Theoretical analysis demonstrates a bimetric MOND and DBI khronon framework satisfying solar system screening, indicating a viable host for cosmological acceleration scales.
The first construction in this programme with no computed kill against it — stated exactly, and not oversold: "no computed kill" is not "proven viable," and the two computations that decide it are named. (i) A locality theorem. The Sun sits at 0.67-0.74 of its own galaxy's MOND radius, so the solar system and the MOND regime are the SAME environment. Between 1 AU and r_M the local gravitational field differs by 6.3e7, while the total potential differs by 1.5x, the dark-sector density by 2.2x, and the velocity dispersion not at all. Any mechanism suppressing the MOND force in the solar system must be keyed to a quantity differing by the required 1.2e4-3.4e4: ONLY THE LOCAL FIELD QUALIFIES. This kills environmental phase-boundary screening outright (the solar system and the outer galaxy are on the same side of any density/temperature/dispersion/potential boundary), closed this programme's own single-argument ansatz (squeezed by 4.3e3-5.7e3x, with the free mass scale cancelling from the ratio), and explains why requirement R1 of the predecessor paper (DOI 10.5281/zenodo.22004372) demands the gradient: the requirement is forced by the Sun's position inside its own galaxy, not by formalism. Three prior deaths, one cause. (ii) The scale identity is host-independent. The promotion a0^2 = kappa^2 G(-K(Q)) — the MOND scale IS the dark sector's pressure — and its derived evolution a0(a)/a0(0) = (1+sigma^2)^(-1/4) require only a shift-symmetric clock field on FRW. Both are re-derived by computer algebra with no reference to any aether or vector sector. Everything banked from that law — a0(rec)/a0(0) = 0.0060 (MOND off at recombination), the environmental bound nu0 <= 2.36e-6, the locality of a0 — carries over verbatim to any host supplying a clock field. They were K(Q) results, not AeST results. (iii) The construction: bimetric MOND + the beta=1 DBI khronon + the promotion. BIMOND (Milgrom, PRD 80, 123536) has two metrics, matter coupled to one alone, the interaction built from the difference of connections — a tensor, with NO unit-timelike vector anywhere. Its favoured-class nonrelativistic limit is QUMOND, whose free function eats the LOCAL TOTAL FIELD: R1 and the locality theorem satisfied by construction. The legality condition d g_obs/d g_bar > 0 is met by the exponential interpolation everywhere (minimum 0.949 over 18 decades) even though that kernel's anomaly is non-monotone (peak 0.6476 at y = 2.540) — the exact shape that is FATAL in AeST is legal here, so the saturation trap's hypothesis is not met and the 1 AU anomaly is 1e-3458.7 m/s^2 (1e-3151.3 alt): the 1.2e4-3.4e4 ephemeris/RAR gap does not exist in this host. R2's vector-ghost mechanism has no counterpart (no vector, nothing for the Newtonian limit to poison); no Gtilde/G_N split is forced (R3); gamma_PPN = 1 is the literature's standing statement for the favoured class. The khronon (Q algebraic in d phi) supplies w = -1 exactly, dust excitations, and the conserved shift charge carrying the full dark abundance, unchanged. Owed, stated plainly: (theory) a nonlinear Boulware-Deser ghost analysis — BIMOND's connection-difference interaction is NOT of Hassan-Rosen form, so the known exemption does not automatically apply, and BIMOND must not be quoted as ghost-free; (data) a Boltzmann computation, since the previous host's 0.01-sigma CMB pass does not transfer even though the dust component is identical. Also unchanged: the dust-binding problem and clusters. kappa = 1/2 is FITTED (0.529 +/- 0.034), never derived. There is no dark-matter PARTICLE here; the dark abundance is a field's conserved charge, present in full. Every number is reproduced by committed self-checking scripts (superfluid_2026/sf01-sf07) at https://github.com/carlzimmerman/zimmerman-formula. Errors made and withdrawn during this programme are recorded, dated, with directions stated, in RETRACTIONS.md. Prior art on the a0-Lambda coincidence (Milgrom 1983/1999; Blanchet & Le Tiec 2009; Pikhitsa 2010; Klinkhamer & Kopp 2011) is credited: the coincidence is old; the identity and its derived evolution are this programme's contribution.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Carl P. Zimmerman (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: