Science
Science
Out of context: Reply #24
- Started
- Last post
- 1,008 Responses
- Morning_star0
Eskema - "they didn't invent it, they theorize that it should exist"
Could you tell me what the difference is? Because the way i understand it is that the current theories in particle physics couldn't account for the mass and gravitational influence that some galaxies were exhibiting so a new state of matter 'Dark Matter' was INVENTED - essentially to plug the hole in existing theories. It has been the intention of experiments like the LHC to find evidence for this. They haven't.
- Of course when you get to the limits of knowledge theories are required. Why does it bother you?ukit2
- I find it frustrating that most people blindly follow science without question. It isn't the empirical bastion of hard fact and evidence that it claims to be.Morning_star
- Most people don't even think about such experimental topics as dark matter.ukit2
- evidence it claims to be. It is dogmatic and flawed.Morning_star
- why without questions? Are you nuts? Science IS questions.. And ultimately a lot of questions about establishedESKEMA
- facts..ESKEMA
- I believe you're wrong. The universal constants fluctuate and change. There's a committee that averages and publishes them annually.Morning_star
- them annually. Much like the Council of Nicaea ;)Morning_star
- You can try all you want to say science is as mythical as a "belief system" but it only makes you look more stupid.monospaced
- Because no matter what, it's not as ludicrous as gods and miracles and praying. That shit is bonkers stupid.monospaced
- Why do you always revert to religion. 'It may be stupid but not as stupid as...' statement is weak and powerless.Morning_star
- semantics.kingsteven
- tru. very tru.Morning_star
- I know he wrote 'belief system' in the OP, but we all know he's comparing it to religion. That's the WHOLE POINT of this.monospaced