Markets
Will a new precise value of the gravitational constant (Big G) be published by September 30, 2027?
Yes0%No0%
Loading...
About this market
This market resolves to Yes if a peer-reviewed scientific paper or a public announcement reports a new precise value of the gravitational constant (Big G) with improved accuracy (e.g., a smaller uncertainty) compared to current known experimental results by September 30, 2027. The announcement must be made by a credible organization such as NIST, a major university, or a prominent journal like Nature or Science. If no such announcement is made by this date, the market resolves to No.
Rules
- Market closes September 30, 2027 (ET).
- Logic weighted resolution applies.
tbh, I don't see a new precise value for Big G dropping anytime soon. The last major updates were back in the early 2000s, and it took years to get consensus on those. Plus, the experiments to nail it down are super tricky; it might even take longer than just a year. I think the market's being kinda optimistic here.
Rationale:The comment provides a mostly accurate assessment of the historical context regarding the gravitational constant, noting that significant updates have not occurred recently and that experiments are complex. It avoids logical fallacies and is relevant to the market question, though it could benefit from more specific data or references to current research. The weights reflect a balanced emphasis on factual accuracy and relevance, given the comment's analytical nature.
Current odds seem too optimistic. Researchers have struggled with measuring G accurately for decades, so I doubt we'll see a breakthrough in the next year. Seems like a low-probability event to me.
Rationale:The comment accurately reflects the historical challenges in measuring the gravitational constant, which supports a skeptical view of the market's optimism. It is logically sound and directly relevant to the market question, with no significant fallacies present. The weights emphasize the importance of factual accuracy and logical reasoning, given the context of the comment's analysis of probabilities.
It's hard to imagine a new precise value for the gravitational constant being published within just a year. The scientific community has been grappling with accurate measurements for a long time, and while advancements happen, they usually take years, if not decades, to finalize. The current price feels way too optimistic; it assumes that all ongoing research will lead to publication so quickly. I'd love to see some strong evidence or data to back up this expectation.
Rationale:The comment accurately reflects the challenges in measuring the gravitational constant and expresses skepticism about the timeline for a new precise value, which is supported by historical context. It is free from logical fallacies and directly addresses the market question, though it could benefit from more specific evidence. The weights emphasize relevance and logical soundness, given the speculative nature of the market.
The current odds seem overly optimistic; there hasn't been a major breakthrough in gravitational research for a while now. If they do publish a new value by 2027, it might just be a marginal adjustment rather than anything groundbreaking. Given the complexities of measuring such a fundamental constant, I'm skeptical.
Rationale:The comment presents a mostly accurate perspective on the current state of gravitational research, acknowledging the lack of major breakthroughs, which supports a skeptical view on the publication of a new value for Big G. It is logically sound and free from major fallacies, directly addressing the market question while incorporating a reasonable emotional skepticism. The weights reflect a balanced focus on factual accuracy and logical reasoning, given the speculative nature of the topic.
this market feels like a gamble. there's been some progress in physics recently, but i doubt they'll nail down a new measurement that fast. i wouldn’t be surprised if it drags on longer.
Rationale:The comment expresses skepticism about the timeline for a new measurement of the gravitational constant, which is a relevant perspective. While it acknowledges recent progress in physics, it lacks specific evidence to support the claim that a new measurement won't be achieved by the deadline. The weights reflect a balanced focus on relevance and logical reasoning, with some emphasis on factual accuracy given the speculative nature of the comment.
this market is full of wishful thinking. no way are we getting a new precise value of G that soon. the last updates took years, and science doesn’t just drop big news on a deadline like that. why are we even betting on this? feels like we're just grasping at straws here.
Rationale:The comment presents a mostly accurate perspective on the challenges of obtaining a new precise value for the gravitational constant, reflecting on the historical context of scientific updates. However, it contains some emotional language and a hint of skepticism that detracts from a purely logical analysis. The weights reflect a balance between factual accuracy and the presence of emotional appeal, given the speculative nature of the market question.
I kind of doubt we'll get a new precise value for Big G by next year; it's a complicated topic and honestly, this feels a bit rushed for science.
Rationale:The comment expresses skepticism about the timeline for a new precise value of Big G, which is a valid concern given the complexities of scientific research. However, it lacks specific evidence or references to support the claim, leading to a moderate score for fact-checking. The comment is relevant to the market question but leans slightly on emotional appeal, hence the weights reflect a balanced focus on logical reasoning and relevance.
Spread is wide. Probably an MM stepped away.
Rationale:Scoring temporarily unavailable.
The other book has this 2c lower. Slight arb.
Rationale:Scoring temporarily unavailable.
this is too high, taking the under
Rationale:Scoring temporarily unavailable.