From galactic bars to the Hubble tension: weighing up the astrophysical evidence for Milgromian gravity · HackerPapers discussions

From galactic bars to the Hubble tension: weighing up the astrophysical evidence for Milgromian gravity — mentioned by naasking

Sun, 17 Nov 2024 14:33:32 GMT

> The evidence in the opposite direction is simply overwhelming. No, many of LCDM's successes were not predictions but post-hoc adjustments, where MOND had many successful predictions, even though we had no expectation for it to work: From galactic bars to the Hubble tension: weighing up the astrophysical evidence for Milgromian gravity, https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.06936 Yours is an opinion shared by particle physicists because they focus on particles, but astronomers are more neutral on MOND. It almost always just works (it's an "effective theory"), even though we don't know why.

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

From galactic bars to the Hubble tension: weighing up the astrophysical evidence for Milgromian gravity — mentioned by naasking

Mon, 18 Mar 2024 16:54:42 GMT

> I don't know what you mean by this. Sure, after more curve fitting [1]. It's just more inconvenient history that's been forgotten to favour LCDM. > You will find no paper out there that can reach the same level of predictions as DM. That's just wrong. LCDM's curve fitting has become great due to all of the adjustments, it's a priori predictions have not been great: https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.06936 > some form of DM will still be required This was always the case as I already pointed out in my previous reply, going back to at least the 90s [2]. The point is that cold dark matter has…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

From galactic bars to the Hubble tension: weighing up the astrophysical evidence for Milgromian gravity — mentioned by naasking

Sat, 16 Mar 2024 12:57:36 GMT

> What is the underlying theory? Who cares? This has literally never been a requirement of science and I don't know why people bring it up for MOND. What was Isaac's Newton's underlying theory when he proposed his law of gravitation? No explanation for why two masses attract, therefore we should reject an effective description? That's nonsense. A theory is scientific if it describes what we observe, period. If you have a deeper explanation right off the bat, that's a bonus, otherwise that's the goal of further research. The other poster adequately addressed the implicit hypocrisy applied to…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

From galactic bars to the Hubble tension: weighing up the astrophysical evidence for Milgromian gravity — mentioned by naasking

Tue, 05 Dec 2023 17:05:42 GMT

> The Bullet Cluster is a particular instance where we can actually "see" the dark matter flying around, in a way MOND couldn't hope to explain This is not correct. In fact, LCDM can't even explain the Bullet Cluster [1]. The evidence is not so favourable to LCDM over MOND [2] when taken as a whole. More recent observations on wide binary stars disfavour MOND more strongly, but the classic reasons you cite are not valid reasons. [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0381 [2] https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.06936 Edit: See for instance what Milgrom said about the Bullet Cluster back in 2006…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

From galactic bars to the Hubble tension: weighing up the astrophysical evidence for Milgromian gravity — mentioned by naasking

Fri, 11 Aug 2023 14:46:01 GMT

Don't confuse post-hoc curve fitting with predictions: From galactic bars to the Hubble tension: weighing up the astrophysical evidence for Milgromian gravity, https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.06936

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

From galactic bars to the Hubble tension: weighing up the astrophysical evidence for Milgromian gravity — mentioned by naasking

Sun, 12 Feb 2023 01:45:38 GMT

> but then there's also those things that disagree with mond rendering the need for introducing a bunch of new stuff on top of it anyway. And LCDM does this too. If you want a comprehensive survey of the tuning done by each model to fit observations, see: https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.06936v3 It seems clear that neither approach is satisfactory as they stand, but the resistance to recognizing the significant flaws in LCDM is frankly puzzling.

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

From galactic bars to the Hubble tension: weighing up the astrophysical evidence for Milgromian gravity — mentioned by JetSetWilly

Thu, 12 Jan 2023 21:08:05 GMT

This is not unusual. There's many predictions made by MOND ahead of the fact that are borne out by reality. But don't worry - dark matter will be "retrofitted" so that it fits the facts and everybody will suffer collective memory loss again. Edit: see for example table 1 on page 12 here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2110.06936.pdf from a review of prior expectations by both MOND and dark matter vs how they turned out against reality for a large variety of astrophysical scenarios.

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

From galactic bars to the Hubble tension: weighing up the astrophysical evidence for Milgromian gravity — HN submission

Mon, 06 Dec 2021 19:34:09 GMT

MOND vs. Dark Matter, a side by side comparison

2 points; 0 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.