3 ms·
I am no expert, but I do not follow. Nothing was added to the LCDM model there, so using the epicycle fallacy does not help the discussion. The research was s
by isthatafact 2y ago
I am no expert, but I do not follow. Nothing was added to the LCDM model there, so using the epicycle fallacy does not help the discussion.
The research was simply done again with better accuracy.
- naasking 2y agoI wasn't referring to the bullet cluster specifically, but this obsession with the bullet cluster is typical of the confirmation bias in this field: hyperfocus on what confirms bias and ignore the countervailing evidence. The past 30+ years have seen many "corrections" to get LCDM to fit observations it did not predict [1]. Clusters in general pose challenges to both MOND and LCDM for different reasons [2,3], but LCDM's typically get ignored and MOND's treated as a fatal blow. As I said, neither theory is fully satisfactory, but it's clear that research on these questions is fairly one-sided. [1] https://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/14/7/1331 https://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/14/7/1331 [2] https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ace62a https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ace62a [3] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1387647322000185 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S138764732...
- isthatafact 2y agoI personally hope that the solution to the handful or two of things that the LCDM model does not (currently) explain will be more interesting than a trivial tweak (which seems to have no physical motivation) to the gravity equation that MOND is.