[Jun8]

You may find the top answer to this SE question helpful (asked 5 years ago, though): http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6561/are-modified.... Especially I think the following comment is spot on:

"Galaxy rotation curves are not very good tests for GR itself, since there are so many parameters about mass distribution in a galaxy which are simply not nearly as precisely understood as GR itself"

[Dylan16807]

That says MOND is a non-theory, so now I'm even more confused since this theory "builds on" MOND.

[raattgift]

The New Scientist article writer is who is confusing you.

Verlinde does not build on MOND. An explanation and some extracts from his paper are in an earlier comment of mine:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13198573

(specifically at the paragraph half-way along in the comment, starting with "Sure Milgrom", if you want to zoom right in.)

[CoryG89]

Now I'm confused. What is a non-theory? O.o

Theories by definition, may not be correct. It's still a theory.

How does one become a non-theorist? I suppose by non-theorizing.

[Dylan16807]

One way is to propose something that's mathematically equivalent to existing theory. If you have no testable predictions then you're not really doing science. You're doing philosophy.

I'm not sure if that's the objection here. They might also be calling it too vague to be a theory, or something else.