Are Alternative Dark Energy Models Treated More Favorably Than MOND?

[BWV]

I’m trying to get a clearer sense of how the physics community evaluates alternative explanations for dark energy compared to alternative explanations for dark matter, such as MOND. My impression is that modified‑gravity approaches to dark matter (e.g., MOND and its relativistic extensions) tend to face strong skepticism, whereas alternative dark energy models—like quintessence, k‑essence, or modified gravity frameworks that mimic cosmic acceleration—seem to receive somewhat broader consideration in mainstream cosmology.

To be clear, I’m not asking whether these alternatives are correct, only whether the degree of openness differs between the two cases, and why. Is it because dark energy is already poorly understood, so theorists feel more freedom to explore alternatives? Or is it because MOND‑type theories run into more direct conflicts with cosmological data?

For context, here is a recent paper that surveys a range of dark energy alternatives, including dynamical fields and modified gravity models:

Survey Paper:
Dark matter and dark energy: Models, challenges, and future perspectives (A. Kumar, 2024).
DOI link: https://doi.org/10.33545/26648636.2024.v6.i1a.136

And here is a relevant discussion of the methodological issues surrounding MOND and why many physicists remain unconvinced:

Citation:
Duerr & Wolf, Methodological Reflections on the MOND/Dark Matter Debate (forthcoming in Studies in History and Philosophy of Science).

I’d be interested in hearing from those familiar with cosmology or gravitational theory:

• Do you think the community is more receptive to dark‑energy alternatives than to MOND‑like dark‑matter alternatives?
• If so, what drives that difference—empirical constraints, theoretical coherence, historical precedent, or something else?
• Are there particular alternative dark‑energy models that are currently taken most seriously?


Thanks in advance for any insight!

 

[DelajaSchuppers]

Dark energy and dark matter are curve fits for something relativity can not explain. Relativity works quite well on the earth but it is not the correct model to use as a looking glass into space or quantum mechanics. Dat matter and dark energy arise to save relativity. Instead of saving a model with more curve fitting we can also look at space not as a vacuum but as a field of neutrino density in vortex dynamics. If we do so, there are no NASA anomalies, they all make sense, there is no need for curve fitting like dark matter and dark energy and the Big Bang never happened because the universe is recursive. I don’t just claim this but prove it convergently in my papers on Zenodo. It’s a matter of time before predictions will come true but if you take the mechanics from addendum A from my paper The mechanics of the universe and read the paper you will then be able to calculate any element’s most stable version and it’s isotopes. The unified field theory is a matter of coreecting and falsifying the parts of modern science that are based on a linear localized relativity. We must upscale to a universal relativity and that is my UniPhiEd model. Einstein would have made it if he had known that space isn’t a vacuum. He suspected it:

“Space without ether is unthinkable” Albert Einstein I prove he was right.