A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

test devised to test for MOND on Earth



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 2nd 10, 09:56 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics
Jan Panteltje
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 453
Default test devised to test for MOND on Earth

On a sunny day (Tue, 2 Mar 2010 12:20:12 -0800 (PST)) it happened PD
wrote in
:

Jan, there's a couple of problems with this.


I know :-)

1. You would expect to find young, small spiral galaxies with very
little subtended arc in the arms, and very old, large spiral galaxies
with very long subtended arc in the arms, in more or less a linear
relationship. There is no observable correlation like that.


It all depends on when the galaxies started emitting jets,
on how we measure time (their date), an how they were formed.
After some time I would expect some of the matter to tend towards orbiting.


2. The mass in the arms would have a significant *outward* component
of the velocity, which would be easily measured in Doppler
measurements. No such component is observed.


If you look at the picture of some of these galaxies,
then you will see some where the 'thing 'in the middle is sticking out on 2 sides,
like a squeezed orange, and from that point on it sort of leaves
traces of material in which then stars form.


3. Rather that galaxies being the accretion of mass, you would have
everyone believe that there are huge *sources* of mass in the centre
of galaxies, without accounting at all for what might be the source of
such large amounts of mass.


If we accept the idea of some big sort of 'bang', then it is MUCH more likely big pieces of
that primordial (as yet unknown state of matter) where thrown out in the bang, and spread in the sky.
Each piece then started spewing these jets and galaxies formed.
Where should the gasses come from in your model?
And why would they stay close to galaxies? Hot gasses expand.

Ever looked a fireworks?
It is not that the sparks are seeking the firecrackers, they ORIGINATE from those.
  #2  
Old March 2nd 10, 10:28 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics
PD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,572
Default test devised to test for MOND on Earth

On Mar 2, 2:56*pm, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Tue, 2 Mar 2010 12:20:12 -0800 (PST)) it happened PD
wrote in
:

Jan, there's a couple of problems with this.


I know :-)

1. You would expect to find young, small spiral galaxies with very
little subtended arc in the arms, and very old, large spiral galaxies
with very long subtended arc in the arms, in more or less a linear
relationship. There is no observable correlation like that.


It all depends on when the galaxies started emitting jets,
on how we measure time (their date), an how they were formed.


You would still expect there to be a relationship between size and the
subtended arc, in any observational sample, regardless of the age
scale attributed to the galaxies, as there is a definite relationship
in a "lawn-sprinkler" model. No such correlation is observed.

After some time I would expect some of the matter to tend towards orbiting.


How quickly you retreated from "no orbit" to "tend towards orbiting".


2. The mass in the arms would have a significant *outward* component
of the velocity, which would be easily measured in Doppler
measurements. No such component is observed.


If you look at the picture of some of these galaxies,
then you will see some where the 'thing 'in the middle is sticking out on 2 sides,
like a squeezed orange, and from that point on it sort of leaves
traces of material in which then stars form.


There are definitely bar galaxies.

Again, this interpretation of photos has nothing to do with the fact
that an outward component of the velocity would be easily measurable
with Doppler shifts, and none is observed.


3. Rather that galaxies being the accretion of mass, you would have
everyone believe that there are huge *sources* of mass in the centre
of galaxies, without accounting at all for what might be the source of
such large amounts of mass.


If we accept the idea of some big sort of 'bang', then it is MUCH more likely big pieces of
that primordial (as yet unknown state of matter) where thrown out in the bang, and spread in the sky.


Why would you think this is much more likely? Why do compact chunks of
matter get distributed to widely spaced places in empty space, where
they THEN start spewing outward after being distributed?

Each piece then started spewing these jets and galaxies formed.
Where should the gasses come from in your model?


In galactic evolution models (which are supported by data), matter
which is thinly spread out with random small fluctuations of density
*accrete* gravitationally, forming increasingly dense clumps. This is
the same process by which planets in the solar system accreted into
round balls, and the same process by which gas accreted into the sun
(and other stars). Unless you also want me to believe that in the
center of the Earth there is a source of matter that spewed it out
until the Earth was formed.

And why would they stay close to galaxies? Hot gasses expand.


The gases were not hot when they accreted. They only heated up when
gravity pulled them together and then they started bonking into each
other, heating up as they go. This is the very same reason the sun is
hot. Cold gases accreted gravitationally until they were in close
enough contact to initiate fusion, which THEN made the sun a heat
source.


Ever looked a fireworks?


Right. Fireworks are DESIGNED to have multi-stage detonations, first
blowing big pieces apart without immediately detonating them, and then
delayed-reaction fuses ignite the smaller pieces. Good lord, Jan,
you're not suggesting that the universe is an artfully crafted
firework, are you?

It is not that the sparks are seeking the firecrackers, they ORIGINATE from those.


Now, back to the main focus of my comment.

If you choose to continue to believe a model that you've made up --
just because it's not the prevailing one which you despise primarily
because it has been put forward by those fatheaded, egomaniacal
physicists that you unilaterally hate -- despite the fact that your
model is in direct contradiction with experimental evidence, then you
were never doing science to begin with. In this case, your career
choice as an engineer was the most wise one.

PD

  #3  
Old March 2nd 10, 11:21 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics
Jan Panteltje
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 453
Default test devised to test for MOND on Earth

On a sunny day (Tue, 2 Mar 2010 13:28:01 -0800 (PST)) it happened PD
wrote in
:

On Mar 2, 2:56*pm, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Tue, 2 Mar 2010 12:20:12 -0800 (PST)) it happened PD
wrote in
:

Jan, there's a couple of problems with this.


I know :-)

1. You would expect to find young, small spiral galaxies with very
little subtended arc in the arms, and very old, large spiral galaxies
with very long subtended arc in the arms, in more or less a linear
relationship. There is no observable correlation like that.


It all depends on when the galaxies started emitting jets,
on how we measure time (their date), an how they were formed.


You would still expect there to be a relationship between size and the
subtended arc, in any observational sample, regardless of the age
scale attributed to the galaxies, as there is a definite relationship
in a "lawn-sprinkler" model. No such correlation is observed.

After some time I would expect some of the matter to tend towards orbitin=

g.

How quickly you retreated from "no orbit" to "tend towards orbiting".


2. The mass in the arms would have a significant *outward* component
of the velocity, which would be easily measured in Doppler
measurements. No such component is observed.


If you look at the picture of some of these galaxies,
then you will see some where the 'thing 'in the middle is sticking out on=

2 sides,
like a squeezed orange, and from that point on it sort of leaves
traces of material in which then stars form.


There are definitely bar galaxies.

Again, this interpretation of photos has nothing to do with the fact
that an outward component of the velocity would be easily measurable
with Doppler shifts, and none is observed.


3. Rather that galaxies being the accretion of mass, you would have
everyone believe that there are huge *sources* of mass in the centre
of galaxies, without accounting at all for what might be the source of
such large amounts of mass.


If we accept the idea of some big sort of 'bang', then it is MUCH more li=

kely big pieces of
that primordial (as yet unknown state of matter) where thrown out in the =

bang, and spread in the sky.

Why would you think this is much more likely? Why do compact chunks of
matter get distributed to widely spaced places in empty space, where
they THEN start spewing outward after being distributed?

Each piece then started spewing these jets and galaxies formed.
Where should the gasses come from in your model?


In galactic evolution models (which are supported by data), matter
which is thinly spread out with random small fluctuations of density
*accrete* gravitationally, forming increasingly dense clumps. This is
the same process by which planets in the solar system accreted into
round balls, and the same process by which gas accreted into the sun
(and other stars). Unless you also want me to believe that in the
center of the Earth there is a source of matter that spewed it out
until the Earth was formed.

And why would they stay close to galaxies? Hot gasses expand.


The gases were not hot when they accreted. They only heated up when
gravity pulled them together and then they started bonking into each
other, heating up as they go. This is the very same reason the sun is
hot. Cold gases accreted gravitationally until they were in close
enough contact to initiate fusion, which THEN made the sun a heat
source.


Ever looked a fireworks?


Right. Fireworks are DESIGNED to have multi-stage detonations, first
blowing big pieces apart without immediately detonating them, and then
delayed-reaction fuses ignite the smaller pieces. Good lord, Jan,
you're not suggesting that the universe is an artfully crafted
firework, are you?

It is not that the sparks are seeking the firecrackers, they ORIGINATE fr=

om those.

Now, back to the main focus of my comment.

If you choose to continue to believe a model that you've made up --
just because it's not the prevailing one which you despise primarily
because it has been put forward by those fatheaded, egomaniacal
physicists that you unilaterally hate -- despite the fact that your
model is in direct contradiction with experimental evidence, then you
were never doing science to begin with. In this case, your career
choice as an engineer was the most wise one.

PD


Look dude, you cannot even stay polite and on the subject,
start attacking me, maybe because subconsciously you see your ideas
(and main stream 'science') (note he quotes) is wrong.
Anyways, it is extremely simple.
One statement from science is:
The speed of the stars in the outer arms of the galaxies is so high that they SHOULD FLY AWAY,
and then it continues: So there must be a counter force blah blah dark matter, dark ghost?
Santa? Oops, we are looking we are looking, no Wimps, no dark matter, no nothing, oops,
need more research.
It is simple there is no such thing (except a few dead starts around the galaxies),
the explanation is super simple: THE STARS IN THE OUTER ARMS *****ARE***** FLYING AWAY.
No need for MOND, Wimps, mysterious forces, and your babble.

Contemporary science is the largest lot of bull**** since water earth and fire ware named as the primary elements.
Newton still rules, and no abberations have been found in our solar system.
With extreme accuracy NASA and ESA use Newton's equations to place spacecraft within kilometres of far aways planets
and their satellites.
Just that some Jewish student dreamt up MOND - and it is not even a theory, it is CURVE FITTING -
we do not even HAVE a theory of what causes gravity, the old wild haired dead man failed there too,
so bull**** somebody else with gravity waves, trillions of dimensions, never happening fusion break even power,
fire the lot of nut cakes who teach soulless math at our universities.
And let's have some stuff that is of use to humanity.
I want to fly to the stars, where is my space ship?
You have nothing, your theories suck, your destination is the same
as the dinosaurs if you do not let go of your insane fake politicalized science social projects.

My theory is not even a theory, it is an observation.
Your eyes are clouded by total bull**** stuffed into your brains during parrot training
in what is called schools.
Not that you would recognise an alien when he was standing in front of you.
  #4  
Old March 3rd 10, 01:03 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics
eric gisse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 342
Default test devised to test for MOND on Earth

Jan Panteltje wrote:
[...]

Look dude, you cannot even stay polite and on the subject,
start attacking me, maybe because subconsciously you see your ideas
(and main stream 'science') (note he quotes) is wrong.


Nice. "You subconsciously agree with me!"

That's a new one, Jan.

Anyways, it is extremely simple.


Stupid ideas are rarely anything but.

One statement from science is:


Yes, 'science'.

The speed of the stars in the outer arms of the galaxies is so high that
they SHOULD FLY AWAY, and then it continues: So there must be a counter
force blah blah dark matter, dark ghost? Santa? Oops, we are looking we
are looking, no Wimps, no dark matter, no nothing, oops, need more
research.


Ah, there we go. Since you feel science is making **** up, you think you can
do the same?

It is simple there is no such thing (except a few dead starts
around the galaxies)


Why no, Jan, 'dead stars' as you call them have been eliminated as sources
of dark matter.

, the explanation is super simple: THE STARS IN THE
OUTER ARMS *****ARE***** FLYING AWAY. No need for MOND, Wimps, mysterious
forces, and your babble.


Except they aren't flying away. This is an observational fact, Jan.


Contemporary science is the largest lot of bull**** since water earth and
fire ware named as the primary elements. Newton still rules, and no
abberations have been found in our solar system.


Perihelion advance of Mercury's orbit. Cripes, Jan. This has been known for
150+ years now.

[snip rest]
  #5  
Old March 3rd 10, 04:08 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics
PD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,572
Default test devised to test for MOND on Earth

On Mar 2, 4:21*pm, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Tue, 2 Mar 2010 13:28:01 -0800 (PST)) it happened PD
wrote in
:



On Mar 2, 2:56*pm, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Tue, 2 Mar 2010 12:20:12 -0800 (PST)) it happened PD
wrote in
:


Jan, there's a couple of problems with this.


I know :-)


1. You would expect to find young, small spiral galaxies with very
little subtended arc in the arms, and very old, large spiral galaxies
with very long subtended arc in the arms, in more or less a linear
relationship. There is no observable correlation like that.


It all depends on when the galaxies started emitting jets,
on how we measure time (their date), an how they were formed.


You would still expect there to be a relationship between size and the
subtended arc, in any observational sample, regardless of the age
scale attributed to the galaxies, as there is a definite relationship
in a "lawn-sprinkler" model. No such correlation is observed.


After some time I would expect some of the matter to tend towards orbitin=

g.


How quickly you retreated from "no orbit" to "tend towards orbiting".


2. The mass in the arms would have a significant *outward* component
of the velocity, which would be easily measured in Doppler
measurements. No such component is observed.


If you look at the picture of some of these galaxies,
then you will see some where the 'thing 'in the middle is sticking out on=

2 sides,
like a squeezed orange, and from that point on it sort of leaves
traces of material in which then stars form.


There are definitely bar galaxies.


Again, this interpretation of photos has nothing to do with the fact
that an outward component of the velocity would be easily measurable
with Doppler shifts, and none is observed.


3. Rather that galaxies being the accretion of mass, you would have
everyone believe that there are huge *sources* of mass in the centre
of galaxies, without accounting at all for what might be the source of
such large amounts of mass.


If we accept the idea of some big sort of 'bang', then it is MUCH more li=

kely big pieces of
that primordial (as yet unknown state of matter) where thrown out in the =

bang, and spread in the sky.


Why would you think this is much more likely? Why do compact chunks of
matter get distributed to widely spaced places in empty space, where
they THEN start spewing outward after being distributed?


Each piece then started spewing these jets and galaxies formed.
Where should the gasses come from in your model?


In galactic evolution models (which are supported by data), matter
which is thinly spread out with random small fluctuations of density
*accrete* gravitationally, forming increasingly dense clumps. This is
the same process by which planets in the solar system accreted into
round balls, and the same process by which gas accreted into the sun
(and other stars). Unless you also want me to believe that in the
center of the Earth there is a source of matter that spewed it out
until the Earth was formed.


And why would they stay close to galaxies? Hot gasses expand.


The gases were not hot when they accreted. They only heated up when
gravity pulled them together and then they started bonking into each
other, heating up as they go. This is the very same reason the sun is
hot. Cold gases accreted gravitationally until they were in close
enough contact to initiate fusion, which THEN made the sun a heat
source.


Ever looked a fireworks?


Right. Fireworks are DESIGNED to have multi-stage detonations, first
blowing big pieces apart without immediately detonating them, and then
delayed-reaction fuses ignite the smaller pieces. Good lord, Jan,
you're not suggesting that the universe is an artfully crafted
firework, are you?


It is not that the sparks are seeking the firecrackers, they ORIGINATE fr=

om those.


Now, back to the main focus of my comment.


If you choose to continue to believe a model that you've made up --
just because it's not the prevailing one which you despise primarily
because it has been put forward by those fatheaded, egomaniacal
physicists that you unilaterally hate -- despite the fact that your
model is in direct contradiction with experimental evidence, then you
were never doing science to begin with. In this case, your career
choice as an engineer was the most wise one.


PD


Look dude, you cannot even stay polite and on the subject,
start attacking me,


I don't know that observing that what you're doing is not scientific
should be considered an attack. It's a simple statement.

maybe because subconsciously you see your ideas
(and main stream 'science') (note he quotes) is wrong.
Anyways, it is extremely simple.
One statement from science is:
The speed of the stars in the outer arms of the galaxies is so high that they SHOULD FLY AWAY,
and then it continues: So there must be a counter force blah blah dark matter, dark ghost?
Santa? Oops, we are looking we are looking, no Wimps, no dark matter, no nothing, oops,
need more research.


Exactly. It's an open question that deserves investigation.

It is simple there is no such thing (except a few dead starts around the galaxies),
the explanation is super simple: THE STARS IN THE OUTER ARMS *****ARE***** FLYING AWAY.
No need for MOND, Wimps, mysterious forces, and your babble.


Except that possibility is already ruled out by the fact that the
outer arms do not show a radial velocity outward, which would be a
necessarily prediction of that model. So though it sounds simple, it
is already seen from experimental observation to be simply not what is
going on. So other avenues need to be pursued.


Contemporary science is the largest lot of bull**** since water earth and fire ware named as the primary elements.
Newton still rules, and no abberations have been found in our solar system.


This is simply not the case. Aberrations have been found, documented.

With extreme accuracy NASA and ESA use Newton's equations to place spacecraft within kilometres of far aways planets
and their satellites.
Just that some Jewish student dreamt up MOND - and it is not even a theory, it is CURVE FITTING -
we do not even HAVE a theory of what causes gravity, the old wild haired dead man failed there too,
so bull**** somebody else with gravity waves, trillions of dimensions, never happening fusion break even power,
fire the lot of nut cakes who teach soulless math at our universities.
And let's have some stuff that is of use to humanity.


Aaaaaand we're back to your preference for applied science rather than
fundamental science. I get that. So why are you so hell-bent on
tossing out your ideas on fundamental science, which are already known
to be ruled out, rather than working on applied science where your
interest is?

I want to fly to the stars, where is my space ship?
You have nothing, your theories suck, your destination is the same
as the dinosaurs if you do not let go of your insane fake politicalized science social projects.

My theory is not even a theory, it is an observation.
Your eyes are clouded by total bull**** stuffed into your brains during parrot training
in what is called schools.
Not that you would recognise an alien when he was standing in front of you.


  #6  
Old March 4th 10, 04:41 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics
John Curtis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 93
Default test devised to test for MOND on Earth



Jan Panteltje wrote:

Newton still rules, and no abberations have been found in our solar system.

Because newton is curvefitted to heliocentric system,
where distant planets are moving slower than closer planets;
and where planets are accelerating at perihelion
and decelerating at aphelion. None of this is real from the
galactic perspective, because all planets keep pace with the Sun,
averaging the same galactic speeds.
Even orbits disappear in the galactic frame, because
when a planet slows down at perihelion,
http://quest.nasa.gov/galileo/Galile...avity_Assist.1
and the Sun passes the planet, a visual effect is created that the
planet is moving backwards to form an ellipse. There is no
retrograde motion in the galactic frame and Newton will suffer.
John Curtis
..


  #7  
Old March 4th 10, 06:06 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics
spudnik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 220
Default test devised to test for MOND on Earth

hey, so did the epicycle for the precession of the equinoxes!

http://quest.nasa.gov/galileo/Galile...avity_Assist.1
and the Sun passes the planet, a visual effect is created that the
planet is moving backwards to form an ellipse. There is no
retrograde motion in the galactic frame and Newton will suffer.


thus:
"bending of time-space" is nonsequiter, and
Latin is a better dead, synthetic langauge than Esperanto!

it is a phase-space, the one that is do-able in quaternions
(a.k.a. vector mechanics .-)

That'd be an excellent point, if gravitational (notice the difference) waves
were the only prediction of GR.


thus quoth:
Danil Doubochinski emphasizes that argumental oscillations
had already found wide application in the design of particle
accelerators and electron tubes, as well as in investigations of
socalled
Fermi acceleration of cosmic rays, long before the
Doubochinski brothers’ original work in the late 1960s and 1970s.
Argumental oscillations had already appeared, around
1919, in the pioneering work of Barkhausen and Kurz on the
generation of microwaves. They noted that oscillating electrons,
interacting with the high frequency electromagnetic
field in the tubes they had constructed, spontaneously organized
themselves into “bunches,” moving in equal phase with
http://21stcenturysciencetech.com
  #8  
Old March 4th 10, 11:52 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics
Jan Panteltje
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 453
Default test devised to test for MOND on Earth

On a sunny day (Wed, 3 Mar 2010 19:41:43 -0800 (PST)) it happened John Curtis
wrote in
:



Jan Panteltje wrote:

Newton still rules, and no abberations have been found in our solar system.

Because newton is curvefitted to heliocentric system,
where distant planets are moving slower than closer planets;
and where planets are accelerating at perihelion
and decelerating at aphelion. None of this is real from the
galactic perspective, because all planets keep pace with the Sun,
averaging the same galactic speeds.
Even orbits disappear in the galactic frame, because
when a planet slows down at perihelion,
http://quest.nasa.gov/galileo/Galile...avity_Assist.1
and the Sun passes the planet, a visual effect is created that the
planet is moving backwards to form an ellipse. There is no
retrograde motion in the galactic frame and Newton will suffer.


I do not think Newton will sufer, in my view this has nothing to do with it.

John Curtis
.



 




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
test devised to test for MOND on Earth Yousuf Khan Astronomy Misc 5 March 3rd 10 12:55 AM
test devised to test for MOND on Earth PD Astronomy Misc 0 March 2nd 10 09:20 PM
EINSTEINIANS TEST RELATIVITY ON THE MOON (ON EARTH IT IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE) Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 7 August 7th 07 09:06 PM
Veen der veer Test Test Test gwh308 Policy 0 March 16th 04 04:26 AM
Test [sorry, server dodgy with alt.test] [email protected] Space Shuttle 1 February 28th 04 11:41 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.