That was a good article! What bothers me most is that physicists often argues against MOND, because it is not comprehensive enough and must thus be discarded. I think that this is wrong approach, because what if physics is inherently dirty? That there are no elegant and universal theories? MOND explains well rotational curves of galaxies and is now shown that it is also predictive theory.
But what if MOND fails in explaining the origins of Galaxies and we need different theories to explain those events? After all these events happened yet again at different cosmic scale that requires different theories. I have put my money on that there will be no dark matter that explains the anomalous rotational curves of galaxies. —Jouni On Mar 4, 2013, at 11:01 PM, Terry Blanton <[email protected]> wrote: > We don't need no steenkin' dark matter: > > http://science.time.com/2013/02/26/cosmic-fuggedaboudit-dark-matter-may-not-exist-at-all/
