▲ 840 ▼ James Webb telescope confirms there is something seriously wrong with our understanding of the universe (www.livescience.com) submitted 2 years ago by some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org to c/news@lemmy.world 298 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] rambaroo@lemmynsfw.com 18 points 2 years ago (1 child) I think it's better to say that Newtonian physics is incomplete rather than wrong. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Malfeasant@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) Bingo. All models are "wrong", good models are useful despite being "wrong". Relativity is wrong too since it can't account for anything quantum... Relativity isn't better, it's just more accurate under certain conditions - but outside of those conditions it's more complex than it needs to be, and Newton's models are good enough. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Ah. So it’s relative. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Tinidril@midwest.social 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Ultimately, all science and all knowledge about the universe around us is always going to be relative and incomplete. They are all just models. The only model that's complete is the universe itself, and we can't cram that into our tiny brains. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago Correction. We can't cram that into our tiny brains and still be "human". We would likely be something on a closer level of, say, the "Q" from Star Trek. Or possibly Urza from Magic the Gathering. Which, based on my understanding of the lore of both IPs, I would rather be Q than be Urza. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Malfeasant@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) Bingo. All models are "wrong", good models are useful despite being "wrong". Relativity is wrong too since it can't account for anything quantum... Relativity isn't better, it's just more accurate under certain conditions - but outside of those conditions it's more complex than it needs to be, and Newton's models are good enough. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Ah. So it’s relative. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Tinidril@midwest.social 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Ultimately, all science and all knowledge about the universe around us is always going to be relative and incomplete. They are all just models. The only model that's complete is the universe itself, and we can't cram that into our tiny brains. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago Correction. We can't cram that into our tiny brains and still be "human". We would likely be something on a closer level of, say, the "Q" from Star Trek. Or possibly Urza from Magic the Gathering. Which, based on my understanding of the lore of both IPs, I would rather be Q than be Urza. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Ah. So it’s relative. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Tinidril@midwest.social 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Ultimately, all science and all knowledge about the universe around us is always going to be relative and incomplete. They are all just models. The only model that's complete is the universe itself, and we can't cram that into our tiny brains. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago Correction. We can't cram that into our tiny brains and still be "human". We would likely be something on a closer level of, say, the "Q" from Star Trek. Or possibly Urza from Magic the Gathering. Which, based on my understanding of the lore of both IPs, I would rather be Q than be Urza. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Ultimately, all science and all knowledge about the universe around us is always going to be relative and incomplete. They are all just models. The only model that's complete is the universe itself, and we can't cram that into our tiny brains. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago Correction. We can't cram that into our tiny brains and still be "human". We would likely be something on a closer level of, say, the "Q" from Star Trek. Or possibly Urza from Magic the Gathering. Which, based on my understanding of the lore of both IPs, I would rather be Q than be Urza. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago Correction. We can't cram that into our tiny brains and still be "human". We would likely be something on a closer level of, say, the "Q" from Star Trek. Or possibly Urza from Magic the Gathering. Which, based on my understanding of the lore of both IPs, I would rather be Q than be Urza. permalink fedilink source parent