Dark Matter is unintuitive for the layman (which I am), and extremely intuitive for the physicist, which I suspect is where the origins of this problem lie. This article is another in long line of you just don’t get it man, which is true. Sabine Hossenfelder has some great videos that actually explain the concepts in a way that the layman can grasp, while also pointing out a number of problems with the standard orthodoxy.

The problems don’t indicate that Dark Matter (the theory) is wrong necessarily. MOND is much better at explaining a number of observations of large scale (better meaning simpler in this case), but Dark Matter is better for other observations at smaller scale. Unfortunately it seems that the physicist community (outside of a small subset) is unwilling to research in the MOND space; it has the taint. So physicists just pile on a bunch of extra variables to make Dark Matter fit certain observations, when MOND describes those observations very simply.

Sabine argues long and hard that modern particle physicists have made no fundamental progress for 50 years due to poor scientific method, and she’s acerbic and popular with the plebs (such as me). I’m glad she’s a voice out there, but I’m sure she has put herself offside with a number (maybe most) working particle physicists.

It’s unfortunate. The phenomenon that MOND and Dark Matter seek to explain are really interesting, and the depths have clearly not been plumbed. The continual search and failure to find the Dark Matter particle is not doing physics any favours.

>> MOND describes those observations very simply.

I mean it doesn't really. Worse though, it doesn't explain the observations. It's just a model fit post hoc. Everytime they try to explain why gravity would act like that they just end up reinventing dark matter but calling it a field and hoping no one points out particle/field equivalence during peer review.

Out of topic, but I was following this thread out of mild interest (not at all my expertise and I don't understand the subject) and I just realised yours is the same account that posted a helpful comment on that Prolog thread two days ago.

I'm curious about your background: you seem to know both physics and Prolog? How come?

Btw, thanks for your comments in the Prolog thread. Much more level-headed reaction than mine, I have to say with embarrassment.

Another out of topic - I keep seeing your comments and in a comment about two years ago you said your profile had a link to your research. I looked at your profile to find out a bit about the things you are working on, but since then you've edited your profile. Any chance you could add a link/links again for a day or two?

Thanks!