You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
12
PurestEvil on scored.co
1 year ago12 points(+0/-0/+12Score on mirror)4 children
I hate the dark matter theory. It is obviously a placeholder for the lack of understanding of gravity and matter in space itself. The fact that they simply accepted something as ridiculous as that is idiotic.
"We FoLLoW tHe SciEncE!" - Yeah and they follow nonsense there is, as long as most others do it too.
1 year ago6 points(+0/-0/+6Score on mirror)1 child
Dark matter is what singlehandedly made me decide to contemplate the possibility that Gallileo was a complete fraud and the Inquisition might have been correct.
Well first of all, Galileo *wasnt* an astronomer, he was an engineer by profession, and a well respected one at that. But the Inquisition were *also* men of science, part of their job was to essentially peer review scientific discoveries to determine if they were legitimate and to root out (((frauds))). What happened is that they checked Galileo's Heliocentric model (which used circular orbits and thus was patently incorrect according to modern Heliocentric models) against their Helio-Geocentric model and found that it was still more accurate than Galileo's model (in fact, I believe it is still mathematically identical or at least very similar to modern Geocentric models). Galileo was told to shut up about his model because it essentially *didnt work*, and instead he kept on promoting it. It also didnt help him that he had some powerful political enemies who had a decent sway on the Pope at the time, so they used his failure to comply with the inquisitions as an excuse to get him put under house arrest.
On to the subject of Dark Matter, which my opposition to is a lot easier to explain. If theres some form of matter that makes up 90% of the universe, there should theoretically be some on earth since its so common, but it somehow magically doesnt act like actual matter *in any way whatsoever*, so the vaunted soyentists *cant* show me a sample of it, despite it being totally necessary for any of their calculations to make sense. They can show me anti-matter, which is *much* rarer, but somehow this magically dark matter stuff is *completely unobtainable* despite it being much more common according to their calculations. The leap of faith required for this is unacceptable for anything purporting itself to be an *empirical* science. Religion is a Science that operates based off of faith and reason and thus can do away with Empiricism for the most part; but there is still more empirical evidence to be found of God in His creation than there is for Dark Matter.
So because Galileo's theory was maybe wrong / unproven, it was right for the Church to burn him at the stake? Because his theory went against a book of Jewish fairy tales?
He wasnt burned at the stake, he was put under house arrest, and it honestly wasnt over his theories, it was over a political squabble. Had the Pope not put him under house arrest, whoever he was beefing with *might* have killed him.
Copernicus proposed similar theories, and the Church literally didnt care, so its blatantly obvious the real reason he was imprisoned was over political dispute and his own retardation at refusing to obey a legitimate order.
I guess dark matter makes sense as a placeholder, all of our equations make sense on a local level but not on a larger scale. If x works for what we need x to do, use x regardless of the fact x is probably incorrect. If it does what we need it to do, why care unless you're a physics nerd?
My biggest problem with "science" is most of it is not actually science, it's all political dedicated to supporting a predetermined conclusion. Race science is a great example, something like that is just true on it's face and for political reasons it's labeled as "pseudo science".
1 year ago4 points(+0/-0/+4Score on mirror)1 child
Have you considered electric universe theory? It’s interesting to read and listen to lectures about. It’s an insanely simply model that doesn’t require insane mathematics.
"We FoLLoW tHe SciEncE!" - Yeah and they follow nonsense there is, as long as most others do it too.
On to the subject of Dark Matter, which my opposition to is a lot easier to explain. If theres some form of matter that makes up 90% of the universe, there should theoretically be some on earth since its so common, but it somehow magically doesnt act like actual matter *in any way whatsoever*, so the vaunted soyentists *cant* show me a sample of it, despite it being totally necessary for any of their calculations to make sense. They can show me anti-matter, which is *much* rarer, but somehow this magically dark matter stuff is *completely unobtainable* despite it being much more common according to their calculations. The leap of faith required for this is unacceptable for anything purporting itself to be an *empirical* science. Religion is a Science that operates based off of faith and reason and thus can do away with Empiricism for the most part; but there is still more empirical evidence to be found of God in His creation than there is for Dark Matter.
Copernicus proposed similar theories, and the Church literally didnt care, so its blatantly obvious the real reason he was imprisoned was over political dispute and his own retardation at refusing to obey a legitimate order.
My biggest problem with "science" is most of it is not actually science, it's all political dedicated to supporting a predetermined conclusion. Race science is a great example, something like that is just true on it's face and for political reasons it's labeled as "pseudo science".