Cataloguing and mapping isn't a cope. For example, the Hertzsprung–Russell diagram isn't a cope, it's objective. The cope comes whenever someone tries to make sense of it. We have X and Z, so we'll add theory Y to get it so X and Z connect, where theory Y is usually more fallible than any religious text.
What is it with LULZ and cosmology? It's one of the bested tested scientific fields, and these models which u guys routinely shit on make real, and correct quantitative predictions. No one is claiming cosmic inflation, nor dark matter (although recent observations such as the bullet cluster are rather convincing evidence imo) are definitely correct, apart from popsci pseuds who misinterpret research.
>[cosmology]'s one of the bested [sic] tested scientific fields
It's pretty bad news for science if fucking cosmology is one of the better tested fields. Observing things you can't interact with is NOT an experiment, it's just an observation. Cosmology is very prone to affirming the consequent (a theory may predict something, and we must observe that prediction for the theory to be true, but we may observe that even if the theory isn't true.)
I have no crusade against the big bang theory, inflation, dark matter, or whatever but none of these are testable.
Granted, the schizos raging against the big bang theory, dark matter, and w/e are just as annoying as the pseuds getting angry at people for not "trusting the science".
>but we may observe that even if the theory isn't true.
This is the case for literally every scientific theory, and it's the reason why specific quantitative measurements, falsifiability and generality or so important. The redshift of galaxies alone may not be convincing evidence for the big bang model, but together with the exact black body spectrum observed from the CMB and prediction of the ratio of light elements, are pretty conclusive(ie: You simply dont get all of these specific quantitative results by accident).
it's the only cope they found the make their bigbang work lol
The idea of cosmic inflation predates the big bang theory, retarded pseud
The big bang is the biggest cope.
physicists were on the big bong lmao
>Incapable of writiing a coherent sentence
Big brain moment.
>Incapable of reading a simple sentence
Your vixra ramblings are the biggest cope
cosmology isn't science, its religion.
science has disprovable theories and repeatable experiments, cosmology has neither
others could say that just accepting the CMB as the initial condition of the universe is a cope
only second to cope holes, cope matter, and cope energy.
>cosmic inflation is the second biggest cope but there's 3 copes that are bigger
Name a single thing in cosmology that isn't a cope. You can't.
Cataloguing and mapping isn't a cope. For example, the Hertzsprung–Russell diagram isn't a cope, it's objective. The cope comes whenever someone tries to make sense of it. We have X and Z, so we'll add theory Y to get it so X and Z connect, where theory Y is usually more fallible than any religious text.
So if we can condense this cone back into itself like a tranny surgery we can go back? How is this done? We must get this done
What is it with LULZ and cosmology? It's one of the bested tested scientific fields, and these models which u guys routinely shit on make real, and correct quantitative predictions. No one is claiming cosmic inflation, nor dark matter (although recent observations such as the bullet cluster are rather convincing evidence imo) are definitely correct, apart from popsci pseuds who misinterpret research.
It's fun to prod at since it is so well tested. Unlike most other sciences which are profit driven.
>[cosmology]'s one of the bested [sic] tested scientific fields
It's pretty bad news for science if fucking cosmology is one of the better tested fields. Observing things you can't interact with is NOT an experiment, it's just an observation. Cosmology is very prone to affirming the consequent (a theory may predict something, and we must observe that prediction for the theory to be true, but we may observe that even if the theory isn't true.)
I have no crusade against the big bang theory, inflation, dark matter, or whatever but none of these are testable.
Granted, the schizos raging against the big bang theory, dark matter, and w/e are just as annoying as the pseuds getting angry at people for not "trusting the science".
>but we may observe that even if the theory isn't true.
This is the case for literally every scientific theory, and it's the reason why specific quantitative measurements, falsifiability and generality or so important. The redshift of galaxies alone may not be convincing evidence for the big bang model, but together with the exact black body spectrum observed from the CMB and prediction of the ratio of light elements, are pretty conclusive(ie: You simply dont get all of these specific quantitative results by accident).
(You)
all of cosmology is pure cope.
None of it is testable or proven.
enthusiasm for cosmology is a symptom of mental illness