6 ms·

>after more curve fitting What do you mean "more"? There are no new additional parameters and the curve literally fits, unlike for MOND (which doesn't fit at a

>after more curve fitting What do you mean "more"? There are no new additional parameters and the curve literally fits, unlike for MOND (which doesn't fit at all unless you also introduce some form of DM). >This was always the case Then why would you trust any paper like this that explicitly doesn't use DM? Even if by mere chance it got a correct fit to one of the observations, you'll know immediately it could only have been a fluke since it didn't account for any DM.

naasking 3y ago
> What do you mean "more"? I literally pointed you to the section that discusses how the a posteriori fit of LCDM to the spectrum was done. > you'll know immediately it could only have been a fluke since it didn't account for any DM. Right, so DM is necessary because if you used any explanation other than DM it must be wrong. Sounds perfectly scientific to me.
- sigmoid10 3y ago
  LCDM existed before the Planck (or WMAP) data became available. As did MOND (including TeVeS). There is no argument here regarding "a posteriori" either way. The only relevant fact is that pure LCDM can explain the curve, while pure MOND can't. >DM is necessary because if you used any explanation other than DM it must be wrong You completely missed the point. Although at this point I fathom it must be intentional. DM is necessary. End of story. You even said it yourself. By your own statement, any explanation (such as the one linked by OP) that uses no DM at all must be wrong, yes. Of course it is much more complicated to come up with a sound theory of both, especially if you also want to retain some predictability. That's why we regularly see lone researches publish stuff like this. But it is neither the consensus nor really relevant to the field as a whole.
  - naasking 3y ago
    > There is no argument here regarding "a posteriori" either way. The only relevant fact is that pure LCDM can explain the curve, while pure MOND can't. So you're not going to read the evidence I presented, got it. > Although at this point I fathom it must be intentional. DM is necessary. End of story. You even said it yourself. DM is necessary under the assumptions of LCDM and MOND. That is not the same thing as saying DM is necessary without qualification.

naasking 3y ago

> What do you mean "more"? I literally pointed you to the section that discusses how the a posteriori fit of LCDM to the spectrum was done. > you'll know immediately it could only have been a fluke since it didn't account for any DM. Right, so DM is necessary because if you used any explanation other than DM it must be wrong. Sounds perfectly scientific to me.

sigmoid10 3y ago
LCDM existed before the Planck (or WMAP) data became available. As did MOND (including TeVeS). There is no argument here regarding "a posteriori" either way. The only relevant fact is that pure LCDM can explain the curve, while pure MOND can't. >DM is necessary because if you used any explanation other than DM it must be wrong You completely missed the point. Although at this point I fathom it must be intentional. DM is necessary. End of story. You even said it yourself. By your own statement, any explanation (such as the one linked by OP) that uses no DM at all must be wrong, yes. Of course it is much more complicated to come up with a sound theory of both, especially if you also want to retain some predictability. That's why we regularly see lone researches publish stuff like this. But it is neither the consensus nor really relevant to the field as a whole.
- naasking 3y ago
  > There is no argument here regarding "a posteriori" either way. The only relevant fact is that pure LCDM can explain the curve, while pure MOND can't. So you're not going to read the evidence I presented, got it. > Although at this point I fathom it must be intentional. DM is necessary. End of story. You even said it yourself. DM is necessary under the assumptions of LCDM and MOND. That is not the same thing as saying DM is necessary without qualification.