Bibliographic record
Abstract
I review the history and development of modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND) beginning with the phenomenological basis as it existed in the early 1980s. I consider Milgrom’s papers of 1983 introducing the idea and its consequences for galaxies and galaxy groups, as well as the initial reactions, both negative and positive. The early criticisms were primarily on matters of principle, such as the absence of conservation laws and perceived cosmological problems; an important step in addressing these issues was the development of the Lagrangian-based nonrelativistic theory of Bekenstein and Milgrom. This theory led to the development of a tentative relativistic theory that formed the basis for later multifield theories of gravity. On an empirical level the predictive success of the idea with respect to the phenomenology of galaxies presents considerable challenges for cold dark matter. For MOND the essential challenge remains the absence of a generally accepted theoretical underpinning of the idea and, thus, cosmological predictions. I briefly review recent progress in this direction. Finally I discuss the role and sociology of unconventional ideas in astronomy in the presence of a strongly entrenched standard paradigm.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".