Meanwhile, that's just how science supposed to work. There is a theory, there is observations that does not match the prodictions of theory, then this wrong theory have to be trashed and a new theory have to be developed.
Wrong theories is completely normal thing in science. There was a lot of theories that was proved wrong by observations that contradicted theories predictions. New theories was developed that better match and better explain observations.
Big Bang, Standard Model and all that stuff are not dogmas, it is just a theories. They should be changed to fit new observations or thrown out and replaced with new theories. It is not theories that is the core of science, it is observations and experiments. Theory is just a model of observed universe stated in the language of mathematics. Model could not be more imortant than observations and experiments.
And if some theory is wrong that does not mean that "everything is a lie". Wrong theory is just a bad model of the universe. Disproving some theory does not zero everything we know about the world around us.
The question with theories is why elites created conditions when scientists can't really perform that scientific iterations with theories, disproval, better theories and so on. And when theory become more "important" than observations and experiment results. There are no grants for anything that contradicts theories elites stuck with for whatever reason as "mainstream" at some point of time, presumably around 1970. I think it is an integral part of elites plan to completely stop humanity technological progress.
First, it's much older than the 70s, the foundational science that we "know" today hasn't changed in any foundational way in closer to a century.
While we are taught that if the observations do not match the theories, that the theory should be discarded. Instead, like with general relativity, as observations defy the theory, then new theories are added on to patch the foundational theory back together in order to explain the discrepancy.
Now we have 3 models of physics; astrophysics, newtonian, and quantum each of which are incompatible with the others.
First, it's much older than the 70s, the foundational science that we "know" today hasn't changed in any foundational way in closer to a century.
I think that happened when quantum mechanics got its final form.
then new theories are added on to patch the foundational theory back together in order to explain the discrepancy.
Exactly. Like the main goal is to preserve theories that selected as dogmas at any cost.
And if newtonian mechanics and quantum mechanics are at least practically useful models, all that relativity, particle physics and cosmology even don't have any practical usefulness, but somehow specificaly that areas got most financing with condition to keep dogmas intact. That does not make any sense from the merit point of view, but perfectly fit an assumtion that elites do everything to stop any useful science and technology progress.
Now we have 3 models of physics; astrophysics, newtonian, and quantum each of which are incompatible with the others.
And numerous, sometimes nearly insane extensions like string theory with only goal to keep everyting unchanged.
Meanwhile, that's just how science supposed to work. There is a theory, there is observations that does not match the prodictions of theory, then this wrong theory have to be trashed and a new theory have to be developed.
Wrong theories is completely normal thing in science. There was a lot of theories that was proved wrong by observations that contradicted theories predictions. New theories was developed that better match and better explain observations.
Big Bang, Standard Model and all that stuff are not dogmas, it is just a theories. They should be changed to fit new observations or thrown out and replaced with new theories. It is not theories that is the core of science, it is observations and experiments. Theory is just a model of observed universe stated in the language of mathematics. Model could not be more imortant than observations and experiments.
And if some theory is wrong that does not mean that "everything is a lie". Wrong theory is just a bad model of the universe. Disproving some theory does not zero everything we know about the world around us.
The question with theories is why elites created conditions when scientists can't really perform that scientific iterations with theories, disproval, better theories and so on. And when theory become more "important" than observations and experiment results. There are no grants for anything that contradicts theories elites stuck with for whatever reason as "mainstream" at some point of time, presumably around 1970. I think it is an integral part of elites plan to completely stop humanity technological progress.
First, it's much older than the 70s, the foundational science that we "know" today hasn't changed in any foundational way in closer to a century.
While we are taught that if the observations do not match the theories, that the theory should be discarded. Instead, like with general relativity, as observations defy the theory, then new theories are added on to patch the foundational theory back together in order to explain the discrepancy.
Now we have 3 models of physics; astrophysics, newtonian, and quantum each of which are incompatible with the others.
I think that happened when quantum mechanics got its final form.
Exactly. Like the main goal is to preserve theories that selected as dogmas at any cost.
And if newtonian mechanics and quantum mechanics are at least practically useful models, all that relativity, particle physics and cosmology even don't have any practical usefulness, but somehow specificaly that areas got most financing with condition to keep dogmas intact. That does not make any sense from the merit point of view, but perfectly fit an assumtion that elites do everything to stop any useful science and technology progress.
And numerous, sometimes nearly insane extensions like string theory with only goal to keep everyting unchanged.