alt Hacker News> like MOND because philosophically it is quite nice, and also tend to draw in people with minority/anti-etablishment habitus
MOND is a non-relativistic theory. It's not even able to explain the orbit of mercury, gravitational lensing or black holes.
It's the equivalent of hot gluing jet engines to a roman quadriga, it won't fly.
Replies
Not really a problem, relativistic effects are negligible at the very low accelerations MOND is about. Should MOND work with galaxies, a theory that say "if the force is less than a threshold, use MOND, otherwise, use general relativity" is not pretty, but good enough to match the observations, and that's the important part.
There are more elegant ways of doing it (ex: TeVeS), but before looking at the best way to reconcile general relativity and MOND, something we know is possible, it is important to make sure that MOND works at the scales it is supposed to work with. Currently, it doesn't, but dark matter doesn't either. More research is needed, as they say.
I never said it was correct, but people smarter than me work on this and I do not have the scientific baggage to say they're wrong.
To me they are as right as people working on lambdaCDM or dark fluid, as long as none of those theory is able to predict anything.
> MOND is a non-relativistic theory.
Well obviously, it's literally in the name.
A relativistic version of the theory is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor%E2%80%93vector%E2%80%93...