Bullet Cluster: Controversial & Puzzling Evidence for Alternative Models

[Chronos]

The bullet cluster remains controversial, as evidenced today by http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.5633 and http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.5636. I'm puzzled by the motivation for this kind of dissent. I view this as a desperate attempt by alternative model advocates to preserve their own views.

 

[TrickyDicky]

The bullet cluster remains controversial, as evidenced today by http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.5633 and http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.5636. I'm puzzled by the motivation for this kind of dissent. I view this as a desperate attempt by alternative model advocates to preserve their own views.

By the abstracts it is no clear to me that the linked papers show any dissent or controversy wrt the mainstream view about DM and the Bullet cluster, what alternative model to DM would the authors be proposing?

 

[Bill_K]

The bullet cluster remains controversial, as evidenced today by http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.5633 and http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.5636. I'm puzzled by the motivation for this kind of dissent. I view this as a desperate attempt by alternative model advocates to preserve their own views.

Controversy stems from observations of other clusters such as http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2012/10/image/a/, in which dark matter is apparently behaving in a way it should not.

 

[phyzguy]

The bullet cluster remains controversial, as evidenced today by http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.5633 and http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.5636. I'm puzzled by the motivation for this kind of dissent. I view this as a desperate attempt by alternative model advocates to preserve their own views.

I agree with TrickyDicky. What do you see in these papers that is advocating alternate models? The first paper puts an upper limit on DM-DM interactions, but this is consistent with Lambda-CDM. What am I missing?