Comments on: Dark Beginnings

By: Daniel Gozzani

Daniel Gozzani — Tue, 27 Sep 2016 19:31:07 +0000

🙂

By: RC Davison

RC Davison — Mon, 26 Sep 2016 10:55:46 +0000

What implications are there for dark matter if the paper “The Radial Acceleration Relation in Rotationally Supported Galaxies” discussed here (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160921085052.htm) Is validated?

By: James Harmer

James Harmer — Mon, 26 Sep 2016 07:48:59 +0000

Radial idea ? Surely Radical ? Sorry, got my pedants hat on this morning….

By: Dan Weese

Dan Weese — Mon, 26 Sep 2016 02:27:32 +0000

… I keep feeling as if Dark Matter is a stub theory, one which serves cosmology’s purposes, not as a particularly explanatory thing but to keep the old Zwicky equations working. The same goes for MoND, which as you observe on the Forbes site, has its own shortcomings. I sense, as with the cosmological constant Λ , which Einstein used as a stub to make his equations work, saying it was his greatest blunder – it wasn’t, of course – the equations will get better as the observations improve. But Dark Matter just isn’t explanatory. MoND serves just as well and it’s simpler. Or so says this non-astronomer civilian type….

By: Brian Koberlein

Brian Koberlein — Mon, 26 Sep 2016 00:03:53 +0000

Maybe I’ll do a whole post on her sometime.

By: Daniel Gozzani

Daniel Gozzani — Sun, 25 Sep 2016 23:52:28 +0000

There should have been a mention to the work of Vera Rubin in this article.