> but nothing fit the data as well as LCDM. I think you mean, "nothing could be made to fit the data as well as LCDM". See below. > When new data came in, and

> but nothing fit the data as well as LCDM. I think you mean, "nothing could be made to fit the data as well as LCDM". See below. > When new data came in, and it pointed yet again at LCDM, it was considered a disappointment. This is highly revisionist, and exemplifies the kind of cherry picking that has kept LCDM alive when it has outright failed numerous predictions and had to be adjusted after the fact to fit the data: 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 LCDM is a complete mixed bag when it comes to predictions, where MOND has a very slight edge. It's absolutely clear that MOND is not correct or complete either, but it is undeniable that it has had greater predictive success than anyone anticipated and with far fewer free parameters than LCDM, mostly in areas where LCDM is weak. If LCDM can't explain why MOND has been so successful, which it currently cannot, then it is incomplete at best. Basically, the only good, almost definitive, evidence for particle dark matter is gravitational lensing, but if we're considering modified gravity anyway, then lensing isn't necessarily telling us what we think. On the flip side, no possible cold dark matter halo is compatible with recent observations that rotation curves are flat past a million light years [1]. I can't wait to see what epicycles they add to LCDM to save it this time. [1] https://tritonstation.com/2024/06/18/rotation-curves-still-flat-after-a-million-light-years/ https://tritonstation.com/2024/06/18/rotation-curves-still-f...