Go Back   IceInSpace > General Astronomy > Astronomy and Amateur Science

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #1  
Old 04-09-2009, 02:09 PM
renormalised's Avatar
renormalised (Carl)
No More Infinities

renormalised is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Townsville
Posts: 9,698
Post Rogue Galaxies Prompt Rethink of Garvity

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articl...11/2566814.htm

MOND...mon dieu
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-09-2009, 03:47 PM
Robh's Avatar
Robh (Rob)
Registered User

Robh is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Blue Mountains, Australia
Posts: 1,333
Carl, thanks for the update.
The plot thickens ...
Just shows that one should never blindly take any theory as a fait accompli.
If the theory doesn't explain the observations then you've got to go back to the drawing board.

le nouveau MONDe

Regards, Rob
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-09-2009, 06:42 AM
sjastro's Avatar
sjastro
Registered User

sjastro is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,926
Rethink? Not according to this...........

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hu..._20090312.html

Steven
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-09-2009, 09:08 AM
renormalised's Avatar
renormalised (Carl)
No More Infinities

renormalised is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Townsville
Posts: 9,698
That's still conjecture, Steven. They're using dark matter as an explanation for what they're seeing with those dwarf galaxies. We haven't a clue of two things here....1. What the blazes is dark matter, and 2. Does it even exist. Unless you have definitive evidence of its existence, all you can say about this is something is creating the influence that is keeping these galaxies together. What that is, we don't know. Saying something exists in theory and then proving its actual existence are two entirely different things. I think the theorists and such need to take a step back and not proclaim one way or the other what is influencing these galaxies until they have definitive proof, either way.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-09-2009, 10:22 AM
allan gould's Avatar
allan gould
Registered User

allan gould is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 4,485
Personally I have a hard time trying to accept dark matter and dark energy. The simplest explanation for dark matter is that there is needed a modification of laws of gravity a la Newton. And this will lead to a better understanding of gravity at the quantum level, while for dark energy - forget it as there was a refutation of the whole idea of dark energy (need to find the paper) that easily refuted dark energy on the basis that from first principles their assumptions were wrong. Its initially stated that in space matter is evenly distributed. But clearly its not as seen from galaxy surveys where there are voids and clumps. So from first principles there initial statements are wrong. The paper i remember then calculated red shifts of galaxies through this clumpiness of the Universe and showed the extra redshift was due to the fact that space has extra clumped material that increased the redsift along the line of site to their exploding supernova. But of course this was ignored by main stream scientists that had a vested interest ie grants tied up to dark energy research. In my opimion the universe is simpler than all these bolt on epicycles that modern scientists are doing - its all to clumsy and inelegant.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-09-2009, 11:06 AM
sjastro's Avatar
sjastro
Registered User

sjastro is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by renormalised View Post
That's still conjecture, Steven. They're using dark matter as an explanation for what they're seeing with those dwarf galaxies. We haven't a clue of two things here....1. What the blazes is dark matter, and 2. Does it even exist. Unless you have definitive evidence of its existence, all you can say about this is something is creating the influence that is keeping these galaxies together. What that is, we don't know. Saying something exists in theory and then proving its actual existence are two entirely different things. I think the theorists and such need to take a step back and not proclaim one way or the other what is influencing these galaxies until they have definitive proof, either way.
Dark matter is a hypothesis not a theory. A hypothesis becomes a theory when it is supported by observation.

The same applies to MOND.

Steven
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-09-2009, 12:30 PM
Screwdriverone's Avatar
Screwdriverone (Chris)
I have detailed files....

Screwdriverone is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Kellyville Ridge, NSW Australia
Posts: 3,306
Hmmmm, must have caused them to rethink the spelling too?

Garvity eh?



Chris
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-09-2009, 01:33 PM
Robh's Avatar
Robh (Rob)
Registered User

Robh is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Blue Mountains, Australia
Posts: 1,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by allan gould View Post
Personally I have a hard time trying to accept dark matter and dark energy. The simplest explanation for dark matter is that there is needed a modification of laws of gravity a la Newton.
I agree about the dark energy hypothesis. I think it seems to much of an "on the fly" fix to observations interpreted as an accelerating expansion of the Universe. Even so, down the track, it could turn out to be right.
However, the dark matter fix is fairly plausible. I think it leads to a simpler mathematical explanation of the assumed "binding" forces required to hold galaxies together than the modified Newtonian equations required by MOND. Having said that, only further observations will establish which is correct- dark matter or MOND or, perhaps, something else.
Flexibility is the key to success!

Regards, Rob
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-09-2009, 03:19 PM
avandonk's Avatar
avandonk
avandonk

avandonk is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4,786
Dark matter is simply all the socks lost in the wash since socks began.

Bert
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-09-2009, 09:02 PM
renormalised's Avatar
renormalised (Carl)
No More Infinities

renormalised is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Townsville
Posts: 9,698
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by Screwdriverone View Post
Hmmmm, must have caused them to rethink the spelling too?

Garvity eh?



Chris

My mistake....typo
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-09-2009, 09:04 PM
renormalised's Avatar
renormalised (Carl)
No More Infinities

renormalised is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Townsville
Posts: 9,698
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by avandonk View Post
Dark matter is simply all the socks lost in the wash since socks began.

Bert
The "ho-zone"

Now we know
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-09-2009, 09:07 PM
renormalised's Avatar
renormalised (Carl)
No More Infinities

renormalised is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Townsville
Posts: 9,698
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by sjastro View Post
Dark matter is a hypothesis not a theory. A hypothesis becomes a theory when it is supported by observation.

The same applies to MOND.

Steven
That's not what I meant...by saying something exists in theory meaning it exists only as a matter of conjecture. Basically, an educated guess.

I do know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 09:15 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Testar
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement