I DON'T NEED SCIENCE TO TELL ME THAT 5G IS CAUSING CANCER

Obviously any EM radiation can be damaging, just look at a laser, it delivers a lot of energy per area thus damaging you.
But what exactly is your point?
The heat caused by 5G is obviously not a problem.

>Science can't prove anything
Wait, are you the ee user that made the original quantum copypasta?

Attached: images (18).jpg (576x532, 35K)

>Wait, are you the ee user that made the original quantum copypasta?
No.
And this is just a nearly universally accepted fact.
Tell me one Modell of the universe which has been proven to be correct.

You should've just stayed at:
>Science can be slow to prove things

Fuck 5g i like birds

>One model of the universe which has been proven to be correct
Uhh, what about physics? Gravity? Quantums?
They are the reason you have your shit poster pc in the first place.

>>Science can be slow to prove things
No. Which Model about reality has been proven?
There are none, scientists CAN NOT prove their models

Correct, but after a million attempts to disprove the model, all have failed and so the model is used as it is the one we have that hasn't failed any tests that people have thought up for it.

>Uhh, what about physics? Gravity?
The Gravity described by Newton's laws is FALSE. Why are you assuming that Relativity is the correct description of the universe when all other models have failed before?

>They are the reason you have your shit poster pc in the first place.
No. The reason I have my PC is because scientist have created a VERY GOOD model that is very close to reality.
There is zero evidence (much less proof) that it is the perfect description of reality.

>Scientists can't prove anything
>Particle accelerators used to be a theory and not proven
>Now a real thing that creates stuff
Nigger are you retarded? Is this gonna be the thread of the day

Please, go ahead and disprove the law of gravity, sweetie. I'll wait.

They don't need to prove them, someone else needs to disprove them. If that can't be done, they stand as the current paradigm of understanding.

Lrn2scientific method retard.

It's a matter of philosophy. You can't truly know anything other than a priori things like how you yourself exist because you can always invent increasingly implausible things to explain something.

I absolutely agree that scientists have created very good models of reality which match our observations, but these models aren't correct.

>>Particle accelerators used to be a theory and not proven
You don't know what "proof" means.

The law of gravity, as described by Newtonian mechanics is universally accepted to be wrong by almost all phycists and it doesn't match up with observations, that is why Relativity exists in the first place.

>They don't need to prove them, someone else needs to disprove them. If that can't be done, they stand as the current paradigm of understanding.
Yes, that is what I am arguing. Scientists don't prove their models, that is the point of the scientific method.
If you could prove the correctness of a model, the scientific methods would be useless.

>scientist have created a VERY GOOD model that is very close to reality.
>There is zero evidence (much less proof) that it is the perfect description of reality.
>Very close
Doesn't matter, it got actual uses, and actual shit was made that WORKS based on Newton's gravity models
Or we are going to debunk space travel and say earth is flat?

>Doesn't matter
For the point I am arguing it is absolutely essential.
I argue that scientist don't PROVE things, which means their claims can be falsified by new evidence.

>it got actual uses, and actual shit was made that WORKS based on Newton's gravity models
Yes absolutely, nowhere have I argued otherwise.

>Or we are going to debunk space travel and say earth is flat?
No. I fully accept mainstream physics as an extremely good approximation to reality.
I just don't think believe that it is a perfect description, which describes the universe in it's entirety absolutely accurate and with that standpoint I am very much not alone.

>You don't know what proof means
>Also believes that science is false
Go KYS nigger
You can put ideas on paper
And try to prove them
If it doesn't work it's false
If it works then it werks
then you expand on that theory
This is science in a nutshell
What you are suggesting is if it works then it's still false, which suggests that you are a brainlet

>but these models aren't correct.
And I trust you have published, or can cite papers that disprove them?

>If it doesn't work it's false
>If it works then it werks
It working is NOT proof.

>What you are suggesting is if it works then it's still false
Not really. I am suggesting that scientific models have always the possibility to be falsified.

Let me ask you:
Do you think there is a scientific model of reality for which there is NO possibility of it being falsified by new evidence?

But what is actually gained from 5g besides the surveillance crap?

>I argue that scientist don't PROVE things, which means their claims can be falsified by new evidence.
And claims aren't falsified just because they can be and doubt is the nature of science, they are falsified when new evidence is presented and a difference is demonstrated. How hard is it to understand this, Jesus...

Newtonian mechanics being wrong is mainstream physics, even highschoolers learn that.
I actually thought of expanding on your quote after I made that post, what I meant was:
these models always have the possibility of being falsified by new evidence, as gas happened in the past.

>And claims aren't falsified just because they can be and doubt is the nature of science, they are falsified when new evidence is presented and a difference is demonstrated. How hard is it to understand this, Jesus...
If something has the possibility of being falsified it isn't proven, that is my entire point.

If you believe that scientists can prove things, that would mean that they can create models which CAN NOT be falsified by new evidence.
So do you think any scientific model is open to falsification or not?

>It working is NOT proof.
>Not really. I am suggesting that scientific models have always the possibility to be falsified.
And also equal possibility to be correct for all we know right now
What you are blatantly saying is that the possibility of these models being false is 100%

>What you are blatantly saying is that the possibility of these models being false is 100%
No, give a quote of me arguing for that.

Answer my question.

>If something has the possibility of being falsified it isn't proven, that is my entire point.
But this is just the nature of science. Will you now forego using modern medicine for example because current treatments can be falsified in the future? That's an implication and an unreasonable one.
>So do you think any scientific model is open to falsification or not?
I already said they are, but:
>Claims aren't falsified just because they can be

>Let me ask you:
>Do you think there is a scientific model of reality for which there is NO possibility of it being falsified by new evidence?
There is alot
But there is also PERFECT stuff that we base our reality upon
And you are saying that these stuff are close, but still not the whole thing
How do you know that?
As I said in my other post

nobody here organically shills for 5G

>I -hope- no one is that stupid anyway

More infrastructure = more power for citizens = more powerful country

Like asking what's great about electricity or highways or faster internet.

>But this is just the nature of science.
EXACTLY, that is my ENTIRE point, science can't prove things.

>Will you now forego using modern medicine for example because current treatments can be falsified in the future?
No, why would I? It's enough for me that our current evidence suggests that it helps me.

>>Claims aren't falsified just because they can be
Sure and I was never arguing for that.

>>>Claims aren't falsified just because they can be
>Sure and I was never arguing for that.
Also him
>Sciencez is falzeeee goyiiiz

Attached: images (1).png (521x589, 14K)

>But there is also PERFECT stuff that we base our reality upon
Such as?

>And you are saying that these stuff are close, but still not the whole thing
Well. The whole thing is also close, so me saying that it is an approximation doesn't actually imply that it isn't a perfect approximation. 1 is approximately 1.

>How do you know that?
I would suggest that considering historic precedence it is unlikely that we have found a perfect model, but I don't deny the possibility, although I think it's fairly low.

5g will do nothing for citizens. Nsa will love it though

I'm not , but that's what it boils down to. You are deeply confused.

>>Sciencez is falzeeee goyiiiz
Literally not me. MULTIPLE TIMES I have stated that I completely accept mainstream physics and that I am not seeking to bash on science.

Give a quote.

Energy over area isn't power, energy over time is power. What you're thinking of is a flux, radiation (or anything that's flowing) per unit area.

>but that's what it boils down to.
Where have I questioned the validity of science to make predictions?
Where have I even criticised science or even said anything that is NOT accepted by the scientific mainstream.

Give a quote.

>You are deeply confused.
About what? My agreement with mainstream science?

Yep, just like multi core processors and micro chips did nothing.

All these fucking brainlets that think they know the truth and blindly believe in models. Absolutely shameful.

it's the good kind of cancer

False equivalence. 5g is a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. Coverage is way more important like in rural areas but 5g can't even cover a city block

>cultural marxism the post

>I know everything guise
Everyone knows this is how every breakthrough came to be.

Attached: 1542431395764.png (331x132, 40K)

>>Science can be slow to prove things.

Attached: 1510101698118.png (1296x1458, 212K)

Then just have it cover every city block. Like China is doing, while us falls behind because of psyop chinks like you trying to stifle the US.

No. It is how science has worked for practically ever.

No scientists claim that their model is absolute unfalsifiable truth.

Awful lot of brainlets around here.

Attached: 1536031068827.jpg (1372x1952, 248K)

Jesus, this rebuttal is framed perfectly. I've been arguing with climate change deniers for years and haven't been able to make this point as clearly as you've made it, it's like youve made the argument that I've lacked the correct phrasing to say, thanks. Have a wojak.

Attached: 1518575680001.png (1011x1049, 222K)

???

China makes the tech if anything you're the 5 cent poster doing damage control

>but these models aren't correct.
Correct enough is all we need for a effective judgement on the safety of a technology. Not even a new technology here - it's a radio frequency we've known about for a century.

>this rebuttal is framed perfectly
No, it is literally retarded.
It assumes that science can show that something *isn't* harmful, which in practice is impossible.

>all these niggas who haven't heard of falsifiability
Natural science can only prove things wrong, it can't prove something is right. In fact if a theory in principle can not be proven wrong it's not science. The other requirement is the ability to make predictions.
>inb4 hurr math
Math is not a natural science.

Cherrypicking this hard.

more like cynicism and nihilism: the post

I mean, did you actually do all the experiments and make all the observations required for every theory you've been taught? Do you think that knowledge is static? Shit changes, nothing is more cringeworthy than the "I fucking love science" crowd who couldn't construct a coherent experiment to save their life, let alone collect the data, analysize it and draw meaningful conclusions.

>Correct enough is all we need for a effective judgement on the safety of a technology.
Sure, but not enough to call it *proven*.

>Not even a new technology here - it's a radio frequency we've known about for a century.
Yes and if you follow the discussion a bit further up that is EXACTLY what I was arguing.

It can prove a positive, no?

Don't make me post it, Mr Chin.

>Cherrypicking this hard.
All of physics from before the 19th century is probably wrong, the amount of scientific models which have been disproven is practically endless.

>Imagine being that autistic...

Attached: images.png (408x450, 12K)

it can prove your mother is a whore

>yo mama joke
Yeah fascinating. Got em hooked, right?

>All of physics from before the 19th century is probably wrong
It's 100% wrong because quantum mechanics still doesn't include gravity.

I'm in America so I would have no issue. Forget the science of it's health influence all other technical details about it suck besides bandwidth

b& incoming

thanks, I'll be here all week

No, not all of them
Stuff that have ALREADY been proven to be wrong are wrong
Stuff that wasn't proven to be wrong are not wrong
Stop talking outta your ass

Practically it is not possible to show something isn't harmful, you can eg. show that it's radiation is too weak to influence cells to harmful degree, but the possibilities in which something can harm the human body are practically endless and unless you have perfect knowledge about the human body they are mostly uncheckable.

>Do you think Newton's laws are proven?

Yes.
That's why they're called Laws.

There are *multiple* experiments that can prove each one is 100% correct.

Would you rather go to hell because you refused to pray or just pray until the hell is proven to not exist? Be sure to pray all those 2k+ gods invented so far :^)

Our very solar system proves they are wrong. Yawn.

Yes,
Now that brainlet suggests that they are not the whole truth,
And thus they are false

Newton's laws LITERALLY contradict relativity and relativity exists because the observations of planets didn't match Newtonian mechanics.
This is MAINSTREAM physics and taught in high-schools.

>There are *multiple* experiments that can prove each one is 100% correct.
The thought of proving something by experiment is absolutely ridiculous.

Alright then cupcake, give an example?

pffft, are you telling me I can't trust my own senses

>Yes,
Firstly, he is wrong.

>And thus they are false
They have long been falsified and even if they weren't i didn't claim that makes them false, just *not proven*.

>Now that brainlet suggests that they are not the whole truth,
Every physicist knows and accepts this.

Mercury's orbit.

>The law of gravity, as described by Newtonian mechanics is universally accepted to be wrong by almost all phycists and it doesn't match up with observations, that is why Relativity exists in the first place.

The Newtonian laws of Gravity is how we landed Man on the Moon, and how we just took photos of an asteroid 46 AU from the Sun by flying a probe past it.

General relativity does not *disprove* Newton's law of Gravitation, it merely expands on it, incorporating gravity's effect on space-time.

This thread is GOLD
Almost on par with ee nuPHD user trying to disprove quantum physics

>are you telling me I can't trust my own senses
My senses tell me the Earth is flat and absolutely stationary.
You shouldn't trust them too much, especially not when it comes to science.

Uh, no, sweetie, we can't even model orbits of our planets without significant deviations without taking general relativity into account.

>My senses tell me the Earth is flat and absolutely stationary.
>You shouldn't trust them too much, especially not when it comes to science.
Also him
>You shouldn't trust any bit of science at all, because everything is subjected to be disproven, thus being false
>You should trust ME

Attached: alz4NrP6_700w_0.jpg (700x957, 70K)

>Newtonian mechanics being wrong is mainstream physics, even highschoolers learn that.

Are you some kind of retard?
Newtonian physics is still the building blocks of physics taught in school.

Perhaps you come from an American school, which are terrible.

>>Pic related, Newton's formula for universal gravitation

Attached: Screen Shot 2019-01-05 at 6.03.06 pm.png (1530x632, 161K)

>The Newtonian laws of Gravity is how we landed Man on the Moon, and how we just took photos of an asteroid 46 AU from the Sun by flying a probe past it.
And? I am not arguing that Newtonian physics don't model reality very well.

>General relativity does not *disprove* Newton's law of Gravitation, it merely expands on it, incorporating gravity's effect on space-time.
Newtonian physics makes DIFFERENT predictions about the same things, one of them HAS to be wrong.
It also implies that the there can be no highest speed, which Relativity tells us is false.

>Also him
>>You shouldn't trust any bit of science at all, because everything is subjected to be disproven, thus being false
>>You should trust ME
No. I never said that, infact I said the opposite.

Give a quote.

>The thought of proving something by experiment is absolutely ridiculous.

This is literally why experiments exist...
What the actual fuck are you talking about?

>Newtonian physics is still the building blocks of physics taught in school.
Yes. It's also important in engineering as it provides a good, but demonstrably false representation of reality.

>>>Pic related, Newton's formula for universal gravitation
Experiments show it is wrong.

>>CITATION NEEDED

>This is literally why experiments exist...
No. Experiments exist to falsify.
They can NOT show that a theory is unfalsifiable and only an unfalsifiable theory can be considered proven.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Perihelion_precession_of_Mercury
It's literally taught in highschool's that Newtonian mechanics fails to describe many thing correctly.
GR also explains why Newton's physics is almost correct on small scales.