SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
From New Atlas:
Some of the strongest evidence for dark matter to date has been discovered – and ironically, that's thanks to its absence. In a pair of studies published this week, astronomers have shed new light on dark matter through close observation of a galaxy previously found to have very little of the stuff, while the same team found a new example of a similar oddball galaxy.
It's generally believed that galaxies are held together through the gravitational influence of clumps of dark matter, so to find a galaxy with little to no dark matter was a surprise. And while it might sound like a strike against the theory, it actually ends up supporting it.
A Second Galaxy Missing Dark Matter in the NGC 1052 Group (DOI: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0d92) (DX)
Still Missing Dark Matter: KCWI High-resolution Stellar Kinematics of NGC1052-DF2 (DOI: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0e8c) (DX)
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday April 02 2019, @04:02PM (1 child)
Dark matter is 'established' science while QI and MOND are 'pseudo' science.....so say we all.....all except those that realise that dark matter was JUST created out of thin air to save General Relativity.
Instead of realising that GR has faults, the DM magicians waved their hands around and said Abra-cadaver enough to get noticed.
QI just got some DARPA funding, though. Good news for REAL science.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 02 2019, @06:00PM
I dunno man, reading what people say not just here and elsewhere it looks like blindly repeating mantras. I couldn't even get khallow to recognize the publication date of a prediction is before the publication date of the rotation curve data for the second "missing dark matter" galaxy. All it requires is looking at the dates on two documents.
He has apparently been rendered incapable of making a simple comparison between two published dates, that is some pretty strong mental gymnastics. Think about it.
Then he "just doesn't buy it" that the equations for MOND published in 1983 are the same ones used today. He provides no source or reason for this, just intuits it I guess. It is like their minds reject actual science making consistently accurate predictions without post-hoc fiddling as impossible.
So I suspect shilling/trolling.