I explicitly said it might very well not be the only one. But the data clearly shows that MOND is definitely not the only one. Since Occam's Razor tells us to go with the simplest solution, science goes for DM, instead of DM+MOND. If we ever discover DM (eg in the form of WIMPs) and it can't account for all the extra mass in the universe, then people will be able to look closer at modified gravity again. But right now these models are just not at a point where they could explain more than noise. If you're interested in how difficult it actually is to come up with a robust alternative theory of gravity that can fully explain all aspects of DM we see in the universe, I suggest this lecture here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WECVq2YBduY tl;dr: it's hard. Very hard. Noone has done it yet.
> I explicitly said it might very well not be the only one.
Actually you didn't. Perhaps you claimed that in another thread, but I quoted exactly what you wrote in this thread, which is that only DM can explain those results.
> Since Occam's Razor tells us to go with the simplest solution, science goes for DM, instead of DM+MOND.
That's not a correct formulation of Occam's razor. Occam's razor tells us not to posit the existence of more things than are necessary to explain observations. Observations already tell us that DM either does not exist, or doesn't exist in the amounts most people think exists, ie. most DM models have been refuted. Therefore, even if DM exists, something else is still needed to explain our observations.
>Observations already tell us that DM either does not exist
This is just a plain lie and since you obviously have no interest in further educating yourself in any way, I will now stop wasting my time with replying to you.
