3 ms·
This is a misrepresentation of what I am saying. By no means am I casting an aspersion on JWST. I am casting an aspersion on this particular observation as a te
by astroH 2y ago
This is a misrepresentation of what I am saying. By no means am I casting an aspersion on JWST. I am casting an aspersion on this particular observation as a test of MOND and LCDM. Also I highly disagree about your comments on my line of reasoning. The fact that you can obtain a huge range of possible galaxy properties in the context of LCDM indicates that in general, tests of LCDM and MOND that rely on galaxy formation model are in usually not strong tests. This is the key issue with using the abundance of high-z galaxies (or even their masses -- despite the fact that these aren't measured) as a test. In the context of LCDM, you need haloes to form galaxies but it has been shown many times that there are enough haloes to solve the problem (see the paper linked) by a huge amount.
- uoaei 2y agoThe skepticism you display in this comment is completely absent when you reference lambda-CDM elsewhere. Consistency invites zero criticism :)
- astroH 2y agoAnd so you have proved my point. The observations presented in this article can be made consistent with both...as such one should think about stronger tests of both LCDM and MOND.
- uoaei 2y agoYour point was orthogonal to the point of epistemology. This isn't Reddit, we respect actual arguments here.