3 ms·
This article isn't totally fair, in that the theory of cold dark matter is based mostly on observations of the cosmic microwave background rather than on galaxy
by wwarner 3y ago
This article isn't totally fair, in that the theory of cold dark matter is based mostly on observations of the cosmic microwave background rather than on galaxy behavior. Also, it's not like the 𝛬CDM crowd says they are certain of the nature of DM. And there are plenty of holes in alternative explanations as well.
If I were going to critique the anti-CDM arguments, I'd say that they aren't advancing their own alternative explanations. MOND is a very interesting observation for sure, but advocates freely admit 𝝰 is sort of a magical number and they don't really offer a physical/geometric justification for why it should exist or why it should take the value that it apparently has.
All the same, I love reading these lists of things that don't fit. I'm super glad observers are poking holes in (tearing apart?) the dominant paradigm. Their evidence is coming from the other side of the theory, it's totally valid and very interesting.
The best treatment I've see is Ethan Siegel's write up [0].
[0] https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/modifying-gravity/ https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/modifying-gravity/
- naasking 3y ago> Also, it's not like the 𝛬CDM crowd says they are certain of the nature of DM. They seem pretty certain given how easily the epicycles keep getting adopted to keep DM alive, and how readily they dismiss MOND. > and they don't really offer a physical/geometric justification for why it should exist or why it should take the value that it apparently has. There are papers that do this actually, such as superfluid DM. Regardless, the lack of justification for an empirical law does not refute the existence of the effect it describes. Unfortunately, DM proponents seem adamant in not trying to explain this effect in terms of DM.