3 ms·

MOND is a better explanation than dark energy.

• phkahler 7y ago
  There was an article linked here just a week or two ago. Its claim was that the distance measurements used in cosmology may be wrong on larger scales. With the correction there is no need for MOND or dark energy. This needs confirmation of course. I have yet to see the "expected" galactic rotation curves that are contradicted by observation a lead to ideas about dark MATTER. I'm mean I've seen the curves but cant find the math behind them. You often see weak references to Keplers law which doesnt even apply, so that leaves me very skeptical.
  • Iwan-Zotow 7y ago
    > I'm mean I've seen the curves but cant find the math behind them. You often see weak references to Keplers law which doesnt even apply, so that leaves me very skeptical. Huh? This is directly derived from 3rd law
    • phkahler 7y ago
      >> This is directly derived from 3rd law Then it's wrong. I will need to see the derivation to find the error. I've seen indications of a couple possible places it may be (based on simplifying assumptions people make incorrectly) but have not seen the actual derivation of the expected curve.
      • Iwan-Zotow 7y ago
        gimme some time, I'm busy till Jan 20, then I'll redo it. Just in case, kick me a message if I'm not heard from...
  • ncmncm 7y ago
    MOND has nothing to do with dark energy, and the article suggested nothing about anything addressed in MOND. MOND is an attempt to make dark matter an unnecessary assumption. No opinion on whether some MOND will turn out to work better than dark matter.