Given that math can describe an infinite number of realities, how likely is it that Dark Matter and Dark Energy don't actually exist?
We couldn't explain the precession of Mercury without a hypothetical planet until a better theory came along. How do we know we aren't fooling ourselves the same way with Dark Matter?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtu.be
youtube.com
twitter.com
dark matter is retarded and will never exist nor be relevant
t. bio major
Actually Einstein showed that the Hindenburg Uncertainty Principal implies the existence of Dark Matter.
Well we don't. It's called research. Dark matter and dark energy will stay relevant until something better comes along.
bro pic related doesnt even make sense lmao.
>Listening to some random youtube guy's opinions
>Hindenburg
>taking probable bait
It's using the character 8 as the symbol for the variable.
>Hindenburg Uncertainty Principal
Got me good
Betteridge's Law of Headlines is an adage that states:
"Any headline that ends in a question mark
can be answered by the word no."
In this case, replace "headline" with "video title".
I wonder if those nobel prizes will be recended when 'dark' energy/matter is completely debunked... it strikes me as a kind of 'firmament' intermediary understanding of something you have no ability to describe.
>using the character 8
...which is a constant, not a variable
>as the symbol for the variable
...which is not a constant.
This is not the most-retarded thing
I've seen all day, but it's in the Top Ten.
Never claimed it wasn't retarded. Just clearing up any confusion caused by retarded behaviour.
Don't some galaxies have a lot more apparent dark matter than others? I don't see how that can be attributed to getting the math wrong, it's not like the laws of physics will vary from one galaxy to the next.
yeah, and the ratio isn't the same either. that's why it's clearly bunk.
Were the nobel prizes for Niels Bohr invalidated because his model of the atom turned out to be incomplete? Or Feynman whose QED was overridden by GSW theory? The thing is, not every useful physical model needs to be exact. Often they are necessary steps to a more complete theory. That doesn't make the efforts useless.
Also, what nobel prizes are you talking about? There was one 2011 for the discovery of the accelerated expansion of the universe (which is an observational fact), 2006 for anisotropies in the CMB (observational fact), 1978 for the discovery of the CMB (observational fact). Those are closest to having anything to do with dark matter/energy.
>what nobel prizes are you talking about?
He doesn't know WTF he's talking about.
8 is a bad choice for a variable because there's number 8 that people might confuse with. It's better to use x.
>the limit as 8 approaches 9
What did he mean by this?