3 ms·
huh? how is MOND less ad hoc? it introduces more parameters to fit its arbitrary conception about how gravity is supposed to scale. even worse, since basic MON
by fartsucker69 4y ago
huh? how is MOND less ad hoc?
it introduces more parameters to fit its arbitrary conception about how gravity is supposed to scale. even worse, since basic MOND disagrees with a ton of basic evidence since it just doesn't work except for the few problems it was created for, the actual MOND derivatives that do try to make it work introduce even more parameters to fit.
- throwawaymaths 4y agoIt introduces ONE parameter. And TWO, for the relativistic version. To simplify, LCDM introduces at a minimum one parameter (relative dark matter:visible matter ratio) for each galaxy to get the rotation curves correct. That's at least a billion parameters. MOND has made successful predictions:. The EFE, for example (there are others). LCDM has not, as far as I can tell -- please correct me if I'm wrong [0] > work except for the few problems it was created for That's actually a poor heuristic. Suppose we hadn't discovered relativity yet (but had galactic rotation curves, which only depend on good telescopes and newton, and Doppler effect), and we observed mercury's precession. Would you then use precession as an argument for dark matter on the basis that there's a dark matter entity in our solar system pulling mercury around? I would think that would not be a good idea. [0] ok I looked it up and actually LCDM predicted no galaxies with redshift greater than 7... And thanks to jwst we now know there are galaxies with much much greater redshift, a feature explicitly predicted by MOND.
- throwawaymaths 4y ago[1] I forgot about cmb polarization, that is a successful prediction of LCDM