James Webb Space Telescope finds evidence for alternate theory of gravity

My hangup with MOND is still general relativity. We know for a fact that gravity is _not_ Newtonian, that the inverse square law does not hold. Any model of gravity based on an inverse law is simply wrong.

Another comment linked to https://tritonstation.com/new-blog-page/, which is an excellent read. It makes the case that GR has never been tested at low accelerations, that is might be wrong. But we know for a fact MOND is wrong at high accelerations. Unless your theory can cover both, I don't see how it can be pitched as an improvement to GR.

Edit: this sounds a bit hostile. to be clear, I think modified gravity is absolutely worth researching. but it isn't a silver bullet

>We know for a fact that gravity is _not_ Newtonian, that the inverse square law does not hold

[citation needed]

The consensus is that gravity - outside of extreme mass/energy environments - works just as Newton described it to many many decimal places.

Emphasized part added because people in the replies thought that I literally think that General Relativity is somehow wrong. Don't be dense. All I'm saying is that gravity at galactic scales works as Newton described it. General Relativity has extremely tiny effect at those scales.

Citation needed? That's ridiculous. The empirical evidence is well over century old at this point. Start with the anomalous precession of Mercury's perihelion. That already can't be accounted for by Newtonian gravity.

Samsartor seems to think that the inverse square law does not hold at short distances (e.g. between the sun and mercury). Meindnoch agrees with mainstream physics that the inverse square law does indeed hold at short distances. You're confusing newtonian physics (busted) with the inverse square strength of gravity (still strongly supported); those are two different things. GR says gravity should be strictly 1/r^2, and this is what we observe in the solar system.