Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
schreef in bericht
...
On Mar 22, 1:55 pm, "Nicolaas Vroom"
wrote:
Non-Local effects is explained below.

You did not explain it.

A non local effect is one that does not allow dis-regarding external
factors. Something that does not reduce with the square of distance.
Basically you cannot replace a sphere with a point mass.

Yes, it is a problem with MOND. It is just slightly inaccurate.

What do you mean by that ?
Do you mean that a0 could have a different value ?

No. Just that MOND the equation is not completely accurate.
The world is not newtonian so any newtonian formulation will
not be entirely accurate, and you will have effects that don't
make sense. Just read the n body document I gave you.
The reason it doesn't make sense is because of the newtonian
formulation of MOND. It explains things better as TeVeS, which
will not have such wierd aspects.

So you cannot apply it simply. You must think of where you
are applying it and then derive a form which will apply in that
case. eg. In a galaxy you must assume a disk with simple non-
uniformity and then derive a form that can be used. That is what
the accompanying papers do.

If you have to use individual stars for your application then you
must use TeVeS.

There are dozens of papers that
show you how to fit the data in galaxies.

I have also studied those curves.
As I have mentioned I have two major problem.

First if the rotation curve is not flat but decreases
at larger distances than you can not simulate those
with MOND.
(MOND can only be used if the speed increases.)

Don't talk about distances. MOND does not work
with distances, it works with acceleration scale a0.

Are there any galaxies where rotation curves decrease
at distances where accelarations are less than a0?

If you have found one, please publish your results,
Scientists have been searching for such results for
the last 25 years.


Secondly starting point is a certain visible (baryonic) mass
distribution.
With Newton you can calculate the rotation curve
but this curve does not match the measured curve.
Solution add an halo of darkmatter.

With MOND you should start with this same mass
distribution.
The problem is that the speeds (rotation curves) calculated
based on that assumption with MOND
(assuming that MOND is applicable at scales
larger than 0.1 ly See below) are far too much.

Again you are talking about distances. Distances don't
matter in MOND. MOND regime does not start for
100s of Lightyears within our own galaxy, at the center.

For our SUN it would start at much below 0.1ly. Actually
at a distance of a couple of days.

The fact that you say that we should use a different theory
IMO is prove that with MOND we have a serious problem.

And what would be that problem?
It just means that you don't understand MOND. You must
understand it first before you can apply it correctly.

My question is more related to two large masses.
If the star is outside the range where a=a0
than with Newton when the two masses collide there
is (almost) no change in the speed of the test object
but with MOND there is.

How do you collide to stars such that a a0.
I believe even if you where to collide two marbles the
acceleration between them will be more than a0, at the
point where they are about to merge.

Also remember MOND is applicable only when *all*
gravitational forces are considered. Basically you cannot
do these tests on earth, or near the SUN. There is only
one point between Earth and the Sun where the
gravitational force between them cancells exactly, where
we can test for MOND.

There is no distance scale in MOND. There is only an
acceleration scale, ie a0. Above a0 it is Newtonian,
below a0 it is MONDian.

For the Sun the distance for a to get smaller than a0
(1.21E-10m/s^2) is roughly 0.1 ly.

I would think it would be more like 0.01 ly.

The distance between then sun and the nearest star
is 1.3 pc or 4.3 ly.
That means the behaviour between almost all the stars
in our Galaxy is described by MOND.
Only when two stars become very close the description
becomes Newton.

Is that the correct application of MOND ?

That is correct. But it will not apply near the center of
the galaxy.

Science has nothing to do with (my or your) intuition.
Science has to do with experiments under carefully defined
conditions.
There is no personal "dimension" in science.

I don't understand your rejection of intuition. After all science
progresses due to intuition. You cannot make a new equation
without intuition. You first think up an equation based on your
intuition, and then test it out. The intuition is not infallible,
actually it is wrong more times than correct, when working
on unknown things, but you couldn't proceed without it.
Inventions are born out of intuitions, and that includes
discovering laws of nature.

Remember the story of the Benzene ring. How it was
dreamt, before understanding its nature. That is a very
obvious example of intuition playing a role in science.


Nicolaas Vroom
http://users.pandora.be/nicvroom/