You must log in or register to comment.

NBAccount t1_ixi51mr wrote

This is odd. It feels almost sensationalist to publish this so early in its process.

This is like finding your trash cans knocked over and then telling everyone there might be bears in the neighborhood.

Sure, there might be bears, but you don't have nearly enough information to state that conclusively, so it feels premature (if not disingenuous) to tell people that.

They are using approximations and provide no comparative analysis.


BronchialChunk t1_ixi96gv wrote

let bears pay the bear tax! I pay the Homer tax. Dad, it's homeowner tax.

Anyhow, better than them claiming jewish space laser I guess.


ExtonGuy t1_ixja8cp wrote

Wait … bears are Jewish?


fargmania t1_ixjsi5j wrote

Well they need a Bear Mitzvah first.


janovich8 t1_ixl7550 wrote

Do they say mazel-paws afterward?


BronchialChunk t1_ixmesxn wrote

so a polar bear walks in to a bar, goes up to the bartender and goes: can I have a gin..........................................................and tonic?

bartender goes: why the long pause?


choke_da_wokes t1_ixk81jq wrote

Jewish space bears firing lasers at Kanye. No wonder he’s pissed


freelanceMoron t1_ixkac2r wrote

Pretty sure they're catholic... and that the pope shits in the woods...

I might be getting that backwards though.


chiefwiggum-Pi t1_ixks6b6 wrote

Anyways I'm still outraged.

On a side note, did you ever notice in that episode of the simpsons that there is a scene where the newspaper shows an article talking about the continued bombing campaign by the bear patrol? I love that Easter egg.


JustASingleHorn t1_ixlrlap wrote

I got “bear proof” trash cans… so I know if it’s ripped open, it wasn’t a fox… $400 to mostly keep the “bears out” per trash can otherwise it’s a huge fine..

(I can only speak towards the topic of bears in trash cans)


amfibbius t1_ixif4jx wrote

Sensationalism from MOND advocates? Inconceivable!


jonathanrdt t1_ixjg2b1 wrote

Science is too slow for journalism. We need conjecture and controversy, and we need it fast.


stackered t1_ixjqxrf wrote

we also need... mods to do stuff here

I want to start a legit science sub soon, where scientists discuss papers in depth and only direct links to studies are allowed with original titles


Stunning_Regret6123 t1_ixl0ohb wrote

I’ve wanted to do a StackOverflow-style site for that for awhile. I think a club/group/movement for this would be cool, so I hope you do. People with credibility making supported arguments. Like the exact opposite of Reddit, where strangers make emotional arguments for whose line points. It has a place, but I don’t think pushing the boundaries of science or education is it.


Nogohoho t1_ixjxxi2 wrote

Look! There's one galaxy out of billions that could support our theory. That must mean it's proven!


chesterbennediction t1_ixkm7d3 wrote

To be fair dark matter is pretty out there as a hypothesis. We can't even measure it and it's concentration should vary in different parts of the universe.


haulenoats t1_ixksn42 wrote

What if I'm missing a picnic basket as well?


[deleted] t1_ixkz4ch wrote

What? Are you telling me this poop i found on my lawn does not belong to bigfoot?!!?!!


hangryhyax t1_ixlhjqn wrote

Hi, I see you’re new to

It feels almost sensationalist because it is… that’s what they do


Black_RL t1_ixm3g7a wrote

Why are you stealing all the thunder?

I was enjoying it….. :(


[deleted] t1_ixi7zk7 wrote

Well, I think that's why there is the word may in the title as opposed to will, or does, or likely to; and instead went with may?


Bakkster t1_ixidjab wrote

I think it's important to look at the quote from the lead author:

> "This is basically a game-changer," he said. "This destroys all the work done on galaxies and on cosmology [that] assumes dark matter and Newtonian gravity."

While this kind of upending of existing models and theories certainly happens, being certain of doing so can be a red flag of quackery. From the final quote from a third party:

> But "as they admit the paper themselves, they are using an approximate calculation that needs to be confirmed… [and] they haven't quantified how large the disagreement with data is," she said. "So I think it remains to be seen how good this argument actually is."

Loudly claiming to upend cosmology in the press, while the actual paper is much more tentative, is bad optics.


InTheEndEntropyWins t1_ixienhk wrote

Yeh, those quotes seem a bit suspect. Also all modern MOND theories still need dark matter to explain what we see.


Lazy-Requirement-228 t1_ixi8zg1 wrote

More like, what's the point of talking about it so early on? Seems like time would be better spend wowing the public with something more substantial.


CotyledonTomen t1_ixi9j50 wrote

Capitalism. Gotta get eyes those eyes.


[deleted] t1_ixicgc2 wrote

Everybody gotta eat.


CotyledonTomen t1_ixidmok wrote

Doesnt mean we have to create industries around sensationalizing necessary information. Science, news, politics. They dont have to be set up around deceit and manipulation of consumers needing information to make decisions about their lives. But competition around telling people what should be facts results in distortion of those facts.


I_T_Gamer t1_ixiejvb wrote

This has been the SOP of any print, or recorded news agency for at least a decade. Capitalism is great, if we could take the greed, and people out of the equation.


CotyledonTomen t1_ixirolb wrote

Thats like saying air is great, if we could take the O2 out of the equation. Capitalism has been around longer than the word and is just utilizing the greed of people, which isnt inherently bad as we all need resources, to direct and perfect resource production. We just industrialized and now think our new use is somehow special and unique.

When all the worlds resources are at our finger tips, something we shouldnt have such ready access too, we have to overcome our evolutionary desire to take everything for ourselves.


Dave10293847 t1_ixj4hjt wrote

As scarcity diminishes, so to do the positives of capitalism. It’ll be a very tough transition. Ya know, assuming we don’t all drown or go up in a mushroom cloud.


Strazdas1 t1_ixlhb6h wrote

Oh you sweet summer child. Decade? Try since 1790.


[deleted] t1_ixjl3kr wrote

We didn’t, dictator.


CotyledonTomen t1_ixjs5ff wrote

>We didn’t, dictator.

What a conversationalist/s


[deleted] t1_ixjv3q9 wrote

We didn’t create industries; you are policing other people. Authoritarian nonsense. Don’t like it, move on.


CotyledonTomen t1_ixjw3hq wrote

What a rediculous statement. People make companies. People use a companys services. People regulate companies. People make, dictate, and utilize industries. Its not magic. Its choices everybody makes as a society. If you dont like it, find a forest. Otherwise, you have neighbors you choose to live next to, so are required to adjust your life accordingly. Thats everywhere.


[deleted] t1_ixjwrj6 wrote

And, I like the presence of more science articles, and people decide for themselves.


CotyledonTomen t1_ixjxv6o wrote

That has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Nonsense like everything else youve said.


nhavar t1_ixjdys4 wrote

Wouldn't it be more like you walk out and find the trash knocked over and think "bears maybe" while everyone else just knows that trash only ever gets dumped over by big foot even though there's no specific proof of big foot. That's how dark matter feels... it's legitimate science's version of sasquatch.


TheRealOneTwo t1_ixidoqv wrote

MOND is not only controversial, it is outright garbage that most astrophysicists reject.


jwwetzel t1_ixiibqe wrote

total garbage


DeusExHumanum t1_ixlex6g wrote

total garbage is dark matter playing hide and seek perfectly


jwwetzel t1_ixng82x wrote

also total garbage lol but there are many many many distinct observations/reasons that support the dark matter hypothesis.


nonotan t1_iximbi4 wrote

As a mere hobbyist, why is that? Leaving aside the merits of this particular study, MOND seems like a mildly-promising (if arguably inelegant) approach that still leaves a few unanswered questions (as does standard GR, I should add), and which has had various potential modalities already invalidated by empirical evidence (which may not sound promising, but it means 1) at least it's a falsifiable theory that makes testable predictions, and 2) current evidence isn't able to entirely rule it out, and hey, there's only a single reality that needs to be explained)

From my perspective, I see it in a similar position to supersymmetry in QFT: an a priori reasonable attempt at addressing the issues in the standard model they are motivated by, with a not-so-great track record that makes them ever superseding the standard model look fairly unlikely right now, but still not within "statistical impossibility" territory. Except supersymmetry doesn't seem to get anywhere near as much hate.


sticklebat t1_ixjp9hu wrote

I mostly agree with you. I am glad people are working on MOND, because you never know. But as it stands, anyone who swears by it is delusional.

I think supersymmetry gets less hate because it is not a replacement for an existing, extremely successful model, but rather a very simple extension to the standard model of particle physics, with the potential to fill in a lot of holes. Many MOND proponents argue that dark matter’s existence is a poorly motivated and unrealistic postulate, but frankly that notion is just ignorant. And I think that attitude also sours people toward MOND, by extension.


pete_68 t1_ixjwijj wrote

We always talk about how successful it is, but it's got some serious problems. Not a hint of dark matter to be found, so far. Just a gravity effect we can't account for. A universe with accelerating expansion from dark energy that we also can't detect. Matter/antimatter asymmetry, neutrino mass, and the strong CP problem.

Oh, and let's not forget the elephant in the universe: gravity.

Those are some mighty big holes.


sticklebat t1_ixkxzz4 wrote

>We always talk about how successful it is, but it's got some serious problems.

It is very successful, even in the face of its shortcomings. That's the nature of science: there are always unresolved problems to figure out. Our most successful scientific models will always be incomplete. And usually it's that: it's more common for our models to be incomplete than flat out wrong.

>Not a hint of dark matter to be found, so far. Just a gravity effect we can't account for.

The word "just" is doing a hell of a lot of lifting in that sentence. And it's not just an effect, but many. There is missing gravity in the velocity dispersions of galaxies. There is missing gravity in the rotation curves of galaxies (but not all galaxies!). There is missing gravity in galaxy clusters. There is missing gravity related to gravitational lensing (or perhaps a better way of putting it is that in some cases, seemingly empty space strongly distorts the trajectory of light). There is missing gravity associated with the power spectrum of the CMB. There is missing gravity in the formation of structures like galaxies. There is missing gravity compared to the observed curvature of the universe. There is missing gravity in the large scale acoustic oscillations of the universe. There is missing gravity associated with redshift distortions of galaxy clusters and voids.

No attempt to explain all of those things as simply a misunderstanding of gravity has been successful, despite many decades of trying. Some of those phenomena have never been explained by any models of modified gravity ever (like the Bullet Cluster lensing, anomalous rotation curves of galaxies, and the CMB power spectrum). No such model has ever even come close to explain all of them simultaneously. On the other hand, all of them are well-explained by the existence of a consistent amount of dark matter, organized in ways consistent with each other (e.g. the dark matter distributions needed to explain rotation curves are consistent with the distributions needed to explain lensing, etc.), without having to even try being creative. It basically just works out.

Finally, not having detected dark matter directly in a lab setting is not really a problem for the ΛCDM model. The whole point is that it's dark. It cannot interact electromagnetically, and by that very nature it would be very hard to detect. So far we've only ruled out the lowest hanging fruit. It would've been nice if we got lucky and found it quickly, but expecting that to happen if dark matter exists is naive. And on a related note, detection of something via its gravitational effects is still detection. When talking about particles that interact primarily through gravitation, obviously we would first notice them by their gravitational effects... In particle physics we "detect" particles through their effects on other fields (e.g. no one has ever seen a top quark, we've only ever see the particles that they decay to and note that they're consistent with the standard model). Why should gravity be ineligible when we use the other fields for this purpose all the time?

> A universe with accelerating expansion from dark energy that we also can't detect.

This is a huge question mark not but it's not a failure. The cosmological constant is a simple solution that, as far as we can tell, is consistent with all of our observations and comes with a straightforward interpretation (though of course it's also at the heart of the problem of reconciling quantum mechanics and gravity). In many ways, the accelerating expansion itself can be considered a tentative detection of dark energy. Though of course there are other competing justifications for the acceleration that we aren't yet able to rule out, too.

>Matter/antimatter asymmetry, neutrino mass, and the strong CP problem.

All big questions! But no one is claiming we've finished cosmology. Those are all some of the most active areas of research, there are dozens of hypotheses attempting to address each of them. And more importantly, no other cosmological models attempt to explain those issues, either.


Deyvicous t1_ixl08th wrote

All this missing gravity, and gravity is the problem? The audacity of people xD.

I mean, yea it’s either there is extra mass or there is extra “gravity”. There’s been searches for both for decades, and while progress has been made, neither model has had much evidence…


sticklebat t1_ixm3ok9 wrote

Neither model has had much evidence? Y’all are too hung up on “direct” detection of dark matter. It would be nice but it isn’t necessary. The ΛCDM model has been around for decades and has been making predictions that whole time, and its predictions keep being verified. How is that not evidence??

There is a ton of evidence for dark matter and the ΛCDM model as a whole. The fact that it correctly predicted the CMB power spectrum so accurately is extremely compelling on its own, even if that were the only prediction that it made.


pete_68 t1_ixlrq99 wrote

But 95+% of physicists are working on SM and like 5 guys and a dog are working in a basement on MOND, I guess is my point and SM has made almost no progress on these things in a while. Might be time to start looking at alternatives to SM.


sticklebat t1_ixm51ox wrote

> I guess is my point and SM has made almost no progress on these things in a while. Might be time to start looking at alternatives to SM.

Um, what? First of all the SM of cosmology has come a very long way even in just the past couple of decades. It is not stagnant.

Second of all, most of the specific problems you highlighted are shortcomings of the standard model of particle physics, rather than of Big Bang cosmology itself. And if you think physicists aren’t looking for alternatives and extensions of the standard mode of particle physics then you’re confused. That’s what most particle physicists are trying to do every day. The problem is that it’s hard, it requires huge, expensive, and complex particle accelerators and detectors and that makes progress slow.

TL;DR Most physicists aren’t looking for alternatives of the Standard Model of Cosmology, because it works extremely well and its shortcomings are mostly shortcomings of the Standard Model of Particle Physics. Correcting the Standard Model of Particle Physics to account for its shortcomings is literally what most particle physicists are trying to do. Cosmologists switching gears to focus on something like MOND stands zero chance of addressing most of the problems you mentioned, since those problems are particle physics problems, not cosmology ones. You are confused.


scaratzu t1_ixlx7y0 wrote

My understanding is that dark matter is quite definitively "found", we can see the gravitational lensing effect it has, and can therefore locate where it is. We just don't know what it's made of.


Total untrained amateur though, so pinch of salt.


pete_68 t1_ixma6rt wrote

Yeah, I know. But all we see is the effect. My money is on primordial black holes, personally. But that's only one problem. I see the neutrino issue as more fundamental, but like you, untrained...


ThereOnceWasAMan t1_ixkhyoy wrote

The fundamental issue with MOND is that it purports to be a simpler model that doesn't require invoking the mysterious dark matter....except that it still requires dark matter to explain all of the observed phenomenology. MOND doesn't explain the observed gravitational lensing that we've seen, for example, so even MOND proponents admit that dark matter is needed to explain that. Similarly, phenomena like the bullet cluster are still explained by dark matter in the MOND context.


billfitz24 t1_ixi0zay wrote

What a garbage headline. The article mentions Einstein once, and only in comparison to Newton.


riphitter t1_ixi1rcz wrote

New study MAY disprove gravity. I don't know, I didn't read it.


JointDamage t1_ixiej1v wrote

To be entirely fair Einstein already disproved "gravity"

Re-explained it as space time


firsttimesissybris t1_ixlky55 wrote

Because disproving newtonian gravity and Einstein's general rel and basically synonymous in this regime. Its sufficient to apply the Newtonian limit to GR, and so if the system doesn't obey Newtonian grav, and you can rule out other weird effects, then that is evidence against GR


billfitz24 t1_ixlmcek wrote

AFAIK MOND isn’t going to disprove Newtonian gravity, it’s simply going to modify it in certain circumstances similar to what Einstein did.


firsttimesissybris t1_ixln125 wrote

Newtonian gravity is wrong, we already know that. But we have no evidence (this paper says we do) that it is wrong in this situation. And due to the fact GR barely changes the answers in this situation, it would also mean GR is wrong also. These modifications are quite harsh, they basically apply to all length scales of galaxy or larger, while the difference between Newtonian and GR is almost always small.

The only reason MOND is modified Newtonian Dynamics and not modified GR is because it turns out to be very hard to modify GR in a consistent way. But it must actually be a modification of GR, that reduces to MOND in the Newtonian limit. If you include QFT, it turns out it's basically impossible to modify GR without introducing new particles, completely undermining the arguement that modifying gravity is neater than introducing new dark matter particles.


billfitz24 t1_ixlp20a wrote

I can’t agree with much of what you’ve written here. Newtonian is fine for 99% of what we experience in our daily lives. Einstein is mostly needed when relative velocities are very high. MOND is thought to apply only on galactic and larger objects.

To say that GR changes the Newtonian numbers by only a small amount is simply not true at high velocities. With time & length dilation the difference in numbers can be quite large.

I don’t see how MOND can make Einstein wrong, since it’s trying to be an explanation of gravity on truly massive objects, and I’m not aware that relative velocities are even a consideration.

Saying that MOND must modify GR and in doing so must introduce new particles is not something I’ve ever read when MOND is being discussed.

I could be completely wrong, but it seems to me you’re presenting several false arguments in your dismissal of MOND.


firsttimesissybris t1_ixlr5ve wrote

>I can’t agree with much of what you’ve written here. Newtonian is fine for 99% of what we experience in our daily lives. Einstein is mostly needed when relative velocities are very high. MOND is thought to apply only on galactic and larger objects.

That is exactly what I said, so yes we don't disagree on that. My point is, that Einstein's modifications are very small in most parts of the universe due to the fact relative velocities and curvature are often quite small when considering massive objects, bar compact objects like BH or neutron stars. However, MOND corrections don't disappear in most parts of the universe.

>To say that GR changes the Newtonian numbers by only a small amount is simply not true at high velocities. With time & length dilation the difference in numbers can be quite large.

True, but as I've said, high velocities and large curvatures are rare. Most galactic simulations completely ignore GR as it is a massive complexity just to account for very small corrections.

>I don’t see how MOND can make Einstein wrong, since it’s trying to be an explanation of gravity on truly massive objects, and I’m not aware that relative velocities are even a consideration.

MOND absolutely must supplant GR if it is to be correct, as GR makes predictions that have to be also made by any replacement to it, and that aren't included in MOND (lensing, blackholes, anything relativistic). I'm not sure what you mean by relative velocities aren't a consideration.

>Saying that MOND must modify GR and in doing so must introduce new particles is not something I’ve ever read when MOND is being discussed.

If you can find a relativistic modified Newtonian Dynamics type theory that includes GR as a limit (this is a requirement as GR is able to predict all strong gravity phenomena we've seen), and doesnt introduce new dynamical fields, then I'll retract my statement. I'm not aware of any such theories, and it is a very common criticism of MOND type theories. The first such rel version seems to be TeVeS, which introduces two new dynamical fields. QFT implies these will almost certainly be quantised, and either quanta will be new particles. Even if QFT is wrong in this, it's introduced two new fields, which is at least as ad-hoc as introducing dark matter.


kuahara t1_ixi52sb wrote

How would you like to be so damn smart that people spend your entire life and nearly 70 years after your death entertaining the idea that you might have been wrong about something?


milkweed-reflections t1_ixibmlm wrote

That's literally what science is. It's always trying to prove old science wrong. That's literally the point.


Geawiel t1_ixi71d4 wrote

I don't know. I'd think I'd be happy that everyone was questioning it all. I would probably even be ecstatic if I was disproven on something. It tells me we don't know it all , and there is much more to discover!


Binsky89 t1_ixj4pkr wrote

I feel like Einstein would have been ecstatic to have inspired generations of scientists dedicated to the pursuit of trying to prove him wrong.


AtomicSquid t1_ixiew4i wrote

Tbf he was almost definitely wrong, we just don't know anything more right yet


HandMeDownCumSock t1_ixigcq1 wrote

Why do you say he was almost definitely wrong?


Dave10293847 t1_ixj2ug2 wrote

We kind of just made up dark matter and energy to make the equations work. From what I understand, without those two, supermassive black holes still lack the size to hold galaxies together. Then it doesn’t hold up at the quantum level. That’s the extent of my knowledge on it.

So basically, his math gets us to the right answer the vast majority of the time, but it doesn’t explain the super small or super big.


phoenixbouncing t1_ixjipjm wrote

This doesn't necessarily mean relativity's wrong, what it means is that there are parts of cosmology that we can't explain using relativity and hence have placeholders there whilst we work out what they are.

Of course relativity could be wrong, and a new theory might not need the placeholders, but in that case it's going to need to explain everything relativity does, and the formation of galaxies and the expanding universe, all whilst not having too many arbitrary constants.


DeusExHumanum t1_ixlen9y wrote

same with newtonian physics eh? it's a shame people forget what science is


HandMeDownCumSock t1_ixjhhpv wrote

Were his equations supposed to cover those things though?


Dave10293847 t1_ixji5wl wrote

Sort of. We took his equations and plugged them into simulations. Our galaxy was ripped apart. The gravity wasn’t sufficient enough to keep it together. So then we plugged in different variables (simplifying it here) to find what does keep the galaxy together, ran more calculations, and then coined that missing variable dark matter.

So either Einstein has some things wrong, we’re missing something major, or Einstein is right and we just need to find out what dark matter actually is.


phoenixbouncing t1_ixji82d wrote

For one thing relativity breaks down on the quantum scale, and there's nothing in the math to explain it.

Einstein spent the last years of his life trying to figure out how to merge his theory with quantum mechanics.


gr8willi35 t1_ixia88t wrote

Yeah I bet it doesn't disprove Einstein. I'm not a Nobel prize winner but I'm pretty confident that's not going to happen.


JeevesAI t1_ixke5pu wrote

General relativity CAN’T BE right. It doesn’t account for the expansion of the universe. We already know he’s not 100% right but we don’t have a better explanation yet.


ExtonGuy t1_ixja21m wrote

Yeah, just like when I cross-threaded one (1) bolt on a car I was rebuilding. Completely disproved my theory of how to build a car.


Onlyf0rm3m3s t1_ixje9rs wrote

Newton is already "Disproved". New theories displace old ones where the later doesn't work. You can still use newtonian gravity when it's a good aproximation of reality, but there's nothing new that can disprove it anymore.


Balls_DeepinReality t1_ixig1wp wrote

Wouldn’t something like the law of averages annihilate this as being significant in any sense?

In an infinite universe anything is possible, even lopsided galaxies… right?


sticklebat t1_ixjpi7q wrote

This article is sensationalist garbage. The observed lopsidedness is interesting, but it isn’t even remotely solid evidence for MOND or against the ΛCDM model of cosmology.


tamagosan t1_ixjbnws wrote

Newton isn’t the one needing disputation.


TheNextBattalion t1_ixkynuo wrote

You can't disprove Newton and Einstein: They definitely existed.

You can disprove their theories of gravitation, though.

That might seem nitpicky, but it's important that we follow the science, not the scientist. Otherwise we can pack it in


AutoModerator t1_ixhysxu wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.


CornFedIABoy t1_ixkqbqw wrote

Wouldn’t you expect a moving, gravitationally associated, cluster of stars to build up a drift of other, slower moving stars in the leading edge and “scoop them up” into mutual attraction, accelerating them, adding to the population of the cluster, and leaving fewer stars in the trail?


N3ur-0N t1_ixlrqn1 wrote

Finally a post about science and no political agendas, THANK YOU OP


__System__ t1_ixjwmj0 wrote

Just stopped by to vote for team mond.


UniversalMomentum t1_ixi1p4i wrote

Well, it would be nice to see more admissions that how gravity and spacetime works is actually still mostly a giant unknown. Accurately prediction the motions of what you can easily see and understanding the full capabilities of something is very different. We are still stuck in a lot of science Elitism where questioning the LAWS OF PHYSICS gets you attacked and ridiculed. It also gives rise to a lot of pretty crazy ideas trying to form math and logic around such big assumptions, like UNIVERSE SIMULATION.. because how else could gravity do that? Is that really the right direction to take the question? Fundamental forces and top theories are just cheap cliff notes at this point in human existence. Don't take them so seriously you forget all the other possibilities or we all just wind up making the same mistakes.

Expect the unexpected! Our basis for all human knowledge is from an almost infinitely small sample size. It's too bad the universe doesn't have time-lapse instead of just history vision. Having to wait forever to know anything for sure is a pain in the butt!


phdoofus t1_ixiapx7 wrote

The people trying to find weirdness in the laws of gravity have been trying since at least the 80s whereas Einstein keeps getting proven right time and again in ever more extreme circumstances.


Dave10293847 t1_ixj3bmu wrote

Is he proven right though? Or is he just the closest to the right answer. Again, dark matter and energy haven’t been observed. We just know without adding them to the formulas, galaxies don’t stay together. So it’s either he was wrong, or we still need to “find” extra matter that we can’t see.


phdoofus t1_ixjauyi wrote

When their theories keep getting ruled out by measurements, e.g. gravity wave speeds, etc, then you have to wonder if they're not on the wrong track. Even current modified newtonian gravity theories still require dark matter to match observation.


Dave10293847 t1_ixjbp0h wrote

No doubt. I just don’t like the demeanor levied against Newtonian doubters. This isn’t a flat earth situation where it’s frankly just not debatable. There’s real questions as to our understanding of physics when we get to the scope of galaxies and larger.

It is possible that dark matter doesn’t exist and we missed something. (Not saying you in particular are shaming, just making a point.)