> This new paper demonstrates that their model can fit a part of the observational data, including parts that could not be explained by the previous models usi

> This new paper demonstrates that their model can fit a part of the observational data, including parts that could not be explained by the previous models using dark matter. That's how nearly all successful models started out: being able to explain a part that the established models can't, and then later being expanded into other areas. But of course, only a small minority of such models ever make it to being the dominant/accepted one. I'm all in favor of this process, the only thing I'm weary about is how it's communicated to the public. I know so many people who read such an article and come away with "dark matter isn't real after all", and I don't really know what to do about it. Media outlets don't really have the incentives to communicate the amount of caution that is appropriate towards such a model, and even if they did, it's somewhat hard to do well.