42
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Idontevenknowanymore@mander.xyz 2 points 2 days ago

I understood about 8% of that article but it's still fascinating.

[-] Deconceptualist@lemm.ee 12 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

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, it doesn't flip the tables unless it does a better job explaining the prior phenomena too.

[-] Idontevenknowanymore@mander.xyz 3 points 2 days ago

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 4 points 2 days 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.

this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2024
42 points (93.8% liked)

Astronomy

4031 readers
4 users here now

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS