Last time, I expressed despondency about the lack of progress due to attitudes that in many ways remain firmly entrenched in the 1980s. Recently a nice result has appeared, so maybe there is some hope.

Reality check Before we can agree on the interpretation of a set of facts, we have to agree on what those facts are. Even if we agree on the facts, we can differ about their interpretation. It is OK to disagree, and anyone who practices astrophysics is going to be wrong from time to time. It is the inevitable risk we take in trying to understand a universe that is vast beyond human comprehension.

This title is an example of what has come to be called Betteridge’s law. This is a relatively recent name for an old phenomenon: if a title is posed as a question, the answer is no . This is especially true in science, whether the authors are conscious of it or not.

The distance scale is fundamental to cosmology. How big is the universe? is pretty much the first question we ask when we look at the Big Picture. The primary yardstick we use to describe the scale of the universe is Hubble’s constant: the H ₀ in v = H ₀ D that relates the recession velocity (redshift) of a galaxy to its distance. More generally, this is the current expansion rate of the universe.

This Thanksgiving, I’d highlight something positive. Recently, Bob Sanders wrote a paper pointing out that gas rich galaxies are strong tests of MOND. The usual fit parameter, the stellar mass-to-light ratio, is effectively negligible when gas dominates. The MOND prediction follows straight from the gas distribution, for which there is no equivalent freedom.

I have been wanting to write about dwarf satellites for a while, but there is so much to tell that I didn’t think it would fit in one post. I was correct. Indeed, it was worse than I thought, because my own experience with low surface brightness (LSB) galaxies in the field is a necessary part of the context for my perspective on the dwarf satellites of the Local Group.

The Milky Way and its nearest giant neighbor Andromeda (M31) are surrounded by a swarm of dwarf satellite galaxies. Aside from relatively large beasties like the Large Magellanic Cloud or M32, the majority of these are the so-called dwarf spheroidals. There are several dozen examples known around each giant host, like the Fornax dwarf pictured above.

As soon as I wrote it, I realized that the title is much more general than anything that can be fit in a blog post. Bekenstein argued long ago that the missing mass problem should instead be called the acceleration discrepancy, because that’s what it is – a discrepancy that occurs in conventional dynamics at a particular acceleration scale. So in that sense, it is the entire history of dark matter.

One experience I’ve frequently had in Astronomy is that there is no result so obvious that someone won’t claim the exact opposite. Indeed, the more obvious the result, the louder the claim to contradict it. This happened today with a new article in Nature Astronomy by Rodrigues, Marra, del Popolo, & Davari titled Absence of a fundamental acceleration scale in galaxies . This title is the opposite of true.

The radial acceleration relation is consistent with a single effective force law with a universal critical acceleration scale.