Does the transition sharpness favored by Solar System data actually conflict with galaxy cluster observations?

Your question hinges on whether constraints from the Solar System conflict with what we observe in galaxy clusters—specifically about how sharply gravity transitions between different regimes.

The tension is real and significant. When researchers fit modified gravity models (like MOND) to the Radial Acceleration Relation observed in galaxies, they infer a certain sharpness for the transition between Newtonian and deep-MOND gravity. However, when the same models are constrained by Solar System data—particularly the precise quadrupole moment measured by the Cassini spacecraft—the required transition becomes *much* sharper [AG-2024.01-118]. In fact, under standard assumptions, these two datasets conflict at the 8.7σ level, which is a dramatic disagreement in physics terms.

Why does this matter? The Solar System is our laboratory for precision gravity measurements, while galaxies test gravity across vastly different mass scales and accelerations. If a single modified gravity theory can't satisfy both simultaneously, it suggests either: (1) the theory needs revision, (2) we're missing something about how galaxies work (like hidden mass variations), or (3) modified gravity itself may not be the right framework.

The galaxy cluster data you've listed [AG-2026.01-1153, AG-2024.02-880, AG-2024.02-881, AG-2024.10-497] primarily probe different questions—the internal structure of clusters, the behavior of dark matter substructure, and cluster kinematics—rather than directly addressing the Solar System vs. galactic-scale transition sharpness conflict. None of these preprints directly compare Solar System precision tests with cluster-scale observations to resolve this particular tension.