On Feb 25, 1:17 am, "Eric Gisse" wrote:
Juan R. wrote:
On Feb 21, 10:38 am, "Eric Gisse" wrote:
Black
holes are discovered by explaining the orbits of stars - even though
they are not directly visible.

As was pointed to you (including references) no BH has been discovered
in despite of many 'candidates' during decades.

The candidate objects behave exactly as if they were a black hole.

No, they do not “behave exactly�. Only _indirect_ data about matter on
the outer region of the candidate object is being collected.

Absent a better explanation, the term "black hole" sticks.

No, rigorous people use the term "candidate to".

In science, a theory or model is not accepted because “absent a better
explanation� but because the theory or model has been scientifically
proven beyond reasonable doubt. That is not the case with BH and this
is because scientists continue to speak about “candidates to�.

Only dogmatics and believers like to ignore the basis of the
scientific method claiming proven existence for BHs in media, forums,
and so.

What do *YOU* think the roughly 3 million solar mass object at the
center of the galaxy is? Remember, it is dark in the electromagnetic
spectrum, flares are occasionally observed from the region consistent
with infalling matter, and it is constrained to be within area
comparable to the area enclosed by Pluto's orbit.

There exists alternative models are being actively researched both
inside and outside a GR framework.

From an experimental point of view we have got zero _direct_ data
about existence of BH and only indirect evidences are recorded;
indirect data is also compatible with alternative models.

From a theoretical point of view, it is rather unlikely GR-BH were
real. Current research (including strings and loops) points that GR-BH
are just mathematical artifacts as result of applying GR to a
gravitational field range where GR is not defined.

Today, I lack enough knowledge for selecting one model.

Then weak lensing showed us that dark matter is everywhere in the
halos of galaxies _everywhere_.

Precisely one of criticism to the GR+DM model is that cannot explain
why hypotetical DM is present in some galaxies but is _not_ in others.
The DM halo is always invoked _a posteriori_, when GR does not fit
experimental data for some specific system. Other theories let
rationalize the existence or absence of DM.

...but cannot explain the bullet cluster results.

MOND community replied to that.

And GR _cannot_ explain the bullet cluster even when invoking
unobserved DM. Now, GR people needs to invoke a new kind of mysterious
interaction in the cluster.

Then the bullet cluster was discovered - dark
matter got a whole lot more substantial.

Difficult to believe. See [1] comments on 1E0657-56 and related
literature. There are several public rebutals to that distorted press-
news claiming that dark matter was finally discovered.

Don't cite papers you didn't read.

Your telepathic capabilities are not working.

The bullet cluster puts MOND back at square one.

As well the paper is ***not*** supporting your assertion against MOND;
see my reply below.

Quoted from the paper you just cited:

Whereas Angus, Famaey and Zhao consider it possibleto explain the
lensing with a reasonable purely
baryonic matter distribution, a later paper by Angus, Shan, et al.
[87] concludes that dark matter is needed after all. This is hardly
surprising; as we saw in Sec. 3, pure MOND does not fully account for
the acceleration discrepancy in the dynamics of quiescent galaxy
clusters [10]. But DM models of the bullet clusters within GR are not
without their problems. Farrar and Rosen [88] note that the relative
velocity of the clusters is too high as compared to those seen in DM
simulations of structure formation. To remove the contradiction they
propose that a non-gravitational attraction of a new sort acts only
between clumps of DM. But is assuming existence of DM together with a
new interaction specific to it more parsimonious than a modification
of standard gravity such as MOND?

I will try to explain to you in easy terms:

1)
Popular belief (news, TV...) DM has been found in Universe is false.

2)
Popular belief MOND has been scientifically discredited is not true.

3)
The problems with clusters are not new. Already in the past MOND was
attacked with other clusters and problems were then solved. E.g.
Sanders showed that clusters contained much as yet undiscovered
barionic matter in the core which would be classed as visible. Maybe
that lesson from history was the reason for the first Angus, Famaey
and Zhao paper cited above.

4)
It appears that barionic explanation is not possible now. But your GR-
advertising against MOND has litle or none validity. The above paper
is saying,

[BLOCKQUOTE
But DM models of the bullet clusters within GR
are not without their problems.
]

In the recent past, GR people introduced DM. Today they are
introducing non-gravitational interactions of a mysterious sort for
the clusters (because DM alone is not enough).

Obligating to sensible scientists to ask:

[BLOCKQUOTE
But is assuming existence of DM together with
a new interaction specific to it more parsimonious than
a modification of standard gravity such as MOND?
]

If you enter in the traditional GR game of assuming unobserved stuff,
then it is not suprising that you can fit almost anything disagreeing
with GR. That game from relativists is well-known.

[FRENK PRINCIPLE
If the Cold Dark Matter Model does not agree with
observations, there must be physical processes,
no matter how bizarre or unlikely, that can explain
the discrepancy.
]

5)
Unsurprisingly you are missing alternatives to explain bullet cluster:
e.g. a generalized form of MOND. I have been said that relativistic
MOND agrees the bullet cluster data.

iii) It is based in asumption GR works there, which is unproven. Since
GR fails then DM was invented but nobody justified why GR would not
break there. It is pure extrapolation.

Once again you talk about proofs in science. One would think the lead
'researcher' for the center of canonical science would know this basic
fact.

Just because you ignore information does not mean I invented it. Look
some of references I cited in a previous reply and you can see other
scientists speaking about proofs on science. As said the term proof is
in the dictionary of the scientist. Even the wiki has an entry titled
“scientific proof�.

You have no evidence that GR fails anywhere in the macroscopic regime,
except for your personal beliefs.

Lions do not dissappear when closing eyes.

[BLOCKQUOTE [1]
In spite of its overwhelming success, there is discomfort
with general relativity in the scientific community due to
its being incompatible with quantum mechanics and the
reachable singularities of black holes (at which the math
of general relativity breaks down). Because of this,
numerous other theories have been proposed as alternatives
to general relativity.
]

In specialized academic literature, you can learn fails and
difficulties with GR increasing the _discomfort_ between scientists:
energy pseudotensors, systems of reference, simetries, unification,
spin and torsions, newtonian limits, locality...

One may also notice the GR fiasco on cosmological and astronomical
data. e.g. even inventing the never observed dark matter, GR has been
unable to fit galaxy dinamics (the fine-tuning problem).

iv) The DM model is purely _ad hoc_. DM is added in enough quantities
to galaxies with anomalous rotation curves and is not added to
galaxies without the anomalous dinamics.

More talk about galaxies that are dark-matter free. I would think
those would be of great interest to astronomers, perhaps you have a
reference?

You incorrectly claimed that dark matter was everywhere, but
astronomers and astrophysicists are not ignorant about that issue!

Is Eric Gisse (as usual) advertising GR?

[BLOCKQUOTE [2]
This is about right: globular star clusters at
10^4 – 10^5 M₀ show no missing mass problem.
]

Of course the DM model is ad-hoc. It was an explanation for something
totally unexpected. However, it has withstood the test of time because
it has been shown that DM is not merely an artifact of gravity itself.

DM would not be called an explanation but an ***unverified***
hypothesis post in front to ‘save’ GR when it was discovered GR did
not fit observations.

v) From an empirical point of view, MOND models using a single
parameter are often more precise in fitting data that GR+DM models,
even when later models use three or four parameters the fit to data is
poor that with MOND, doing MOND more satisfactory [2].

MOND is a crap model even before the bullet cluster results, which at
the very least put MOND on the same ground as classical theory, are
taken into account.

MOND is a law. MOND has done a number of impressive predictions during
last two decades. GR has done _none_ prediction in the same period of
time for the same kind of systems [4].

As was said you, it is false that the bullet cluster results are
discrediting MOND.

As was said to you also, even after invoking presence of the never
observed DM, GR ***cannot*** explain experimental data on the bullet
cluster. Your irrelevant attempts to use the cluster results for
discrediting MOND in this newsgroup whereas promoting GR are rather
comical.

It does not take into account _any_ relativistic
effects - it is simply a rescaling of Gm/r^2.

There is something called “relativistic MOND�. This was noticed
before.

MOND –you call simple rescaling– is complex enough ***cannot*** be
explained inside GR theoretical framework: DM may be invented _ad
hoc_.

MOND –you call simple rescaling– provides us a high fitting quality to
observational data. GR ***cannot*** duplicate that quality. Add
unobserved DM in open quantities and use models with 300% or more free
parameters and still GR cannot offer us MOND quality.

MOND –you call simple rescaling– has produced a number of very
important predictions at the galactic scale. GR has done ***none***,
i.e. zero.

MOND law may be no so simple as you believe.

Your reference is interesting, but it is more interesting that the
Lamba-CDM model is the one that makes the best fit with the WMAP 3
year data. It should be noted that the L-CDM model has 6 free
parameters, rather than 3 or 4. Familiarize yourself with the topics
you seek to argue about.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0603/0603449.pdf

It was very funny to read “Familiarize yourself with the topics you
seek to argue about�. You are excellent at comedy!!!

I was speaking about ***galaxies*** where the hypotetical DM halo even
with 3 or 4 free parameters is unable to fit data so well as MOND does
with a single parameter [2]. See [3, 4] also.

[BLOCKQUOTE [3]
Its prediction is more vague than that of MOND, and
misses the mark by a wider margin. If we are convinced
that CDM is correct, it is easy to look at this and
say "close enough!" but the sad fact is that CDM is
still very far from making predictions that are either
as rigorous or as successful as MOND on galaxy scales.
]

[BLOCKQUOTE [3]
Dark matter theories make few testable predictions,
so the entries in this table often reflect rational
prior expectations. Any one of these can be adjusted
as needed to fit observations. It is however not possible
to adjust all of them simultaneously in the way needed
without causing contradictions and fine-tuning problems.
]

I will reply about WMAP and cosmology and your six parameters below.

Here is something moderately interesting as well:

Page 14

Table 3 shows that the power-law CDM is a significantly better fit
than the simpler
models. If we reduce the number of parameters in the model, the
cosmological fits significantly
worsen:

· Cold dark matter serves as a significant forcing term that amplifies
the higher acoustic
oscillations. Alternative gravity models (e.g., MOND), and all baryons-
only models,
lack this forcing term so they predict a much lower third peak than is
observed by
WMAP and small scale CMB experiments (McGaugh 2004; Skordis et al.
2006). Models
without dark matter (even if we allow for a cosmological constant) are
very poor
fits to the data.

Once noticed is _not_ about galaxy dinamics, we can begin the ‘review’
of your reference on cosmology.

1)
It is an exageration to speak about a third peak in the data. There
exist three data entries on that region of the WMAP power spectrum.
One entry has a large uncertainty and other has a laaaaaaaaaaarge
uncertainty [4]. So, defining a peak with [one OR two] data points is
something I would resist...

2)
The Λ-CDM fit is _a posteriori_, using a 6 free parameters
cosmological model.

In contrast, the no-CDM model uses three parameters and was based in
non-relativistic MOND. It was remarked that the no-CDM model is an
***approximation*** to a realistic MOND cosmology. You –as authors of
above paper you are citing– are ignoring that crucial point, doing
your ‘crusade’ against MOND irrelevant.

However, the results on the first and second peak were a
***prediction*** done time ago with the no-CDM model by MOND
community, before WMAP data were known.

It may be remarked a previous Λ-CDM (1999) model was off for the
second peak by about a 30%. MOND folks were the first ones claiming
that second peak would be much lower than the first one. Now GR
‘believers’ prefer to forget history and said...

It is very easy to do _a posteriori_ fit using a model with 6 free
parameters you can change with each new observational data without
rubor. It is hard to do predictions; MOND people predicted closely
first and second peaks before were observed by WMAP.

[SPERGEL PRINCIPLE
It is better to postdict than to predict.
]

How is possible that MOND (never designed to cosmology) models
predicted the correct second peak at cosmological scale whereas the GR
community and its claimed first-rate cosmological Λ-CDM 1999 model was
off by a 30%?

3)
Still using six-parameter models, the Λ-CDM fit is not better for the
two first peaks and does not really fit the data in the = 800 region.

Take the data at the 800 region. The Λ-CDM model (with 6 adjusted
parameters) is off by excess and the no-CDM model (with 3 parameters)
is off by defect by almost the same quantity. For = 900 region there
is two data points and the Λ-CDM model does a bit better (but is very
far from being fine).

Resuming, Λ-CDM –a model explicitely designed for cosmology– using 6
parameters vs. a MOND-like model with 3 parameters, which was not
really designed for cosmology, and the result is:

[i] MOND-based models did predictions. Last Λ-CDM did zero
predictions: pure curve fitting using 6 parameters once data was
revealed. The Λ-CDM 1999 model attempt to predict before data was a
disaster [SPERGEL PRINCIPLE].

[ii] When adjusting ***a posteriori*** the 6 parameters of the Λ-CDM
model, this is able to fit a bit better (is not excellent) two WMAP
data points (~750, ~900) over a total of near 40 data points, whereas
the MOND-like (non truly cosmological) model using 3 parameters fits
fine for the whole spectrum except for the those 2 points.

[iii] The Λ-CDM model introduces an excess of barionic matter when
_forcing_ the fit to WMAP. The barionic density obtained from
independent tests is more akin to that of MOND-like models.


4)
The Λ-CDM model (even using 6 parameters) has not fitted the whole
WMAP spectrum. It has been stated that relativistic MOND based models
are able to fit all data.

5)
The dark matter models continue to find the same technical and
conceptual difficulties to fit galaxies and clusters. The GR+DM fits
are of poor quality than MOND ones at galactic scale. WMAP data has
***not*** modified that fact.

Far from a common misconception between relativists, MOND is not more
empirical than GR+DM. It is true that the ***original*** MOND law was
derived from direct empirism from a kind of observations but since
MOND formulae has been _applied_ to cases for which was not initially
considered and has continued to work when applied in the new
situations. MOND has done several ***serious*** predictions in places
where GR has done _none_.

MOND is CURVE FITTING.

No, MOND is a law. MOND law does predictions about data.

GR does not say you if galaxy ‘Cult-XXX’ will need DM halo.

GR does not say you how many DM you will need to fit data for galaxy
‘Gisse-8634’.

GR+DM is pure fitting done _a posteriori_ once the observational data
is in your hands.

Can you name even one thing that MOND [or TeVes] has predicted that
turned out to be true?

Original Milgrom work of 1983 contained a section titled
“predictions�, containing six predictions about galaxies. Posteriorly
verified by astronomers.

Almost any paper revising basics of MOND has a number of
characteristic MOND predictions brilliantly confirmed in observations.
E.g. in [2] are cited:

- the v^4 law for luminosity.
- anomalous large acceleration discrepancy for low surface mass
density galaxies.
- detailed shape of rotation curves for low brightness dwarf galaxies.

Remember GR did/does NONE verifiable prediction.

But MOND is much more powerful than that. By 1983 some mainstream-
folks did some wrong statements, for instance they claimed that LSB
galaxies would not exist.

MOND people predicted LSB existence, ***and** they predicted correct
phenomenology before was observed ***and** even predicted the spiral
arms in basis to MOND stability studies [McGaugh & de Blok. 1998].

In this case one could probably say that predictive power of GR was
less than zero when compared with MOND...

[BLOCKQUOTE [5]
Every prediction of MOND is born out by the data.
This can not be said of any other theory, whether
it is based on cold dark matter, hot dark matter,
baryonic dark matter, mixed dark matter, conformal
Weyl gravity, or nonsymmetric gravity.
]

As a historical remark, I would point that dark matter is today
playing the same role that missing planet (that planet never found) in
the Newtonian theory of Solar system gravity.

We call that planet Pluto these days.

I am more convinced each day you are excellent for comedy.

No, I was not speaking about Pluto when said “(that planet never
found)�. I will divulge you a bit of history of physics [6].

When it was discovered that Newtonian theory could not explain Mercury
orbit, had two basic proposals:

[A] Newtonian theory is perfect and an unknown planet near Sun is
distorting Mercury orbit.

[b] Newtonian theory may be admended for near Sun orbits.

People choosing [A] was so sure about the beauty, exactness, elegance,
and bla, bla, bla... of Newtonian theory they even invented a name for
the new unobserved planet: Vulcan.

Then they searched and searched but the planet was never found. Well,
a number of astronomers and amateurs ***claimed*** to have observed
Vulcan in 1860 and posterior years.

People choosing the option [b] finally won. Initial proposals for [b]
as Gerber gravity, Weber-Newton law and similar are now discredited in
favor to modern GR [#].

Dark matter battle is much of that 19th battle.

The ‘dogmatic’ GR camp are much like the Newtonians of option [A] of
above: DM is the analog of the missing planet Vulcan [REPEAT never
found].

The ‘pragmatic’ camp accepting MOND are resembling [b].

[BLOCKQUOTE
Physicists are generally reluctant to give MOND the time
of day [...] Astronomers tend to be more open-minded [...]
]

The analogy with 19th battle is very close since in news is even
claimed DM has been observed!

Also history of physics offers to us another lesson here. Vulcan was
never found but people as Le Verrier until his death was completely
sure that planet existed and that Newton law was exact everywhere.
Nobody was able to convince him of the posibility maybe astronomers
and physicists were not missing mass but _missing theory_.


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity

[2] Phys. Rev. D 2004, 70, 083509-(1-28).

[3] http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/fit_compare.html

[4] http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/...ectrum2048.png

[5] http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/mondvsDM.html

[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulcan_...hetical_planet)


[#] Does not implying that the GR solution was satisfactory.

On Mar 1, 5:25 am, "Eric Gisse" wrote [in reply to
]:
MOND is nonrelativistic curve fitting

No, MOND is a law. The GR+DM models are pure “curve fitting�.

that abjectly fails in the case
of the bullet cluster.

[i] MOND community has replied to that.

[ii] GR fails to deal with the bullet cluster even after introducing
the DM assumption. Now new hypotesis are invoked. The Frenk principle
I cited in a previous post is adequate for the DM paradigm invented by
relativists.

[FRENK PRINCIPLE
If the Cold Dark Matter Model does not agree with
observations, there must be physical processes,
no matter how bizarre or unlikely, that can explain
the discrepancy.
]

With the bullet cluster, one would introduce the

[STRONG FRENK PRINCIPLE
The physical processes must be the most
bizarre and unlikely...
]

[iii] Conclusion: GR does not work fine for the bullet cluster and
galaxies.

It never had a chance at being useful from the
beginning since it couldn't handle relativistic effects.

Your n-th emphasis on raw MOND lacking relativistic effects is again
pure nonsense because at least three motives:

[i] Relativistic effects are small for dynamics at the galactic scale.
MOND signifies MOdified Newtonian Dynamics.

[ii] MOND fits observational data on galaxies with a precision GR+DM
cannot achieve. Using 300% or more parameters than MOND models does
not help to GR.

[iii] There exists something called relativistic MOND. You were said
about this three or four times and by more than an author.

If a equation (MOND) can fit all galaxies with a single
universal parameters then it has some truth in it.

MOND can't. If you think it can, back up the assertion with some
halfway decent references.

The _inverse_ of your claim is fine. It is well established that GR
cannot fit data at galactic scale so well as MOND. The precision of
MOND rocks over the weak GR+DM model.

Since GR+DM cannot offer MOND quality, it is very funny to see
relativists trying to convince to astronomers that the quality offered
by GR is “close enough!�.

[BLOCKQUOTE
If we are convinced that CDM is correct, it is easy to
look at this and say "close enough!" but the sad fact is
that CDM is still very far from making predictions that are
either as rigorous or as successful as MOND on galaxy scales.
]

It is interesting that you ask him for references but you provide none
for your creed “MOND can't� apart from an unrelated and ‘biased’ paper
on cosmology and WMAP.

If you think DM is bunk, explain why the lambda-CDM [cold dark matter]
model fits the WMAP 1st and 3rd year data runs so well, as well as
being independently confirmed by the Sloan digital sky survey data.

Several precisions and corrections may be done:

[i] The Λ-CDM model only fits well the region prior to 800 in the WMAP
spectrum. The ‘third peak’ is not fitted neither by lambda-CDM nor by
the non-CDM model.

[ii] Λ-CDM did very wrong on the past. E.g. the 1999 year fitting
being discredited by MOND community. Yes, that part of history is
forgotten in GR propaganda...

[iii] The Λ-CDM model uses 6 parameters; the non-CDM model uses 3.
However, the fit of the Λ-CDM model is not six times better than for
the latter model. Moreover the non-CDM model is an approximated model
to a precise MOND cosmology model.

[iv] The lambda-CDM model fits the whole WMAP spectrum _a posteriori_
i.e. pure curve fitting. The non-CDM model ***predicted*** the correct
first and second peaks. See point [ii].

[v] The non-CDM model used was non-relativistic. It has been stated
that relativistic MOND models can fit the whole WMAP spectrum.
Remember [i] and [iii].

[vi] The lambda-CDM model fits WMAP data by forcing a barionic density
is not very compatible with results obtained from independent tests.
The non-CDM model is more in concordance with other tests of that
parameter.

[vii] The DM model continues working bad at both galactic and cluster
scales.

Also to make matters worse for DM no theory works simultaneously
on LSB galaxies and giant Elliptical galaxies.

If you say so.

MONDS works fine, fits better than GR+DM and has done innumerable
verified predictions. See references already cited.

Duh. We don't know what dark matter is or how it interacts with
itself, or anything else.

Some remarks:

[i] Above you are asuming that DM exists in nature, but reality is we
do not know if DM really exists or is only an artifact invented by
relativists.

[ii] Your dogmatic style of posting lets you to introduce any kind of
excuse on the GR side whereas tolerating none for the MOND paradigm.
Why?

People
whine that dark matter is a 'kludge' and then, inexplicably, turn to
theories like MOND or TeVes which are even more of a kludge.

It may look inexplicable for you but the rationale for astronomers and
physicists to abandon GR and dark matter is as follows.

They want fit experimental data with precision (GR+DM cannot do it).
They want a predictive law (GR+DM is not predictive) and each time a
new MOND prediction is verified by subsequent observation they do a
party.

They are tired out of hypotesis, contradictions, and _ad hoc_
procedures about an elusive new form of matter nobody has observed or
understand.

Nobody knows what dark matter is.

Again incorrect scientific approach! Nobody knows if dark matter
really exists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model

It is a model of the universe that makes a very good fit with 6
numbers. Think about that for a minute.

[i] That model already did wrong fittings in the past, e.g. the 1999
year fit. No warranties. “Think about that for a minute�.

[ii] That model is using 6 parameters and is unable to fit the whole
WMAP (BOOMERANG) region yet. “Think about that for a minute�

[iii] The non-CDM model, using 3 parameters, fits the first and second
peaks with the same precision than Λ-CDM (needing six). “Think about
that for a minute� or two.

[iv] The Λ-CDM model is _a posteriori_ curve fitting:. MOND community
***predicted*** the correct both first and second peaks before the
data were available. “Think about that for a minute�.

[v] There are doubts about the values for the Λ-CDM parameters used in
the WMAP fit. For instance, independent tests for Ω_b are more
compatible with non-CDM model that with the Λ-CDM assumed value.
“Think about that for a minute�.

L-CDM is a *model* with specific falsifiable assumptions about what is
being modeled. MOND is a "dunno. fit it to a curve" theory.

It is just the inverse. The Λ-CDM is pure fitting _a posteriori_.

MOND people, ***predicted*** both the first and second WMAP peaks.
Previous Λ-CDM models were completely wrong about WMAP would record.
Now that fiasco is forgotten. Why?

The original incarnation of MOND
is dead and buried,

Do not true, MOND is actively being used by astronomers because rocks.
From a recent conference on the topic:

[BLOCKQUOTE [1]
This systematic, more than anything else, tells us
we might be facing a failure of the law of gravity
in the weak field limit rather than the effects of
dark matter. [...] Despite many attempts, MOND
resisted stubbornly to be falsified as an alternative
to dark matter and succeeds in explaining the
properties of an impressively large number of objects
without invoking the presence of non-baryonic dark
matter. This suggests MOND is telling us something
important about gravity in the weak field limit.
]

Bullet cluster, bullet cluster, bullet cluster. Until the anti-dark
matter crowd adequately explains the bullet cluster, dark matter has a
serious point in its' favor.

[i] GR is not compatible with the bullet cluster data. Not even adding
unobserved DM, GR is really working. Now the creed is that a new kind
of mysterious attraction has to be adittionally invoked. What will be
the next? Pink elephants at Planck scale?

[ii] There are several plausible explanations for the bullet cluster
becoming from MOND community.

[iii] The GR+DM model continues without working fine at galactic
scale.

The anti-DM crowd also needs to explain
why the L-CDM model does such an excellent job.

Excellent job? Cof, cof, cof, the Λ-CDM model is not really convincing
astronomers.

[BLOCKQUOTE [Stacy McGaugh]
Current cosmology (ΛCDM) invokes not one but two aethers
(dark matter and dark energy); let us be careful not to
fall into the same conceptual trap that led classical
physicists to infer that Maxwell’s theory required aether.
]

As well as why the
dark matter assumed by the L-CDM model [cold non-interacting _non-
baryonic_ dust] is such a good model for something that they claim is
an artifact of gravitation.

Good model?

There is a recent work now in press (2007 ApJ) by McGaugh; de Blok,
Schombert, de Naray, Kim where data from 60 galaxies are compared to
structure formation simulations in a Λ-CDM framework. In short, Λ-CDM
fails. To be noticed MOND rocks for the same 60 galaxies providing the
most fine prediction (Q = 1).

Can you name one interaction effect that gets stronger as distance
increases? No, please don't argue that gravity is like a harmonic
oscillator.

In MOND, interactions are weaker as distance increases.

GR is highly accepted by PHYSICISTS [relativists is a crank term used
by those who wish to dilute the language in order to make their
position appear more valid]

Earlier I cited for you Weinberg (the Nobel) and Hillman (Baez site)
using the term “relativist�. I also offered for you a definition of
relativist (extracted from dictionary) as physicist specialized in
relativity theory.

Your ‘persecution’ and ‘conspiracy’ theories are especially hilarious.

because of the extreme validity of the
predictions it makes.

Exact! That is why GR has got serious problems at galactic scale.
Either does not predictions or clearly disagree with observational
data.

I disagree with the assertion that MOND works everywhere. It most
certainly fails to take into account any relativistic effects,

Wow! a ***non-relativistic*** theory failing to account any
relativistic effects. That may be the end for the humanity.

Your crazy attack to MOND is so predictible that was addressed in a
number of works. For instance, Sanders wrote

[BLOCKQUOTE
Frequently, the absence of a covariant theory is presented
as an argument against MOND. But the criterion for judging
a scientific hypothesis surely must be its empirical success.
The absence of a successful covariant version is simply an
aspect of its incompleteness. People don’t reject general
relativity because there is not yet a viable theory of
quantum gravity.
]

Yes, you (and dogmatics relativists) confound incomplete with wrong,
but who care?

and I
am yet to see evidence for the assertion that it predicts the way
galaxies rotate correctly. I expect that it is a different scaling
parameter for each galaxy.

Cof, cof, cof!

MOND doesn't work on the small scale [planets, star systems, star
clusters] and it doesn't work on the large scale [superclusters,
clusters].

MOND works fine and has done predictions. For example predicted the
correct high for the second peak on WMAP when Λ-CDM did not predicted.

MOND also works for apples on Earth, and last time I studied this
theme Earth was a planet, is not more?

It only works on galaxies, and even that is debatable.

[BLOCKQUOTE
the sad fact is that CDM is still very far from
making predictions that are either as rigorous
or as successful as MOND on galaxy scales.
]

Even then, a theory that is broken from the beginning somehow proves
GR wrong!

[i] MOND is not a broken theory. MOND is a law and very satisfactory
one.

[ii] MOND has done multiple predictions during last two decades. All
predictions were confirmed by observation. GR people has done none of
those predictions and often pointed in the wrong way: 1999 Λ-CDM, LSB,
and others.

[iii] GR does not work at galactic scale. Add DM and will continue
without working.

Even though observation is entirely consistent with dark
matter being real actual matter that doesn't electromagnetically
interact.

“observation is entirely consistent�... Pure Gisse’s advertisement
again. The DM model does not work: fine tuning problem at galactic
scale, the problems at cosmological scale, the recent fiasco at bullet
cluster...


[1] http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/serv...cvips&gifs=yes

On Mar 1, 10:43 am, "Eric Gisse" wrote [in reply
to ]:
Just keep in mind that lamba-CDM isn't supposed to be a model for
smaller scale objects.

[i] However, the Λ-CDM cosmological model introduces bounds for
smaller scale objects. A recent review of data for 60 galaxies (in
press) reflects Λ-CDM bounds are not fine.

[ii] The Λ-CDM model presents problems for fitting WMAP data.

120 galaxies with the same scaling parameter? Interesting, but
unsupported. Please stop asserting things you know I will have a hard
time taking a face value without some kind of support.

Please check literature before posting nonsense.

[BLOCKQUOTE
Dark matter may address the general trends but it cannot
account for the individual idiosyncrasies of each rotation
curve. In the next section we present the evidence that
MOND can do this with a single value of a_0.
]

Astronomers have filled entire catalogs with hundreds of galaxies of
different classes and ranges where predictions of MOND are completely
supported by data, even in fine-tuning. Whereas, GR continues to fail,
even with _a posteriori_ DM curve fiting using tree or more parameters
models.

I know of no DM theory that explains individual galaxies. My
understanding is that the basic DM theory is that there is enough dark
matter inserted to preserve the expected rotations.

No, the DM theory is not working at galactic scale.

[BLOCKQUOTE
The success of detailed rotation curve fits
is highly non-trivial. Once the form of the
force law is specified, the dynamics must
follow from the observed baryon distribution.

This procedure is much, much, much more
strongly constrained than fits with an invisible
dark matter component, which can be arranged
however needed. Such fits have a minimum of
three free parameters, resulting in enormous
freedom and numerous degeneracies. [...]

On the scale of individual galaxies,
MOND clearly performs better than CDM.
]

Keep in mind that we don't know how DM works on a galactic level. We
don't know what it is made of.

Correction: we do not know if DM is real or is only and artifact being
invented by relativists.

It doesn't fail if dark matter is assumed. Which is the _entire point_
of dark matter.

That is not true, apart from not fitting data with MOND quality, GR+DM
has conceptual problems and internal inconsistencies. For instance,
neither GR nor DM cannot explain the well-established TF law.

MOND community ***predicted*** the TF law before was observed and
broadly used by astronomers.

dark matter is assumed to pick up the slack. It is a
model that works on supercluster scales [WMAP data and such], is
supported by individual galaxies by default, and is supported by other
observations.

DM is not fine at galactic scale: fine-tuning problem.

DM fails to pass all galactic test at once: the consistency problem.

DM fails on clusters and superclusters (needed additional _ad hoc_
hypotesis for bullet cluster).

DM is not able to fix ‘third peak’ on WMAP and the fit to first and
second peaks is forced by assuming discusible values for some of the
six parameters.

DM is not predictive but pure curve fitting ‘art’.

DM is not supported by any theory of particle physics.

DM has been never found in despite of many efforts to observe it.

If I ignore whatever MOND does at galactic scales,
it fails at everything else to one degree or another.

MOND is satisfactory for data and predictions and used by astronomers.
DM is not observed, has no theoretical rationale on particle physics,
and empirically fails at to one degree or another.

[BLOCKQUOTE
It is in this second aspect, the distribution of
dark matter in galactic systems, that the
CDM paradigm encounters observational difficulties
]

[BLOCKQUOTE
This algorithm is arguably more successful in explaining
aspects of galaxy phenomenology than is dark matter in
the context of the CDM paradigm
]

[BLOCKQUOTE
At the same time, the inferred contribution of CDM to the
mass budget of the Universe has dropped from 95% to perhaps
30%, and both observational and theoretical problems have
arisen with the predicted form of halos
(Sellwood & Kosowsky 2001). However, all of this has not
deterred imaginative theorists from speculative extrapolations
of the standard model to conjure particles having the properties
desired to solve perceived problems with dark matter halos.
It is surely time to apply Occam’s sharp razor and seriously
consider the suggestion that Newtonian dynamics may breakdown
in the heretofore unobserved regime of low accelerations.
]

On Mar 10, 9:26 am, "Juan R."
wrote:

[...]

It is unfortunate you spent so much time writing something I will not
take the time to read or reply to. Stop pretending I care what you
think.

On Mar 10, 11:28 pm, "Juan R."
wrote:
On Mar 1, 5:25 am, "Eric Gisse" wrote [in reply to
]:

Can you name one interaction effect that gets stronger as distance
increases? No, please don't argue that gravity is like a harmonic
oscillator.

InMOND, interactions are weaker as distance increases.


Actually force between Quarks increases with distance.
That's why they don't exist alone.

Well the thing is AdS/CFTs behave very counter-intuitively.
And gravity should be an AdS/CFT theory, just like the other
three forces.

So we don't know if the actual interaction will increase
with distance. MOND doesn't.

regards,
-anandsr

On Mar 11, 1:56 am, "Eric Gisse" wrote:
On Mar 10, 9:26 am, "Juan R."
wrote:

[...]

It is unfortunate you spent so much time writing something I will not
take the time to read or reply to.

It may be not so "unfortunate" the correction of your series of wrong
and biased statements against MOND.

And who said I had wrote exclusively for you? I think that there is
more people than you in this newsgroup.

Stop pretending I care what you
think.

As humorist you are superb, congrats!

On Mar 17, 5:35 am, wrote:
On Mar 10, 11:28 pm, "Juan R."
wrote:

On Mar 1, 5:25 am, "Eric Gisse" wrote [in reply to
]:
Can you name one interaction effect that gets stronger as distance
increases? No, please don't argue that gravity is like a harmonic
oscillator.

InMOND, interactions are weaker as distance increases.

Actually force between Quarks increases with distance.
That's why they don't exist alone.

True, that is quarks confinement. But i did not cited because:

[i] It was a bit off-topic.

[ii] My personal experience replying Eric Gisse posts recommended
avoiding advanced topics. I doubt he has studied QCD.

Eric Gisse ignorance is legendary and well-known in this newsgroup. I
could also try to explain him that GR introduces interactions got more
stronger for large distances [1] and therefore his childish criticism
against MOND also aplies to GR. But i decided that a more simple and
direct reply would be more adequate.

For large accellerations MOND is [1 / r^2].

For small accellerations MOND is [1 / r].

Therefore in MOND, interactions are weaker as distance increases. I do
not know from where Eric Gisse got the wrong idea that MOND is like an
oscillator.

Well the thing is AdS/CFTs behave very counter-intuitively.
And gravity should be an AdS/CFT theory, just like the other
three forces.

So we don't know if the actual interaction will increase
with distance. MOND doesn't.

regards,
-anandsr

[1] Schwarszhild solution for Hilbert-Einstein equations without
cosmological constant PHI = [2GM / r] receives a r^2 contribution when
LAMBDA re-introduced:

PHI = [2GM / r] - [ [LAMDA / 3] * r^2] contribution.

On Mar 17, 9:05 am, "Juan R."
wrote:

Eric Gisse ignorance is legendary and well-known in this newsgroup.

Eric Gisse is a chimpanzee. I for one appreciated your defense of
MOND.

Shubee

On Mar 17, 8:05 am, "Juan R."
wrote:[i]
On Mar 17, 5:35 am, wrote:

On Mar 10, 11:28 pm, "Juan R."
wrote:

On Mar 1, 5:25 am, "Eric Gisse" wrote [in reply to
]:
Can you name one interaction effect that gets stronger as distance
increases? No, please don't argue that gravity is like a harmonic
oscillator.

InMOND, interactions are weaker as distance increases.

Actually force between Quarks increases with distance.
That's why they don't exist alone.

True, that is quarks confinement. But i did not cited because:

It was a bit off-topic.

[ii] My personal experience replying Eric Gisse posts recommended
avoiding advanced topics. I doubt he has studied QCD.

Of course I haven't, and neither have you. Unless you can suddenly
demonstrate a superb grasp of quantum mechanics, that is.

It would also be really odd to cite observation of quark confinement
when the conversation was clearly about macroscopic objects since the
strong force doesn't even exist outside the nucleus, much less on
Hubble length scales.


Eric Gisse ignorance is legendary and well-known in this newsgroup. I
could also try to explain him that GR introduces interactions got more
stronger for large distances [1] and therefore his childish criticism
against MOND also aplies to GR. But i decided that a more simple and
direct reply would be more adequate.

I was unaware of the Schwarzschild-de Sitter solution.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0602/0602002.pdf

That was a fun read.


For large accellerations MOND is [1 / r^2].

For small accellerations MOND is [1 / r].

Therefore in MOND, interactions are weaker as distance increases. I do
not know from where Eric Gisse got the wrong idea that MOND is like an
oscillator.

Me neither, because I never said that.


Well the thing is AdS/CFTs behave very counter-intuitively.
And gravity should be an AdS/CFT theory, just like the other
three forces.

So we don't know if the actual interaction will increase
with distance. MOND doesn't.

regards,
-anandsr

[1] Schwarszhild solution for Hilbert-Einstein equations without
cosmological constant PHI = [2GM / r] receives a r^2 contribution when
LAMBDA re-introduced:

PHI = [2GM / r] - [ [LAMDA / 3] * r^2] contribution.

On Mar 17, 1:21 pm, "Shubee" wrote:
On Mar 17, 9:05 am, "Juan R."
wrote:



Eric Gisse ignorance is legendary and well-known in this newsgroup.

Eric Gisse is a chimpanzee. I for one appreciated your defense of
MOND.

Poor little shooby is upset because he doesn't have any answers for my
constant questions like "why should anyone care?" or "what are your
axioms?".


Shubee