In article , Charles Francis
writes:

Having read the papers and studied the data, I can hardly agree. The
MOND law is empirically solid. It is also unexplained.

I agree as far as the observations go. However, the question is whether
the answer is MOND or some generalisation of MOND, or something else
entirely. MOND in its original form is simple, but it cannot be right
on a number of grounds. More involved theories are quite complicated
(see the recent papers by Bekenstein) and lack the simplicity of MOND
which is one of its strengths.

I've not heard of gastrophysics, and I must confess it is not really my
field. However, many moons ago I did do the ptIII course on star
formation, and gained the impression that, particularly in view of the
large systems involved, the processes were decently modelled in terms of
fundamental properties of elementary particles and gravity. I find it
very difficult to believe that there is much wrong with the physics of
galaxy formation.

Stars are much better understood than galaxies. First, they are simpler
systems. Second, there are many more detailed observations,
particularly from helioseismology. I think it's fair to say that stars
are understood much better than the Earth.