3 ms·
« Stunning evidence » … then later on: « Instead, the readings _seem_ to support a basis for MOND, which _would_ force astronomers and cosmologists to reconsid
by Bengalilol 2y ago
« Stunning evidence »
… then later on:
« Instead, the readings _seem_ to support a basis for MOND, which _would_ force astronomers and cosmologists to reconsider this alternative and long-controversial theory of gravity. »
What’s conditional evidence? I may be missing the overall picture, but I view such writing as non precise at its best.
- MattPalmer1086 2y agoIt's just typical pop sci journalism, with a click baity headline. Read the paper instead.
- Bengalilol 2y agoThanks, I will. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ad834d https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ad834d
- joe_the_user 2y agoNot entirely typical. MOND proponents seem to be trying more and more sell their approach to the public. It annoys me but I suppose every theory has to do that now, "the mouse trap must go to market now" and all.
- akvadrako 2y agoWell you have to convince somebody to pay researchers for their time, which ultimately means selling your idea to non-experts.
- bbor 2y agoWell, it’s evidence that a) must be verified on a mathematical and empirical level, and b) (arguably) fits better with a currently unpopular theory than the dominant one. There’s so many unknowns in physics that opponents can easily reply “well your theory doesn’t explain XYZ yet, so we likely just need to tweak our theory”. In other words, reasonable minds do disagree. AFAIU as an amateur.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- yieldcrv 2y agoThere is no consensus yet, there is no repeatable metric It is perfectly valid to say “hey look over there for further review”