3 ms·

They just asked a question and put some context of the basis for the question. I think you read something that isn't there.

by weego 8y ago

phoenixstrike 8y ago
Oh please. You think saying something like “i dont understand why they keep saying this, but if it were up to me (as a mathematician not a physicist), I would be doing it this way, not that way...” is innocent? Its pretty much textbook passive aggressive condescension.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  They're as much an armchair physicist by questioning the inverse-square rule as you're an armchair psychologist by invoking "passive aggressive condescension". Or do you actually have the necessary qualifications to make that diagnosis? Seriously though, it's a good question. Inverse-square rule is most likely well-founded, but reexamining such foundations is how you make theoretical progress - at least in mathematics, if I'm to believe Polya. I am not a mathematician itself, but it does seem like a pattern that generalizes well into solving theoretical problems in all domains ;).
- pushpop 8y ago
  Sometimes the best way to understand a problem is to ask lots of questions. And the best way to get a meaningful response is to frame those questions with context. I don’t read any ego in the GPs tone - just an individual who was curious about a physics problem and wanted that explained in a language he understood (hence the mathematics context).
SiempreViernes 8y ago
The were kinda rude about it though, ”why on earth” is not the humblest expression to prefix a question, especially when asking outside ones domiain knowledge. And the answer is simply that they are ill informed about r^2 being the best fit to all the data, popular talks just use rotation curves as a simple to explain justification and don’t bother with structure formation arguments and the like.
- mikorym 8y ago
  OP here, "why on earth" was in context to the talk. At said talk the person assumed the audience generally want r^2 to hold, but did not mention that r^2 should preferably hold (for the reasons posted in other comments). In fact, the scope of the talk was much different. It mainly was to explain how we are looking for dark matter. Of course, this slightly diffirent topic is still very interesting. It happens to be confusing, though, for a person that may prefer theory extension over empirical extension (in their own research).

They just asked a question and put some context of the basis for the question. I think you read something that isn't there.

by weego 8y ago

They just asked a question and put some context of the basis for the question. I think you read something that isn't there.

phoenixstrike 8y ago

Oh please. You think saying something like “i dont understand why they keep saying this, but if it were up to me (as a mathematician not a physicist), I would be doing it this way, not that way...” is innocent? Its pretty much textbook passive aggressive condescension.

TeMPOraL 8y ago
They're as much an armchair physicist by questioning the inverse-square rule as you're an armchair psychologist by invoking "passive aggressive condescension". Or do you actually have the necessary qualifications to make that diagnosis? Seriously though, it's a good question. Inverse-square rule is most likely well-founded, but reexamining such foundations is how you make theoretical progress - at least in mathematics, if I'm to believe Polya. I am not a mathematician itself, but it does seem like a pattern that generalizes well into solving theoretical problems in all domains ;).
pushpop 8y ago
Sometimes the best way to understand a problem is to ask lots of questions. And the best way to get a meaningful response is to frame those questions with context. I don’t read any ego in the GPs tone - just an individual who was curious about a physics problem and wanted that explained in a language he understood (hence the mathematics context).

SiempreViernes 8y ago

The were kinda rude about it though, ”why on earth” is not the humblest expression to prefix a question, especially when asking outside ones domiain knowledge. And the answer is simply that they are ill informed about r^2 being the best fit to all the data, popular talks just use rotation curves as a simple to explain justification and don’t bother with structure formation arguments and the like.

mikorym 8y ago
OP here, "why on earth" was in context to the talk. At said talk the person assumed the audience generally want r^2 to hold, but did not mention that r^2 should preferably hold (for the reasons posted in other comments). In fact, the scope of the talk was much different. It mainly was to explain how we are looking for dark matter. Of course, this slightly diffirent topic is still very interesting. It happens to be confusing, though, for a person that may prefer theory extension over empirical extension (in their own research).