3 ms·
From a comment deleted as i was writing this: > 3) this predicts missing masses in specific places Not quite... It predicts that either 1. the observations
by Beldin 7y ago
From a comment deleted as i was writing this:
> 3) this predicts missing masses in specific places
Not quite...
It predicts that either
1. the observations were incomplete (so, not enough data was fed into the model, hence the model's predictions are off), or
2. The model itself is wrong.
Dark matter is about option 1, modified Newtonian dynamics is about option 2.
And is great that both are being investigated. Imagine dark matter had been proposed in 1900: the deviations in Mercury's orbit (from Newton's model of gravity) could have been attributed to dark matter. No need for general relativity...
Hence, both aspects should be researched: improving our observational capabilities to detect the oossible unknowns (including putting limits on their mass etc); and attempting new models that address these issues directly.
- renox 7y ago>Imagine dark matter had been proposed in 1900: the deviations in Mercury's orbit (from Newton's model of gravity) could have been attributed to dark matter. No need for general relativity... You should have a look [here](https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-200-year-old-mystery-of-mercurys-orbit-solved-1458642219 https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-200-year-old-mystery-of-mercurys...): TLDR: they looked for a 'Vulcain' planet which could cause Mercury's precession, but they didn't found one. And for the dark matter, you're right that both aspects should be researched, and both ARE researched but dark matter currently fits better the experimental data as already said. Of course until we know exactly what is dark matter, there will be room for other theories..