• UraniumBlazer
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 month ago

    Does this explain the bullet cluster? If it doesn’t, it’s kinda useless.

    • superkret@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      1 month ago

      the current theory is “not by itself sufficient to discredit the dark matter hypothesis — it could be an interesting mathematical exercise at best, but it is the first proof that gravity can exist without mass,” he added.

      (Quote by the author of the study himself)

      It’s a purely mathematical construct that could explain bending of light without mass.

      • Thorry84@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 month ago

        Typical, scientist: “My paper does NOT say THIS”. Press: “Scientist claims THIS!”

      • UraniumBlazer
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        Sure, I’m blaming the concerned journalist(s) here. It’s rlly scummy to hype up an evidenceless hypothesis like this. Does injustice to both, the scientists and the public.

      • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        To be fair dark matter is a purely mathematical construct to explain the presence of gravity without (visible) mass. Certainly dark matter has more credibility than this new idea but hypothetical mathematical constructs make up a good chunk of physics.

      • Tobberone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        But per the definition given involving negative mass, it should be “meassurable mass in the presence of exotic matter”. Anywho…