• FaceDeer@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    In this case MOND is being proposed as a way to explain the pattern of orbits of outer solar system bodies. Nothing to do with galactic rotation.

    • xkforce@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      I mentioned galactic rotation curves because thats more or less where it began. If MOND fails to fit the data at those scales, it will necessarily fail within our own solar system at the outer edges where a0 would potentially be relevant.

      • FaceDeer@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        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.

        • xkforce@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months 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.