> Huh? The topic of the newscientist article is https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.03034 https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.03034 (it links to the PDF right at the bottom!) and

> Huh? The topic of the newscientist article is https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.03034 https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.03034 (it links to the PDF right at the bottom!) and in the preprint's references section is "Verlinde, E. P., 2016, preprint, (arXiv:1611.02269)", which is surely the "Verlinde's theory of Emergent Gravity" that Brouwer et al. mean. The evidence in Brouwer et al. is shaky, and I am not a fan of Verlinde's paper (although it is interesting), but I don't see what it has to do with MOND. Indeed, in Brouwer et al., I can't even see a reference to MOND. Yea, I'm well aware of all this. Brouwer et al. are jumping on the entropic gravity media bandwagon. However, as stated in the New Scientist article, and as I quoted in my original top-level comment you replied to, "Milgrom...points out that according to his own 2013 analysis of gravitational lensing data in galaxies, MOND produces similarly impressive results as Verlinde’s gravitational model does in Brouwer’s study." So you really seem to be missing my point. I am well aware that entropic gravity tells a different and more complicated story than MOND proponents. But within the actual physical system being observed, they make indistinguishable predictions. Therefore, this experiment by Brouwer et al. does not actually support entropic gravity over MOND. > Other than in the newscientist article, I think you can't really find anywhere that conflates MOND-like approaches with Verlinde's emergent gravity. They are very different theories It's not a matter of conflation, it's that in many regimes (including the OP's) they have the very similar phenomenology. See, e.g., "Entropic-gravity derivation of MOND" https://arxiv.org/abs/1201.4160 https://arxiv.org/abs/1201.4160