Anonymous at Thu, 21 Nov 2024 16:37:58 UTC No. 16488010

>the model that can make accurate predictions is fake and gay
>the model which doesn't even yield consistent behavior on different length scales is totally real

Anonymous at Thu, 21 Nov 2024 17:01:32 UTC No. 16488042

>>16488000
Sabine is based
Academia fucked her over so she is now saying the annoying things that pussy scientists don't want to deal with

Anonymous at Thu, 21 Nov 2024 17:37:28 UTC No. 16488086

>>16488010
Isn't mond just another model of dark matter? Different galaxies have different offsets of rotation speed, which must be treated differently in mond. It seems plausible that it can work.

Anonymous at Thu, 21 Nov 2024 17:57:11 UTC No. 16488097

>>16488010
Yes sweaty, you madly?

Anonymous at Thu, 21 Nov 2024 18:33:06 UTC No. 16488140

Let's take bets, how long until she releases a video advocating flat earth?

Anonymous at Thu, 21 Nov 2024 20:20:03 UTC No. 16488274

>>16488010
MOND didn't predict anything here either. Various galaxy formation models coupled to dark matter cosmology made various predictions for the number of galaxies.
MOND has no such simulations, but someone guessed it should be "more than LCDM". Not saying how much, could be 1% more or a billion times higher. It's the scientific equivalent of guessing one dollar more than the other guy on the Price is Right. It is useless.

>>16488140
No, it's an alternative to dark matter completely. The problem is on the scale of galaxy clusters the corrections are much larger whereas in MOND they shouldn't. And they can't even do cosmology in MOND because it's Newtonian, and doesn't fit any data if you try.

Anonymous at Thu, 21 Nov 2024 22:56:26 UTC No. 16488446

>>16488000
Protecting the gospel of the secular Jewish physics Jesus is more important than being right.

Anonymous at Thu, 21 Nov 2024 23:33:49 UTC No. 16488502

>>16488000
Third option: 25% proper dark matter + 60% of cloaked matter by advanced civilizations + 15% of visible matter.

Anonymous at Thu, 21 Nov 2024 23:38:23 UTC No. 16488512

>>16488502
Nah the 60% is more probably immatter, aka matter which is not yet ripe

Anonymous at Thu, 21 Nov 2024 23:43:22 UTC No. 16488516

>>16488042
Go get a job, Sabine.

Anonymous at Thu, 21 Nov 2024 23:44:23 UTC No. 16488519

>>16488140
Will happen right after her alien Bigfoot reveal

Anonymous at Fri, 22 Nov 2024 00:26:19 UTC No. 16488572

professor dave explains deboonked her tho

Anonymous at Fri, 22 Nov 2024 11:44:33 UTC No. 16489028

>>16488140
She can't be that based

Anonymous at Fri, 22 Nov 2024 12:12:26 UTC No. 16489045

>>16488446

What's happening with all those references to Jews on all 4chan ? Until recently it was mostly constrained to /pol/ and /his/ but now it spread to /sci/, /a/, /biz/, /lit/ ...

Anonymous at Fri, 22 Nov 2024 12:43:02 UTC No. 16489075

>>16488000
Threadly reminder: Lubos was right, Sabine is a dip shit.

Anonymous at Fri, 22 Nov 2024 12:52:42 UTC No. 16489082

>>16489045
ever since the lock-downs really

Anonymous at Fri, 22 Nov 2024 13:17:51 UTC No. 16489098

>>16489075
>Lubos was right
Source?

Anonymous at Fri, 22 Nov 2024 13:49:16 UTC No. 16489127

>>16488086
except MoND doesn't work at all, it fails to explain even basic observations
here's one:
why do galaxies which have similar sizes and shapes sometimes have dramatically different amounts of dark matter in them?
MoND completely fails to answer this question and it's a common observation

Anonymous at Fri, 22 Nov 2024 14:55:08 UTC No. 16489202

>>16489127
By this argument no model of dark matter works. So I don't get your hangup

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 11:07:16 UTC No. 16490331

>>16489202
If it works as an argument against dark matter, then it is an argument against MoND. Even if something is wrong, it doesn't mean that is must be replaced by something else that is wrong. That's politics

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 11:40:33 UTC No. 16490346

>>16489202
>By this argument no model of dark matter works.
If dark matter is actually a physical thing, then it can be distributed unevenly, which is consistent with observations.
If it's due to MoND, then it can't be distributed unevenly, because forces should be similarly modified for galaxies of similar size and shape, but we observe that this doesn't happen. So far MoND can't explain even this, so nobody really takes it seriously.

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 12:17:35 UTC No. 16490364

>>16489127
>why do galaxies which have similar sizes and shapes sometimes have dramatically different amounts of dark matter in them?
Because "dark matter" is just gravitational ripples, which can be at different field intensities anywhere in the universe

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 12:25:58 UTC No. 16490371

>>16490364
MoND doesn't predict gravitational waves

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 12:33:13 UTC No. 16490379

>>16490331
>>16490346
I don't think you guys understand what you're saying. Dark matter is a collection of observational anomalies. Galaxy rotation curves show different degrees of anomalies, in that some show no anomalies and some show dramatic anomalies. As far as I understand, every model of dark matter out there is ad hoc in this regard.

Mond is a model of dark matter insofar that it describes these anomalies. Different galaxies will have different gravitational scaling. Meanwhile with something like WIMPS, the model only works if you say different galaxies have different amount of wimps.

Not sure why you say mond isn't a model of dark matter. It clearly is.

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 12:55:30 UTC No. 16490396

>>16490379
Yes I am well aware of this and I have no idea why you think my post says otherwise. MoND does not explain why some galaxies seem to have a lot of it and others don't, despite being similarly shaped and sized.
>Different galaxies will have different gravitational scaling.
But similar galaxies have been observed to have dramatically different properties with regards to dark matter. So MoND is inconsistent with observations.
>Meanwhile with something like WIMPS, the model only works if you say different galaxies have different amount of wimps.
Yes, there are unsatisfying things about actually having a different kind of matter being the explanation. However, MoND hasn't offered a viable alternative, and the observations cannot be ignored just because some feel MoND is "prettier" to them.
Not sure why you say mond isn't a model of dark matter. It clearly is.
>Not sure why you say mond isn't a model of dark matter. It clearly is.
I did not say this. I said it fails to explain observations.

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 13:18:52 UTC No. 16490410

>>16490371
I'm a different poster and I don't advocate for mond, I just answered your question

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 16:43:59 UTC No. 16490551

is there a theoretical model for Mond or its just saying that gravity is different

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 17:05:50 UTC No. 16490569

>>16490396
>different gravitational scaling coefficients fail to describe different rotational anomalies
you're talking out of your ass

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 18:47:47 UTC No. 16490687

>>16488572
And you will never be a woman.

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 19:04:51 UTC No. 16490709

>>16490687
thanks for validating me
:3

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 19:10:13 UTC No. 16490719

>>16489082
Asking people to social distance and not spread a plague isn't a lockdown. Don't be dramatic.

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Nov 2024 07:44:35 UTC No. 16491394

>>16488512
Probably this, we still don't know why energy turns into particles and matter or what makes it do so, could be just some quantum magic happening there where we can't measure shit for sure.