[DiogenesKynikos]

My experience from MOND talks is that a proponent of MOND gets up, explains their theory, and then starts explaining how their theory explains the rotation curve of galaxies.

They're then confronted with a bunch of really basic questions from the audience: how does your theory explain the spatial spectrum of anisotropies in the Cosmic Microwave Background? Is your theory consistent with Big Bang Nucleosynthesis? Can your theory explain Weak Lensing measurements? How does your theory deal with the Bullet Cluster? The answer is then generally, "I'm not sure, but I'm working on it." That causes all the astrophysicists in the room to lose interest. Standard cosmology explains all of these basic observations with a minimal set of assumptions. If your theory can't or doesn't explain the most basic set of observations, and there's another theory that does, why should I care about your theory?

[auntienomen]

This reminds me of the old joke: When an academic says "That's a good question!", you should hear "I don't know the answer". Likewise, "I'm working on it." means "No.".

[alvarelle]

Imagine what proponents to heliocentrism such as Galileo had to face explaining their theory and how it explain a simplified elliptic orbit for the planets rather than the strange curly orbits known by geocentrists.

They'd be confronted with basic question from the audience: Why would things fall down if it was not the center? (That was before Newton) Wouldn't we see paralax in the stars (stars are much further away than what was believed at the time). Wouldn't we feel it if earth turns so fast? "Maybe that explains the tides" said Galileo (but it doesn't)

The previous model was also explaining the observations quite well at the time. Why should we care for another theory? (God works in mysterious ways.)

I'm not saying that MOND is correct. ("they also laughed at Bozo the Clown".) Just that the fact that there are some unexplained missing piece does not mean one should reject it so quickly.

[DiogenesKynikos]

Comparing oneself to Galileo is generally viewed as a sign of crackpotery, especially if it's used as a response to legitimate criticism.

> Just that the fact that there are some unexplained missing piece does not mean one should reject it so quickly.

It's not just one missing piece. It's a whole series of basic properties of the observed universe. Most MOND theories are tailored to match one particular observation, but fail to match everything else. Until there's a MOND theory that matches a basic set of observations (like CMB anisotropies and the large-scale structure of the Universe, the ratios of abundances of the light elements, weak lensing measurements, etc.), MOND is simply uninteresting to most astrophysicists.

[marcosdumay]

> Imagine what proponents to heliocentrism such as Galileo had to face explaining their theory and how it explain a simplified elliptic orbit for the planets rather than the strange curly orbits known by geocentrists.

They did. In fact, the audience was quite more brutal. And it did not only delay the progress of physics, but also destroy the local research, leading to the entire community being rebuilt on England.

But, well, as you said, we always have to remember they also laughed about Bozo the Clown.