>Newton: In an inertial reference frame, an object either

>>8758102
>What is this fallacy called?
Science

>>8758103
>>/x/

Sorry, this is /sci/. We only accept scientific arguments here.

>>8758102
>Sees object accelerate without any force acting on it

That either:
>a.) doesn't happen
>b.)Happens in a non-inertial frame

What object travels without force op?

I think OP meant to reference newton's laws not working in extremely high scales (such as universes) and scientist blaming dark matter and energy for it

The Newtonian scientific method consists of making experiments, observing the world and describing it with mathematical laws. It's nothing more than that. It's not up to science to make claims about the nature of the universe and thus to make metaphysical assumptions. So it's wrong to think that science gives us deep knowledge about the universe, but it only gives us some really useful tools. "Hypotheses non fingo".

>>8758102
>hurr durrr why doesnt classical mechanics describe quantum effects

if this sounds retarded to you then switch quantum effects with large scales in universe and see if it makes sense

does an inertial frame even exist

>>8758133
>>8758162
An apple falling down from a tree.

He just chose to call that force gravity and not "dark force".

>>8758306
>does an inertial frame even exist

What's with all the brainlets deploying tactical nihilism on the board lately?

>>8758306
it's a useful tool to describe reality, like all science, but from a onthological point of view, unless you are some kind of platonist, it doesn't exist.