A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Research
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Mond confirmed?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 8th 09, 09:04 AM posted to sci.astro.research
jacob navia[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 145
Default 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
Ads
  #2  
Old May 11th 09, 01:01 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 198
Default 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  
Old May 14th 09, 12:20 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Juergen Barsuhn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 44
Default 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  
Old June 30th 09, 04:02 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Oh No
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 433
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 10:48 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 02:37 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.