3 ms·

The best thing this article can provide is that some galaxies work without DM. Only particle DM can explain the early universe observations from the CMB (which

The best thing this article can provide is that some galaxies work without DM. Only particle DM can explain the early universe observations from the CMB (which this article completely glosses over), decoupling from baryonic matter (which also isn't even mentioned) and galaxy rotation curves at the same time. The arguments in favour of DM are far more general and rightly accepted for what they are, whereas the sporadic argument for MOND that works in one domain is rightly shunned as long as its proponents blissfully keep ignoring the overwhelming incompatibilities in the remaining domains.

naasking 4y ago
> Only particle DM can explain the early universe observations from the CMB Are you actually arguing that DM is the only conceivable theory that can possibly explain those observations? Be serious. This obsession with DM when it's been clearly falsified numerous times is restricting imagination and attention on novel approaches.
- sigmoid10 4y ago
  I explicitly said it might very well not be the only one. But the data clearly shows that MOND is definitely not the only one. Since Occam's Razor tells us to go with the simplest solution, science goes for DM, instead of DM+MOND. If we ever discover DM (eg in the form of WIMPs) and it can't account for all the extra mass in the universe, then people will be able to look closer at modified gravity again. But right now these models are just not at a point where they could explain more than noise. If you're interested in how difficult it actually is to come up with a robust alternative theory of gravity that can fully explain all aspects of DM we see in the universe, I suggest this lecture here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WECVq2YBduY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WECVq2YBduY tl;dr: it's hard. Very hard. Noone has done it yet.
  - naasking 4y ago
    > I explicitly said it might very well not be the only one. Actually you didn't. Perhaps you claimed that in another thread, but I quoted exactly what you wrote in this thread, which is that only DM can explain those results. > Since Occam's Razor tells us to go with the simplest solution, science goes for DM, instead of DM+MOND. That's not a correct formulation of Occam's razor. Occam's razor tells us not to posit the existence of more things than are necessary to explain observations. Observations already tell us that DM either does not exist, or doesn't exist in the amounts most people think exists, ie. most DM models have been refuted. Therefore, even if DM exists, something else is still needed to explain our observations.
    - sigmoid10 4y ago
      >Observations already tell us that DM either does not exist This is just a plain lie and since you obviously have no interest in further educating yourself in any way, I will now stop wasting my time with replying to you.
      - naasking 4y ago
        Convenient you omit the other possibility. But sure, bury your head in the sand of the prevailing evidence reviewed in the paper I linked.

naasking 4y ago

> Only particle DM can explain the early universe observations from the CMB Are you actually arguing that DM is the only conceivable theory that can possibly explain those observations? Be serious. This obsession with DM when it's been clearly falsified numerous times is restricting imagination and attention on novel approaches.

sigmoid10 4y ago
I explicitly said it might very well not be the only one. But the data clearly shows that MOND is definitely not the only one. Since Occam's Razor tells us to go with the simplest solution, science goes for DM, instead of DM+MOND. If we ever discover DM (eg in the form of WIMPs) and it can't account for all the extra mass in the universe, then people will be able to look closer at modified gravity again. But right now these models are just not at a point where they could explain more than noise. If you're interested in how difficult it actually is to come up with a robust alternative theory of gravity that can fully explain all aspects of DM we see in the universe, I suggest this lecture here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WECVq2YBduY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WECVq2YBduY tl;dr: it's hard. Very hard. Noone has done it yet.
- naasking 4y ago
  > I explicitly said it might very well not be the only one. Actually you didn't. Perhaps you claimed that in another thread, but I quoted exactly what you wrote in this thread, which is that only DM can explain those results. > Since Occam's Razor tells us to go with the simplest solution, science goes for DM, instead of DM+MOND. That's not a correct formulation of Occam's razor. Occam's razor tells us not to posit the existence of more things than are necessary to explain observations. Observations already tell us that DM either does not exist, or doesn't exist in the amounts most people think exists, ie. most DM models have been refuted. Therefore, even if DM exists, something else is still needed to explain our observations.
  - sigmoid10 4y ago
    >Observations already tell us that DM either does not exist This is just a plain lie and since you obviously have no interest in further educating yourself in any way, I will now stop wasting my time with replying to you.
    - naasking 4y ago
      Convenient you omit the other possibility. But sure, bury your head in the sand of the prevailing evidence reviewed in the paper I linked.