3 ms·
Well, I guess I did think there is more to MOND than this. As you present it here, it does not seem to advanced to the point of being an evaluable theory, despi
by mannykannot 6y ago
Well, I guess I did think there is more to MOND than this. As you present it here, it does not seem to advanced to the point of being an evaluable theory, despite being first proposed almost forty years ago.
I'm still confused by your statement of the goal: "The problem then is to come up with a proper theory of gravity that replicates both GR and MOND." Surely the problem is to come up with a theory - any theory - that is a) consistent with observations, and b) makes testable predictions?
- mannykannot 6y agoAh, I think I get it: The problem in advancing MOND is to come up with a proper theory of gravity that is compatible with all the evidence supporting GR and which gives rise to the dynamics as hypothesized in MOND to explain the observed anomalies? If that's the point then I agree, but isn't MOND having some difficulty coming up with a single dynamics that works in all cases? Meanwhile, dark matter is having some difficulty in finding a particle that works at all.
- Sniffnoy 6y agoYes, exactly, that's what I meant. The problem in general is as you say, but I was talking about MOND-based theories, as that was the context.