Editing Talk:2113: Physics Suppression

Jump to: navigation, search
Ambox notice.png Please sign your posts with ~~~~

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision Your text
Line 22: Line 22:
 
:Dark energy IS the conspiracy! Quantum Inertia is being suppressed by [https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/436874/does-quantized-inertia-theory-violate-conservation-of-momentum Physics Exchange]! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.59|162.158.91.59]] 08:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)  
 
:Dark energy IS the conspiracy! Quantum Inertia is being suppressed by [https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/436874/does-quantized-inertia-theory-violate-conservation-of-momentum Physics Exchange]! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.59|162.158.91.59]] 08:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)  
 
: TBH, It's not like the existence of "Dark Energy" is proven or anything. It's current function in the equations is "there's something generating gravity here that looks like there should be matter we can see, but we can't see it." It might just be a completely unknown physics thing that we just haven't accounted for in the models. While there might be some sort of matter that we truly can only detect through it's gravitational field, I'm not gonna be surprised if some day it's proven that the current dark matter theory is bullshit. (Note: Which does not in any way invalidate the Nobel Prize - there are measurements, and these show that there's stuff out there we don't know about. Therefore.... more research needed.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.160|162.158.92.160]] 16:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 
: TBH, It's not like the existence of "Dark Energy" is proven or anything. It's current function in the equations is "there's something generating gravity here that looks like there should be matter we can see, but we can't see it." It might just be a completely unknown physics thing that we just haven't accounted for in the models. While there might be some sort of matter that we truly can only detect through it's gravitational field, I'm not gonna be surprised if some day it's proven that the current dark matter theory is bullshit. (Note: Which does not in any way invalidate the Nobel Prize - there are measurements, and these show that there's stuff out there we don't know about. Therefore.... more research needed.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.160|162.158.92.160]] 16:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
: Yeah, the it is more like conflicting than anything. In any case, unrelated. So I removed the statement.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.59|162.158.91.59]] 10:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 
  
 
While it could be true that White Hat is ignored because of the lack of supporting data, Albert Einstein was in a similar situation when coming up with his Theory of Relativity. [[User:Mad max|Mad max]] ([[User talk:Mad max|talk]]) 06:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 
While it could be true that White Hat is ignored because of the lack of supporting data, Albert Einstein was in a similar situation when coming up with his Theory of Relativity. [[User:Mad max|Mad max]] ([[User talk:Mad max|talk]]) 06:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Please note that all contributions to explain xkcd may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see explain xkcd:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)

Template used on this page: