Nice video, looks complete!
Wiki/Science wrote:Science (from the Latin word
scientia, meaning "
knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
For the fun of it, in an unmonetized unreviewed random forum post, let's try to poke back a bit. Let's figure out which one is a more scientific hoax:
- Things considered valid because it brings balance yet remains unobserved;
- Things observed yet considered invalid because it brings unbalance.
- Dark matter
Mysterious non-luminous matter (and/or radiation) comprising most of the matter in our observable universe
Galaxies are not bright enough for its rotation and should explode but don't, and the universe is expanding too fast and shouldn't explode but still is...
That spooky gravity over a distance...!!
And to rectify assumed implications we need to introduce non-self-interacting dark-stuffff.
With a tiny bit of mathematical insight we could all imagine the probable necessity, but that doesn't make it right to tweak the data until it fits the formula's and then tweak the formula to handle that invented data.
We classify this dark-stuff on the quantity that needs to be tweaked. So we have dark-matter to handle mass inconsistencies, dark-energy to handle energy inconsistencies, dark-force for the fun of it.... and dark-fluid, but that one has nothing to do with fluid but flexes with negative mass.
And most importantly, this dark-stuff is never experimentally verified, only somewhat implied. Seems totally non-scientific to me.
No one really knows what the other scientist is fiddling exactly to curve-fit the data of interest, unless specifically instructed by some paper. And when it does finally match then there's no use for it in real life nor reproducible from the ground up by any other with similar interest in numerological strategies.
- Perpetual motion
work is continuously done without an external supply of energy
A non-working perpetual motion machine, on the other hand, simply refuses to work... and we can throw all kinds of science to such observation in order to attempt to explain how and why.
Researching perpetual motion teaches a lot about the basis of mechanics, physics, its mathematics and (most important) deductive reasoning skills...
Every one can try it at their own pace, at their own level of understanding yet with reproducible results (when opinion gets out of the way!). And from there we can all build on previous successes and failures and become experts even when we will never ever see a self-rotating thing.
It's possible we collectively haven't exhausted all the possibilities that could enable discovery of perpetual motion. While it's more safe to assume any new attempt is not that unique, on itself it doesn't harm to try anyway because at the very minimum it raises levels of understanding.
One could claim that dark matter theories has more satisfied 'costumers' than those perpetual motion 'hobbyists'. But that's hardly a solid argument, and actually shows the issue.
True, perhaps dark matter research will probably lead to better understanding and better mathematical descriptions of the universe, and we may need this temporary scientific world-wide screw-up to get there eventually. But with the same obstacles, know that a working perpetual motion machine will have a more profound influence on the entire universe.
When the majority (85%) of the universe needs to be invented and addressed to this so-called dark-stuff for which there's no other reason than to explain things unknown, then that also implies that we simply don't understand the majority of reality... (Just say that we don't know).
Hopefully without getting self-deluded we can also state that Perpetual motion could be implied to exist from this gravity-implied dark-stuff.
While we're at it, let's introduce another idea to think about:
Perhaps it is the necessary purpose of universal evolution to invent 'perpetual motion' that feeds* on dark-energy in order to guarantee the rebirth of our universe. #Duty-bound.
* When working with a source that can't be detected then do we consider it to be a trick, or do we consider it to be self-contained?
