this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2024
88 points (94.9% liked)

Astronomy

4056 readers
19 users here now

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Deconceptualist@lemm.ee 24 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Idontevenknowanymore@mander.xyz 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Deconceptualist@lemm.ee 7 points 1 week ago

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.