> The evidence in the opposite direction is simply overwhelming. No, many of LCDM's successes were not predictions but post-hoc adjustments, where MOND had man

> The evidence in the opposite direction is simply overwhelming. No, many of LCDM's successes were not predictions but post-hoc adjustments, where MOND had many successful predictions, even though we had no expectation for it to work: From galactic bars to the Hubble tension: weighing up the astrophysical evidence for Milgromian gravity, https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.06936 https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.06936 Yours is an opinion shared by particle physicists because they focus on particles, but astronomers are more neutral on MOND. It almost always just works (it's an "effective theory"), even though we don't know why.