|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Mond confirmed?
I would like to know what the experts here have to say about this:
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/St... isis_999.html A flurry of similar articles has appeared in the last days: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0505061949.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0422085830.htm What do you think? Thanks -- jacob navia jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr logiciels/informatique http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Mond confirmed?
In article , jacob navia
writes: I would like to know what the experts here have to say about this: http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/St... isis_999.html The title shows a basic misunderstanding of how science works. It is extremely rare that one study can plunge a well established theory into crisis. At most, it might give a hint of the direction of modification of the theory. A flurry of similar articles has appeared in the last days: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0505061949.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0422085830.htm There was one in the online edition of Der Spiegel (most important and best German weekly news magazine) and I followed the links to the original papers. I'm not a total sceptic regarding MOND, but I think that any evidence for it, in order to be convincing, has to be straightforward and free of any "fudge factors". In other words, the work in question is too complex to see a clear signal for MOND. At most a hint, but there are more convincing hints. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Mond confirmed?
Phillip Helbig... schrieb:
.... jacob navia writes: I would like to know what the experts here have to say about this: http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/St... isis_999.html The title shows a basic misunderstanding of how science works. .... I would not be that harsh with such a newsletter. They need some kind of exaggeration to attract their readers. Even well renowned organizations sometimes use this kind of tricks. I remember that once a newsletter of ESO titled "The beast in the belly" was removed to the junk folder by my local spam filter.... ....... There was one in the online edition of Der Spiegel (most important and best German weekly news magazine) ..... really the best? and I followed the links to the original papers. I'm not a total sceptic regarding MOND, but I think that any evidence for it, in order to be convincing, has to be straightforward and free of any "fudge factors". In other words, the work in question is too complex to see a clear signal for MOND. At most a hint, but there are more convincing hints. The dark-matter hypothesis goes back to the 1930ies, when Zwicky found that only some "unseen matter" was necessary to explain the otherwise too rapid motions in the outskirts of some galaxies. But he certainly did not yet think of mysterious non-baryonix matter that is only detectable by its gravity. The present use of dark matter to explain a motion that cannot be explained by the Newtonian force of the observed matter appears to me as folloeing: Put dark matter at any place and in any amount, unntil you can fit the observed motion. As you have infinitely many parameters you will finally succeed. The Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) faces much more difficulties. There are only one or two additional parameters to formulate a generally valid gravitational force (that deviates from Newton only at very low amounts of the gravitational force). It is ridiculous that the majority of astronomers believing in dark matter and even better dark energy behave similar to the medieval chirch in "excommunicating" the MOND-heretics". Obviously Kroupa and Metz avoid any reference to MOND (atleast)in their abstracts. All the best Jurgen |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Mond confirmed?
[[Mod. note -- Recent posts in this thread seems to be diverging from
the science into meta-discussions about science. I hope future posters can focus on the actual science itself. -- jt]] Thus spake Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply LOTHESvax.de In article , jacob navia writes: I would like to know what the experts here have to say about this: http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/St...d_Theory_Of_Co smology_Into_Crisis_999.html The title shows a basic misunderstanding of how science works. It is extremely rare that one study can plunge a well established theory into crisis. At most, it might give a hint of the direction of modification of the theory. A flurry of similar articles has appeared in the last days: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0505061949.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0422085830.htm There was one in the online edition of Der Spiegel (most important and best German weekly news magazine) and I followed the links to the original papers. I'm not a total sceptic regarding MOND, but I think that any evidence for it, in order to be convincing, has to be straightforward and free of any "fudge factors". In other words, the work in question is too complex to see a clear signal for MOND. At most a hint, but there are more convincing hints. I would have said that cosmology is already in crisis, and has been for some time. Neither MOND nor CDM give consistent accounts of the behaviour of matter, and both exist in a number of flavours and variants, followed by different schools and individuals who stick their heads in the sand and ignore evidence contrary to their opinion. Although this should be considered crank behaviour, it is actually normal in a period of crisis that this accounts for the behaviour of the majority of scientists, who therefore refuse to acknowledge that there is a crisis. According to patterns of previous crises, the resolution will not have much to do with any of the competing theories, and the fact of crisis will not be widely recognised until after it is resolved, and even then the main advocates of the different schools will not recognise the resolution. Regards -- Charles Francis moderator sci.physics.foundations. charles (dot) e (dot) h (dot) francis (at) googlemail.com (remove spaces and braces) http://www.rqgravity.net |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Implications of gr-qc/0511160 for Bekenstein's relativistic MOND theory? | [email protected] | Research | 0 | January 1st 06 11:48 AM |
Physical theory which matches MOND results | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 4 | September 18th 05 07:09 PM |
MOND & Carmeli | Charles Francis | Research | 0 | March 30th 05 09:08 PM |
MOND, a Paper and a Question | Tom Kirke | Astronomy Misc | 0 | April 1st 04 08:58 PM |
MOND and the accelerating Cosmos | SLDER | Misc | 0 | January 20th 04 03:37 PM |