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.
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.