Mond Theory , the End of the Dark Matter Fantasy ?

I always thought the theory of Dark Matter was an easy fix for a complex question , but now scientists from the University of Maryland believe that gas-rich galaxies may hold the answer .

Instead of invoking dark matter, the Modified Newtonian Dynamics theory says that the effects of gravity change in places where its pull is very low. The new paper suggests that Mond better predicts the relationship between gassy galaxies' rotation speeds and masses.

He found that the Mond theory neatly predicts the relation between the galaxies' masses with their rotation speed - and contends that dark matter theory would do so far less accurately.

www.bbc.co.uk...
arxiv.org...

Interesting read states that mond forms a intregal part of the dark matter tranferance process,the formula being to local to account for the whole universe,thereby not eliminating dark matter but posing some more questions.

Originally posted by gortex
I always thought the theory of Dark Matter was an easy fix for a complex question , but now scientists from the University of Maryland believe that gas-rich galaxies may hold the answer .

Dark Matter was never any kind of "fix" as you suggest, since nobody ever claimed to have solved the problem. Dark matter and dark energy are seen as "placeholders" for future theories supported by observational evidence.

Insert [discovery] here: the role of placeholders in science

Physics has a long history of particles that were predicted based on the math and not detected for years, sometimes decades. But it's not simply physics. Other areas of science have produced evidence that suggests something must be present, but haven't hinted as to what that something must be. These situations, where scientists insert a placeholder for a something they don't understand yet, have sometimes led scientists down the wrong path—phlogiston and aether spring to mind.

But these erroneous placeholders carry the seeds of their own destruction, since they make predictions that the natural world can't fulfill. And, possibly more often, the placeholders turn out to be right, and an understanding of the phenomena behind them revolutionizes our knowledge of the natural world. In this feature, we'll take a look at some of the most successful placeholders in the history of science, and then consider how even a placeholder that has gone wrong can help advance a field anyway.

That's a good article about placeholders, worth a read.

So Dark Matter isn't any kind of "fix", it's a "placeholder. Even if this theory is proven true, it doesn't solve the dark matter problem as stated in the BBC article linked in the OP:

"Mond only explains galaxies - everything else it fails to do or simply can't address."

So the answer is no, it's not the end of dark matter, and dark matter is viewed as a placeholder rather than a fantasy. There may be no evidence for a fantasy, but there's evidence for dark matter. We just don't know how to explain the evidence, and we admit it. Even if this theory is true (and I have my doubts), it still leaves much of the dark matter evidence unexplained.