Gravity Is A Social Construct, And That's Ok

Comments · 3.9K

• GA

  @GabeNode21 · 2 years ago

  As a Scottish person, but not a physicist, I can only give one possible explanation. The Dark Matter model is maybe really big in England, so Scottish physicists just looked for other models out of pure contrarianism.

  1.3K

• MA

  @marcodallolio9746 · 2 years ago

  It's always fun to witness scientists grapple with the much dreaded fact they are human beings

  2.3K

• DS

  @dstarling61 · 2 years ago

  I found it humorous, that after lamenting that today’s physicists don’t create great art, she shows a picture of definitely, actually, Brian May, an Astrophysicist who makes great art (the guitar solo in Bohemian Rhapsody for example.

  16

• DI

  @DiputchiCAT · 2 years ago

  I’m a marine biologist doing my Masters and omg a huge realisation I’ve had in my life is that conservation is not an environmental issue, it’s a sociological one. People are at the very front and centre of everything we do as scientists and it’s so important to remember that we don’t seek to better understand our world, we seek to make our world fit within a framework that we as humans find palatable. The environment doesn’t need to be “managed” or “conserved”, our human behaviours need management and that MUST be the focus of conservation efforts.

  1.4K

• MA

  @matthias5435 · 2 years ago

  The way people view the public heavily affects how classes are taught.<br><br> In my planetary geology class we had a unit on public misinformation. The class&apos;s immidiate reaction was to joke about how stupid people are and ofc the moon landing is real. <br><br>But that exact mindset is what we need to get over when interacting with the public. We need to meet people at their level so we can build a stronger foundation for them to process information on.

  42

• CH

  @chidiao · 2 years ago

  “Sometimes the cat knowledge is enough” has officially been entered into my lexicon

  117

• EL

  @elijahcook6129 · 2 years ago

  I Sent my brother this video yesterday, and he just texted me this morning “I have now watched everything Dr. Fatima put out.” I guess we are big fans

  330

• HY

  @hymio1646 · 2 years ago

  The astronaut dropping the pen and looking so heartbreakingly confused spoke to me on a spiritual level

  1K

• SI

  @SirChris314 · 1 year ago

  re <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cy4rOY0Bjko&amp;t=3237">53:57</a> as a computer science guy, omg AI and AGI. there is this sort of cult-like obsession with creating the AI that will break the barrier into some super powerful General Intelligence and become something out of a sci fi movie despite most sane programmers being able to acknowledge that the current wave of LLMs are simply not concerned with things like truth or logic (not necessarily a value judgement, they just perform poorly in these regards). a cultural obsession with skynet (and money ig) has people to trying to sell these LLMs as something they aren&apos;t without even considering whether it&apos;s a even a worthwhile thing to pursue

  16

• KA

  @kappaprimus · 2 years ago

  First, I saw the title and thought that someone was making a video to pick on some other content creator who claimed that &quot;gravity is a construct&quot;.<br>Then, I saw the video length and thought that I was to expect this to be a part of some long running argument between two people.<br>Then I saw that it was you who made it and immediately clicked, (now glad that it wasn&apos;t a click bait title).<br><br>And finally I watched it, and was absolutely not disappointed. We really need to delve into the politics of the &quot;hard&quot; Sciences and academia. It&apos;s insane how much they get away by claiming that science has nothing to do with politics (as if it isn&apos;t humans trying to create this system, or as if it is some divine sorta objectivity).

  12

• PE

  @petermceachern7802 · 2 years ago

  I&apos;m a PhD student in this field called industrial/organizational psychology, AKA I/O psychology, AKA work psychology. Broadly speaking, we develop and apply psychology knowledge to the workplace. <br><br>I could write so much about all of the unacknowledged biases that plague our field (and I have published some stuff), but one angle that your video made me think of is that some of the first influential people to do the stuff we now do weren&apos;t psychologists, but engineers. So, we&apos;re kind of trained to treat organizations like machines and the people in them like parts of a machine. We treat the employment relationship completely apolitically, assuming that employee-employer conflict, even in the name of worker advocacy, is undesirable and the ultimate goal should be to have employees and employers be on the same page about everything. But because refusing to take sides in an uneven power relationship means you&apos;re functionally taking the more powerful side, while we&apos;re amazing at helping work units to be more productive, if we can&apos;t make &quot;the business case&quot; (i.e., demonstrate profitability or at least win over CEOs) for something that&apos;s good for workers, we either blame ourselves for not speaking business language fluently enough (even though business sensibilities are directly opposed to good science in many ways) or we just kind of throw our hands up and declare it to be beyond the scope of our science (e.g., we do almost no research on labor unions—at least in the US). It&apos;s endlessly frustrating. We could provide real creative fuel for worker activism if we could just acknowledge all this stuff and work to remedy it. Not everyone in the field sees it the way I do FWIW, but I think (hope) more of us are coming around.

  612

• KA

  @Kaepsele337 · 2 years ago

  I&apos;m a particle physicist. What convinced me that MOND is not a valid description of nature is two observations. First, the bullet cluster, where the dark matter from two galaxies has been separated from the visible matter in a collision of two galaxies. Second, that we have found galaxies without dark matter. To my understanding, this conclusively disproves any theory that proposes a change in fundamental laws to explain the observations. Although I think from a philosophical standpoint the MOND theories (or other theories that are not just &quot;more particles&quot;) would be more interesting, we cannot ignore observations.<br><br>Also, I recognize that the MOND/dark matter discussion was not the main point of the video, and the argument the video presents still works. But I wanted to give that context anyways.

  176