In article <rru11e$con$1...@dont-email.me
Leaving aside the question whether or not 4 sigma is evidence or not,
things aren't that simple. (Answer: it is if the evidence supports your
own ideas, otherwise it is not.)
Since 1984, many MOND predictions have been confirmed, so you have to
explain why, specifically, the paper mentioned above kills LambdaCDM.
If it is just one in a long string of confirmed MOND predictions, then
why doesn't most of the community believe in MOND rather than LambdaCDM?
Can you explain the CMB power spectrum in MOND? No. Did it confirm
many LambdaCDM predictions? Yes. So is MOND dead?
As is often the case, things aren't that simple.
As a quick internet search shows, I am far from unsympathetic to MOND.
My guess as to why MOND isn't taken more seriously? A big problem are
attempted defences of MOND like the one above, not just by internet
pundits but by otherwise serious scientists. OK, people can make
mistakes, but I think that the MOND community would do well to distance
itself from over-the-top strawman attacks on LambdaCDM and concentrate
on its real successes, while acknowledging that there are things which
MOND cannot get right. I've actually met a few people who were
interested in MOND but were turned off by the exaggerated rhetoric.
That means a detailed discussion, more than for a usenet post or a blog
comments. As luck would have it, just this month I have published a
long discussion on this very topic:
The page at the URL above contains a link to the abstract and also to a
PDF file essentially identical to the published version.