What's wrong with physics?

[Clara Tea]

It always amuses me when debaters speaks of a *Big Bang* as if it really happend

Why do you think that the big bang didn't happen?

Certainly it has been proven that the universe is expanding. If so, it expanded from something smaller.

 

[Clara Tea]

An apple fell on Isaac Newton's head, and it bounced off (rebounded upward) when Newton noticed it. From which he discovered backwards gravity (ytivarg). After careful analysis, he appreciated the gravity of the situation, so had to change it to the theory of gravity. Newton had the idea that the earth sucked, Kepler showed that the universe sucks, and Einstein finally showed why.

We're still puzzled about the acceleration of the expansion of the universe (some wildly speculate that there is an undiscovered energy (dark energy) with negative gravity). Belief in the unproven is religion.

 

[night912]

The OP here is: "What is wrong in physics" and as the OP holder, I of course am allowed to comment from my own points of views which do or don´t compute with others views, included the contents of Sabine Hossenfelder.

Of course you're allowed, I never said that you weren't. I was merely stating a fact, that is, you didn't understand what she said and using that video in the OP.

So the point of posting the video in the OP was to show us what one physicist answer to the OP question. You and/or your way of thinking in regards to physics is the problem. Thanks for the clarification.

Where excactly did she mention the EU theory? Give me the timestamp please.

Why are you asking me this? It's not like like I claimed that she she mentioned EU theory. Physics is not the only thing that requires you to think before coming up with a conclusion.

This will never happen.

Actually, relatively speaking, it will happen. Since time is constantly moving forward, any time after I post this, is evidence that it did happen, but relatively speaking, will happen.

I don´t care what you´re thinking of how I may think and respond at all.

Apparently, you cared enough to post a comment telling me that you don't care. Thanks for showing me that you care about what I think.


PS
Apparently, some of my I theories turned out to be correct.

 

[Polymath257]

I bet the scientists didn´t even look for the *spectral matter refractions* in the Bullit Cluster at all.

Of course they did. It's part of the usual processing of light.

 

[blü 2]

I´ve already explained this. Because *gravity* overshines the 3/4 part stronger forces in modern science and there´s NO logical explanation of this but ignorant stupidity.

You have still not told me WHY science disagrees with you. What specific reasons do they give?

 

[Native]

Why do you think that the big bang didn't happen?
Certainly it has been proven that the universe is expanding. If so, it expanded from something smaller.

First: The assumption that everything in the observable Universe once should have derived from *nothing* or a *singularity* is highly contra intuitive and speculative.

Secondly: Initially the scientists thought *gravity* to slow down a *Big Bang* expansion. Then they changed this to *an expansion* but this was also later corrected to an *increasing velocity expansion* wich needs *dark energy* to fit the theory.

Conclusion:
The scientists cannot explain a Big Bang.
They are fiddling with uncertain distance measuring methods.
They add an unknown *dark energy* to the initial theorized Big Bang energy which cannot be explained.

It´s a nice science fiction and nothing more.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Where excactly did she mention the EU theory? Give me the timestamp please.

Why are you asking me this? It's not like like I claimed that she she mentioned EU theory

Because you mentioned the EU Theory in this sentense below where you refer to Sabine Hossenfelder.

Too many physicists are wasting time in coming up with new ideas and trying to find the solution for a problem while at the same time tries to make it into a replacement for past theories, only to end up being wrong. An example would be the EU Theory, which attempts to solve the current problems while also attempt at replacing the current working gravitational theories.

Are you an expert in any EU theories?

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
I´ve already explained this. Because *gravity* overshines the 3/4 part stronger forces in modern science and there´s NO logical explanation of this but ignorant stupidity.

You have still not told me WHY science disagrees with you. What specific reasons do they give?

You don´t seem to ponder over a reply context before asking further questions and we´re getting nowhere before you do.

 

[Native]

You have still not told me WHY science disagrees with you. What specific reasons do they give?

I don´t know if this video will help you to better understand my points of views but try and listen to it:

Physics isn't pretty | Sabine Hossenfelder

 

[blü 2]

Native said: ↑
I´ve already explained this. Because *gravity* overshines the 3/4 part stronger forces in modern science and there´s NO logical explanation of this but ignorant stupidity.

Overshines it in doing what, exactly?

 

[Native]

Overshines it in doing what, exactly?

Did you even listen to the linked video at all?

You don´t seem to ponder over a reply context before asking further questions and we´re getting nowhere before you do.

What in this sentense is so hard to understand?

Because *gravity* overshines the 3/4 part stronger forces in modern science

Once more and for the last time:
When gravity is thought to have greater importance in the standing science compared to the more stronger E&M fundamental forces, of course these *gravity*-scientists have all kind of arguments against the 3/4 part of the fundamental forces wich can constitute an EU model.

 

[Native]

Subject: Dark energy may not exist after all.

 

[blü 2]

Did you even listen to the linked video at all?

I'm not here to watch videos. If necessary I'll do that after you explain what the problem is.

When gravity is thought to have greater importance in the standing science compared to the more stronger E&M fundamental forces, of course these *gravity*-scientists have all kind of arguments against the 3/4 part of the fundamental forces wich can constitute an EU model.

You say "all kinds of arguments".

I asked you what arguments they specifically applied to reject your EM arguments.

If you don't know, just say so.

 

[Native]

I'm not here to watch videos. If necessary I'll do that after you explain what the problem is.

If you don´t follow a suggested link, then I really don´t care what you´re here for. And if you cannot deduce anything from my written sentenses, I also don´t care anymore.

For the last time!

When gravity is thought to have greater importance in the standing science compared to the more stronger E&M fundamental forces, of course these *gravity*-scientists have all kind of arguments against the 3/4 part of the fundamental forces wich can constitute an EU model.

 

[metis]

Native said: ↑
Which observation? And WHY was this stupid idea invented?

It was stupid because the scientists didn´t follow the scientific method to revise or discard the contradicted law in question, the *laws of celestial motions*. They just inserted "dark matter" in order to save Newtons 350 year old idea of gravity.

"Dark matter" is a scientific hypothesis, and in science that's how we start out. Based on how celestial objects move, we know something is causing expansion, but cosmologists are not certain what the "something" is.

A reminder that a scientific "hypothesis" is not a guess, thus it must be accompanied with some evidence that it could be true.

 

[Native]

"Dark matter" is a scientific hypothesis, and in science that's how we start out.

I would have started out with questioning WHY *dark matter* is needed in a natural law at all.

A reminder that a scientific "hypothesis" is not a guess, thus it must be accompanied with some evidence that it could be true.

If a theory needs all kinds of *dark this or that*, I wouldn´t call it anything else but pure assumptions and guessworks.

 

[Polymath257]

I would have started out with questioning WHY *dark matter* is needed in a natural law at all.

If a theory needs all kinds of *dark this or that*, I wouldn´t call it anything else but pure assumptions and guessworks.

What you tend to ignore is that we *know* certain types of 'dark matter' exist: neutrinos.

Neutrinos are particles that were originally proposed based on observed violations of the conservation of energy. They do not interact with light (so are dark) and are fermions (and so are 'matter'). They are *incredibly* hard to detect, with most of them going through the Earth without interacting at all.

Neutrinos were even proposed as a candidate for dark matter because of these properties. It turns out they don't work because they have very low mass (so at any reasonable energy are 'hot' dark matter). So even though there are a LOT of neutrinos, it turns out they don't explain what we observe with stellar motion.

But the basic *idea* of dark matter isn't problematic: we know of examples already. the only difference is that whatever constitutes the dark matter affecting star motions is more massive than neutrinos (which isn't difficult).

 

[Native]

What you tend to ignore is that we *know* certain types of 'dark matter' exist: neutrinos.

Neutrinos are particles that were originally proposed based on observed violations of the conservation of energy. They do not interact with light (so are dark) and are fermions (and so are 'matter'). They are *incredibly* hard to detect, with most of them going through the Earth without interacting at all.

Neutrinos were even proposed as a candidate for dark matter because of these properties. It turns out they don't work because they have very low mass (so at any reasonable energy are 'hot' dark matter). So even though there are a LOT of neutrinos, it turns out they don't explain what we observe with stellar motion.

But the basic *idea* of dark matter isn't problematic: we know of examples already. the only difference is that whatever constitutes the dark matter affecting star motions is more massive than neutrinos (which isn't difficult).

Why don´t you explain HOW and WHY *dark matter* showed up in the scientific minds at the first place, before you´re continuing the dark speculations with all kinds of *small nothings*?

 

[metis]

I would have started out with questioning WHY *dark matter* is needed in a natural law at all.

It is not considered a "natural law", but they do know that something must be causing these patterns. Again, it's a "hypothesis".

If a theory needs all kinds of *dark this or that*, I wouldn´t call it anything else but pure assumptions and guessworks.

A scientific "theory" is not what you say it is:
Typically for any theory to be accepted within most academia there is one simple criterion. The essential criterion is that the theory must be observable and repeatable. The aforementioned criterion is essential to prevent fraud and perpetuate science itself.

The defining characteristic of all scientific knowledge, including theories, is the ability to make falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. A would-be theory that makes no observable predictions is not a scientific theory at all. Predictions not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term "theory" is not applicable.

A body of descriptions of knowledge can be called a theory if it fulfills the following criteria:

• It makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry (such as mechanics).
• It is well-supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation.
• It is consistent with preexisting experimental results and at least as accurate in its predictions as are any preexisting theories.

These qualities are certainly true of such established theories as special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics, the modern evolutionary synthesis, etc...-- Scientific theory - Wikipedia

 

[Native]

A scientific "theory" is not what you say it is:
Typically for any theory to be accepted within most academia there is one simple criterion. The essential criterion is that the theory must be observable and repeatable. The aforementioned criterion is essential to prevent fraud and perpetuate science itself.

The defining characteristic of all scientific knowledge, including theories, is the ability to make falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. A would-be theory that makes no observable predictions is not a scientific theory at all. Predictions not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term "theory" is not applicable.

A body of descriptions of knowledge can be called a theory if it fulfills the following criteria:

• It makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry (such as mechanics).
• It is well-supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation.
• It is consistent with preexisting experimental results and at least as accurate in its predictions as are any preexisting theories.

These qualities are certainly true of such established theories as special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics, the modern evolutionary synthesis, etc...-- Scientific theory - Wikipedia

Yes it´s a nice theory of how the scientific methods works.

Sadly, the scientists forgot to use it before they invented *dark matter*.