Oh, and for the record: I’m an astronomy grad student. Just started, so unlike certain others here and in the wider community, I don’t have all my eggs in a basket woven of imaginary dark matter.

In fact, interesting spectra have been published,

So why can’t you leave references?

Name-calling aside,

Sorry, no – an identification of what you argue for, denial of verified phenomena like gas behavior.

your argument is that since astronomers refuse to discuss any detail of any alternative to Gravity-Only-Universe, every failure of GOU counts as positive evidence for the only models (GOU+epsilon, GOU+DM/DE) that they are willing to discuss.

I don’t know what you think the standard cosmology and standard particle physics is, but there are more forces than gravity. The remainder of your argument doesn’t describe any of my comments.

Scientists are interested in, you know, observations, particularly the ones that don’t match expectations.

Yes, I would know. And again, that doesn’t change that scientists aren’t interested in ‘answering’ them by question stoppers. The reason that scientists wants tests of theories is because they have predictive theories. Which, you should know, scientists are interested in.

And I note that you consistently refuse to describe your purported “observations, particularly the ones that don’t match expectations”. Instead you continue to describe purported ‘explanations’. It’s the cart before the horse, in typical denialist fashion.

Scientists are interested in, you know, observations, particularly the ones that don’t match expectations. They don’t assume as established fact the previous generation’s idle speculations. A healthy branch of science responds to uncertainty by entertaining multiple hypotheses, and by questioning untested assumptions. Maybe some future generation of astronomers will come around. In the meantime, the present observations are (more or less) safely archived for that future generation’s use.