Are scientist trying to be too smart?

[Turbulent]

that was like one out of a thousand nikka shut the fukk up

a dude makes this thread, is assumed not to be trolling and is as adamant about defending it with the same exact attitude as the threadstarter, the thread does the same numbers (if not more).

 

[flea]

a dude makes this thread, is assumed not to be trolling and is as adamant about defending it with the same exact attitude as the threadstarter, the thread does the same numbers (if not more).

no one would even give a shyt to where he would even feel the need to defend himself. shyt would of been on page 3 of the locker room with bout 60 views and 4 replies.

 

[Larry Lobster]

Smart dumb nikka thread of the year

@Teedot

 

[Brofato]

@Teedot

I hope you gave that video a watch. I've been watching it on and off all day. He touched on a lot and I'm only through the first hour.

Quotes that rounded out the first hour:

And of the many things that prevent me from getting a good night's sleep, one of them is is there another equation like e = mc² just beyond our reach. Because we are still steeped in profound ignorance of what's going on in the universe. There's a lot we know, proud of that, but there's even more that we don't know.

E = mc² explains so much of what goes on in this universe it actually makes us feel a little cocky about it. Like yeah, we're there, we got it. But the march of science tells us just when you thought you understood something, the universe throws you a curve.

 

[joeychizzle]

It appears you are not equipped for, nor capable, of deep thought on a grand scale. This forum is for discussing how everyone is #inherently or cac demons or black women ain't shyt bedwenches, or other useless topics.

 

[The Devil's Advocate]

Right! So my point is that since they are uncertainties they should be labeled as such. They should not be labeled as facts if it can't be truly proven. If it can be proven than fine it's a fact.

I never said that the estimates of the sun are worthless. It goes back to what I said. If you can't prove something it's not a fact. Everyone is calling me dumb but the bottom line is no matter how good an estimate is that doesn't mean that estimate can or should be presented as a fact. I was simply saying in the particular vids I watched they were trying to present things as facts but then they would turn around and say their equipment couldn't get no where close to the objects without being distroyed.

Everyone thinks I'm trying to say scientist don't know shyt. I'm simply saying don't classify something as a fact if it can't be proven.

The problem with this is scientists NEVER state theories as facts. Ever

Legally they can be sued for that.

It's like tv news. They can show a video of me killing a man in cold blood. But they still have to say I "allegedly" murdered him. Cause legally I haven't been convicted, therefore it's not true

So when you watch these shows. They'll say things like "believe, possibly, think, wonder, most likely" etc etc so they can't be held to telling people they are facts.

 

[rapbeats]

OK, but let me explain: The pursuit of knowledge always starts from a notion of uncertainty (scepticism) to a notion of certainty (relative surety). Do scientists ever know anything 100%? No, but they reasonably assume findings based on the scientific method: the power of observation and experimentation. Are we sure of the size of the sun? No, but we have equations and theories which we know work to measure other things and might aid us in measuring the sun (even if we can't do so directly with a giant ruler tape). And although the sun's measurement might always be a best estimate, that doesn't make the measurement worthless, only flawed. And "flawed" in science can mean "correct" depending on the margin of error. If we had taken your view that difficult scientific problems aren't worth undertaking, scientists would discover very little. Science advances partly through exploring supposedly unsolvable problems and findin solutions. Does science always find them? No, but how can we know there are no solutions if we don't look?

finally someone telling the truth about science. instead of "everything they say is 100% truth" mentality.
scientist in regards to say measuring the sun and other things on planets in space. have to presuppose (
: to be based on the idea that something is true or will happen

: to require or depend on (something) in order to be true or exist)
...certain things in order to find a solution.


lets see here

How do scientists measure or calculate the weight of a planet?

Dec 12, 2005
Barry Lienert, a geophysicist at the University of Hawaii, provides the following explanation.
We start by determining the mass of the Earth. Issac Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation tells us that the force of attraction between two objects is proportional the product of their masses divided by the square of the distance between their centers of mass. To obtain a reasonable approximation, we assume their geographical centers are their centers of mass......

how do we know their centers are their centers? or what we call their geo centers to be their centers? we ASSUME thats the case since its the case on earth. i've said time and time again. man knows nothing but what it knows. meaning we only know what we can know right here in front of us. everything else is speculation based on assumptions from what we do know. thats ok if you can go back thru a solution and find out its correct by measuring said thing another way and still coming to the exact same conclusion you did when you assumed certain givens.

its geometry ... THE GIVEN is......... so now we use that to formulate the rest of our solution.

but what if the given is incorrect? especially when you're dealing with other planets we have never gone to. at least we're on mars(to some degree). so we can really start testing our theory. we can at least say well for example if we find out that mars' center is like earth's.its geographical center .and not some where else on the planet. so we can then say "See... we're right about earth and now mars. " but thats 2 out of how many planets? who knows if thats correct with all the rest.

now if we keep sending out rovers and it keeps coming true that these planet's center is also their geographical center just like earth. then we can push that assumption out a bit further and assume its always like that, no matter the solar system. but even then we could be way off.
i've told yall this before.

these things are based on patterns.

AABBAABB
so now you ASSUME it will always be AABBAABB forever.

what you dont know is what you cant measure. maybe some where between a peta duplicates of the above pattern and some number we have not named before is a switch up like AABBAABB ^peta CC wait a second. if thats the case, and we start assuming things based on AABBAABB. we may be only slightly wrong or way off. depending on what part of the pattern we see at that time. you dont know if you're at the beginning of it, the middle, the tail end by peta or on the other side of CC, where it repeats again.

the test of a persons DNA based intelligent level(not study based intelligence). is their ability as a child to predict whats next in a pattern.

Being able to see patterns = Neo being able to read that green code in the matrix
Thats on a macro and micro level. same rule applies.

But if there is some monkey wrench thrown into your original idea of said pattern, it could ruin your entire solution or just only slightly tweek it. but that says what? it says these theories about planets are not fact. they're not wild guesses either. their guesstimates( an estimate based on a mixture of guesswork and calculation.)
I guess A is true since i can calculate B and C. i mean A is usually B+C on earth, so i GUESS its true on mars and venus, etc Thats what scientists do and nothing is wrong with that. except for these coli types reading science digests thinking that these scientists know all things and all things they say is 100% gospel unadulterated truth. when its not.[/quote]

 

[rapbeats]

The problem with this is scientists NEVER state theories as facts. Ever

Legally they can be sued for that.

It's like tv news. They can show a video of me killing a man in cold blood. But they still have to say I "allegedly" murdered him. Cause legally I haven't been convicted, therefore it's not true

So when you watch these shows. They'll say things like "believe, possibly, think, wonder, most likely" etc etc so they can't be held to telling people they are facts.

^^This may be the case. but like i said in my above post. PEOPLE reading their info. will go around telling everyone that these scientists are 100% correct. not 95%, not 98.9%.. but 100% correct and you bet not say different or else you will be banished to the idiot club.

 

[Black]

dumb bytch

 

[Serious]

So I was watching a few programs yesterday about space. They were mostly focused on planets. During the programs they were discussing the planets components all they way down to the core. As you probably know that they send satellites out into space to get their info. None of these satellites have the capabilities to survive the harsh conditions of the planets. They stated that. So basically they know nothing hardly. They have also stated how big the sun is. But how could they know that? Nothing could get close enough to the sun to accurately measure it's size and how ridiculously big it is. How about all the galaxies? Whose to say there is a lot or a few. Surely no telescope could ever measure that.

That led me to think of how much scientist actually know.

This same question came into my head while being in a thread discussing pain. How can u accurately measure pain? Of course you can say a bullet shot would hurt worse than a stomach ache but when it comes to extreme pain such as natural childbirth or cluster headaches. How can we truly determine the pain felt unless we have experienced both?




what are some of the things that scientist claim they know about but you actually think they don't? I say space. Everything is mostly theories even though they act like a lot are facts.

 

[Serious]

If YOU needed anymore evidence that she's a troll or incredibly dumb, this thread proves it all....

 

[Osmosis]

There's nothing smart-dumb about this thread. shyt is straight dumb.

 

[Spy]

OP is autistic.

 

[KOohbt]

Jesus the stupidity.

 

[O.T.I.S.]

This thread is hilarious


but yes, scientists don't know shyt. Thats why all these "theories" and shyt about the universe keep changing all the time.

Wasn't it recently discovered (like 15 years ago) that there were much more planets or even habitable planets? These muthafukkas can't even figure out shyt on earth yet... like how the egyptians built pyramids or why pyramids exists on multiple continents

Until we send people to those planets, we will continue to not know shyt neither