Add new comment

"... the most stringent tests ever done of whether clocks tick as expected in lower gravity ..." Is the Weizmann Institute's Mordehai "Moti" Milgrom the Kepler of contemporary cosmology? Is Milgrom 20 year overdue for a Nobel Prize? Milgrom has not yet been acclaimed as the Kepler of contemporary cosmology, because MOND is inconsistent with special relativity theory. However, Guendelman's "Dynamical String Tension Theories with target space scale invariance SSB and restoration" provides a highly plausible mathematical model for Newton-Einstein inertia originating from one type of string tension and for FUNDAMOND inertia originating from another type of string tension. General relativity theory predicts twice as much gravitational lensing as the gravitational lensing predicted by Newtonian dynamics. "Principles of Gravitational Lensing: Light Deflection as a Probe of Astrophysics and Cosmology" by Arthur B. Congdon, Charles R. Keeton" In the MOND regime in which MOND makes approximately accurate predictions, consider the standard form of Einstein's field equations and replace the –1/2 by –1/2 + FUNDAMOND-bending-function — or one might say, FUNDAMOND-data-function. This hypothetical FUNDAMOND-bending-function might be approximately (3.9±.5) * 10^–5 . This suggests that FUNDAMOND string theory predicts twice as much gravitational lensing as Milgromian dynamics. According to Zhang, Zonoozi, & Kroupa (4 Feb. 2026, arxiv.org), "... within the MOND framework, galaxy clusters still require an additional amount of unseen matter, roughly twice the observed baryonic mass, to explain their gravitational behavior." It seems plausible that there is a huge amount of empirical evidence in favor of FUNDAMOND string theory. Should gravitational metrologists consider the hypothesis suggested by FUNDAMOND string theory?