
>they're wrong, but let's make them appear right

>>14739843
We had a theory that worked, Aether.
But Einstein canceled aether.
The problem is, energy oligarchy doesn't want us to have very cheap energy. That will create a lot of free people, which is what oligarchs hate.
Oligarchs like people to think that there's very little energy left and them, benevolent energy monopolists, will only sell it to you at a very high price. Then they control you.
>>14739164
This ,also to make sure you all think we are running out of energy. While energy is literally everywhere.

>>14740227
If I get this right, people are pretty sure now that dark matter exists? And the alternative theory, that we have to modify the law of gravitation a little bit (MOND) is dead?

>>14740480
No, the reaction would be (as it has been)
>It's probably wrong, but it could be right - let's look down this rabbit-hole and see what this alternative explanation implies, see if it matches existing observations, and what testable new predictions it makes.
Look at what happened just ten years ago when CERN got the famous "faster than light neutrinos" result. The response from the entire scientific community was essentially "this is probably just going to turn out to be a measurement error... but on the off chance it's not, what would this imply for our understanding of physics". It eventually did turn out to be an instrumentation error, but for the months that CERN spent tracking that down, you saw dozens of theoretical papers published on arxiv and even in peer-reviewed journals hypothesizing what other effects might be seen if neutrinos really were capable of travelling faster-than-light and what it would imply about the nature of the weak interaction and spacetime.

Conspiracy fags love to treat physicists like they're all dogmatic cunts (and, to be fair, some are), but the reality is that the majority of physicists, especially theoryfags, fucking LOVE for when something major gets shaken up about the status quo, because (a) it basically means free reign to publish whatever you can think of as an alternative explanation, and (b) it means there's a chance they could figure out what's really going out and be the person who comes up with the next major revolution in the field.

>>14740502
>We had a theory that worked, Aether.
>But Einstein canceled aether.
aether was "cancelled" because all the experiments indicated it wasn't there and that something else was going on

>>14740510
None of the experiments proven aether isn't there.
They literally put Einstein on the stage and made him to cancel aether and install relatiivity instead.
This put actual REAL physics 100 years behind times.

>>14740509
>fucking LOVE for when something major gets shaken up about the status quo
If the theory isn't even true, why is it status quo in the first place?

>>14739763
Is our consciousness composed of dark matter too?

>>14740506
Dead? No. But it's definitely on the back burner because, as is, it can't explain all the observations that we see and would need further modification. Dark matter isn't without its flaws either, the most obvious being that we haven't figured out what it is, if it does exist. There are some suggestions, obviously, but we haven't found concrete evidence of any of them at this stage. Normal electromagnetically-detectable matter is ruled out because we don't see any at any detectible wavelength, massive compact objects like black holes are unlikely as well because (again) we don't see any evidence of there being enough of these objects distributed the way they would need to be to explain the observations. That basically leaves some as-of-yet-unidentified particle which interacts through strong or weak interaction, and we've ruled out quite a large range of mass/energies where those particles could live. If we exhaust these possibilities, then some change to gravitational theory is the next step.

>>14740515
The status quo only remains as such until you observe a counter-example which it cannot explain. Classical mechanics and electrodynamics were the status quo until we started making observations like Brownian motion, the photoelectric effect, discrete radiation, etc. New theories arose to replace the old and became the new status quo.

Physicists work off the existing theories, but also secretly hope for something new and unexpected to pursue.

>>14739143
God's fucking with us.

>>14740510
They just renamed the aether into 'space-time' and kept the math.
Then QM came along and re-renamed it 'virtual photons'.

>>14740547
You know it's okay to admit you don't know the specifics of a theory rather than just fill in the gaps with your own assumptions.

Anyone else fantasize about "solving" dark matter with a single paper, out of the blue, and winning a Nobel prize?

>>14739143
There's holes in our theory, and pretending that there's this aether called "dark matter" lets us not throw out the baby with the bathwater. As unscientific as that sounds, unfortunately there aren't any theories that can eliminate dark matter entirely; at best, they can reduce the quantity of dark matter in the universe to more plausible amounts, ala. MOND.
Mind you, it's not the concept of dark matter itself that I take issue with, it's the claim this stuff makes up 80% of the mass of the universe, yet we can't even create it in a particle accelerator. Surely such a common substance would be easier to create?

>>14740588
Dark matter? No.
Fusion? Yes.
I've puttered about with some funky different geometries to see if you can get stable MHD solutions like with a stellarator, but no luck yet.

>>14739763
If souls are dark matter, then how our souls interact with our brains?

>>14740605
>Surely such a common substance would be easier to create?
Why? The abundance doesn't tell you anything about the particle mass. And it doesn't tell you how big the cross-section is in high energy interactions. There are hypothetical particles which colliders are almost useless at finding, such as axions.

>>14740509
I stumbled upon a bunch of videos on youtube made by scientists criticizing CERN for being just a hoax in general. They interpret any result as some groundbreaking result but in reality in might be just a deviation from standard. So CERN is just a big money pit.

>>14740605
If dark matter exists, it may very well be created all the time in particle accelerators, but it may simply not interact enough with regular matter to trigger the detectors. Stuff like neutrinos are a bitch to detect already (and would have sounded like space magic to someone from say 1800), its not to hard to imagine a particle like a neutrino, but with even weaker interactions via the non gravity forces.

There are some interesting results coming out of the the Baksan Experiment on Sterile Transitions (BEST) experiment, that may point to a form of dark matter. In the experiment, gallium is transmutated into germanium, but the amounts created are about 20% less than expected; one possible solution is that some unknown, super difficult to detect particle (labeled a sterile neutrino in this case) is carrying off the missing energy. Said particle would qualify as at least a portion of the dark matter in the universe. Anyways, there is something weird going on that needs more research.

>>14740643
hyped=/=hoax
>just a deviation from standard.
A significant deviation from the standard model would be a big deal. What are you taking about?

>>14740670
I dunno I’m not a mathematician. I just parrot what I saw on youtube to sound smarter than I really am

Around 2018 or so, I snipped my ear with some scissors while cutting my hair. Unfortunately, the snip was right on the peak of a spur of califlower ear and the snip never quite healed right. Now it's like the cartilage spur (which is sharp and pointy, somehow, possibly because I snipped preexisting cauliflower too) is trying to push the rest of the way through the skin and the area keeps growing and getting increasingly inflamed/irritated. It used to be like my ear came to a point there, but now it's like my ear has a nodule on it there, and the area has become permanently flaky and red/purple, tending toward black today after I was scratching the flaky skin off yesterday.

After I complained about slicing off a nerve branch in mmy finger last year, my rapists found thagt it was such a minor injury that my other rapists were empowered with impunity to slice off a matching nerve branch in my foot resulting in a second paralyzed area about ten times bigger than the one on my finger. No doubt the medical attention required for my ear problem would result in more rape and mutilations.

>>14739143
It's matter that light doesn't interact with. Cause light doesn't interact, we call it dark

>>14739143

>>14740699
Thanks, finally i understood. I'm closing the thread

>>14739143
it's very simple

astronomers can see stuff out there in the universe behaving as if something with a lot of mass was in some places and not in others, but we can't see that mass

that's it

we call it dark matter because it can't be seen and nobody knows anything about it yet, apart from the fact that it exists

>>14740699
Do it really be like this?

>>14740927
yes, but there's nothing wrong with it

for example if you found money missing from your wallet, you'd go looking where the dark money went to

>>14740931
That's different though. If I thought there should be $100 in my wallet instead of $50, I wouldn't invent a totally new type of dollar called a "dark dollar" that cannot be seen or interacted with, I'd check my assumptions.

>>14740977
you'd call it your "missing dollars", which is the same thing as "dark dollars"

that's the point

and yeah, you would check your assumptions, but now assume that you've checked them hundreds of times in different ways and they're still telling you you're missing 50 dollars that should be there

now you're at the point of dark matter

>>14740996
Huh. Well, I know almost nothing about the subject or physics in general, but the cause of the discrepancy is probably the models themselves, not hypothetical matter that for some reason only exists far, far away from us.

>>14740927
no, it's more like walking by a playground and seeing a really fat-looking kid balanced on a see-saw by a really skinny-looking kid. you check the see-saw and there's nothing hinky about it, you check the fat kid and he's a heavy little chonker. so you know the skinny-looking kid needs to be heavier than he looks but you don't know what it is that's making him heavier.

so you hypothesize about what this 'dark weight' could be. maybe he's got lead in his pockets, who knows. you can devise some tests that could rule out some things, and you'll want to try and exhaust those before you jump to "maybe he's a wizard who can manipulate gravity"

>>14739143
our understanding of how things work doesn't seem to align well with reality, but if we add this one magic value they suddenly match

>>14741026
>I know nothing about physics but will from my opinion about it on based on posts on 4chan
retard. goes for everyone else in this thread too.
dark matter is indirectly detected by a bunch of observations, ranging from galactical to cosmological scales.

>>14741026
Ah, but sometimes the model is correct, and there is some invisible shit throwing stuff off. For example, in the 1920s physicists noticed that beta decay seemed to violate the conservation of momentum; Pauli proposed that a small particle that was impossible to detect with the tech at time was to blame. It took several decades, but eventually people figured out how to detect those particles - neutrinos.

If the cold dark matter hypothesis is correct, then it isn't just far away, but in the room with you right now, much like there are millions of neutrinos flying right through you.

And if you are wondering "if there is dark matter here, why don't we see its effects on the motions the planets & asteroids?" - the answer is that with the estimated density of dark matter in the Milky Way, the total amount within our solar system (or any star system) would amount to the mass of a small asteroid, spread out across the whole system. But all the space between the stars is vast compared to star systems themselves, so even at that low density it would outweigh all the stars several times over.

This is of course if the cold dark matter hypothesis is correct; stuff like primordial black holes in a specific size range are also a plausible dark matter candidate, and would have different distrbutions.

>>14741026
anon, it's very unlikely it's the models, dark matter is behaving like *stuff*, as in it has location and density, there's more of it in some places and less in other places

obviously there's something there we don't see

>>14739143
If dark matter is a thing then surely light matter also exist! You can't have one without the other

>>14740663
>>14741077
See this is why I don't understand people who get so angry at dark matter existing. Neutrinos already exist and don't interact with light. Is it really so difficult to accept that a similar particle could exist in massive qualities?

>>14741193
>qualities
quantities.

>>14740699

Accurate enough for the masses.

>>14740588
>and winning a Nobel prize?
>he doesnt fanatasize about rejecting a nobel prize

>>14740543
>a counter-example which it cannot explain
Already been done: galaxies dont move like relativity says they do.
But instead of going "okay then relativity is wrong, let's try something else" they came up with dark matter.

now what

>>14741512
>okay then relativity is wrong, let's try something else
They already did, multiple times, and every attempt failed.
but I'm sure modified relativity theory #52807689235190 will solve dark matter

>>14739166
No one thinks it's an error of calculations, but some people think our theories of gravity of need to be modified. There is a distinction.

>>14741512
Correspondence Principle - Any new iteration of a hypothesis, in addition to explaining any counter-example the previous iteration of the hypothesis fails to explain, must also explain all examples the previous iteration was able to explain.

Thus, the best starting point is developing a new hypothesis that makes as few changes to the previous hypothesis as possible. In this case the starting point is "GR works for these 95 out of 100 examples, and these 5 out of 100 counter-examples can be explained if there is simply more mass than estimated from the visible matter, so let's suppose that GR is fine, but there's more mass - what form would this mass take and can we develop experiments for determining if it is there or not?"

>>14740588
No one is going to solve dark matter by just thinking about it at this point. Anything you might think of is already out there published, it just needs to be confirmed (a lot of people are betting on the axion idea).

When you are a teenager or your early twenties you don't really have a good sense for this, but there are a lot of people who are just as smart or smarter than you in the world, and for pretty much 50 years a lot of those people have been thinking about ways to modify the standard model or gravity to explain dark matter. There are a lot of ideas already out there.

>>14740502
Wtf aether in scientific non-fairytale terms?

>>14741616
In simple terms until the 19th century every kind of wave that had been discovered (water, air, string, etc) required a medium for the wave to propagate. So when Maxwell and others found that electromagnetism was a wave they thought that there must be something EM was causing vibrations in. Some invisible substance everywhere in the universe. That something they called the aether. However every experiment performed since to find it failed, the most famous being the Michelson–Morley experiment which showed that the speed of light was constant in all frames of reference which then led Einstein to come up with Special Relativity.

>>14739288
I have completed my theory of darg madder.

Darg madder is information, roughly analogous to cpu usage in a simulated universe. It is matter matter interaction. It is activity.

White dwarf cooling to brown dwarf should lose mass over time.
Pot of kettle being brought up to boil should gain mass if water doesnt escape.
Switched on phone should weigh more than switched off.
Alive head weighs more than severed head.

Earth was gaining mass not because of star dust from outside but because of human activity.
Earth gained rotational speed in 2020 because of lockdowns. Moon should have drifted further away than normal in 2020.

Gravitational constant is just local activity coefficient.

Proving these are left an exercise for the reader.

Source: it occured to me in a dream

>>14741077
>This is of course if the cold dark matter hypothesis is correct; stuff like primordial black holes in a specific size range are also a plausible dark matter candidate, and would have different distrbutions.

It's been a while since I looked at this (pop sci level), all I remember is WIMPS vs. MACHOS. So cold dark matter would be WIMPS and black holes etc. MACHOS?

And "specific size range" I guess means big enough so they didn't evaporate by Hawking radiation, and small enough so they can't suck stuff in on a massive scale which would make them detectable (accretion disc and x-rays and whatever)?

>>14741570
>a lot of people are betting on the axion idea
Only because MACHOs were DOA and WIMPs are coming up empty. Axions are really the only remotely viable candidate left for a CDM particle.

>>14741837
Cold dark matter would include WIMPs and some other theoretical particles like axions. MACHOs would be any large but dim object, including black holes above a certain size; you are correct that larger MACHOs of any sort have been ruled out by astronomical surveys, and very small black holes being common have been ruled out by lack of hawking radiation detection. Black holes between those sizes are still a possibility.

>>14742512
To expand on the cold dark matter term, it is basically a blanket term for any sort of slow moving particles that don't really interact much with regular matter or themselves, except via gravity.

This is opposed to hot dark matter, a blanket term for fast moving particles that don't really interact much with regular matter or themselves, aside from gravity. Neutrinos actually fall into this category, given that they ignore the electromagnetic & strong nuclear forces, and only rarely have weak nuclear interactions with regular matter. Studies of large galactic structures have largely ruled out hot dark matter as being more than a small portion of the total dark matter.

Now, why astrophysics decided to call these hypothetical forms of matter cold/dark instead of slow/fast is left as an exercise for the reader.

>>14742512
>very small black holes being common have been ruled out by lack of hawking radiation detection
what about planck relics though?

>>14739143
It's not a real thing.
It's a proposed solution to an issue with measurement. People were measuring the mass of some segment of the universe and they found the mass should be over 90% of what would be physically seen.
So either their measurements are wrong somehow, or there is matter which we can't see or detect.

The name of the hypothesized invisible matter is 'dark matter.'

My friend who is an anti-theory-of-relativity person says it's just bullshit

>>14743331
> anti-theory-of-relativity person
close relatives of the flat earth family

>>14739843
For whatever reason alternative physics, like the aether stuff, is very much tied in to anti-semetism

>>14741616
In old physics waves, like light and so on, were thought to be impossibilities unless the vacuum of space, nothingness itself, was some form of substance which could carry a wave.
Hence aether was theorized as a medium of transportation for waves.

Einstein and the theory of relativity got rid of the idea of the aether, and I think they use the idea of particles to explain why waves can move through empty space.

But I don't know much more than what my friend told me.

>>14741719
I like this idea.
So basically metaphysical stuff like consciousness 'activity' or thought has an invisible weight, and that's dark matter?

I fuck with that.

>>14743346
Yeah it's tied in to a bunch of conspiracies in general. But my friend Ben is only interested in the physics side of things, and the free energy/anti gravity angle.
He has a dream of making a flying saucer which doesn't need fuel and is getting into to that sort of thing.

>>14743346
>I'm gonna be anti-contrarian by default
>that'll make me look smart!
Nope you're just as much of a midwit, sweetie

>>14739843
>what does zionism have to do with nobody being clever enough to offer a theory that works?


Nothing in particular. Anti-semites just see a Le Happy Merchant hiding behind every bush plotting to take over the world or some shit like that.

>>14743411
>Mawit
Nukes you with "fake" science

>>14743440
>(((psychologist)))
"Yep there's a jew right here"

>>14739843
The alternative is Le Sage theory and the aether. No one is working on it though because everyone in academia thinks Einstein is right.

>>14739904
Are any of these theories outright incompatible with relativity? I'll answer for you.
>No.
Into the trash it goes.

>>14743516
No one is working on it because it's nonsense.

>>14743516
and because there's no evidence of aether

>>14743524
Any replacement theory for relativity will still have to be explain all of the predictions relativity successfully makes, much like relativity explains the successful predictions Newtonian gravity makes (i.e. if you calculated the orbit of say Uranus, Newtonian & Relativistic formulas will give you very similar results). That makes it hard for me to picture any "outright incompatible" theory being viable, though I am open to see any serious proposals.

>>14743904
if Einstein is wrong why do atomic clocks in satellites have to be callibrated?
If hes wrong why can we get the energy output of uranium based on the mass.
If hes wrong why does a solar eclipse bend light?
Are you serious? Theyre just poltards that are butthurt he was a jew lol.
like im not even a scientist and even i know that.

>>14739218
kek

>>14743912
if einstein right why gravity wrong? checkmate, goldstein. your hero did not know everything

>>14743331
It's right to be skeptical of ad hoc hypotheses. But it's wrong to rule them out entirely. Say you have one that makes new, unique predictions, and you can test those, and you do test those, and they come true. Then what? That's the current situation with DM. You can't add DM anywhere you want to get any result you want; it has to follow the laws of motion for groups of non-colliding particles and that's not a trivial thing.

just had a weird thought, but is it possible that this mystery mass in galaxies is just a region of space time that is at an absolute vacuum state? perhaps the bubble nucleation and false vacuum decay predicted by the apparent value of the higgs mass wouldn’t behave totally like an unimpeded growing bubble but instead grow to a certain size and then eventually become gravitationally confined by surrounding bodies? what’s the amount of energy driving the expansion of a hypothetical bubble nucleation, it can’t be infinite, right?

>>14739419
The 300 year old mistake which is the source of dark matter has been exposed and directly pointed out already and the correct theory (one that makes accurate predictions) has been proposed.
Ignorance is bliss though.

>>14739764
Kepler’s law II is wrong and cannot be confirmed by modern measurements.

>>14743912
Atomic clocks in satellites despite being calibrated don’t improve our positioning systems which are wrong because we are incompetent at orbital prediction.

>>14743904
Except that our predictions are incompetent. Just google orbital prediction error for thousands of papers confirming it.

>>14744654
No such theory has ever been proposed. Every theory that eliminates dark matter introduces even larger errors.

>>14744705
Nope. The theory of conservation of angular energy has been proposed in 2016 and is independently confirmed but Scientists are in denial of it and so refuse point blank to test or acknowledge any tests of it because testing would mean rejection of the mistaken “law” of conservation of angular momentum.

>>14740509
Not when you point out that conservation of angular momentum is false. Then they do not “love” anything. They start personally insulting the proponent and refuse to listen for literally half a decade.

>>14740543
Physicists deny anything new and personally attack anyone making the suggestion that there is any mistake.

>>14740588
I have done the falsifying. There is no chance of any Nobel prize because scientists hate the idea that they might be wrong and personally attack me instead.

>>14741570
Ever heard of Einstein?

>>14745321
It's not the same situation. There were about 15 years between the Michelson Morley experiment and Einstein's papers. The discrepancy in galaxy rotation curves has widely known for 45 years.

Also I know you won't believe me but there are 1000s of people as smart as Einstein working in theoretical physics right now. Even if you don't believe that, you have to understand that physics has gotten much more difficult since Einstein's time, and there are many more people working on it than there were back then.

>>14745321
Einstein was wrong.

>>14741193
>See this is why I don't understand people who get so angry at dark matter existing
Contrarianism and/or paranoid schizophrenia

>>14745767
Nobody is angry at dark matter you idiot. We are angry at the delusional idiots who think it is a substance and not direct and simple proof that the theory is wrong, as per the scientific method.

>>14744952
>There is no chance of any Nobel prize because scientists hate the idea that they might be wrong and personally attack me instead.
We also send gangs to stalk you. They should be changing shifts soon.

>>14745790
Yes there is a gang stalking me. You can see them on Reddit. Fortunately, I can defend myself from a bunch of physicists armed with childish bitchiness.

>>14744719
>muh 20,000 rpm
fuck off

>>14745782
So, was the law of conservation of momentum "wrong" when physicist noticed in the 1920s that beta decay violated it? Was Newtonian gravity wrong when astronomers in late 1700s noticed that Uranus's orbit did not follow its predictions? Sometimes currently invisible shit throwing things off is in fact the solution. And of course, sometimes you do need a better theory (Relativity being better at predicting Mercury's orbit than Newtonian, for example).

Both solutions need to be considered. Tons of different modified gravity theories have been proposed, its just that so far non of them have been able to fit the available data all that well. If you have a better idea, go ahead and propose it.

>>14746181
He doesn't have a better idea, you're talking to the infamous 12000 rpm schizo whose schizo theories are entirely incompatible with observed reality

Dark matter is a phenomenon that we can observe caused by higher dimensional hyperobjects permeating our lower dimensions. We can only see its gravitational effects. By penetrating our universe it also stretches space itself which pushes every object in our universe apart. This effect is falsely explained by "dark energy" which doesn't really exist.

>>14746158
You fuck off you ignorant moron.

>>14739143
We don't fucking know what it is. Right now its just something scientists use to "correct" their mathematical models that aren't getting results that match real world data.

>>14746181
Yes, the law of conservation of angular momentum has always been wrong. The fact that we have managed to achieve things despite that fact is irrelevant.
Much like the Ptolemaic supporters claimed to be able to predict planets more accurately than the Copernican system and they were wrong. You are wrong now.

>>14746557
I have a much better idea and it is called conservation of angular energy and it makes accurate predictions as is confirmed independently by the LabRat. Ignoramus.

If I had to guess, There are properties of space that we don't understand. I think things like red shifting, "missing" mass, and distances aren't accurate at all. I bet things are actually way closer together than we think, and not "moving away" either, its just something we don't understand yet.
My guess is we will eventually be able to more accurately detect gravity and find out we are detecting gravity of things much high than we think they should be because they are actually closer than what we get by measuring the light.
Perhaps the speed of light is not correct because even if we make a vacuum on earth there is still too much gravity and not enough space to observe how light actually behaves in the real vacuum of space away from large gravitational objects.

>>14747773
What if instead of the universe expanding, everything is just shrinking? Red-shifting is just us getting smaller compared to when the light was emitted, so the wavelength appears longer. This also avoids the problem of what the universe is expanding into, as the absolute volume of remains the same. The shrinking is gravity-driven, which is a known force we don't have to make up a new one. We know singularities are infinitely dense as they have 0 volume, so we can certainly shrink forever as we have infinite room to divide into.

>>14747801
Interesting thought, that space itself shrinks because of gravity, but because we are all in the same gravity zone there is no way for us to measure how much we are shrinking in relation to other high gravity zones.
It does leave the question if its gravity based then wouldn't places with higher gravity shrink more? What would account for that? Do we unshrink as we leave gravity affected space? Or maybe its another universal force that shrinks space evenly everywhere?

>>14747801
>>14747807
Or maybe the shrinkage only affects light significantly and not matter (or just in a different way)? Like when light travels in a gravity zone its compressed, but once its in open space it expands and then contracts again when it reaches another gravity zone?

>>14747813
Or maybe it is simply due to the fact that angular momentum is not conserved and so all of our theory is wrong and we should fix the obviously wrong before we start making up fantastical speculations.

>>14747824
>fantastical speculations.
You mean like.... dark matter and dark energy?

>>14747837
Dark matter / energy is falsified by the fact that COAM is false. “Shrinkage” is fantasy speculation in attempt to explain what is already falsified. Face facts instead of making speculation.

>>14739143
You can derive it from the "dark equation"

>>14747858
illuminate me on this... "dark equation"

>>14739143
The laws of physics particularly gravity behave in exactly the same way on 99.999999999% of Al phenomena we observe. Some things we see in the sky do not seem to behave like they should according to the mass we can see, but it would be perfectly explained by a lot of mass we can't see, this is a reasonable assumption. Also the existence of dark matter is coherent with a lot other astrophysical phenomena, but that's truly it really. No one says it's a certainty but its a very very reasonable bet.

>>14747837
those aren't speculations, they're the opposite of speculations, someone just shrugged and gave them those names until more data exists

>>14747999
Nope. It is unreasonable. We cannot even predict a ball on a string demonstration with any accuracy whatsoever, so you saying “everything agrees” is totally fucking retarded made up delusional nonsense.

>>14748024
>muh 12000 rpm
nigga fuck off

>>14748303
12000 rpm is what existing physics predicts. My prediction is 1200 rpm which is much more accurate because my theory is right. Is this difficult?

>>14748314
12000 rpm is what’s predicted when your dumb nigger ass makes a bunch of bullshit assumptions that don’t apply

>>14748351
Nope. 12000 rpm is predicted directly and purely by the “law” of conservation of angular momentum. That is how reductio ad absurdum works. I am proving the “law” wrong by applying the prediction directly from the “law” of COAM.

>>14739202
for you

>>14748468
The argument makes gross overestimations and oversimplifications and ignores all practical considerations.

>>14744657
schizo post

>>14748538
Fuck you. cunt.

>>14747758
>Yes
He was talking about COM, not COAM, retard

>>14748557
You insult yourself with your image about ad hominem while presenting adhominem, retarded retard.
I cannot commit ad hominem against a person who is refusing to address the argument. That’s impossible. Retard.

Bros, there's so much we don't know. I wonder what physics will look like in a thousand years.

>>14748565
how so

>>14739673
No one here is able to distinguish the difference between either because there's proof for neither of them

>>14739760
>So in other words Einstein is wrong but nobody smarter than him came up to figure out a viable alternative?
How accurately do you want a shadow described? How fucking useful is that really going to be to you?

>>14739787
"Gravity" is a description. Calling it a "problem" is half the psychosis that causes people to actually believe it's some kind of magical inseen force that binds matter together. It isn't, it's just the action of matter doing that...described using the word "gravitation/gravity".

>>14739843
>what does zionism have to do with nobody being clever enough to offer a theory that works?
>What does a religious practice that reduces everything to an irreconcilable dualism in order to fool a diety have to do with everyone else no understanding a different way of contriving a contradiction?
"Yes".

>>14743551
>>14743563
No one is working on it because they actually believe a null result proved/disproved something. Such is the case when you're convinced using a dualism that has you arguing over two non answers.

>>14747844
>Dark matter / energy is falsified
It was never true in the first place. It cannot be falsified. Only reified.

>>14739143
My picture is different from what I see. So I'm gonna call the difference between these two a dark side and chalk it up to the cause of the inconsistency.

>>14748620
Because if they are evading the argument then there is no argument for me to be evading so I cannot possibly be committing ad hominem. Is that difficult to understand?

>>14749195
how is that true

>>14739143
Know how some clear soups have a little body to turn, are not watery?
Dark matter is like the stuff that makes the soup have body, except that we can't see it and we didn't add it

>>14747760
>muh free energy
>>>/x/

>>14749201
It is simple fact, retard. Are you trolling?

>>14749372
how is it fact retard go on and explain

>>14739158
>But the matter that we can see and measure is way way less than what we are expecting.
How are we even trying to see or measure something that affects how a galaxy spins deep in outer space? It wouldn't surprise me if there was just some shit floating around that we can't just see through a telescope. Is that basically what dark matter is?

>>14749392
Rebuttal number 12 : https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357302312_Rebuttals

>>14749504
Stop hyjacking posts, go start your own post. Eveything you post here is off topic

>>14739713
Midwit take

>>14749549
Midwit give

>>14739713
these are tendencies, and not firm rules, while it's usually the safe bet that we are not in a special reference frame, in some cases we inevitably are, and stupid time-wasting dilemmas like the fermi paradox arise when people can't countenance our frame being special

>>14739143
So basically we know of this one thing that has effects bu we do not know their cause, that's as simple as it gets

>>14739713
>Freud
lol lmao
>Humans... LE BAD!
You're just dumb and this is cope on why you are a dumb failure.

>>14740502
More on the "Aether" theory? What's a good read?

>>14744719
>theory of conservation of angular energy
can't find anything about it

>>14740931
are you implying something dark stole my money?

>>14741719
wtf get this peer reviewed

>>14749409
Well at its most base level, yes dark matter is just shit floating around we can't see with telescopes. Now, the idea that dark matter is just normal matter, but really dim, like gases, dust, planets, etc, has been considered, but the very large amounts of it needed to explain the various galactic motion anomalies would be plainly obvious to various studies that tried to find them. Since those studies failed to find dim normal matter in anywhere near sufficient amounts, the search has moved to more exotic stuff, like primordial black holes or new particles.

>>14749707
black...matter

>>14749691
Yes, because it is suppressed literally suppressed. There is a subreddit group of physics professors and PhD’s dedicated to following me around and provoking me and peer pressuring moderators to censor me. And they are successful.
Here is my expose of the fact.
http://www.baur-research.com/Physics/

>>14739143
dark matter is fake and gay
the only reason scientists grasp onto it is because they don't understand gravity, and have to invent imaginary shit to make their models work

>>14750269
It is less about gravity and more because they don’t understand that angular momentum is not conserved.

>>14750267
>And they are successful.
Because they are right. Thanks for conceding!

>>14750516
Successful in censoring the opposition is proof that they are wrong, retard. Otherwise they would have no need to censor. Duh.

>>14750538
nobody is censoring you

>>14750538
>Successful in censoring the opposition is proof that they are wrong, retard.
Flat earth-tier logic. You are indistinguishable from a flat earther.
also >>14750540.

>>14750540
Yes they are, retard. I am suspended on Twitter, banned on quora, have been blocked on Facebook multiple times over. My work is rejected without review hundreds of times from journals and I am blocked from discussing my discovery on every single scientific forum known to man. That is the definition of censorship. There is a bunch of scientists who have set up a Reddit forum specifically to track me wherever I go and gather their ad hominem ammunition and provoke me wherever I talk and peer pressure the moderators to censor me. Literally. I am being censored.

>>14750554
>rejected
not the same as censored, fucktard

>>14750547
Nope. The flat earth logic is to neglect the evidence. The method of insulting the proponent in order to neglect the evidence does not change the fact that the evidence is being neglected. You neglecting evidence is the behavior of a flat earther.

>>14750554
You get banned because YOU'RE the one harassing people. Stop harassing people and you won't get banned.
And getting blocked by people you're harassing isn't censorship. Bob blocking you on faceberg doesn't prevent Sue from reading your schizobabble.

>>14750556
Rejection without review is the definition of prejudice. And prejudice is the root of censorship. So yes, it is directly censorship. Retard.

>>14750557
>The flat earth logic is to neglect the evidence
Which is exactly what you do every time COAM is experimentally verified. I accept your concession, flat earth tard.

>>14750562
>Rejection without review
how do you know it's without review

>>14750558
It is impossible to present a discovery which people are irrationally triggered by without them insanely accusing me of harassing them.

Presenting my discovery is not harassment.

Retard.

>>14750567
low iq post

>>14750563
COAM has never been experimentally verified you delusional retard.

That is why 12000 rpm does not occur.

You imagine there exists evidence younfuckjng nutcase.

>>14740112
gravitational lensing without a seen object that would cause the lensing.

>>14750570
Denying reality doesn't make it true, flat earth tard.

>>14750565
Because the rejection letter does not address the argument in the paper, retard.

>>14750575
So you don't know, got it.

>>14750573
Well stop denying that a ball on a string does not accelerate like a Ferrari engine as is predicted and so the law is wrong then retard. Wtf???

>>14750577
Are you fuckjng stupid or what. If a rejection letter says we are not going to publish your paper and does not give a reasonable explanation nor point out any error then it is a rejection without review. Dumbass. You are just a ducking troll fuck off.

>>14750584
What's more likely is that they saw your stupid fucking introduction and rejected it prima facie based on your inability to write scientific papers. Some people like that Bruno guy did review it though and rejected it based on that.

>>14750588
No, what is totally fucking obvious is that they saw my conclusion and cannot face the fact that COAM is false, so reject without review in attempt to literally run the fuck away from the evidence, like a flat earther. Retard.

>>14750592
Wrong.

>>14739143
the dark matter lie was cobbled together to protect the reputation of the atheist worship figure of all scientists. the lie worked, now - nearly half a century after the big lie was invented - the atheists' god's reputation is still intact and physics has not progressed even slightly during the same timeframe because everyone has been chasing phantoms instead of conducting worthwhile endeavors, further cementing the atheists' god's reputation.

>>14739143
Big ball of stars spinning too fast
Must be something else out there
But cant see it
Call it dark matter
And worry about it later

I really should make popsci videos

>>14750597
Fucking mental case

>>14750593
You are wrong which is why you have only retarded one word answers of denial. Fuckwit.

>>14750609
No.

>>14750611
Yes, you are wrong retard. Now fuck off with this trolling. Moron. Fuck you.

>>14750579
I never said friction doesn't exist though, flat earth retard.

>>14750731
Nobody says friction does not exist retard.
Friction is not a reasonable explanation for a missing ten thousand percent increase in energy in the time it takes to pull in the string. Delusional retard.

Making excuses and neglecting the evidence is the behavior of a flat earther.

Stop behaving like a flat earther. Fuck up.

>>14743912
>if Einstein is wrong why do atomic clocks in satellites have to be callibrated?
To what? Each satellite has different relativity to each other and "the observer" at any moment.

>>14750789
We don’t even have accurate position data for the actual satellites in any event. Every satellite we try to measure accurately shows an orbital prediction error of up to several kilometers in a day. So calibrated clocks aren’t going to help anyway.

>>14750599
>Big ball of stars spinning too fast
No, imo the "spinning" is an interpretation of observations (mainly red/blueshift). But afaik there are different red/blueshifts inside an galactical disk observed, up to contrary. So "spinning" could be a false interpretation.

>>14750793
>what is geosyncronous orbit

>>14750793
>>14750793
>We don’t even have accurate position data for the actual satellites in any event. Every satellite we try to measure accurately shows an orbital prediction error of up to several kilometers in a day.
Thanks, do you have some source to read further.

>>14750801
Google “orbital prediction error “ for thousands of sources.
Here is one that makes my claim clear:
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/13/7/1377

>>14739143
things are acting like something's there but we just can't notice what

>>14750941
Things are acting like nature acts, but we expect nature to act differently because our theory is infuckingcompetent.

>>14749664
If that was your take away from that then you are an idiot.

>>14750946
Not the idiot here, but a different anon.
If you imagine that it is reasonable to assume that we can only detect a tiny fraction of the actual matter in the universe, instead of assuming that our theory is wrong, then you are not much more clever than the idiot, retard.
The scientific method says we must reject the theory, not reject reality.

>>14750967
By that logic we would have never discovered Neptune.

> The planet Neptune was mathematically predicted before it was directly observed. Theory said there was a large mass in an area where astronomers had previously never been able to observe anything.

Sound familiar?

>>14750985
By your logic, we should never have accepted copernicus because we could predict planetary motion even though our theory was stupidly wrong.
Sound familiar - circular fucking ignorant retard.

>>14750999
not an argument, retard

>>14751001
You present “not an argument” fuckjng idiot. You are literally stamping your foot on the ground and claiming that 12000 rpm is realistic, you fucking moron.

>>14750999
>we could predict planetary motion
No?

>>14750592
So, you are saying that they rejected without review after seeing the conclusion, which can only be seen if they review.
Excellent.

>>14750584
Under what law are they required to provide an explanation?

>>14750999
> we could predict planetary motion
that's news to historians. epicycles were used to simulate observations but there was no predictions involved.

>>14750999
stop shitting up /sci/ with your chud schizo alternative history. This is just as bad as you claiming Newton invented the "ball on a string"

>>14751038
The worst part is that the rules dont seem to apply to him here.

>>14750999
>>14751014
should have known from the low iq posts it was the schizo

>>14750999
what the fuck are you saying

A better question is "what is a response to all the armchair internet physicists who insist that anyone who believed in dark matter is retarded and obviously there's something larger afoot / some fundamental assumption is very wrong?"

It's presumptive to think nearly all of the (by any estimation popularly used) talented theoretical physicists are all just dumb and completely missing something obvious or otherwise behaving illogically. My understanding is that part of the problem is there are many different sorts of unexpected observations and that, individually, some modified gravity theory or whatever could make sense, but that the thing most compatible with every observation is something that has mass but no (detectable) electromagnetic interaction. It's not that crazy to think there are tons of things in the universe that just don't interact electromagnetically.

It's always good to consider alternatives, including that our theories really are wrong, and my understanding is all physicists working on this problem do seriously ponder and consider this all the time and assign some probability to it being the case, with some assigning higher probabilities than others. But the pretentious people who jump to it immediately and call everyone else idiots are just insufferable.

>>14751061
I would bet a limb there is a direct correlation to /pol/ leaking to other boards.

>>14751022
That is why they rejected copernicus moron. Grow the fuck up and say things longer that one fucking syllable retard. Otherwise fuck off.

>>14751024
Reading a paper and then reducing to address the argument because you don’t like the conclusion is not review regard.
Rebuttal 1: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357302312_Rebuttals

>>14751027
The fact that there is no legal requirement for a physicist to address a physics paper does not make it reasonable behavior to neglect the evidence like a bunch of flat earthers and I will purse legal action to change the fuckjng law if.you don’t respond to the lawyers letter you fuckjng piece of shit. The I will sue you for the costs because it is unreasonable for a physicist to claim that he has no obligation to address a theoretical physics paper. Because the fact that you have a phd means you have an obligation and it needs to Meade legal if you use that as an excuse to evade. You ignorant fuck.

>>14751155
> my paper is professionally formatted and has references so it must be true
best thing I've read all week.

>>14751029
Simulating observations is prediction idiot. Wtf.

>>14751167
ahahah no it's not

>>14751038
Newton did invent it and you have no reason to suspect otherwise wishful thinking fucking idiot.

>>14751050
Fuck you cunt.

>>14751179
>Newton did invent it
prove it

>>14751167
ESL?

>>14751052
Copernicus was rejected and died before his work was accepted because all the “experts” said he was wrong because the Ptolemaic system could predict planets. They were wrong just like the retard telling me that i am wrong because of Neptune.

>>14751188
He's from Zimbabwe, so yes

>>14751061
Physicists neglect the fact that COAM is falsified because bias.

>>14751166
Since it cannot be shown to contain false premiss or illogic it must be true you fucking lying piece of shit.

>>14751201
>contain false premiss or illogic
wtf

>>14751173
Fuck off retard. You are such an evasive weaseling cunt. Why can’t you just face the evidence like a real scientist. Fuck up.

>>14751201
>false premiss or illogic
>>14751207
>Fuck up
Are you Indian?

>>14751185
You prove your irrelevant fucking delusional statement the he did not you evasive cunt.

>>14751211
motherfucker just show us some proof of Newton inventing the concept of putting a fucking ball on a string

>>14751188
Have you got some kind of problem with comprehension retard. FUCK YOU AND YOUR AD HOMINEM YOU PIECE OF SHIT.

>>14751215
you really need to work on your English

>>14751197
FUCK YOU AND YOUR AD HOMINEM YOU PIECE OF SHIT.

>>14751210
FUCK YOU AND YOUR AD HOMINEM YOU PIECE OF SHIT.

>>14751167
>>14751201
I haven't seen such a clear example of the leading edge of the Bell Curve in quite some time.

>>14751218
It's true, no?

>>14751221
take your clozapine, friend.

>>14751214
You are the morherfucker who makes unsupported and extraordinary claims that the classic demonstration is not invented by Newton which you do in evasion of the fact that it falsifies COAM. Retard. Fuck you.

>>14751222
FUCK YOU AND YOUR AD HOMINEM YOU PIECE OF SHIT.

>>14751227
>unsupported and extraordinary claims that the classic demonstration is not invented by Newton
Wrong. I ask you for proof that Newton did invent it.

>>14751215
>>14751218
>>14751221
>>14751232
hahaha. full on schizo meltdown

>>14751226
FUCK YOU AND YOUR AD HOMINEM YOU PIECE OF SHIT.

>>14751232
>>14751241
>>14751221
>>14751218
>schizo so mentally challenged, all he can do is repeat the same shit over and over again verbatim

>>14751236
Yes and why do you contest it?
Fuckjng evasive piece of shit. That’s why.

>>14751246
>do you contest it?
I don't. I only ask for proof since I have never heard of that

>>14751240
FUCK YOU AND YOUR AD HOMINEM YOU PIECE OF SHIT.

>>14751242
Repeated stupid. FUCK YOU AND YOUR AD HOMINEM YOU PIECE OF SHIT.

>>14751251
No. You ask for irrelevan proof to evade the actual proof that COAM is false.

>>14751259
so you've got no proof of that, got it.

The funniest thing about the 12k rpm schizos "paper" is that the very first equation upon which all his (blatantly incorrect) conclusions are based is only true if angular momentum is conserved. It's like stating the blue sky isn't blue.

>>14751285
Claiming that the centuries old demonstration does not conserve angular momentum is like saying that my proof that physics is wrong is wrong because physics is wrong, fuck up.

>>14751266
I have proof that COAM is false and you neglect that like a flat earther, retard. Fuck you.

>>14751300
I imagine when you wrote the gibberish you were frothing at the mouth and covered your keyboard in spittle.

>>14751302
>I have proof
post proof of Newton inventing a ball on a string

>>14751302
Even flat earthers think you're a crazy person.

>>14751310
Everyone who neglects the fact tha t 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM is behaving like a flat earther so I am not surprised you fucking delusional retard.

>>14751309
Post a ball on a string doing 12000 rpm or accept the fact that COAM is false you fuckjgn weasel.

>>14751307
FUCK YOU AND YOUR ADHOMINEM YOU PIECE OF SHIT.

>>14739143
It's matter with unknown properties, like X-Rays were once rays with unknown variables.

>>14751319
Proof requires evidence, not some high school maths.

>>14751334
A mathematical physics paper is evidence you fucking weasel.

>>14751339
> A mathematical physics paper is evidence
I need to print out and frame this post.

>>14751344
Frame it you asshole and then go and tell all the theoretical physicists that they must delete half of physics you delusional fuckwit.

>>14751349
Which half?
Top? Bottom? middle? Left? Right? Upper? Lower? Front? Back? Orthoganol?

>>14751484
The half that is proven with nothing else than mathematical physics papers moron. Fuck off with your bullshit now you Wanker.

>>14751508
So, your paper then.
Wild that you keep pushing that which you state is invalid.

>>14751538
My paper is a perfectly valid and sound proof of the fact that angular momentum is not conserved and I have never said anything different to that you lying piece of shit.

>>14751541
Not a single equation in your paper shows that angular momentum is not conserved.

>>14751546
The conclusion shows that angular momentum is not conserved and to defeat a mathematical physics paper, you have to point out an equation number and falsify it genuinely in a manner that stands up to rebuttal, or show a loophole in logic between the results of the maths and the conclusion of the paper, or you have to accept the conclusion of the paper. You irrational evasive idiot.

>>14751556
Seek medical help.

>>14751561
FUCK YOU AND YOUR AD HOMINEM YOU PIECE OF SHIT.

>>14750842
Wow, wasn't aware of that. One of the rare moments this board is useful. Thank you even more.

>>14751603
I am glad to help. Now can you please help me get the message through?

>>14751609
do you want to raid /sci/?

>>14751609
>I am glad to help. Now can you please help me get the message through?
I will do my very best, but over here methink it is useless. /sci discussions have more in common with the groundhog day movie than with science.

>>14751614
No. I want to get the message through to people that angular momentum is not conserved. That is why we cannot even predict our own satellites accurately. I have been facing personal attacks and slander for nearing seven years now. Can you help me to get the message through. Here is my web site on the matter : http://www.baur-research.com/Physics/

>>14751623
Which site do you want to invade?

>>14751620
Well I am censored on every single forum, science, or not. Even have been censored here.
I face slander and then accusations of bad behavior and then censorship, usually.
I am rejected without review from physics journals hundreds of times.
It is impossible to get the message through because scientists are afraid of the truth.

>>14751626
I don’t want to “invade” anything retard. Now fuck off. You take and give fuck all.

>>14751634
>Even have been censored here
which board

>>14751623
>No. I want to get the message through to people that angular momentum is not conserved
I read that the first time. maybe i am dumb but what you write is simple obvious. Where is the problem? There can't be any angular momentum because there is no angle. The ball always flies straight. The wire just shifts the helm (or course).

>>14751634
>Well I am censored on every single forum, science, or not. Even have been censored here.
That's the normal, "this thread is pruned or deleted" is the answer of all shitty boards if they can't refute your arguments (or fail to trick you in one of there circular reasoning labyrinths).

>>14751642
Thank you.
Unfortunately, scientists are slandering and insulting me instead of addressing it and laymen are afraid to face the truth and appeal to the scientific slander.
I think it has to do with the fact that half of physics must be trashed because angular momentum is not conserved. And everyone is too lazy to do any work and the investment logical fallacy.

>>14751655
>Unfortunately, scientists are slandering and insulting me instead of addressing it and laymen are afraid to face the truth and appeal to the scientific slander.
Science is intended to feed the scientists. That's the scientific view. Sure there are forces behind to get other things (i.e.results) but you will not find them in science and at least in tha academica. You waste your time. Scientific theories dies with the scientists, not by new ideas. In your case the will steal it from you and make there own. You will end at a footnote at best, at least you share the fate of this man
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis

>>14751541
Your paper is nothing but a mathmatical proof, which you stated is the half of physics that is wrong.
You posted that, not me.

>>14751655
Kindly post pictures of the Conservation of Angular Momentum section from the pysics textbook you reference in your paper. The entire subsection.
The particular revision that you use is not readily available online in PDF format.

At this point Dark Matter pretty much must exist. The #1 reason being that we saw light emitted from the collision of neutron stars at the exact time that gravity waves were detected from that collision. There is absolutely no way for this to happen if our models of gravity are wrong. Our models of gravity are correct and therefore an invisible type of matter must exist.

"The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine"
- John Burdon Sanderson Haldane

>>14751810
Here is the example in the book. The fact is that you are so desperate to evade accepting my proof that you are trying to claim that my physics book is wrong because you can’t fault my proof.
You are not the first to be so badly in denial that you try to deny centuries old basic well known equations and distance physics from the centuries old mainstream example.

Wake the fuck up retard.

>>14751836
>There is absolutely no way for this to happen if our models of gravity are wrong.
Two events in different detectors, no way.

>>14751836
Wishful thinking is not science and gravity is not the only possible error. Retard.

>>14751689
Fuck you. I don’t accept that. They will listen because it is fuckjng stupid anyway. Anything you measure confirms the truth. Scientists cannot get away with refusing to any experiment indefinitely.

>>14751853
Kindly post pictures of the Conservation of Angular Momentum section from the pysics textbook you reference in your paper. The entire subsection.
The particular revision that you use is not readily available online in PDF format.

>>14751858
>>14751861
I'm not the one saying this. People much smarter than both of us are. Thanks for trying.

>>14751868
I am a member of Mensa, so there are few people smarter than me so speak for yourself you ignorant appeal to authority and abandon your own authority fuck.

>>14751884
>I am a member of Mensa, so there are few people smarter than me so speak for yourself
That's some horrible fucking syntax

>>14751888
You evasive lying piece of shit stinking dirty cunt.

>>14751891
Not that guy, bro

>>14751868
>I'm not the one saying this
Please mark 2nd hand ideas next time

>>14751893
You make up fucking lies to insult me you fucking bitch. Go fuck yourselves.

>>14751884
George Trepal
https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-xpm-1996-03-31-9604110244-story.html

>>14750967
Okay, let me see if I can dumb it down for you since you think like a child. Evolution virtually guarantees that we won't be able to directly precieve everything there is in reality. When Roentgen discovered X-rays, he called them that because it was a form of light we couldn't directly precieve so he used the variable 'X' for an unknown. We didn't assume everything we knew about light was wrong. Likewise, with Dark Matter we can indirectly know its there by its gravitational effect. You can't just say everything we know about gravity is wrong unless you have something that accounts for dark matter and all the predictions of gravity.
https://youtu.be/nM_FOUCpJ3I

>>14750785
The entire premise of your paper is invalidated by the existence of friction, flat earth retard.

>>14752281
This is a mathematical physics paper, so any premiss has an equation number.
Unless you tell us which premiss you claim to falsify by identifying the equation number, you are simply evading the evidence like a flat earther. Retard.

>>14752268
FUCK YOU AND YOUR AD HOMINEM YOU PIECE IF STINKING SHIT.

>>14751902
Your syntax IS terrible though, it's not some baseless insult

>>14752347
My syntax is perfect you lying piece of stinking shit.

>>14752326
Equation 1 claims that a ball and string is a closed system. It is not, so you are incorrectly applying the equation to a system it doesn't apply to. Flat earth retard.

>>14752351
Thanks for confirming you're just shitposting

>>14752353
You are shitposting you harassing piece of stinky shit. Fuck you.

12000 rpm falsifies COAM no matter how much you hide from that and slander me.

Grow the fuck up.

>>14752352
Equation 1 is the derived directly from the law of coam. It is the premiss of the reductio ad absurdum, so you are literally arguing that my part which proves that angular momentum is not conserved is wrong because angular momentum is not conserved you insane fucking retard.

Now fuck off.

>>14752387
The law of COAM refers to a closed system. A ball on a string is not a closed system. Angular momentum is conserved, you're just pretending that friction doesn't exist because you're a flat earth retard.

>>14752402
He doesn't pay attention to the setup in the example from his textbook, nor does he pay attention to any of the text explaining AM and COAM.
The invalidation of his paper is on the page he posted, in the very paragraph above the first equation he uses.
That is how fucking stupid his is.

>>14752402
So your argument is literally that the centuries old well accepted ball on a string demonstration of conservation of angular momentum does not conserve angular momentum.

You have agreed with my proof that existing physics is wrong you fucking retard.

>>14752497
Please point out what “attention I should pay” you fuckjng lying piece of stinking shit.
Show us a different value than the 12000 rpm for the given example prediction using COAM or fuck off.

>>14752679
English, mother fucker, do you read it?

>>14752679
From the example given in your text book the answer validates COAM.

>>14740502
I was under impresion that it was interferometer experiments that cancelled aether. And that was when Einstein was a child.

>>14752676
I am not agreeing with your delusions you deusional flat earth retard. Angular momentum is always conserved in a closed system.

>>14752679
You ignore the fact that a ball and string being swung around by a professor is not a closed system.

>>14752808
>>14752819
I've been trying all day to get him to upload the AM subsection from the textbook he is using. He posted the example related to the ball on a string but not the entire section.
The point being that we could all point to the sentence(s) that invalidates his paper.
Later editions the statements are easy to find and read, nice simple sentences.

>>14751853
>The fact is that you are so desperate to evade accepting my proof that you are trying to claim that my physics book is wrong because you can’t fault my proof.
Hello, McFly, you are the one trying to claim that your physics book is wrong because no-one supposedly can't fault your proof.
I'm claiming that your physics book is correct.

>>14753271
You are literally claiming that my proof is wrong because the equations which I have referenced are wrong, ie: you claim my book is wrong , you psychotic fucking double standard retard. Fuck off

>>14753441
post pictures of previous sections

>>14752870
My paper can only be invalidated by falsifying my maths or showing a ball on a string doing 12000 rpm, you fake fuck. retard

>>14752819
So your argument is literally that the centuries old existing physics classic classroom demonstration of conservation of angular momentum is not an example of conservation of angular momentum, retard.

>>14752808
Well you can’t change the principles of existing physics just to win an argument, retard. The classic demonstration of conservation of angular momentum cannot just be claimed to not be an example of conservation of angular momentum just because you don’t want to admit that it falsifies COAM. You evasive , shifting the goalposts retard.

>>14753458
Terribly syntax

>>14752744
12000 rpm does not happen in reality, so COAM is false, retard.

>>14753447
>>14753451

>>14752738
Fuck you you lying piece of unscientific shit.

>>14753469
holy fuck you're so low IQ

>>14753462
>12000 rpm does not happen in reality
yes it does

>>14753447
Your maths have been falsified, retard.

>>14753441
No, I'm stating that your claim is wrong because for YOUR experiment you use the equations incorrectly. The physics text you use even tells you this. The very text you pull the formulas from tells you the limitations.
Not once have I claimed your book is wrong.
What the absolute fuck s wrong with you?

Christ, he's been at it for more than 24 hours at this point.

>>14753494
Mandlbaur adopting Tesla's sleep rhythm to schizopost 24/7.

>>14753469
I'm more scientific than you by both education and career...and so is every other poster here.

>>14753494
Wtf. Since when is it your concern what I do with my time you retarded fuck. Go fuck yourself.

>>14753503
I just want to make sure you don't get Alzheimer's due to all that sleep deprivation. You're already showing symptoms

>>14753499
If you are truly scientific then why are you afraid to accept that a ball on a string does not behave as COAM predicts?
Why don’t you just measure it and resolve this dispute scientifically using the scientific method?

The scientific method is to reject theory which makes bad predictions and COAM undeniably makes bad predictions.

Why are you fighting against science and supporting ignorance of the evidence if you are so scientific?

>>14753498
My sleep is my fucking problem you creepy fuckjnv retard

>>14753458
>Friction isn't real because... I said so, okay?

>>14753520
Exactly what everyone here realizes. Get some sleep, man. You don't want to get Alzheimer's

>>14753493
So my proof that physics is wrong is wrong because my book is lying to me, you fucking delusional retard.
My equations are referenced and you have to accept them as is. Stop weaseling you fucking evasive piece of shit. Fuck off

>>14753528
>my book is lying to me
It's not. You're just ignoring the important details

>>14753482
Which equation number is falsified you delusional lying retarded cunt.

>>14753531
number 1

>>14753472
Show us a ball on a string demonstration of conservation of angular momentum doing 12000 rpm and settle this then instead of presenting imaginary evidence, retard.

>>14753517
but a ball on a string as described in the example in your textbook does in fact behave as COAM predicts.
As for measurements, sure.
https://youtu.be/vhl__wx18Qg
ta-da, COAM complete with measurements.
There is evidence, why are you fighting against science and supporting ignorance of the evidence?

>>14753528
I've not once posted that I have not accepted the referenced equations as-is. Quite the contrary, I've stated that they are perfectly valid equations.
Why do you keep lying about what I've posted when my posts are freely available for review?

>>14753531
Your improper use of equations.
YOUR MATHS are wrong.
The manner in which YOU are improperly applying the maths to your example is wrong.
Maths itself is correct until YOU get involved.

>>14753560
My equations are referenced and for the example lying retard

>>14753557
If my equations are correct then COAM is falsified by my mathematical physics paper. Stop weaseling and accept that COAM is false retard.

>>14753582
wrong again

>>14753581
no, the example in the text doesn't match the example in the paper.

>>14753549
Where exactly in the video is this cherry pick measurement?
I think you are simply lying retard.

>>14753582
The equations in the textbook are correct.
How YOU use them is incorrect.
You falsify your own paper.

>>14753533
So you agree with my conclusion that angular momentum is not conserved then, thank you.

>>14753587
Do you understand what is necessary to prove a law?

>>14753530
Which detail am I ignoring you lying cunt.

>>14753524
Fuck you faggot creep

>>14753585
what cherry pick measurement do you speak of?
Just watch the video, retard.
Damn, but you are a stubborn ignorant fuck.
You need at least four measurements to perform the calculations, assuming you already know the other quantities needed.
The fuck, you don't even know what is needed to experimentally prove or disprove your theoretical paper.

>>14753595
aww, you're so insecure. Adorable

>>14753521
Friction is considered negligible in the ball on a string demonstration for centuries as per my referenced equations retard.

>>14753591
everything that isn't just an equation.

>>14753599
>Friction is considered negligible in the ball on a string demonstration for centuries
literally wrong

>>14753506
Fuck you faggot creep

>>14753603
cute

>>14753604
Fuck off.
Face the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM and stop faggot weaseling. Retard.

>>14753606
awww

>>14753599
Your referenced equations make no such consideration.
In fact, per the picture you provided the textbook clearly considers the lack of any other force creating a torque on the system.
See >>14751853
The last fucking sentence in the paragraph directly above where the wrote BS.

>>14753607
don't get too attached...

>>14753611
Friction has been considered negligible in the demonstration for centuries and it does not explain the massive discrepancy, retard.

Stop grasping at straws and behave like a scientist should by following the fucking evidence.

Weasel.

>>14753748
and the retard is back after a 1 hour nap.

>>14753753
Fuck you and your ad hominem you stinking piece of shit.

>>14753761
as uncreative as ever

>>14753762
FUCK YOU AND YOUR AD HOMINEM YOU STINKING CUNT

>>14753763
holy shit please go back to taking a nap

>>14753764
Fuck off faggot.
Face the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM and stop insulting me in evasion you chickenshit.

>>14753794
bot response

>>14753795
Please stop childishly harassing me and face the fact that 12000!rpm objectively falsifies COAM.

>>14753748
You mean this evidence that you are not scientifically following?
https://youtu.be/vhl__wx18Qg

>>14754297
That is you neglecting the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM like a flat earther and presenting an appeal to tradition logical fallacy argument like a retard.