Strictly speaking astrophysics/cosmology, just like particle physics divided into two separate things - theorists and practics. And problem is that theorists produce too many theories, mathematically correct, but unfounded in reality. Practics do a great job disproving all that stuff (showing that 10^120 errors), but they can't handle all that constant flow of garbage from theorists.
It is like overloading experimenters wtih random theories. Theorists today does not need their theories being proven practically to get grant money, so they just publish mathematically correct garbage and switch to creating new theory to get new grant. Something tells me that this done intentionally, to disrupt science process in very important areas of science that could produce brearthrough discoveries and inventions.
Ideally, theorist should not get grant money in full until his current theory checked in practice. And only when his theory proven or disproven by experiment(observation of things predicted by theory in case of astrophysics), he should be able to apply for the new grant and switch to another problem.
Today, theorist just publish his article, and that accounted like his job is done. This ruins scientific method. Divide and conquer principle applied to science by elites.
That is stretching it a bit. Typically the variability is so expansive that it is neither correct nor incorrect. Variables for unknowns are often hilariously excused, like "dark matter" well then we will account for it as /i/ and ta da. Aym an avid reader of the latest black hole theories of the day and they are expressly only variables and no assigned values. Is my rant :)
basic differential equations describing our world could give nearly infinite number of soulutions in form of formulas. They all correct mathematically, if you put formula in that basic differential equation it will be true, but that does not mean that they correctly describe our world. Soulutions could include new particles, all that dark matter/enercgy, strings, strapels, whatever shit you want. The only way to check solution is practical experiment (observation for astrophysics).
Math is not a science, it is a language to describe our universe. And as with any other language, you could easily make grammatically correct sentence that will have no any sense.
What astro/partical physics theorists do - is constructing that grammatically correct sentences and then throwing them to practics to find any sense in them. While practics check that "phrase", possibly in very hard, expensive and long way, theorists create 10 more such grammatically correct phrases.
It is practics who have to find that values for formulas you are talking about. And it is much harder in all senses than to pop yet another "sentence".
Strictly speaking astrophysics/cosmology, just like particle physics divided into two separate things - theorists and practics. And problem is that theorists produce too many theories, mathematically correct, but unfounded in reality. Practics do a great job disproving all that stuff (showing that 10^120 errors), but they can't handle all that constant flow of garbage from theorists.
It is like overloading experimenters wtih random theories. Theorists today does not need their theories being proven practically to get grant money, so they just publish mathematically correct garbage and switch to creating new theory to get new grant. Something tells me that this done intentionally, to disrupt science process in very important areas of science that could produce brearthrough discoveries and inventions.
Ideally, theorist should not get grant money in full until his current theory checked in practice. And only when his theory proven or disproven by experiment(observation of things predicted by theory in case of astrophysics), he should be able to apply for the new grant and switch to another problem.
Today, theorist just publish his article, and that accounted like his job is done. This ruins scientific method. Divide and conquer principle applied to science by elites.
That is stretching it a bit. Typically the variability is so expansive that it is neither correct nor incorrect. Variables for unknowns are often hilariously excused, like "dark matter" well then we will account for it as /i/ and ta da. Aym an avid reader of the latest black hole theories of the day and they are expressly only variables and no assigned values. Is my rant :)
basic differential equations describing our world could give nearly infinite number of soulutions in form of formulas. They all correct mathematically, if you put formula in that basic differential equation it will be true, but that does not mean that they correctly describe our world. Soulutions could include new particles, all that dark matter/enercgy, strings, strapels, whatever shit you want. The only way to check solution is practical experiment (observation for astrophysics).
Math is not a science, it is a language to describe our universe. And as with any other language, you could easily make grammatically correct sentence that will have no any sense.
What astro/partical physics theorists do - is constructing that grammatically correct sentences and then throwing them to practics to find any sense in them. While practics check that "phrase", possibly in very hard, expensive and long way, theorists create 10 more such grammatically correct phrases.
It is practics who have to find that values for formulas you are talking about. And it is much harder in all senses than to pop yet another "sentence".