MOND-Synchronism Comparator

Short answer: where the two can be compared, they are the same thing. At its best-fit γ ≈ ½, Synchronism's coherence function is MOND's simple interpolating function, exactly (C = x/(x+2) = μsimple(x/2)). Every place the framework differs from MOND (the density keying, the bounded boost, γ = 2) has been tested and lost, or cannot be tested with current data. The open question is whether any version of the framework differs from MOND and survives. None is known. (Until 2026-09-22 this page showed a comparison written in February 2026, before the audit. It called a₀ = cH₀/(2π) “derived from first principles” and the γ = 2 fit “comparable”. Both were wrong; the rows below are corrected.)

The Acceleration Scale a₀

MOND (Milgrom 1983)

a₀ ≈ 1.2 × 10⁻¹⁰ m/s²

Status: Empirical constant, fitted to data. Milgrom noted the coincidence a₀ ≈ cH₀/6 in 1983.

Synchronism

a₀ = cH₀/(2π) ≈ 1.04 × 10⁻¹⁰ m/s²

Status: Reparametrization. This is the same numerical coincidence Milgrom noted (1/2π = 0.159 vs 1/6 = 0.167), not a derivation. The Hubble-sphere calculation the archive describes gives cH₀/2, not cH₀/2π. It is 13% below the observed 1.2. See MOND Unification.

Head-to-Head Comparison

FeatureMONDSynchronism (current status)
a₀ originEmpirical fitSame coincidence restated (Reparametrization)
Galaxy rotation curves (RAR)Good fitFree γ lands on 0.489 ≈ ½, i.e. MOND's simple μ (Reparametrization). The framework's own γ = 2 loses by ΔBIC +184 (Failed)
Stated variableAccelerationLocal density ρ, but every quantitative galaxy fit used acceleration. Keyed on density, the best fit switches the effect off (γ → 0.046)
Boost at low accelerationUnboundedCapped at 1/Ω_m = 3.17 in one reading. Excluded by the SPARC BTFR slope for caps ≲ 5.4 (Failed; the headline kill depends on the cap convention)
RAR environment dependenceVia the external field effectPredicted density dependence not seen: r² = 0.0001 vs a kill bar of 0.09 (Failed)
Solar System (Cassini)Simple μ and McGaugh's RAR function are both excluded; only sharper transitions (δ ≥ 4) surviveAt the SPARC-preferred γ it is simple μ, so it is excluded too, +17.7 to +18.0σ (Failed, inherited from MOND)
Wide binariesDisputed in the literatureDensity-keyed signal ~80× below Gaia DR3 systematics; the acceleration-keyed reading inherits MOND's outcome (Self-Eliminating-or-Tie)
CosmologyNeeds extra ingredients for the CMBThe dark-energy sector is ΛCDM at its best fit, and it needs cold dark matter put in by hand (checked 2026-09-22)
Relativistic extensionTeVeS, AeSTStatic gravity reproduces GR. The radiative sector predicts scalar gravitational waves, which is refuted (Failed)
Chemistry / quantumNot addressedThe chemistry γ ≈ 1 boundary mostly restates the Debye model; the Intent field equals |ψ|² wherever tested (Reparametrization)
Freeman's LawΣ₀ = a₀/(2πG)The same relation, relabelled through ρ_crit (Reparametrization)

Is There Still a Discriminator?

This page used to call wide-binary density dependence (TEST-02) “the decisive discriminator”. It isn't. The density-keyed signal is too small for Gaia DR3, and the acceleration-keyed reading is MOND. The framework's two genuinely non-MOND features were the density keying and the bounded boost. The density keying fails on data (the environment test, and the locality argument on Key Claims). The bounded boost fails the BTFR slope for caps up to about 5.4. Open question: is there a version of C that differs from MOND anywhere data can reach and hasn't lost? If you can construct one, that is the most useful thing a reader could bring to this project. The scorecard is on Honest Assessment.

Related Concepts

MOND Unificationa₀ = cH₀/(2π) is emergent, not fundamentalGalaxy Rotation CurvesSPARC (175) + ALFALFA-SDSS (14,435 galaxies after the quality cut)