Talk:Mordehai Milgrom

Untitled

Does this person deserve an article. If he does, why isn't the information *why* he deserves an article in the article?--Hemanshu 10:38, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This is a late response, but to pre-empt any attempt at deletion: He developed MOND, a hypothesis which has survived 20 years in a constantly-evolving field. At least 200 publications have focused on this hypothesis. If the hypothesis becomes a theory, his name will have a place in textbooks. Why *doesn't* he deserve an article? 129.12.228.161 10:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Hemanshu, btw the best way in the future to deal with problems like this is to add a {{importance}} tag at the top of the page. Jon513 11:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I happen to come across this page by accident and wanted to correct the layout. I don't really know why it is here. Yakovsh 04:18, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

See Modified Newtonian Dynamics or MOND. MathKnight 21:34, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

About The Split Tag

I know this guy isn't well known but the person and his theory might be better presented if they were split into two seperate articles. Tiki God 09:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

MOND already has an article. You're right; there's no need for an explanation of MOND in this article. What this article needs is a bibliography, for example, he's written one or two articles for Scientific American, not to mention his dozens of publications in scientific journals. There's a pretty exhaustive bibliography at "The MOND Pages," I believe. 129.12.228.161 19:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Relativity Disproven?

Does Milgrom's Theory truly disprove Einstein's relativity or does it simply modify the way we look at the universe?

I think it's most fair to say that at the moment MOND is an empirical law. It seems to work in some regimes and that demands an explanation (because it's a very bizarre thing!) At the moment there is none from the prevailing ideas in physics (though not to say that one won't be forthcoming).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mordehai Milgrom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160307013602/https://www.ias.edu/people/cos/users/mmilgrom01 to http://www.ias.edu/people/cos/users/mmilgrom01

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Quotation altered

User:Naturalistic, while I agree with your edit, I am going to revert. That's because you edited a direct quote, designated as such. Maybe we could just trim it a bit instead, without altering the meaning? FeralOink (talk) 17:44, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Naturalistic I changed it to this.

Modified Newtonian dynamics [an acceleration-based modification of dynamics or gravity] is solely the invention of Mordehai (Moti) Milgrom... it is safe to say that in the early 1980s no one but Milgrom had considered such a possible modification as an alternative to astrophysical dark matter...

Does that seem okay to you?--FeralOink (talk) 17:53, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes that does seem okay and I see your point.

I was particularly aiming to cut out the tendentious comment "the idea . . . would have probably occurred to someone else sooner or later." This is close to true of ALL scientific theories young or old. Thanks for asking. Naturalistic (talk) 18:47, 25 November 2022 (UTC)