There are at least three important and incredibly unique predictions of Scott's Birkeland current galaxy rotation model which have already been verified by observation.
1. Counter rotation. We've only been looking for counter rotating galaxies for the past couple of decades, it's challenging work, but already we've found numerous examples of counter rotation in virtually every type of galaxy. Neither DM or MOND predicts this.
2. Marklund convection. Merrifield has already verified that the outer disk of at least one galaxy contains more hydrogen than the inside disk. Scott discusses that issue in his video and explains why it's an important test of the BK model.
3. Galaxy collisions are not "random" or directed exclusively by gravity.
Messier 82 (The Cigar Galaxy) Observable Birkeland currents direct the merger process. Stellar production is directed by current density, with the center of the current carrying the bulk of the mass.
These are all very important, and already verified predictions of a Birkeland current galaxy rotation model which have already been verified by observation.
Logically speaking, the existence of galaxies which require no dark matter can "probably" be used to eliminate MOND theory. If at least some galaxies follow an ordinary Newtonian rotation pattern, then modifying Newtons formulas probably isn't advisable or warranted.
This leaves us with two remaining galaxy rotation models.
One of them predicts all three of the above mentioned observations. It's fully consistent with the standard model of particle physics, and first principles that are derived directly from Maxwell's equations.
The other galaxy rotation model is directly at odds with the standard particle physics model. It does not attempt to explain any of the three previously mentioned phenomenon in space which we have already observed. It's simworld computer models of satellite galaxies are directly at odds with the observation of satellite galaxies aligned along the disk. It not only failed it's own 'internal' predictive "test", it fails to predict at least three other known observations of galaxies.
Which of these two models then is the most "predicatively useful" in terms of describing the universe that we live in?
This isn't even a contest anymore.
MOND theory is marginalized/falsified by observations of at least some galaxies following a Newtonian rotation pattern. DM theory has no predictive value whatsoever. In fact, the DM computer models are directly at odd with observations of satellite galaxies aligned along the disk of various galaxies.
The Birkeland current model is *far* superior to current models, it's completely consistent with particle physics, and it's already been verified in at least three different ways, none of which are predictions of mainstream models.
From the perspective of science, and particularly empirical (in the lab) science, it's simply no contest. Even if we base the comparison on predictive value as it relates to galaxy observation, it's also no comparison at all. In terms of consistency with ordinary particle physics and plasma physics, it's also no contest. There's no criteria by which any other model is superior to the Birkeland current galaxy rotation model.