The stars at disc galaxies’ outer borders – which are far from the gravitational pull of all the matter at their centres were moving considerably more quickly than expected by Newton’s theory, as was found by scientists in the early 1970s.

As a result, physicists put out the widely accepted notion that “dark matter,” an unobservable material, was exerting additional gravitational attraction and caused the stars to accelerate.

SEE ALSO: Can Galaxies Exist Without Dark Matter? Latest Simulations Say Yes!

However, in a recent review, my colleagues and I argue that an alternative explanation of gravity known as Milgromian dynamics or Mond – requiring no invisible matter – is considerably better able to account for evidence at a wide variety of scales. Mordehai Milgrom, an Israeli physicist, made the initial suggestion in 1982.

Mond’s main hypothesis is that gravity begins to behave differently from Newtonian physics when it becomes extremely weak, as it occurs on the edges of galaxies. This explains why stars, planets, and gas near the periphery of over 150 galaxies rotate more quickly than would be predicted based on just their apparent mass.

Scientists have suggested that Mond is preferable than the conventional cosmological model, which holds that there is more dark matter than visible matter in the universe, because to his ability to anticipate the future.

This is due to the fact that the dark matter content of galaxies is predicted by this model to be highly unknown and dependent on the galaxy’s formation history, which is not always known.

Only on the periphery could it be reasonably predicted in the conventional cosmological model that the rotation speed will fall between 100 km/s and 300 km/s. Mond predicts with greater certainty that the rotation speed must fall between 180 and 190 km/s.

Both ideas are supported if additional measurements show a rotation speed of 188 km/s, but Mond is definitely the more likely candidate. To encapsulate the basic principle of Occam’s razor that a theory with more free parameters is consistent with a wider range of evidence, making it more complex we proposed the concept of “theoretical flexibility.

When comparing the traditional cosmological model and Mond to a variety of astronomical observations, including as the rotation of galaxies and the motions within galaxy clusters, they employed the idea.

We assigned a theoretical flexibility score of between -2 and +2 for each instance. A model receives a score of -2 if it predicts something with clarity and accuracy without looking at the data.

In contrast, +2 suggests that “anything goes” because theorists might have fit practically any conceivable observable outcome (because there are so many free parameters). Additionally, we scored how well each model agreed with the data, with a +2 signifying great agreement and a -2 signifying observations that blatantly contradict the theory.

A excellent theory would have unambiguous predictions that were later verified, preferably scoring +4 overall across several different tests (+2 -(-2) = +4). A faulty theory would receive a score ranging from 0 to -4 (-2 -(+2)= -4). Because they are unlikely to function with the incorrect physics, precise predictions would fail in this situation.

SEE ALSO: How To Watch NASA Reveal The First Stunning James Webb Telescope Images

Over the course of 32 tests, we discovered that the mainstream cosmological model received an average score of -0.25, whereas Mond received an average score of +1.69.

It is instantly clear that Mond has no significant issues, which at least feasibly accords with all the facts.

Cover Image: Sci Tech Daily