Come join the friendliest, most engaging and inclusive astronomy forum geared for beginners and advanced telescope users, astrophotography devotees, plus check out our "Astro" goods vendors. https://www.theskysearchers.com/
Not saying I like DM, and nature doesn’t care what it’s called, but whatever it is it’s dark enough to be eluding our most sensitive searches thus far, yet pervasive enough to be required for our most successful theories. And now appears to be a more statistically viable option than other competing theories. As long as this study survives peer review. We may not need or like the terminology for whatever it is that’s missing from our current understanding, but whatever it is that is missing is definitely required.
Re: Dr H on the statistical viability of DM over MOND
Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2024 10:02 pm
by Lady Fraktor
Dark matter and dark energy are both horrid terms of the moment.
I agree though that whatever it is, it is definitely required.
One day nature may give us a larger clue.
In the meantime I am going to refer to DM as Moneypenny. (In the background getting things done properly)
Re: Dr H on the statistical viability of DM over MOND
Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2024 8:49 am
by Graeme1858
That's a good video Arry.
I like the way Dr H is willing to explore and explain both sides without being polarised.