>"I do disagree with the assertion that I often see, and remains a widespread misconception among scientists, that MOND does not do a good job of explaining cos

>"I do disagree with the assertion that I often see, and remains a widespread misconception among scientists, that MOND does not do a good job of explaining cosmic phenomena. I’ve been through all that, and it is simply incorrect to say dark matter is always better outside of galaxies. Sure, it has shortcomings, but often dark matter only appears to be better because it declines to make a comparably testable prediction. Clusters of galaxies are a great example: MOND is off by a factor of 2 in mass (20% in velocity). Dark matter makes no prediction. Anything over the luminous mass is OK. The rest is dark. It doesn’t matter if that’s a factor of 2 or 5 (the modern value) or 6 (the cosmic value) or ~100 (Zwicky’s value). Being a factor of 2 off only sounds bad because there is a definite prediction! With dark matter we don’t care what that factor is because we have no prediction – at least, not one that can not be fudged." Here in a recent comment he addresses the "galaxy cluster" issue: https://tritonstation.wordpress.com/2018/11/21/hypothesis-testing-with-gas-rich-galaxies/ https://tritonstation.wordpress.com/2018/11/21/hypothesis-te...