How? I’m not sure how to answer that, except perhaps to say that MOND is Newtonian, so whatever it is in Newtonian physics that violates relativity, MOND has the same violation(s).

Statements of the form “theory X doesn’t explain phenomenon Z” are interesting, but perhaps less so than more categorical “theory X violates principle Y” statements. After all, with more study one might see that theory X does explain phenomenon Z, or that we didn’t quite understand that phenomenon, but violations of widely accepted principles require more effort to overcome and might even require modifying the violated principle in order to survive, which would be a tall order indeed (though maybe not insurmountable).

I’m NOT looking for statements of the form “theory X explains …”. We already get such statements from the theories’ proponents.

I’m also not really looking for objections like ” theory X is unscientific”, or ” theory Y requires fitting N parameters to data”, though these and generally statements about the degree of freedom in a theory are very useful indeed. Such features are easy enough to notice and not necessarily fatal early on. We must take notice of these, but I’m already aware of some of them, so they don’t help _me_.

I’m especially NOT looking for ad hominems of any kind, nor pointers to objectionable behavior of proponents.

Basically I’m looking for a filter and/or challenges that make one think things through more carefully before spending much effort on any I’ve theory. I do realize that study of DM gets a lot of funding, which might tend to skew some of the answers i might get, but that’s ok.

Statements of the form “i’ve not yet found our developed an objection to their X, but have tried” are useful. Explanations of what principles you think are not violated by theory X and why are very nuch welcomed.

Thanks!

I would particularly like to hear all that us wrong with MiHsC. McCullough strikes me as socially awkward and quite possibly a charlatan who has math-not-physics, but that may just be because he’s very sure if a theory that imo needs much more fleshing out — but who would invest time into it when it seems off the wall to begin with? But surely some have thought of serious-enough objections to MiHsC and/or MoND, and I’d like to hear those. (I’ve heard a number of objections to DM; those should be cataloged also.)

I’ll settle for a non comprehensive listing of problems by commenters here. Even just a few to set me thinking would be nice!

If dark matter clings to ordinary matter, couldn’t it be that this kind of dark matter forms the correspondence of molecules and planets, but all dark to our electromagnetivity? Maybe there’s dark life around here, of which we can only notice the mass. Matter without properties, like a black hole.