|
|
|
|
|
|
by jjoonathan
2105 days ago
|
|
|
If MOND and Dark Matter both fit the data and MOND did it with few parameters while DM did it with a field of parameters, everyone would prefer MOND and it wouldn't be the slightest bit controversial. The problem is that MOND doesn't fit the data. Some galaxies behave one way, some behave the other way, and it isn't very inspiring when a MOND model fails to fit observations and its advocates try to hand-wave the problem away. DM: we see complexity, let's treat it as fundamental. MOND: we see complexity, let's ignore the inconvenient parts. |
|
|
I think that is a mischaracterization; IIRC, MOND fits the overwhelming balance of galaxies with a single parameter, and there are only a handful of exceptions (probably around in the hundreds or so?) out of all of the galaxies.
also: MOND doesn't explain intergalactic movement, or the clumpiness of the universe. But there's ALSO no good reason to believe that that "LCDM dark matter" does either, because by the "curve-fitting nature" of LCDM it could literally explain anything. If all of the oxygen in my room went to the northeast corner of my room and suffocated me, you could come up with a dark matter field that explained that phenomenon. As a scientist, that worries me. Also doesn't mean that LCDM is wrong.