'Unbelievable': Astronomer Claims 'Direct Evidence' of Gravity Breaking Down
www.vice.com
“I was feeling like I was dreaming. It seemed so unreal. This is because my results did not match any previous results," said astronomer Kyu-Hyun Chae.

What’s that saying again? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? I don’t think we’re quite there yet, but for all of you MOdified Newtonian Dynamics fans (and Dark Matter haters) out there here’s a bit of good news.

  • will_a113@lemmy.mlOP
    2·
    1 year ago

    I just watched that video somewhat recently and couldn’t understand that quote. There are a number of MOND models that literally don’t involve dark matter at all – no new particles added, no unexplained masses needed. So in that case, wouldn’t “how we combine them” just be “set dark matter to 0 and use this different set of equations to solve for gravity in certain circumstances”?

    • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
      3·
      1 year ago

      The MOND models are less accurate than cold dark mater models. As long as MOND fails to explain current phenomina, cold dark matter wins. Period.

      I am a fan of the idea that the standard model is incomplete/wrong, but you cannot in good conscience accept a model that fits the data worse all because the current best model has problems.

      A proper answer explains why the current model works but is inaccurate. MOND models straight up disagree.