MattPalmer1086

Haha, yes. It does not account for releases which made UX dramatically worse (win 8) which were then reverted to some extent.

A comprehensive look at why dark matter does not adequately explain galactic dynamics by a leading scientist in the field, Stacy McGaugh. Specifically, it addresses the criticism that DM should provide natural explanations for MONDian phenomonology.

Newtonian is just plain determinism. One thing causes another, but does not imply things are fixed in any particular way.

Superdeterminism implies that things are fixed in advance in such a way that the things we "choose" to measure always looks as if there are no local hidden variables (e.g. Bell's inequality) even though there are.

MOND has one constant parameter, a0. This is hardly a good example of a theory tweaking many parameters to fit the data.

Yes, it is empirically determined and provides no deeper insight into why it works.

There are always exceptions that need additional explanation. The majority do spin exactly as the Tully Ficsher relation suggests. What specific examples are you thinking of?

Apparently they all have just the right amount arranged in the right way to give the same result in each case.

TeVes (one relatistic formulation of MOND) predicts gravity propagation at different speeds than light. This is not a general result of MOND theories.

If you read the rebuttal by Professor McGaugh, you can include those 3 as perfectly good examples of MOND too.

You do make a good point though - astronomy and astrophysics is hard. There are often many ways of interpreting the observations we have. They can be misleading and take careful interpretation, particularly when they seem unusual in some way.

Yep, pretty much. They all have a flat rotation curve (which makes no sense unless gravity works differently or there is unseen mass), and that rotation correlates to the visible matter in the galaxy (the Tully Fischer relation).

Maybe it should - but it does not prove that the subject is a crank. Thomas Khun's theory of paradigms shows that science is not an entirely objective undertaking.

Having read Prof McGaugh's blog and some of his published papers for quite some time, I do not place him in the crank bucket. Make your own mind up I guess. My take is he is a legitimate scientist who holds views outside the mainstream.

The fun question to ask is why almost all galaxies (no matter how they differ) spin as though a simple modification of gravity explains them. That dark matter is organising itself to produce the same outcome over many different circumstances!

Professor McGaugh has commented many times on the sociology of science and how the dominant paradigm tends to be hostile or indifferent to alternate views. He is also quite frank about the limitations of MOND as well, although he is definitely in the MOND camp overall.

He is hardly a crank - but he is definitely not in the mainstream camp.