MOND explains 1.

2 is "who can say" because nobody has reconciled MOND with Relativity (not that it's impossible, it's just hard and annoying math, could be a lack of effort thing, could also be a real theoretical constraint that invalidates MOND).

3 is subject to questions like "is the CMB really what we think it is" -- if it's early thermalized dust, then that ALSO resolves hubble tension, e.g.

MOND explains several things LCDM cannot:

- why most elliptical galaxies seem to "not have dark matter" (effectively a prediction)

- external field effect (predicted and confirmed)

- renzo's rule

- DM halos that are way too big

- early galaxies (this was a prediction)

HM. people have been downvoting. Anyone care to post a substantive rebuttal?

▲

lukan an hour ago | parent [-]

"HM. people have been downvoting. Anyone care to post a substantive rebuttal?"

Just that asking this might get you more downvotes. I upvoted as I found your input interesting. I would suggest to edit that out (then I will delete my comment)

▲

dnautics an hour ago | parent [-]

I don't really care (i'm doing just fine fake-internet-points-wise), just if I made a mistake it would be nice to know. Otherwise worth it to know that there are people out there who find "alternative explanations by professional scientists" threatening. for some reason.

	▲	lukan 38 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Well, I rather meant there are guidelines to keep this space meta debate free and I do think they make sense. (And apart from that, HN is not free of dogmatic ideologists of all sorts who feel triggered by anything straying off from mainstream theory. That is my guess here and my advice to ignore it, but I would be also curious if there is something clearly wrong with your comment deserving downvotes.)