>>16769
the Hubble and James Webb telescopes, Keck Observatory, Subaru Observatory, and other radio telescopes and x-ray telescopes all see the same lensing effects.

wildly different instruments, wildly different sensors, but somehow the all magically share the exact same point spread function effects?

you are an absolute fucking moron.

point spread functions are correctable with calibration. if you were right, the PSFs would disappear, or at the very least not have THE EXACT SAME FUCKING EFFECT AS EVERY OTHER telescope.

so, once again, you are wrong.

you are using the "god is real because you can't prove he isn't" argument, confusing your own suspension of disbelief for an argument and mistaking denial for evidence.

it's like looking through a pinhole eclipse viewer and insisting it's not actually an eclipse, it's just everyone's viewers malfunctioning in the exact same way, from professional welding helmets to those cheap cardboard and plastic ones they give kids.

>>16764
Yeah, but Neptune is an actual object in space, have you looked into what dark matter actually is? It's literally unobservable and undetectable and mysterious by definition.
>Oh this shit is actually so mysterious that by its very definition that you shouldn't even look into it too much and measurement? Oh don't even try that, by definition it is something you will never find even if you look..
You can't tell me this isn't autistic and circular. And oh, it just so happens to explain and fit exactly into our theories and models to make them behave like we observe the actual universe is behaving.

The Neptune case predicted an object. In this case, they are predicting a retarded fucking shit spread all over the cosmos that literally has no other function than to correct for the errors in their model. There's literally no other reason for it to exist. It was invented to make them feel more correct, that's it. Normal people look for another explanation, these autists and mathematicians just say oh, there's actually this finely spread object that we cannot see and cannot detect and cannot observe and it's all over the place and actually this object makes our predictions and models 100% accurate. If the model was off by twice as much, they would just invent a twice heavier or twice as much dark matter. That's all they're doing, plugging up a hole in their shitty theory. Yet, because of the complex math involved, everyone believes that without even questioning, because oh these niggers sound so smart, probably onto something. They're onto endlessly sperging out with their math and nothing more IMO.

>>16772
>paraphrasing: "dark matter is explained by scientists as though it's actual magic that we will never actually be able to see"

No, you dumb fuck, that's just the garbage you picked up from YouTube grifters who need "mystical science hiding the truth" to sell clicks.

If "it's literally unobservable and undetectable and mysterious by definition", LUX-ZEPLIN wouldn't exist. PandaX wouldn't exist. XENONnT wouldn't exist. No government in their right mind would waste a penny on it.

You are too ignorant to know these things. You are trying to bat way above your retarded skill. You are at the opening peak of Dunning-Kruger.

Dark matter was postulated in the exact same process used that found Neptune.
Math showed Uranus's orbit was off, scientists predicted another planet, and when they looked, there it was.

Now we see galaxies spinning too fast and light bending where nothing visible is there.
And it's not one telescope glitching, it's literally fucking all of them seeing the same arcs and Einstein rings at the same spots across every wavelength.

That doesn't happen if it's "made up," you stupid fucking nigger.

Once again, you're pretending eclipses aren't real because you want to be the smart guy who discovered that it's ACKSHUALLY EVERY PINHOLE/ECLIPSE VIEWER malfunctioning in the same way.

>>16773
Dark matter is not invented to correct for the error of the instruments and that's not what I'm saying. It is invented to correct for the error in the model. And it's invented in the most stupid, autistic and circular way.
>We will explain nothing about why it's there, what it is or anything, but it plugs up the holes in our models and that's good enough for us, even if it has to be some nebulous shit that has no other definition than to correct our incorrect theories.
If you don't see how that is circular, I can't help you sir.

>>16774
No, you clueless jackass. Circular reasoning is assuming the conclusion. It does not involve testing whatsoever.

Dark matter wasn't scribbled in to cover up 'bad math', it came from decades of independent, repeatable evidence of galaxies rotating too fast to hold together, gravitational lensing bending light where nothing visible is there, the large-scale structure of the whole fucking universe, cosmic microwave background anisotropies, and a plethora of other measurements.
direct fucking measurements, that continuously prove it's not something incredibly stupid and trivial like "point spread function".

if it was just "making shit up," why the fuck would international teams be pouring billions into the projects I mentioned before, and dozens of other direct and indirect detection experiments? governments don't just drop that kind of money to prop up "lol just trust the math bro."

the anomaly is real, and demands an explanation, not a circular "it is because it is" like you're insisting.

once again, CIRCULAR REASONING DOES NOT TEST.

but if you continue insisting it is, i'll just go ahead and ban you for being too retarded to participate.

>>16773
Also, guess what, none of these detectors found a single collision that would fit the profile of their make-belief particle of dark matter. Money well spent I guess. Just goes to show the lengths to which people will go to defend their beliefs, even if clearly highly erroneous. China as usual just copies what the West does. Well, I guess in this case they waste other people's money, but still same idea. They'll cling to that shit till their last breath. Just as people cling to the idea of gravity, with literally zero evidence for it. It's the same type of thought process. Except dark matter is actually an evolution of that, because the original idea was always to preserve the notion of gravity. Which when examined, is increasingly useless and redundant in our current understanding of the universe. Same shit with dark energy - if the model doesn't work, let's just invent some more nebulous bullshit that we have no evidence for, just to make the model cling on to life. But whatever dude, you are way too indoctrinated into the academic (scientific as they call themselves) communities for me to even really bother talking to you. You'll never accept anything that's not mainstream. Except when it's the new mainstream. We'll talk then I guess.

>>16775
You are assuming that they were testing a hypothesis. They were simply taking measurements and finding inconsistencies. Then they came up with shit to explain that. They didn't come up with shit and then tested to confirm that it's correct. Get your facts straight before you speak.

>>16770
Obsessing over the instruments doesn't negate the point spread function. You have no idea what you're talking about.

(Stupid. Just stupid.)

>>16775
You remind me of that expedition where some rich guy actually flew out a bunch of flat earthers (this wasn't even that long ago) to Antarctica and they filmed everything from 20 different angles and people were still saying that that is all fake, that the drones are cutting feed, that these prominent figures in flat Earth community have sold out and they're lying about what they're seeing and just utterly retarded shit, anything to justify their theories. Even when their own people that were flown out have admitted that they were wrong, the community at large still clung on to it. This is you except you don't know it yet.

It's like arguing with a religious person.

(Also stupid, also banned.)

>>16778
all of the different types of instruments having the same PSF would be mathematically impossible.
you are wrong. you are stupid. you are banned.

>>16779
>>16777
>>16776
Neutrinos went 30 years without detection when the first tools to detect them were made.
Idiots like you also mocked them the same way.
We now measure them routinely.

Science didn't "make up dark matter to save a model".
Observations came first.
Galaxy rotation curves, lensing arcs, cluster dynamics, all yelling "hey, there's some extra mass here you're not seeing".
The models were adjusted to fit the reality; the reality was not adjusted to fit the models.
That is literally the opposite of circular reasoning.

Invoking "gravity has zero evidence" is pretty much the loudest screech of retardation in this thread.
Gravity is measurable.
Shove your computer off the desk, genius.

The same math from Newton and Einstein that keeps GPS working also predicts dark matter.
If you trust GPS accuracy (and regardless of how shit the maps can be, it definitely is), you already trust the physics that necessitate dark matter.

Lastly, the "flat earth" shit you're spouting is a PROJECTION.
Flat earthers ignore literally every instrument, every satellite photo, every aircraft flight, and insist it's a conspiracy.
You are doing the same shit.

You are brushing off tons of independent experiments, wavelength measurements, and different types of telescopes because you WANT it to be wrong, so you can be special, and right.

The only "special" you are, is banned, and you're not even special in that because the other retard beat you to it.

Congratulations.

>>16780
>mathematically impossible

That doesn't mean anything. Telescopes that watch distant galaxies and stars are not flawless tools and the point spread function proves that. The PSF alters the image, showing a gravitational lensing effect, which indicates it is mathematically possible to be mistaken.
Not only that: when you correct the PFS you digitally alter the image and that's the equivalent of altering your evidence. Like if a chemist does calculations on how much rust there is in a masonry sample he expects to find and when he doesn't find any rust, he adds it afterwards.

It's dishonest.

>>16783
If the instruments disagree, they're wrong.
If the models disagree, they're fake.
If they converge, it's a conspiracy.

It's like The Narcissist's Prayer, except for retards who want to feel special.

>Not only that: when you correct the PFS you digitally alter the image and that's the equivalent of altering your evidence.
Ah yes, you should only use observatories and telescopes with the factory default settings. No adjustments, no tuning, no compensation for rotation.

Should I ban you too for being this stupid?

>>16783
That's a really good point because it amounts to tampering. It's not showing what is actually being represented and instead it's producing results that are expected when you follow pre-existing parameters. That essentially means that you can't escape biases.

>>16785
AI generated images are mathematically created as well and they follow already established notions of what constitute an image. Doesn't mean it's real or factually correct.

>>16785
you shouldn't wear glasses, because you're tampering with what the world really looks like.
you shouldn't focus a microscope, because the blurry image is what's really there.
you shouldn't tune a guitar, because that's altering the original sound.
you shouldn't adjust your computer monitor's settings, because the real color is whatever hues come factory default.
you shouldn't calibrate a scale, because the lean from the manufacturer is more authentic.

this is how fucking stupid you sound.

>>16787
>conflating glasses with the Hubble telescope
>conflating microscopes that observe tangible objects with telescopes that try to look at objects that are unreachable and at a distance that no human can travel to
>conflating actual, empirical observations with computer coded images

False equivalency: the post.

>>16786
Exactly. It's mathematically "proven" you can divide a sphere into pieces and assemble those pieces into two identical spheres that look just like the original and all you need is some geometric autism (the Banach-Tarski paradox).

>>16788
>conflating glasses with the Hubble telescope
both correct distortions in optics. the fact that one's for short range and one's for distant galaxies doesn't change the underlying principle.

>conflating microscopes that observe tangible objects with telescopes that try to look at objects that are unreachable and at a distance that no human can travel to
they are literally the same category: lenses capturing light, both affected by PSF and distortion.
the idea that one shows "tangible" objects and the other doesn't is irrelevant.
they both still need calibration.

>conflating actual, empirical observations with computer coded images
every modern scientific instrument involves data processing.
we never see "raw reality".
we always see processed, interpreted signals.

that's literally how science -- and reality -- works.
you sound like someone who thought Jaden Smith was deep when he said "how can mirrors be real if our eyes aren't real".

>>16790
>we never see raw reality
>interpreted signals
>that’s literally how science — and reality — works

>conflating science with reality

Wooooooow! Hey, Neo! Morpheus called. He wants you to take the red pill.

(THERE IS NO SPOON)

File 175585601256.jpg - (316.58KB , 1018x644 , reality.jpg )

>>16791
I bet this is what he sees when looking at walls, furniture, people and the sky.

>>16791
>strips all context
>snarky bitch clapback

Nobody conflated science with reality, I said this:

>every modern scientific instrument involves data processing.
which is true...
>we never see "raw reality".
which is also true...
>we always see processed, interpreted signals.
which is also true.

Science is not reality.

Science is our best attempt to model reality.
Science is an evolving framework for making sense of reality.
Science is a method for approximating reality.
And, science is the most reliable tool we have for describing how reality works.

Science is always open to revision based on new data and theories.
Science is NOT open to revision by "but what if magic" bullshit.

Good try though. Enjoy your ban.

>>16792
It's always the science fiction neckbeards that engage in self-aggrandizing autofellatio. As if reality can be mapped by assigning a numerical value to everything and larp like you're in an episode of Star Trek.

>>16794
>As if reality can be mapped by assigning a numerical value to everything
Literally what humans do to function in a society, to travel distances on Earth, the seas, and fucking space.
Why are you whining about math?

File 175596698839.png - (55.94KB , 850x561 , Jesus math.png )

>>16789
I love numerical autism.

>>16786
AI images rely on a seed to create a starting point of the image, which allows a random image to be created (along with every other variable used, like the resolution, model used, etc).

The end result isn't claimed to be the thing it's mimicking, the same way an artist doesn't claim a painting is the physical object they're painting.

You didn't make a point at all, regardless of >>16796 and >>16789 fellating you.

File 175598650447.jpg - (292.88KB , 730x596 , padded cell.jpg )

>>16796
That picture is on point. I will never take math spergs seriously.

https://www.oxfordstudent.com/2012/05/24/the-madness-of-mathematics/
>“I would not dare to say that there is a direct relation between mathematics and madness,” said the mathematician John Nash, “but there is no doubt that great mathematicians suffer from maniacal characteristics, delirium and symptoms of schizophrenia.”

(IMAGINE SAMEFAGGING)

>>16798
It's sad when you hear people refer to Euclidean geometry as some kind of rationalistic truth. It's just one of many kinds of geometry that contradict each other. One statement that is true in one system is false in another.

>>16799
>It's sad when you hear people refer to Euclidean geometry

Euclidean geometry simply means geometry on a flat planes, like the kind you learn very early in grade school.
It doesn't apply when space is curved.

You're saying using a measuring cup is "sad" because it doesn't measure distance.

>as some kind of rationalistic truth.

Physicists don't treat Euclidean geometry as an "absolute rationalistic truth," they treat it as a framework for a specific type of measurement.

>It's just one of many kinds of geometry that contradict each other.

Spherical geometry does not "contradict" Euclidean geometry, it's simply used when a curve is needed to be measured.

>One statement that is true in one system is false in another.

You're crying that checkers and chess don't have the same rules.

>>16800
Have you read The Logic of Modern Physics? It was written by P. W. Bridgman and he explains it very thoroughly.

The meaning of "x is longer than y" (where x and y are solid objects) is defined by introducing a third solid object (the measuring tool/ruler) along x and y, whereby the measuring tool can be placed more times along x than y.
This means you change the laws of nature "appropriately" in the way you define the theory. That's why there is no consistency in Euclidean geometry that can be translated into non-Euclidean geometry. You need reference points to determine everything.

>>16801

This is why schizophrenics shouldn't be allowed to view their own diagnostic logs.
This is so fucking stupid... alright, here we go:

>The meaning of "x is longer than y" (where x and y are solid objects) is defined by introducing a third solid object (the measuring tool/ruler)
Yes.
Measurement is tied to the process of comparing one measurement to another established measurement.
Modern rulers aren't based on arbitrary body parts anymore for a reason, they're based on universal constants.
Good job.
>This means you change the laws of nature "appropriately" in the way you define the theory.
Fucking... WHAT?!
Bridgman DID NOT say nature's law changes depending on how we measure it.
He very simply said that DEFINITIONS and MODELS depend on MEASUREMENT OPERATIONS.
Nature itself stays the same, it's our DESCRIPTION of it that changes.
If I say I have a gallon of water, and you say you have 3.78541 liters, neither of us are wrong.
Jesus, what a stupid fucking interpretation of Bridgman.
>That's why there is no consistency in Euclidean geometry that can be translated into non-Euclidean geometry.
Yea, fucking WRONG.
When curvature is zero, Euclidean math works perfectly fine.
If everyone were as stupid as you, multi-story buildings wouldn't exist.
>You need reference points to determine everything.
AND?
If a construction worker showed up to a job site without a tape measure or any other form of measurement and says he's about to install plumbing, he would be fired.
You're not even technically correct, you're just mixing reality with some retard interpretation of shit you don't understand.

>>16802
>Bridgman DID NOT say nature's law changes depending on how we measure it

You change the laws of nature in your theory. Everything it depends on how you express it and that's why mathematics depend on symbolism (numbers, equations) and not actual facts.

>>16803
>You change the laws of nature in your theory. Everything it depends on how you express it and that's why mathematics depend on symbolism (numbers, equations) and not actual facts.

Alright, enough of your retarded dismissals and hand-waving.
You keep giving these short, vague lines and dodging giving even a single example of what you actually mean.

If "math is just symbols and not facts," then show one modern, concrete example of a physical law that actually changed JUST BECAUSE someone measured it differently.

Not "science updates models".
Not "ancient people were wrong once".

Show me an actual case where nature itself behaved differently because the measurement tool was swapped.

>>16804
The fact that you think Euclidean geometry is consistent with non-Euclidean geometry shows you are doubling down on how little you actually know.
Are you saying that by changing Euclid's parallel postulate it doesn't affect the rules of non-Euclodean geometry? There are core differences that are incompatible.

(TASK: FAILED)

>>16802
Does anon believe the laws of nature are subjectively interpreted?

>>16803
I mean we don't just arbitrarily change the laws though. We change the laws in our theory based on what our observation through the scientific method tell us. I mean I don't know what you guys are talking about I haven't read the thread, but, I am just saying. The laws of nature are objective at least making basic philosophical assumptions like the belief that you aren't the only living thing in the universe.

File 175609846696.png - (46.24KB , 850x354 , Penrose tribar.png )

>>16798
Good post. Mathematics is schizo territory.

>>16805
Pic related can only exist mathematically because you've changed the laws of nature. It's impossible to construct as a solid object.

>>16805
The textbook misrepresentation, derailment and pivot.
You must be a zionist.
Anyway, you failed your challenge, so enjoy your ban.
Be smug from the sidelines.

>>16794
the typical reddit fedoralord that has no grasp on anything without spouting platitudes from wikipedia

>>16798
Must be tough to claim you know the nature of space through equations when you have no healthy discernment of what is real or not.

lol the guy thinks he won the debate because he banned everyone who opposed his viewpoints. Pathetic power tripping autist.

I won't even address the points you made, because you're just nonstop using logical fallacies and deliberately misinterpreting what others say and fellating yourself at every opportunity. There's no good faith in this discussion and you can't ignore this nigger either, because besides trying to plug in his shitty opinion on every issue raised he also bans anyone who disagrees let alone dares to directly oppose his scrambled, ego-tripping dumb ass opinions. Here to just make himself feel intelligent. All the "take downs" are fucking useless bullshit for the most part. Misinterpretation, logical fallacy or just plain stupidity that counters or disproves fucking nothing. Useless nigger. Don't let yourself be tempted to respond to it.

You are stupid beyond belief and anything you say just further highlights that fact. This is to the jew mod nigger.

So let's not even pretend for a moment that anything you said makes sense for the sake of... anything.
"I ban you all, therefore I'm correct" this is all you have.
No, you're not correct, you're just a little bitch who can't take it losing an argument on the internet.
Haven't seen anyone on this much of a power trip in a while lol.

Retard


Guys stop taking him seriously, it just feeds his ego, makes him think he matters in this discussion. The only way he can feel like he matters is by banning those who disagree, but if no one takes his viewpoint seriously in the first place - it will be just that - a raging autistic mod trying to appear smarter than the userbase to feel like his life has the slightest bit of significance.
Unless you think he's debating in good faith and is making fair points actually relevant to the discussion. Then go ahead. He's all your.
He's also completely geometrically illiterate too, but fuck that, his every rebuttal is fucking beyond stupid and deliberately avoidant of the actual points made.. useless nigger. Don't give him the satisfaction of the next ban by responding to anything he wrote seriously. Don't feed his fragile ego. Get banned, but by conversing with others actually worth talking to. JUST IGNORE HIM!

Also, since I'm going to get banned, I'll just quickly say while I still have a chance that nigger scientist is an oxymoron. Bye

https://youtu.be/d6coQojaPcE?si=Dv2NHYWCjxlItG72&t=918

File 175640350932.png - (1.55MB , 1024x1024 , 6WH82SP6QM8FFKYMRVNAM4ETF0.png )

>>16819
The only reason you're not perma'd is because watching you samefag and churn out essays to convince yourself you matter is free entertainment.
Instead of writing another /rnb/ diary about how oppressed you are, try citing one single place where I was actually wrong.

PS: You're never getting a train board.

File 175641532318.gif - (4.59MB , 199x238 , ezgif-8cd42441028f30.gif )

>>16821
This is you. Fuck you, I'm not answering.

>>16823
I'm a grade school teacher demonstrating a loose analog of gravity and orbits, and pissing an autist on 7chan off 15 years later?
Seems right.

>>16824
As if anyone would let you near the kids

>>16825
This level of projection when I can see all of your posts is crazy.

>>16826
Ok so maybe I do love cunny, we both know you love it too.

>>16819
It's weird that he thinks everyone is the same poster. Pretty schizo.

>>16812
Equations are built on assumptions so it's more or less a game of guesswork.