Last updated: 14 August 2026

CosmicGravity explores astronomy, physics, archaeology, unexplained phenomena and ideas at the edge of current knowledge. These subjects often combine solid evidence, active scientific debate and claims that have not yet been independently verified. Our editorial goal is to keep those categories clear without removing the curiosity that makes them worth investigating.

Our core principles

We aim to be accurate, readable, transparent about uncertainty and fair to competing interpretations. We do not present speculation as established fact. When evidence is preliminary or disputed, we say so plainly. An extraordinary claim may deserve examination, but its importance does not lower the standard of proof.

How we choose and source information

For scientific and technical claims, we prefer primary sources: peer-reviewed papers, preprints from identifiable researchers, official mission data, university announcements, government reports and direct project documentation. Reputable science journalism may be used to explain context or public controversy, but it does not replace the underlying research when that research is available.

For historical and archaeological subjects, we favour excavation reports, museum and heritage-institution material, academic publications and clearly attributed translations. We distinguish physical evidence from later tradition, interpretation and modern reconstruction.

Links are included where they help readers inspect the evidence themselves. A link does not imply that CosmicGravity endorses every conclusion on that page.

Our fact-checking process

Before publication, an article is checked for names, dates, measurements, locations and the actual wording or scope of major source claims. We compare important assertions with more than one independent source whenever possible. For fast-moving stories, we check the date of both the report and the event it describes.

We also ask:

• Is this result peer reviewed, a preprint, a conference presentation, a press release or a personal claim?
• Does the source provide data and a reproducible method?
• Has an independent team confirmed the finding?
• Could the observation have a conventional physical, geological, biological or human explanation?
• Does the headline make a stronger claim than the evidence supports?

Extraordinary and controversial claims

CosmicGravity covers subjects that mainstream outlets sometimes overlook, including UAP reports, alternative archaeological interpretations and possible technosignatures. Coverage is not confirmation. We label unverified claims, explain who is making them and identify the strongest supporting and opposing evidence available.

We avoid two common errors: rejecting a claim solely because it is unusual, and accepting it solely because it challenges an established view. The appropriate response is to describe what has been measured, what has been inferred and what test could distinguish the competing explanations.

Anonymous sources, leaks and social media

Anonymous posts, leaked documents and social-media footage are treated as leads, not self-authenticating evidence. We look for provenance, original files, metadata, corroborating witnesses and official or expert analysis. If material cannot be independently authenticated, that limitation is stated in the article.

Images and visualisations

Photographs, scientific figures, maps and illustrations should not misrepresent the underlying story. Captions or surrounding text identify artist impressions, reconstructions and AI-generated editorial illustrations when their nature could reasonably be mistaken for documentary evidence. We do not use a fabricated image as proof of an event.

AI-assisted tools

CosmicGravity may use AI-assisted tools for research organisation, drafting, language improvement, image creation and technical checks. These tools do not replace editorial judgment. Claims must still be checked against reliable sources, and final responsibility for publication remains with CosmicGravity. AI output is not treated as a factual source.

Independence and conflicts of interest

Editorial conclusions are based on the available evidence, not on whether a subject is popular or commercially attractive. Sponsored material, affiliate relationships or supplied products should be disclosed when applicable. People or projects covered on the site do not receive approval over independent editorial conclusions.

Corrections and updates

When a material factual error is confirmed, we correct it promptly. Significant corrections or changes in the evidentiary status of a story should be noted in the article, including the date and nature of the change. Minor spelling, grammar and formatting changes may be made without a correction note.

Articles about developing stories may be updated as new documents, measurements or independent analyses become available. Older publication dates are not changed merely to make an article appear new.

How to request a correction

If you believe an article contains an error, please use the contact page. Include the article URL, the statement you believe is incorrect and a source that supports the correction. We review substantive requests and update the article when the evidence warrants it.

Good editorial work does not require pretending uncertainty has disappeared. It requires showing readers exactly where the evidence ends—and why the unanswered question still matters.