Why why why do people share articles with sensational headlines like this? Its no wonder science journalism gets a bad rap. This kind of thing really undermines all the people who are actually trying to communicate science properly.
replies(2):
MOND is just some wild idea, but a little thought should convince every physicist of its uselessness. It has major issues both in explaining experimental data and in its theoretical consistency. It justifiably receives next to no attention from the vast majority of (astro)physicists.
In popular science the idea however does not seem to want to die, perhaps because it is so easily explained to a layperson. Of course this is a little frustrating for the community, but perhaps we should look at the upsides: more attention for science is probably a good thing, and explaining to people why MOND is so useless provides a good opportunity to discuss some proper physics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n33aurhg788
Is this typical behaviour for physicsts? Extremely strong opinions expressed in an abrasive way, out of proportion to the available evidence?
You refer to a non-scientific article and to a youtube video, but any vaccine sceptic can probably easily find exactly the same kind of material to support their view. That would almost certainly include a video by a "professional doctor".
You might call me abrasive, but I am really just trying to be as clear as possible: this is the consensus in the field.
And before you continue this discussion it might be worth pondering the following questions. How do you think doctors should convince vaccine skeptics that vaccines work? And how big a percentage of their weekend do you think they should spend engaging on the details with anti-vaxxers? (And, in this forum, how many downvotes from obvious non-experts should they be willing to accept?)
In other words, what could I do to convince you in a reasonable amount of time?
No, many of LCDM's successes were not predictions but post-hoc adjustments, where MOND had many successful predictions, even though we had no expectation for it to work:
From galactic bars to the Hubble tension: weighing up the astrophysical evidence for Milgromian gravity, https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.06936
Yours is an opinion shared by particle physicists because they focus on particles, but astronomers are more neutral on MOND. It almost always just works (it's an "effective theory"), even though we don't know why.
I think this is the root of the problem, because most 'vaccine skeptics' don't actually claim that vaccines don't work. I say this as someone who is not skeptical of vaccines at all. But when I read doctors defending vaccines it comes across as so out of touch with what the 'skeptics' are concerned about.
> In other words, what could I do to convince you in a reasonable amount of time?
For me at least, you don't need to convince me. It's clear that there are a lot of issues with all current formulations of gravitation. It's a pick your poison deal. You say MOND is wrong due to overwhelming evidence. I say the dark matter theories are wrong due to overwhelming lack of evidence that the stuff that is purported to exist even exists. Both wrong... It's hardly a bad thing to be labeled wrong when no one is right.
In general, if you're not right, then I don't see the point in dissing on those you consider wrong