I follow this stuff (as a non-physicist) so I understood it. It’s a pretty shallow article and mentions there there’s still evidence for the widely-accepted Lambda-CDM model. But like most coverage of MOND it declines to give good alternate explanations for specific key observations like the Bullet Cluster, gravitational lensing, and galactic outer rotational speeds.
So yeah a new observation that fits better with MOND than LCDM is certainly interesting, it doesn’t flip the tables unless it does a better job explaining the prior phenomena too.
I understand the two theories and the difference between them, but when my brain tries to comprehend how gravity actually works I experience a comprehension failure.
Haha, well if it’s any consolation, nobody fully understands it. That’s why we’re still looking at various theories of quantum gravity or even random gravity.
