Reality doesn't match theory

All numbers are imaginary. Have you ever actually seen a 4 in real life?

...

>falling for pasta
how new?

I can have four boxes. I can't have i boxes.

kekekekek too fucking funny

Those are boxes. Boxes aren't numbers.

Neither is i.

You can have a complex number of boxes if you let the real part be the quantity of boxes and the imaginary part be the number of seconds the boxes have been in the room you're in e.g. 3 + 5i boxes would be three boxes that have been in the room for 5 seconds.

Real kektik

Physics is merely a way to predict reality. Whatever governs reality we cannot know, we cannot understand, it is out of our reach.

nice digits
listen to this guy, physics has always assumed a lot and left a lot to interpretation simply because we either can't comprehend or measure some aspects of the world, but it doesn't that those aspects don't exist, so we replace then with constants and dark or imaginary shit

>physics is numerologically powered divination
true

>Have you ever actually seen a 4 in real life?
Yes, your mother.

Trips agree.

>math is science
>science should be unfalsifiable

What in the literal fuck is wrong with Veeky Forums?

>inventing numbers that can't exist
But surely if it couldn't exist you wouldn't be able to invent it ;^}

Is there actually any reason to think dark matter is real? I try to avoid making fun of it too much because I think surely I must be missing something, physicists wouldn't be that stupid.

But honestly, is there any reason at all to claim it's real beyond "all my models are wrong if it isn't"?

Define what it is first. Then research why people think it exists.

Friendly reminder that i is literally a 4th dimension number and does indeed exist

OMG you can't have -4 boxes either?!

OR 3.5 boxes because a box cut in half isn't a box anymore?!

>tfw 0 isn't a real number either
If you have zero boxes there isn't even a question of how many boxes you have!

What's the square root of an imaginary number? Are there infinite layers of imaginary numbers or does it eventuall circle around into real numbers again?

Friendly reminder that if we assume "4 boxes" is a satisfactory answer to the number "4" being real, that "4 anti-matter boxes" is a satisfactory answer to "-4" boxes being real.

And I don't think I need to explain why a box cut in half is still indeed a box.

That being said I don't agree with the person you are replying to as the i plane is nothing more than the 4th dimensional plane and therefore exists even if we cannot directly see it for ourselves.

>those arbitrary limits
Sure, buddy. Sure. What justifies -4, fractions, and 0 justifies imaginary numbers. It's an extension of the definition of numbers.

Define "a box"

It's all just trash. Being a scientific realist in 2016 is the same as believing in magic.

pic related I'm philosophically aware and redpilled

define the word "define"

define "the"

correct

define "define "the""

Define " " "

O U T P L A Y E D

01000100 01100101 01100110 01101001 01101110 01100101 00100000 01101000 01110101 01101101 01100001 01101110 00100000 01101100 01100001 01101110 01100111 01110101 01100001 01100111 01100101

This is a pasta, isn't it?

>Invoke supersymmetry to invent new theoretical particles
>Apply for grant to build fun new toy
>Fun new toy fails to find theoretical particles
>Tweak theory to require new theoretical particles juuuust outside detectable range of fun (now old) toy
>Apply for grant to build fun new toy
>Repeat forever
Particle physicists have clearly been taking the piss for decades now.

ARE EEE KAY TEE

EEE

KAY

TEE

en.DICKipedia.org/wiki/List_of_burn_centers_in_the_United_States/for_your_mom.html/image=OP_getting_BTFO.png.jpg.pdf

Edit: spelling

Edit: used the wrong yore

Edit: Wow I just got back from picking up my wife's son from his ballet recital and now I know what people mean by RIP MY INBOX lmao. I'll try to respond to all your comments before I go to bed in a few hours.

yes

Should I be learning about science from school or Veeky Forums?

Tough call.

this.

Most simply, Einstein's theory of gravity predicts that the rotation rates of galaxies should be very different from what is observed, among other issues. This could be explained if there was a large quantity of matter spread throughout the galaxies that only interacted with other matter through gravitation. Its why dark matter is "dark" - if it doesn't interact using electromagnetic force, its literally incapable of producing light. The sizes of galaxies is juged by their effects on other galaxies, their rotation rates, and their brightness. Except for the dark matter, which only influences the first two. Now, most people here are memeing
>reality doesn't match theory
>make up undetectable particles to explain error
except that these "undetectable particles" aren't necessarily undetectable and they explain the observations really, really, really well. They're just really fucking difficult to detect because they only interact through gravity, and gravity is really, really, really fucking weak on laboratory scales.

Nearly every physicist and astronomer has seriously considered different theories, especially the idea that gravity is different on large scales. There are currently several different theories out there competing (badly) with dark matter. But like every other theory, they have to successfully explain current observations, and every other theory is either very messy or fails miserably.

What helps a lot is that when you look more into particle physics, the idea of a "dark matter" particle isn't weird at all. Its just a particle that only interacts via gravity. We have particles that interact via
> gravity, electromagnetism, weak, strong
> only gravity, electromagnetism and weak
> only gravity and electromagnetism
So the idea that a particle only interacts via gravity isn't weird.

Learn the philosophy of science whilst you study science so you don't become like other STEMtards who think science is infallible or objective.

>> gravity, electromagnetism, weak, strong
>> only gravity, electromagnetism and weak
>> only gravity and electromagnetism
what are these

Forces.
>we have particles that interact via

Some particles only interact via gravity and electromagnetism, while others interact via the whole range.

Or do you mean, specifically which particles? Because I'm not going to be assed to go back through my notes right now.

witch particles

google it yourself, I can't be assed to look it back up now.

Example, neutral leptons (aka neutrinos) don't undergo strong interactions (strong force) and don't interact via electromagnetism. Then, they only interact via gravity and the weak force.

Then a neutrino-like particle that also didn't interact via the weak force would be an example of dark matter.

kek

will taxpayers and philanthropists ever recover?

Then what is dark energy?

magic

>physicists wouldn't be that stupid.
you should see string theory.

pretty much.

Then again, computers are pretty much magic to those that don't understand.

>except that these "undetectable particles" aren't necessarily undetectable and they explain the observations really, really, really well. They're just really fucking difficult to detect because they only interact through gravity, and gravity is really, really, really fucking weak on laboratory scales.
What if it's gravity and not "particles". We don't even know how gravity works and yet we're assuming particles that present no evidence of existing.

anyone have this pasta but the
>What the fuck did you just say about me?
version?

>my experience contradicts my inane random assumption
>REEEEEEEEE

This is all Science has ever been. Materialism is a mess and a waste.

yeah i've read it bfore

Already said. People have attempted many, many variations on gravity and none come anywhere close to matching observations the way dark matter can.

Its a Darwinian survival of the theories. Dark matter just makes better predictions than any adjustment of gravity, and appeals to the symmetry of the standard model.

Because they use particles instead of god of the gaps
Checkmate theists

>Its a Darwinian survival of the theories. Dark matter just makes better predictions than any adjustment of gravity, and appeals to the symmetry of the standard model.
Except they have no proof that the matter even exists. It's like finding evidence of a foot print that used to exist and then writing a detailed biography on the person who probably made it.

that doesn't happen in physics alone

if the new model is incomplete but still explains how a phenomenon works better than the previous one, it is accepted

That does not matter. We have clear observations and competing theories that attempt to explain those observations. Some do it better than others.
That does not mean they are correct.
Think of how the ancient Greek thought about the elements and where they come from. That turned out to be wrong but could be used to explain a lot at the time, so it was a valid theory.

>-1/12
The only real science is physical chemistry

>so it was a valid theory.
It's about as valid of a theory as baking a cake with no ingredients.

Science has a term for this, it's called "waving of the hands".

W-what is that book about?

Don't ask, goyim, you must stay bluepilled.

>at's the square root of an imaginary number?
every imaginary number (e.g. complex number with pure imaginary part) can be written as

a*i = r*exp(+-i pi/2) with
then sqrt(a*i) = sqrt(r*exp(+- i pi/2)) = sqrt(r) * exp(+- i pi/4)

Its the best explanation we have, and it works really damn well.

Literally the one problem is that we haven't actually seen the particles yet.

It's like coming into a house, seeing food out on the table, old letters and newspapers, clothes, and a dirty bathroom. All the signs indicate that somebody lives there. Somebody might not. Somebody might have squatted there for a couple days and left. But all the signs indicate that somebody is living there now, even if you don't see them.

And if it works for prediction and makes sense, then we keep it as a theory. It makes good predictions and matches observations. Its valid. It's what we'll think is going on until we figure out something better. That's literally how science works.

> nuh uh this doesn't even reflect reality!

Science describes what reality appears to be, but it does not reflect reality in and of itself. These are the facts and observations we have available. Dark matter is the best possible explanation of these facts for now. Later, we'll have more facts and observations, and maybe something else will explain them better, and we'll all forget about dark matter, or it'll verify dark matter, and it'll solidify as a theory.

Does this make sense, or should I go back and explain the basics of the scientific method to you?

>>reality doesn't match theory
>>make up undetectable particles to explain error
nah my friend you simplify. there were different solutions proposed to this. my professor once told us that the idea was proposed that newtons law of gravity has to be correct for certain distances. it was examined and found to not explain other data.

physicists have good reasons to assume what they assume

sorry didnt read that you said exactly that :(

Its fine. The difficulty is legitimately not being able to tell if anybody else is trolling or actually that stupid, and then failing to resist the urge to respond to bait.

The sad part is meeting people who think so little of science in real life.

This post caused me to switch majors.

Thanks user, I'm entering my schools CS department next week.

>reality doesn't match theory

Yeah, so you have theory A making prediction A, but outcome B happens, so then:

>make up undetectable particles to explain error

Thus changing theory A to theory B in order to try and obtain prediction B so that you are now operating with a theory that doesn't give wrong results.

I don't understand. Why wouldn't you want correct results? This is EXACTLY how science should work and it is an excellent example of why physics is considered a science.

Are you really so retarded as to believe "NO MODIFICATIONS YOU HAVE TO BE COMPLETELY CORRECT THE VERY FIRST TIME!!"?? Enjoy never finding anything out.

Do what this user says
Science is NOT an absolute construct. Theories may be completely valid in their time and be utterly invalidated some time later. Hindsight always makes you smarter.

>It's about as valid of a theory as baking a cake with no ingredients.

This is as arrogant as you can get. Why not simply criticise cavepeople for not having used the wheel or higher math to solve their problems?

I don't know but I'd rate you a 4.

...

I'd like to point out this was a highly underappreciated burn.

>psychological theory doesn't match up with reality
>you can't prove me wrong because we can't prove anything hahahah checkmate i knew i was rite XD

love this

bullshit. you can;t assume the result in your proof.

Literally what?

>universe gain ability of introspection
>make up ways to describe itself

hmm

#define struct union

Burn

What the fuck did you just fucking say about imaginary numbers, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I stopped caring about math when I was introduced to the concept of imaginary numbers, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Gebra, and I have over 300 crocks of shit. I am trained in equations that can only be solved by inventing numbers that can't exist and I’m the top math deity in the entire US academic forces. You are nothing to me but fucking wrong. I will wipe you the fuck out with math the flaws of which have never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of algebra solutions across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better say "the correct answer is whatever the correct answer is", maggot. The math that says the pathetic little thing transcribed to words. You’re fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can mark you wrong in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just if you write it down in english instead of ancient math runes. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Logical Math Corps and I will use numbers that never lie to their full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy flaws your little “clever” human construct was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit complex numbers all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, kiddo.

my OC btw :^)

It used to be, it's been (((modernized))) recently, though

10/10 up until halfway, then it gets mediocre faster than a lithium primary cell loses voltage when depleted

what is this parentheses meme

Wow, there's actually a scientist among us.

Three parentheses around the name implies whatever's inside is made by Jews or is a Jew. It's typical /pol/ leakage.

A disproportionate number of great physicists have been Jews. That guy clearly knows nothing about physics.

WHOOOOOOOSH

user your the hero we've been kinda wanting.

>>Its the best explanation we have,

>we

there is no we outside your little fantasy of ''the humanity as one big family because we are all the same''

>>Science describes what reality appears to be
You like proofs so much, but you cannot even prove this. But it is a nice personal opinion though.