Silvestru

Have you considered that some people cannot afford to eat all organic? I am part of the (lower?) middle class in my country and I honestly can't afford to eat organic bio clean etc food every day. Haha beat me to it. My Grandma used to do crop rotations on a very small level which means dividing a piece of land by 3 and farming a different piece each year.(at least 2 year break for each piece). Can you imagine applying that on a global level? imagine if you only eat one meal a day instead of 3. How would that sound to you as a voter? edit: my bad. Crop Rotation can also mean a different system. Was refering to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-field_system

The Irony... You mentioned you are interested in theoretical physics. You could ask for some useful materials and books to start you off as I see you are hanging out with the wrong crowd. I mean ofc read what you like but don't cite things about virtual particles from these pseudoscience pop science books. Edit, I am not trying to diss Leon Lederman but the book you cited is co-written by pop-science Dick Teresi. My Observation is more directed to the latter. Edit part 2: I take back my previous comment as I ask you where did you read from that book that

Yeah, my bad. I expressed myself wrong but just wanted to mention the Milkdromeda. Some people look forward to the Superbowl. I look forward to this. 4 billion years to go!

There are exceptions to this I guess: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda–Milky_Way_collision

Haha no worries guys, I'm a lover not a fighter but let's stay on topic. I am always worried when the off-topic chain is longer than 3 as it might get split.

Congrats both, to be fair they were already sacrificing their time for the greater good here but without superpowers. Kind of like Batman. What about iNow?

I always knew you are a MOND person!

Ok, back to dark matter. You propose to qualify it as "largely unknown". Yet it is consistent with our observations. There is a whole section about it on the wiki page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Observational_evidence It's still hypothetical just because we don't know what it's made of because it does not interact(doesn't seem to) with EM Radiation. But Galaxies are not flying apart from each other. So why is that? Some unseen matter is "holding them together". We call this "dark matter". Which part of this thinking process would you change? I would agree with you only that the name confuses the weak of mind and I have had heated discussions trying to explain that this is not evil energy.

So by this logic, we would describe electromagnetism as "not fully understood"? It ticks on all your criteria. What about a more specific phenomena like lightning. Should we describe lightning as not fully understood? What about magnetism. If my cousin asks me why a magnet attracts a screw should I say that this is not fully understood as well?

I have no doubt they are vivid. You know what else is? Mushrooms. No one is claiming that they are a portal to another world. Actually some might but anyway the point is that the mind plays tricks.

What do you mean admit? who do you feel that anyone owes you anything? Do you have a better model to explain why galaxies don't fly apart from each other? I am waiting

I agree but that is not how the OP has defined knowledge. He has defined it as "justified true belief" I am contesting the modern use of this definition. I am also contesting the word "truth" in the OP's context as in science this implies that there is 100% chance of something being the case. That is not what science is about. If you can keep your definition of knowledge about science by accepting that science is in constant flux and that it never "proves" anything 100% then yeah.

It definitely is not. I would argue that with no prior knowledge or education, it would be "justified" to think that the sun and moon are orbiting the earth and that we are in the centre base don primitive observation. People who have questioned this and have made further research have come to the conclusion that it is not true.

Ok I will play. How do you know that Paris is not the capital of Italy? Based on what? 100% with you on this one. Scientists have "produced" observations and models and the successful models match what was observed. This is not knowledge or truth. We discover new things every day that have influence on what we previously thought is how something works. No scientist "believes" anything in the faith sense. That has to do with Religion. One must be open to the possibility of the proposition. But not even that.... Sufficient observational data, peer review and testing The proposition currently describes and is in line with what we observe. This could change in the future.

I also used to make confusing statements in the physics section and then explain half way that I was actually talking about a simulated universe and that they got me all wrong. This is a straw-man argument. If we live in a simulation then I could be giving you a back-rub and still could be "just a signal within the simulations program mimicking a polar bear" Also if you would go to MACS0647 and send me a tweet it would make no difference in your argument. We detected it that means we know where it was billions of years ago. In relation to how long ago the photons we receive were emitted and the expansion of the universe and other different factors. But we are aware of these factors. So explain please how would we better measure c if you were in MACS0647.

Nothing is taken for granted in physics but when measuring a value in many different ways by many different parties and that value is consistent with the model .... actually it's not even about GR... we just measured c many times. Second, how would a colony in a different galaxy help convince you of c? This is what I don't get. Maybe you prefer a funny gizmodo argument .(if this is what it takes) Lasers Oz...

I really don't understand what you mean. Do you doubt the value of c or you think it is not constant and could possible "slow down" during longer travel? We have so many methods to measure c: Astronomical measurements Cavity resonance Interferometry We can explain any "delays" from our colony by gravitational lensing maybe? There are also other factors like redshit, blueshift but we are able to explain these factors. I really don't know what you are hinting at What would "between galaxies" change?

Hello forum, I was thinking about gravitational lensing and was curious if it affects gravitational waves in the same time. We have just recently detected gravitational waves by LIGO but if there would be a neutron star crash at a large distance that would hypothetically emit photons and gravitational waves at the exact same time, would we "receive" them here on earth in the exact same time despite any "deflection" to the light (and gravitational waves?) caused by a massive object? If yes, are we using this effect to confirm LIGO results? "Photons of light are not technically affected by large gravitational fields; instead space and time itself become distorted around incredibly massive objects and the light simply follows this distorted curvature of space."

What do you mean models? There is concrete observational evidence for both. We don't need a colony in another galaxy to calculate the speed of photons in a vacuum. But I feel this is a bit off topic here.

Hmm like how the speed of massless particles in a vacuum is always c? Also gravitational waves. Also EMR.... suspicious

Dude, even I answered it in my tortilla post. 3 spatial dimensions + 1 temporal one. space + time= "space time"TM

Because of the juicy sauce that ties all 3 dimensions of space with a soft time tortilla dimension.

You sound like my Yoga teacher. I have a bad back so I have to cope with the "woo" in the Yoga class but what are you trying to say? Are you trying to say time is cyclical? What are your sources? Ok maybe I went to far with the sources request. Can you please expand instead? Not really. I compared you to my nutty Yoga instructor so I am setting up a defensive brownie in place to cope with the potential offensive from you that might make me sad. Unfortunately it's not seeing into the future.

You are 100% right Ten oz and I stand corrected. I was just airing my ignorant uneducated opinion. Unfortunately that describes a big chunk of the american voters. (especially republican according to the below poll). http://www.people-press.org/2018/03/20/1-trends-in-party-affiliation-among-demographic-groups/ I agree that the system isn't fair but I also see that it's easier to "trick" and distract the american public. Of course the US is in the global media spotlight but I really don't hear so many dirty tactic news pieces from other "free" countries. I don't imagine the examples that you gave happening in Norway, Sweden etc. Or if they happen there are consequences. Of course it's just my opinion.

Gloves come off. I was waiting until someone would throw the first stone But I agree. Democrats tend to demonise the other party recently and to victimise themselves way too much. Democrats should construct and grow a real good candidate for the next election. Someone who really has a shot. Unfortunately following the current trends, the winning choices that come to mind are Oprah, Eminem or The Rock . You need a famous entertainer to beat a reality TV show star. Simple as rock paper scissors.