2 ms·

What she means is that the bar for proving that this is an error in physics is much higher than that of proving that it's a measurement error. Like, if you're m

What she means is that the bar for proving that this is an error in physics is much higher than that of proving that it's a measurement error. Like, if you're measuring acceleration due to gravity, and your sensor/calculation gives you 5m/s^2 rather than the real ~9.81m/s^2 that everything else measures, you can't immediately resort to arguing that physics is wrong, you have to rule out that your sensor/calculation is wrong first. To argue that the physics is wrong, you are likely to be arguing that very well tested theories like general relativity, special relativity or electromagnetism are off in some way. That's a much higher bar than just the measurements of either the ladder or CMB being wrong in some way.

exe34 2y ago
to add to this, it's equivalent to the difference between trying to justify that one experiment (or one class of experiments) is wrong vs several dozens of classes of thousands of experiments are all subtly wrong so that this one experiment can be right.
DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
And in this case, your sensor isn't giving a wildly wrong answer like 5 m/s^2, but rather something close to the correct answer, like 9.15 m/s^2. It's easy to think up ways that your sensor could be 5-10% off. It's very difficult to come up with an entirely new theory of gravity that explains everything we observe about the world, but also makes gravity a few percent weaker in this one case.