goatis is right about almost everything

[LefortCandidate]

once you understand science and the so called scientific method you will

understand that 99% of it is assumption based not really testable and observable

weak humans can't accept ignorance so they start making shit up

trust your intuition

 

[Ldar09867]

 

[LefortCandidate]

you will wake up one day

 

[molecule00]

 

[Ldar09867]

you will wake up one day

Me

 

[asdvek]

Wdym "almost"

What's he not right about?

 

[iblamemyurges]

understand that 99% of it is assumption based not really testable and observable

Practically everything in the modern world is testable and observable

 

[Jason Voorhees]

I genuinely don't understand why this nigga gets worshipped and glazed this much online. Is he like the second coming of Jesus or something @imontheloose @Sprinkles

 

[Centurion_Hunter]

once you understand science and the so called scientific method you will

understand that 99% of it is assumption based not really testable and observable

weak humans can't accept ignorance so they start making shit up

trust your intuition

yup
most foids are finished doing puberty at 15 to 16
Thats the age most foids married before and they had many children and helped increase birth rates
(for feds im 17 so you cant agecuck me feds)

 

[rogejumpee]

once you understand science and the so called scientific method you will

understand that 99% of it is assumption based not really testable and observable

weak humans can't accept ignorance so they start making shit up

trust your intuition

goatis lwk a genius but we are too dumb to realize it

 

[Tenres]

What is not testable or observable? We went over this before but models are testable through predictions. And no one actually thinks that our current models of the uni are "correct," just that they have practical utility at the moment, i.e., they are the best available.

 

[Tenres]

yup
most foids are finished doing puberty at 15 to 16
Thats the age most foids married before and they had many children and helped increase birth rates
(for feds im 17 so you cant agecuck me feds)

Cope, 15 year olds have less viable egg count, worse pfc development, less developed stress response, less progesterone, less estrogen, literally by every metric. So literally, worse fertility, worse capability of bearing the stress of pregnancy, and worse at picking good genetic partners.

 

[LefortCandidate]

What is not testable or observable? We went over this before but models are testable through predictions. And no one actually thinks that our current models of the uni are "correct," just that they have practical utility at the moment, i.e., they are the best available.

many "wrong" models get accurate predictions

"the best available" isn't science

its humans can't accept they are ignorant

 

[Tenres]

many "wrong" models get accurate predictions

"the best available" isn't science

Yes, literally every model is wrong in the sense they don't accurately describe every aspect of the universe.

Sure it is, what do you think science is? The scientific method is about testing hypothesis based on observable data.

Edit: The funny thing is you are literally doing what you complained about, not tolerating ignorance so you start making shit up

 

[Ergogenic]

once you understand science and the so called scientific method you will

understand that 99% of it is assumption based not really testable and observable

weak humans can't accept ignorance so they start making shit up

trust your intuition

I do not have intuition. I have knowledge and evidence.

99 percent of science is not "assumptiom".

Assumption : A thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.

Image above shows scientific method.

You are just as bad as the Goatis fans here that say that scientific knowledge has never been observed.

 

[LefortCandidate]

Yes, literally every model is wrong in the sense they don't accurately describe every aspect of the universe.

Sure it is, what do you think science is? The scientific method is about testing hypothesis based on observable data.

Edit: The funny thing is you are literally doing what you complained about, not tolerating ignorance so you start making shit up

real science is about testability and repeatabllity and falsifiable

these models are comical not because that they don't describe everything accurately, they are comical because they don't describe shit jfl,

you can construct 10 theoretical models that are completely different and all of them predict stuff right

that's comical

 

[LefortCandidate]

I do not have intuition. I have knowledge and evidence.

99 percent of science is not "assumptiom".

Assumption : A thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.

View attachment 4694851

Image above shows scientific method.

You are just as bad as the Goatis fans here that say that scientific knowledge has never been observed.

read my replies to the other fella

you will understand that we reject assumption based science like cosmology not hard science that is testable

 

[Tenres]

real science is about testability and repeatabllity and falsifiable

these models are comical not because that they don't describe everything accurately, they are comical because they don't describe shit jfl,

you can construct 10 theoretical models that are completely different and all of them predict stuff right

that's comical

Models are inherently testable, repeatable, and falsifiable because you can see if they make independently valid predictions about the outside world. For example, Einstein's relativity successfully predicted the expansion of the universe before it was discovered which he actually thought was a fault of his model.

Ok so are we just saying random shit now or what. You think relativity doesn't "describe" anything, or quantum mechanics? The funny this is you are using technology that would only be possible if scientific work on computers done by ppl like Neumann was correct. I think you're also getting confused.

You can't, neither can I, and neither can anyone else on this forum. Because you'd need to mechanistically describe and accurately explain the movements of subatomic particles, the movements of planets, mathematically figure out how gravity will effect every atom in the universe, Im kinda merging things here but the point is something can not be 100% correct while requiring extremely high intelligence to create, as well as offering accurate predictions about the universe.

 

[Ergogenic]

read my replies to the other fella

you will understand that we reject assumption based science like cosmology not hard science that is testable

Assumptions are not science. Go back to my reply and look at the scientific method that I presented and the definition of assumption.

 

[Cash💸]

once you understand science and the so called scientific method you will

understand that 99% of it is assumption based not really testable and observable

weak humans can't accept ignorance so they start making shit up

trust your intuition

I would smash u in Fortnite m8

 

[Tenres]

read my replies to the other fella

you will understand that we reject assumption based science like cosmology not hard science that is testable

You're problem was literally with physics which is a hard science

 

[LefortCandidate]

Models are inherently testable, repeatable, and falsifiable because you can see if they make independently valid predictions about the outside world. For example, Einstein's relativity successfully predicted the expansion of the universe before it was discovered which he actually thought was a fault of his model.

Ok so are we just saying random shit now or what. You think relativity doesn't "describe" anything, or quantum mechanics? The funny this is you are using technology that would only be possible if scientific work on computers done by ppl like Neumann was correct. I think you're also getting confused.

You can't, neither can I, and neither can anyone else on this forum. Because you'd need to mechanistically describe and accurately explain the movements of subatomic particles, the movements of planets, mathematically figure out how gravity will effect every atom in the universe, Im kinda merging things here but the point is something can not be 100% correct while requiring extremely high intelligence to create, as well as offering accurate predictions about the universe.

"predicted the expansion of the universe"

>discovered through random mathematical equations and not real observable data
>comical shit

"quantum mechanics"
>there are 6 schools of thoughts, all of them with different interpretations, some says the mind is what's creates the world (jfl)

our technological advancement was done through hard observable science not copes like cosmology

my point still stands, you can construct a mathematical model that predict stuff with the data available, then have 10 theocratical models that do the same predictions that are completely different from each others

>they pick the one that is "visually pleasing"
>comical

 

[LefortCandidate]

You're problem was literally with physics which is a hard science

there's real physics and theoretical physics

learn the diffrence

 

[Tenres]

there's real physics and theoretical physics

learn the diffrence

Both are considered hard sciences. And the terms hard sciences and soft science aren't at all clearly defined, and the actual distinction between the natural and social science is just frequency differences in things like the amount of graphs used, the consensus in a given field, and seemingly less researcher bias (i.e., 'hard sciences' have less positive results)

 

[Tenres]

"predicted the expansion of the universe"

>discovered through random mathematical equations and not real observable data
>comical shit

"quantum mechanics"
>there are 6 schools of thoughts, all of them with different interpretations, some says the mind is what's creates the world (jfl)

our technological advancement was done through hard observable science not copes like cosmology

my point still stands, you can construct a mathematical model that predict stuff with the data available, then have 10 theocratical models that do the same predictions that are completely different from each others

>they pick the one that is "visually pleasing"
>comical

Alright I'm stop explaining because that's just for me and anyone reading who wants some explanation.

Prove they are random mathematical equations. I've established that a model that explains any given part of the universe is testable through observation of the mechanisms in that given part of the universe.

Prove that different schools of thoughts entails they "describe nothing" <-- your claim retard.

Cosmology is not considered a soft science.

"You can have different models" You can have different models for the accuracy of our senses. Doesn't matter.

 

[Tenres]

Also just to put this low IQ meme in to the ground: His problem with science is that it doesn't accurately explain every aspect of the universe, yet he prefers using our "intuition" to explain things.

Use your intuition to explain electromagnetism then dumbass Please lets all hear it bro

 

[jaycc]

I genuinely don't understand why this nigga gets worshipped and glazed this much online. Is he like the second coming of Jesus or something @imontheloose @Sprinkles

he said he is jesus so yeah ig

 

[jaycc]

Also just to put this low IQ meme in to the ground: His problem with science is that it doesn't accurately explain every aspect of the universe, yet he prefers using our "intuition" to explain things.

Use your intuition to explain electromagnetism then dumbass Please lets all hear it bro

he also claims science is fake and they cant observe or understand ANYTHING and yet scientists are able to create robotics, artificial hormones etc....

 

[LefortCandidate]

Alright I'm stop explaining because that's just for me and anyone reading who wants some explanation.

Prove they are random mathematical equations. I've established that a model that explains any given part of the universe is testable through observation of the mechanisms in that given part of the universe.

Prove that different schools of thoughts entails they "describe nothing" <-- your claim retard.

Cosmology is not considered a soft science.

"You can have different models" You can have different models for the accuracy of our senses. Doesn't matter.

buddy you're retarded and i am getting bored already

you claimed we predicted the expansion of the universe as if we can actually see it and test it

this is not what actually happen, they "obsereved" a redshift and they assumed it meant expansion space itself when in reality it could be multiple explanations like objects moving through space or the tired light model that was proposed later

>see it can be a lot of multiple explanations that you can't falsify

-rest is garbage you didn't provide a single good point of proving that these scientific modesl=describe reality

there are better arguments for scientific realism so at least go learn you absolute subhuman retard

 

[LefortCandidate]

he also claims science is fake and they cant observe or understand ANYTHING and yet scientists are able to create robotics, artificial hormones etc....

my nigger i said i believe in science that is testable and repeatable

learn how to read you utter retard

 

[Tenres]

he also claims science is fake and they cant observe or understand ANYTHING and yet scientists are able to create robotics, artificial hormones etc....

Literally using a phone with internet to explain how science can't explain anything

 

[LefortCandidate]

Literally using a phone with internet to explain how science can't explain anything

Lol what dishonest subhuman

From the beginning I said i believe in testable science

You failed to prove your world view so you strawmaned me

 

[Sprinkles]

I genuinely don't understand why this nigga gets worshipped and glazed this much online. Is he like the second coming of Jesus or something @imontheloose @Sprinkles

he was genetically engineered by Jews to be an influencer and push raw meat

 

[hopelesschud]

you would have to be severely mentally ill to not find a 15 year old girl attractive

 

[Iurker300]

once you understand science and the so called scientific method you will

understand that 99% of it is assumption based not really testable and observable

weak humans can't accept ignorance so they start making shit up

trust your intuition

cortisol spike

 

[Tenres]

buddy you're retarded and i am getting bored already

you claimed we predicted the expansion of the universe as if we can actually see it and test it

this is not what actually happen, they "obsereved" a redshift and they assumed it meant expansion space itself when in reality it could be multiple explanations like objects moving through space or the tired light model that was proposed later

>see it can be a lot of multiple explanations that you can't falsify

-rest is garbage you didn't provide a single good point of proving that these scientific modesl=describe reality

there are better arguments for scientific realism so at least go learn you absolute subhuman retard

Objects moving through space don't cause photons to lose energy. Demonstrate that kek. The tired light model has 0 evidence supporting it.

Reality is just the sum of all things, me saying that the sun exists is describing reality. So again, demonstrate that scientific models don't describe reality.

 

[Tenres]

Lol what dishonest subhuman

From the beginning I said i believe in testable science

You failed to prove your world view so you strawmaned me

Models are testable, you test through predictions.

Just admit you know nothing. I had to spend my time looking into how hydrogen atoms absorb frequencies of light at 656nn and how when we see the light arrive at earth we can see that the mark / barcode is at a higher frequency, I.e., it was stretched in the vacuum of space. The tired light theory supposed the mark is higher because the frequency was raised as energy was lost in space because of the inverse relationship between the two. Yet energy is not lost due to interactions in space, so light is not shifted in space except through the stretching in the vacuum.

So did you just chatgpt the shit or how did you come to the conclusion that the tired light model was valid?

 

[LefortCandidate]

Objects moving through space don't cause photons to lose energy. Demonstrate that kek. The tired light model has 0 evidence supporting it.

Reality is just the sum of all things, me saying that the sun exists is describing reality. So again, demonstrate that scientific models don't describe reality.

Models are testable, you test through predictions.

Just admit you know nothing. I had to spend my time looking into how hydrogen atoms absorb frequencies of light at 656nn and how when we see the light arrive at earth we can see that the mark / barcode is at a higher frequency, I.e., it was stretched in the vacuum of space. The tired light theory supposed the mark is higher because the frequency was raised as energy was lost in space because of the inverse relationship between the two. Yet energy is not lost due to interactions in space, so light is not shifted in space except through the stretching in the vacuum.

So did you just chatgpt the shit or how did you come to the conclusion that the tired light model was valid?

chatgpt final boss

he didn't know how we came to hold the expansion theory and now he knows all about the tired light theory

its not about the theory being valid or not since the theoretical theory can be tweaked to match the "data" and it was just an example because there other theories as well that can match the data with minor tweaks like gravitational redshift

like the expansion of the universe theory, they had to add a magical thing (literally) called the dark matter and dark energy that haven't been observed or detected

both were added to the cosmological model so they don't have to reconstruct it

this is not science

this is child play, you construct models then keep changing them to fit the data

but it doesn't tell you anything about the real world

 

[Tenres]

he didn't know how we came to hold the expansion theory and now he knows all about the tired light theory

I claimed that the theory of relativity predicted an expansion. I did not claim that how we knew the expansion of the universe was true. Although in actuality its that the tor predicted either contraction or expansion..

Yeah, I literally said that I researched it right now retard. Cant read final boss

Kek at u backing off the theory after I researched it, you are pathetic.

Explain why the CMB has a stable shape if random interactions with spacial objects cause photons to lose energy, which would both be random and also interact differently with high energy photons and low energy photos, completely changing the blackbody spectrum. If the blackbody spectrum has had a stable shape for billions of years, then clearly photons do not randomly lose energy from environmental interactions. Yet we do see that each photon has shifted an equal percent, so the spectrum is shifted but relatively stable.

If light was not stretched in a vacuum, then why does time dilation happen? I.e., we see things happen in the past because the light takes more time to reach us then what a stable time would suggest.

There's some other things but I'm forgetting. Should be enough to know you are an intellectually lazy, low IQ freak who should never speak on anything. Normies ought not talk about things except sportsball and gender dynamics.

 

[Tenres]

like the expansion of the universe theory, they had to add a magical thing (literally) called the dark matter and dark energy that haven't been observed or detected

JFL dark matter is just what we call matter that can't be observed but that interacts with matter in predictable ways (I.e., if there was matter there we'd understand why other particles are 'attracted' to it). If you're position that dark matter is actually nothing, then explain why it has measurable effects on other matter.

 

[presxzn]

Wdym "almost"

What's he not right about?

He’s Jewish btw he has long live Isreal in his YouTube bio