| |
 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Physics Forum » Dark Horse Challenges Dark Matter to Explain Missing... |
|
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Yousuf Khan... |
 Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:18 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
MOND explains the rotation curves of galaxies extremely well; Dark
Matter explains the same things not so well. Dark Matter explains
galactic cluster interactions extremely well; MOND explains the same
things not so well. That's the long and short of it.
/Dark Fields/ is an attempt to make MOND work better at the cluster
level. There is a lot of cajoling needed to make Dark Matter work well
within the galactic scale too. So it looks like neither theory works
well outside their on size scale.
SPACE.com -- Dark Horse Challenges Dark Matter to Explain Missing Matter
"When applied to just galaxies, MOND can predict very well the behavior
that astronomers observe. But when MOND is applied to larger structures
like clusters of galaxies, it fails. To make MOND work for clusters, it
must include more complicated concepts, such as entities called dark
fields, which are different from dark matter, but work in a similar way
to alter the amount of gravity present."
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/091105-missing-matter.html
Yousuf Khan |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Androcles... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:31 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67 at (no spam) spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4af3dbe8$1 at (no spam) news.bnb-lp.com...
[quote]MOND explains the rotation curves of galaxies extremely well;
[/quote]
Bwhahahahahahahaha!
Does MOND explain why pencils bend in water?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/geoopt/optpic/brokpen.jpg
Unmodified Newtonian Dynamics includes Newton's corpuscles of light
which obey Newton's laws, not Einstein's.
What you need is MORE - modified relativity of Einstein. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| gb... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:18 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 10:53 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Yousuf Khan wrote:
MOND explains the rotation curves of galaxies extremely well;
Ballmer explains the spectrum of the Hydrogen atom really well too.
Dark Matter explains the same things not so well.
No.
Dark Matter explains
galactic cluster interactions extremely well; MOND explains the same
things not so well. That's the long and short of it.
MOND has extreme difficulties with anything but rotation curves.
/Dark Fields/ is an attempt to make MOND work better at the cluster
level.
There are two ponderous concepts at work here.
i) MOND has an entirely arbitrary interpolation function that has no real
world constraints on it, and that still isn't good enough.
ii) MOND proponents feel that dark matter (and presumably, energy) are
unphysical or wrong for some personal reason but still feel that MOND and
its' extensions which use increasingly larger amounts of arbitrary
sourceless fields is a more intuitive / understandable / correct model.
There is a lot of cajoling needed to make Dark Matter work well
within the galactic scale too. So it looks like neither theory works
well outside their on size scale.
Except dark matter works well enough on the galactic scale. What it has
difficulties amount to fine tuning issues which just might be related to our
ignorance of galactic structures and oversimplified models.
SPACE.com -- Dark Horse Challenges Dark Matter to Explain Missing Matter
"When applied to just galaxies, MOND can predict very well the behavior
that astronomers observe. But when MOND is applied to larger structures
like clusters of galaxies, it fails. To make MOND work for clusters, it
must include more complicated concepts, such as entities called dark
fields, which are different from dark matter, but work in a similar way
to alter the amount of gravity present."
*laughs*
Oh yes, dark FIELDS. That's entirely more acceptable than dark MATTER. I'm
sure that theory will hit the ground /running/.
[/quote]
I think the proper instead of dark FIELDS, thought my opinion changes
weekly on this centripetal reverse built inertia is:
The space fuck of energy.
Fuck you people, you are all hiding the same idea. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| gb... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:28 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I believe dark matter's science has cold technology base of supernova
explosions. No, I am not saying they came from supernova explosions,
but one finds the ice skating balerina in contracting or expanding
gravitating balls, where energies can build while the contracting ball
spins up. Inverted processes are found in the fields of energy in disk
sciences.
Einstein left the puzzle of rotating disks unsolved in his theory of
relativity.
It brings anti-gravity studies, and cold alien technologies, even
building real gravity fields with electromagnetic spin of balls, one
gram reduction of mass for a saucer, meaning it can zig zag and move
around like a feather very easily from one end of the sky to the other
in fractions of a second. All alien technologies in the end, but even
a real holodeck that works outdoors built from it. Totalitarian
"alien" technologies that are as much as 5000 years more advanced.
If you weigh one gram, you punch someone and have no effect, and your
arms and legs move instantly back and forth without inertia. People
can fight with unprecedented speed of arm and leg motion and feel no
pain. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| jacob navia... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:48 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Yousuf Khan a écrit :
[quote]MOND explains the rotation curves of galaxies extremely well; Dark
Matter explains the same things not so well. Dark Matter explains
galactic cluster interactions extremely well; MOND explains the same
things not so well. That's the long and short of it.
/Dark Fields/ is an attempt to make MOND work better at the cluster
level. There is a lot of cajoling needed to make Dark Matter work well
within the galactic scale too. So it looks like neither theory works
well outside their on size scale.
SPACE.com -- Dark Horse Challenges Dark Matter to Explain Missing Matter
"When applied to just galaxies, MOND can predict very well the behavior
that astronomers observe. But when MOND is applied to larger structures
like clusters of galaxies, it fails. To make MOND work for clusters, it
must include more complicated concepts, such as entities called dark
fields, which are different from dark matter, but work in a similar way
to alter the amount of gravity present."
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/091105-missing-matter.html
Yousuf Khan
[/quote]
Now, if you look at a an insect climbing up a wall defying gravity,
it would be impossible to understand without realizing that for an
insect, a set of forces (intermolecular attraction) applies that
for a human climber doing the Everest do not apply at all.
What about this at all scales?
There could be at bigger scales than the galactic scale forces
that appear that are completely unknown and unobservable at smaller
scales.
Galaxy clusters seem to appear at the intersection of galaxy "rivers" that
flow around the "skeleton" of the universe. It could be that this
"skeleton" produces forces that are unknown to us.
Forces that would apply to galaxies, but not within galaxies.
And obviously this skeleton would apply at galaxy cluster scale. In bigger
scales than those, yet ANOTHER forces would apply.
Without end. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| eric gisse... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:53 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Yousuf Khan wrote:
[quote]MOND explains the rotation curves of galaxies extremely well;
[/quote]
Ballmer explains the spectrum of the Hydrogen atom really well too.
[quote]Dark Matter explains the same things not so well.
[/quote]
No.
[quote]Dark Matter explains
galactic cluster interactions extremely well; MOND explains the same
things not so well. That's the long and short of it.
[/quote]
MOND has extreme difficulties with anything but rotation curves.
[quote]
/Dark Fields/ is an attempt to make MOND work better at the cluster
level.
[/quote]
There are two ponderous concepts at work here.
i) MOND has an entirely arbitrary interpolation function that has no real
world constraints on it, and that still isn't good enough.
ii) MOND proponents feel that dark matter (and presumably, energy) are
unphysical or wrong for some personal reason but still feel that MOND and
its' extensions which use increasingly larger amounts of arbitrary
sourceless fields is a more intuitive / understandable / correct model.
[quote]There is a lot of cajoling needed to make Dark Matter work well
within the galactic scale too. So it looks like neither theory works
well outside their on size scale.
[/quote]
Except dark matter works well enough on the galactic scale. What it has
difficulties amount to fine tuning issues which just might be related to our
ignorance of galactic structures and oversimplified models.
[quote]
SPACE.com -- Dark Horse Challenges Dark Matter to Explain Missing Matter
"When applied to just galaxies, MOND can predict very well the behavior
that astronomers observe. But when MOND is applied to larger structures
like clusters of galaxies, it fails. To make MOND work for clusters, it
must include more complicated concepts, such as entities called dark
fields, which are different from dark matter, but work in a similar way
to alter the amount of gravity present."
[/quote]
*laughs*
Oh yes, dark FIELDS. That's entirely more acceptable than dark MATTER. I'm
sure that theory will hit the ground /running/.
[quote]http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/091105-missing-matter.html
Yousuf Khan[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| gb... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:53 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 3:28 pm, gb <gb6... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]I believe dark matter's science has cold technology base of supernova
explosions. No, I am not saying they came from supernova explosions,
but one finds the ice skating balerina in contracting or expanding
gravitating balls, where energies can build while the contracting ball
spins up. Inverted processes are found in the fields of energy in disk
sciences.
Einstein left the puzzle of rotating disks unsolved in his theory of
relativity.
It brings anti-gravity studies, and cold alien technologies, even
building real gravity fields with electromagnetic spin of balls, one
gram reduction of mass for a saucer, meaning it can zig zag and move
around like a feather very easily from one end of the sky to the other
in fractions of a second. All alien technologies in the end, but even
a real holodeck that works outdoors built from it. Totalitarian
"alien" technologies that are as much as 5000 years more advanced.
If you weigh one gram, you punch someone and have no effect, and your
arms and legs move instantly back and forth without inertia. People
can fight with unprecedented speed of arm and leg motion and feel no
pain.
[/quote]
One gram punch of energy. Keep adding up the gravitational energy. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| dlzc... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 7:23 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dear Yousuf Khan:
On Nov 6, 1:18 am, Yousuf Khan <bbb... at (no spam) spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]MOND ...
Dark Matter ...
/Dark Fields/ ...
[/quote]
Maybe you have lost sight of the big picture.
MOND uses the visible matter and its "geometry" to make rotation
curves work, but it does not cover microlensing.
Dark Matter suspends any other scientific theory-set, for a substance
that can be arbitrarily located to make measurements work, a substance
that only "hooks" into this Universe as mass... no other properties.
There are a host of proposed particles that are being searched for
that are close to Dark Matter, but they will have some 'spainin to do
as to how we see what we see in the Universe displayed.
Dark Fluid has *no* properties that are substantially improved over
Dark Matter. It *must* substantially decay into the definition of
Dark Matter in the final analysis. It can have no properties
associated with a fluid (say viscosity, or pressure), or it violates
what we see.
You are sniffing up any skirt that seems to offer an alternative to
Dark Matter. And I am telling you, Dark Fluid ain't it.
Now what I'd like to propose is, if inertia derives from all the mass
in the Universe (ala Mach), and the speed of *this* effect
(establishment of inertia) is large-but-finite, what if Dark Matter is
simply "echos" of an effect of the event horizons (say) that spent
time in any given bit of space? Expansion also looks like everything
shrinking in place (due to increasing clock rates). I mean if we are
sky-balling...
David A. Smith |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| dlzc... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 1:03 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dear Yousuf Khan:
On Nov 6, 3:26 pm, Yousuf Khan <bbb... at (no spam) spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]dlzc wrote:
Dark Fluid has *no* properties that are substantially
improved over Dark Matter. It *must* substantially
decay into the definition of Dark Matter in the final
analysis. It can have no properties associated with
a fluid (say viscosity, or pressure), or it violates
what we see.
Well, this article isn't talking about "Dark Fluid" but
"Dark Fields". Different theories, though I don't know
what the explanation of Dark Fields are supposed to be
yet. The only explanation is that it is an extension of
MOND to account for cluster deficiencies.
[/quote]
It doesn't fix microlensing, so it is a patch to a flawed model.
[quote]But getting back to Dark Fluid, why do you say it
violates what we see? Dark Fluid is supposed to be
a complete alternative to MOND, Dark Matter
and Dark Energy, so the fact that it "decays" into
something similar to Dark Matter is exactly what it
was supposed to do at some particular scale.
[/quote]
Then it is Dark Matter, and no solution.
[quote]Dark Energy is a repulsive force, Dark Matter an
attractive force, both acting on the same medium
albeit at different scales.
[/quote]
Either that, or Dark Energy is an attractive force at "short" scale,
to provide the local anomalies (non-expansion) from global expansion
due to the cosmological constant.
[quote]Those would indicate fluidic behaviour.
[/quote]
Behavior that is disallowed by observation.
....
[quote]Now what I'd like to propose is, if inertia derives
from all the mass in the Universe (ala Mach), and
the speed of *this* effect (establishment of
inertia) is large-but-finite, what if Dark Matter is
simply "echos" of an effect of the event horizons
(say) that spent time in any given bit of space?
Expansion also looks like everything shrinking in
place (due to increasing clock rates). I mean if
we are sky-balling...
For that matter, we could even theorize that Dark
Matter and Dark Energy is just standard gravity's
symmetry breaking as the Universe cools
toward absolute zero, turning into two different
forces: a super-gravity and an anti-gravity.
[/quote]
Dark Matter was present at the time the CMBR quenched, and Dark Energy
was too I believe. So it has nothing to do with "being cold", as
distinct from "cooling". But since cooling is an effect of
expansion... the cart is trying to pull itself.
David A. Smith |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Yousuf Khan... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:26 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
dlzc wrote:
[quote]Dark Fluid has *no* properties that are substantially improved over
Dark Matter. It *must* substantially decay into the definition of
Dark Matter in the final analysis. It can have no properties
associated with a fluid (say viscosity, or pressure), or it violates
what we see.
[/quote]
Well, this article isn't talking about "Dark Fluid" but "Dark Fields".
Different theories, though I don't know what the explanation of Dark
Fields are supposed to be yet. The only explanation is that it is an
extension of MOND to account for cluster deficiencies.
But getting back to Dark Fluid, why do you say it violates what we see?
Dark Fluid is supposed to be a complete alternative to MOND, Dark Matter
and Dark Energy, so the fact that it "decays" into something similar to
Dark Matter is exactly what it was supposed to do at some particular
scale. Dark Energy is a repulsive force, Dark Matter an attractive
force, both acting on the same medium albeit at different scales. Those
would indicate fluidic behaviour.
[quote]You are sniffing up any skirt that seems to offer an alternative to
Dark Matter. And I am telling you, Dark Fluid ain't it.
[/quote]
Just presenting the latest news.
[quote]Now what I'd like to propose is, if inertia derives from all the mass
in the Universe (ala Mach), and the speed of *this* effect
(establishment of inertia) is large-but-finite, what if Dark Matter is
simply "echos" of an effect of the event horizons (say) that spent
time in any given bit of space? Expansion also looks like everything
shrinking in place (due to increasing clock rates). I mean if we are
sky-balling...
[/quote]
For that matter, we could even theorize that Dark Matter and Dark Energy
is just standard gravity's symmetry breaking as the Universe cools
toward absolute zero, turning into two different forces: a super-gravity
and an anti-gravity.
Yousuf Khan |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sam Wormley... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:47 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Yousuf Khan wrote:
[quote]MOND explains the rotation curves of galaxies extremely well; Dark
Matter explains the same things not so well. Dark Matter explains
galactic cluster interactions extremely well; MOND explains the same
things not so well. That's the long and short of it.
[/quote]
Dark Matter Exists - Sean Carroll
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/08/21/dark-matter-exists/
The Dark Energy Song - Sean Carroll
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/
MOND is Dead? ...most likely
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/density.html#MOND
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/old_new_cosmo.html
22 Oct 2002 - The Chandra X-ray Observatory presented evidence
against the modifications of Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) alternative
to dark matter theories. The August 2002 Scientific American has a
long article about MOND. The hot X-ray emitting gas around the
galaxy NGC 720 forms an ellipsoidal cloud, which requires an
ellipsoidal gravitational potential well. While an ellipsoidal
cloud of dark matter could provide such a well, MOND would
necessarily give a spherical potential well. In general MOND works
well on the scale of individual galaxies, but not for clusters of
galaxies. So why is MOND only maybe dead? Its supporters like
Milgrom are persistent and clever, and they may come up with a
MONDian explanation for NGC 720.
More on Dark Matter
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm#News
21 Aug 2006 - NASA announced updated information about the "bullet
cluster" 1E0657-56 today. Two clusters of galaxies have recently
collided in this X-ray source. This cluster is filled with hot gas
so X-ray observations by the Chandra X-ray Observatory show where
the ordinary matter is located. 90% of the ordinary matter (the
"baryonic" matter) is hot gas.
The new results [Clowe et al., Bradac et al.] use gravitational
lensing of background galaxies to show where the sources of gravity
are located. The sources of gravity in the cluster are not located
where the ordinary matter is located, so this cluster is a
counter-example to MOND. All of this was known in 2003 but with
less precision. Sean Carroll has a nice post about this at Cosmic
Variance.
The Matter of the Bullet Cluster
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060824.html
Explanation: The matter in galaxy cluster 1E 0657-56, fondly known
as the "bullet cluster", is shown in this composite image. A mere
3.4 billion light-years away, the bullet cluster's individual
galaxies are seen in the optical image data, but their total mass
adds up to far less than the mass of the cluster's two clouds of
hot x-ray emitting gas shown in red. Representing even more mass
than the optical galaxies and x-ray gas combined, the blue hues
show the distribution of dark matter in the cluster. Otherwise
invisible to telescopic views, the dark matter was mapped by
observations of gravitational lensing of background galaxies.
In a text book example of a shock front, the bullet-shaped cloud of
gas at the right was distorted during the titanic collision between
two galaxy clusters that created the larger bullet cluster itself.
But the dark matter present has not interacted with the cluster gas
except by gravity. The clear separation of dark matter and gas
clouds is considered direct evidence that dark matter exists.
More: http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.com/2008/02/more-problems-with-mond.html
[quote]
/Dark Fields/ is an attempt to make MOND work better at the cluster
level. There is a lot of cajoling needed to make Dark Matter work well
within the galactic scale too. So it looks like neither theory works
well outside their on size scale.
SPACE.com -- Dark Horse Challenges Dark Matter to Explain Missing Matter
"When applied to just galaxies, MOND can predict very well the behavior
that astronomers observe. But when MOND is applied to larger structures
like clusters of galaxies, it fails. To make MOND work for clusters, it
must include more complicated concepts, such as entities called dark
fields, which are different from dark matter, but work in a similar way
to alter the amount of gravity present."
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/091105-missing-matter.html
Yousuf Khan[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| dlzc... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 3:21 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dear Yousuf Khan:
On Nov 9, 5:08 pm, Yousuf Khan <bbb... at (no spam) spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]dlzc wrote:
On Nov 6, 3:26 pm, Yousuf Khan <bbb... at (no spam) spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
Well, this article isn't talking about "Dark Fluid" but
"Dark Fields". Different theories, though I don't know
what the explanation of Dark Fields are supposed to be
yet. The only explanation is that it is an extension of
MOND to account for cluster deficiencies.
It doesn't fix microlensing, so it is a patch to a flawed
model.
I thought that's why they created it?
[/quote]
MOND covers rotation curves. Dark Fields fixes cluster movements.
Neither touches microlensing.
[quote]But getting back to Dark Fluid, why do you say it
violates what we see? Dark Fluid is supposed to be
a complete alternative to MOND, Dark Matter
and Dark Energy, so the fact that it "decays" into
something similar to Dark Matter is exactly what it
was supposed to do at some particular scale.
Then it is Dark Matter, and no solution.
Dark Energy is a repulsive force, Dark Matter an
attractive force, both acting on the same medium
albeit at different scales.
Either that, or Dark Energy is an attractive force at
"short" scale, to provide the local anomalies
(non-expansion) from global expansion due to the
cosmological constant.
I think that's the entire point of Dark Fluid, it's the
same energy acting as an attractive force at shorter
scales, but as a repulsive force at greater distances.
[/quote]
Such is not required in GR, however (which does microlensing). What
is required is an anomalous amount of mass in medium scales, and an
anomalous amount of attraction at slightly larger scales, and the
expansion happens on its own. Because gravity is no sort of force.
[quote]Also it's been noted before that the acceleration
constant in MOND is directly linked to the Dark
Energy effect range. Though they don't know
quite why that would be.
[/quote]
Yes, that makes no sense at all.
....
[quote]Those would indicate fluidic behaviour.
Behavior that is disallowed by observation.
What observation is that?
[/quote]
No viscosity, no pressure.
[quote]Dark Matter was present at the time the
CMBR quenched, and Dark Energy was too I
believe. So it has nothing to do with "being cold",
as distinct from "cooling". But since cooling is
an effect of expansion... the cart is trying to pull
itself.
Maybe that's when gravity started breaking?
[/quote]
.... whatever gravity is...
David A. Smith |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Knecht... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 4:10 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 9, 8:21 pm, dlzc <dl... at (no spam) cox.net> wrote:
[quote]
... whatever gravity is...
[/quote]
The interaction between matter and S-T geometry,
as explained by General Relativity.
No charge,
RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Yousuf Khan... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 7:08 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
dlzc wrote:
[quote]On Nov 6, 3:26 pm, Yousuf Khan <bbb... at (no spam) spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
Well, this article isn't talking about "Dark Fluid" but
"Dark Fields". Different theories, though I don't know
what the explanation of Dark Fields are supposed to be
yet. The only explanation is that it is an extension of
MOND to account for cluster deficiencies.
It doesn't fix microlensing, so it is a patch to a flawed model.
[/quote]
I thought that's why they created it?
[quote]But getting back to Dark Fluid, why do you say it
violates what we see? Dark Fluid is supposed to be
a complete alternative to MOND, Dark Matter
and Dark Energy, so the fact that it "decays" into
something similar to Dark Matter is exactly what it
was supposed to do at some particular scale.
Then it is Dark Matter, and no solution.
Dark Energy is a repulsive force, Dark Matter an
attractive force, both acting on the same medium
albeit at different scales.
Either that, or Dark Energy is an attractive force at "short" scale,
to provide the local anomalies (non-expansion) from global expansion
due to the cosmological constant.
[/quote]
I think that's the entire point of Dark Fluid, it's the same energy
acting as an attractive force at shorter scales, but as a repulsive
force at greater distances.
Also it's been noted before that the acceleration constant in MOND is
directly linked to the Dark Energy effect range. Though they don't know
quite why that would be.
[quote]Those would indicate fluidic behaviour.
Behavior that is disallowed by observation.
[/quote]
What observation is that?
[quote]Dark Matter was present at the time the CMBR quenched, and Dark Energy
was too I believe. So it has nothing to do with "being cold", as
distinct from "cooling". But since cooling is an effect of
expansion... the cart is trying to pull itself.
[/quote]
Maybe that's when gravity started breaking?
Yousuf Khan |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| eric gisse... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 10:31 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Yousuf Khan wrote:
[...]
[quote]Also it's been noted before that the acceleration constant in MOND is
directly linked to the Dark Energy effect range. Though they don't know
quite why that would be.
[/quote]
Numerology is not science.
[...] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Nov 23, 2009 3:35 pm
|
|