I follow this stuff (as a non-physicist) so I understood it. It’s a pretty shallow article and mentions there there’s still evidence for the widely-accepted Lambda-CDM model. But like most coverage of MOND it declines to give good alternate explanations for specific key observations like the Bullet Cluster, gravitational lensing, and galactic outer rotational speeds.
So yeah a new observation that fits better with MOND than LCDM is certainly interesting, but it doesn’t flip the tables unless it does a better job explaining the prior phenomena too.
I understand the two theories and the difference between them, but when my brain tries to comprehend how gravity actually works I experience a comprehension failure.
Haha, well if it’s any consolation, nobody fully understands it. That’s why we’re still looking at various theories of quantum gravity or even random gravity.
Ooh new pbs spacetime will be sweet. (Although mond seems kinda meh).
🙏 wrong distance measurement (or light speed shenanigans) would be most fun to observe from outside of astronomy field, although they seemed kinda solid
Interesting, thank you for the reply! Learned something new today. The lines I see span over a quarter or so of the moon, so I’m not fully convinced yet. Absolute massive.
Somewhen in there are creatures we’d really get along with were it not for the 58.71M light years between our galaxies, and the unlikelihood we both exist as simultaneous civilizations.
astronomy
Aktywne
Magazyn ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.