4 ms·

How is this different than when we pretended there was another planet, Vulcan, to reconcile Newtonian physics with the unexplainable phenomenons physicists noti

How is this different than when we pretended there was another planet, Vulcan, to reconcile Newtonian physics with the unexplainable phenomenons physicists noticed until others and eventually Einstein came along to prove that the theory was wrong ?

exe34 2y ago
The difficulty in changing the known laws of physics is that they still have to apply to everything else that has already been observed correctly. So it's probably true that there is another planet out there given these observations, but it's not impossible that the laws of physics themselves need further adjustments.
- Clent 2y ago
  The article doesn't even state it this strongly. The claim is that planet 9 is the best explanation. Another explanation offered is that there was a previous planet that affected the existing planet's orbits and it is no longer there. The article also notes that this claim is being made by the same scientist that popularized the idea of a planet 9. There is plenty of room for doubting this specific planet 9 claim without changing any laws of physics.
  - exe34 2y ago
    > There is plenty of room for doubting this specific planet 9 claim without changing any laws of physics. For sure!
plasticchris 2y ago
This, ether, and dark matter. The equations don’t agree with observations so we invent a thing we have not observed to explain it. I wish it would be explained like this in popular science, went to a planetarium and they presented dark matter as absolute fact.
- dotnet00 2y ago
  For the average person, dark matter should be presented as absolute fact. It's the leading explanation that best explains most of the associated phenomenon, and the average person has repeatedly shown themselves to be unable to understand what a scientist means when they call something a theory. Emphasizing that we haven't explicitly discovered what dark matter actually consists of inevitably leads to people who don't understand the evidence dismissing it as "made up" and instead pushing explanations that have a much higher burden of proof (eg modified gravity or modified light speed, which struggle on the point that there are structures which have more or less "extra mass" than usual).
  - plasticchris 2y ago
    It should be presented as this is what we think, there are some gaps we filled in here, and these gaps are usually where the next big advance comes from. No need to even use the word theory, just explain in simple words and people can get it.
  - bryanlarsen 2y ago
    And then we lose those people completely when the "facts" change. Better not to call them facts in the first place.
    - jjk166 2y ago
      The facts don't change. Apples fell to the ground when we thought newtonian gravity was correct, they still fall to the ground now that general relativity is the accepted explanation. Theories are explanations of factual observations. The observation of the phenomenon we're calling dark matter is as factual as apples falling to the ground. The explanation is subject to change as we learn more, but the facts won't.
      - bryanlarsen 2y ago
        dotnet00 said we should call dark matter an "absolute fact".
perihelions 2y ago
To be fair, this is also more or less how we found Neptune. Boring, simple explanations are often the right ones. Not every horse is secretly a zebra. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_Neptune https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_Neptune - "The planet Neptune was mathematically predicted before it was directly observed. With a prediction by Urbain Le Verrier, telescopic observations confirming the existence of a major planet were made on the night of September 23–24, 1846,[1] at the Berlin Observatory, by astronomer Johann Gottfried Galle (assisted by Heinrich Louis d'Arrest), working from Le Verrier's calculations. It was a sensational moment of 19th-century science, and dramatic confirmation of Newtonian gravitational theory. In François Arago's apt phrase, Le Verrier had discovered a planet "with the point of his pen"."
- notresidenter 2y ago
  You're right, but with Neptune, they were able to empirically verify that: oh, there's a planet there. Here's they've made the calculations because those (afaik) fit in the current model and they've concluded: oh, there's (most likely) a planet there. They are only half way there (afaik, but I could have misunderstood their point)

exe34 2y ago

The difficulty in changing the known laws of physics is that they still have to apply to everything else that has already been observed correctly. So it's probably true that there is another planet out there given these observations, but it's not impossible that the laws of physics themselves need further adjustments.

Clent 2y ago
The article doesn't even state it this strongly. The claim is that planet 9 is the best explanation. Another explanation offered is that there was a previous planet that affected the existing planet's orbits and it is no longer there. The article also notes that this claim is being made by the same scientist that popularized the idea of a planet 9. There is plenty of room for doubting this specific planet 9 claim without changing any laws of physics.
- exe34 2y ago
  > There is plenty of room for doubting this specific planet 9 claim without changing any laws of physics. For sure!

plasticchris 2y ago

This, ether, and dark matter. The equations don’t agree with observations so we invent a thing we have not observed to explain it. I wish it would be explained like this in popular science, went to a planetarium and they presented dark matter as absolute fact.

dotnet00 2y ago
For the average person, dark matter should be presented as absolute fact. It's the leading explanation that best explains most of the associated phenomenon, and the average person has repeatedly shown themselves to be unable to understand what a scientist means when they call something a theory. Emphasizing that we haven't explicitly discovered what dark matter actually consists of inevitably leads to people who don't understand the evidence dismissing it as "made up" and instead pushing explanations that have a much higher burden of proof (eg modified gravity or modified light speed, which struggle on the point that there are structures which have more or less "extra mass" than usual).
- plasticchris 2y ago
  It should be presented as this is what we think, there are some gaps we filled in here, and these gaps are usually where the next big advance comes from. No need to even use the word theory, just explain in simple words and people can get it.
- bryanlarsen 2y ago
  And then we lose those people completely when the "facts" change. Better not to call them facts in the first place.
  - jjk166 2y ago
    The facts don't change. Apples fell to the ground when we thought newtonian gravity was correct, they still fall to the ground now that general relativity is the accepted explanation. Theories are explanations of factual observations. The observation of the phenomenon we're calling dark matter is as factual as apples falling to the ground. The explanation is subject to change as we learn more, but the facts won't.
    - bryanlarsen 2y ago
      dotnet00 said we should call dark matter an "absolute fact".

perihelions 2y ago

To be fair, this is also more or less how we found Neptune. Boring, simple explanations are often the right ones. Not every horse is secretly a zebra. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_Neptune https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_Neptune - "The planet Neptune was mathematically predicted before it was directly observed. With a prediction by Urbain Le Verrier, telescopic observations confirming the existence of a major planet were made on the night of September 23–24, 1846,[1] at the Berlin Observatory, by astronomer Johann Gottfried Galle (assisted by Heinrich Louis d'Arrest), working from Le Verrier's calculations. It was a sensational moment of 19th-century science, and dramatic confirmation of Newtonian gravitational theory. In François Arago's apt phrase, Le Verrier had discovered a planet "with the point of his pen"."

notresidenter 2y ago
You're right, but with Neptune, they were able to empirically verify that: oh, there's a planet there. Here's they've made the calculations because those (afaik) fit in the current model and they've concluded: oh, there's (most likely) a planet there. They are only half way there (afaik, but I could have misunderstood their point)