A recent MONDonian paper which is doing the rounds.

[Gmetric]

This is a video in which Dr Becky discusses the merits of a recently published paper that postulates that their analysis of the wide binary star GAIA data proves beyond all reasonable doubt (that's what 10 Sigma means) that they have found the smoking gun for MOND. 10 Sigma

If you are interested in the AQUAL version of MOND, in which AQUAL stands for A QUAdratic Lagrangian, see here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AQUAL. Basically, the original MOND theory fails to ensure the conservation of momentum, energy and angular momentum at certain limits. AQUAL replaces the Poisson equation in MOND with a Lagrangian to preserve these quantities. AQUAL fails to do away with the need for DM in clusters of galaxies, same as MOND. Since it is essentially nonrelativistic, AQUAL cannot address several key subjects in the relativistic regime either. For example, gravitational lensing, cosmological evolution and the growth of structure, to name a few.

PS There is a relativistic version of AQUAL called RAQUAL (no, I'm not joking), which attempts to correct AQUAL in the relativistic regime. It fails, too. So we have RAQUAL to correct AQUAL to correct MOND, in which all have fudge factors to correct for each other

Here is Dr. Becky on the subject.

[Graeme1858]

Albert wins again!

[pakarinen]

Bow and tremble before Dr. Becky!

Wonder what Dr. H will have to say even though I much prefer Dr. Becky's vids.

[SkyHiker]

10-sigma for that data, baloney. There must be something very wrong with their model, or they have no clue about statistics. Then later on, Bayesian estimation is presented as some miraculous method - in reality, if a problem is too hard to solve with classical statistics you resort to Bayesian statistics which makes everything easy. The parameter is now a random variable so you can apply the conditional probability rule to derive results without even thinking about it. The prior probability is kludged in to complete the story. Not saying that it's wrong but that is a big reason why Bayesian statistics are so popular. Nothing mystical about it.

I didn't know that dark matter theory has been accepted since the 60s and 70s. I always thought it was awaiting acceptance until particle physicists actually detect dark matter. Until then, alternative gravity theories should still be on the table.

Your post explains more than what I got from the video Arry, thanks for that background.

[Gmetric]

10-sigma for that data, baloney. There must be something very wrong with their model, or they have no clue about statistics. Then later on, Bayesian estimation is presented as some miraculous method - in reality, if a problem is too hard to solve with classical statistics you resort to Bayesian statistics which makes everything easy. The parameter is now a random variable so you can apply the conditional probability rule to derive results without even thinking about it. The prior probability is kludged in to complete the story. Not saying that it's wrong but that is a big reason why Bayesian statistics are so popular. Nothing mystical about it.

Well said!

Your post explains more than what I got from the video Arry, thanks for that background.

Thank you and my pleasure, glad to have been of some assistance.

[Gmetric]

Albert wins again!

Another trophy for the shelf full of them

[Gmetric]

Bow and tremble before Dr. Becky!

Wonder what Dr. H will have to say even though I much prefer Dr. Becky's vids.

LOL, how could we tremble before Dr. Becky? She is just so full of enthusiasm and so likeable.

I wonder too; it'd be an interesting debate for sure.

[Michael131313]

Thanks for the link, Arry and your and SkyHiker's comments. I do enjoy Dr. Becky. Her bloopers are great.

[GCoyote]

10-sigma for that data, baloney. There must be something very wrong with their model, or they have no clue about statistics. Then later on, Bayesian estimation is presented as some miraculous method - in reality, if a problem is too hard to solve with classical statistics you resort to Bayesian statistics which makes everything easy. The parameter is now a random variable so you can apply the conditional probability rule to derive results without even thinking about it. The prior probability is kludged in to complete the story. Not saying that it's wrong but that is a big reason why Bayesian statistics are so popular. Nothing mystical about it.

I didn't know that dark matter theory has been accepted since the 60s and 70s. I always thought it was awaiting acceptance until particle physicists actually detect dark matter. Until then, alternative gravity theories should still be on the table.

Your post explains more than what I got from the video Arry, thanks for that background.

I would characterize it as "accepted" in the sense that additional matter is the simplest explanation for the observed excess gravity. That makes it the most reasonable hypothesis based on the evidence we have. A sound theory really should propose a mechanism and for that, we need evidence of a particle, something we can measure.