> In 2004, Bekenstein proposed his TeVeS, or Relativistic Gravitational Theory for MOND. Since then, several different relativistic MOND formulations have been put forth, including one by me, called Bimetric MOND, or BIMOND.
> So, no, incorporating MOND into Einsteinian physics is no longer a challenge. I hear this statement still made, but only from people who parrot others, who themselves are not abreast with the developments of the last 10 years. There are several relativistic versions of MOND. What remains a challenge is demonstrating that MOND can account for the mass anomalies in cosmology.
I'm not a physicist and definitely not qualified to evaluate those claims, but it doesn't seem to be a concern to Milgrom.
addendum: If you're going to throw away relativity, step up, stop being a coward: straight up throw away relativity and say Einstein was wrong. Again, you need to come up with some very compelling evidence and a seriously strong theory, but don't weasel around the fact that you're saying that just as Newtonian mechanics accurately models a subset of relativity's domain, relativity accurately models a subset of your theory. Present that new theory or acknowledge you're a mad man that accepts variable physics; don't do neither.
The problem with MOND is that it straight-up isn't compatible with relativity. The core of relativity is that the laws of physics from all reference frames are the same. Sure, you can make a MOND that gels with alot of the math resulting from general relativity, but saying "MOND is correct at the large scale and Newtonian mechanics is correct at smaller scales" is gibberish if you actually want to keep relativity itself.