Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder says: Scientists Falsifying JWST Dark Matter Predictions

Look how upset Dr. Hossenfelder is... I feel her pain!!!...

MOND is a nonsensical model that cannot explain the Supernova Data or anything other than the Spiral Galaxy Rotation Curve. It was concocted just for that reason.

That said, MOND is a model by the Israeli Scientist Mordehai Milgrom...:)

Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) is a theoretical framework proposed by physicist Mordehai Milgrom in 1983 as an alternative to the dark matter hypothesis. MOND suggests that Newton's laws of motion and gravity require modification at extremely low accelerations to account for the observed dynamics of galaxies without invoking unseen mass.        

Dr. Hossenfelder jumps to support Mordehai...:)

That said, my theory explains everything, including the Supernova Data (MOND fails there)...:) and eliminates the Hubble Tension, too (MOND fails everywhere).

Today, I also saw some news about "Confirmation General Relativity." this or that...

It is an industry of fraudulent claims. Before you claim that some data "Confirms General Relativity," you should check to see if the data confirms a simpler and better model (HU, for example).

So, it is just lousy professionalism.

By the way, NEITHER MOND NOR GENERAL RELATIVITY CAN DO WHAT HU DID IN THE TWO PLOTS ABOVE.

Should I jump and say that The Supernova Cosmology Project debunked MOND and General Relativity? YES. I SHOULD.

On the other hand, it CONFIRMED HU PREDICTIONS!!!

WHAT ABOUT EARLY GALAXY FORMATION?

HU predicted that G is inversely proportional to the 4D radius of the Universe, which in a Lightspeed Expanding Hyperspherical Universe is the same as "inversely proportional to the age of the universe".

This means that when the Universe was 100 million years old, G was 140 times larger than it is today.

I modeled galaxy formation by making an Ansatz for the initial cloud. The initial cloud in a spiral galaxy is the result of a collision between two clouds. Depending upon the impact parameter, size, and density, the cloud will spiral around a center of mass and create a radial density distribution.

I modeled it using two or three exponentials. This is a simple model, but it is infinitely better than what people do today. Today, they look at galaxies from millions or billions of light years and consider that they can effectively measure the Luminous Mass Radial Distribution and the Gas Radial Distribution. Obviously, they cannot. We fail to see what is happening inside our own galaxy.

With three exponentials, I can model the formation of the Supermassive Black Hole, the Luminous Mass, and the Gas Cloud.

This means that idiosyncratic initial gas distributions are enough to explain the SPIRAL GALAXY ROTATION CURVE CONUNDRUM.

Here is the M33 Galaxy observed rotation

You can see that the gas cloud extends beyond the luminous mass and the tangential velocity increases with distance.

Here is the simulation for M33 at two different values of redshift z (different distances):

Notice that for z = 10, the x-scale is 11 times smaller since the radius of the galaxy decreases by that same amount

This is consistent with the relationship between the value of G and redshift z:

G(z) = G_0*(1+z)

The radius of the Galaxy decreases by that same amount to conserve angular momentum.

Here is the evolution of M33 since its beginning:

Using this model, I explained why early galaxies are so bright. They are born with the same number of stars, but those stars exist in a much smaller area. JWST observed galaxies with a surface luminosity 600 times the surface luminosity of our surrounding galaxies.

I also predicted galaxy formation times as a function of the initial epoch of spiral galaxy formation (the moment or redshift when the gas clouds collided):

IN SUMMARY

If you see me speaking to the walls...:) In a corner of the internet, there is a reason: scientists are committing fraud left and right.

MOND cannot do one-hundredth of what my theory did, yet Dr. Hossenfelder is outraged about her friend's model.

Someone, please tell Dr. Hossenfelder that Einstein is dead...