Re:Physicists used atomic clocks to test the theory of gener...
by voice_of_reason on Sunday June 10, 2018 @11:54AM
(#17278673)
And the quote war goes on :)
Mr Siegel asserts that dark matter hypothesis is better than any kind of MOND (and, may I add, his opinion is expressed in over-confident and even dogmatic way) because it can "explain" structure of the Universe. However, people in comments doubt that LCDM is particularly good in this area:
"The problem is that dark matter can’t predict the structure of the universe all that well either. Making those dark matter simulations work requires introducing all sorts of epicycles, kludgy mechanisms to make the calculations work out properly. I’m not a big MOND fan, but MOND seems to solve certain problems fairly well, and the galaxy rotation problem is one of them."
https://medium.com/@kaleberg7/the-problem-is-that-dark-matte...
Re:Physicists used atomic clocks to test the theory of gener...
by acqq on Sunday June 10, 2018 @12:08PM
(#17278745)
I don’t see any valid new argument in the qouted comment, yes, the only strength of MOND are galaxy rotations, as mentioned by Ethan, no, no epycycles are actually present in lambda CDM.
https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/only-dark-matter-and-n...
"Modified gravity cannot successfully predict the large-scale structure of the Universe the way that a Universe full of dark matter can. Period. And until it can, it’s not worth paying any mind to as a serious competitor. You cannot ignore physical cosmology in your attempts to decipher the cosmos, and the predictions of large-scale structure, the microwave background, the light elements, and the bending of starlight are some of the most basic and important predictions that come out of physical cosmology. "