[nerbert]

Fascinating. So this MOND theory works in this case. If I understand correctly, scientists still prefer the dark matter theory because it applies in more cases at galactic scale, and this is just one occurrence of the MOND theory working fine?

[mr_mitm]

They prefer it because it fits the data best.

The biggest piece of evidence for DM is the BAO patterns in the CMB. Forget all the other numerous mountains of evidence, that is the biggest one. MOND has no good explanation for this without introducing something that's effectively DM.

[throwawaymaths]

DM can't explain renzo's rule, or the tully-fisher relationship, or why the milky way has a keplerian return (efe from the magellanic clouds), or why elliptical and lenticular galaxies don't seem to have dark matter. All these are explainable by MOND.

MOND also predicted early galaxies, and a group seeking to disprove MOND by disproving EFE changed their mind because they found evidence of EFE.

> it fits the data best.

It's easy to fit the data when you can conjure a parameter to explain anything. What if I told you that GR is wrong and there's a ball of dark matter orbiting the sun that distorts Mercury's orbit.

You wouldn't be able to prove me wrong.

[beautifulfreak]

Perhaps you meant...

DM = Dark Matter, BAO = Baryon Acoustic Oscillations, CMB = Cosmic Background Radiation, MOND = Modified Newtonian Dynamics

[moffkalast]

To put some sources to that unsubstantiated "data", it's about the Bullet Cluster specifically.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster#Significance_to...

[MattPalmer1086]

It fits the data best because they tweak a lot of different parameters to obtain the fit. MOND only has one parameter.

[rocqua]

We have found galaxies with differing amounts of dark matter (as measurer by rotational speed) and have confirmed these measurements with gravitational lensing being more or less effective.

[bena]

I think dark matter is more appealing to them because the first person to discover a dark matter object is going to get something named after them.

[Ar-Curunir]

First, most modern research in physics (especially experimental physics) have a ton of coauthors; we’re well past the stage of things being named for a single person.

Second, what makes you think there isn’t great fame in disproving dark matter?

[mr_mitm]

That doesn't make any sense at all unless they simultaneously believe that DM is actually the right answer.