Astronomer Claims 'Direct Evidence' of Gravity Breaking Down (www.vice.com)

submitted 1 year ago by will_a113@lemmy.ml to c/science@lemmy.ml

20 comments fedilink hide all child comments

What's that saying again? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? I don't think we're quite there yet, but for all of you MOdified Newtonian Dynamics fans (and Dark Matter haters) out there here's a bit of good news.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] will_a113@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

I just watched that video somewhat recently and couldn't understand that quote. There are a number of MOND models that literally don't involve dark matter at all -- no new particles added, no unexplained masses needed. So in that case, wouldn't "how we combine them" just be "set dark matter to 0 and use this different set of equations to solve for gravity in certain circumstances"?

[-] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The MOND models are less accurate than cold dark mater models. As long as MOND fails to explain current phenomina, cold dark matter wins. Period.

I am a fan of the idea that the standard model is incomplete/wrong, but you cannot in good conscience accept a model that fits the data worse all because the current best model has problems.

A proper answer explains why the current model works but is inaccurate. MOND models straight up disagree.

this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2023

89 points (91.6% liked)

Science

13257 readers

127 users here now

Subscribe to see new publications and popular science coverage of current research on your homepage

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

MinutePhrase@lemmy.ml