A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Research
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

MOND confirmed



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 23rd 20, 10:46 AM posted to sci.astro.research
jacobnavia
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 104
Default MOND confirmed

In a paper in the Astrophysical Journal, (The Astrophysical Journal,
904:51 (20pp), 2020 November 20) several researches cnfirm MOND's
prediction of 1984: the External Field Effect (EFE) has been almost
unambiguously detected (more than 4 sigma)

LCDM is dead.

jacob

Ads
  #2  
Old December 23rd 20, 07:44 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 273
Default MOND confirmed

In article , jacobnavia
writes:

In a paper in the Astrophysical Journal, (The Astrophysical Journal,
904:51 (20pp), 2020 November 20) several researches cnfirm MOND's
prediction of 1984: the External Field Effect (EFE) has been almost
unambiguously detected (more than 4 sigma)

LCDM is dead.


Leaving aside the question whether or not 4 sigma is evidence or not,
things aren't that simple. (Answer: it is if the evidence supports your
own ideas, otherwise it is not.)

Since 1984, many MOND predictions have been confirmed, so you have to
explain why, specifically, the paper mentioned above kills LambdaCDM.
If it is just one in a long string of confirmed MOND predictions, then
why doesn't most of the community believe in MOND rather than LambdaCDM?

Can you explain the CMB power spectrum in MOND? No. Did it confirm
many LambdaCDM predictions? Yes. So is MOND dead?

As is often the case, things aren't that simple.

As a quick internet search shows, I am far from unsympathetic to MOND.
My guess as to why MOND isn't taken more seriously? A big problem are
attempted defences of MOND like the one above, not just by internet
pundits but by otherwise serious scientists. OK, people can make
mistakes, but I think that the MOND community would do well to distance
itself from over-the-top strawman attacks on LambdaCDM and concentrate
on its real successes, while acknowledging that there are things which
MOND cannot get right. I've actually met a few people who were
interested in MOND but were turned off by the exaggerated rhetoric.

That means a detailed discussion, more than for a usenet post or a blog
comments. As luck would have it, just this month I have published a
long discussion on this very topic:

http://www.astro.multivax.de:8000/he..._und_mond.html

The page at the URL above contains a link to the abstract and also to a
PDF file essentially identical to the published version.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Energy Density CBR vs MW at 1pc vs MOND [email protected] Research 1 October 17th 16 07:43 AM
simple MOND question Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)[_2_] Research 3 September 24th 16 09:22 PM
MOND confirmed? jacob navia[_5_] Research 0 August 29th 13 06:22 PM
Mond confirmed? jacob navia[_2_] Research 3 June 30th 09 04:02 AM
MOND & Carmeli Charles Francis Research 0 March 30th 05 09:08 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.