4 ms·
Everyone has thought "maybe it's just a bad gravity equation?" at some point. It's a fun idea, but it's contrary to observation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
by dodobirdlord 7y ago
Everyone has thought "maybe it's just a bad gravity equation?" at some point. It's a fun idea, but it's contrary to observation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster
- andbberger 7y agoOof, a gravitational lensing based result at 8 sigma... so much for this fun little theory
- heavenlyblue 7y ago>> gravitational lensing based result What's wrong with basing your results on gravitational lensing? Is it related somehow to the complexity of inferring on how much the images are wrapped by gravitational lensing?
- andbberger 7y agonothing, I'm talking about OP's theory. A gravitational lensing based result is particularly strong due to it being model independent. OP's theory cannot account for lensing inferred CoM differing from the baryonic CoM in the bullet cluster.
- jiggawatts 7y agoThis always gets trotted out, but it isn't ironclad proof of anything. Everything about the Bullet Cluster is conjecture based on secondary observations. They're not measuring "mass", they're measuring light, from which they're inferring mass. The galaxy collision is an unusual case, being at relatively high velocity, so the models may not even cover it well. They're also assuming that the majority of the mass is in the gas, not the stars or invisible brown dwarvf stars or even black holes. It's layers of assumptions a mile deep being used as irrefutable proof.