Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 48 references

Machian MOND: a variable $a_0$ in galaxy clusters

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that MOND's acceleration constant a0 is not universal: inside a galaxy cluster, exterior mass turns it into a position-dependent scale that produces exactly the extra acceleration needed to remove the cluster dark-matter…

desk verdict A transparent, well-written speculative idea for a variable a0 in MOND clusters, but the headline boost depends on an unmotivated Ansatz and the paper's own alternative gives a much smaller effect. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04894 v1 pith:6BGS4OKX submitted 2026-08-05 physics.gen-ph

Manuel Uruena Palomo , Juan David Santander This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.gen-ph PACS 04.50.Kd95.35.+d98.65.Cw
keywords MONDmodifiedNewtoniandynamicsMach'sprinciplegalaxyclustersaccelerationscalevariablea0darkmatter
topics Dark Matter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

MOND explains galaxy rotation curves with one acceleration constant a0, but leaves galaxy clusters with residual mass discrepancies of a factor of a few. This paper proposes that a0 is not a universal constant but a local scale: inside a cluster, mass outside a galaxy acts like an extra cosmic shell and adds a directionless inverse-square acceleration $a_s$ to the effective MOND scale. The proposed replacement $a_0' = a_0 + a_s + a_0 a_s / a_N$ leaves galaxy physics almost unchanged while boosting cluster accelerations by about a factor of three at the core and 1.5 at intermediate radii, the same order as the missing boost MOND needs in clusters. If correct, the model removes the need for dark matter in clusters without introducing any new free parameter.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the multiplicative Ansatz $a = \sqrt{(a_0 + a_N)(a_s + a_N)}$, which is equivalent to MOND with $a_0$ replaced by $a_0' = a_0 + a_s + a_0 a_s / a_N$. It is chosen because it reduces to ordinary MOND when $a_s \to 0$, reduces to a cluster-shell-dominated deep-MOND form when the cosmic shell is removed, and contributes a cross term that vanishes in galaxies where $a_N$ is large. The paper also sketches a generalization in which a directionless scalar field $a_\phi = G\int \rho(r')/|r-r'|^2 \, d^3 r'$ replaces the shell sum, giving $a \sim \sqrt{a_N a_\phi}$ in all regimes.

What would settle it

Look at rotation curves of a sample of galaxies at known clustercentric radii. If the effective MOND scale is universal, identical for cluster-core and field galaxies, then the predicted inward boost of $a_0'$ is absent and the claim is falsified. A sharper version: for a cluster with a well-measured baryonic $\beta$-model, the model predicts $a/a_{\rm MOND} \approx 3$ at about 0.1 Mpc and $\approx 1.5$ at about 1 Mpc; an X-ray or lensing mass measurement showing standard MOND already fits at those radii would rule it out.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that MOND's acceleration scale becomes variable, $a_0' = a_0 + a_s + a_0 a_s / a_N$, where $a_N$ is the Newtonian acceleration of the mass enclosed inside radius $r$ and $a_s$ is the scalar sum of inverse-square gravitational mass contributions from the cluster mass exterior to $r$. Because $a_s$ grows inward and vanishes at the virial radius, the boost is strongest in cluster cores and fades outward, matching the observed radial shape of MOND's residual mass discrepancy. The same interpolating function as standard MOND then yields $a \sim \sqrt{a_N a_0'}$ rather than $a \sim \sqrt{a_N a_0}$, producing the needed factor-of-a-few acceleration boosts in toy models of Coma-, Virgo-, and Fornax-like clusters.

Load-bearing premise

The result stands on the postulated product law $a = \sqrt{(a_0 + a_N)(a_s + a_N)}$; the paper calls it an Ansatz and gives no physical mechanism for why exterior shells enter inertia this way. If the true combination law differs, the cluster boost changes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Galaxy clusters would no longer require dark matter: the residual mass discrepancy MOND leaves in cores and intermediate radii is absorbed by the environment-dependent boost.
  • Galaxy rotation curves in most environments are essentially unchanged: for disk galaxies $a_N \geq a_s$, so the effective $a_0'$ stays below about $1.5a_0$, within current uncertainties.
  • No new constant or tuned parameter is needed; the effective scale is fixed by the baryonic mass distribution, so the theory remains as economical as MOND itself.
  • The boost automatically fades to standard MOND at the virial radius, reproducing the observed decrease of cluster mass discrepancy with radius.
  • The scalar-field form points toward a Lagrangian formulation of MOND with varying $a_0$ driven by inverse-square field intensities rather than gravitational potentials.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If $a_0$ varies with environment, comparisons of MOND across galaxy types should correct for clustercentric position; the expected signature is a systematic inward increase of the effective MOND scale among cluster galaxies, a testable prediction the paper notes but does not carry out.
  • The same shell argument applied to galaxy groups or superclusters predicts smaller but measurable boosts; group galaxies at small groupcentric radii should show mild rotation-curve elevation at their outskirts.
  • Because the Ansatz is not derived, a mechanism that produces inertia from the $1/r^2$ scalar field would be needed to turn this into a complete theory; the scalar-field form is the natural starting point for such a derivation.
  • An astronomical realization of the shell test may be available: galaxies inside large voids versus those surrounded by supercluster-scale masses would probe whether the cosmic shell and local shells add as prescribed.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a Machian version of MOND in which the MOND acceleration constant a0 is not fundamental but is derived from the inverse-square scalar sum of mass in the observable universe. In galaxy clusters, the cluster mass exterior to a galaxy is treated as an analogous shell that contributes an additional scalar sum as, promoting a0 to a position-dependent effective scale a0' = a0 + as + a0 as / aN through the Ansatz a = sqrt((a0 + aN)(as + aN)). Using β-model toy clusters with Coma-, Virgo-, and Fornax-like parameters, the paper claims boosts a/a_MOND of order 2-5 in cluster cores and about 1.5 at intermediate radii, roughly the size needed to explain MOND's residual cluster mass discrepancies, with no new free constants. The paper also sketches a scalar-field generalization a = sqrt(aN a_phi) that goes beyond spherical symmetry but is conceded to yield a smaller boost.

Significance. If correct, the proposal would provide a parameter-free environmental mechanism for a variable MOND acceleration scale and a concrete, falsifiable prediction: the effective a0 should depend on cluster environment. The paper is transparent about the Ansatz status and the limitations of the toy model, and the appendix arithmetic is reproducible by inspection; no cluster data were fitted, so the numbers are predictions rather than postdictions. That transparency is a strength, but the significance is conditional because the central quantitative result depends on the specific functional form of the Ansatz and on a spherical-shell sum that is evaluated from the cluster center rather than from off-center test particles. The paper also includes a clear statement that no mechanism is specified for how external shells modify inertia, which should be read as a serious unresolved issue.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.2, Eq. (4); §3, Eq. (7); Conclusion] The multiplicative law a=sqrt((a0+aN)(as+aN)) is introduced as an Ansatz, and the paper explicitly states in the Conclusion that no mechanism is specified for how shells modify inertia. The cluster boost follows algebraically from the cross-term a0 as / aN in a0'=a0+as+a0as/aN. However, the scalar-field generalization proposed in §3, Eq. (7), a=sqrt(aN a_phi) with a0'=a_phi-aN, drops this cross-term and, as the Conclusion concedes, yields a smaller boost than the Appendix A result. Since no principle selects Eq. (4) over Eq. (7), the reported 'parameter-free' boost is contingent on an arbitrary functional choice rather than on Machian MOND itself. A derivation from an action or a mechanism, or an explicit physical criterion that selects Eq. (4), is required before the headline claim can be accepted.
  2. [§2.3, Eq. (5); Appendix A] Equation (5) evaluates the exterior scalar sum as as(r)=4πG∫_r^R ρ(r') dr', which corresponds to G∫ dm/r'^2, the inverse-square sum as seen from the cluster center. A test particle at radius r inside an exterior spherical shell at radius r' receives a directionless inverse-square contribution G dm/(2 r r') ln((r'+r)/(r'-r)), not G dm/r'^2; this expression differs from the center value and diverges logarithmically as r approaches r'. Thus the as(r) profiles in Tables A1-A3 are not the actual directional-sum fields for off-center galaxies, and the magnitude of the boost could change when the off-center integral is used. The authors should either recompute the toy model with the off-center shell integral or justify Eq. (5) as a controlled approximation with a quantified error.
  3. [§2.3, Table 1; Appendix A; Conclusion] The claim that the boost is 'of the same order as those typically required' is supported only by point values from hand-picked toy-model parameters. The text says the parameter values are chosen to lie within observational envelopes, but no fit, error bars, or sensitivity analysis is provided. The core boosts in Tables A1-A3 differ by nearly a factor of two (a/a_MOND = 5.1, 3.1, 2.7 at 0.05 Mpc), and the Discussion notes the central boost is 'somewhat smaller than needed' in at least one regime. A quantitative comparison of a(4)/a_MOND against observed hydrostatic or lensing mass-discrepancy profiles, with uncertainties on β, r_c, ρ0, R, and the baryonic mass, is needed to substantiate the central quantitative conclusion.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§1.2, Eq. (2)] The displayed formula contains a garbled 's 1 +' that should read sqrt(1 + ...); please check the typesetting.
  2. [Appendix A, Tables A1-A3] The quantity labeled a(4) is not defined in the table captions; define it as a from Eq. (4) in units of 10^-10 m/s^2 in the header note.
  3. [Conclusion] 'Langrangian-based formulation' is a typo for 'Lagrangian-based formulation'.
  4. [§2.3] The sentence 'with a0 = 1.2×10^-10 m/s2 as an approximation' uses a0 as the input constant while the effective scale is called a0'; consider using a0,cosmic or a0,0 to avoid confusion.
  5. [Figure A4] The caption says 'virial radius of 4R' while the text says 'a greater bound of 4R'; specify whether the upper integration limit is R_vir or 4 R_vir and label the curves accordingly.
  6. [References] Reference [15] appears to be missing volume and page information ('Phys. Rev. D, 043027'); the reference list should be made uniform.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the cluster boost is a computed consequence of an openly labeled Ansatz, not a fitted output or a self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing step is Eq. (4), a = sqrt((a0+aN)(as+aN)), which it explicitly calls an Ansatz ("We propose the following function as an Ansatz"). The inputs to this step are defined independently of the target cluster mass discrepancy: a0 comes from the Machian shell integral in Eq. (3), aN from the baryonic beta-model, and as from the exterior-mass scalar sum in Eq. (5). The toy-model parameters are taken from published X-ray surveys and stated to be representative of Coma, Virgo, and Fornax, not fitted to the MOND cluster boost. The boost factors in Tables A1-A3 are therefore computed consequences of a stated assumption, not fitted parameters relabeled as predictions. The paper also presents an alternative generalization, Eq. (7), under which the boost is smaller, showing that the result is model-dependent rather than forced by definition. The only self-citation, [29] by the first author, supplies background on Machian MOND, but the working equations are re-derived in Sec. 2.1 via Brans and Sciama and are not imported as a black-box uniqueness theorem. The admitted lack of a mechanism for the shell effect (Conclusion: "Even though we do not specify a precise mechanism for how shells affect local dynamics") and the acknowledged geometric simplifications of the toy model are limitations on robustness, not circularity. No specific reduction of an output to an input by construction was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The framework contributes the Ansatz (4) and the scalar-field generalization (6)-(7) on top of Machian MOND's cosmic a0. There are no fitted constants in the theory itself, but the demonstration relies on hand-chosen cluster profile parameters and an assumed interpolating-function slope. The key added structure is ad hoc: the paper gives no mechanism by which exterior mass changes the local acceleration scale.

free parameters (2)
  • Toy-model cluster parameters (beta, r_c, rho0, R) for Coma-, Virgo-, Fornax-like clusters = beta=0.75/0.50/0.45, r_c=350/80/50 kpc, rho0=6.0/2.5/3.0e-24 kg/m3, R=2.8/1.0/0.8 Mpc
    Chosen from observational ranges in the literature, not fitted to cluster mass discrepancies. The resulting boost factors depend on these choices; other values within the quoted ranges would change a/a_MOND.
  • Interpolating function slope for the as contribution = n=1 (simple form)
    The paper assumes the same simple interpolating function for the exterior-shell term as for a0 and acknowledges it 'could actually be steeper at the cores' (Sec. 3); the core boost is sensitive to this choice.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption a0 = 3GM_u/R_u^2 gives the MOND acceleration scale (Eq. 3)
    Core of Machian MOND, inherited from prior work [29]; used to identify the cosmic shell contribution, but the present paper does not test this relation.
  • ad hoc to paper The exterior cluster mass acts as a Brans-like shell contributing a scalar sum as = G * integral_r^R dm/r'^2 (Eq. 5)
    Idealization introduced here; the mapping from the distributed cluster mass to an equivalent shell is assumed.
  • ad hoc to paper a0, as, and aN combine as a = sqrt((a0 + aN)(as + aN)) (Eq. 4)
    The central Ansatz; no derivation is given and the authors state no mechanism is specified.
  • domain assumption Baryonic mass only determines the dynamics; no dark matter is invoked
    Standard MOND assumption; the toy models include only the gas component.
  • domain assumption Dark-matter-based virial radius serves as the integration boundary for the baryonic shell sum
    Acknowledged in Sec. 2.3; mixing a dark-matter-derived boundary with a baryonic-only model is a modeling choice.
invented entities (1)
  • Scalar field phi(r) = integral rho(r')/|r-r'|^2 d^3r' and its acceleration a_phi = G phi
    purpose: Generalizes the exterior-shell sum as beyond spherical symmetry and yields a0' = a_phi - a_N in MOND's interpolating function (Eqs. 6-7)
    A new mathematical field introduced in Sec. 3; no independent falsifiable handle is provided beyond the framework's own predictions, and no mechanism for its dynamics is given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Machian MOND: a variable $a_0$ in galaxy clusters." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6BGS4OKX

@misc{pith2026260804894,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Machian MOND: a variable $a_0$ in galaxy clusters},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6BGS4OKX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04894}
}
abstract

Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) generally resolves the need for dark matter in galaxy rotation curves introducing a single new constant of acceleration $a_0$. It is well known that increasing $a_0$ by a factor of a few can alleviate the residual mass discrepancies that MOND leaves in galaxy clusters. Within a parameter-free Machian interpretation of MOND, in which $a_0\sim GM_u/R_u^2$ arises from the scalar sum of inverse-square distance gravitational mass contributions in the universe, we promote $a_0$ to a variable influenced by mass external to a locally enclosed region in the spherically symmetric case. Instead of a boost of $a_0$ in terms of gravitational potentials as in EMOND, we show that a boost in terms of this directionless inverse-square field roughly amounts to the boost needed to accommodate the mass discrepancies of MOND in galaxy clusters. We conclude by beginning to generalize the proposed formulation beyond spherical symmetry.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Science220(4604), 1339–1344 (1983) https://doi.org/10.1126/science.220.4604.1339

    Rubin, V.C.: The Rotation of Spiral Galaxies. Science220(4604), 1339–1344 (1983) https://doi.org/10.1126/science.220.4604.1339

    work page arXiv 1983

  2. [2]

    Garrett K., Duda G.: Dark Matter: A Primer. Adv. Astron.2011(2011) https: //doi.org/10.1155/2011/968283

    doi:10.1155/2011/968283 2011

  3. [3]

    ApJ270, 365–370 (1983) https://doi.org/10.1086/ 161130

    Milgrom, M.: A modification of the Newtonian dynamics as a possible alternative to the hidden mass hypothesis. ApJ270, 365–370 (1983) https://doi.org/10.1086/ 161130

    work page 1983

  4. [4]

    ApJ270, 371–383 (1983) https://doi.org/10.1086/161131

    Milgrom, M.: A modification of the Newtonian dynamics — Implications for Galaxies. ApJ270, 371–383 (1983) https://doi.org/10.1086/161131

    doi:10.1086/161131 1983

  5. [5]

    ApJ270, 384–389 (1983) https://doi.org/10.1086/161132

    Milgrom, M.: A Modification of the Newtonian Dynamics — Implications for Galaxy Systems. ApJ270, 384–389 (1983) https://doi.org/10.1086/161132

    doi:10.1086/161132 1983

  6. [6]

    Milgrom, M.: Tripotential mond theories. Phys. Rev. D108, 063009 (2023) https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.108.063009

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.063009 2023

  7. [7]

    Bekenstein, J.D.: Relativistic gravitation theory for the modified newtonian dynamics paradigm. Phys. Rev. D70, 083509 (2004) https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevD.70.083509 11

    work page 2004

  8. [8]

    ApJ512(1) (1998) https://doi.org/10.1086/ 311865

    Sanders, R.H.: The Virial Discrepancy in Clusters of Galaxies in the Context of Modified Newtonian Dynamics. ApJ512(1) (1998) https://doi.org/10.1086/ 311865

    work page 1998

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    MNRAS 342(3), 901–908 (2003) https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06596.x

    Sanders, R.H.: Clusters of galaxies with modified Newtonian dynamics. MNRAS 342(3), 901–908 (2003) https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06596.x

    2003

  2. [10]

    MNRAS364(2), 654–658 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1365-2966.2005.09590.x

    Pointecouteau, E., Silk, J.: New constraints on modified Newtonian dynamics from galaxy clusters. MNRAS364(2), 654–658 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1365-2966.2005.09590.x

    2005

  3. [11]

    Apj896(1), 70 (2020) https: //doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab8e3d

    Tian, Y., Umetsu, K., Ko, C.-M., Donahue, M., Chiu, I.-N.: The Radial Accel- eration Relation in CLASH Galaxy Clusters. Apj896(1), 70 (2020) https: //doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab8e3d

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    New Astron

    Milgrom, M.: Marriage ` a-la-mond: Baryonic dark matter in galaxy clusters and the cooling flow puzzle. New Astron. Rev.51(10), 906–915 (2008) https://doi. org/10.1016/j.newar.2008.03.023

    2008 doi

  5. [13]

    A&A688, 78 (2024) https://doi

    Kelleher, R., Lelli, F.: Galaxy clusters in Milgromian dynamics: Missing matter, hydrostatic bias, and the external field effect. A&A688, 78 (2024) https://doi. org/10.1051/0004-6361/202449968

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    A&A621, 39 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201833323

    Ettori, S.,et al.: Hydrostatic mass profiles in x-cop galaxy clusters. A&A621, 39 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201833323

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    Zhang, D., Zonoozi, A.H., Kroupa, P.: Revisiting the missing mass problem in mond for nearby galaxy clusters. Phys. Rev. D, 043027 (2026) https://doi.org/ 10.1103/mp3f-q5dc

    2026 doi

  8. [16]

    Bekenstein, J.: S´ eminaires de l’IAP (2011)

    2011

  9. [17]

    Zhao, H., Famaey, B.: Unifying all mass discrepancies with one effective grav- ity law? Phys. Rev. D86, 067301 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.86. 067301

    2012 doi

  10. [18]

    A&A598(A127) (2017) https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201629358

    Hodson, A.O., Zhao, H.: Generalizing mond to explain the missing mass in galaxy clusters. A&A598(A127) (2017) https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201629358

    2017 doi

  11. [19]

    Hodson, Alistair O., Zhao, Hongsheng: Are over-massive haloes of ultra-diffuse galaxies consistent with extended mond? A&A607, 109 (2017) https://doi.org/ 10.1051/0004-6361/201730757

    2017 doi

  12. [20]

    Khoury, J.: Alternative to particle dark matter. Phys. Rev. D91, 024022 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.91.024022

    2015 doi

  13. [21]

    A&A 698, 167 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202554793

    Scherer, D., Pflamm-Altenburg, J., Kroupa, P., Gjergo, E.: The p-laplacian as a framework for generalizing newtonian gravity and milgromian gravitation. A&A 698, 167 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202554793

    2025 doi

  14. [22]

    Milgrom, M.: Dynamics with a nonstandard inertia-acceleration relation: an alter- native to dark matter in galactic systems. Ann. Phys.229(2), 384–415 (1994) https://doi.org/10.1006/aphy.1994.1012

    1994

  15. [23]

    Preprint at https://arxiv

    Milgrom, M.: Thea 0 cosmology connection in MOND. Preprint at https://arxiv. org/abs/2001.09729 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  16. [24]

    and Benedetto, E.: A machian request for the equivalence principle in extended gravity and nongeodesic motion

    Licata, I., Corda, C. and Benedetto, E.: A machian request for the equivalence principle in extended gravity and nongeodesic motion. Gravit. Cosmol.22, 48–53 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1134/S0202289316010102

    2016 doi

  17. [25]

    IJMPD (2024) https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218271824410153

    Benedetto, E., Corda, C., Licata, I.: Equivalence Principle and Machian origin of 12 extended gravity. IJMPD (2024) https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218271824410153

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    IJTP49, 1133–1139 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10773-010-0294-5

    Darabi, F.: A New interpretation of MOND based on Mach principle and general- ized Equivalence Principle. IJTP49, 1133–1139 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10773-010-0294-5

    2010

  19. [27]

    Chaos Solit

    Gine, J.: On the origin of the inertia: The modified Newtonian dynamics theory. Chaos Solit. Fractals41(4), 1651–1660 (2009) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos. 2008.07.008

    2009 doi

  20. [28]

    Gine, J.: The phenomenological version of modified Newtonian dynamics from the relativity principle of motion. Phys. Scr.85(2), 025011 (2012) https://doi. org/10.1088/0031-8949/85/02/025011

    2012 doi

  21. [29]

    IJTP63(271) (2024) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10773-024-05808-3 arXiv:2410.19007

    Uruena Palomo, M.: MOND as a Transformation Between Non-inertial Reference Frames Via Sciama’s Interpretation of Mach’s Principle. IJTP63(271) (2024) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10773-024-05808-3 arXiv:2410.19007

    2024

  22. [30]

    Brockhaus, Leipzig (1881)

    Mach, E.: Die Mechanik in Ihrer Entwicklung. Brockhaus, Leipzig (1881)

  23. [31]

    Il Nuovo Cimento 10, 646–651 (1958) https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02859800

    Cocconi, G., Salpeter, E.: A search for anisotropy of inertia. Il Nuovo Cimento 10, 646–651 (1958) https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02859800

    1958 doi

  24. [32]

    Dicke, R.H.: Experimental Tests of Mach’s Principle. Phys. Rev. Lett.7, 359–360 (1961) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.7.359

    1961 doi

  25. [33]

    Reinhardt, M.: Mach’s principle — a critical review. Z. Naturforsch. A28(1973)

    1973

  26. [34]

    (eds.): Mach’s Principle: From Newton’s Bucket to Quantum Gravity

    Barbour, J.B., Pfister, H. (eds.): Mach’s Principle: From Newton’s Bucket to Quantum Gravity. Proceedings, Conference, Tuebingen, Germany, 1993 (1995)

    1995

  27. [35]

    Bondi, H., Samuel, J.: The Lense-Thirring effect and Mach’s principle. Phys. Lett. A228(3), 121–126 (1997) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0375-9601(97)00117-5

    1997 doi

  28. [36]

    Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ (1922)

    Einstein, A.: The Meaning of Relativity. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ (1922)

    1922

  29. [37]

    Brans, C.H.: Mach’s Principle and the Locally Measured Gravitational Constant in General Relativity. Phys. Rev.125, 388–396 (1962) https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRev.125.388

    1962

  30. [38]

    MNRAS113, 34 (1953) https://doi.org/ 10.1093/mnras/113.1.34

    Sciama, D.W.: On the origin of inertia. MNRAS113, 34 (1953) https://doi.org/ 10.1093/mnras/113.1.34

    1953 doi

  31. [39]

    AdP382, 325–336 (1925) https://doi.org/10.1002/andp.19253821109

    Schr¨ odinger, E.: Die Erf¨ ullbarkeit der Relativit¨ atsforderung in der klassischen Mechanik. AdP382, 325–336 (1925) https://doi.org/10.1002/andp.19253821109

    1925 doi

  32. [40]

    Reissner, H.: Uber eine m¨ oglichkeit die gravitation als unmittelbar¨ e Folge der relativit¨ at der tr¨ agheit abzuleiten. Phys. Z.16, 179–185 (1915)

    1915

  33. [41]

    Dai, D.-C., Matsuo, R., Starkman, G.: Limited utility of Birkhoff’s theorem in modified Newtonian dynamics: Nonzero accelerations inside a shell. Phys. Rev. D81, 024041 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.81.024041

    2010 doi

  34. [42]

    A&A541, 57 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201118281

    Eckert, D.,et al.: The gas distribution in the outer regions of galaxy clusters. A&A541, 57 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201118281

    2012 doi

  35. [43]

    A&A259, 31–34 (1992)

    Briel, U.G.,et al.: Observation of the Coma cluster of galaxies with ROSAT during the all-sky survey. A&A259, 31–34 (1992)

    1992

  36. [44]

    A&A343, 420–438 (1999) 13

    Schindler, S., Binggeli, B., B¨ ohringer, H.: Morphology of the Virgo cluster: Gas versus galaxies. A&A343, 420–438 (1999) 13

    1999

  37. [45]

    ApJ621(2), 663 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1086/427548

    Machacek, M.,et al.: Infall of the elliptical galaxy ngc 1404 into the fornax cluster. ApJ621(2), 663 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1086/427548

    2005 doi

  38. [46]

    Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.23591 (2026)

    B ´ ılek, M., Renaud, F., Samurovi´ c, S.: Deviations from the radial acceleration relation in the central galaxies of clusters, subclusters, and groups. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.23591 (2026)

    2026

  39. [47]

    MNRAS454(4), 3810–3815 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/ stv2202

    Milgrom, M.: Ultra-diffuse cluster galaxies as key to the MOND cluster conundrum. MNRAS454(4), 3810–3815 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/ stv2202

    2015 doi

  40. [48]

    Treder, H.-J.: Die Relativit¨ at der Tr¨ agheit. De Gruyter, Berlin (1972) 14 Appendix A Data Tables and Plots T able A1: Coma type cluster: radius in [Mpc], baryonic mass in [1012M⊙], accelerations in [10 −10 m/s2] RadiusM(< r)M(> r)a N as a′ 0 a(4)a/a MOND 0.05 0.04 179.96 0...

    1972

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.