@Srinivas Aprameya H.s Any theory is derived from certain fundamental laws/ axioms/ postulates, which are framed after carrying out certain observations, which reveal or seem to reveal some phenomena at a deeper level. When studying any theory, it is not about wrong or right, the correct question to ask is: What is the limit of this theory? Up to what resolution the results predicted by it are correct? What were the assumptions made in getting the results from it? The observed phenomena from which the fundamental laws were framed, do we have or can we develop the technology to probe it further? What are the things which it is unable to explain? What was the resolution of the instrument used in proving the theory? What were the error bars in the experiments/ observations? Has any phenomenon gone unnoticed while deriving it? While getting the results from new observations has the contribution of the theory been considered in all aspects? If yes, then what is the new phenomena that we are observing? Can it be explained by modifying or adding to the older theory? Or is a new theory required to be defined/ formulated? If yes, can it explain all the earlier phenomena? All these questions help in determining the limitations of a theory, thereby motivating us to develop a better theory, and ultimately extending the understanding of the universe.
@@srinivasaprameyah.s468 It's a little less clumped than the GR prediction if given the observations of the cosmic microwave background. So could be GR is off, could be something else in new physics, could be an error by us or in CMB experiments, or could be everything agrees, and just statistical fluctuations means the observations are a bit different right now. We'll have some papers later this year that explore our data's implications more specifically for GR vs non-GR models (or modified-GR models). Everything we released yesterday assumes GR is correct in the analysis.
@@thedarkenergysurvey1325 ya pls release it soon , I don't think GR is broken ,also I think ur analysis is top notch ,might be trouble with model(inflation).
Can we get the presentation?
@Srinivas Aprameya H.s
Any theory is derived from certain fundamental laws/ axioms/ postulates, which are framed after carrying out certain observations, which reveal or seem to reveal some phenomena at a deeper level. When studying any theory, it is not about wrong or right, the correct question to ask is: What is the limit of this theory? Up to what resolution the results predicted by it are correct? What were the assumptions made in getting the results from it? The observed phenomena from which the fundamental laws were framed, do we have or can we develop the technology to probe it further? What are the things which it is unable to explain? What was the resolution of the instrument used in proving the theory? What were the error bars in the experiments/ observations? Has any phenomenon gone unnoticed while deriving it? While getting the results from new observations has the contribution of the theory been considered in all aspects? If yes, then what is the new phenomena that we are observing? Can it be explained by modifying or adding to the older theory? Or is a new theory required to be defined/ formulated? If yes, can it explain all the earlier phenomena? All these questions help in determining the limitations of a theory, thereby motivating us to develop a better theory, and ultimately extending the understanding of the universe.
Pls tell me GR is not violated !!!
Why it would be violated?!!I don't think that or at least I hope so 😅 !
Cause the difference is tiny!
@@cheimaamine-khodja682 they say matter is less clumped then predicted by GR
@@srinivasaprameyah.s468 It's a little less clumped than the GR prediction if given the observations of the cosmic microwave background. So could be GR is off, could be something else in new physics, could be an error by us or in CMB experiments, or could be everything agrees, and just statistical fluctuations means the observations are a bit different right now.
We'll have some papers later this year that explore our data's implications more specifically for GR vs non-GR models (or modified-GR models). Everything we released yesterday assumes GR is correct in the analysis.
@@thedarkenergysurvey1325 ya pls release it soon , I don't think GR is broken ,also I think ur analysis is top notch ,might be trouble with model(inflation).
@@nix324 are u flat earther?
Light has a repulsive force.