Aerodynamics is a hard, applied science. It’s highly testable and absolutely falsifiable.
Cosmology is a lot of bullshit. Which should not be conflated with astronomy. The big bang is a creation myth. Admittedly one I was taught in school and I guess maybe I kind of took it seriously for a little while but no not really. When you actually look into the history of it and you see all the bullshit and all the special tuning and fine-tuning that they do to try to make it work… And it still doesn’t work. Tensions abound. Catastrophes are another problem. I’m sure you’ve heard of the crisis in cosmology? Seems like come out with one of those at least once a month.
Once you actually delve into the subject matter you realize it’s a lot of interpretations a lot of frameworks that reinforce themselves. But their foundations are flimsy as air.
For instance some people believe in dark matter or dark energy. I don’t believe in cosmic inflation and I think we have a dark gravity problem where we don’t understand gravity but if you use a bad model for gravity then you get other aberrations, like the aforementioned dark whatever.
Take the CMB. Cosmic microwave background. Is that really seeing the edges of the observable universe? Some sort of big bang remnant? Or is it much more likely it’s a collective noise from here to there collectively and it has a lot more to do with the locality rather than some far off edge of the observable universe or big bang remnant. So that’s one bullshit base of the tower that’s the foundation. If you take that out the rest of it collapses.
Go to your local Community College and take an astronomy course. Please.
They have these things called ‘telescopes’ now, it’s amazing.
There is this thing called red shift that proves that celestial bodies are moving away…
Yeah you know what no sorry no. Not getting drawn into this shit with someone who clearly has no fucking concept of how science works (and is obnoxious about it).
You need to speak with someone who does this for a living. I’m not being dismissive, I truly hope that you do.
It’s like looking at a chimp with a revolver. How did they even get it? Who knows, but they’re definitely gonna hurt someone.
A hypothesis is not a religion, dude. People (other than I suppose lay people with weirdly religious ideas) don’t “believe in” dark matter or dark energy. These are fully falsifiable hypotheses just like Bernoulli’s principle (since you reference aerodynamics). Cosmology is fully falsifiable and hypotheses are overturned all the time. CMB was predicted to exist before it was found and matched predictions, based on observations that lead to the Hubble constant, etc. The history of cosmological theory is easily available for you, if you cared to learn about it.
Meanwhile, you ARE approaching these ideas religiously. You reject them because you “don’t believe in them.” That’s bonkers. You don’t need to accept or reject them on an emotional level. That’s not how any of this works.
I hope you’re just a smart kid goofing around and riffing, and not someone who actually believes their own bullshit.
Hell, dark matter isn’t even a hypothesis, it’s purely an observation! In that sense, you’re right that it’s not falsifiable, only interpretable. It is a reality like the temperature. We don’t hypothesize that it is 21C, we observe it. We DIRECTLY OBSERVE gravity that does not come from any known source; that’s “dark matter.” Likewise, we directly observe red shift and other effects of inflation. We call the unknown cause of those observations “dark energy.” Neither are a specific thing that people believe in, they are labels for the effects that we directly observe.
Casting that through some kind of quasi-religious lens and then attacking it as a crackpot beliefs is BIZARRE behavior.
Which hubble constant? Based on which methodology? You wanna explain the Hubble tension, dude?
I reject them based on the fact that they’re pseudoscience. The Big bang theory or as it’s called the lamda cold dark matter model makes a ton of predictions and pretty much all of them are wrong. I think they maybe got one right…
So they have predominantly been falsified, indeed. Yep people still “believe” in this even though they don’t even understand the theory at all. That’s called faith, kiddo.
I’m not religious. I’m a scientist. I’m an engineer. I build stuff that actually works.
You have next to nil idea what I think. Just a lot of assumptions. Making an ass out of yourself. Hey at least your username checks out, jerkface.
Aerodynamics is a hard, applied science. It’s highly testable and absolutely falsifiable.
Cosmology is a lot of bullshit. Which should not be conflated with astronomy. The big bang is a creation myth. Admittedly one I was taught in school and I guess maybe I kind of took it seriously for a little while but no not really. When you actually look into the history of it and you see all the bullshit and all the special tuning and fine-tuning that they do to try to make it work… And it still doesn’t work. Tensions abound. Catastrophes are another problem. I’m sure you’ve heard of the crisis in cosmology? Seems like come out with one of those at least once a month.
Once you actually delve into the subject matter you realize it’s a lot of interpretations a lot of frameworks that reinforce themselves. But their foundations are flimsy as air.
For instance some people believe in dark matter or dark energy. I don’t believe in cosmic inflation and I think we have a dark gravity problem where we don’t understand gravity but if you use a bad model for gravity then you get other aberrations, like the aforementioned dark whatever.
Take the CMB. Cosmic microwave background. Is that really seeing the edges of the observable universe? Some sort of big bang remnant? Or is it much more likely it’s a collective noise from here to there collectively and it has a lot more to do with the locality rather than some far off edge of the observable universe or big bang remnant. So that’s one bullshit base of the tower that’s the foundation. If you take that out the rest of it collapses.
Yikes.
Go to your local Community College and take an astronomy course. Please.
They have these things called ‘telescopes’ now, it’s amazing.
There is this thing called red shift that proves that celestial bodies are moving away…
Yeah you know what no sorry no. Not getting drawn into this shit with someone who clearly has no fucking concept of how science works (and is obnoxious about it).
You need to speak with someone who does this for a living. I’m not being dismissive, I truly hope that you do.
It’s like looking at a chimp with a revolver. How did they even get it? Who knows, but they’re definitely gonna hurt someone.
A hypothesis is not a religion, dude. People (other than I suppose lay people with weirdly religious ideas) don’t “believe in” dark matter or dark energy. These are fully falsifiable hypotheses just like Bernoulli’s principle (since you reference aerodynamics). Cosmology is fully falsifiable and hypotheses are overturned all the time. CMB was predicted to exist before it was found and matched predictions, based on observations that lead to the Hubble constant, etc. The history of cosmological theory is easily available for you, if you cared to learn about it.
Meanwhile, you ARE approaching these ideas religiously. You reject them because you “don’t believe in them.” That’s bonkers. You don’t need to accept or reject them on an emotional level. That’s not how any of this works.
I hope you’re just a smart kid goofing around and riffing, and not someone who actually believes their own bullshit.
Hell, dark matter isn’t even a hypothesis, it’s purely an observation! In that sense, you’re right that it’s not falsifiable, only interpretable. It is a reality like the temperature. We don’t hypothesize that it is 21C, we observe it. We DIRECTLY OBSERVE gravity that does not come from any known source; that’s “dark matter.” Likewise, we directly observe red shift and other effects of inflation. We call the unknown cause of those observations “dark energy.” Neither are a specific thing that people believe in, they are labels for the effects that we directly observe.
Casting that through some kind of quasi-religious lens and then attacking it as a crackpot beliefs is BIZARRE behavior.
Which hubble constant? Based on which methodology? You wanna explain the Hubble tension, dude?
I reject them based on the fact that they’re pseudoscience. The Big bang theory or as it’s called the lamda cold dark matter model makes a ton of predictions and pretty much all of them are wrong. I think they maybe got one right…
So they have predominantly been falsified, indeed. Yep people still “believe” in this even though they don’t even understand the theory at all. That’s called faith, kiddo.
I’m not religious. I’m a scientist. I’m an engineer. I build stuff that actually works.
You have next to nil idea what I think. Just a lot of assumptions. Making an ass out of yourself. Hey at least your username checks out, jerkface.