this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2024
68 points (81.5% liked)

science

14632 readers
425 users here now

just science related topics. please contribute

note: clickbait sources/headlines aren't liked generally. I've posted crap sources and later deleted or edit to improve after complaints. whoops, sry

Rule 1) Be kind.

lemmy.world rules: https://mastodon.world/about

I don't screen everything, lrn2scroll

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] iopq 69 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (8 children)

There are many claims like this, and it's hard to tell who's right. Even the Nobel prize committee said fuck it and awarded the physics prize to some programmers

[–] [email protected] 35 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It's usually pretty easy to tell which new theories can be discarded because they don't explain all the observations that lead us to the dark matter theory in the first place (like e.g. the Bullet Cluster). Or it would be easy if media wasn't full of uncritical clickbait fluff pieces like this that rather make sensationalist claims than contextualizing how a new study fits into the existing science.

[–] Drunemeton 12 points 2 weeks ago

It’s interesting that the article mentions them looking for tests, yet doesn’t mention applying the theory to things we’ve already tested with other predictions. The Bullet Cluster, for example.

That seems really suspect to me. It would seem ‘a given’ to run the hypothesis against that which is already measured to validate it, or not. But to ignore established metrics and go out looking seems to be a fish looking for fishermen.

load more comments (6 replies)