5 ms·
Based on the article it looks like it only looks at the rotations of galaxies and not the higher order organization of galaxies, which dark matter accounts for
by cwmma 6y ago
Based on the article it looks like it only looks at the rotations of galaxies and not the higher order organization of galaxies, which dark matter accounts for and MOND does not.
- gizmondo 6y agoAs Stacy McGaugh likes to put it in his blog - the question is why MOND (a relatively simple theory with just one free parameter) is able to make successful predictions at all? Predictions like this one, which you have no reason to expect to be true in CDM models?
- graderjs 6y agoProbably MOND is a "good enough first approximation" to the whole story, which might come out later, and include more terms. I think it's interesting some people are doing the complex (to me, anyway) maths from a theory point of view to find ways to get it to spit out MOND. I have almost zero understanding of all this, but none of the theories I read seem physically insightful. They say MOND a_0 constant is close to cH_0, but not exact. I wonder if some of the difference (if that is significant) could be c altering.
- raducu 6y agoOccam's razor aside, why can't both theories be correct? That dark matter exists as well as a modified gravity thing.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- cwmma 6y agomost MOND theories do include some sort of dark matter, there is just less of it and it could possibly be less exotic (think brown dwarfs and such)
- adventured 6y agoDark matter doesn't account for anything, it isn't real. It's like pretending the Easter Bunny accounted for all those plastic eggs on April 12th. Prove god doesn't exist - that's the position of the entire dark matter field, demanding everyone else prove a negative while they can't positively prove their position after nearly a century. The theory of dark matter has retarded progress beyond anything reasonable for many decades. It's time for it to die, along with all the academia welfare grants.