3 ms·
> premise of MOND is correct Well, typically the term MOND refers to very specific modifications of Newtonian gravity and doesn't even take into account GR. So
by V1ndaar 3y ago
> premise of MOND is correct
Well, typically the term MOND refers to very specific modifications of Newtonian gravity and doesn't even take into account GR. So I'm not sure I would agree with the statement in general terms (note, I haven't read the paper so far, so I don't know what they claim).
There's _plenty_ of extensions of GR though that modify gravity. That in itself isn't really that surprising. Scalar-Tensor theory and the like. And there's a reason these are usually not called MOND. Some go by "MOG" for modified gravity.
- sigmoid10 3y agoThe paper actually mentions a specific form of MOND called AQUAL [1]. The original version of MOND was a very specific, simple modification of Newton's laws, but over the decades it has become more of a synonym for all attempts at modifying gravity at long distances. Especially since all of these attempts modify the weak field regime, which is equivalent to modifying Newton's law of gravity. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AQUAL https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AQUAL
- AnimalMuppet 3y agoThis particular proposed modification is for very weak accelerations. That's where Newtonian gravity is least corrected by GR.