In article , jacob navia
writes:

I would like to know what the experts here have to say about this:

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/St... isis_999.html

The title shows a basic misunderstanding of how science works. It is
extremely rare that one study can plunge a well established theory into
crisis. At most, it might give a hint of the direction of modification
of the theory.

A flurry of similar articles has appeared in the last days:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0505061949.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0422085830.htm

There was one in the online edition of Der Spiegel (most important and
best German weekly news magazine) and I followed the links to the
original papers. I'm not a total sceptic regarding MOND, but I think
that any evidence for it, in order to be convincing, has to be
straightforward and free of any "fudge factors". In other words, the
work in question is too complex to see a clear signal for MOND. At most
a hint, but there are more convincing hints.