I am curious. Matter is, by definition, that which can be measured. Then by opposing consciousness to matter, you mean that it can't be measured? If it can't be measured, how can you tell that it exists? You say, here, look at these measurable effects it has on these experiments. Then it can be measured. Then it is matter.

>>15151
That's quite a sophistic post you just made there. The experiments show that you can't explain the mind as tangibly affecting its surroundings. So if there is no physical link then the mind isn't physical.

I don't think materialism is a valid point of view because when you examine the so called "laws" of physics you begin to realize that they are only applicable to our known corner of this unfathomable universe. How do you prove entropy exists in other parts of the cosmos if you have no clue what the conditions are or how to study them? It all boils down to assumptions and conjecture. How do you know the speed of light doesn't change depending on where you are or if matter behaves the same way everywhere? Physicists can only grasp a tiny fraction of everything that is contained in the giant void.

File 16712969456.gif - (952.05KB , 400x400 , Structural jelly.gif )

>>15170
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001FoPh...31..837D/abstract
>Reciprocity of knowledge and organization vindicates Wigner's claim that "reciprocal to the action of matter upon mind there exists a direct action of mind upon matter

Most physicists are actually scared of talking about the uncertainty of matter. They've realized that the deeper you dissect the framework of reality, the more you become less and less convinced of its absolute hegemony.

I honestly think most of this stems from incorrect science. Bad data, bad interpretations of data, bad instruments... Turns it into magic.

I ironically do believe in magic, but the idea that the brain is changing anything external is ego. Vanity the great deceiver

>>15198
The research is really sturdy and demands a lot of precautions due to the nature of the experiments. I think you just avoid acknowledging its legitimacy because it interferes with your own view of reality. It’s easier to dismiss it as false because science is supposed to only reaffirm ’correct’ science, a.k.a consensus.

>>15218
Okay

>>15225
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6415937/
>Basic philosophical assumptions count as biases because they skew the development of hypotheses, the design of experiments, the evaluation of evidence, and the interpretation of results in specific directions.
>Philosophical biases are typically acquired from science education, professional practice or other disciplinary traditions that define a scientific paradigm. This is why scientists with varying backgrounds might adopt different philosophical biases.

Occam’s Razor, as an example of philosophical bias, shows that scientists tend to conform to a certain paradigm. Simple answers are easy to digest and scientists always choose easy solutions. Consensus is the rule they all follow.

File 167592704812.jpg - (14.05KB , 275x183 , index.jpg )

>>15231
I'm not after a consensus bro

I like when people disagree with me. I genuinely assume I am wrong if a single person agrees, and this has proven to be true quite often. What I'm after is truth.

File 167783180038.gif - (774.56KB , 540x462 , 1619959658286.gif )

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00029157.1978.10403953
>A series of investigations are reviewed which indicate that suggestion (a) can block the skin reaction (dermatitis) that is produced by poison ivy-like plants, (b) can give rise to a localized skin inflammation that has the specific pattern of a previously experienced burn, (c) can be effective in the cure of warts, (d) can ameliorate congenital ichthyosiform erythrodermia (“fish skin disease”), and (e) can stimulate the enlargement of the mammary glands in adult women. Experiments are also summarized supporting the hypothesis that the aforementioned suggested phenomena may be due, in part, to localized alterations in blood flow to the skin and other organs that can occur when certain types of suggestions are accepted.

It is well-documented that the mind can alter the structure of the body. Hypnotic states during surgery is also something that makes sedatives obsolete, proving further that the mind can affect matter.

>>15243
lmao, please go play with poison ivy then

what a bunch of absolute shit, lmfao

>>15248
He's right, though. There are numerous studies detailing the effects of the mind. If you have sand in your vagina you don't have to take it out on others.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00029157.2003.10403546?src=recsys
>The primary outcome data of interest were objective, observational measures of incision healing made at 1,7 weeks postoperatively by medical staff blind to the participants' group assignments.
>Results of this preliminary trial indicate that use of a targeted hypnotic intervention can accelerate postoperative wound healing and suggest that further tests of using hypnosis to augment physical healing are warranted.

File 167904226451.gif - (950.21KB , 480x480 , 1633104927404.gif )

>>15254
Hypnosis is very effective and a lot of surgeons have used it. The only reason it isn't practiced more often is because of social stigma among physicians. Keep in mind that almost all doctors are materialists and view everything as depending on genetic factors.

File 167923877016.jpg - (151.29KB , 850x1290 , __hitoshura_and_pixie_shin_megami_tensei_and_1_mor.jpg )

>>15254
>>15256
No

File 16795604984.png - (57.96KB , 1138x521 , 167955989747.png )

>>15197
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3144613/
>One of the investigators (PNJ) drew an image in the presence of other investigators [HRN, BNG, and GVS]. Figures ​Figures 1A and ​and 2A were the images drawn by PNJ for the “mentalist” and the control subject while both were seated in separate rooms.
>Both the subjects were right-handed and possessed Master's Degrees.

There is a massive amount of strict ESP research that yield the same kind of results. Out of all possible ways you can draw a picture, without knowing anything about it, there is an amazing similarity.

>>15262
That's based off of a map of the sectors of the brain.

They both would have seen that image regularly in school

I did not read the article at all and can tell you they coaxed this drawing out of them, and it is hilariously entirely dissimilar yet

>>15263
I don't think you understand how rigid the controls are in ESP research. You need independent observers that make sure you can't influence the subjects. Also, the patterns are really similar: the rectangular frame and the pattern is similar and the only thing that's missing is the circle and that's 2/3. Your objections are cute but they're born out of cope.

>>15149
Matter is physical, consciousness is what operates unseen behind matter so no one can physically measure it's effect on matter. Even chemical reactions are just physical manifestation of the conscious operations behind the chemicals.
My work works in similar manner, I can program skills like football, singing, dancing and skills like them into humans using a computer. I am currently testing an eternal life product, by the time I see results most of you may be old. Since it's expensive your payment for me giving you eternal life on Earth is to serve me for the rest of your life.
Money can not buy such stuff, I will then give you any skill you want to earn a living eternally. But to be eligible for my work, you must not take the covid vaccine and obey the ten commandments of God plus the other two that Christ gave.

File 167985430560.jpg - (804.73KB , 1026x725 , Fresh green.jpg )

>>15262
I think those kinds of results are fascinating. Even a materialist physicist like Gerald Feinberg would classify that as a form of precognition. He hypothesized that there are waves that travel into the future and reverberate backwards in time.

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp96-00787r000100130003-6
>PRECOGNITION - A MEMORY OF THINGS FUTURE?
>G. Feinberg
>Department of Physics
>Columbia University
>For example, suppose someone were going to observe an earthquake at noon, and become aware of it precognitively at 11:45. He could write out the sentence "There will be an earthquake at noon", and show it to other people. The recording of this sentence would then itself become a new stimulus, which could be recognized precognitively sometime before it was real, or ideally, more than the 15 minutes warning gained by the imagined precognition. This process could be repeated indefinitely, and so the warning time increased indefinitely.

>>15269
Speaking of precognition.

I've once played css on the comedown of a pretty strong (like 1 mg) acid trip and I never played this well before unless just really lucky but in that particular case it was like I knew where someone's head would be before it was there and it would all happen so fast, but I legit had like half a second of precognition in that fractally de_dust2 and I admit I played with average players (a decade ago average was actually pretty fucking skilled), but I surprised myself by how insanely "lucky" I was.

Just a fun story of precognition. Bye

Presuming these findings were true, wouldn't have major implications. A new field of study would probably be established, eventually allowing us to partially control reality?

File 168036558211.jpg - (66.42KB , 685x1000 , Key.jpg )

>>15270
There is actually some ESP research done by a man called Andrija Puharich that involve substance altered consciousness. He gave a test subject a dose of Amanita muscaria (Fly Agaric mushroom) and let him do a MAT test.

Quoted from pic related:
>He mumbled that he felt very, very drunk. Then he looked straight ahead and said that he felt he could see through the wall of the laboratory. He said that everything seemed so clear on the other side of the wall. I asked him what he saw, and he gave me an accurate description. But I also knew that he had prior knowledge of the other side of the wall and this could well be imagination. Therefore I delayed giving him the atropine in order to do one quick test of his seeming clairvoyance. I hastily blindfolded him, urging his co-operation, and placed him before the covered MAT test. I begged him to try to do one test. Aldous and I watched him closely. His hands fumbled over the picture blocks for about a minute. He just couldn't seem to make his hands follow his will power.
>I spoke sharply and commanded him to begin the test. He pulled himself together and completed the entire series of matching ten sets of pictures in about three seconds. He literally threw the two sets of picture blocks together. I took the cover away from the blocks, and was amazed to find that he had scored ten correct matches. The statistical odds against getting this score by chance alone were such that he would have had to do this test a million times before such a result would occur once. This was the most remarkable demonstration with the MAT test that he had done up to this date.

>>15274
Muscarine seems to be a mysterious substance.

>>15283
I once did acid so much that I'd become my voice whenever I spoke. Just like REMEMBERING..

>>15170
Good point. The same thing can be said about the mind. How do you know the mind is material when it can't be measured? What is the weight of a thought?
Another thing is that if you suggest a simple idea to several people (green cat on a blue table) how do you assemble those forms and colours from neurons and electric impulses? What quantities of components in the brain do you need to construct the exact same image in every single person without deviation? If you can't standardize the mind it is quite clear it isn't dependent on the brain itself.

>>15305
We simply don't have access to the brain on that level yet. It's yet to be confirmed whether thoughts are irreducible but from what i've seen the answer is no, they are reducible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_cell
Pretty much every area of neurology has interesting things documented that call into question what's going on in your mind

File 168861883813.jpg - (65.90KB , 480x608 , 103.jpg )

>>15312
>they are reducible

In your mind they are reducible but in reality they aren't.

>>15315
If you don't know who Karl Lashley is the whole story is like this: Karl Lashley systematically tried and failed to find how memories are stored by ablating cortical tissue at varying locations in rats after maze-learning, and concluded that “This can only mean that the retention of the habit is conditioned by the total amount of functional tissue in the cortex and not, primarily, by the inherent properties of the synapses themselves” He destroyed tissue in different parts of the brain and realized that no matter where he destroyed the tissue the function remained the same. He couldn't find the actual memory itself and where it is stored.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19286560/
>Memories are thought to be encoded by sparsely distributed groups of neurons. However, identifying the precise neurons supporting a given memory (the memory trace) has been a long-standing challenge. We have shown previously that lateral amygdala (LA) neurons with increased cyclic adenosine monophosphate response element-binding protein (CREB) are preferentially activated by fear memory expression, which suggests that they are selectively recruited into the memory trace. We used an inducible diphtheria-toxin strategy to specifically ablate these neurons. Selectively deleting neurons overexpressing CREB (but not a similar portion of random LA neurons) after learning blocked expression of that fear memory. The resulting memory loss was robust and persistent, which suggests that the memory was permanently erased. These results establish a causal link between a specific neuronal subpopulation and memory expression, thereby identifying critical neurons within the memory trace.

>suggests

The funny part about this study is that they claim to have erased a memory by altering chemicals in the brain when in reality they removed a fear response. Fear is not the same as memory. You can't think to yourself that "now I will become afraid!" and as a result you experience fear. Fear is attached to danger. Fear of death when you see a bomb, a starving white shark, a poisonous snake or a man with a gun in his hand is not the same as the memory itself. If you remove fear from a memory you remove a feeling and not the experience. The shark is still there, the snake is still there, the bomb is still there and the man with the gun is still there but you lack fear. They don't even explain what a memory consists of and how you construct a specific memory from scratch.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22441246/
>A specific memory is thought to be encoded by a sparse population of neurons. These neurons can be tagged during learning for subsequent identification and manipulation. Moreover, their ablation or inactivation results in reduced memory expression, suggesting their necessity in mnemonic processes. However, the question of sufficiency remains: it is unclear whether it is possible to elicit the behavioural output of a specific memory by directly activating a population of neurons that was active during learning. Here we show in mice that optogenetic reactivation of hippocampal neurons activated during fear conditioning is sufficient to induce freezing behaviour. We labelled a population of hippocampal dentate gyrus neurons activated during fear learning with channelrhodopsin-2 (ChR2) and later optically reactivated these neurons in a different context. The mice showed increased freezing only upon light stimulation, indicating light-induced fear memory recall. This freezing was not detected in non-fear-conditioned mice expressing ChR2 in a similar proportion of cells, nor in fear-conditioned mice with cells labelled by enhanced yellow fluorescent protein instead of ChR2. Finally, activation of cells labelled in a context not associated with fear did not evoke freezing in mice that were previously fear conditioned in a different context, suggesting that light-induced fear memory recall is context specific. Together, our findings indicate that activating a sparse but specific ensemble of hippocampal neurons that contribute to a memory engram is sufficient for the recall of that memory. Moreover, our experimental approach offers a general method of mapping cellular populations bearing memory engrams.

>activation of cells labelled in a context not associated with fear did not evoke freezing in mice that were previously fear conditioned
>suggesting that light-induced fear memory recall is context specific

Same thing with this study. They see mice freeze due to a fear response but they never explain what the memory itself is made of. They can measure activity within the brain and see that mice react to stimulus but they have been conditioned to react to light in a fearful manner so this doesn't prove that memories are stored in a specific part of the brain and that you can somehow affect the actual memory since they haven't explained what a memory actually is. There is only physical action and reaction and nothing more.

>>15325
Interesting.

File 169376195211.jpg - (71.43KB , 600x600 , Who be when.jpg )

>>15333
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/learning-in-the-octopus/
>Learning in the Octopus
>The animal cooperates readily in laboratory experiments. Tests of its capacities before and after brain surgery lend support to the idea that there are two kinds of memory: long-term and short-term

Another man called Brian B. Boycott did similar research like Lashley except in octopuses. He removed tissue inside the octopus vertical lobe and found that the memory, quite paradoxically, is stored both everywhere and nowhere.

>>15337
I think this ties in with previous posts in this thread. Clearly thoughts and memories aren't tangible in a physical sense since you can't trace them to a source.

File 170083830346.jpg - (279.57KB , 1457x2000 , crystals.jpg )

Quoted from "Crystals and Crystal Growing" (pic related):
>About ten years ago a company was operating a factory which grew large single crystals of ethylenediamine tartrate from solution in water. From this plant it shipped the crystals many miles to another which cut and polished them for industrial use. A year after the factory opened, the crystals in the growing tanks began to grow badly; crystals of something else adhered to them as shown in Plate 11, something which grew even more rapidly. The affliction soon spread to the other factory: the cut and polished crystals acquired the malady on their surfaces.
>Enough of the unwanted material was collected to make a supersaturated solution of it. Since crystals of both materials, the unwanted and the wanted, would grow in that solution, the unwanted substance must contain the desired substance. And since crystals of both would grow in a pure solution made from the desired crystals, the unwanted crystals could not be the result of an impurity which had crept into the solution during the manufacturing process.The wanted material was anhydrous ethylenediamine tartrate, and the unwanted material turned out to be the monohydrate of that substance. During three years of research and development, and another year of manufacture, no seed of the monohydrate had formed. After that they seemed to be everywhere.

One thing chemists and physicists never have explained adequately is how a certain substance just randomly form in the exact same way without any contact with the original contaminated solution. It is especially weird because the desire substance is totally free from water while the defective substance contains water.

File 17034475296.jpg - (386.16KB , 1052x514 , piezolectric crystal.jpg )

>>15355
I did some reading and apparently in multiple factories no where near the American one the EDT crystals were being turned into hydrates for no reason whatsoever and it was then impossible to make a pure EDT crystal, despite EDT research never making a hydrate until that point.
What this means in terms of physics is that any substance, independent of point of origin, can appear anywhere on Earth and without contact with the primary source.

Really interesting and quite surreal because this just shows us that physical causality isn't necessary for something to happen.

>>15347
This is an interesting and possibly very valid concept

>>15269
Backward causation is trippy.

File 17099367852.png - (752.19KB , 609x789 , phallic.png )

>>15375
Retrocausality means that you ignore the multiplicity of possibilites inherent in perceived randomness.

File 17126609334.gif - (120.36KB , 580x580 , Pathways.gif )

>>15381
It also implies that there are pathways you follow your entire life.

File 171526189084.jpg - (44.04KB , 771x592 , gigantic.jpg )

>>15385
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/4124164/
>Principles that Govern the Folding of Protein Chains
>A chain of 149 amino acid residues with two rotatable bonds per residue, each bond probably having two or three permissible or favored orientations, would be able to assume on the order of 4^149 to 9^149 different conformations in solution.
>The extreme rapidity of the refolding makes it essential that the process take place along a limited number of "pathways"

I've never understood what "random" actually means. As far as I know it's just a mathematical construct used to conceptualize a vast number of possibilities that never happen. Simply by looking at protein folding one can see that there is nothing random about it and it happens so fast that there is no room for deviations. In fact there is no trace in physics or chemistry of the control of chemical reactions by a sequence of any sort or of a code between sequences and yet it's highly controlled and rigid.
Randomness as an idea is something you can refer to when something is not happening in accordance with your expectations.

>>15399
It's funny how scientists say that protein folding is an "emergent property", which basically means you can't explain it when you look at the individual parts. They're afraid to admit they have no idea how it works or why it works the way it does.

>>15425
Same thing can be said about consciousness. Materialists say it is a byproduct of the brain's chemical and electrical activity but no one can pinpoint where it resides in the brain and I have never seen any adequate explanation from chemists or electrical engineers on how to infuse chemicals and electricity with awareness.

File 172268980298.jpg - (107.85KB , 772x551 , Look at them.jpg )

>>15510
The brain is only a vessel with various components that are controlled by will. The strange thing is that this will cannot be quantified.

>>15572
because it isnt there.
i strongly disagree with your baseless assertion.
theres no free will, some components of our minds ensure we are constantly doing, saying, thinking, and feeling in ways other parts of our psyche would rather we not.
we often claim that we desire free will to hold ourselves to account, but in practice i see us using free will to justify making judgements of others for their actions, while we make excuses for our own.
free will is unnessacary and is in fact a harmful belief within our society, we can make much better models on the basis of pragmatics and pursuit of preferable outcomes, but the myth of free will keeps a status quo in place that none of us thinks is satisfactory.

File 172526315752.jpg - (344.17KB , 1000x1000 , Firm titties.jpg )

>>15399
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01620-3
>The long-term evolution experiment (LTEE) has become a cornerstone in evolutionary biology that researchers continue to mine for insights. During their 75,000 generations of growth, the bacteria have made huge gains in their fitness — how fast they grow relative to other bacteria — and evolved some surprising traits.

https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/JB.00831-15
>The LTEE isolation of Cit+ mutants has become a textbook example of the power of long-term evolution to generate new species. But, based on our results, E. coli arrives at the same solution to access citrate in days versus years, as originally shown by Hall. In either case, genes involved in the process maintain their same function but show expanded expression by deregulation. Because of this, we argue that this is not speciation any more than is the case with any other regulatory mutant of E. coli. We conclude that the rarity of the LTEE mutant was an artifact of the experimental conditions and not a unique evolutionary event. No new genetic information (novel gene function) evolved.

Materialists think that biology somehow determines how you act and behave but in reality there is no evidence for this other than assumptions.

File 172546687530.jpg - (460.48KB , 1012x1232 , □.jpg )

>>15624
I don't think anyone can explain why bacteria would develop consciousness or how it produces awareness step by step.

>>15622
>free will is unnessacary and is in fact a harmful belief within our society, we can make much better models on the basis of pragmatics and pursuit of preferable outcomes, but the myth of free will keeps a status quo in place that none of us thinks is satisfactory.


Free will isnt really free. You do have control over your faculties but its not absolute. I do agree free will is philosophically abuses for scientific racism/race realism

File 173062864923.png - (717.55KB , 1536x1544 , longest and thickest.png )

>>15572
https://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.41.2295
>The quantum Zero effect is the inhibition of transitions between quantum states by frequent measurements of the state.

The very act of observing atoms is enough to prevent them from fluctuating in a probabilistic manner and maintain a definite state of being. What is interesting about this is that the mind has supremacy over something physical but clearly you cannot measure the mind itself. What components in the brain is it that controls the state of atoms? I have not seen any explanation from physicists anywhere in any research paper.

>>15631
Because there is no scientific answer to that question.

>>15742
this is dumb and shows you don't have a grasp of what "observation" really is.
it's not just "looking" at an atom with the naked eye and it magically changes.
it's measuring it, which requires an interaction with it.
there's something called the "Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle", which is that you can't simultaneously know *certain* physical properties of an atom with precision at the same time.
the issue is measuring one of those measurements requires an interaction with another of the measurements.
for example, if i wanted to know the precise height of a kid that's running across the road, i can't also measure their velocity at the same time.
the kid's ankles will be at an angle that isn't flat, they'll likely be leaning in a way that isn't completely upright, and they may be slouching a bit as well.
while i could measure their velocity, i would need to stop the velocity (therefore preventing knowing it) in order to know their height.
likewise, measuring an atom requires altering its state, energizing or removing energy from it or some other manner of alteration, which in the sense of something on the scale of atoms changes it at unimaginable magnitudes compared to a kid.

>>15827
evolution exists. it's complicated, but not that complicated.

>>15830
Did you even read the abstract in the link? It says they used a Penning trap.

>>15831
Wow, nice. Simply asserting something is true must mean it is true.

>>15832
yes, in other words, observing it still causes the collapse.
they examine the collapse often enough to make it *more* predictable.
it's still not precise.
it does not "prevent" the atom from changing, and as a matter of fact, it deliberately causes its state to collapse.
does it help predictability? sure.
does it overcome the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? no, it literally uses it.

and no, science and observation proves evolution is true.
the mechanics behind it might be a bit cloudy, but that changes nothing.
their "step by step" assertion is so vague that the goalposts may as well be a hyper, adolescent deer on a frozen lake.

>>15833
You obviously didn't read the abstract and definitely not the entire paper.

The more measurements they made with their laser beam, the greater the number of atoms that remained unaltered. The very act of observing the atoms stopped them from changing state, regardless of the effect of the radio pulses. It's not a matter of the laser beam preventing the experiment from progressing or directly interfering with the changes in atomic state. Observing a particle causes it to attain a definite point in space and time.

>>15834
>the very act of observing
god, this is the most simplistic and retarded thing...

yes, the quantum zeno effect is a real thing.
it’s basically when you measure an atom so often that you "freeze" it in its current state.
but “measuring” in quantum mechanics is never just about staring at something really hard, you have to *physically interact* with the atom, like shooting it with a laser or using a detector.

think of it like a photographer who keeps taking rapid-fire photos.
if your subject was an atom, the subject you're photographing would "reset" them to the same position every single time, because they're getting zapped by a laser (actually hit with photons from laser beams).
that's what's happening to the atom.
it’s not your mind that’s holding it in place, it's the constant measurements.

so when that paper talks about "inhibiting the transition of atoms," they mean that frequent measurements attempt to "lock" the atom in a certain state.
they're not saying your thoughts magically control the atom.
they're saying that shining the laser (or whatever detection method) on it over and over keeps it from moving to another state as often as it would without all those measurements.

the heisenberg uncertainty principle still applies here.
by measuring one thing (like the atom's position) constantly, you lose track of something else (like its momentum).
you don't get a definite measurement, because you're just focusing on one aspect so much that it locks the system into that aspect.

bottom line:
"observation" in quantum physics = physical interaction with the system.
you're not just “seeing” it and commanding it with your mind.
you're poking it with lasers or detectors, and that's what keeps it from changing states as quickly.

there's nothing mystical about it. hitting atoms with photons from the laser (aka the light itself) is like a car hitting a utility pole.
once the collision happens, you can no longer observe the car's momentum.
it's stopped or altered—but you can measure its size, shape, or other details in that moment.
the catch is, unlike a car, an atom doesn't stay still.
it almost immediately starts moving again, so if you want more information, you have to keep slamming it into poles (or in the case of atoms, bombarding it with photons). each time, you get a snapshot of the state, but again, each time a photon hits it, it cranks it back up and moves again.

File 173532676450.jpg - (56.66KB , 500x500 , autism overdose.jpg )

>>15836
Let me break it down for you since you are only able to write wall of texts like an autist:

>heat beryllium with radio waves
>measure isotopes that form
>radio waves convert one isotope to another
>laser beam display the results (atoms in their original state would emit light but altered ones will not)

Observing the particles made them become fixed in space and time.

File 173533345710.jpg - (54.75KB , 750x738 , FuWSOCWaQAArlgd.jpg )

>>15837
aaaand you're still wrong.

your conclusion about particles being "fixed in space and time" is a very elementary and wrong interpretation.
the laser beam doesn't magically lock particles in place.
it interacts with them, causing unaltered atoms to emit light.
this isn't about freezing their position, but about how their quantum state determines whether or not they emit photons under those conditions.
the laser isn't just passively observing and displaying results, it's an active part of the process, influencing the system through interaction.

in quantum mechanics, observation always involves interaction.
measuring a particle *collapses* its wave function into one of its possible states, but it doesn't fix it in time or space.
it (with an obscene lack of a better word, because it happens in damn near planck time) *momentarily* locks the system into a measurable state, influenced by how the measurement itself disturbs the particle.

it's less about "freezing" and more about taking a snapshot, while also nudging the system in the process, which is completely unavoidable at this scale, because a laser beam of light to an atom is a fucking hale storm of photons.

>>15839
>it interacts with them, causing unaltered atoms to emit light.

It says in the paper (that you haven't read) that the laser doesn't affect them. That's why they use radio waves to alter the isotopes and not the laser. The laser only makes them emit light because you can only see something if it emits light. You have no clue what you are talking about.

>>15840
cite the part of the paper you're yapping about instead of "heh i guess you didn't read--".

>>15841
Or you could actually try to read the paper instead of pretending that you know what you're talking about. I'm not going to spoon-feed you when the link has already been posted.

File 173536001562.jpg - (107.22KB , 1074x892 , FuWRra4XsAIuPLl.jpg )

>>15843
"i'm not going to prove my argument, you have to do it for me"
you're a retard who can't defend the nonsense they're spouting. got it.

>>15844
You're the one that's arguing against established physicists. You're the one that needs to prove your argument. Read the paper you lazy autist.

>>15846
nigger, your interpretation of the paper is wrong.
the paper doesn’t say anything about "heating beryllium with radio waves" or "measuring isotopes."
it talks about beryllium ions in a Penning trap being manipulated with radio frequency transitions between quantum states.
the laser isn't "displaying results" either.
it's used for cooling the ions and detecting their states.
and no, the particles aren't magically "fixed in space and time" any more than a fucking photograph fixes a person in space and time.
the paper describes how rapid measurements inhibit state transitions, not some sci-fi nonsense about freezing atoms in place.
maybe you should *stop* reading the fucking papers, since you don't understand them and are making yourself look retarded.

>>15847
>doesn’t say anything about "heating beryllium with radio waves"

Yeah it does. They use a 320.7-MHz radio frequency field. Why would they use laser cooling if there was no heat generated in the experiment? You're scientifically illiterate, you dumb autist.

File 173570243927.png - (810.88KB , 2313x837 , isotope.png )

>>15847
>doesn’t say anything about "measuring isotopes."
>it talks about beryllium ions

>he doesn't know that Beryllium-9 is an isotope
>he doesn't know that an ion is any atom that has an electrical charge

Your logic:
>if you electrify a metal rod it isn't a metal rod anymore!

>>15848
He's too lazy to read the whole thing properly.

>>15859
Flawless reasoning!

>>15926
There will always be some Internet sperg that has too much time on his hands and the reading comprehension of a toddler on every website.

Anyhow, the funny part about materialists is that they think everything is determined by quantum particles and their interaction. Back in 2005 a physicist by the name Roger Penrose said that the reason why we can't see any intermediate states of quantum particles and why everything is so unclear is because of gravity. But there is zero evidence for any gravity particle. No one has found it and it's more or less a scientific myth at this point.

File 174359430661.png - (13.53KB , 640x480 , voltage.png )

>>16133
Gravity on the quantum level is irrelevant due to how little evidence there is of its existence. The only proof is autistic calculations that go around in circles.

https://www.newscientist.com/definition/gravity/
>Gravity is just geometry
>the quantum particle that transmits gravity
>remains stubbornly hypothetical

>>15151
The concept of matter, as employed by the physicalist or materialist, is metaphysically incoherent because it posits as fundamental that which is never directly given: a mind-independent, extended substance existing outside of and prior to experience. But all that is ever given—indeed, all that can ever be given—is experience itself, which is irreducibly qualitative, structured, and intentional: every experience is an experience of something for a subject. To abstract from this experiential field a supposed “substrate” (matter) that exists independently of the very conditions that make its appearance intelligible is to commit the cardinal error of transcendental illusion: treating a postulated ground (the “real” physical world) as more certain than the immediate, lived reality of experience. The subject-object dichotomy is not optional or derivative—it is constitutive of experience as such. Objects do not exist “out there” in themselves; they exist as objects for a subject, within the horizon of a lived field of consciousness. The materialist attempts to describe a world with the subject abstracted away, but this abstraction is performed by a subject within experience. There is no neutral, subjectless “view from nowhere” by which the independent existence of matter could be affirmed. Moreover, there is—and could be—no empirical or rational proof of a mind-independent world, because such a proof would itself have to be mediated by experience, thus presupposing the very subjective framework it seeks to transcend. Hence, the doctrine of materialism is not only unjustified—it is internally incoherent, since it relies on the reality of experience to argue for a metaphysics that denies experience its foundational role. The only philosophically sound position is to begin with the undeniable fact of experience and its structures—and to recognize that any claim of a reality beyond experience is an unprovable, and ultimately unnecessary, metaphysical posit.

>>16355
Matter coupled with energy, coupled with word creates reality. If you want to know the true secrets of the universe, it's not enough to do drugs, you have to analyze language together with energy. Linguistics plus physics - to arrive at tangible proof of extraordinary phenomena. Wisdom is not just parables, wisdom is being able to manipulate the physical reality. It is not machiavellianism, it is Platoism and Pythagorism.

>>16293
One would expect to find some sort of tangible evidence for this cosmic force that moves entire planets but apparently there is none. Ironic.

>>15358
Very strange. Sounds like it's independent creation.

this thread is too all over the place for me to really care reading any of it, but it's weird rupert sheldrake wasn't mentioned. He did a ton of research on this and he's still interested in the academic community. as in he's trying to appeal to them.

>>16596
When you tell physicists that gravity, technically, doesn't exist they sperg out.

>>16726
probably because you sound as stupid as you are.
gravity is real and evident, you literally can lift your fat ass arm and see that it has a heaviness to it that pulls "down" in one general direction -- that is, relatively the center of earth.
the only mystery is what causes gravity in the first place.
if someone claiming to be a scientist and says "it just is because it is", check their credentials, because they're probably lying or just annoyed by your ignorance.

>>16293
the higgs boson was also a theoretical particle, as were most particles that have been discovered so far.
claiming something is stupid because it's theoretical shows a MASSIVE amount of retardation within you that should preclude your participation in any philosophical or scientific conversation, unless you're sitting on some porch in the remote appalachians waiting for your meth to finish cooking with no audience.

>>16596
damn, i guess you were just floating weightless as you typed that then, huh?
it's a horrifying thought that half of you stupid fucks in this thread probably have the right to vote.

File 175562766617.gif - (312.38KB , 478x277 , no reference .gif )

>>16726
Gravity is merely a mathematical construct and you can't prove that there is a universal way in which it behaves because there is no tangible energy/force that causes this curvature in spacetime. There is also no objective universal reference point and thus any point in the universe can be stationary and everything else is moving in reference to it. The heliocentric model means that you don't have to do as many equations as with the geocentric model but it also means it is easier to explain why everything is moving in circular patterns. Have you ever seen how they explain gravity? They put some balls on a blanket and the heaviest ball make the other smaller balls travel towards and around it. 100% autism.

>>16727
>Feeling of heaviness = gravity exist
I'm agnostic on this issue, but you calling others retarded and then saying this shit doesn't help your case.

>>16730
Yet astrodynamicists are able to accurately plan spaceflight trajectories by using gravitational pull from other planets and moons to "slingshot" the spacecraft to their destinations using the same physical pull that makes you feel like a fat worthless hog rather than just a worthless hog.

You're a fucking idiot, stop replying.

>>16729
And they accurately use the same principle for that "ball on a stretched sheet" experiment to fly spacecraft to other planets.

You are just as much of a moron as >>16730
You should both be banned, really.

>>16729
that ball/blanket experiment is done for school kids.
do you put condoms on cucumbers before you have sex, or do you understand what an analogy is?

>>16731
You got me confused with someone else. I don't have an opinion on this matter, I'm simply open-minded and absorbing, learning both sides. I don't know why you're trying to be hostile, but if you're trying to convince someone, just resorting to calling them a retard, doesn't really strengthen your argument. Appeals to authority should have been banned by the year 2025, hell it should have been banned in 2020, please... don't give me that shit. Academia... fuck it, this will just derail the discussion, suffice to say that it sucks and there's no prestige in it like in 20th century. Give me actual reasons not regurgitated soykaf.

I do know about the slingshot effect, but I don't understand how that is supposed to be evidence or proof for the existence of gravity outside of mathematics / geometry. If you think that it is proof, can you please explain why?

How do you refute or explain the fact that there is no universal reference point in space? Personally it doesn't really make any sense to me to say that that shit bends yet no one knows how it is supposed to be "originally" before bending. If there's no actual reference like a plain sheet of cloth in the cloth/ball analogy how do you know what it actually is if there were no objects with mass in that cloth? In the analogy the cloth itself is the reference but IRL only the objects can serve as a reference. Stop name calling (which does not make you more right even if it makes you FEEL like you are being more right) and explain that shit if you're so smart and understand it so well. Your arguments are weak as fuck.

I don't know and I'm willing to admit it, but at least I'm open-minded. So far only one side is providing proper arguments without just mentioning random facts, not explaining shit and then calling others stupid as the final proof.

>>16729
It is bizarre that physicists extrapolate that a colossal mechanism exists in the entire universe that behaves exactly the same way no matter where you are and their "evidence" consists of:
>trust me bro, i have made some scribbles on a piece of paper and i suffer from aspergers

>>16736
except it's not, since our spacecraft travel in a very predictable and controlled manner based on "trust me bro".

you're simply a fucking idiot who doesn't understand how science works, and you really, REALLY want "magical things that i can discover before anyone else and maybe control like i'm harry potter or something" to exist (when it doesn't).

that's all this is, really.
you don't feel special, and you think making shit up will help alleviate that feeling of worthlessness.
but really, you're still worthless, and you're even worse than worthless for spreading easily-debunked misinformation to other equally-worthless individuals.

>>16735
you're not "open-minded", you're just fucking stupid. "i'm open-minded" is what MAGA retards say on facebook to excuse falling for conspiracies and scams.

you're overcomplicating shit that's been settled for centuries. the slingeshot effect isn't a metaphor itself, it's literally used in actual flight plans. if it was wrong, a huge number of our probes would've crashed and burned or been flung into either the sun, or tossed into the endless nothing.

the "no universal reference point" isn't the gotcha you think it is, either. it's built into the theory of relativity, and the blanket-and-ball demo is simply a teaching aid for people who can't grasp the way space bends. it's not the actual model. again, you need to stop putting condoms on cucumbers and put them on your dick, so you don't procreate and make more retards like yourself.

you and the other stupid fucks here are simply tossing darts of conspiracy theories at a dartboard and hoping other idiots call them profound, because they can't seem to get the satisfaction of discovery on their own.

File 175568492657.jpg - (468.20KB , 1920x1080 , Spacetime_curvature.jpg )

>>16738
>blanket-and-ball demo is simply a teaching aid for people who can't grasp the way space bends

The blanket analogy is quite literally what spacetime curvature is. You just add more blankets in several directions to prove how you construct three dimensions getting bent by a fourth. However, the fourth dimension (time) is woven into autistic mathematical models that are not part of empirical studies and does not prove the existence of gravity in and of themselves. Time is measured mechanically using clocks (three dimensional objects) and when you speak of time in terms of mathematics it turns into abstract ooga booga language.

>>16739
i don't know why i expect anything but the lowest common denominator of fucktards to respond, but holy fuck, you are dumb.
the blanket analogy isn't "literally what spacetime is," it's a gradeschool-level simplification so that tiny minds can grasp the general concept of larger objects "pulling in" smaller objects.
and the fact that you're trying to dismiss time as "ooga booga language" shows you don't even understand the consequences of relativity.
GPS satellites literally have to be recalibrated every single day because their clocks tick differently, due to both their speed and their distance from Earth's gravity well.
if that correction isn't made, your location data would drift by kilometers within hours.
there's nothing 'abstract' about it, it's literally an everyday engineering correction built directly on the knowledge of relativistic time dilation.

same with deep space probes: every course correction depends on factoring in relativistic effects.
they don't get to ignore it because some retard on an imageboard thinks time exists only because clocks are real, or whatever the fuck you were getting at.
you are literally, right this second, using multiple things to read this message that rely on you being wrong, you dumb fuck.

>>16740
GPS satellites use atomic clocks, my autismo buddy. Atomic clocks are affected by magnetic fields, temperature and interactions with literal atoms. All of those situations involve tangible forces or objects in three dimensional space.

>>16741
no shit they use atomic clocks, you dumb fuck.
the entire point is that those clocks tick differently in orbit than on Earth, and the difference lines up with relativity, not magnetism or temperature.
if you think engineers at NASA's JPL are out there fixing GPS with a space heater and a fridge magnet, you're even dumber than you sound.

>>16742
I think the point he was making is that atomic clocks need to be corrected by physical means because they are affected by physical forces or objects. Gravity isn't tangible like magnetism or subzero temperatures so by default engineers have to manually adjust the atomic clock when that happens. Abstract mathematics has nothing to do with engineers correcting an error.

>>16743
congratulations on still being wrong and samefagging, i guess.

GPS isn't manually corrected day by day by engineers in space with screwdrivers.
the system is built to automatically account for offsets that are calculated EXTREMELY ACCURATELY using the theory of relativity.
the difference is coded directly into the on-board system of the satellites.
without it, GPS would be useless.

the drift itself is also not explained by magnetism nor temperature. there are noise factors that are handled separately that do not add up to the consistent, pre-calculated relativistic shift.
it's literally mathematical adjustments based on einstein's equations.

whether you call it "tangible" or not, the predictions of relativity match what happens to those clocks with insane accuracy.
if relativity were just "abstract math", GPS wouldn't work.

you're trying to move the goalposts to "what i (sorry, they) really meant was..." and you're full of shit, just like your doppelganger.

>>16744
I'm not the same poster but whatever. You're wrong.

Do you know how gravitational lensing "proves" that light bends around a star? It's because a telescope, like Hubble, see multiple images when observing light from a distant star. Then you have to use calculations (where gravity is used in the equation as a constant without being physically proven to exist) to determine where the light comes from.

It's circular logic.

>>16745
einstein predicted light would bend around massive bodies a century ago, and then we looked and it did, exactly as calculated.

we literally have telescope images showing galaxies warped into arcs and rings.
if relativity was just "abstract math," those shapes wouldn't exist in the right place or angle, but they do.

and you have no idea what circular logic is, apparently. it's like you're saying "predicting an eclipse and watching it happen is circular logic".
no, it's predicting something would happen by a theory, that thing happening with incredible accuracy, and studying it even further after that while continuously making (and confirming) even more predictions with that established foothold.

can science find out tomorrow that gravitational lensing isn't a thing?
sure.
the same way tomorrow, we can find out that our eyes aren't actually seeing things, but simply receiving a signal from the overarching simulation we live in to fool us in to believing the things we're touching is what we see.

for now, though, there's no solid reason to believe that, and plenty of reasons to believe gravitational lensing causes light to be bent by gravity.

fortunately for everyone on the planet, reality doesn't require your approval, and neither does science.

>>16746
Fun fact: the point spread function in a lens can cause lens aberrations like arcs.

>>16747
yes, which has absolutely nothing to do with gravitational lensing.

unless! you think there is some giant glass lenses floating around in space, and that this somehow is more likely than mathematically-proven relativity being right.

but please, elaborate on that. or throw out more random "fun facts" thinking you're going to magically make a point.

fucking moron.

>>16742
Nobody is arguing that Einstein's theory of relativity is wrong, I don't know why you are harping about that non-stop.

>>16748
Stop calling everyone a moron, you fucking moron. A guy just mentioned a fun fact and you are jumping on him in every possible way to make yourself look smarter. You're not. You're a fucking insecure retard. And your raging attempts to make yourself sound smarter (especially by trying to diminish the intelligence of others) only confirms that you are not as smart as you think you are. Dunning Kruger effect in all its glory.

Anyway, this shit has gone completely off the rails, where we originally were talking whether or not gravity exists. Instead of making strawman arguments using Einstein's relativity as if it's the theory that proves gravity. I mean, okay, maybe it does have something to do with proving gravity exists in the physical world as a force or something, but you're just ranting about how nobody has disproven the theory of relativity as if that proves the existence of gravity. Fuck you you fucking asshole. Actually tie it together instead of:
>Oh, I'm right on this one unrelated account, therefore you are all morons and all your arguments are invalid and I'm right on this other thing that was actually the point of the discussion that I didn't even mention
You didn't say one thing about how theory of relativity actually affirms the existence of gravity outside of mathematical formulas. You're the fucking worst debater I have read in a long time. Is it a force that we can encounter and measure? Or is it a bunch of garbled geometry and calculations that simply explain how the fabric of space-time is bent? For which the reason could be absolutely any. You talk as if we understand what gravity is when even the best scientists admit that we don't. It's all theoretical. At least at this point.

Ability to predict something is not an understanding of the underlying mechanism. Just because we can predict that tomorrow there's going to be rain, doesn't mean necessarily that we understand how rain forms, what it is and what influences and causes it. Weather forecasts are for the most part done by AI models now, which means we actually know even less about why where and when then we did in the past... But that's just a fun fact for you. But my point is that ability to predict and mechanism of underlying influences involved is not the same thing. Do you not fucking understand that, you fucking strawberry?

>>16750
prediction without understanding doesn't give you century-long accuracy across every test we've ever thrown at it.
weather forecasts are hit or miss because weather systems are chaotic.

relativity isn't.

relativity (which is why I keep bringing up Einstein) nailed light-bending, time dilation, orbit shifts, lensing, black holes, and gravitational waves long before we had any capacity to measure them, and EVERY SINGLE ONE of them lined up with the math.

so no, you cannot just pop in and be like "heh, there's no solid evidence that it's even real" because the evidence is in testing.

just because we haven't stared down the fucking particles isn't proof they don't exist.

you can whine about "muh geometry" all you want, but when the geometry predicts shit NOBODY HAS EVER SEEN BEFORE and then reality shows up like "uhhh yeah, well, i guess you were right", and that happens over and over and over again, you are witnessing physics working exactly as predicted.

the only "circular logic" here is you fucktards going in circles trying to move the goalposts until you hit semantics just to avoid admitting you're wrong.

>>16750
and no, "the best scientists" don't admit shit, you fucking moron. they would tell you in a very polite way that you're a dumbass for misrepresenting them, and correct you.

Back to gravity and why it might be stupid autistic sperging or actually a real thing.

The point is that there is no force or a thing that we can call gravity. If nobody knows a definition of a thing and it exists solely in mathematical equations and abstractions, why are we still pretending that it's an actual physical thing? Even if someone has actually defined it and found a physical thing or force in this world that we can call gravity, people should stop pretending like it's an universally understood phenomena and that anyone who says 'gravity' means actually that. Because as has been said before, when people use that word they're mostly referring to the feeling of heaviness. It's a common language thing. That's why the scientific notion of gravity is quite erroneous and meaningless. It's a subjective experience not an actual thing or object or force in the outside universe that we can measure.

There's a reason why science doesn't deal with God for example. Because nobody can give a precise scientific definition of it. The difference with gravity is that the scientific community kind of has accepted it as something tangible and real and even though there are holes in that definition, everybody is still pretending like it's a real thing that we actually know exists. Mostly from scientific or rather unscientific, academic dogma and tradition.

But apart from the language involved, it's just an incomplete and sometimes contradictory model of prediction. For example it does not work with the quantum theory equations and does not work on very small scales of space-time. Or for example explain why the outer stars of galaxies spin around the center much faster than what the mass of the galaxy should allow them based on planetary models of gravity. Not only is it not explained in terms of what it is, even the predictive value of the current models is fucking shit as is clearly observed by looking at the sky. Look, I understand that there are a lot of useful applications, but let's not pretend that it's fucking bulletproof. And saying that questioning those theories is unscientific is itself unscientific. Science is based on desire for knowledge and curiosity. This faggot who's so sure about himself and the existence of gravity is exactly what makes me despise the current academic community so fucking much. Science has been hijacked. That (the hijacking) and the jew niggers and all the bootlicking faggotry.

Science is not dogma and not cognitive biases and not logical fallacies just for the sake of winning an argument. Fuck that faggot, he thinks he's on the side of rationality, but if Einstein or Nicola was in this discussion, neither would recognize anything he says as valid let alone resonate with the spirit in which he thinks he's being "scientific". Not because everything you say is wrong, but because the way you structure your arguments is fucking retarded dude. As I said, Dunning-Kruger effect at its finest. Scientific method is an actual curiosity not retarded faggotry that tries to hide behind the shield of apparent rationality.

>>16754
>The point is that there is no force or a thing that we can call gravity.
Yes, there is.
>If nobody knows a definition of a thing and it exists solely in mathematical equations and abstractions, why are we still pretending that it's an actual physical thing?
Because a "thing" does not have to be defined by your ability to see it.
You cannot personally see the fallopian tubes of Kim Kardashian.
You do, however, know she has had a child.
You know that other women have had fallopian tubes.
Regardless, you've never seen hers yourself.
Do you deny that she has them, contrary to every piece of evidence against your line of reasoning?
If someone leaves the area you're in, do you believe they no longer exist?
Unless you're an infant or a retard with an object permanence issue, the answer should be no.
>Even if someone has actually defined it and found a physical thing or force in this world that we can call gravity, people should stop pretending like it's an universally understood phenomena and that anyone who says 'gravity' means actually that.
That sentence was so incredibly stupid and childish.
>Because as has been said before, when people use that word they're mostly referring to the feeling of heaviness.
A common usage of a word does not negate another common usage of the same word.
>It's a common language thing.
Yes, words can have many different meanings. That's the shit. That smells like shit. This is good shit. You're a shit head. This is a shitty excuse for a debate. Your brain is shit. Holy shit.
>That's why the scientific notion of gravity is quite erroneous and meaningless.
"Because I don't understand etymology and semantics, any word with an additional meaning is wrong."
>It's a subjective experience not an actual thing or object or force in the outside universe that we can measure.
Yes, we can measure gravity.

>There's a reason why science doesn't deal with God for example. Because nobody can give a precise scientific definition of it.
No, it's because science works in evidence and testing. God works in faith. They are two opposing ideas.
>The difference with gravity is that the scientific community kind of has accepted it as something tangible and real and even though there are holes in that definition
No there isn't.
>everybody is still pretending like it's a real thing that we actually know exists.
Because it is.
>Mostly from scientific or rather unscientific, academic dogma and tradition.
You literally just said "everything".

>But apart from the language involved, it's just an incomplete and sometimes contradictory model of prediction.
No it's not.
>For example it does not work with the quantum theory equations and does not work on very small scales of space-time.
That does not negate gravity, it only creates a requirement for additional theories on that scale.
Some bugs can walk on liquid water.
You can't.
Does that mean water isn't a liquid?
No, it means that smaller things have different rules of physics.
>Or for example explain why the outer stars of galaxies spin around the center much faster than what the mass of the galaxy should allow them based on planetary models of gravity. Not only is it not explained in terms of what it is, even the predictive value of the current models is fucking shit as is clearly observed by looking at the sky.
It took me a minute to read and re-read that gibberish, but the reason outer stars move faster than "planetary models" predict is exactly why dark matter was postulated.
It requires extra mass we can't see that still exerts gravitational pull.
Newtonian physics once required "unseen planets" to explain orbital anomalies.
Uranus in particular had an orbit that absolutely required something planet-sized to explain it.
Guess what we eventually found?
Neptune.
There's no guarantee that dark matter exists, but at the very least something else like it, or something giving the same effects as what we think it is, exists.
>Look, I understand that there are a lot of useful applications, but let's not pretend that it's fucking bulletproof.
Nobody said it was.
Nothing in science is.
My point is it's been tested enough and proven enough to make you look extremely stupid for doubting it without presenting a more logical theory, or even a need for one.
>And saying that questioning those theories is unscientific is itself unscientific.
See my previous point.
>Science is based on desire for knowledge and curiosity. This faggot who's so sure about himself and the existence of gravity is exactly what makes me despise the current academic community so fucking much. Science has been hijacked. That (the hijacking) and the jew niggers and all the bootlicking faggotry.
Your crying about it is acknowledged.

>Science is not dogma and not cognitive biases and not logical fallacies just for the sake of winning an argument.
Nobody said it was.
>Fuck that faggot, he thinks he's on the side of rationality, but if Einstein or Nicola was in this discussion, neither would recognize anything he says as valid let alone resonate with the spirit in which he thinks he's being "scientific".
Yes, I'm sure they'd be on your side of this argument.
>Not because everything you say is wrong, but because the way you structure your arguments is fucking retarded dude. As I said, Dunning-Kruger effect at its finest. Scientific method is an actual curiosity not retarded faggotry that tries to hide behind the shield of apparent rationality.
Stop crying.

https://youtu.be/AcoQ6JmYJgs?si=NyUiocQV5yiq7YHj&t=540

Nobody is spending the money anymore on gravity research