• MOND confirmed

    From jacobnavia@21:1/5 to All on Wed Dec 23 09:46:01 2020
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)@21:1/5 to jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr on Wed Dec 23 10:44:42 2020
    In article <rru11e$con$1@dont-email.me>, jacobnavia
    <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> 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/helbig/research/publications/info/sonne_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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)