> I'm tired of people trotting out "epicycles" to attack theories they don't like That's disingenuous. LCDM has a long history of failing to successfully predi

> I'm tired of people trotting out "epicycles" to attack theories they don't like That's disingenuous. LCDM has a long history of failing to successfully predict later observations and adding parameters to fit the data, where MOND has made many successful a priori predictions without any added parameters since the 1980s. This is not just a matter of not liking something, successful predictions vs. post-hoc curve fitting strikes at the very core of what it means to be a good scientific theory. See: From Galactic Bars to the Hubble Tension: Weighing Up the Astrophysical Evidence for Milgromian Gravity, https://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/14/7/1331 https://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/14/7/1331 As I said, neither approach is fully satisfactory, and we need new thinking about this problem.