« on: 28/10/2023 23:15:29 »
I was assuming you could look it up yourself instead of me quoting what you would consider a biased source.
She's not so biased as you might think I'd believe. She has very good points and I actually agree with her that MOND is something that is worth exploring. Moreover, dark matter and MOND aren't mutually exclusive. Some combination of the two may prove to be the solution.
Also, that PDF you posted appears to be about MOND. I, on the other hand, was asking you specifically about this quote of yours:Nasa pictures. They showed a picture of a galaxy with dark patches between the arms by Hubble. Then superimposed one by JWST and low and behold the dark patches were no more dark patches but gas glowing less brightly due to being distant from other stars in the arms and getting less illumination/radiation. No more mysterious dark matter dark energy dark sextors dark axions.
I see no mention of Hubble, JWST or photographs in that paper you linked. So again I must ask you: what study was it that revealed the source of the missing mass had been discovered by comparing NASA photographs? More specifically, how was the mass of those patches of gas measured so it could be compared to the expected missing mass value? If we had found that the missing mass really was just clouds of normal matter, there would be no need for either dark matter or MOND, so I don't know why you are linking me a MOND video and a MOND paper.
The paper is not about MOND.
I lost the link and will post when i find it. Why dont you search for it?