Conversation

You’re unable to view this Tweet because this account owner limits who can view their Tweets. Learn more
You’re unable to view this Tweet because this account owner limits who can view their Tweets. Learn more
Replying to
Except Neptune distortions didn't require assumption of exotic types of matter, just an undetected lump of regular matter, so the analogy doesn't quite work. It's not a limitation of instruments or observations. It's an ontological limitation of theory.
1
1
You’re unable to view this Tweet because this account owner limits who can view their Tweets. Learn more
You’re unable to view this Tweet because this account owner limits who can view their Tweets. Learn more
Replying to
"gravity" itself has undergone 2 redefinitions that completely altered its ontological character. It was a "force" under Newton, a space-time curvature effect under Einstein, and now a "wave-particle" under quantum gravity type theories. So the word doesn't matter much.
2
1
You’re unable to view this Tweet because this account owner limits who can view their Tweets. Learn more
Replying to
I'm not sure what you're arguing about tbh. There are observations that admit certain unsatisfactory descriptions under current models. It is okay to call unsatisfactory things unsatisfactory as far as I'm concerned.
2
1
You’re unable to view this Tweet because this account owner limits who can view their Tweets. Learn more