| > If your new hypothesis doesn't even mention the CMB power spectrum MOND successfully predicted the first peak of the power spectrum. I wonder why everyone focuses so much on LCDM predicting the second peak. > DM does that, everything else does not. Whenever someone says DM "does that", it's often after its initial prediction was falsified and the calculation was modified in some way to account for the new observations [1,2]. This has been going on for decades, so that's hardly a ringing endorsement. I'm not surprised mind you, this is the hallmark of the confirmation bias that's been characteristic of LCDM for decades now. [1] From Galactic Bars to the Hubble Tension: Weighing Up the Astrophysical Evidence for Milgromian Gravity, https://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/14/7/1331 [2] Not that MOND is a suitable replacement because it too has its problems. My only point is that this tendency to sweep these inconveniences under the rug as if DM is a compelling and successful theory and saying "nothing else does the job" is disingenuous at best. What you should say is that "nothing does, period, not even our best DM theory", because that's the truth. |