this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2023
41 points (88.7% liked)

Astronomy

4034 readers
8 users here now

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] FaceDeer@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There are many variants of MOND. RelMOND, for example, includes features that resemble dark matter more closely.

I'm not saying "it's gotta be MOND", of course. I'm just reacting to what I perceive as an unnecessarily hostile reaction to it. We have yet to actually figure out dark matter either, after all, and there are many variants of dark matter that have been proposed. So the "it's designed post facto to fit observations" is a complaint that can be directed against it right now too. I see nothing wrong with exploring all the options, especially when it's by people who have chosen to spend their efforts doing that for themselves.

[โ€“] xkforce@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

None of them are based on anything though. Theyre curve fitting models which is why I am hostile to them. Show me a mechanism that derives what a0 is from scratch.

Basing a model on how well it fits a curve rather than on a mechanism that naturally derives the curve from scratch is essentially worthless.

Without a mechanism that explains why there needs to be a MOND dominated regime in the first place, its just too susceptible to being pathological science.